Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Question about 1903 springfield Rockwell

Click here to increase the font size Click here to reduce the font size

Threaded View

  1. #8
    Legacy Member cplstevennorton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last On
    01-05-2025 @ 09:17 AM
    Location
    Van Wert, OH
    Age
    45
    Posts
    377
    Local Date
    07-04-2025
    Local Time
    08:56 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by pickax View Post
    Very interesting Steve. It was my impression that over hard crystalized steel could not be reversed. Any data on the Marines actually using the drawback process, or did they just scrap receivers due to time and other constraints.
    This has come up before, and you would think Springfield would have done it with their resources if possible. Also no new companies with modern facilities have done it either.
    I'm sure there would be a market to bring low numbers up to shooting status!
    You know to be honest, I can't really remember where they went from there. You see hundreds if not thousands of pages on the low number recievers in the Marine files, but most of the time you just see them concluded that they shouldn't shoot rifle grenades with low numbers to be safe.

    Then in 1938, the Marines had a big push to try to fix receivers. Which they honestly had trouble with both lows and highs, which they called "Unders" and "Overs." That is when they started trying to fix the overs and unders with heat treament that were too soft and too hard. They claim in the study they could fix them. Hard receivers only went through the draw back process. The softs went through a heat treament with oil quench, and then a drawback process as well. But to be honest, I can't remember where it goes from there. I don't think they did it a long time if my memory serves me right. Now whether it just wasn't a success or the war was escalating and they were in a hurry and quit, I honeslty can't remember.

    This was also about the time, they sent a rep to SA to learn how to do hatcher holes and enlarge the gas escape hole in the bolt. So they might have just screw heat treating the receives with heat treament and did hatchers as a much easier and quicker band aid fix.

    If I get time early this week, I will dig those files out and see where it went. I just can't remember off the top fo my head. It's been a while since I looked at those and I've really didn't read that series of docs that close. I think it does explain why they quit doing it, but I can't really remember.

    I do have the rockwell case study on hand though, because it explains some Marine traits on the rifles they rebuilt, so I have that filed where I know where it is is. But this is the process as they describe it on the doc for how they fixed hard/brittle receivers.

    Last edited by cplstevennorton; 02-12-2017 at 08:28 AM.

  2. The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to cplstevennorton For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Question on Springfield 1903
    By SUB VET II in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-20-2018, 09:54 PM
  2. 1903 Springfield Question
    By Sipperley in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-05-2013, 10:45 AM
  3. NM 1903 Springfield question
    By Zoggy in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 03:16 PM
  4. 1903 Springfield Question
    By Rick H. in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-26-2010, 10:00 AM
  5. Springfield 1903 safety question
    By BigSky in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-23-2010, 11:51 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts