+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Low Number Springfield M1903 Safer to Shoot?

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

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Contributing Member gsimmons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last On
    Yesterday @ 05:48 PM
    Location
    Western North Carolina
    Posts
    1,368
    Local Date
    06-08-2024
    Local Time
    03:11 AM
    Mosin Nagant and Model 1917?
    Information
    Warning: This is a relatively older thread
    This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

  2. #2
    Legacy Member RCS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last On
    Yesterday @ 01:01 PM
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,334
    Real Name
    Robert Seccombe
    Local Date
    06-08-2024
    Local Time
    02:11 AM
    Correct answer

  3. Avoid Ads - Become a Contributing Member - Click HERE
  4. #3
    FREE MEMBER
    NO Posting or PM's Allowed
    Johnny Peppers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last On
    05-01-2015 @ 11:25 PM
    Posts
    1,810
    Local Date
    06-08-2024
    Local Time
    02:11 AM
    Whether you decide to shoot it or not, I would ignore the "academic" paper written by Dr. Lyons. He took the figures compiled by Julian Hatcher and calculated your risk of having one fail, but Hatcher didn't start keeping records until 1917, and then only on those that he could authenticate. The rifles that were failing before record keeping was what caused a safety concern and prompted the study by Hatcher. Records of failure show up in Springfield Research records, but none of these were included in Hatcher's data.

  5. #4
    Advisory Panel
    Rick the Librarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last On
    04-09-2023 @ 08:59 PM
    Location
    NW Washington State
    Age
    74
    Posts
    2,301
    Real Name
    Rick Slater
    Local Date
    06-08-2024
    Local Time
    12:11 AM
    Thanks, Johnny ... while I admit there are two sides to this issue, I don't think Dr. Lyon's research exactly qualifies.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

    --George Orwell

  6. #5
    Advisory Panel
    JGaynor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last On
    06-04-2024 @ 12:24 AM
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Posts
    888
    Local Date
    06-08-2024
    Local Time
    03:11 AM
    The data set of rifles with burst receivers compiled by Julian Hatcher is admittedly pretty small - less than 70 rifles.

    However, people studying the issue should keep a few things in mind:

    1. The Hatcher data consists of reports of "in service" accidents involving burst receivers,
    2. Hatcher implies that "proof testing eliminated most of the weak ones" but he does not quantify the percentage of failures during proof.
    3. Far and away the lions share of burst receivers (in service) occurred during the 1920s well after the decision to change the manufacturing process and well after the conclusion of world war one. it was during this period that a lot of the lower quality war time ammunition was being burned up.

    So, all this suggests to me that quality control (proof testing) failures were probably a somewhat more substantial problem than we can tell from the literature. Otherwise why would ordnance completely shut down rifle production at two government arsenals in the middle of a shooting war?

  7. #6
    Advisory Panel browningautorifle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last On
    Today @ 12:04 AM
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    30,052
    Real Name
    Jim
    Local Date
    06-08-2024
    Local Time
    12:11 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by JGaynor View Post
    why would ordnance completely shut down rifle production at two government arsenals in the middle of a shooting war?
    That I hadn't heard about...not having Hatcher's notebook in my library.
    Regards, Jim

  8. #7
    Advisory Panel
    Rick the Librarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last On
    04-09-2023 @ 08:59 PM
    Location
    NW Washington State
    Age
    74
    Posts
    2,301
    Real Name
    Rick Slater
    Local Date
    06-08-2024
    Local Time
    12:11 AM
    No kidding -- in 1917-1918, they were hurting for rifles and they needed all they could get.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

    --George Orwell

  9. #8
    Deceased May 2nd, 2020 Cosine26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last On
    05-18-2020 @ 07:29 PM
    Location
    Cal
    Posts
    506
    Local Date
    06-08-2024
    Local Time
    02:11 AM
    As I remember it, Hatcher indicates that Rock Island did actually stop production for a period.
    FWIW

  10. #9
    Advisory Panel
    JGaynor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last On
    06-04-2024 @ 12:24 AM
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Posts
    888
    Local Date
    06-08-2024
    Local Time
    03:11 AM
    The attached link goes to a chart of monthly rifle production at SA and RIA ('03's) as well as Eddystone, Ilion and Winchester (m1917's) that was prepared in 1918.

    Between january and July the two arsenals were effectively shut down. Whatever they did manage to produce was most likely just to prove the viability of the DHT process.

    Once more my original point was doing the shift to DHT was a drastic step and there had to be more going on than a literal handful (maybe a dozen) instances of burst receivers...

    Not to be brusque but please spare us all irrelevant arguments about greased cartridges and weak barrels. Those things happened too but they are another story.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...tion_month.jpg

  11. #10
    firstflabn
    Guest firstflabn's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by JGaynor View Post
    Between january and July the two arsenals were effectively shut down. Whatever they did manage to produce was most likely just to prove the viability of the DHT process.
    You ignored the last sentence in the note. SA records show 81,052 barreled receivers made in FY18. The table only shows complete rifles. RIA production was trivial, even at its peak, so not much effect from whatever happened there. Disrupted yes; shut down, no. Worst possible time? Maybe. (I can't prove it, but it's hard to believe the B/Rs were produced in the first half of FY18 when SA was rapidly expanding the operation and doubling their rifle output).

    The decision to rely on M1917s for the vast majority of new troops had pretty much already been made by the time the '03 problem arose - eased I'm sure by the rapid acceleration in M1917 production. By Feb '18, M1903 production was only needed to replace combat losses and to build up reserves for the 1919 Spring offensive.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. No4T and Springfield shoot out on TV
    By derekr in forum The Lee Enfield Knowledge Library Collectors Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-03-2012, 02:08 PM
  2. Is your M1903 Springfield Serial Number Here?
    By Col. Colt in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-12-2012, 08:37 PM
  3. New User Intro and the low number M1903 SA I am looking at
    By dynotech in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-12-2012, 08:22 PM
  4. M1903 National Match serial number?
    By mjackson in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-28-2011, 10:47 PM
  5. Great! the world is a safer place...
    By Claven2 in forum Milsurps General Discussion Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-18-2007, 01:14 PM

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