low numbers

[karl schmidt]

Remember there are "low number" bolts as well as receivers. Here's one that lost both locking lugs AND the safety lug.

http://i798.photobucket.com/albums/y...numberbolt.jpg

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.

[Salt Flat]

Yikes! That's pretty scary. The high number bolt bodies are still pretty cheap and would be a minimum change if you just have to shoot a low number 1903. You could have 2 bolts, a low number one for display and a high number for shooting. (Personally I wouldn't shoot a low number, especially after seeing pictures like this!). Salt Flat

[WarPig1976]

Karl, is this a verified low number bolt.? Or is it an ordnance test of some kind.
Basically, what's the source? Not doubting you just curious..


"Nuts"

[Rick the Librarian]

Although there were some reports of case-hardened bolt failures, the Army didn't consider the problem bad enough that case-hardened bolts were replaced on the same scale of low numbered receivers. When a low-numbered M1903 was sent in for overhaul, the receiver would be replaced, but not the bolt (unless there was a mechanical reason requiring it).

[Cosine26]

Hi RTL
There is an item on the DCM page in an early 1930’s American Rifleman that indicated that when a low numbered rifle was sent to the SA by an NRA member for receiver replacement, the bolt was replaced with a high numbered bolt. The article indicated that many owners objected to this and that the SA would replace to bolt only if requested to by the owner.
I believe that this was after SA changed to nickel steel and the owners felt that they were “sticky”. I shot with Jack Moore, who attended the early 1920’s and 1930’s National Matches and he indicated that after the change to NS, many of the old time shooters retained their SHT bolt because they were “slicker”. I have a SHT bolt and I must admit that it is very “slick”; However, I never used it because I was leery of using it with high pressure match loads. My AR magazines go back to 1927 and that kind of info is un-indexed so I cannot find the article except with a page by page search of twenty years of the AR.
FWIW

[karl schmidt]

WarPig 1976
I came across the bolt photo while doing some research at the national archives.
It was in the signal corps still photos record group

Due to the Filing systems used at NARA it would take weeks of work to find any documents related to the photo - if indeed any do exist. At some point in time, documents and photos were split into two different archives having very different rules and regulations, and sometimes residing in different buildings.

As for the ID of it being "low numbered" it seems to have the straight down handle.

[Calif-Steve]

The Army made a point of checking all low number bolts. I will guess that practice started with the Krag rilfe, just my guess. IG Teams use large hand-held magnifying glasses to conduct inspections. They are very serious guys. But the Army did not withdraw the low number bolts, just a fact, that's all.

[WarPig1976]

Roger that, like I said just curious.


"Nuts"

[karl schmidt]

Calif-Steve -

It's just me - BUT i'm not willing to risk my eyes or life Based on what The 1930's army THOUGHT they knew about metallurgy, NO MATTER HOW BIG A MAGNIFYING GLASS they used!

[Calif-Steve]

You must remember the US Army was shooting these things every day. So they certainly had a direct interest in the whole matter. The low number receivers were a very real concern. But not the bolts. Simply a historical fact. That is all it is.