SA low numbered receivers range from 1 to 800,000. I do not remember the RIA range. Something like 285,000? These receivers were made of a low carbon Manganese steel later called WD 1325. If you examine the material properties of the stuff, it is very low grade. Material properties of the stuff in an annealed state are : Tensile Strength Lbs per square inch: 75,000 lbs, Yield; 50,000 lbs. The steel used in these receivers is only somewhat better than what is used for structural steel (rebar) today. Today, it would be hard to justify using such a cheap, inferior grade of steel on something that was so complex, and was so expensive to manufacture. In fact, in time, SA used alloy steels, the so called Nickel steel receivers.
Low numbered receivers were made in a period in which very poor process controls existed at Springfield Armory. Many of the receivers were over heated in the forging shop, not during heat treatment. The men who were stamping out the receivers got them too hot in the forging ovens. Probably because making the metal hotter made it more plastic and easier to stamp. Unfortunately, what happened is that they "burnt" the steel. Burning steel is not like burning toast. It is a fusion reaction, fusing the steel into one big austenite crystal. They wanted a crystalline structure of martensite. But when steel is raised to a “white hot” temperature (about 2000 F) the steel is all in the austenitic phase. When it cools from this temperature it is a very hard, brittle steel. Burnt receivers are unsafe to use.
During WWI a low numbered receiver shattered at a ammunition plant, and thus the process problem was raised at a high enough level to become visible to Army Management. From what little material is available on this topic, it appears that the Army revamped Arsenal processes and also changed the heat treatment from a single quench to a “Double Heat Treatment”. This occurred around receiver 800,000 for SA receivers. The double heat treatment does not solve the problem of overheating during the forging cycle, but the tensile and yield properties after heat treatment are improved over that of a single heat treatment. This is well described in Hatcher’s Notebook, and because of the lengthy discussion of this in that book, there is almost a cult of the double heat treat receivers today. Double heat treatment without a doubt doubled the process cost during heat treatment, and when the Army finally used alloy steel for M1903 receivers, the heat treatment went back to a single heat treat.
The materials of the pre 1920’s were greatly inferior to the same steel made today. Process technology is critical to a quality product. What I have read, from a number or historical technology books, just leads me to conclude that the steels of that era were highly variable. Research on existing specimens show slag, things indicating primitive process controls. This was not evil: they were just at the start of the development of steel technology. It was not that far back when they were flame hardening Krag bolts. Sophisticated steels and standardized steel tests, such as shock tests, were still in development.
Someone asked Ludwig Olsen why the Swedes used plain carbon steel receivers through the production of the Swedish M1896 rifles, and he replied something to the effect “they found it so entirely satisfactory that there was no reason to change”. In other words, there was no outside forcing function to make them change. I suspect that if Springfield and Rock Island had never made defective receivers, they probably would never had made a material change. However, if the carbon steel was properly heated treated, there is no reason why the single heat treatment Class C receivers would not have finished production.
However, none of this changes the fact that early receivers have little margin of safety in an accident.
P.O Ackley blew up single heat treat receivers and nickle steel receivers. I highly recommend reading both P.O. Ackley’s blowup discussion and the American Rifleman Oct 1945 Dope Bag. The sense I get out of both is that quality of SHT receivers varies. In P.O Ackley’s blowup tests, the SHT receiver ring completely blew off (not unexpected) but it held up better than expected. “ It might be observed that the old hard Springfield actions approached the strength of the new actions more closely than had been supposed. The main difference being that when they do let go, the are more apt to blow apart completely…” It took 3 grains more of powder to destroy a Nickel Steel 03 receiver. And that one blew the cocking piece out with such force P.O. said it would have killed someone.
A comment about the M1903 receiver, it was not as safe as a design as the M98. Mauser designed his receiver to minimize case head failures, and then designed the action to failure in a way to protect the user. The M1903 does not have these considerations. The 03 has a cone breech and inadequate gas venting. The two piece firing pin fails in a forward position and people have had "slamfires" when this happened.
I am unaware of an inspection technique to distinguish between good low number receivers from bad ones, and certainly the Army was unable to do it, because it became Army Practice to scrap low number receivers during rebuild. Over one million of these things that were made, and a good number of those had several barrels put on them. The trouble is non destructively figuring out which were the good receivers. The Army was not able to do that, so in the late 1920’s they started scrapping them. The Marine Corp did not. The Marine Corp, being the ugly step child of the Navy, and still underfunded to this day, kept their low number receivers in service. I guess it was cheaper to replace Marines than rifles! I think there is less risk in shooting a single heat treat that has the Hatcher Hole on it, and went through a rebuild/rebarrel program.
I copied this from the old CSP forum. Even Double Heat receivers failed.
DHT Action Failure
C.O.Smith <Send E-Mail> -- Sun 6 Apr 2008 6:02 pm
Double heat-treated M1903 actions do fail. In 1965 a fellow brought me a low numbered (SA 699842) action on which some incompetent gunsmith (?) had tried to mount a scope. On the first shot, the front scope mount fell off. Examination of the receiver showed that he had drilled two or three holes trying to mount the front mount. resulting in one big mess. I traded an 03A3 barrel for the action.
In those days the DCM would exchange a low numbered receiver for a high numbered receiver for $7.90 + P&H and shipping for a total of $10.21. In exchange for the low number action I received a DHT (SA 962540) receiver. According to records this should have been well into the DHT action, manufactured in 1918. The action was parkerized and I do not remember whether it had the 1936 hole in the left side of the receiver ring.
I fitted a HS 4 groove 5-44 barrel to it along with a good DHT bolt. After installing a long slide Lyman 48 sight I glass bedded it into a Bishop Target stock. It shot pretty well several high “V” count Possibles at 600 yards (100 – 13 V’s). My club had received as its allotment of qualification ammo from the DCM. It was DEN 42 AP. (Yes in those days we could get free qualification ammo from the DCM and they did issue corrosive AP ammo.) It shot pretty well - 96-12V at 600 yards on the old Dona Ana range.
I was shooting the old Long Range Course “B” which included 10 shots at 1000 yards. Because it was a 1000 yards I was using a “hot” 200-grain SMK bullet with I believe 54 grains of IMR 4350. A great load! On about the 6th or 7th shot the bolt became hard to open and accuracy went to pot
I took the rifle to my gunsmith who ran a field test bolt into it and found excessive headspace. We removed the barrel and found the imprint of the locking lugs on the receiver ring where the receiver had set back. We checked the bolt and it gauged good. The gunsmith wanted the receiver so I traded it to him for some minor gun work. I don’t know what he did with it. The DCM would not exchange high numbered receivers.
I have a NS SA action in the 132xxxx range in which I am working on my third or fourth barrel with no problems
I added it to the database
Jim Tarleton <Send E-Mail> -- Sun 6 Apr 2008 7:42 pm
Another SA in that SN range bulged due to excessive pressure. There have been a significant number of HN receivers that have failed (25 in my database alone). It took a considerable amount of pressure to leave that imprint. You were lucky the case held.
Jim
