A Thought About Low Number Receivers

[Rock]

I was thinking about the many pictures I have seen of M16 rifles destroyed during firing. The uppers and lowers on many of them are blown to pieces. Were the low number 03 incidents any worse or more dangerous? Do we have a 'low number Springfield' as our service rifle now?

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1267059131706&id=e0f626d35706460f7df1a70b20b86c00&url=http%3a%2f%2fimage.ohozaa.com%2fit%2fkaboom12. jpg

[Randy A]

I'm not aware of any failure problems with any of our current service firearms, at least when I retired two years ago. The photo you posted is interesting, I don't think it was an internal failure, in fact I'm quite certain it wasn't.
I guess there was a minor problem with the lock blocks in the M9's several years back, nothing that caught headlines. The "ears" would fracture, you had to be pretty careless to let it become a problem. Most soldiers caught it when they were cleaning them and shortly after, a campaign came out on it.
I've seen by far, more M1's and m14 turn grenade than any M16, (disturbing isn't it) even though it's never been a favorite of mine, the darn thing is a lot more rugged than it's ever looked.

[emmagee1917]

Not disturbing , just more " proof" of what a "dynamite " round the ol' 30-06 was compared to the " firecracker " .223 , that's all .
Chris

[Randy A]

I meant that it was disturbing that I'm giving an M16 any kudos, LOL.

[Rock]

I've seen by far, more M1's and m14 turn grenade than any M16, (disturbing isn't it) even though it's never been a favorite of mine, the darn thing is a lot more rugged than it's ever looked.

I've seen many M1 and M14 pictures too. Those usually show broken stocks and maybe a broken floor plate. The receivers and bolts remain pretty much intact.

There is one shattered M1A barrel / receiver incident that is well documented. http://www.thegunzone.com/m1akb.html That is a cast commercial receiver and I'm not sure if a US military M14 receiver would have let go like that. I've never seen a photo of a US issue Garand receiver damaged as badly.

There are many similar pictures on the net of AR 15 type actions blown to pieces. I don't know if the issue M16 or M4 receivers let go like that when a cartridge head fails. The point is, if they do, much is not being made of the fact, as when the low number 03 blow ups became known. If M16 / AR15 receivers shatter and no one seems to care, should we be over cautious with low number 03 receivers? Just food for thought........

[Randy A]

Your comparison doesn't make much sense, because people are doing fine with one weapon doesn't make it safe with another. The issue with the early actions was the manner in which they came apart. The high number actions were blown apart too, most during testing but unlike the low number ones, they didn't fragment like an artillery shell.

[da gimp]

I've never understood why they didn't re-anneal those low #'ed 1903 receivers & re-heat treat them using a dern good thermometer to indicate the temp? Was there that too much of the steel's carbon content already burned out from the 1st re-heat tempering?

[Tom]

One of my crew just returned from two tours in Iraq. I asked him about his M16 jamming etc.. Sorta a different subject, He said they are now "sweet guns" no jams in all that time. But designed, of course, for jungle warfare and not long shots in the desert.

Tom

[Rick the Librarian]

I've never understood why they didn't re-anneal those low #'ed 1903 receivers & re-heat treat them using a dern good thermometer to indicate the temp? Was there that too much of the steel's carbon content already burned out from the 1st re-heat tempering?

Springfield Armory did experiment with "reheat-treating" after WWI, but the results weren't conclusive and the idea was dropped.

[Rock]

Springfield Armory did experiment with "reheat-treating" after WWI, but the results weren't conclusive and the idea was dropped.

The problem was that some of the receivers were overheated during heat treatment and the steel was burnt. No amount of heat treatment would correct the problem.

[Rock]

The issue with the early actions was the manner in which they came apart. The high number actions were blown apart too, most during testing but unlike the low number ones, they didn't fragment like an artillery shell.

I'm just saying that some low number 03's came apart (fragments) and it looks like some AR15 / M16 rifles are coming apart (fragments). It just seems that the reaction to the problem is different now. Back in the day it was recommended that low number 03's should be scrapped (didn't happen). There is not even a mention of a AR design problem regarding receiver fragmentation. Frankly, I was surprised when I saw all of the photos on the net of catastropic AR receiver damage.

I don't think they consider it a problem or maybe it just isn't a correctable problem without a major design change or the use of a steel receiver. The 03 problem was easily solved with different heat treatment.

Is a shattered AR receiver less dangerous to the shooter than a shattered 03 receiver? Aluminum vs. Steel, maybe, I don't know. Have attitudes changed or maybe we're just tougher? In any case, they are both good rifles and failures are extremely rare with both rifles.

The point is that I don't worry too much when occasionally firing my low number 03 and the same goes for my AR15.

[mannparks]

the book HATCHERS NOTE BOOK gives good explenation of the tests done on the 1903 springfield receivers.--charles