M1903

[Gaffer1968]

I would not invest a penny into a firearm that MAY BE unsafe to fire.

I can think of at least one current MFR whose entire line (NOT 1903s) is suspect, at least for me...

 

[palmettomoon]

Yeah, I've read it and I interpret it a little differently than you. For one thing, it was "brittle" receivers, not soft. There were also numerous tests on the rifles and although that some as you state were not newly issued for service, those that had been issued were allowed to stay fielded.

I am of the opnion that a receiver manufactured during certain months are perfectly okay (statistically) to shoot with safe ammo. Any low numbered receivers not withdrawn from service due to test results of those manufactured during the months where failures were recorded are also statistically fine to shoot with safe ammo. The number of recorded failures of early numbered receivers is so low when compared to the number of rifles manufactured and in service that I personally consider the "low numbers ain't safe ta shoot" canard to be Fuddlore.

 

[palmettomoon]

Yeah, I've read it and I interpret it a little differently than you. For one thing, it was "brittle" receivers, not soft. There were also numerous tests on the rifles and although that some as you state were not newly issued for service, those that had been issued were allowed to stay fielded.

And I am not the one who said "soft."

 

[Gaffer1968]

I am of the opnion that a receiver manufactured during certain months are perfectly okay (statistically) to shoot with safe ammo. Any low numbered receivers not withdrawn from service due to test results of those manufactured during the months where failures were record are also statistically fine to shoot with safe ammo. The number of recorded failures of early numbered receivers is so low when compared to the number of rifles manufactured and in service that I personally consider the "low numbers ain't safe ta shoot" canard to be Fuddlore.

The key is the testing and the power of the ammo used to test the pressures. You're right. To me, that stuff is all a non-issue.

 

[Gaffer1968]

And I am not the one who said "soft."

Yes....I understand that you didn't say soft... I was replying to the person who brought up Hatcher and actually said "soft" to whom I replied about Eddystones.....I guess I replied to the wrong post because you snuck one in on me before I realized it :0)...my bad...Sorry.

 

[palmettomoon]

The key is the testing and the power of the ammo used to test the pressures. You're right. To me, that stuff is all a non-issue.

Agreed. 100%. I own a correct 550xxx, (July 1914) with which I've won first place in several military matches (non CMP) that I've been offered as much as $2,400 for. My reply was "taint fer sell."

 

[Gaffer1968]

I think tbat was me but I made no mention of soft receivers.

I understand....we both know who said "soft."

 

[palmettomoon]

Sorry for the hijack OP. Good luck in your search. Look on ODT for the member in or near Brunswick. He had a very nice looking one for sale.

 

[Gaffer1968]

Sorry for the hijack OP. Good luck in your search. Look on ODT for the member in or near Brunswick. He had a very nice looking one for sale.

Yes....I've had at least 5 of them and my prices were always in the 600-700 range. But that was over a decade ago. The stock variations were many, FWIW. A post above gave prices for some of them.

 

[pavogrande]

To me, the value of a "low number" is it's historical value--- possible use in the Mexican expedition and use in wwi --
Finding a really low number in the original 30/03 would be almost priceless and a 30/03 cur back and rechambered to 30/06 would be a close second --
Fear of shooting a low number is easily solved by reloading --
my ha-penny