Low S/N

[pdh]

I have a 1903 with ser. no.124xxx it has a SA 3-42 barrel. I have shot it with current production M2 ball ammo and had no problems. It has a Remington bolt in it. Should I continue to shoot it?I biught it for our service rifle matches many years ago.

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.

[Jim Tarleton]

It is up to you, and your decision. I shoot mine all the time, with no problems whatsoever. The Marines wore the suckers out, fought a war with them, and never looked back.

jt

[GUTS]

I agree that it is your decision, I have two with very low serial numbers and I shoot them. There is a couple of ways to look at it, you could say that the rifles were shot a lot, used in wars and had no problem so they are safe, or you could say the more rounds that have gone down the pipe with no problems just means that the chance of failure is just that much closer.

[Harlan (Deceased)]

Without going into a lot of details, by far the majority of the 1903's that failed are attributed to poor ammo that failed. There was a short time during that period when there was a lot of bad ammo. The brittle receivers shattered, when properly heat treated receivers would have more likely deformed. From what I've read the majority of the low numbered receivers reporting to have exploded were from a period when there were a lot of other problems due to bad ammunition. Over the years and through WWII low number guns were used with better ammo and I don't think there were any that were reported that had catastrophic failures. (Of course in battlefield conditions it may have just not been reported)

From everything I've read I think as long as good ammo is used that's loaded correctly there's little chance of a catastrophic failure. A low number could have been shot thousands of times with little chance of failure. The one thing that makes them more dangerous is in the rare chance they experience a case separation or an accidental extremely hot load, and neither of these conditions can be controlled 100%. This would probably destroy a properly heat treated 1903 too and distort the receiver but it would be more likely to remain in one piece and not cause injury, when one of the few brittle LN receivers would more likely come apart and cause injury to the shooter and possibly a person near the shooter.

As for my own view we're all taking at least some chance shooting any old rifle. There's at least some added risk due to the age and unknown conditions a rifle has experienced. Personally I won't shoot a LN just because it adds a known issue that makes them have at least some further chance of injury and that's too much for me when there's so many others to shoot. It's all a personal choice as to how much risk we take.

[Rick H.]

Clearly we have all read or heard about the potential for a low serial number 1903 to have a receiver failure due to improper heat treatment, but has anyone actually observed this take place? Or has anyone even heard of this happening in recent years? I have known lots of people that have 1903's in all sorts of configurations, but I have no real personal knowledge of this happening.

[Calif-Steve]

I busted my buddies LN as I was installing a new barrel. The receiver broke in half!!! I was doing the job for free but my buddy screamed and whinned at me so much I bought a new receiver and installed his barrel. He still tells people about the incident and never mentions I bought a new receiver at my expense. It was the last job I ever did for him. They are brittle and will break.

[Harlan (Deceased)]

Clearly we have all read or heard about the potential for a low serial number 1903 to have a receiver failure due to improper heat treatment, but has anyone actually observed this take place? Or has anyone even heard of this happening in recent years? I have known lots of people that have 1903's in all sorts of configurations, but I have no real personal knowledge of this happening.

There's no debate as to whether many low number recivers are brittle. It's a proven fact. If they experience a higher load than intended they shatter rather than deform.

The were taken out of service for a time because of the danger, but they were forced back into service in WWII when the need for weapons exceeded the chances of personal injury if a bad load was experienced.

As for sport shooting I can't see putting those kinds of pressures right next to my face and eyes when there are so many other rifles available. It's just a personal choice as to what kind of chances one is willing to take for the enjoyments.
(And I've been known to fly aircraft over 60 years old, so my safety prudence is already questionable)

[Rick the Librarian]

Three incidents:

1) A friend of mine as a teenager had a 801,000 range '03 which shattered - probably was one of the earlier case hardened receivers that "leaked through".

2) Jim Keenan, one of the stalwarts on the old Jouster forum (and a guy I trusted) reported firing a LN M1903 which later shattered

3) I saw pictorial evidence on the internet of another LN M1903 which shattered. To be fair, it appeared that this last receiver had been abused.

Would I shoot a low numbered M1903? No. However, as Harlan said, it is up to each person to decide for themselves. I know of people who have shot LN M1903s for years with no effect. Deciding not to shoot low numbered M1903s should not raise questions about your manhood; nor, should anyone hold it against you, if, after looking at the facts, you decide to go ahead.

[jmoore]

I shoot mine, but I also stick to 150gr bullets doing no more than 2700 fps, whether factory ammo or my own loads. (I also try not to drop the bare receivers onto hard surfaces, but it's a challenge!)

[daveboy]

Mine is a 256XXX number. I shoot it regularly with carefully handloaded, low-power cast bullets. My headspace is tight. I consider this a fairly low-risk proposition. I would not, however, shoot full-house loads in it.

daveboy