Printable View
I traded into an 03A3, sad wood and missing rear sight, National Ordinance receiver. SIlly me, I didn't look at that part as closely as i should have.
Checking other forums I got mixed replies, some N. O. receivers are jsut fine and some are disasters waiting to happen. Any info would be appreciated.
Yes, you'll get the phone book but this has been discussed here before. By the way, spelling is "Ordnance" for your research. Here are some of the discussions for now. Just so you understand, Chuckindenver is a gunsmith that specializes in US martial arms. He's done bags of Springfield rifles.
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....ional+ordnance
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....ional+ordnance
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....ional+ordnance
I had to google for myself what a "National Ordnance" 1903a3 was.
At a glance I would say the quality would depend on how much work was put in to those receivers. Sarco has "castings" for sale, which I assume to be unfinished and un-heat treated receivers. I could be wrong, but is that the same kind of thing as what National Ordnance started with?
Nevermind, already answered https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=16494
I personally would run away from such things. I know that doesn't make you feel any better now after the fact (sorry it's salt in the wound). My google-fu just turned up one for $895 on consignment at Simpson LTD. For that money, you could buy an overpriced sporterized 1903 with an actual original receiver on gunbroker, and fit it out back to service configuration.
Hopefully your trade wasn't nearly this costly and you can get your money back selling someone a wall hanger.
Put it up for sale in the WTS forum...in my opinion every house in America should have a 1903 prominently hanging on the wall, right underneath a painting of Marines of Marines in combat during a complementing time period in history.
The only time I would buy a National Ordnance rifle is for the other parts and not the receiver. I would introduce the receiver to the 15 inch metal chop saw.
I'd buy it for a paperweight. lcclower, can you post some pics? I've never seen one. Did it come with any interesting parts?Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1
"I've never seen one."
Yet you have a very negative opinion of them.
I had one for a few years and it never presented any problems. It was in beautiful condition with brand new USGI parts. I put about 1000 rounds through it and checked headspace and all its nooks & crannies after each range session. Nothing ever stretched, cracked, abraded, or loosened. Ended up trading it (with full disclosure and report) for something I wanted more. There may have been some problems with a couple, but I've only ever seen pics of one posted. I was happy with mine, and I wouldn't hesitate to get another in the excellent condition mine was in. Internet rumors aren't always true.
Artists make things out of piles of garbage all the time...but whatever configuration it's in doesn't change the fact that its still pieces of garbage. Some people like it, and towns display it prominently. I'm just saying that knowing what it is, I wouldn't put it in my yard.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyc
To each their own, and I'm happy your rifle works (worked) for you, and especially that you did the right thing informing your buyer about what it was.
I admit my initial opinion is based on content here on milsurps by some of the trusted and renowned smiths on this forum. Like anything else worth scientific inquiry, I'm happy to evolve my opinions, and even change them, in light of more evidence and sound reason.
I'm glad yours worked out. I know enough about metal and manufacturing processes to know that internal stresses in the metal is impossible to detect without destructive tests. Those tests can be performed in a controlled environment, such as the early receiver testing at Springfield which is documented in Hatcher's book, or in your case by firing and hoping for the best?
My google fu hasn't turned up anything but forums chatter on the topic of lab testing of these receivers, or what kind of steel they were made of.
There is a nice history of the company across several pages here
http://www.m1carbinesinc.com/carbine_NATORD3.HTML
From the troubled history of finding a quality caster, I doubt these were ever rigorously tested. I'm happy to be wrong on that too.