1903 observation and human nature

just an observation... after reading a few posts on low number 1903,s and cast made 1903A3,s
so...they did lots of testing, and documenting of low number 1903,s when in fact non failed out of the blue...
the issue was how the heat treatment handled a failure... bore obstruction, case head failure, wrong cal. ammo.. ect..so they were deemed unsafe to fire.
matter fact, the military kept them in service throughtout WW2 and Korea, up till the 1960,s
smart move.. with the idea that most humans are carless...mmk.
though i dont recomend anyone ever firing a low number SHT 1903...i shoot mine.
now...since it make them feel good.
some non gunsmith shooters... thinks its ok to fire a National ord, or Santa fe. 1903A3.. thats had documented failures in all serial number ranges,...just out of the blue...
with the additude,...iv been shooting mine for a while, and its fine...even with more then a few pictured on the net that have failed with factory ammo..and had no sign of headspace or other issue..
so that fact that humans are carless comes to play again...or what am i missing??
ill shoot my low number 1903,s but would never ever shoot a Nat ord, or Santa Fe..
just a thought...if these were military issue weapons..all would have been destroyed.

I had a low number 1903 too Chuck, I shot it for years and had no problems. People believe what they want and I've given up trying to influence thought. It's like herding cats. They just don't get what it is you're trying to do...

herding cats...now that made me laugh...kinda like arguing with a redhead....it doesnt work.

I got the point from Chuck the first time I saw the discussion in 2010? I will NEVER, EVER shoot my Nat. Ord.1903A3. Some day I'll get a Rem. receiver for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those pics of shattered receivers are enough to drive you to drink...

Chuck,

I think some of it is economics. No one likes to be informed that the rifle they paid hundreds of dollars for is essentially worthless. Most guys look at guns as a type of investment where their money is at least going to be maintained. So they will work hard to justify why their rifle has value. If it's safe, they can sell it to someone else without worrying about something happening to them down the road. With these rifles, I have to think of the typical gun owner I know and I know a LOT. Few shoot often, most only shoot just prior to and during the rifled deer seasons and the average is less than 5 rounds per year. The majority of these cast 03a3's are probably owned by people like that and they haven't failed simply because they are rarely shot.

I have a 99 Savage that I've been carrying in the deer woods for about 36 years. The bluing is gone from the receiver but if I've fired 200 rounds through it in all those years, I'd be really surprised.

You have to wonder how many of these fellows insisting their rifles are safe drive around on tires their service guy said needed replaced.

maybe its like if you read something even if its false enough times, it becomes true..
our government does this all the time..
a good example.
i used to enjoy a cold beer with my buddies now and then, but as i got older id get a migrane headache after about the second beer, tried different flavors, bud, coors, ect.
some were worse then others but the end results were the same..
so, i go to a doctor buddy...i work on his guns..he works on my body...good trade off.
he hooks me up with an expert, they do a few tests, take some family history... they have me come in...and his exact words...
next time you drink a beer,,enjoy it,,,it might very well be your last, or...you may drink like this for years, and then boom...your done...or not at all.
as i got older i developed a reaction to Beer, it runs in my familiy, my Uncle slid into a comma many years ago, same deal..
so...havnt drank a beer since... even better, havent had a migraine since... and i was pluaged with them for years,..
i firgured that the guy knew a lot more about it then me...i works with this stuff everyday...
on the other hand...
my late wifes mother, has COPD, and has had a 1/4 of a lung removed...was told many years ago to stop smoking, and that she has cancer...her responce is...he exact words to me..I DONT HAVE F&KN CANCER,!, just a light cough,...those doctors dont know a thing, they just want to open you up, and take your money...
from someone who doesnt pay a dime in medical...
thats just human nature...

I don't usually join in forum posts on the controversial subjects, since they are controversial, 99% of people have already made up their mind on said subject.

Pretty much like talking about politics, religion or capital punishment, it’s a waste of time and somebody gets their feelings hurt!

If you weren’t trying to save people from getting hurt, it would be funny!

Best Regards Tom

never argue with someone dumber then you...
its like rassling with a pig in the mud. after while,..your just muddy, and the pig starts to enjoy it.

Switch to Scotch Chuck, Johnny Walker Red is my brand!

Yeah, all that is well and good, but many "truths" get bandied-about that might not actually be true. The internet has been a great platform for people to perpetuate rumors and ideas that may not be as valid as they think. For example we have the cast receivers mentioned above. Some or all might be bad and dangerous.....or not. Owners of these rifles might actually like to shoot their guns and not have to scrap them, whether they have "economic" reasons or not. Forums like this are perfect places to dispel myth and actually do the community a service by providing real information. The more, non-repeated, information the better. A good example of this might be more pictures of some of the cast receivers that have failed. I personally have only seen multiple postings of the same rifle. Are there others? If so, make them available. In addition, we have this: "documented failures in all serial number ranges" posted above. Great, I would really like to see some of these numbers posted. On another thread I asked to see some of the documentation and serial numbers. One board member posted, but that's it. After that came lots of posts that didn't answer any questions, or provide any useful info.
Chuck, if you have the information on any "documented failures in all serial number ranges" please post it. Whining about skeptics does nothing, but providing valid information can quiet the loudest disbeliever.

I have two low number 03s that I shoot. Some of the re-arsenaled rifles were used in WWII and had a lot of rounds through them without failure. Let's say that you ended up with one of these low numbered heavilly fired rifles, is it safe to shoot?, there are two ways to look at it, either it has been fired enough that if it was going to fail it would have by now, or, every shot that is fired is one shot closer to the failure point and it may even be the next one. It is definitly a judgement call that must be made be the individual shooter.

True, and what is good is that the low-numbered serials are a known and documented group.
Valid information allows an owner to make an informed decision.

i stopped drinking years ago, the world is a happier place that i did. i was a lot nicer back then. and i have learned not to argue with those that are dumber then myself.

Plenty of valid information on the Santa Fe/National Ordnance rifles as well from people that have worked with them, cut them apart, had them fail, etc. It's a real shame there is no national database out there where all these fellows could have put their serial numbers before they trashed what was left of them but their failure to do so does not make their information less valid or a junk rifle, not junk. For that matter, I doubt there is any database of any failed rifles of any type so your asking for something that does not exist to justify your continued risk taking.

Everyone knows that some rifles are more dangerous than others. The low serial numbered 03's is one yet they don't often fail if ever, they simply do not meet Army standards. Ross rifles, not necessarily dangerous in themselves but failure to assemble them correctly by inexperienced people. Then there are the weaker actions that care must be taken in reloading, etc. The US Krag, Carcano's, Spanish Mausers etc. They aren't unsafe, They simply require more care in what you fire out of them. There are even the cracked receivers on 1917 Enfields, again, not necessarily a design flaw but a failure in rebarreling. All of these are well known and yet other than the 03's low serial numbers, there are no set identifications other than the entire series of production. It is into that last category that the National Ordnance/Santa Fe rifles fall into. These as well do have documented failures and examinations of their quality. They have come up short, they are poorly produced and have high failure rate for a rifle which should have none using ammunition for with they were designed unless they were simply worn out, which these have not been.

Oh? Who are you arguing with? All I see is someone waiting to see you post all (or any!) of the info you have said that you have. That seems to get you, and some others, all upset. If you're implying that I'm somehow "dumber" than you......well, you are entitled to your opinion, which you give readily enough. All I've done is ask you to post what you say exists and that you have. Why that seems to be a problem or cause for conflict, I have no idea. At very least, I am happy to learn that you are sober, happy, and have a high level of self-esteem. Good for you.
I guess I'll just have to wait longer to get educated.

Aragorn, who is looking for some vague "national database"? And where is all this documentation you have mentioned? All I keep hearing about, here and on other sites, are the same rifles and declarations that all NO/SF rifles are unsafe. All I want to know about are the dozen(s?) of these rifles that you and Chuck apparently know about. As a gunsmith, I think it is safe to assume that Chuck has an FFL. If so, he has documentation for all the NO/SF rifles he as received, and then their disposition. If those rifles are not documented, he has other issues to deal with beyond this simple question. We keep spinning around this same question. You guys keep talking about "documented failures and examinations of their quality". OK, where is it??? If you can't provide it, I don't know why you're posting a re-hash of somebody else's info. Why don't you ask Chuck.

Jonnyc.. you continue to rant and post personal attacks, this is called a Flame..and againts the rules hear, if you cant get along with the other members of this forum..the answer is easy...LEAVE.. your not looking for info, help or welling to provide real imput on a subject pretainting to 1903,s your just looking for an argument... my point of this post is valid, and even with back ground, pictures of failures, you still choose to tell people that a rifle thats known for failures is safe to fire, when in fact its not..
its ok if you dont agree with me ... im not ok with personal attacks, name calling and fishing for an argument.. most of us here are over 40, and not 17..and try and act like an adult..
be advised ill be forwarding this and other posts to the powers that be and control the forum..
your welcome to stay and be a valued memeber, be kind and constructive.. we all have bad days... and i let the last group of flames go...but your fishing again..please stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonnyc

Oh? Who are you arguing with? All I see is someone waiting to see you post all (or any!) of the info you have said that you have. That seems to get you, and some others, all upset. If you're implying that I'm somehow "dumber" than you......well, you are entitled to your opinion, which you give readily enough. All I've done is ask you to post what you say exists and that you have. Why that seems to be a problem or cause for conflict, I have no idea. At very least, I am happy to learn that you are sober, happy, and have a high level of self-esteem. Good for you.
I guess I'll just have to wait longer to get educated.

Aragorn, who is looking for some vague "national database"? And where is all this documentation you have mentioned? All I keep hearing about, here and on other sites, are the same rifles and declarations that all NO/SF rifles are unsafe. All I want to know about are the dozen(s?) of these rifles that you and Chuck apparently know about. As a gunsmith, I think it is safe to assume that Chuck has an FFL. If so, he has documentation for all the NO/SF rifles he as received, and then their disposition. If those rifles are not documented, he has other issues to deal with beyond this simple question. We keep spinning around this same question. You guys keep talking about "documented failures and examinations of their quality". OK, where is it??? If you can't provide it, I don't know why you're posting a re-hash of somebody else's info. Why don't you ask Chuck.

---

Directed to johhnyc ..your similalarity between a "Troll and a Mushroom" is amazing .. :rolleyes:..Both are always in the dark and full of "horse poop". You can try to grow them in the daylight of knowledge but they won't grow because both are still full of "horse poop"...:banghead:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonnyc

Aragorn, who is looking for some vague "national database"? And where is all this documentation you have mentioned? All I keep hearing about, here and on other sites, are the same rifles and declarations that all NO/SF rifles are unsafe. All I want to know about are the dozen(s?) of these rifles that you and Chuck apparently know about. As a gunsmith, I think it is safe to assume that Chuck has an FFL. If so, he has documentation for all the NO/SF rifles he as received, and then their disposition. If those rifles are not documented, he has other issues to deal with beyond this simple question. We keep spinning around this same question. You guys keep talking about "documented failures and examinations of their quality". OK, where is it??? If you can't provide it, I don't know why you're posting a re-hash of somebody else's info. Why don't you ask Chuck.

---

You are looking for this vague database. I say vague because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist in the form you are seeking for any rifle. You keep hearing about the same rifles because these are the rifles we know about, and ARE DOCUMENTED as having failed. That is enough for nearly every other reader of this discussion. You seem to be the only holdout still insisting you need more information to convince you these are unsafe to fire. There is one other fellow who is using reduced loads in his because he recognizes the danger. You have heard REPEATEDLY about the dozens of rifles we know about because we keep presenting them to you.

As for Chuck, you should never assume anything. Gun laws have changed many times over the years and the requirements for state reporting and record keeping have changed as well. As a gunsmith working on other peoples rifles, I doubt he has to keep records of anything, there is no transfer of ownership but he's the one that can answer that question. No one is spinning around this same question except you. You just keep spinning around and around looking for answers you hope to find but simply do not exist. These guns are CRAP. Deal with it. You've been shown the links to and the discussions of these failures and quality problems several times already, I'm sure not going to go digging them up again because it's a waste of my time. I also don't need to ask Chuck, I take him as a man of his word, he's been in the business for a long time and has personal experience with these, more so than most others in his position I gather. I consider that to be an expert. If this were a court of law, he would be what we would call an expert witness. you've heard his testimony, you just don't want to accept it.

I've been reading these threads. Can't help but smile.

Jonny - Your not getting anything out of Chuck. You've said too much. Does he have the information you seek? Of course. That is plain and simple.

I'm not trying to "take sides", or anything like that. My wife make comments about me talking to my "fake friends". To a point, she's right. :lol:

I'm not a gunsmith. Don't have alot of "education". Been in the same construction field since I was 19. I pride myself with common sense. COMMON SENSE.

I don't need documentation to make easy decisions. I understand the need for "proof". There many ways to achieve it. You'll have to find your own. :beerchug:

Mike

Chuck, report what you want, you called me "dumb" because I have simply asked you to provide what you say you have. Why is this a problem?

Mike Haas has called me a "Troll and a Mushroom" because I like more than "I told you so" for an answer. Not sure what your role in this is, but since it does nothing but "flame" me, perhaps Chuck can include that in his reportage.

Aragorn, you obviously know nothing about either these rifles or FFL regulations, so I won't waste any time with you.

Chuck, I'll try one more time, as nicely as I can. Please post some manufacturer info and serial numbers for the NO/SF rifles that you say you have examined and determined to have failed. If you don't have any of that info, please say so and we can add that to the body of knowledge. And pardon me for not being one of those people who automatically takes strangers at their word.


Mike D, sorry, but I crossed your post. Guess I am a bit of a badger at times, but I do like to get answers when they should be available.

Gosh, did anyone have any idea that another post on cast and low number 1903 receivers would ever come to this??????

Well, from one Jonny to another (Johnny), seems like some people don't like being questioned, some people don't like being brushed-off when they ask questions, and some people just like to run up their post counts. Just another day on the internet.

i NEVER called you dumb,...only that i refuse to argue with some one dumber then me...if you put yourself in that catagory..then it was your assumption..
matter fact in the other thread i made it a point to state that in now way was i flaming the owners or family members of the rifles in question, only the rifles.
honestly...the cast receiver made rifles arent worth the time it would take to do the research, your welcome to shoot the cast made reciever all you like, i belive on ones choice to fail.
my records are my business and mine only, i dont care if you belive me or not..i gave my opinion on cast made 1903A3,s from a lifetime of collecting, shooting, and repairing 1903,s and posted pictures of a failure, others have told storys about issues with said recievers, its ok that you dont belive me i really dont care.
name calling, and the ranting and raving on this subject is childish..i never called you a name, just an observation of a class act being for the way you handle yourself in a public forum, and was being sarcastic..
its pretty obvious that your just looking for an argument not facts on the subject, so now...you highjacked a thread again to raise up the bar so to speak. and again..
i revert back to my post on observations and human nature..

jonnyc,

I apparently know more about these rifles than you do. I know they are unsafe to shoot. As for FFL regulations, they are available on the BATF website and fairly easy to follow. I suggest you check there if you have any questions. Not every repair done by a gunsmith is required to be recorded, and those that are required must only be kept for 20 years. That gets us back to 1992. These rifles were manufactured between 1965 and 1970 so any failure and subsequent repair prior to 1992 is lost unless they kept their records longer than required.

Well, thanks for nothing. No really....nothing. You were presented with an opportunity to actually advance the body of knowledge when you had the ability to do so. You chose to perpetuate rumor, belief, and a "because I told you so" mentality. You have failed.

Ok folks.... let's all settle down and try to keep this civil ... :slap:

Being a K98k collector, on this 1903 subject I'm certainly the dumbest guy in the room.... :lol:

I did a quick search using our Google CSE (Custom Search Engine) which is located at the top right corner of the forums, just under the standard search box. It's a piece of custom code from Google that just searches Milsurps.Com posts and threads, including the archive.

To be honest, I've never been thrilled with vBulletin's built-in search capability, particularly the 4 character minimum and the fact that it often behaves "quirky" with certain characters such as periods and slashes etc.

I find Google's capabilities much better, plus they don't have any problems with either the number of characters being searched on, or the special type of characters I mentioned above.

Anyway, give it a try using various words relating to this subject material and see what you turn up. I quickly found this old thread about:

Old thread - Low S/N 1903

Although I'm not exactly sure if it's germane to the argument going on here, I though this post in that thread by member Milsurp Collector was interesting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milsurp Collector

Some low number M1903s are safe to shoot, some have receivers made from brittle steel that can fail catastrophically if you have an unusual event such as a case failure or an overcharged round. There is no way to tell if your receiver is OK without risking destruction of the receiver. Therefore, many people choose not to take the risk, since there are many high number M1903 available to shoot.

The quote below is from the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) sales page.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0/5jwxeg-1.jpg

If the metal on your rifle hasn't been altered it would be worth restoring by obtaining a replacement stock and handguard, with the associated metal.

---

Bottom line... please keep the name calling and other emotional reactions in check. Thanks for listening ... :cheers:

Regards,
Doug

Doug, that's a great post, valuable info. I would like to see something similar relating to the Nat. Ord./Sante Fe rifles also being discussed in the two relevant threads. That kind of info really helps those who truly want to know more about the firearms they have or want.

Well, I used the Google CSE search engine I mentioned in my previous post and these are just a few old threads that turned up under the words Sante Fe. :beerchug:

My dad gave me a Sante Fe 1903A3 with s/n # 5,005,375. He didn't know much about it.

Santa Fe M1903A3-a caution on shooting

for the Nat ord, Santa Fe shooters

National Ordinance

Regards,
Doug

A good reading of Hatcher's accounts of low number receiver failures may dispel some opinions considered facts. It is amazing how many instances of receiver failure are noted as insufficient receiver strength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Peppers

A good reading of Hatcher's accounts of low number receiver failures may dispel some opinions considered facts. It is amazing how many instances of receiver failure are noted as insufficient receiver strength.

---

For those that want to follow up on what Johnny mentions .. ;)

Hatcher's Notebook (by Julian S. Hatcher)

Rwegards,
Doug

Is there anthing written - or does anyone know - whether firing reduced loads in low-numbered 1903's reduces the risk of a failure? If the answer is posted, I haven't been able to find it.

Thanks,

Mike

Two of the receiver failures mentioned by Hatcher had been fired with the standard guard cartridge which was the 150 grain bullet over 9.1 grains of Bullseye for 1200 fps velocity. Hatcher's opinion was that the sudden shock of the fast burning Bullseye powder caused the failures.

"When the user fired the guard cartridge, the pieces of the receiver simply fell to the floor as they might have done if it had been made of glass and been struck with a hammer."

Chuck, heres the pics of the failed Nat. Ord. reciever you asked for a year ago....

thanks vintage hunter..i have saved those pics for my collection.
we all collect things...and part of why some of us are here. i collect, blown up, cracked or burnt weapons.. not so much the actual weapon anymore too much junk in my life as it is...but more of the pictures.
i have plan on having a nice picture display for the kids at the hunter safety classes.. i donated most of my failed rifles and pistols to the instructors at the Colorado DOW.

This has been a very interesting thread, informative is not an apt description. Every few months when I'm bored I scan the Cabela's Gun Library and guess what I found? Under Military Arms go to the page starting the letter "N". You guessed it a National Ordinance 1903A3, the price isn't the only thing you'll choke on, under description is the following:

"After World War II, thousands of 1903 and 1903-A3 parts were offered for sale as scrap metal. Several gun oriented firms including National Ordinance, purchased a great number of parts and set to building 1903-A3 rifles using investment cast receivers. Although a less than desirable substitute for original 03 receivers, the Nat. Ord. cast receivers were given a favorable report after a proof house test of three random receivers in 1963. About 2,500 copies were assembled in the serial # range above 5,000,000. This copy is serial #5032199"

I really have enjoyed and been watching this tread, in my opinion I would not own one of these except to use as a paperweight, or donate to be cut and tested, but that's only an opinion.

It's been interesting to say the least. If it gets too slow here we can all go down to the M1/M2 Carbines forum and I can start one on Universal M1 Carbines. Yup, I've got one of those too........
(I can just imagine Chuckindenver shaking his head in disbelief).

Phil

i have no issues with Universal Carbines at all..though crude..nobody tried to sell them off as GI. i converted on to shoot propane a few years ago.

The Cabella's in Billings had one too, I think they wanted like $750.00 for it. I asked the clerk about it and told them about the actions reputation,, they don't care.
Even when I was in High School everybody (younger gen.) knew these were garbage, apparently they've been in the corners of the gun racks and closets so long that people have forgot and the newer, younger enthusiasts think they have some collectible on thier hands.