1903 Low SN - shoot or don't shoot?

[Sturmgewehr]

I'm sure this is a topic beaten to death already somewhere on this forum, but I'm a new member so excuse me for my ignorance.

After perusing numerous online sources and debates on the subject, seems there is roughly a 70/30 breakdown against shooting Springfields below 800,000 SN.

I grew up shooting one in the late 500's, receiver built in '11 and rebarreled in '44. Probably ran close to a thousand rounds through it (all reloads with my dad, high quality brass and all starting charges). Still have both eyes and hands, and according to the internet experts I was taking my life into my hands every time I pulled that trigger (ignorance was bliss I guess). Sadly, the rifle is no longer in my family. I recently had the opportunity to purchase another low SN rifle, and intend on keeping it as a wall hanger/safe queen only. Question is, do I need to put the fear of God into my kids about the dangers of these brittle receivers, so one of my decendants generations down the line doesn't blow his or her face off? Or is this overhyped, and as long as high quality brass with moderate charges there is very little risk?

Standing by for the abuse...yeah this is probably akin to joining a 98K forum and asking about Mitchell's Mausers...but I can take it

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.

[rcathey]

Welcome to the forum!
Here's my opinion on these (which is worth about what you're gonna pay for it):
the gist of what I read says that it's not an issue unless you have a case rupture. This was more prone to happen with lower quality cases. Once a case ruptures and all that hot, expanding gas gets into the action, then you have a problem.
So with good quality cases and not hot-rodding it, it's probably OK.
That said, *to me* it's simply not worth the risk however small it may be.
I'd also like to have a low number if for no other reason than to fill a gap in my collection. It would, sadly, have to be the only gun I own that I don't shoot.

To sum it up, why risk it?

[daveboy]

Yeah, you will definitely get some responses with this question. Like was previously stated though, it is not that the actions are weak. They don't just blow up for no reason. It is only when a casehead ruptures that you can have trouble. Usually, a receiver will stretch and absorb the violence of that hot gas. I once fired a 98K with a case full of Bullseye. Not something I want to do again. But, the receiver stretched, some of the bolt head turned to shrapnel, but the receiver held. That is how rifles are supposed to work. Unfortunately, some of the L/N receivers are brittle and will turn into shrapnel in similar circumstances. But, not all of the L/N receivers are brittle. But, there was simply no way to check for brittleness without destroying the receiver. So, they are all considered unsafe.
I own a very early one myself. I shoot it regularly. But, only with very carefully handloaded cast bullet rounds.

[browningautorifle]

They don't just blow up for no reason.

No, not for no reason. They don't rupture a case head, they don't warn you and there's no one to warn you that this is the last shot before it gives out. They shatter like glass. You haven't given us a number to work with and there's threads galore here on this subject, not even a need to start a new one...

No, they don't all high order and they may never. But they have documented history, is it worth it to you?

[dcbrown]

Cast bullets and 10 grains of Unique. Guess what, your shoulder won't be sore and your ears won't ring.

[Kaliman]

They have documented history that was drummed up by a Major, working for Springfield Armory, who needed a convenient reason to maintain his budget even during a Great Depression.

I'd wager most of the failures today, are similar to the ones back then. Improper ammunition - whether it be a hand loader not paying attention, or other issues.

[rcathey]

They have documented history that was drummed up by a Major, working for Springfield Armory, who needed a convenient reason to maintain his budget even during a Great Depression.

I would very much like to see those documents.

[Kaliman]

I would very much like to see those documents.

You're in luck - Steve Norton just posted them on the CMP forums.

And if you read my post, by "documented history" I meant Hatchers notebook. But yes, Steve has posted documents from the Marines basically saying the report was a way for Hatcher to drum up funding during the depression.

[firstflabn]

You're in luck - Steve Norton just posted them on the CMP forums.

And if you read my post, by "documented history" I meant Hatchers notebook. But yes, Steve has posted documents from the Marines basically saying the report was a way for Hatcher to drum up funding during the depression.

I have a high regard for Steve and Tim's work and have been the recipient of their generosity on more than one occasion. With their well earned reputation for accuracy, I take Steve's 1928 date as dead nuts certain.

But you claim that a Marine Corps officer somehow knew the Depression was coming in 1928? He must have been a very impressive fellow. Wonder how much money he made by shorting the stock market.

[Randy A]

You're in luck - Steve Norton just posted them on the CMP forums.

And if you read my post, by "documented history" I meant Hatchers notebook. But yes, Steve has posted documents from the Marines basically saying the report was a way for Hatcher to drum up funding during the depression.

Based on your statement I doubt you've read hatchers notebook, you also didn't read or quote "all" of Steve's post either. He continued to say that the Marines later changed their stance on Hatchers research and the risk of LN 03s. I've seen a blown up LN 03 action (case) and there were pieces 75 feet away. I see a lot of reckless remarks on this subject that are based on opinion alone, without any diligent research or heed to experience. If people only look for what they want to see, they will remain oblivious to the risk.