1903 observation and human nature

[jonnyc]

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.

[GUTS]

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.

[jonnyc]

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.

[Chuckindenver]

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.

[Aragorn243]

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.

[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.

[Chuckindenver]

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.

[Mike Haas]

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 .. ..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"...

[Aragorn243]

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.

[Mike D]

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.

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.

Mike