1903 observation and human nature

[jonnyc]

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.

[Johnny Peppers]

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

[jonnyc]

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.

[Chuckindenver]

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..

[Aragorn243]

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.

[jonnyc]

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.

[Badger]

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

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

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...

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.



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 ...

Regards,
Doug

[jonnyc]

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.

[Badger]

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.

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

[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.