Gun List Opinions requested any and all information welcome

[cherokee]

and the low numbers are also unshootable for different reasons.

This garbage again....

I tell you what OP....if you do find a "low number" springfield do some research on it....find out just how many really had an issue and make your choice from there.

I can tell you I own one and I do shoot it....I have no worries about it being "unshootable" vs anything else.....any of these things are getting pretty long in the tooth....so if you don't know yourself have them checked out.

as to low numbers being unshootable....pure internet lore that gets puked up time and time again.

This will get you started....but in the end make your choice....but make an informed choice and don't spew internet garbage.

Information On M1903 Receiver Failures

[browningautorifle]

don't spew internet garbage

That's right, don't spew garbage...

[Aragorn243]

as to low numbers being unshootable....pure internet lore that gets puked up time and time again.

Of course they are shootable but why take the risk. Did you actually read the article that you provided the link to? I mean, we take a risk every time we shoot one of these 100 year old rifles of any type. But the US Army withdrew these rifles from service. There were 68 receiver failures which caused at least one death and the loss of 4 eyes and many other injuries from minor to serious. Who knows how many failed in battle, I doubt there are any records of that as the cause of death would be attributed to something else. Springfield had a receiver failure rate of 6.3 per 100,000 rifles. They had several commissions on these rifles to determine what to do with them, even shutting down production during WWI at both plants. Being the military of course, money and budgetary as well as political fallout all took precedence over the welfare of the troops that had to carry them so little was done until a small military allowed them to withdraw them from service gradually and not re-issue them, holding them in emergency reserve.

Just because you shoot your low serial number rifle and haven't had any problems does not mean we should accept your word that they are safe. It has not failed YET. These rifles did not fail on their first shot but did fail on their last shot. Haw many in between is the big question.

I'm personally not willing to take the risk. I also refuse to fire my Italian Vetterli converted to 6.5 carcano and will not purchase a Spanish Mauser small ring which was converted to NATO standard. With so many other things out there, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE?

[cipherk98]

Of course they are shootable but why take the risk. Did you actually read the article that you provided the link to? I mean, we take a risk every time we shoot one of these 100 year old rifles of any type. But the US Army withdrew these rifles from service. There were 68 receiver failures which caused at least one death and the loss of 4 eyes and many other injuries from minor to serious. Who knows how many failed in battle, I doubt there are any records of that as the cause of death would be attributed to something else. Springfield had a receiver failure rate of 6.3 per 100,000 rifles. They had several commissions on these rifles to determine what to do with them, even shutting down production during WWI at both plants. Being the military of course, money and budgetary as well as political fallout all took precedence over the welfare of the troops that had to carry them so little was done until a small military allowed them to withdraw them from service gradually and not re-issue them, holding them in emergency reserve.

Just because you shoot your low serial number rifle and haven't had any problems does not mean we should accept your word that they are safe. It has not failed YET. These rifles did not fail on their first shot but did fail on their last shot. Haw many in between is the big question.

I'm personally not willing to take the risk. I also refuse to fire my Italian Vetterli converted to 6.5 carcano and will not purchase a Spanish Mauser small ring which was converted to NATO standard. With so many other things out there, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE?

I am in full agreement with this post and to add to it: People make the assumption they will never have some kind of failure of the case, get a bad round, have some issue cause excess pressure, etc. Something that will hold up under normal conditions but has no margin of safety is not safe. A rifle receiver can be viewed as a pressure vessel, and no one is going to use a pressure vessel that is good to 100% of rated pressure and at 105% could fail. This is my take away from that report in regards to the ammunition failures being one of the leading causes, that improperly treated receivers that survive may not be strong enough to cope with malfunctions like they should be. While there is no guarantee any rifle will safely contain a catastrophic case failure you want the best chance of it surviving or if it won't, controlled failure. Keep in mind if it lets go and there are people around you they could wind up injured as well and I would not want to explain why I was shooting a gun that numerous reputable, published, sources warned is at high risk of failure.

[chuckchili]

I would throw a M1917 into the mix as well. It was one of my first and still one of the favorites.