Did I make a mistake.?

[browningautorifle]

I'm sorry Rick, I never did see any high emotions in this one...I'm certainly not worked up...

Now, Alvin York's what?

[rugersworld]

I would just use it for shooting cast bullet loads. Inexpensive and a great way to practice your fundamental skills.

[emmagee1917]

wow...sorry I responded. Just never been real into living my life in fear of everything, of all the things we ALL do in life (flying, crossing the street, cleaning the gutters, DRIVING #1) shooting a rifle is pretty far down on the danger list. I'd rather actually live my life than sit back and watch things happen around me, thats all I was getting at. It was my opinion, nothing more nothing less. Now I'll leave your thread, continue the trash talk guys......

Did not intend it to be trash.
Many people do stupid things just because it seemed like a good idea at the time . They think that if something goes wrong , it will be a quick and painless death. Well , we are hard to kill , and it is far more likely we'll have a long time to regret those choices. I am included in this group , so I know about which I speak. It is extreamly hard when it affects someone else big time. If it seems hard but can help only one , it's worth the flack.
Stay safe , Chris

[Rick the Librarian]

I'm sorry Rick, I never did see any high emotions in this one...I'm certainly not worked up...

Now, Alvin York's what?

Maybe it's just my heightened senses from dealing with this topic for the last 15 years online ... I swear I could hear people sharpening knives in the background!

[Fred G.]

It was an 03 Rick.

[Rick the Librarian]

That's right, Fred, all LN M1903s were M1903s!

[Fred G.]

I should have specified... "what Alvin York used in WWI in his famous exploit." He said it himself you know. Just thought I'd get the ol ball rolling.

[Patrick Chadwick]

Just thought I'd get the ol ball rolling.

Oh please PLEASE don't.
That is a topic that has been done to death for decades. The ball must be worn out. None of us was around at the time, and all we will now get is a load of forensically useless hearsay.

But whatever it was, it was a rifle based on a MAUSER action.

[Cosine26]

Let me add a little fuel and fan the flames of an old fire.
Back in the 1930’s, the Springfield Armory inserted a special notice in the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN magazine. In the notice, it was indicated that when a LN (SHT) M1903 rifle was returned to the Armory to be fitted with a new barrel, it was standard Armory policy to replace both the receiver and the BOLT (at no charge). However it was further indicated that as of that date, because of complaints from patrons, the bolt would no longer be replaced unless the patron requested it.
This would indicate to me that the Armory found it desirable and recommended replacement of LN (SHT) bolts in addition to receivers. I do not remember of reading about many bolt failures; however, I do remember reading that a LN bolt had failed by shearing off the two locking lugs and part of the safety lug. It was being used by a competitive shooter in a match to “slick up” a NS action. Fortunately the broken safety lug wedged the bolt in the receiver so no harm came to the shooter.
To shoot or not to shoot a LN rifle is the choice of the shooter who assumes full responsibility for the results. As has been pointed out many times, reported failure of LN rifles has been relatively small in comparison to the number of LN rifles built. The majority of M1903’s used during WWI were probably LN’s. Few if any failures were reported-whether because they did not fail or the failures were not reported, is undetermined. The USMC never, to the best of my knowledge retired its LN rifles and I have seen correspondence where the USMC issues LN rifles well in to the 1930’s.
When I find the article again I shall post it.
FWIW

[Johnny Peppers]

The total number of low number 1903 failures will never be known. The failures reported by Hatcher were only those that he could document, and there are reports of failures recorded in Springfield Research Service that Hatcher doesn't have. A few years back there was a paper written by a gentleman which was done to put to bed any fears of failure, as the percentage was so low as to be of no concern. The problem with his calculations was that he only used the information compiled by Hatcher. The study by Hatcher was instituted because of previous failures, and Hatcher only recored those he could document after he initiated the study.

Don't let flawed data or someone else's opinion lead you to believe the low number 1903's are perfectly safe to fire. Don't let someone else make up your mind one way or the other. Look at the facts and decide for yourself.