Did I make a mistake.?

[Rick the Librarian]

Amen to that!!

[Patrick Chadwick]

The failures reported by Hatcher were only those that he could document,

Good point. Even if Hatcher had info about all known cases, it would have been about all known cases at the time. And more may have occurred later. Hence:

The total number of low number 1903 failures will never be known.

[browningautorifle]

Thing to me here is like one of the old hands here stated at one point..."It's not that they break or fracture or give some warning of failure...when they fail, they shatter like glass". Or words to that effect. It's the shattering thing and the accompanying pics that live with me. I'm not up for that. Not afraid, just don't tempt fate. And no mistake, I'd LOVE to have a very low number gun. I have a 3XX,XXX number SA M1 that doesn't get shot much. I just like to keep it pristine. I can have another safe queen...

[rayg]

Every low numbered rifle I have seen showed signs of having been shot before and some many times even having very worn bores. As I understand one of the main causes of receiver failure was the result of bad case brass or dirty cases and of course hotter then normal reloads.
Now I keep my cases clean and shoot good quality ammo and am very careful in reloading but while having said that. I would not shoot a low number 03. Especially after seeing photos of a shattered receiver after just being hit, and not very hard, with a hammer. I look at it this way, and I'm not an engineer, but how long and how many rounds would it take for the normal flexing and stress of the metal caused by firing a rifle with a bad heat treated receiver before it decided to let go. And I'm not about to find out so I will not shoot any of my low number rifles even if they have been shot numerous times before as you never know when It's time for that one bad receiver under just normal conditions and pressures to fail. Anyway, just my thoughts, Ray