for the Nat ord, Santa Fe shooters

[Chuckindenver]

iv been flaming these POS of a wanna be rifles for years, telling guys not to shoot them.
some say, they are ok to shoot...i say the are very unsafe...
i posted a comment to this on another part of the milsurps forum.
and the guy being a smart ars, posted some pics, of a A3 that failed.
funny thing, its a Nat Ord...proves my point, thats the 4th one iv seen that was in bits,

Ouch, I hurt and my gun is broke

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Jim Tarleton]

he wasn't wearing shooting glasses either. You can tell by his face.

Jim

[Chuckindenver]

picyures are worth a thousand words...remember this the next time someone says they are {fine to shoot}

[FTIII]

Chuck,
Just as you I have always recomended not shooting the durn things. In most cases when guys asked me about them I told them that the U.S.G.I. parts were the best part of them and to get rid of the reciever and build up a nice rifle. I've seen really nice part on them. Another important lesson to be learned from another blow up like this one is to "always" wear shooting glasses and hearing protection. Anything you put between you and the firearm helps with a firearm failure. I guess we could say the same warning about the low number 03's huh. As with the Santa Fe's I always "warn" people about the possibility of a failure with them to. Some times I hear, well it was fine for grandpa and dad I then add that "you" might not be that lucky.

Regards

BudT

[Johnny Peppers]

Looks like a case head failure. Wouldn't the same thing, possibly more catastrophic, have happened with a low number 1903?

[kcw]

iv been flaming these POS of a wanna be rifles for years, telling guys not to shoot them.
some say, they are ok to shoot...i say the are very unsafe...
i posted a comment to this on another part of the milsurps forum.
and the guy being a smart ars, posted some pics, of a A3 that failed.
funny thing, its a Nat Ord...proves my point, thats the 4th one iv seen that was in bits,

Ouch, I hurt and my gun is broke

Not to argue your admonition on shooting N.O. made guns, but I guess I missed the post that ID'd it as such (there were 80 posts at the time). Which post # Id's it as N.O. The reason I ask is that I have a friend that shoots one and I'd like to offer him some proof that they are subject to failure.

thanks

[Art]

Chuck, the pictures are far from perfect but from what I can see that looks a lot to me like a failure due to a case head rupture. I didn't see whether it's National Ordinance or not either but I certainly defer to you on that part. There is no mention I could see as to whether the ammunition was handloaded or not.

[beachbumbob]

Not to argue your admonition on shooting N.O. made guns, but I guess I missed the post that ID'd it as such (there were 80 posts at the time). Which post # Id's it as N.O. The reason I ask is that I have a friend that shoots one and I'd like to offer him some proof that they are subject to failure.

thanks

I just went and joined the board to see if I could find out. Chuck is right on when he ID'd it as a NO. He has several older posts of his '42 National Ordinance O3A3.

Posts #23-28 talk about the ammunition used. He said he was shooting 165 grain commercial loads in the rifle. If you read those particular posts, it makes you wonder why even in this day and age people still continue the "urban legends" from the pre-electronic ages of the 50's and 60's.

Bob

[Chuckindenver]

i think the pictures speak for themselves.
yes, case head failure would likely destry a SHT receiver, but id bet the rifle in the pics, had some headspace issues, i stand by my posts of NO and SA being the biggest POS ever put together by a human.
second only to the rewelded Garands, made by the same company, 3rd place would be the 1911,s the welded back together.one was listed for sale on GB for a while and made it on the service pistol board.

[Mike Haas]

Looks like a case head failure. Wouldn't the same thing, possibly more catastrophic, have happened with a low number 1903?

Since your comment is conjecture I'll reply in kind. I agree about "case head failure" as the cause of the reciever failure.

Theres not enough definitive information in the original post to pinpoint the failure cause.

Too many variables to ascribe the incident either to the NO receiver and certainly not enough info to speculate what may have happened with a "low number" 1903 reciever

Respectively...IMO...Mike Haas