1903 bummer

[meltyman]

It was $600. I don't know what kind of deal that is (too much/good deal), it would have been worth it to me, as I haven't found them in town before, don't want to go through the hassle of an online order, and am all-around impulsive and lazy. (Hence no C&R yet. Someday I will fill that out...) So at least according to this price, you did fine.

Sounds like while there definitely was a heat-treat problem on some of them, the brass of the time may have been a contributing factor.

Overall, I just plain didn't want to worry about it, or go through lengthy explanations of risk potentials with any friends who may have wanted to shoot it.

Thanks for the mention of River City, I will look to them next time I'm in the mood for a purchase. (Got my first AR lowers there, one of the very few friendlies in this area at the time.)

[freonr22]

I am ignorant, can't the receiver and bolt, be re-heat treated? Or are there other factors?

[mosinnagantm9130]

Of course, not all low-number m1903s are bad, far from it. I'm aware of 71 failures (68 military, 3 civilian) of low number 1903 rifles. Of those, the military did not have any failures after 1929, and roughly half of the failures were attributed to poor ammo, or obstructed bores.

Assuming 71 failures out of 1,085,507 rifles, that's a .006540% failure rate of "suspect" receivers. While I won't recommend firing a low number, the sky is not falling.

[bruceflinch]

Was the wood good? Kind of expensive for a Wallhanger, tho. That is a Bummer.