Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > CMP Bolt Action Rifles
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-04-2010, 06:47 AM
KRAG-30-40 KRAG-30-40 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Paris,Illinoios
Posts: 3,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick the Librarian View Post
except that Ordnance did not actually remove these rifles from service except when they came in for major overhaul.


I knew that.LOL REEEEEEEALLY I did.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-04-2010, 06:48 AM
Rick the Librarian Rick the Librarian is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NW Washington State
Posts: 6,970
Default

You just were testing me to make sure I was still on the ball, right??
__________________
"We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."
--C.S. Lewis
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-04-2010, 06:53 AM
KRAG-30-40 KRAG-30-40 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Paris,Illinoios
Posts: 3,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick the Librarian View Post
You just were testing me to make sure I was still on the ball, right??



Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-04-2010, 06:57 AM
HughUno HughUno is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAG-30-40 View Post
There have been NO statistics kept on LN M1903 receiver failures by the U.S.military since 1929 when their study ended or much of anybody else since..
this is also incorrect (like a fair proportion of what you post). The Army (for which I am 100% positive) has records of EVERY training accident and injury going back from YESTERDAY to 1929 and before. ANY accident involving a weapons-related failure and for SURE any accident where someone is hurt worse than can be fixed with a Band-Aid is reported. Your (and others) lack of actual military experience is apparent, but having LIVED less than 1km from the US Army Safety Center, I can assure you that were there ANY such accidents (including in the ARNG), they would exist and be stored at that location.

As for scrapping rifles, IIRC actual scrapping was ordered DISCONTINUED after a couple years and very FEW were scrapped. The 100% certainty is that despite the fact that we were at war from 41-45, these LN rifles were used and used extremely HARD. MANY MANY MILLIONS of rounds and ZERO.ZERO problems. .
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-04-2010, 06:59 AM
HughUno HughUno is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAG-30-40 View Post
I knew that.LOL REEEEEEEALLY I did.
uh huh. right..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-04-2010, 07:06 AM
Rick the Librarian Rick the Librarian is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NW Washington State
Posts: 6,970
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HughUno View Post
this is also incorrect (like a fair proportion of what you post). The Army (for which I am 100% positive) has records of EVERY training accident and injury going back from YESTERDAY to 1929 and before. ANY accident involving a weapons-related failure and for SURE any accident where someone is hurt worse than can be fixed with a Band-Aid is reported. Your (and others) lack of actual military experience is apparent, but having LIVED less than 1km from the US Army Safety Center, I can assure you that were there ANY such accidents (including in the ARNG), they would exist and be stored at that location.

As for scrapping rifles, IIRC actual scrapping was ordered DISCONTINUED after a couple years and very FEW were scrapped. The 100% certainty is that despite the fact that we were at war from 41-45, these LN rifles were used and used extremely HARD. MANY MANY MILLIONS of rounds and ZERO.ZERO problems. .
As I said, there are many opinions. This is a hot topic, as any disinterested reader can tell ... not only on this forum but many others.

IIRC, John Beard has done extensive research on the subject of the use of replacement receivers. Most of the replacements were used up by the start of WWII ... many of them on replacing low numbered receivers.

Hugo, I'm not going to engage in a tit for tat argument on this subject, I know your opinions on the subject and I respect them.
__________________
"We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."
--C.S. Lewis

Last edited by Rick the Librarian; 12-04-2010 at 07:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-04-2010, 07:14 AM
KRAG-30-40 KRAG-30-40 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Paris,Illinoios
Posts: 3,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HughUno View Post
this is also incorrect (like a fair proportion of what you post). The Army (for which I am 100% positive) has records of EVERY training accident and injury going back from YESTERDAY to 1929 and before. ANY accident involving a weapons-related failure and for SURE any accident where someone is hurt worse than can be fixed with a Band-Aid is reported. Your (and others) lack of actual military experience is apparent, but having LIVED less than 1km from the US Army Safety Center, I can assure you that were there ANY such accidents (including in the ARNG), they would exist and be stored at that location.


Please site your source for published,available information post-1929 concerning M1903 receiver failures or lack of.Actual information not rude bloviating egotistical rantings.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-04-2010, 07:27 AM
jhacker75 jhacker75 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 229
Default

I learned a new word today.

bloviate:
–verb (used without object), ‐at·ed, ‐at·ing. to speak pompously.

Who said that there isn't valuable information on the CMP forums?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-04-2010, 07:31 AM
HughUno HughUno is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAG-30-40 View Post
Please site your source for published,available information post-1929 concerning M1903 receiver failures or lack of.Actual information not rude bloviating egotistical rantings.
LOL...............

AR 385-10 and predecessor Army Regulations have been around since well BEFORE 1900.. Anybody who has spent even two weeks in the military knows what happens when and if anybody gets injured by Army equipment that "breaks" under use. ANY Class A,B, or C (which is anything worse than a hangnail) accident is in fact a "big deal" and must be investigated and reported. ALL records of these accidents are stored at USARSC (including records from before USARCS existed..) and have been since well before 1929.
.

.

Last edited by HughUno; 12-04-2010 at 07:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-04-2010, 07:40 AM
KRAG-30-40 KRAG-30-40 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Paris,Illinoios
Posts: 3,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HughUno View Post
LOL...............

AR 385-10 and predecessor Army Regulations have been around since well BEFORE 1900.. Anybody who has spent even two weeks in the military knows what would happen if anybody gets injured by Army equipment that "breaks" under use. ANY Class A,B, or C (which is anything worse than a hangnail) accident is in fact a "big deal" and must be investigated and reported. ALL records of these accidents are stored at USARSC (including records from before USARCS existed..) and have been since well before 1929.

.


RECEIVER FAILURES is the subject,specifically M1903 Low Number rifle receiver failures,not accident reports,not military service,not carnival ride accidents.Bloviate away.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:34 AM.