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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-08-2014, 09:17 PM
John Beard John Beard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Posts: 2,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldvetteman View Post
John, without going into extensive detail can you give us some insight into the method of testing used by the Marines? I know they "tested" LN 1903s extensively in combat, but are you referring to testing of a more scientific or systematic nature?
The Marines tested many of their M1903 receivers during overhaul with a Rockwell Hardness C test. Most low number receivers tested too hard.

J.B.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-08-2014, 11:55 PM
Oldvetteman Oldvetteman is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Larkspur, Colorado
Posts: 913
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Beard View Post
The Marines tested many of their M1903 receivers during overhaul with a Rockwell Hardness C test. Most low number receivers tested too hard.

J.B.
Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-11-2017, 10:09 PM
Puccini Puccini is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 27
Default

Whats really interesting is that there hasn't been any reports of low number receivers failing in the years since they have been out in public hands.
I understand that lots of them were used by hunters after WWII and I don't know of one reported failure.
BUT, I did hear of some failures of double heat treated receivers. I guess by bad handloads.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-11-2017, 11:27 PM
tmark tmark is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dagsboro, Delaware
Posts: 2,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puccini View Post
Whats really interesting is that there hasn't been any reports of low number receivers failing in the years since they have been out in public hands.
I understand that lots of them were used by hunters after WWII and I don't know of one reported failure.
BUT, I did hear of some failures of double heat treated receivers. I guess by bad handloads.
I have read that failures in single heat treated receivers are more catastrophic than in double heat treated receivers.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-12-2017, 07:17 AM
twh1997 twh1997 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 739
Default

There have been several low number failures reported in the last few years. The most recent was a rather nice custom sporter built on a low number receiver by one of the famous custom gun smiths from the 40s. It is or was detailed on the Jouster forum.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-12-2017, 10:59 PM
Puccini Puccini is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 27
Default low number 1903's

Ok, now that we have everybody's opinions I want to mention THE strangest thing about low number 1903's

Even at the gun shows where great grandchildren of Blackbeard the Pirate routinely fleece unknowing newbees out of much more than they have to pay for firearms, low number 1903's are the bastard stepchildren of the US military rifle genre.

For instance I saw prices on 03A3's of nothing more than decent condition with asking prices of $1000 or more. Really one's that CMP sold a few years back for $600.
BUT , next to it was an early production RIA with a 6 digit serial number with an asking price of $700. It was in very good condition unaltered and pristine barrel.
That doesn't make sense. You would think that the earlier the rifle, the more it would be worth. The dealer told me he has a hard time selling low number 1903's

Actually, thats OK with me. It makes the low numbers a really good collector item.

In my travels I've seen 5 digit and one 4 digit 1903 and the owners said they got them and really excellent prices. So there's the oddity.

Next show, I'm going hunting for a few more.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-12-2017, 11:20 PM
Whitpusmc Whitpusmc is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 315
Default

Thanks for that info.

It's curious-ish because it implies the shoot-ability for that rifle is at least a third of the guns overall value though we know for other guns like Gas Traps etc that isn't the case. Even more true when you talk about unissued / believed never fired guns where actually shooting them isn't a consideration in their value since shooting them would presumably damage their value.
__________________
Whitney
3rd degree firearms enthusiast

My feedback thread
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-13-2017, 07:40 AM
Puccini Puccini is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 27
Default

True, and also if you consider that probably 50% of the Garands and 03's people buy just end up for bragging rights and never get fired.

Case in point all the AR15's that are rigged up as plumber's nightmares with every gizmo imaginable and then get sold as "never fired". I love to read those ads.

Only one's better than that are the guys that use the phrase "tack driver". I told one guy selling a rifle that I would pay his price if I could put a tack on his target and he would hit it a 100 yds. He didn't want to try. So much for "tack driver". I mean some rifles could do that but any shooter that good wouldn't use that tired term.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-13-2017, 07:24 PM
ZvenoMan ZvenoMan is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 2,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puccini View Post
Whats really interesting is that there hasn't been any reports of low number receivers failing in the years since they have been out in public hands.
I understand that lots of them were used by hunters after WWII and I don't know of one reported failure.
BUT, I did hear of some failures of double heat treated receivers. I guess by bad handloads.
This is simply not true. There have been reports of failures, and photos. You do have to look for them. Why? Because the story has been beat to death, CMP and NRA have ruled, and won't change, and as a result, no one has a need to keep accurate statistical data. They have not been in service how long?
Seriously, the study was conducted, peer reviewed and verified, and most people have moved on. LN1903s remain collectible, and many people buy them, and many shoot them.

Now you are criticising Garands and AR15s (and their owners) in your LN1903 thread.
How about this: Is there a rifle you are an expert on that you like? Most people like at least one! What do you recommend?
JH
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-13-2017, 10:17 PM
tmark tmark is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dagsboro, Delaware
Posts: 2,868
Default

[QUOTE=Puccini;1646936

Only one's better than that are the guys that use the phrase "tack driver".[/QUOTE]

I got one even better: I can put my second shot through the same hole as the first shot.

Last edited by tmark; 10-13-2017 at 10:23 PM.
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 02:47 AM.