I would not invest a penny into a firearm that MAY BE unsafe to fire.
I can think of at least one current MFR whose entire line (NOT 1903s) is suspect, at least for me...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would not invest a penny into a firearm that MAY BE unsafe to fire.
I am of the opnion that a receiver manufactured during certain months are perfectly okay (statistically) to shoot with safe ammo. Any low numbered receivers not withdrawn from service due to test results of those manufactured during the months where failures were recorded are also statistically fine to shoot with safe ammo. The number of recorded failures of early numbered receivers is so low when compared to the number of rifles manufactured and in service that I personally consider the "low numbers ain't safe ta shoot" canard to be Fuddlore.Yeah, I've read it and I interpret it a little differently than you. For one thing, it was "brittle" receivers, not soft. There were also numerous tests on the rifles and although that some as you state were not newly issued for service, those that had been issued were allowed to stay fielded.
And I am not the one who said "soft."Yeah, I've read it and I interpret it a little differently than you. For one thing, it was "brittle" receivers, not soft. There were also numerous tests on the rifles and although that some as you state were not newly issued for service, those that had been issued were allowed to stay fielded.
I am of the opnion that a receiver manufactured during certain months are perfectly okay (statistically) to shoot with safe ammo. Any low numbered receivers not withdrawn from service due to test results of those manufactured during the months where failures were record are also statistically fine to shoot with safe ammo. The number of recorded failures of early numbered receivers is so low when compared to the number of rifles manufactured and in service that I personally consider the "low numbers ain't safe ta shoot" canard to be Fuddlore.
Yes....I understand that you didn't say soft... I was replying to the person who brought up Hatcher and actually said "soft" to whom I replied about Eddystones.....I guess I replied to the wrong post because you snuck one in on me before I realized it :0)...my bad...Sorry.And I am not the one who said "soft."
Agreed. 100%. I own a correct 550xxx, (July 1914) with which I've won first place in several military matches (non CMP) that I've been offered as much as $2,400 for. My reply was "taint fer sell."The key is the testing and the power of the ammo used to test the pressures. You're right. To me, that stuff is all a non-issue.
I think tbat was me but I made no mention of soft receivers.
Sorry for the hijack OP. Good luck in your search. Look on ODT for the member in or near Brunswick. He had a very nice looking one for sale.