Sorry for the hornets nest

[Cecil]

I just wanted to share my rifle...

[mhb]

Cecil:

You had nothing to do with the hornet's nest. That happened because your original thread got - diverted - if not intentionally hijacked.

It is a neat rifle, and I thank you for posting about it.

I also apologize for my part in the diversion, though I did respond originally to your reference to the decision as to whether to shoot it.

After all the discussion which followed, I hope you feel that most of the participants were actually trying to clarify the facts for you, and others in the same quandary.

Be safe, but do what you think best.

mhb - Mike

[Cecil]

I do appreciate what you have said. I think I'm just going to install my .22 cal conversion kit in it. Actually just the barrel tube.

[emmagee1917]

Won't work without the .22 bolt too . ;>)
Chris

[Cecil]

Yea I forgot...and I also have to remove the extractor.

[Emri]

I think I'm just going to install my .22 cal conversion kit in it.

That magazine ought to hold plenty of .22's, but I don't think it will feed them very well. :>)

That "hornet's nest" gets pulled out every time the low number question gets debated/argued about. Not your fault. I don't even follow them anymore after seeing the same old same old for the last 12 years on these forums.

[Rick the Librarian]

I just (figuratively speaking) grab my helmet and head for the slit trench when I see this discussion start up. I've often wondered if the best way is to have ONE discussion (or "argument") in a thread on shooting (or not shooting) LN 1903s - cut it off after a certain time period and then post it as a "sticky". Then, when the subject comes up (again), just refer that person to the "sticky".

[mhb]

It is discouraging...

that the issue keeps rearing its ugly head again and again and...
But the fact is that the problem was resolved (correctly) by Ordnance many years ago, and that anyone who knows the facts should be willing to step-up and repeat them any time the topic is raised again.
The 'Aw, shucks' guys, or those who have some other motive appear willing to lead the undecided or unknowing into unnecessary risk.
Those of us who know better should never be reluctant to step up and tell it like it is.
Yes, it gets old, having to say the same things over and over again, but if it keeps one hopeful 1903 shooter from getting hurt, it's worth the effort.

mhb - Mike

"Sancho, my armor!"

[jgaynor]

In any case the referenced discussion was not rancorous, nasty or personal. I don't think threads should be censored unless someone really veers off the rails.

Regards,
Jim

[Rick the Librarian]

With all due respect, Jim, I think the discussion was descending into "personalities" and should have been locked, which it was.

[rebound]

With all due respect, Jim, I think the discussion was descending into "personalities" and should be been locked, which it was.

AMEN .......................

[Mike D]

Yes, the thread was rightfully locked, but...

There was a big enough "problem", or should we say "issue", to stop manufacture during "the war to end all wars", but when the war was over - "Well, lets just scrap 'em as they come in for rebuild". That just doesn't sound like solving a "problem", to me. Sounds like the easiest way to deal with an "issue".

Was a total recall just not feasible? We're not talking about scrapping a million rifles, just changing out receivers. I just think that if it was that big of a problem, the rifles would have been turned in, little by little, during the inter-war years, until the LN receivers were all gone. Weren't the Armories looking for work anyway? We had 2.5 million M1917's that could have been used to arm troops turning in their '03's.

And then, WWII comes along and STOP! No more scrapping receivers! Screw a new barrel on that puppy, give it to a new recruit, and put his butt on the firing line!

Does it stop there? NO! As soon as Uncle Sam was through with them, he figured he would let civilians have a whack at the LN issue. That was the real government LN test!

And the CMP sells them, to this day. Big problem, huh?

Well I guess I'm guilty...

OK, funs over.

On a serious note, I comment on a lot of '03's, on another forum, where people are generally asking for value. If the rifle in question is a LN, I simply say, "Serial #'s below 800,000 for SA and 285,507 for RIA are considered "low number" due to an issue concerning the forging of the receiver, and are considered not safe to shoot." No point in taking it any further. If more info is requested, I say "Google it!"

Hey, how 'bout this one?

Mike