What to fire in a LN receiver

[Plain Old Dave]

The Marines (AFAIK) didn't have any 03s fail at Guadalcanal, that's true enough. The MD that wrote this study, though, says 2-3 should have failed in a population of 100% LN 03s.

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

Shooting an LN 03 is a gamble, at best. And, sure enough, people go to Vegas and beat the odds. Apparently the Marines on Guadalcanal did just that, not that they had a choice. They were at war. We're not.

Here's this, though. In Vegas, if you lose you're just broke. If (when) the odds catch up with you, at minimum you're looking at a wrecked gun at least. And maybe more.

The question is, is the risk of permanent injury and total loss of the rifle worth playing the odds, ESPECIALLY when there are so many 03s around that are significantly safer to shoot?

[louis]

Dave this could go on forever. We have our thoughts on this seemingly never ending subject. I'm sure in 6-8 months it will come up again. But makes an interesting debate. Probably well into the next century lol.

[tmark]

What is safe to fire in low number 03s? Blanks, of course! Dry firing is even safer.

[PhillipM]

I will say this though. An LN action is so smooth it'll make you want to toss an 03A3 in the river.

[Herschel]

Thankfully we live in a country where we can choose to risk firing a low number 1903. I wonder how many of our group would not fire a LN but
would hop on a motorcycle and ride away without a concern? I sold my motorcycle when noticed that nearly every day there was a mention in the newspaper
of an experienced rider being killed while riding.

[swampyankee]

If LN 1903's blow up so easily, then after 100 years of us stupid people shooting them, shouldn't they all be destroyed by now? How can any of them still be left if just touching them with a hammer or dropping them, they shatter in pieces. But yet still around.

[5MadFarmers]

Thankfully we live in a country where we can choose to risk firing a low number 1903.

Strongly agreed.

I wonder how many of our group would not fire a LN but would hop on a motorcycle and ride away without a concern? I sold my motorcycle when noticed that nearly every day there was a mention in the newspaper
of an experienced rider being killed while riding.

False analogy. "I wonder how many of our group would not fire a LN but would hop on a motorcycle with faulty brakes and ride away without a concern - insisting that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the brakes."

That.

I don't care if you ride a motorcycle with faulty brakes or shoot an LN. I'd just rather that you do it knowingly. Let's alter the debate. Your grandson is going to shoot reloads. Do you hand him the NS '03 or the LN? If your answer is "depends on his age and after he knows the issues" I think you have the win. Know the concerns and exercise DUE caution. Nobody is asking for UNDUE caution.

[Plain Old Dave]

False analogy. "I wonder how many of our group would not fire a LN but would hop on a motorcycle with faulty brakes and ride away without a concern - insisting that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the brakes."

That.

THIS.

5mad, did you get my email a couple weeks back?

[5MadFarmers]

THIS.

5mad, did you get my email a couple weeks back?

Yup, I suck at responding to email. Well I've been procrastinating on many things. Follow the ordering instructions and it'll appear in the mail. I procrastinate on getting mail out also but I mentioned that.

People mention that the Army and USMC used stuff after the issues became clear. They also sent early M16s to VN. They also had crews take off in overloaded B-29s from very hot tropical islands when the engines were known to overheat even in more temperate locations. It's called "calculated risk." Not "risk denial."

Every time you see a well built girl jogging down the side of the road, heading in the same direction as you, and you look at her after you pass her you take a calculated risk. "Does the front match the back in quality?" If you didn't look you'd never be disappointed. Calculated risk.

[tmark]

I compare firing a lsn rifle to driving a Voltwagen Bug or Corvair with the engines in the rear. Remember these. The idea is that a car with the engine in front offers more protection in a head on collision. Nowadays, people are driving smart cars. I use to drive a Chevette Scooter in 79. Now I drive a big pickemup truck.

Point is whether a firearm or auto, chose something offering the best survivability should the unexpected happen.

The cmp advises not to shoot reloads in a Garand. I have for 35 years without incident. OK, maybe a few head separations and split cases but nothing catastrophic.

[ridgerunner]

I 'used' to ride bikes. From 1960 to 2005. Junk bikes, super bikes. You name it. I consider some bikes, unsafe, or very unforgiving. Death wobble and such. Quit riding because of the deer.
I choose to not shoot a low number 1903, because there is always the possibility of something bad happening. Kind of like shooting a Damascus barreled shotgun. It may not blow up, with the right loads. But, there is a very good chance, that it might.
There are stronger and safer firearms available, for very reasonable prices. And as I do not like gas and other such stuff in my face, I prefer to shoot them.
As to the military, it has been my experience, that they do not always have your best interest, in mind. As 5 Mad stated, Calculated risk.
Of course, this is just my opinion, therefore................

[Plain Old Dave]

As you can tell from my Profile, I'm a Navy Reservist. It occurred that looking at shooting an LN 1903 from the standpoint of Operational Risk Management may be enlightening. These are the five basic steps we use.

Identify hazards. We've done this pretty extensively on this thread. The inconsistent heat treatment makes some single heat treated 1903 receivers considerably more brittle than others, and there's no real way to tell HOW brittle a particular 1903 is except destructive inspection.

Assess the hazards. This, too. The unsupported case head in the 1903 design makes gas control in event of a case failure a significant issue. With a double heat treated rifle or a nickel steel rifle, wear proper PPE and you'll probably be OK. But evidence suggests that low number 1903s have a considerable propensity to catastrophically fail when the cartridge case does.


Make risk decisions.

Here's the rub. Is the risk of catastrophic failure worth the benefit of shooting a low number 1903?

Implement controls. We've discussed this. It appears as though the incidence of "kabooms" decreased considerably in the later 1920s and that may be due to expending the WW1 production ammunition and concurrent reduced cartridge case failure. It might be safely inductively reasoned that the lack of "kabooms" on Guadalcanal can be traced to use of newly manufactured ammunition, as well. That said, even brand-new brass can fail.

Supervise and watch for change. That's where threads like this come in. Chuck's "kaboom" pictures are enlightening. Before this thread, I didn't know ANY 1903s had kaboomed since the later 1920s.

[Fred]

I think it's like driving a vehicle without insurance or without wearing a seat belt. Everything will be just OK unless or until sh!t happens.

[louis]

Jeez these analogies are telling of what we've become. Yes I driven trucks and cars without seatbelts because they never had them until the 70's and yes I've driven bad motorcycles back when HD was not what is is today. They fell apart when you didn't constantly tighten their parts. I didn't know we have risk assessment in the military. I thought being in the military and taking objectives was risky. Oh and there were plenty more risks taken more on the past than now. That was normal back then. I look at things not of fear but knowledgable from a lifetime point of view and not be afraid of the world. That's why we are where we are today in my opinion. Which doesn't mean much. There are plenty of pistol and rifle failures today. Probably more than the old 03. Mostly due to bad reloads or Chinese ammo. Didn't someone point out that the Chuck photo was because of a bad reload? A risk assessment Dr. Sees the world as a risk. They, like engineers see things differently and they have a really dry sense of humor. How did we get this far without taking risks? These are mine and your opinions and everyone takes a risk every time we load a weapons hell just waking up and getting out of bed. So fire the old 03 or not that should be an individual choice not preached at why someone shouldn't do it. How often do you clean your weapon and examine it carefully for cracks and other things that may become dangerous? That's a risk not to take no? Jee wiz you guys take things to the extreme sometimes.

[joem]

In one of the gun rags I was reading Mike Venturino was shooting 30-06 training ammo, I've never seen it, has anybody else. It appears to be safe. As I said I still shoot mine but now I have that little voice in my head telling me not too. I hate the internet, ignorance is bliss.

Years ago I bought a bunch of .30-06 training ammo. It has a plastic (maybe nylon) bullet. Very accurate out to 50 yds. After that I have no ides where it goes. It will penetrate a 1' pine board at 25 yds. I haven't seen any since.