they also aren't liable to blow up in your face.
I have a low number springfield that I shoot from time to time. it's my choice and I'll accept the consequences if it ever gives way. some people think I'm nuts, other don't.
The problem with low number 03’s is that it is impossible to non destructively detect the “good ones” from the “bad ones”. The Army covered up all the problems with low number 03’s, and the general public only became aware of the issue with these older rifles in the mid to late 30’s when they were being replaced with Garands. Hatcher had the report of a 1927 Board that recommended scrapping all 1 million single heat treat receivers, but Hatcher never revealed the percent of defective 03’s in inventory, which to make a useful recommendation, the board would have had to put in the report. It is my guess that the percent was unacceptably high, even by 1927 standards of safety. Hatcher always portrayed the Army as a wise and benevolent entity, releasing the number would have kludged any future relationship with the Army because it would have shown that the Army, is in fact, amoral. I consider the whole decision to retain low number 03’s in service unethical, the Army decided, for cost reasons, to keep them in service. The cost of replacing them was too high, the Army would have had to justify the scrapping and replacement to a skeptical Congress, and the cost of rehabilitating injured Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines came out of another Government agency’s budget. Thus injuring servicemen did not cost the Services anything, and no one cared about the injured party’s pain and suffering. There is a report in a 1917 Arms and the Man Magazine of one Soldier who lost half his face in a low number blowup. At the time, all the way past WW2, the decision makers in the War Department considered his lifetime injury was worth less than a $40.00 rifle .
So what’s your face worth?
I don’t consider shooting the things and seeing if it blows up in your face an acceptable way of screening out the good from bad. I read an article in Rifle Magazine where the author hit low number receivers, holding the receiver in his hand, and the nylon faced hammer 18” in the other, and every one of the receivers shattered. Years before, the same author shattered a low number sitting at the kitchen table, just whacking it with a 5/8” combination wrench. I also read on a forum that the pre WW2 Marine Corp struck their low number receivers with steel hammers, and those that did not shatter, were considered useable. I have not gathered the courage to do this to my one low number receiver, but, before I every shoot the thing, I will do it. I will start with a 5/8” combination wrench on the receiver ring and work my way to the right rail. If the receiver shatters, then it was too dangerous to use. If it does not, it could be a good one.
Still, a good one is a relative term. Given the poor process controls of the era, combined with the low grade of steels, these antiques, even the good ones, are not as strong or safe as a WW2 era rifle, never mind something made today.
