Originally Posted by
JHeath
Hey Pat303:
1) the $500 quoted is for an 03A3, which are not low-number Springfields, so your premise seems incorrect on that head.
2) Your comment is premised on cost. Relative cost-to-safety has almost nothing to do with gun values, or why people shoot old guns. A new Super Blackhawk is vastly stronger than a First Gen Colt SAA. Where's your cost-to-safety ratio there?
2) this thread is about relative risk. You put yourself at risk when you shoot ANY gun. What if the barrel is obstructed? What if the ammunition is defective? You will probably argue that those are manageable risks. But they are just as manageable with an '03.
Some people *assume* that the risks of low number 03s are not manageable because they *assume* the receiver could fail at normal or sub-normal pressures. You seem to fall into that category. So far this thread has not revealed any evidence to support that assumption.
Shooters take risks on Krags, Rolling Blocks, small-ring Mausers, even SMLEs without being aware of the safety margin, the statistical odds of a flawed receiver, and without taking any steps to mitigate the risks like dye-testing or magnafluxing, etc. the receiver.
The guy who tests a low-number 03 receiver for cracks, checks headspace, then shoots mild cast loads in it, is being more cautious than somebody who buys a SMLE and factory ammo at the LGS and heads to the range.