http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=378271

Not that "interesting" to me for a couple of reasons:
1) ALL - and I mean ALL of the "blow-ups" were, when the final analyses were complete, attributed to "improper ammo" OR "bore blockage" or "unknown". EVERY ONE OF THEM. NOT ONE - NOT ONE - NOT ONE was attributable to "weak receivers".
2) This guy didn't even mention the above.
3) People that a) what to perpetuate the "weak early serial numbered '03s" are either fear mongers or b) just plain ignorant AND PASSING ON THEIR IGNORANCE IN THE NAME OF "SAFETY", or c) just @#$%^&*ing liars.

I am genuinely "sick and tired" of this subject BECAUSE it's borne of DISHONESTY and BS IN THE NAME OF "SAFETY" which almost literally boils my blood.

What I understand is that "new" shooters don't often 'look back', and articles like the above serve the purpose of at least introducing them to a historical subject. Unfortunately, most "gun-writers" (ptooey), are too @#$%^&^* LAZY to do the research to find out the TRUTH, and instead perpetuate stupidity and ignorance. But it's "OK" as long as it's done "for safety's sake". BULLFEATHERS! Laziness is not an excuse for perpetuating ignorance and STUPIDITY.

Even though this guy says he "shoots" his, he is quick to add "I'm not suggesting anyone shoot theirs". WHY NOT! THERE'S NO @#$%^*&*ing DANGER!

Please, don't take this personally, Fire717. You just pushed one of my buttons. This particular one is VERY near the top of my "button" list.

Paul

That’s funny and a great response.

One of the great myths of all time. OBTW, the 1st Marine Division went to Guadalcanal with 1903's as the Garand was not fielded in numbers yet. Among the 1903's they had was a very large number of older 1903's. There was never a report of a action failure in any rifle assigned to the division and they fired 100's of thousand rounds at the enemy. At the end of the day it has been proven that bad ammo batches were responsible for the failures not the rifle. The end.:cens:

It's no secret I have a disdain for the 30/06 cartridge & it carries over to the '03 Springfield rifles. I much prefer a '98 Mauser in most any other chambering. My old friend P.O. Ackley told me in some of our conversations that in his extensive blow up test  he found the low numbered Springfield's were perfectly safe with any normal load. No government is going to put their troops in the field with faulty weapons except as the Japanese did  near the end of WW2 in a last ditch all out effort. Ackley was in charge of aan arsenal overhaul shop during WW2 & did tell me they did some pretty unusual stuff to keep rifles in working order. I saw one '03 Springfield that had a Winchester Hi wall SS barrel with a "sleeve" threaded over the original 15/16th 16 thread & re threaded to fit the Springfield. Obviously it was perfectly safe. .......Paul H

Well Paul, as much as you hate it, I love it and more. I have taken more big game with the '06 by far that any other cartridge including my first deer with a 1944 Smith Corona 1903A3. Eric's '06 Ackley is the most accurate rifle I have ever fired but my M52 Steyr Mannlicher Classic chambered in 30-'06 comes close! When you start out with something as a young teen and it carries through for 61 years with 100% success it's impossible not to love the thing.