I believe it was P.O. Ackley who whacked a ln '03 across the reciever with the end of a screwdriver and had the reciever shatter. That is brittle and what does that tell us?
It could have been Ackley as well, but the writing I recall was from the '70s, may have been Al Miller. Doesn't matter, sometimes we forget that these gunwriter guys are basically just like us, they all put their panties on one leg at a time and they've all been wrong before.
What does it tell us?
That particular rail was hard rather than soft, and should have been tougher.
That's
ALL it tells us. Anything in addition is assumption and supposition on the reader's part and thus is open to interpretation, discussion and possible further enlightenment and correction.
I respectfully remind us all that one of if not the most common cracking location(s) for a Mauser receiver is squarely in the middle of the left rail at the thumb cut. Does that make Mausers so brittle as to be unsafe? Of course not, only a fool would think so, so why is anyone upset that some ignoramus broke a 1903 that way?
Seems to me that, as mentioned above, a common-sense approach is better than what I've come to call The Lemming Syndrome. Yes, it appears that early receivers vs later ones can respond in completely different ways to catastrophic conditions; but IMO it also appears that, absent these catastrophic conditions, these early receivers can and do give splendid service for generations with absolutely no trouble.
Would I go to the trouble to build a new high-pressure rifle on one? No. Would I shoot an older high-pressure rifle built on one? Absolutely. IMO they're exactly like old Harley-Davidson bikes or F4U Corsair aircraft compared to more modern stuff; maybe not as safe, maybe not as powerful, maybe not as trouble-free but it's for sure there's nothing else to equal them! JMOFWIW.
Regards, Joe
