Why are all drill rifle recievers "questionable"? I'm a bit puzzled by all the concern over selected, usable drill rifle recievers being reclaimed when they would have been scrapped, assuming that was what was used on the rifle in question. From the ones I have examined, it's a non-issue, for a SHOOTER grade Rifle. Most have an easily broken small tack weld holding the barrel, which is unlikely to have generated enough heat to affect strength (usually on the bottom where it is invisible anyway). And the ugliness some find around the cutoff opening varies from unattractive to not even noticable. It can be fixed, if you care, but it at least makes sure a buyer does not purchase a rebuild thinking it is untouched GI, since it is hard to get the contours perfect or get finish to take evenly over the repair. I've been waiting for reports of these reborn rifles to develop headspace, failure or wear problems - so far - nothing.....
Either way, a lot of fully functional, quite enjoyable Springfield rifles are reborn to continue their service to our nation as target rifles - and I have yet to hear of a single authenticated case of one failing and injuring someone - please cite documented, provable cases if you have one. Otherwise, what's wrong with a few thousand more M1903's in the world we thought were lost forever?? Is that somehow a bad thing?? Saves the pristine originals from being worn out on the range, or, worse, being drilled and tapped to make reproduction Sniper rifles! I care how it shoots, not it's ancestry, if I am building for the range. CC
Colt, Glock and Remington factory trained LE Armorer
LE Trained Firearms Instructor