As liability suits have escalated, gun writers and gun sellers have been more and more cautious about all things in regards to firearms. I can't imagine that a rifle that has been in use for close to 100 years is suddenly going to be affected by a normal load.
I agree, you can write a hundred articles about how bad they are but not a single one will get published if you show other information.
When I published the Sedgley article my mail box was full of folks telling me how dangerous they were. Never mind that not a single one has ever failed.
I never advocate that others shoot them I just think that in order to make an informed decision they might need more info.
For decades the NRA and DCM said to have the headspace checked, use good brass and don't overload. Now even the auction companies have a warning not to shoot them.
If there were
ANY so called burnt receivers I wounder how they made it passed the proof test. If the rifle was a 30-03 then when the barrel was set back it would have yet another proof test.