-Sedgley did indeed claim that "reheat-treating" did cure any propensity for the brittleness issues. On the other hand, Springfield Armory, spring-boarding from receiver failure reports, utilized destructive testing and metallurgy analysis to determine that these "low numbered" Springfields were subjected to overheating amounting to excess carbonization, "burning", of the metal. Moreover, where rubber met road, that there was no possible cure, undoing, reversing, etc., of the condition.
Not all receivers were so affected. It was actually thought to be relatively small numbers. But, devil in the detail, not to estimate 'how small'. That and only positive manner to determine was itself to incur destruction of the item by such very testing. The fact of the Army reporting to Congress of the situation involved some 800,000 Springfield and 285,000 Rock Island rifles... Hardly either a quick or easy decision involving moving to reserve and/or scrapping the subject rifles outright. Certainly to assume, all 'reasonable' alternatives were explored!
The fact of not more "reported" failures, in two dimensions. First the reporting system itself imperfect and many questionable instances, also perhaps attributable to 'other factors' such as bore obstructions, etc. Second, in the Great War as huge numbers of Springfields employed, battlefield losses as causes weren't particularly investigated. The actual number of failures attributed to receiver heat treatment, factually unknown. Relatively low, peacetime numbers subject to tracking, likely as icebergs; vast mass submerged!
Sedgley acquired some quantity of "scrap" receivers from which he built a significant number of his handsome rifles. "Reheat treating", literally "fiction"; a myth! He successfully relied on two factors, statistical probabilities and no such as consumer liability laws structure as in US today! Many of those low number rifles were placed in government "reserves" against the fact of needing some measure of rifles available pending rebuilding sufficient new first line quantities.
I'd love to own one of the many nice Sedgley European flavored sporters, but for... With few exceptions, I'm not enthusiased about non-shooter guns. I consider Sedgleys' in that category.
Going here from memory only. But having read Maj Gen Julian Hatcher's work: "Hatcher's Notebook". He was Commandant of Springfield Armory at the time the "low number" debacle came to the forefront and was instrumental in the testing/determination of 'no cure' available!
I view the Sedgley Springfield/Rock Island genre as handsome "artifacts". If I had one, likely seriously tempted to "improve" it, substituting in a "high number" receiver; quite possibly entire action.
Just my 'windy' take!
Best & Stay Safe!
John
