Originally Posted by gnoahhh
I've been a Springfield guy all my shooting life, and currently have a dozen or so, I will say that I won't mess with a low number gun except as a relic. They're still coming apart in shooter's hands.

Sedgley ranked with PT Barnum in terms of his claims of reheatreating low number Springfields. It simply can't be done with that low carbon steel that they used.

I recently passed up a beautiful USMC-attributed WWII vintage Springfield. It checked all the boxes for USMC issue: pipe wrench marks, stipled butt plate, Hatcher hole, Marine front/rear sights, etc. But it was built on a low number receiver and even though the price was better than right I passed on it because I wouldn't feel comfy in shooting it.


This particular rifle was manufactured in 1906 which, according to what I am reading is less likely to have that issue than those made in the "teen years" and especially 1917-19. Link is a very good article and I welcome your thoughts. From the article: "There were no receiver failures of rifles manufactured for five of those 11 years (1905-6, 1913-14, and 1917"

Thank you and Magnum Bob.

link

Last edited by jorgeI; 11/26/20.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”