Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Custom Rifles & Wildcats SCORED! RF SEDGLEY

Nice piece Jorge. You don't know how many times that I almost bought one.

Nice rifle sir. I believe one of the gun heads here at the fire has/had a Sedgley in 220 Swift

That was what I was referring to Mathman RI 's under 285,000 and Springfield under 875,000 right out of Hatchers notebook. MB

-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

That was a great post. Certainly gives one pause...But I intend to shoot it. Mathman you were correct. When I originally read the article on the rifle, mentioned was made of "soft" receivers that in an attempt to "harden" them, they were heat treated, apparently causing the opposite effect.

That is a beautiful rifle.

My collection of Springfields continues to grow as I find people are just dumping the ones “Grampa had in his closet” for dirt cheap. Have 2 out to be restocked and 2 others for D&T
I should make one a Sedgley clone

Just spoke with the folks at Champlin on this very issue. They were not concerned, especially with a Sedgley. So here we go! boom!

I've owned several Sedgleys over the years, shot them all never a problem. I was fortunate to own a mannlicher stocked example in .250-3000 and a DeLuxe model with an engraved Christmas presentation message on the floorplate. The prize of all of them was a Sedgley Winchester 1895 with great checkered stocks, buffalo horn forend tip and specially machined Lyman 48 receiver sight.

I once read an article in, I believe, Rifle magazine, wherein the author told of a low numbered receiver which broke, on the right side rail, simply by his striking it with a heavy screwdriver. This was sort of understandable since the right side rail is relatively thin and could cool too quickly during quenching. Anyway, the author went on to describe doing the same thing with two more receivers. It happened that I had a low numbered Springfield action in a drawer and, having heard about the brittle Springfields since I was a kid, I decided to give it a whirl.
I picked up my heaviest screwdriver and gave the right side rail a healthy swat. Nothing. I tried a couple more with a good snap and the rail was dented up and starting to bend but there was no crack. I decided the screwdriver wasn't working so I selected a 16 ounce hammer and gave it a few lusty whacks. Now, the rail was bent to the point that the magazine opening was nearly closed off but it refused to crack. Before I was done, I had destroyed that receiver but there was never any cracking. I decided the author of the article must have been very unlucky and got 3 bad receivers while I had one of those which was fine. GD

I read the same Rifle article and just never bought a low number RI or Springfield 03. Have had plenty of opportunity to buy higher number guns. I do know of a guy who bought a Sedgely 03 that did come apart on him at a cast bullet shoot using cast gc bullets and 5744 powder. No over load and the individual involved was a knowledgeable Handloader and a accomplished bp rifle competitor. He suffered some bruises, cuts, and abrasions from the incidence as well as a total loss of confidence in 03 Springfields. The rifle was totally destroyed so he was out all he paid for it but he felt that he was just glad not to suffer more injuries than he did. I am not going to mention the guy by name because he took enough crap about it all for 10 men. I brought this up not to disparage Jorge's purchase but to offer caution in it's use. I certainly would not use any ammo loaded to higher pressure than GI ball. " Hatchers Notebook " is pretty technical but a must read for 03 users anywhere. MB

No issues at all, Bob. In fact, I appreciate your post. I have been "surfing" quite a bit and all positive. Even spoke with the likes of George Caswell and JJ Perodeau and they were not concerned. besides,, I like to live on the edge!

Oh shit, is that Kenny Loggins I hear in the background?

i recognized the name. Some music dude from the 70s.... Nah, I'm not much into music....unless it's "martial"

There was a certain movie, involving naval aviation, a song called Danger Zone.

Top Gun

No sheeit?

Good luck Jorge, you know the one I allways wanted was a Springfield sporter done by the Springfield Armory like the ones Stuart Edward White and TR had built. , man those also would be time machines. MB

I miss it...

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.

Wow man lovely rifle there what ya gonna hunt with it?