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"
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…”
There was a certain movie, involving naval aviation, a song called Danger Zone.
I miss it...
Hell when you left they decided to retire the Viking too
Same year... 2008
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…”
Just noticed this thread. Great looking rifle Jorge!
I remember reading about Sedgley springfields in the '80s in gun rags. One of the articles showed a fake one where the Sedgley name was spelled a little differently on the rifle.
Figures don't lie, But Liars figure Assumption is the mother of mistakes
I picked up the rifle yesterday lads, it looks great. Very smooth action and the condition was as advertised on the link. I have some 220gr Hornady RNs loaded up and I'll report back after I shoot it this weekend.
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…”
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 have read that old RIFLE article several times, and today it would never have been printed. It supposedly involved a guy who ran into another, un-named somebody at a gun show, who explained the "problems" with Sedgelys. In other words, it was what lawyers would call "hearsay," with zero proof of anything.
Have owned a number of Springfields, including original military rifles, a few "garage" conversions of both 1903s and 1903A3s, and top-notch pre-WWII custom sporters, such as the one I have now, made by Frank Pachmayr on a "high number" Springfield Armory action in the 1930s. Also owned a basic-grade Sedgely for a while, and it worked fine. One of my comments at the time was that odds were that any 1903 with a brittle receiver probably blew up long ago. Would love to hear of any recent blow-ups.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Thanks for the words of "encouragement". John . If you read my above post, according to the records there were no issues with any of the receivers made in 1906 which mine is. The rifle is just very nice and smooth. I hope to shoot it this weekend and I will report back.
Last edited by jorgeI; 12/02/20.
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…”
So back it went. Loaded the magazine up and the first one (right side) went in like butter. The second (left side) didn't come close to going into battery. The tip of the round would go too far right and hit the back end of the chamber, just to the right of it. Tried about three different types off ammo, same, same. Swapped out follower, same. Swapped out bolt, same. I figure someone tried to "polish" the left rail and went too far, allowing the front end of the round to "release" prematurely and cant to the right. Very disappointed as this was a good looking rifle. I guess there is a first time for everything, but I've never seen a malfunction like this on a CRF rifle, much less in a 1903 action.
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…”
That 's to bad I hope there is no problem with the refund. Every 03 and 03A3 I have feeds slick even the 308 Norma and the 300 win mag. slick enough they can and will feed empties if asked too. Hope you find a good replacement. There is something about a 03 with a good receiver sight that is just the tits (nice ones that is). MB
" Cheapest velocity in the world comes from a long barrel and I sure do like them. MB "
So back it went. Loaded the magazine up and the first one (right side) went in like butter. The second (left side) didn't come close to going into battery. The tip of the round would go too far right and hit the back end of the chamber, just to the right of it. Tried about three different types off ammo, same, same. Swapped out follower, same. Swapped out bolt, same. I figure someone tried to "polish" the left rail and went too far, allowing the front end of the round to "release" prematurely and cant to the right. Very disappointed as this was a good looking rifle. I guess there is a first time for everything, but I've never seen a malfunction like this on a CRF rifle, much less in a 1903 action.
Crap! i was looking forward ot checking that one out!
"The Democrat Party looks like Titanic survivors. Partying and celebrating one moment, and huddled in lifeboats freezing the next". Hatari 2017
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo
Thanks all. I should not have any issues with the refund. IT's from a very reputable dealer. But if push comes to shove, the CC I use I'm protected... Then again, if he can make it work FLAWLESSLY, I'll take it back
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…”
Hope it all sorts out Jorgel...but I always felt sorry for Francis. I think it was a set-up. 😉
Hell hath no fury....
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…”
Well gents, good news. The Sedgley is coming back. It's been sorted out. Also, here's more data on the actions some of you might find interesting:
Our Assessment: This is a rare customized Springfield Sporter by R.F. Sedgley Inc. Its deep blue finish looks great set in the hand checkered walnut stock. The following paraphrased information is taken from pages 73 to 80 of Michael Petrov’s book, Custom Gunmakers of the 20th Century: Reginald F. Sedgley started in the firearms industry back in 1897. He became the owner of the firm he worked at in 1916 and renamed it R.F. Sedgley Inc. One of his firm’s endeavors was customizing Model 1903 Springfield rifles. Sedgley would purchase low numbered Springfield actions from the government at a discounted price due to their reputation of being brittle. The problems with low numbered Springfield 1903 rifle receivers is commonly believed to effect all rifles with a serial number lower than 800,000. That is not the case. The problems only affected serial numbers from 700,000 to 800,000. The previous fourteen years of production and 700,000 rifles did not have problems. The receivers between 700,000 and 800,000 were “over-hardened” which lead to the brittle receivers. The receivers purchased by Sedgley were inspected, annealed (heat treat to strengthen) and had the markings ground off. They were then re-heat treated and proof tested to 80,000psi. These receivers would eventually become custom Sedgley Springfield Sporter rifles.
Mine was made in 1906 and albeit sketch records, what is available shows zero problems with that year..
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…”
I too was concerned with the low number Sedgley issue for a while, I purchased a cartridge adapter that allowed me to shoot .30 Carbine in my Sedgley rifles.
. If you read my above post, according to the records there were no issues with any of the receivers made in 1906 which mine is. The rifle is just very nice and smooth. I hope to shoot it this weekend and I will report back.
