Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Soringfield Sporters by Barsness in Rife

Excellent article in current Rifle, first one I've read on the general subject that actually has no mistakes in it.

Thanks--though Wolfe has had one e-mail already claiming Sedgely Springfields are unsafe to fire. The guy and I are going round about on that one. My statements about them in the article were based on experience, his evidently on the theory that they were too soft. E-mailed back asking if he had an specific experiences, but haven't heard back yet.

MD

WOW! Praise coming from a Springfield expert like Mark is very high praise indeed. it must really be a heck of a well written article.

Jeff

Those who say the early Springfield�s are unsafe to fire simply haven�t studied the issue. I could go on a rant of the how�s and why�s, but a good study of the issue in Hatcher�s Notebook should do. The problem is, so many people read Hatcher�s Notebook and draw all the wrong conclusions, even though Hatcher spelled the issue out very clearly.

The fact that the guy said that the early Springfield�s were too soft, clearly shows he doesn�t know what he�s talking about. Of the ones that did fail, they were very much too hard. Tell him to go back and read it again and if he comes to the same conclusions, read it again, and again�

I won't touch off a low number 1903 myself, but have grown fairly tolerant of those who do. And the only Sedgelys I have ever heard of breaking were those Krags altered for the .250-3000 which was patently too hot for the single lug action. Have never heard or read of a reheated Sedgely low number 1903 giving way. But it might be a good idea to avoid the new hot Light Magnum/High Energy ammo.

I agree with Mark. That was one of the finest articles I have read save what Michael Petrov has written about these fine rifles lately.

It will no doubt be one of the highlights written in the year 2006 for the 100th anniversary of this grand cartridge.

Many thanks Mule Deer.

GunGeek--

You slightly misunderstood. They guy was claiming the reheated-treated Sedgelys were too soft, not the early military Springfields.

By the way, I did cite HATCHER'S NOTEBOOK as one of my sources for the article, among quite a few others.

MD

vigillinus--

Thanks for the additional info about Sedgelys not giving way. That just adds to the considerable experience of many about these good rifles.

I wouldn't try the Light Magnum or High Energy loads in them either, but then I have had weird results in a few "modern" .30-06s from those loads anyway. These were all either European sporters with non-SAAMI chambers/throats, or custom rifles with tight chambers/throats/barrels. In my experience the "hot" factory .30-06 loads work fine in American factory rifles, but can get a little squirrely in anything with slightly smaller interior dimensions.

MD

Why does everyone fret so much about shooting the hottest loads possible in every rifle? If you want .30-caliber bullets to go faster, don't buy a Sedley Sprinfield. Buy a .300 H&H. There are plenty of those in vintage rifles.

I would enjoy shooing my old 1903 sporters even if I had to download 125-gr bullets at 2500 fps.

I�ll look forward to reading the article, Rifle has not made it this far North yet.

I have spent considerable time trying to find a Sedgley failure of any kind. When I wrote my Sedgley article I ask for reports of failures or for that matter one with excessive headspace, to-date nothing.

One failure is reported in the American Rifleman of June, 1947. This rifle had a dime size piece on top of the receiver blow out. The rifle in question had 12,000 rounds thought it, the shooter was shooting 20 grains of 4227 and a 160 grain bullet. Hatcher wrote that the pressure was well over 100,000 pounds (a double charge) and the receiver had four holes drilled for scope through the receiver, one set of holes plugged.

Gen. Boddington wrote a good article �A Tale of Two Springfields� in July, 2002 Guns & Ammo about his Sedgley he used in Africa.

Michael Petrov

Thanks for logging on, Michael. If you want, I'll mail another copy of the article--as soonas the extras I ordered from headquarters show up.

And thanks again for all the good talk we had before I wrote the piece. Hope it sells some of your books.

MD

When I was a young kid in Nam, I had a Springfield given to me, friend just did not want to do the paperwork to take it home. I did the same thing. Could kick myself now. Excellent article.

I got the issue today and just finished reading the Springfield sporter article a couple of hours ago. An excellent article and I really enjoyed it. Good job Mule Deer!

Also, if anyone is interested in custom Springfields and the old-time custom gunsmiths, then I highly recommend Mr. Petrov's book. I also gave a copy to a gunsmith friend of mine and he's enthralled with it.



-Bob F.

Michael & John-
A published account of a Sedgley with excess headspace is an article by Hugh Douglas in Rifle #99 from 1985. That article is accompanied by David LeGate's notable piece on checking low-numbered Springfields by tapping them with a plastic hammer.
--Bob

A copy of that issue of RIFLE was mailed to me last Thursday by Wolfe headquarters. Will read it and see what's up.

But have seen a great many rifles with excessive headspace, including some high-number Springfields. How much headspace? A rifle that will take a no-go gauge will often not take a "field" gauge, and is generally safe to fire.

MD

MD-
Douglas' article is anecdotal rather than investigative. He recounts test-firing his Sedgley Springfield with a commercial cartridge, and discovering that the primer had backed out sufficiently for it to fall out of the case. He made a rough determination of headspace, finding it to be about 0.020 inches.

I doubt Wolfe would accept the article if it were submitted now, since the key part of the article is an unverified second-hand account of Sedgley's re-heat treatment process.
--Bob

Thanks. I will be VERY interested in seeing this piece. Based on what you say, I doubt very much that it would be published now, since it is obviously based on that classic "example of one."

MD

Out of a possible excess of caution I would add one caveat to JB's article. The 800,000 serial number dividing line may be too low. As I recall Hatcher (?) gave an example of a 1903 in the 801,000 (?) range popping. This has led to the suspicion that a few single heat treated receivers might have skipped over the line. So I use 805,000 as my own magic number for Springfield Armory receivers.

Sorry for the confusion on my part�Guess I was just reading too fast because your post specifically does mention the Sedgely Springfields. I too have heard rumor of them being too soft, but I have never heard of a catastrophic failure of a Sedgely rifle.

Mule..,

Has anyone ever documented a case of a low number Springfield actually blowing up with normal loads?