Sedgley 03A3 Question.

[Catshooter]

I bought one. It had scope bases on it so I didn't know it was a Sedgley until I pulled 'em. It's a nice sporter with a lightweight .257 Roberts barrel.

But in the reading I've done it seems there's some concern about heat treatment. Sedgley ground the front ring down so there's no knowing how old it is. Or is there?

I'm getting ready to thin my herd and this one was going to go, but now I'm worried a bit about it. Not sure what to do with it.

Any ideas or advices? Thanks.


Cat

[M-Tecs]

Post #16 might help some. https://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?8497-Any-Sedgley-Sporter-experts

[Rich/WIS]

Heat treatment issues apply to the earlier 1903's, the 1903A3 were never an issue.

[Dan Cash]

Sedgley id his own heat treat on all his sporters.

[DHDeal]

Like Rich said, if it's an A3, then the heat treat issue isn't an issue. Seem to remember it applied to 1903's below 800K, but I don't have the exact serial # range.

[M-Tecs]

Chances of it being an actually Sedgley and an A3 are slim.

https://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?8497-Any-Sedgley-Sporter-experts

On March 29, 1938 R.F. Sedgley died. The business continued under the leadership of H.E. Manning, President and A.W. Gregory, Sales Manager. When WW II started the company was involved in war work as were all gun makers of the day. For someone inclined to do the research I think that you would find a connection between the OSS and Sedgley in regard to special weapons. The remaining inventory of Springfield parts and pieces were used up in making 1903 Springfield rifles for guard and plant protection. When the end of the war came there was little material or work for Sedgleys and they closed.

[GSP7]

Sedgley 03A3 Question.

I bought one.

Where are the pictures? ! ! :veryconfu :popcorn:

https://images.gunsinternational.com/listings_sub/acc_15289/gi_101081774/R-F-Sedgley-Custom-Springfield-1903-Sporter-30-06_101081774_15289_F269FE10D0E3045F.JPG

[gnoahhh]

Chances of it being an actually Sedgley and an A3 are slim.

https://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?8497-Any-Sedgley-Sporter-experts

On March 29, 1938 R.F. Sedgley died. The business continued under the leadership of H.E. Manning, President and A.W. Gregory, Sales Manager. When WW II started the company was involved in war work as were all gun makers of the day. For someone inclined to do the research I think that you would find a connection between the OSS and Sedgley in regard to special weapons. The remaining inventory of Springfield parts and pieces were used up in making 1903 Springfield rifles for guard and plant protection. When the end of the war came there was little material or work for Sedgleys and they closed.

This.

I detect a trend around the internet of people using the term "1903A3" generically for all M1903 Springfields. Two rather different beasts, design-wise and quality-wise.

Sedgely used a heckuva lot of low number '03's. Claims to re-heat treatment notwithstanding, one should be wary of shooting them because of the aforementioned protocol Sedgley followed in grinding all the info off the receiver rings of most that he converted, thus denying the end user of knowing its status as a low or high number gun. It's more of a crapshoot than I, an inveterate gambler, would try. The jury is still out on whether or not "re-heat treating" cured the problem too. It would seem odd to me also that if it were a viable fix then the gov't would have done just that as the rifles came in from the field for rework.

[Bent Ramrod]

From what I recall reading, Sedgely ground and matted the receivers that he purchased himself to turn into rifles. If the customer supplied a 1903 action, no such modifications were made to it. It would still have the Sedgeley polish and bluing, the markings on the barrel, and the custom stock and Lyman sight, but the arsenal and serial number markings would remain..

There are a couple articles in Rifle Magazine from the ‘70s or early ‘80s that discuss low-number Springfields in general, and Sedgeley rifles in particular. Their “heat treatment” for the receivers they purchased was playing a torch over them, and the “proof testing” was greasing up a military Ball round or two and firing them. If the headspace changed, the barrel was turned 180 degrees and a new extractor cut made.

The extent to which a “burnt” receiver could be annealed back to safe usability would be difficult to determine without a laboratory with BHN and notch testers and Instron stress/strain machines. That thin rail on the right side of the receiver is particularly vulnerable to through-hardening or “burning” or whatever. Whether the metal continued to embrittle on aging, or maybe weakened with a side knock by dropping the rifle, it appeared from the article that it would withstand some number of longitudinal stresses by the bolt thrust, and then one day just come apart. The thicker sections on Krags wouldn’t have this problem, even if the heat treatment was less than ideal.

[gnoahhh]

It is a shame about all that too, as Sedgleys are truly elegantly styled rifles.

I knew a guy back in the 80's who disassembled his Sedgley and put it back together with a nickel steel receiver simply for peace of mind. Of course, bare receivers were a dime-a-dozen back then...

[Rich/WIS]

Once overheated (burned) receivers could not be re-heat treated. There was a big discussion of this years ago on IIRC the CMP forum. Story was that if the receiver stretched and Segley got it back they would remove the barrel, shorten the chamber end and re-install 180 degrees out,recut the extractor groove and finish ream. It is a bit of a crap shoot as many (possibly most) of the receivers Segley got were just fine even though in the suspect serial range.

[Catshooter]

I'm such a maroon. I forgot I posted this thread until just now. Sheesh!

Thank you for all the replies gentlemen, very helpful. Very.

I'm off now to examine my rifle to see what it really is! It is stamped R. A. Sedgley on the front receiver ring (under the scope base) so I'll start from there.

GSP7, man, that is one beautiful rifle! Mine ain't that pretty.

And yes, y'all are right, it's an 03. I got sloppy when I called it an 03A3.

Thanks again!


Cat