quote:

Big Earl, pardon my raised eyebrows. Since it does not exist it will take you a long time to come up with evidence that NRA heat treated 1903 actions

Well I concede, I am all wet. I do remember reading that actions had been re-hardened, by the NRA. Either I dreamed it or the information was incorrect or I deamed of reading incorrect information.Either is possible as I often dream of Springfields and I have read an awful lot. Here are the replies from the N.R.A. and the C.M.P:
Earl:

Thank you for your inquiry to the National Firearms Museum.

NRA's involvement with the Director of Civilian Marksmanship was to act as certifying agency for competitive shooting experience. The US Army offered for a brief period the option of having the barrels replaced on low number rifles, believing the issue was with the barrels. When rifles with replaced barrels also had issues, the Army elected to declare the low number rifles as unserviceable. There was no re-hardening option in those days.

National Firearms Museum

Mr. Baumann,

Thank you for the inquiry. Unfortunately, there is no one on CMP staff with
the historical knowledge you seek. All we can do is read the books about the
03s written by Campbell, Canfield, Poyer, and maybe some others. I haven't
read the books and don't know if they even mention the relationship between
the NRA and the DCM.

Sorry, but we don't have anything to contribute to the discussion. My guess
is that the NRA will have a better record than the CMP or the military.

Sorry we couldn't help.

Orest


Orest Michaels
Chief Operating Officer

What Chuckster posted. The early single heat treatment was done by eye - the workmen looked at the heat colors of the steel. On a bright day things looked different from on a cloudy day. Some of the receivers were "burned" - this was the term used in some of the contemporary comments. I am doubtful that such a receiver could be saved by any reheating. Perhaps it could be annealed and softened (which is what I think Sedgely did) so that it would not blow up but its durability characteristics would be unnaceptable in a military rifle. A sporter is, as a rule, shot much less. Has anyone ever shot a Sedgely enough to know if the locking lug recesses set back? We need a real metallurgist on this forum !!!

I think that sedgley re-heattreated some early 1903's like they did krags according to Brophys book the 1903 recievers were of wm-125 steel & case hardened and according to sedgleys records they were done as follows- packed in new bone and heated up to a temp of 1382 f/750c and kept there 2 1/2 to 3 hrs,quenched in oil- for several years they sold rifles based on low # recievers and a mix of parts

Mousegun, thanks, that is absolutely the first time I have seen a clear statement of what Sedgely did. May I pin you down? You say it is from the Sedgely records. I did not know those still existed, thought they vanished when Jaeger took over. Or are you referencing a report on what the Sedgely records said? Can you give us a citation ... book or magazine article, edition, page number, etc. etc. I am without a metallurgical background and cannot tell whether the Sedgely process would in fact have improved the low number receivers. And by the way you have opened a new can of worms, that Sedgely reheat treated Krags !!!!

I recall reading somewhere (years ago) that Sedgley's re-heat treatment process was to simply anneal the low number 03 receivers.

I have no way of knowing if that is actually correct, though.

That was from brophys ppg 244 book check the sedgley data there. not much but it did detail heat treatment- the krag comment was from ackleys handbook in the blow up test data he mentions this..........Forgive Me If I Have Sinned Call the internet police

Mousegun, thanks. Have the books at home but don't get back until later in the month.