Shooters Forum banner
21 - 39 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
There's a tremendous 'quality gap' between P-14s and P-17 and another one to the M30 and M30s. Tolerances are tighter, and bolts were ground, the birdbath is gone too.
I don't think P-17s were ever issued to US troops. The war ended and they weren't needed.
There's a fellow over on the CBA forum looking for a P14 barrel. Thanks for the welcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
There's a tremendous 'quality gap' between P-14s and P-17 and another gap to the M30 and M30s which are commercial quality. Tolerances are tighter, and bolts were ground, the birdbath is gone too.
I don't think P-17s were ever issued to US troops. The war ended and they weren't needed.
IIRC those quality gaps had to do with changes in specifications, essentially creating two versions of the same rifle. Within versions I'm not aware of any parts interchangeability issues, nor were there ever any problems with receivers. But perhaps I'm not remembering it correctly.

Due to the sudden issue with the 1903 Springfields, most were replaced with M1917's right as the troops went to deploy. My recollection is that about 70% of US soldiers "over there" were armed with the 1917.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,157 Posts
That could be right. I've tried to find them in old photos but only see them on the ranges after the war.

Eddystone was set up with English money and run by Remington. I think parts all are pretty much the same but for fitting tolerances between the makers and models.
To see a P-14 and M30s side by side, disregarding the difference in shape, is to see war time v. post war hunting rifle in dramatic fashion and unique in American guns. Commercial rifles were built from surplus actions, but not a commercial copy of a military spec'ed rifle. The Remington Museum had a great progression display that made the point very well. "Mil Spec" is not what you want unless you're military, is what it means to me.

Here's a Sedgley Deluxe 30-06 that was abused by drilling and tapping for about any mount made. Sedgley made fine rifles from ten dollar Springfields. This one, with cheekpiece and AAA French Walnut was $125. The JP Sauer Mauser on the bottom, made about the same time was $220.

Both are open sight rifles on purpose. The top line of the butt says so.
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: 275deadx

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
Commercial rifles were built from surplus actions, but not a commercial copy of a military spec'ed rifle. The Remington Museum had a great progression display that made the point very well. "Mil Spec" is not what you want unless you're military, is what it means to me.
That would have been cool to see. I always wanted a Remington model 30 in .257 but I have never managed to come by one while I have coin in my pocket.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,157 Posts
I once walked into a small shop in a small town in W. Colorado and found FOUR Model 30s on the rack. Three were .257 Roberts and one a .25 Remington. I left him with one Roberts.
Notice that last sentence can be read two ways. :) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 275deadx

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
I just got off the phone with my friend who saw those Pedersen devices of the Mark I Springfields many years ago at a gunshow. Remembering what JBelk said about the Chinese copys that were around about that time I queried my friend like a detective. I explained what My Belk said and also they were in 30 Carbine. I asked him if he handled them them and examined them closely to see if maybe they were Chinese copies. He said no, the man wouldn't let you. He had one set up in a rifle and the a good few more on the table. The man said he fired the one in the rifle with original ammo. Well they weren't Chinese copies! I asked how much did he want at that time. My friend said $250!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,157 Posts
Pederson's are the rarest of US military 'gear'. I saw one in Holland and Holland's downstairs 'museum' mounted on the correct rifle and the cut-a-way in Cody, WY and own a round of ammo (somewhere), but otherwise not.
I just looked at my Mark I. It's a very well done, home job with a raised comb and checkering on a refinished military stock.
The Sedgley above it was ten times the money back in the day.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
Pederson's are the rarest of US military 'gear'. I saw one in Holland and Holland's downstairs 'museum' mounted on the correct rifle and the cut-a-way in Cody, WY and own a round of ammo (somewhere), but otherwise not.
I just looked at my Mark I. It's a very well done, home job with a raised comb and checkering on a refinished military stock.
The Sedgley above it was ten times the money back in the day.
I sent you the pics of my rifle to post for me John, Thanks
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,157 Posts
HERE is a great rifle, well done and in tremendous condition.....built on a low number Springfield. That is charcoal bluing familiar to Python lovers, but polished, not buffed.
This could be a Neidner rifle. Neidner butt plate and grip cap and mullered border checkering, but rarely do hundred year old hunting rifles look that new. It's like opening a door on a Model A and getting new car smell....
Safe to shoot? I would want to headspace it and use nothing but fire-formed cases if it's over .003 excess over GO, then 'spare the onion loads' should be fine.
I wouldn't feed it my handloads! :eek:
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
HERE is a great rifle, well done and in tremendous condition.....built on a low number Springfield. That is charcoal bluing familiar to Python lovers, but polished, not buffed.
This could be a Neidner rifle. Neidner butt plate and grip cap and mullered border checkering, but rarely do hundred year old hunting rifles look that new. It's like opening a door on a Model A and getting new car smell....
Safe to shoot? I would want to headspace it and use nothing but fire-formed cases if it's over .003 excess over GO, then 'spare the onion loads' should be fine.
I wouldn't feed it my handloads! :eek:
I fired formed all the brass. She seems to be okay on headspace that I can determine without gauges. I have no raised primers after firing. BTW I forgot to mention to you the barrel rifling is six group and to me sort of on the fine side. Do you know what Nieder used for barrels and their rifling?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,157 Posts
A.O Neidner was a famous barrel maker and inventor of the 25-06. I don't know the rifling form, but cut for sure.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,157 Posts
Griffin & Howe made many custom 1903 Springfields. Wonder if they used any low number actions.
Yes, they did. According to James V. Howe, they were replaced with double heat-treat actions 'as they became available'. As guns became available to repair? Or, as double heat-treat actions became available? I've seen one low number G&H, but their guns switched to Mausers when Hoffman became the dealer for them and Howe associated with Hoffman after leaving G&H.
Griffin and Howe, Paul Jaeger, Sedgley and others ground the front ring and did a decorative stippling, so we really don't know what receivers were used but the stippling says they weren't overly hard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
What is the serial number? Low number actions that have blown up show 'burnt steel' which cannot be 'repaired' or 'brought back' by heat treat.
I have owned and shot low number '03s and still own a Sedgley '03 which could be a low number.
Since they are a known 'bad gun', shops can't sell them as shooters without taking an a bunch of liability. The information is there (Hatcher's Notebook), I suggest reading it and making your own decisions.
It has been said, but I don't know by who, that Sedgley tested actions and sorted out the 'bad' ones. Nobody seems to know what 'test' he had that the arsenal didn't, but I've never heard of a Sedgley failing.
The hardness can be tested on a Rockwell hardness tester on the "C" scale it uses a diamond tip and measures the depth of the imprint. Extra hard stuff "brittle" will most likely measure in the 60+c range that is in ball bearing range if not extra hard should be in the 45-50c range hard but not brittle.

Jim O
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,819 Posts
The hardness of the surface is not the issue. The issue is the steel grain structure underneath the hardened surface that resulted from the steel being "burned" (raised and held at too high a temperature before it was quenched). The practice of heating for quenching was originally governed by skilled workers judging the "cherry red" color of the steel in the furnace to indicate when it had got hot enough to quench. That works pretty well in dark and low-light environments. However, bright daylight suppresses the brightness and color of the hot steel perceived by the eye, and as a result, the low number of receivers made on the day shift were often over-heated before the initial quench and before drawing to temper. The resulting grain structure shatters easily.

I believe that the grain structure issue can be checked by x-ray diffraction. You might look for a university that offers metallurgy degrees, as they are likely to have equipment that can do it and a professor who knows what to look for in the result. Portable x-ray equipment is also used by some engineering firms that do bridge inspections and inspections of other structures. They may also be able to help you out.

In addition to forcing the skilled workers to change from relying on eyesight to relying on pyrometers for determining oven temperature, the double heat treatment approach was devised to allow them to better create a carburized surface without a brittle core. It takes advantage of the fact high carbon steel has a lower quench temperature than medium or low carbon steel does. They would heat and carburize the steel at the quench temperature of the lower carbon core steel, then quench it, then heat it back up to the lower quench temperature of the high carbon steel skin, which annealed the core and was not hot enough to re-harden it in the quench, so it let them quench and harden the high carbon skin only. After quenching, it was then drawn back just enough to prevent cracking. This left the skin as hard as a cutting tool while the core was mostly annealed and malleable rather than brittle.

Double heat treating was time-consuming and costly, so they stopped doing it when they adopted nickel steel which could be made to work with single heat treating. What was lost was the very hard carburized skin of the double-heat treated actions, which I've seen claimed to have produced the smoothest feeling and operating Springfield actions ever made. That is why double heat-treated receivers and bolts are were considered the most desirable '03 actions for sporterizing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBelk
21 - 39 of 39 Posts
Top