New Springfield Sporter

[KCSO]

I dug out my Sedgley catalogs and that doesn't look like his. The checkering pattern is different and the engraving is a different pattern and a little better. It LOOKS like a Griffin and Howe I had in 35 Whelen. I would guess the rear sight is a Lyman 48? I will try and find a G and H catalog and see what I can find.

[Throwback]

Michael Petrov informs me that it was made by Seymour Griffin and that the engraving was done by Rudolph J. Kornbrath who engraved for a number of other outfits including Smith and Wesson and Hoffman arms. The reason it looked so familiar to me is that I had seen his work before on a G&H but that is a sad story.

The stock had been badly refinished and we had to re-refinish it and I was tasked with redoing the checkering. The original work was masterful and I really appreciated the hands that built that rifle. It looked very good when we were done with it but it still wore a muzzle break that was an attrocity. Its owner thought it kicked too much.

[Michael Petrov]

Kornbrath engraved for Griffin & Howe, Hoffman and a host of others I don't think he did much for S&W if I said that, I misspoke. This rifle was made by Seymour Griffin before 1923.

http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=7189

[Michael Petrov]

This is a copy of a "Pull" from the Kornbrath file at the McCracken Research Library at Cody , WY.
I reversed the mirror image with the computer.

[Throwback]

Great link Michael. And great info. I saw Smith & Wesson referenced along with many other outfits when I googled Kornbrath. I am very much looking forward to your book and to your article on Seymour Griffin.

If folks are interested Michael's book, "Custom Gunmakers of the 20th Century", may be purchased at:

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpag...eitemid=876540

[Mark Daiute]

Throwback:

I frequently visit C&R on Tuesday afternoons. They are great there.

Mark

[Throwback]

They are indeed. Paul Bennett was one of the best too.

I always seem to run into some great folks there.

[Throwback]

So, I shot the old girl today and learned a bit. It was just a stunning day with a temperature of about 70 degrees and a constant light breeze. I tried to chronograph some loads but I was getting anomalous readings due I think to a shadow that fell on one of the sky screens. After running nine rounds over it I abandoned it and just shot for fun.

I was getting a number of fliers and it took me a little while to figure out why. The Lyman 48 has a small folding aperture that drops down each time the rifle recoils. This happened without my realizing during my first few strings. The smaller aperture produces impacts 2 ½ inches higher than the larger one. This must be a peculiarity of my eyes and how I cheek the rifle. The smaller aperture is thus not especially useful to me. Group size did not appear to suffer when using the large aperture. I also noted some windage error using the smaller aperture that was not an issue with the larger opening.

The first load I shot was Lyman’s 311041 propelled by 9 grains of Trail Boss. The more consistent velocity readings on the chronograph lead me to believe that this load runs about 1,050 fps. Even considering the different grouping due to the falling aperture, all nine shots went inside three inches at 50 yards; a tight cluster low and a wider string high. This was a wonderful load to shoot and it would be an excellent pest and plinking load.

The same charge behind the old 311413 “squib” bullet seemed even better though by now I had figured out the issue with the flyers. Three groups of three each ran about 1 1/8 inches. I shot the last four of these at 25 yards to see where the sights might place them at short range on small game. All four went into less than half an inch, one inch low and a half inch right.

I shot one load with 20 grains of 4227 behind the 311041. This consisted of a few stray rounds that had proven less than ideal in another rifle but these shot OK in the Springfield, running about 2 inches.

Next, the 311284 and 21 grains of 4227 shot 1 7/8 inches.

Best load of the day was 311299 and 24 grains of Accurate 5744. This was also the hottest of the loads I tried and I would have to guess that it runs close to 1,700 fps. The three groups of three ran 1 7/8, 1 3/8, and 7/8 inches. This recipe begs to be tried at 100 yards.

The rest of my shooting was at rocks and plastic soda bottles off hand to get a better sense of how the rifle would handle in the field. I can run a bolt gun pretty fast but I find that I will need some more practice with the Springfield. That said, this rifle is an absolute joy to shoot offhand. It has a lively feel and it points like a shotgun. The sights are perfectly aligned when the rifle is cheeked.

I have shot many Mausers, Krags, and Enfields. In comparison the Springfield just seems to require more force to cam open the bolt and simultaneously cock the action. I found that I was pulling the rifle off my shoulder occasionally. I expect that I will be able to do some good work with this rifle with practice but it is interesting to note.

This may be an interesting thread subject on its own but here are my ratings on the ease of operation of some of the bolt guns in my acquaintance. Ease might best be defined as speed, smoothness, and certainty of operation.

#1 The Krag: the gold standard in smooth bolt actions
#2 My well-worn Remington Model 700 .30-06
#3 SMLE
#4 K31 Swiss
#5 Winchester Pre-64 model 70
#6 P14/M1917 “Enfield”
#7 MAS 36
#8 M96 Swedish Mauser
#9 M98 Mauser
#10 Springfield
#11 Mosin Nagant

It was really a terrific outing and I continue to be more than pleased with this rifle.

[Michael Petrov]

Seymour Griffin would be proud, Thanks for sharing

[Throwback]

The Springfield will shoot well with good loads!

It was a beautiful day to shoot and I went to the Auburn gun club with a friend. The classic loads continue to work well. 20 grains of 2400 gives me 1,640 fps in my 19" barreled M700 and about 1,700 in the Springfield with the 220 grain (w/ lube & GC) 311284. This consistently delivers less than an 1.75" with a Lyman 48 and Ross King brass bead. Not bad for my eyes and a 97 year-old rifle.

Another surprising load was the 311413 178 grain bullet lubed with LLA and sized .311 in a Lee push through sizer. I seated it to touch the lands. I powered this with 13.0 grains of Unique. While I haven't chrony'd this load yet it should be 1,400-ish. A week ago I shot this into an inch with my Remington (which incidentally wears a 1-4 Bushnell at the moment). Today the same load placed 10 shots into 2.5" with the Springfield. I had groups of three that were smaller including a best of 0.928.

All shooting at 100 yards

[quasi]

Has any one ever seen, FIRST HAND, a low number Springfield that has blown up?

[Multigunner]

Has any one ever seen, FIRST HAND, a low number Springfield that has blown up?

You won't find any recent accident reports of 63 Corvairs flipping over on a curve either. The reasons are much the same, those who own classic early production Corvairs know better than to drive them like sports cars, unless the after market rear axle limiter bars are installed, and for generations gun owners have known that the Low Number receivers should not be subjected to pressures higher than the original 1906 loads.

A potential defect doesn't disappear with passage of time.

The vast majority of low number receivers were not overheated in forging, but the small percentage that were can not be identified by non destructive testing methods, so to avoid further incidents extra care is taken.

The majority of Low Number blow ups were due to defective ammunition, but the later double treat receivers did not fracture and blow out when subjected to the same defective ammo.
If the ammo is good the Low Number will shoot it just fine, if the ammo is bad the Low Number receivers , even those not overheated in forging, don't have the margin of safety of later production Springfields. Those overheated in forging have no margin of safety at all.

I wouldn't pass up a great deal on a Low Number Springfield, but I'd never subject it to the highest power modern factory loads either, and I'd take extra care in handloads, staying well below 50,000 CUP.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...php/t-422.html
PS
If there were such a thing as a near century old Weatherby Mark V I'd hesitate to subject it to full power loads as well, even though the rifle as is has no known safety concerns.

[Throwback]

A perennial internet conversation! There was never a large number of problem guns and it is interesting to compare the issue then to product issues now. There have not been any substantiated blow-ups since the years right after the "scandal" broke from what I understand. For the interested reader, the issue has been studied empirically and can easily be researched online.

But the low number conversation is a strong thread in the gun literature - not that I am advocating running full-tilt loads through old rifles mind you. One of the contributing factors in the early days was a use of a petroleum based oil to coat the jacketed bullets prior to loading in the rifle. The goal was to reduce fouling and protect the bores on then new smokeless powder rifles. It worked quite well and was published and while I have no idea how widespread the practice was, it did cause problems and the practice ceased as a result. the oil ended up in the chambers and materially increased back pressures on the bolts. It was inevitable that this should expose some of the worst receivers.

Multigunner is correct and safety margin is the concern. With a gun that you know has been shot a bit, you can with minimal concern fire sane loads. JMO.

[Mk42gunner]

Quasi,

Do a search, I remember someone posted pictures of when they blew up their grandfather's Springfield (IIRC).

Robert

[Multigunner]

Quasi,

Do a search, I remember someone posted pictures of when they blew up their grandfather's Springfield (IIRC).

Robert

Thats the link I added in my previous post.
A case of accidental double charge.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...php/t-422.html

Full version with photos
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=422

A double charge such as that would damage most any rifle, but the radical total destruction shown gives an idea of the major concerns with the Low Number receivers.
That old rifle had likely fired many factory rounds loaded to the limitations of the day with no problems, and if not for that reloading accident would probably still be in good shape.

If the estimate of pressure of the double load is correct, it blew at well below the 125,000 CUP that Hatcher tested some Higher Number Springfields.
In Hatcher's Notes he shows a high number receiver left without visible harm after an incident which blew the barrel and stock to splinters.

For that matter I'm not suggesting that High Number receivers be regularly subjected to higher than factory load SAAMI pressure for whatever cartridge they may be converted too, no action is indestructable.

The Winchester Model 1895 in .30-06 handled 1906 load levels just fine, but many developed increasing headspace when post WW1 loadings raised the average pressures by about ten percent.
The Krag handled ammo of 40,000 CUP just fine, but an attempt to increase velocity led to new ammo generating an average pressure of 43,000 CUP and many suffered lug setback or cracked bolts.

As average pressure of loads increases, maximum standard deviation rises, with some cartridges showing a greater maximum deviation than others. Standard M-80 7.62 for example has a max deviation of around 3,000 Cup, while the slightly higher pressure Long Range Ball has a max Deviation nearly twice that. This is acceptable deviation within lots. Add to this other pressure raising factors, bore condition, fouled chamber neck, etc, and a cartridge already pushing ten precent over standard operating pressure can be equivalent to firing proof loads at every shot.

Repeated impact can set in metal fatigue, microscopic fractures that sooner or later meet up greatly weakening a receiver.

Another factor to consider is the incidence of defective barrels in WW1 manufacture rifles, these caused many failures on their own, and in recent years barrels with similar defects have wrecked modern rifles of much greater strength than the low number Springfields.
Hatcher wrote of those barrels as well.