SEDGLEY M1903 BARRELS, good & bad

[Bill Ricca]

Please send me an email.

[slamfire1]

I purchased a half dozen Sedgley barrels from Federal Ordnance at 1443 Potrero Avenue South El Monte CA. I figured out that the dark spot in the bore was due to straightening, and sent all the barrels back.

They sent back a mix of good HS, SA, and Sedgley barrels back.

They knew what they had.

Federal Ordnance also rebarreled hundreds if not thousands of their Filipino 1903 rifles. I saw those on the rack, all nicely sandblasted and reparked.

[John Beard]

The Marine Corps placed a contract with Sedgley for spare replacement barrels in very early 1941, with first deliveries following shortly thereafter. My data indicate that the contract was filled, then renewed several times over the next two years with deliveries extending through early 1944.

Following completion of the last Marine Corps deliveries, Army Ordnance placed a contract with Sedgley for spare replacement barrels with deliveries beginning in mid-1944 and extending through early 1945. Army Ordnance contract barrels are marked with the Ordnance Escutcheon (shell and flame) and are NOT marked "USMC".

Hope this helps. Happy Holidays!

J.B.

[45B20]

Slamfire

Yes, I also saw some of those 03s there on Potrero, when I was in LA for one of the Great Westerns. Do you know who brought into the US, that group of 03 Rifles and parts from the Philippines??? I have always ’assumed’ that Brenner had something to do with it, but he may have been the retail outlet. My impression at the time, was that Retting (died in 84) was the money and connections man for the big deals.


Mr. Beard

Thank you for the information.

The at least some and perhaps all of the Sedgley barrels that I removed from the crates were identified as being part of “Contract No, NOm-38963”. Mr. Ricca states that this contract was one for SA parts from Sedgley,

(1) Do you know if Sedgley produced other barrels (Army or USMC) under similar parts contracts??

(2) Am I correct in my belief that there are 1945 dated Sedgley (not USMC marked) barrels??

I do hope you have a complete recovery, but don’t rush it.

Thank you both for the information.

45B20

[John Beard]

Mr. Beard

Thank you for the information.

The at least some and perhaps all of the Sedgley barrels that I removed from the crates were identified as being part of “Contract No, NOm-38963”. Mr. Ricca states that this contract was one for SA parts from Sedgley,

(1) Do you know if Sedgley produced other barrels (Army or USMC) under similar parts contracts??

(2) Am I correct in my belief that there are 1945 dated Sedgley (not USMC marked) barrels??

I do hope you have a complete recovery, but don’t rush it.

Thank you both for the information.

45B20

(1) Contract No. "NOM-38963" is a Navy contract for spare barrels for the Marine Corps. It is the final of two or three contracts that were placed by the Navy for Marine Corps barrels. The official contract end date was 6-44, but final barrel deliveries were completed long before the contract end date.

(2) As mentioned previously, Sedgley was awarded a contract from Army Ordnance in early 1944 for spare barrels. The Army contract barrels were quite different from the USMC barrels.

(3) You are correct in your belief that there are 1945-dated Army-contract Sedgley barrels.

Hope this helps. Thanks for your good wishes! And Happy Holidays!

J.B.

[Bill Ricca]

John: Glad to hear you are OK. Hope all is well.

45B20: Thanks for the packing list on the mixed contract. I appreciate your sharing that information.

To clarify: I never stated the contract was for SA parts.

This was my reply to your inquiry of numbers produced:

The quantities are not listed.
The total dollars spent often included more than just the price per item. It could include set up fees, special machinery purchases and other variables.

I do know that Sedgley had two barrel contracts:

Navy April 1942 to August 1942

Army Feb 1944 to December 1944

There was also a contract for mixed parts, which included barrels.

The Army Contract was over twice the size of the Navy Contract, but that say nothing, because as the war progressed, prices increased, including salaries.

Those dates are financial dates and not necessarily production or delivery dates.
__________________

[45B20]

Bill

I saw “mixed parts” and from Sedgley, I just “assumed”,, SA parts.. What kind of “mixed parts” was Sedgley supplying??? Does the contract give any idea, or is it just “mixed parts“???

Can you remember what is the latest dated USMC Sedgley barrel you have seen????

Thanks

45B20

[John Beard]

When I correlate my USMC barrel date data with my Sedgley contract documentation, I find that Sedgley was awarded four separate contracts for barrels starting in early 1941 and ending in mid-1944.

A single Sedgley USMC barrel having a 4-44 date has been reported. But, the date is unique and is considered unconfirmed at this time. The last confirmed Sedgley USMC barrel date is 2-44.

Hope this helps. Happy Holidays!

J.B.

p.s.,

I have a data base containing data from 432 Sedgley barrels.

[Bill Ricca]

I have two mixed parts contracts as follows:

The Report Lists Them as "Rifle Parts".

NOM 37568 Start 9/42 End 5/43 $118,000.00

NOM 37563 Start 2/43 End 6/44 $1,345,000.00

Again, these are financial records and may not necessarily reflect delivery dates. Sometimes it could take up to 90 days for a manufacturer to get paid.

Another thing to keep in mind is there were many contracts (by the thousands) that were small (under $50,000.00) and they do not show up in these types of reports, as they were deliberately left out. This report was done in mid 1946 and many 1945 Ordnance contracts were still going on, and those do not show up in this report.

[180pilot]

Unfortunetly I had Fed Ord build my perfect 1903 back in the 90's and they used one of the bent barrels. I only shot it 3 times to verify POI. and didn't run gauges throught it until recently. Would like to contact smith who could run reamers throught it to clean out restriction. The 1943 barrel stamp is somewhat important to me, so would prefer not change out barrel, if reaming will shoot well.