S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,955
Posts551,181
Members14,462
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,016 Likes: 495
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,016 Likes: 495 |
Bill asked me to post these photos for him. Looks like a nice 1885 varminter, or something similar. I have seen that style of forearm somewhere, but I do not recall where. The lever is different. I've seen similar on many a Martini, but never on an '85. Nice Unertl Small Game Scope - I have one just like it that is 4x. Quite the misnomer to call it a small game scope. Did you make that rib for it? Bill do you know the age of this action and if it was originally case colored? Is it flat or coil sprung, or both?
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) =>/
|
1 member likes this:
earlyriser |
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,043 Likes: 29
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,043 Likes: 29 |
Brent, This rifle is pure Sedgley in that the action is the thick wall, coil spring they bought from Winchester when the latter stopped production of the 1885, the bluing, the stock work, and the rib are all standard Sedgley. The strange part is the barrel. It has no Sedgley markings. Instead, it has the Winchester legend, late style. The chambering is 25 Krag, not a Sedgley offering. Almost covered by the rib is AO Niedner's Malden Mass stamp. The 25 Krag was his development. What I can't figure is that Sedgley began offering the high wall rifle in 1932. Niedner left Malden in 1920. So, how does this come together? Any theory welcome. PS: Thanks for posting.
Bill Ferguson
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,016 Likes: 495
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,016 Likes: 495 |
It is an interesting gun. It's a little more modern than my selection of high walls, so I wonder what it was made for. The barrel looks short and heavy and makes me think it may have been a varmint rifle. But the caliber is a bit heavy for a woodchuck gun. It had me wondering initially, if it might have been a takeoff barrel from something else but apparently not.
The lack of a set trigger strikes me as odd, though I know that was common in the era. An interesting choice for the front sight as well.
I'm curious about the internals. Does it cock on closing like an original would? Does the firing pin retract like an original? Does it have the Niedner firing pin?
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) =>/
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,043 Likes: 29
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,043 Likes: 29 |
Brent, I think the barrel must have started out somewhere else and was brought to Sedgley to replace whatever barrel they had initially used, probably a Hornet. They must then have refinished the metal since it all matches today., It's a good caliber, essentially a 257 Roberts. The twist is 1 in 14". I haven't tried it yet with bullets heavier than 87 grs, but it shoots them very well. The chamber clearly is Niedner's with a throat so tight that cases don't require resizing. The hammer has a fly that lowers it to half-cock on cycling. The trigger is not a set, but the let-off is light and smooth. The firing pin is not a Niedner, but has been bushed. The front sight treatment is very similar to that on another rifle I have that went through Niedner's.
Bill Ferguson
|
|
|
|
|