No one else seems to be concerned about this part of the narrative. I can't imagine a responsible gunsmith "remov(ing) the bolt" from the chamber of a rifle into which it had once been welded. I don't know whether the barrel of this rifle was removed from the action when this welding took place, but in any event, exposure to that kind of heat would seem to me inevitably to wreak havoc with the heat treatment, and therefore the strength of at least the barrel and possibly both barrel and action.

I am assuming that whatever was done to this rifle to incapacitate it must have been done with the idea that at some time in the future it would be restored to functioning condition. This would mean that instead of welding, some less destructive means of securing the bolt in the chamber might have been used (brazing, silver soldering?).

I have known gunsmiths in this country who refused to work on Springfield rifles which had had the barrels plugged and then "tacked" to the receiver to prevent their removal, for fear that this slight exposure to the heat of welding might have permanently weakened the receiver. I think that this is going a bit far, but in cases such as those replacement barrels were readily available and no thought was given to restoring the plugged chamber to a useable condition.

If I were in the situation that kumpe finds himself in, I think I would give serious thought to replacing the barrel. .375 is not an unusual caliber for a barrel blank, and surely the proper reamers are still available.

I am sure that someone will respond to my concern by saying that obviously the re-activation worked, since kumpe is using the rifle with no difficulty other than a rough/oversized chamber. That is a valid point, but my concern is that someone else, reading of kumpe's experience will try to follow his example and come to grief.