Quote:

---

However, it has once been "disabled" due to Swedish gun laws (when my great grandfather died no one in my family had permits to own firearms) and this was done by welding a bolt into the chamber. When my father got his permits in order he left the rifle to a gunsmith to remove the bolt. According to my father, the gunsmith then used something similar to a dentist drill to remove the residue from the welding. My father only used it a couple of times after that in the 80's, and since then it has been retired to his gun closet.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

However, it has once been "disabled" due to Swedish gun laws (when my great grandfather died no one in my family had permits to own firearms) and this was done by welding a bolt into the chamber. When my father got his permits in order he left the rifle to a gunsmith to remove the bolt. According to my father, the gunsmith then used something similar to a dentist drill to remove the residue from the welding. My father only used it a couple of times after that in the 80's, and since then it has been retired to his gun closet.

---

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.

---

I appreciate your concern, and agree with what you're saying. You probably shouldn't do something like this without knowing what damage might have been caused to the rifle. In this case however, you assumed correctly. The "disabling" of this rifle was done under supervision of my father by a competent gunsmith with the intention of some day restoring it. I'm confident it was done in a way that didn't cause any damage.

Post Extras: