mckinney
.400 member
Reged: 29/01/09
Posts: 1236
Loc: usa
|
|
I am also waiting to see how they fare. I hope they do well for the sake of Michael and his family/heirs. I'm still studying the catalogue and don't know at this point whether I'll bid on 1 item or 10. I admit that I'm bothered by the low number Springfield issue. Trying to find a consensus on that is about like discussing the JFK assassination. My current thinking is that good shooting glasses, use of care in selecting brass, etc. should be enough to prevent anything catastrophic in the very unlikely event of a failure. But I don't think I would use a low number in the field as a hunting arm. So..I am continuing to ponder it.
|
458Win
.333 member
Reged: 15/12/06
Posts: 342
Loc: Alaska
|
|
The issue with the early, low-numbered Springfields was the reason I didn't get the Wundhammer before Michael. A friend found it and it was very reasonably priced and he called to see if I was interested. I told him yes but to see if the guy was negotiable on the price. My friend offered a lower price and then added that those early Springfields had a reputation for problems. The owner/dealer was surprised and then decided he should not sell it at all to prelude any possible legal repercussions. And he held on to it for a couple of years and would not budge !!! Until Michael offered him almost three times the money he had originally wanted and signed a notarized statement that he would never fired the rifle and if he did the seller was not responsible.
I don't think the issue is, or ever was, as bad as most folks now think and makers like Sedgley almost used low numbered receivers exclusively but simply had them re heat treated and I have seen a number of them chambered in magnum calibers like 300 Win, 358 Norma and even 375 H&H. Sedgley even made them in 375 H&H.
I know of a number of people up here in Alaska still using Springfields chambered in all sorts of magnum calibers from 7mm Mag to 458 Win and have never seen a problem.
--------------------
Anyone who claims the 30-06 is ineffective has either never used one - or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship
Phil Shoemaker
www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com
|
458Win
.333 member
Reged: 15/12/06
Posts: 342
Loc: Alaska
|
|
Quote:
The Wundhammers have possibly the most beautiful lines (to my eye) I've ever seen - something I didn't expect having never before seen a high quality full length shot of one.
you are right that Wundhammer rifles do have nice lines, but what really sets them apart from virtually all the other sporters of the era, and to be truthful most rifles made since, was their in-hand feel. The Wundhammer grip, which has been so overdone on most rifles since, is so subtle that goes unnoticed until you handle the rifle. He knew how to make a slim, lively and lightweight stock that was also controllable.
I am anxiously awaiting the return of # 258 and #377 back to Alaska.
--------------------
Anyone who claims the 30-06 is ineffective has either never used one - or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship
Phil Shoemaker
www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com
|
mckinney
.400 member
Reged: 29/01/09
Posts: 1236
Loc: usa
|
|
If you decide in the future that you're willing to let someone else act as custodian for one of the Wundhammers, please drop me a note. In the meantime, enjoy and please post some photos when you have a chance.
|
458Win
.333 member
Reged: 15/12/06
Posts: 342
Loc: Alaska
|
|
I had only wanted one of Michael's Wundhammers and after looking them over and shooting them ( with appropriate loads !) I will likely pass either one of them, or my Sedgley or Minar, over to a suitable custodian as I am more of a shooter and hunter than collector.
--------------------
Anyone who claims the 30-06 is ineffective has either never used one - or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship
Phil Shoemaker
www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
