Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Good morning all. I’ve stumbled onto a rifle I’ve been educated on, a Bannerman and R F Sedgley made 1903 clone.
The firm made scrap metal receivers into firearms by stitching 1917 parts to a 1903 receiver. The gun was fitted with a 1895 barrel and bears no military proof marks anywhere.


3802611
3802612
3802613
3802616

3802617
3802615
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Tha hand guard is two piece, held on by the 1917 front band and rear band. The wood is pristine and pretty, everything looks reblued. There’s only dry fire wear on the receiver’s bolt path.

The front sight is canted left, the rear sight is frozen and won’t move for windage (the knob will freely rotate however). The barrel had what appeared to be dry cosmoline in the deepest corners of the neck area. It came out with a little scrub from a Garand chanber tool.

As for bayonets, the side of the lug has been filed down. It can take an M1 bayonet but only with force.

Speaking of force, that’s the only way it will close on a round either, frighteningly.

For a gun bearing the reknowned military sporter R F Sedgley’s circle S Stamp, this is a real Bannerman frankenrifle.

As explained to me, these were marketed as plant protection rifles, meant to fight away the Japanese invaders from your hometown factory. They look mean and classic but fooled my amateur eye for 1903s. I shouldn’t cuss myself too bad, they fooled many others. Matter of fact, a significant number of Bannerman/Sedgley rifles turned up in Hollywood for movie props.

It reminds me of those Cold Steel Catalog chineseium “military m16 bayonet” that is neither military nor m16, and clueless and desperate will buy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
132 Posts
I have one of those I picked up at a local military history/ antique gun show a couple of years ago. Nobody was trying to fool anyone though as it had an early style Krag rear sight and butt plate. Has a straight bolt, 2 pc hand guard and front bayonet lug to take the M1917 bayonet and has a modified M1917 magazine and an M1917 floor plate. All this on a high number Rock Island receiver and RI barrel which was the reason I bought it. I've since replaced the rear sight with a spare early M1903 I had sitting around and modified the bayo lug a little to take my 1918 RI bayonet. Has a straight finger groove stock, but no markings. It's been a fun project and looks pretty good, but haven't shot it yet.
When I get time, I'll post some pics--
Added pics
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,364 Posts
Thanks for sharing. I’d never heard of these. Very interesting. Looks like a nice example of a “home guard rifle”. One could build a whole collection of WWI and WW2 Home Guard weapons from all nations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,364 Posts
Is the 1895 barrel from a Krag? Are the barrels stamped with a date on the underside? Because I know they aren't on the outside.....I'm looking at my 1895 made and 1901 right now...I can't remember whats hiding under the woodline..haha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Is the 1895 barrel from a Krag? Are the barrels stamped with a date on the underside? Because I know they aren't on the outside.....I'm looking at my 1895 made and 1901 right now...I can't remember whats hiding under the woodline..haha
Is the 1895 barrel from a Krag? Are the barrels stamped with a date on the underside? Because I know they aren't on the outside.....I'm looking at my 1895 made and 1901 right now...I can't remember whats hiding under the woodline..haha
I cannot guess where the barrel was originally from, except the bore appears traditional .308 lands and grooves, perhaps it was originally .30 Krag. The rear sight base was welded and pinned to the barrel. I can’t see any stamps
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I’ll cross post this link, as it contains much relevant information. The author goes i to leaf th describing the Bannerman arms company.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
The barrel is from a Winchester M95, probably a Russian contract barrel. Some of them had turned down British MG barrels. The stock should have one stock bolt in the front of the receiver and some of the furniture may be cast pieces. Bannerman didn't have anything to do with these rifles, Sedgley built them originally for military schools during WW2 after the government recalled the schools '03s. Sedgley also made their own bayonets for these rifles. The ad was trying to sell more of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
The barrel is from a Winchester M95, probably a Russian contract barrel. Some of them had turned down British MG barrels. The stock should have one stock bolt in the front of the receiver and some of the furniture may be cast pieces. Bannerman didn't have anything to do with these rifles, Sedgley built them originally for military schools during WW2 after the government recalled the schools '03s. Sedgley also made their own bayonets for these rifles. The ad was trying to sell more of them.
I see. If it’s a 7.62x54R barrel, won’t the lands and grooves be more .311 than .308? I’ll have it slugged to see.
3803075
3803077
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,891 Posts
Way cool!!!!

Remember that 1895s were also made in .30-40 Krag.

I have one of these built with a heavy barrel (most likely a MG barrel as per post #10).

Good to know what bayonet it actually takes, as mine won't take either a 1905 or a 1917. The 1917 fits but is a little bit too long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Some photos of the Sedgley bayonet and rifle.
100_3073.JPG

They used Krag scabbards on the bayonets that they made for these rifles.
100_3075.JPG

Most had their cast trigger guards and floor plates.
100_3076.JPG

Also most had cast butt plates and rear swivels.
100_3077.JPG

Comparing the 1917, 1903 and Sedgley bayonets.
100_3079.JPG

Stock showing no cartouche and one stock bolt but it's in the front, the US govt never made one that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Some photos of the Sedgley bayonet and rifle. View attachment 3803559
They used Krag scabbards on the bayonets that they made for these rifles.
View attachment 3803560
Most had their cast trigger guards and floor plates.
View attachment 3803561
Also most had cast butt plates and rear swivels.
View attachment 3803562
Comparing the 1917, 1903 and Sedgley bayonets. View attachment 3803563
Stock showing no cartouche and one stock bolt but it's in the front, the US govt never made one that way.
Was there any indication the weapons was intended to be fired?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
I'm sure they were made to be fired, assuming that back in those days, the schools like VMI used their rifles.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
53,385 Posts
I have something similar,
unmarked barrel,
1914 (or P14?) bottom metal,

the bayonet lug/band does not fit exactly right, like it needs to go back a bit more,
and it has a Krag rear sight on a 1903 base,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I have something similar,
unmarked barrel,
1914 (or P14?) bottom metal,

the bayonet lug/band does not fit exactly right, like it needs to go back a bit more,
and it has a Krag rear sight on a 1903 base,
Upload pictures. Sounds like a bannerman rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,923 Posts
I have two rifles belived assembled by Bannerman. A 50/70 trapdoor Springfield which is a collection of parts from 3 time periods. The other is an 1863 Springfiled cut to a short rifle. Both are short rifles. Most of these have been broken up over the years for parts. I think they are interesting guns. Both are fully functional and safe to shoot. IMHO, better handling than the origional longer versions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,923 Posts
This a great reprint for a fantasy read. Not for details we are discussing here, but; for the big picture. Easy pickup for short money at your favorite website.

3804450
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top