SEARS 12 GA. SHOTGUN
My girlfriend gave me her father's 12GA bolt action shotgun to add to my collection. Reblued the metal and refinished the stock. It looks great and shoots good too. It says on the side: J.C. Higgins
Model 583.17 Sears,Roebuck and Co. Can anyone tell me who made it and about how old? Thanks, in advance.
Model 583.17 Sears,Roebuck and Co. Can anyone tell me who made it and about how old? Thanks, in advance.
0
-
Book says high standard but no model # ...
514 maybe,0 -
I agree the Blue book says high standard but I'd bet stevens/savage/mossberg if I was looking for parts. You might try looking in the old catalogs to see the years or so it was offered.
added Would have lost that bet, thanks for all the info JohnStimson.0 -
Howdy sniper,
Numrich Arms, (Gun Parts Corp.), lists their cross-reference as a Hi Standard.
Here's some more info:
http://www.histandard.info/manuals/sears/bashotguns/index.html
Date of Manufacture? Don't know, but would rough guesstimate in the '50's/'60's?
EDIT: Oops, here it is, dates of manfucturing start up, (11/28/1949), and ending with the newer 583-17A, also in 1949...
http://www.histandard.info/models/private/Sears/SearsBolt.html
45er0 -
Hi
My book shows it to be a high standard bolt model 10 I think I have one at my camp,does it feed thru bottom like most pumps.tks.hedge[:D]0 -
This shotgun was High Standard's model BA2 It was not sold under High Standard's name only under the Sears J. C. Higgins model 10 brand.
This shotgun dated from around early 1950 through early to mid 1952. It is before High Standard began putting assembly date codes on the shotguns.
Note that the 583.17 is one of the models recalled by Sears because of receiver failure. For your own safety you might want to retire this gun as a active shooter.0 -
Confusion about the Sears J. C. Higgins Model 10 bolt action shotgun
There is a fair bit of confusion about the Harrington & Richardson models 120 and 121 and the Sears J. C. Higgins Model 10 shotguns. There are a number of reference books with cross reference tables that list sever of the early Sears J. C. Higgins Model 10 variations as being Harrington & Richardson manufacture or design
Here is data from the Jack First and the Numrich Gun Parts catalogs.
http://www.histandard.info/PDF/Crossref.pdf
Note that neither Numrich nor Jack First have complete listings of the Sears bolt action shotguns.
Note that some Numrich data on page 1179 contradicts their own data on page 1181
Note that both Numrich and Jack First list 583.20 as a pump shotgun model which is an error.
It is my opinion that most variations of these two catalogs form the basis for the other cross references that I have come across. The Blue Book and Brownells both credit Numrich for their crossover data.
The Harrington & Richardson shotgun Models 120 and 121 came in 16 and 20 Gauge where as the Sears Model 10 came in 12, 16, and 20 gauge.
Early examples of the two brands do look alike externally right down to the style of rubber recoil pad. With the stock off there are some obvious differences. The Numrich parts picture of the models 120 and 121 are different from the High Standard shotgun. Specifically the lugs that are the mounting points for the magazine tube, the sear and the trigger are different from the High Standard shotguns. The H&R uses three attachment pieces while HS uses only two. There is a H&R patent that has an illustration that looks more like the High Standard than the pictures in the Numrich catalog
.
This patent is often cited as proof that H&R owned the design and the illustrations suggest that they are similar. However the patent if not for the shotgun design but for a feature for bolt action guns that automatically applies the safety whenever the bolt is cycled. Since the Model 10 did not have this feature, the patent is not related to the Model 10 and thus not really a persuasive argument.
The recoil pad for the first few years of the Model 10 and the H&R model do look alike. I would propose that both High Standard and H&R both bought the pads from the same vendor. I have removed the pad from my 583.1 and there is no name or any other identifying marks on the rubber. High Standard appears to have changed the recoil pad design with the introduction of the Sears Model 20 pump action shotgun beginning at 583.53.
My model 10, 583.1 has a stamped steel stock reinforcement which is covered by a post war High Standard patent.
High Standard began selling shotguns to the gun trade in 1940. The earliest ship date I have found is January 3, 1940 and the shipping records list a large number of well known gun dealers and distributor. Sears was one of the customers but was not a significant percentage of the shipments. These guns continued to be shipped during the war with the customers being a who's who of the defense plants.- High Standard manufacturing Co.( the machinegun company), A C Spark Division, Foot Brothers Gear, Ford Motor, Springfield Armory, Pontiac Cadillac International Harvester, Flannery Bolt, Guide, Lamp Ithaca, United States Treasury Frigidaire, L C Smith Corona, Buick, American Locomotive, Carrier, Auto-Ordnance, O. F. Mossberg, Bullard, Singer, Smith & Wesson, Remington Rand, Colt, Nash Kelvinator, Lycoming, Wright Aeronautical and many others. After the war, several of these war time customers continued buying these but the majority were then being shipped to the normal commercial gun trade. High Standard was in a good position to reenter the shotgun market after the war.
These guns could well have been designed by High Standard's owner Gus Swebilius without any input from H&R. Swebilius had risen from barrel driller to chief engineer for Marlin in the 1920's and had several dozen gun design patents including rifles, and the Marlin aircraft machinegun and the synchronizer which allowed the machine gun to fire within the propeller arc without hitting the propeller. Later after founding High Standard he continued to work as a gun designer for Winchester up until the time High Standard received a large order for .50 caliber M-2 machineguns. Swebilius had done a lot of pump and semi-auto shotgun experimental designs
The High Standard designation for the Model 10 sold to Sears was BA-1 and there are roll marks in the log that shows that Sears was not the only customer. This is different from the Model 20 which Sears commissioned High Standard to design develop and manufacture exclusively for Sears. High Standard did not sell any guns designed for Sears at Sears expense until 1960. In my opinion, the fact that the BA-1 was sold to multiple customers suggests that Sears did not in fact own that design.
The Sears identification numbers 583.1 and higher are composed like the other identification number of the vendor number (583 is for High Standard) and the rest of the number defines the model and variation of of that model. Several have argued that 583 was an in house number both that flies in the face if the fact that there were several revolvers and a pistol with 583 designations which were not Sears owned designs nor were they exclusive for Sears. High Standard began selling the police style revolver at the same time as Sears and the Western design revolvers and the Dura-Matic was sold by High Standard before they were offered to Sears.
Another fallacy related to the Sears model 10 is the recall of this model, Sears was apparently confused as to just what to recall since they stated that they were recalling 12 Gauge Model 10's and then they list Sears identification number that include all three gauges but they omitted the 583.17A which was a 12 gauge.
Several people on the gun forums say that the guns are safe and that the problem occurs when the owner does not properly tighten the bolt retention screw and when the screw falls out, the bolt can be pulled back into the shooter's face. That certainly is a plausible story and probably did happen more than once.
However, the real problem has to do with the receiver failing such that the part of the receiver that provides the recoil support to the primary locking (the base of the bolt handle) cracks and the secondary locking lug is not sufficient to stand the load of the firing shell. I have from the High Standard records photos of these failures and it is not a pretty sight. The photos clearly show the failed receiver and failed secondary locking lug.
I would love to discuss any primary evidence that contradicts what I have said above. Although this is what I believe today, research is never done and all I want is the true and correct story.
Sears J. C. Higgins Model 10 Failures
Here are photos From the High Standard archives of a failed Sears J. C. Higgins model 10 ID number 583.16 . Note this is one of the 12 Gauge Model 10's recalled by Sears.
Note the broken stock which I would assume was caused by the bolt opening and allowing gas to escape.
In the next photo you can see there the receiver fractured ( the area just above the safety) which allowed the bolt to blow back.
The following photo shows part of the receiver that the bolt locked against is missing.0 -
quote:Originally posted by JohnStimson
However, the real problem has to do with the receiver failing such that the part of the receiver that provides the recoil support to the primary locking (the base of the bolt handle) cracks and the secondary locking lug is not sufficient to stand the load of the firing shell. I have from the High Standard records photos of these failures and it is not a pretty sight. The photos clearly show the failed receiver and failed secondary locking lug.
Lots of interesting information, but I question the photos as being evidence of the reason for the recall. Clearly, that Model 10 has undergone catastrophic failure, but IF there was widespread metallurgy/design problems with the Model 10 -- that could cause that sort of failure -- there should be plenty of evidence of cracks in receivers before the sort of catastrophic failure happens as shown in your photos.
I have seen plenty of Model 10s with cracked stop-screws -- the screws that stop the rearward travel of the bolt when it is being manually cycled. A Sears representative told me, early during the recall, that the failing stop-screws was "the reason" for the recall. Later in the recall, they would make no comment about what the specific problem was. (I don't think the "recall" is even in place anymore, since the original "Sears" that sold the Model 10s no longer exists as a corporation.)
I have never seen a Model 10 with cracks or stress-fractures in its receiver. I have never heard from any gunsmiths that have found this to be a problem with the Model 10. With hundreds of thousands of these shotguns having been produced, I would expect -- if there was some significant problem with receiver failure -- one should be able to compile a good amount of evidence of a problem with the receivers (showing stress fractures) before any catastrophic failure occurred.
I'm willing to look at evidence, but right now, am still convinced any "dangers" from a Model 10 receiver failure is more myth than fact -- and am not afraid to fire my Model 10.0 -
I have only the one set of photos showing this kind of failure from the High Standard records. I do have a number of other failure reports from a brief time period several of which describe precisely this kind of failure of the model 10. In general most of the shotgun failures were burst barrels from obstructed barrels or hand loads that were too stout but the Model 10 failures in this brief time frame were mostly the failed receiver.
I also have some engineering meetings minutes discussing the need for change in material and/or the need for change in the induction heat treating process of the model 10 receiver
By early to mid 1957 they changed to the Model 11 with a forged receiver.
The planned production for 1956 was just over 37,000 Model 10's if we assume that that might be the average production over the production life of the model 10, we have about 440,000 Model 10's. The BA1 first generation Model 10's were not a part of the recall and the last three versions of the model were not included in the recall. This suggests that half or less of the Model 10 production was subject to recall.
I have no dog in this race. I simply offer data that is not widely known or available.0 -
quote:Originally posted by JohnStimson
I have no dog in this race. I simply offer data that is not widely known or available.
It sounds like you have some great sources for information -- and have spent time researching original production information. Thanks for sharing it.
I think the big questions though -- that could really help shed light on whether or not a Model 10 is safe to shoot -- isn't likely to be found in original production notes. I think the key is to find out who had "a dog in this fight" back in the 1990s when Sears started the recall.
(Is the recall still going on? I think with the merger of Sears and Kmart in 2005, and creation of "Sears Holdings," the old Sears that had sold the shotguns and had been offering the bolt recall, was completely gone. Did the "recall" stop with Sears being effectively "dissolved" as a corporate entity? The last change they made in the recall was to offer a $50 gift card for a Model 10 bolt.)
The question that needs to be answered is exactly what precipitated the recall? How/why did Sears -- which was completely out of the business of selling firearms, and had been for years -- suddenly decide they would start a recall on firearms they sold 30-odd years ago?
Firearms do develop "reputations" in the firearm enthusiast community and firearms business community (which includes a lot of sales of used firearms). I've never heard of the Model 10 having any reputation for "weak" or failing receivers. Now with the internet, and the communication opportunities it offers, I would expect one should be able to compile a significant number of examples of failing/failed receivers if there was a significant problem with them.
Of course, with a relatively inexpensive 50-60-year-old firearm -- some of which may have seen heavy use and abuse -- one would expect to see a certain number of metal fatigue failures. Another significant question (in any search trying to determine the safety of the Model 10) is to determine if the metal fatigue failures are more numerous than seen in other firearm models, or result in more "catastrophic" situations than seen in other "old" firearms?
There is a lot of metal supporting the bolt. It was a shotgun designed and built before the "computerized modeling" involved in modern production today. The designers didn't calculate limits/tolerances to the same extent as they do today when engineering a firearm -- they usually just "overbuilt" components to exceed extremely high stress potentials. While metallurgy issues could have certainly arose in production, I just wouldn't expect to see the sort of catastrophic failures you're talking about happening with Model 10 receivers occurring without giving plenty of examples of stress fractures.
Your information is good and interesting, but I just don't see it -- when taken alone -- as answering any questions about Model 10's safety or not.
Have you tried to put any "calls" out online (I didn't see anything when briefly looking over your site) looking for examples of Model 10 receiver failures? With your interest and site, you could be a good "vector point" for collecting information (and failing receivers, if they are out there) on this subject.0 -
No, the planned production data is not going to tell much about the problem and it will not directly tell about the potential size of the problem.
I doubt that we will ever find out who had a dog in the fight when the recall occurred. It certainly was not K-Mart because that deal was several years later. Note that K-Mart also bought shotguns from High Standard in the early 1970's but that is also irrelevant.
Remember that when Sears began its recall, that the High Standard Manufacturing Corp division of the Leisure Group had been sold to a completely new company High Standard, Inc. in early 1978 and that High Standard Inc. had gone out of business in 1984 about the time that Sears stopped gun sales altogether. Sears had dropped most High Standard manufactured guns in favor of Winchester produced products by 1967. A few years later Sears began buying a .410 bore Model 21 from High Standard for a few years.
I doubt we will ever know the whys and wherefores that caused Sears to initiate the recall. During thei time of production, Sears was very close to High Standard and was High Standard's largest customer. For many years Sears bought over half of the dollar volume of High Standard total Sales. With that volume Sears was integrally involved with the specifications for and testing of the Guns made for them Sears often had representatives attending the engineering committee meeting. Any changes to the Sears products required Sears approval.
However by the time of the recall I wonder if there were any Sears personnel that knew the history of the Model 10 shotguns and its problems. It is pretty obvious that Sears was certainly confused because the list if Sears Identification numbers being recalled included 16 gauge and 20 gauge versions as well as the 12 gauge guns that they stated they were recalling. However they omitted the 583.17A which was of the same time frame and was a 12 gauge. If that is any indication of their knowledge at the time of the recall about the Model 10 then they may not have the history or prior failures. Sears identification numbers 583.XX had no relationship to the catalog numbers used in the Sears catalogs which may have contributed to their confusion.
I suspect the recall originated with a threat of suit from a Model 10 owner that experienced a failure. In the earlier years when the guns were actually made injury litigation was very uncommon but not unknown. I have a couple of packets of data devoted to litigation resulting from gun failures. In one case the injured gun owner simply wanted his gun replaced and Sears said they expected High Stadanrd to pay half of the new gun cost.
I do find in the minutes from an engineering meeting dated June 28, 1951 a discussion of their plan to change both the design and material for the Model 10 receiver. They discussed that they had postponed the planned change because of steel problems and that the next run would remain the same as the previous production run.. The receiver steel was noted as C1137. They mention that the with the bolt handle hardened and with more bearing area, that the receiver will not set back. This setback, which is sometimes called brinelling or indentation, of the receiver bearing surfaces are what is mentioned in one or more of the failure reports. In the failure reports, the thoughts as to the cause was that the brinelling of the receiver by the bolt handle surface that acted as the locking surface and the smaller secondary locking surface had brinelled causing excessive headspace which lead to the receiver failure.
Yes firearms might develop a reputation but these are old guns and only a small percentage of the Model 10 were recalled. Perhaps half of total Model 10 production fell with in the time frame of the guns being recalled and since the recall only applied to the 12 Gauge, that number would be further reduced. If the problem was related to specific production lots because of material issues it might be further reduced.
The bearing support area of the primary locking lug is 0.043 square inches. The bearing support area of the secondary locking lug would be 0.017 square inches if it were engaged but on my examples of this gun, they show no sign of having ever been in contact with the corresponding part of the receiver.
The shear area of the bolt retaining screw is 0.018 square inches. The shear area of the primary locking lug was 0.271 square inches and the secondary locking lug had a shear area of 0.071 square inches.
Note in the photographs, the lack of beach marks of the fractured surface. This suggests a fracture or low cycle fatigue failure and not the typical fatigue failure
I suspect that some receivers on the 12 gauge had material issues and or sub standard hardening leading to the brinelling of the receiver at the primary locking lug bearing area. This led to increased head space and greater battering of the locking lug surface. Finally the impact of the primary locking lug led to fracture of the receiver. The failure reports state that the secondary locking lug and bolt retaining screw were sheared off in the failure.
That these failures happened is not debatable - I have the failure reports and the photos of at least one failure. How the failures actually occurred certainly is.
I do collect and share data about High Standard survivors but there is far less interest in the shotguns , derringers, and revolvers than in the pistols. Very few inquiries about the shotguns appear in my forum - the published research files on my website attest to that.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments