-
Senior Member
-
The Following 10 Members Say Thank You to Orlando For This Useful Post:
-
10-06-2012 10:43 AM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Advisory Panel
Yes, very interesting. Very early too I should think. The machining for that would not be cost effective so it would have to end. I can't wait to find out what the full poop on this one is...
-
-
-
Really Senior Member
Strange
It's part of a really puzzling issue. As we know, the new Wallace Barnes round spring was developed roughly in the 70000 serial area but then not actually used until the 200,000 range. Guns in that gap were assembled with a single keystone spring, and we have featured several of them in the GCA
Journal. So the question is, if the keystone spring needed a compensating spring to correct sluggish action before that, why was it suddenly OK by itself again? There is some speculation that the single keystone used was longer, but no documentation has turned up. It seems remote that JCG and SA wouldn't have tried a longer spring when the need for the comp spring first arose.
The meek shall inherit the earth when the last soldier leaves it to them in his will.
-
The Following 4 Members Say Thank You to bob seijas For This Useful Post:
-
Really Senior Member
I bought a M1 rifle s/n 168578 with a S-A 12-40 barrel (small import stamp on the barrel) around 1992, this rifle had the round body follower rod and a Keystone spring. The round body follower rod replaced the follower rod with the comp spring. Both the Wallace Barnes round wire spring and the keystone spring were used on this follower rod, some collectors believe there was a different length keystone spring used on the round body follower rod . Winchester do not use this follower rod as the serrations are all SA. I have a data sheet on s/n 189209 with a S-A 1-41 barrel and a round body follower rod with a keystone spring.
-
The Following 4 Members Say Thank You to RCS For This Useful Post:
-
Really Senior Member
-
The Following 5 Members Say Thank You to RCS For This Useful Post:
PM
