Printable View
US service rifles had their adventures with steel, particularly heat treatment.
How was it for the No. 1 and No. 4 rifles?
On the one hand, the British figured out steel making very early on. On the other hand, these rifles were made all over the world. Maybe in a time and place things didn't go so well?
It would be an interesting exercise to run some samples through an x-ray spectrometer and see exactly what was used.
I have noticed different stripped receivers have a different ring, but is it the steel or the heat treatment?
In case of the Patt.14 rifles at Eddystone for example it seems to have been the forging/heat treatment than the steel itself.
Funny thing is I asked a question a long time ago about a question mark stamping on my 1916 MkIII a member said it was to do with the steel apparently there was something going on at Lithgow.
They supplied allot of printed matter and said they knew the answer and for those who want to know go and find it yourselves, it's like 109 years ago so why not just say to those that wish to know what was the issue at the time.
Rather than throw a pile of printed material out there and state "I know the reason but find it yourselves", I find that a bit unhelpful and well bluntly selfish.
Pic of the ? mark in question, the rifle's serial No. I edited it out so don't panic it's not a ghost gun!!!!!
Much like 1903 springfields, any guns that were likely to blow up probably have long ago.
The only writings I’ve read on the issue of steel quality and strength in Lee enfield actions was around conversion tests of no.1mkiii and no.4 rifles to 7.62 NATO and supposed changes to alloys and heat treatment of Indian 2A/2A1 actions to handle the 7.62 service cartridge.
303 British is not exactly a smokeless barn burner and the service rifles generally seem to have handled pressures very well over their lives.
Of course all mechanical things wear out, and many an SMLE was condemned to dp status over stretched or worn receivers that fell outside gauge specifications after long service.
Steel was a very interesting topic when smokeless powder was first being developed. Earliest steel firearms were mostly mild steel by todays standards, and as time progressed better steel was used. It is also why case hardening was so popular for early firearms as it allowed them to harden the steel which otherwise wasn't a option with mild steels. Overall though you don't really want a ton of hardness rather toughness. Hardness shatters, toughness flexes and resists.
Much of the turn of the 19th to early 20th century steel was based off regional steels as they didn't fully understand the metallurgy involved. Companies were also pretty protective of whatever alloys they made as it was a competitive advantage. For example Swedish Steel was a well known steel for corrosion resistance due to the naturally high nickel content in the ores used to make the steel in Sweden.
That all being said the steels selected for manufacturing were more than sufficient for their intended purposes, if there was designs which suffered failures it was more due to issues in the design itself or something else in the process than the quality of the steel. Examples being the poor heat treating practices America was employing on their early 1903s or the lack of a radius on Norwegian produced Krags, or the stretching receivers of Lee Enfields (I am still of the opinion that if it was a 100% sufficient design the receiver wouldn't stretch, no one else seemed to have this particular issue).
Front locking receivers stretch too, it’s called bolt recess setback. Same thing, over a shorter length of receiver.
My engineering mind would call both phenomena plastic deformation.
I've only seen two catastrophic failures in the past 30 years. One, a new out of the wrap .303 No.4 Mk.2 and the other, a well-used 7.62 L42A1. Both rifles owned and operated by American target/competition shooters. Both blown up by pushing the limits with handloads. The Mk.2's bolt was broken in two at the rear of the locking lugs. The L42A1 sheared off the left-hand locking lug and broke the bolt head in two at the milling cut for the extractor. Both bodies were unharmed, and I fitted new bolts which are still working to this day as far as I know. Both guys were reloading rounds to maximum and beyond and wouldn't take age old sound advice about handloading for these rifles. They were both very lucky as no one got hurt. Hopefully they learned something from the experience. When I see guys restoring these RTI Ethiopian import SMLEs I cringe. When the .310 throat erosion gauge which shouldn't enter more than .25" drops in the breech end, runs through, falls out the muzzle and the rifle is on its second barrel at least, think about the round count and condition of the locking recesses in the body that were hardened .004" deep at best.
Canada's Ross Rifle wasn't exempt from issues with poorly tempered steel. Replacement bolts arriving from Canada in 1915 were found to have "soft bolt heads" which Lt. Col. Harkom, technical advisor to Canada's Standing Small Arms Committee was ordered to "get busy and repair them". He developed the crude Harkom Method as a field expedient in which the bolt heads were re-tempered by heating them with a blowtorch hoping to reach 1,200 F. then "pepper" them with Ferrocyanide of Potassium. With virtually no quality controls in place the re-tempering was haphazard and it was a miracle that any of the bolt heads stood up under service conditions.
Ferrocyanide of Potassium fumes would not have done ones disposition well either Sapper740 just my take on the safety aspect of chemical handling & use.
No doubt they had the appropriate PPE & MSDS..............:eek:
The gunsmithing book I have from the 30s mentions how to deal with this....Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
Get a electric fan and blow the fumes away from you.