Story of my life, Bob.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob seijas
Printable View
Story of my life, Bob.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob seijas
SA National Match specs called for tung oil.
Interesting, is there any more on that? Like why they were scrapped or visuals? Any numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by jesse_
Not saying it was the same for carbine stocks...but I went through 4 NOS scant field replacements, sending them all back with some sort of serious defect. They all came in original packaging, with gov. contract number printed on the side. First one had a mag cutoff recess that went all the way down to the bottom metal, second had a straight but way off-center inletting (obvious in the barrel channel and around the trigger), almost 1/4 inch off center. Correct width, but right side of the mag area was very thin. The third had almost 1/4inch extra gap behind the tang. All three came in their original packaging with the gov. contract number on the box, unstained. This discussion is starting to confirm my suspicion that the otherwise reliable retailer landed a pallet of factory seconds. The stained NOS scants at Numrich seem to be all Keystone. The inletting looks like it was scooped out by a spoon, but the fit is pretty spot on, with just enough room for minor finishing.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I once bought three factory fresh grooved lower bands. All in cosmo cheese cloth.
Deep black, you could tell they had just barely been abrasive blasted before mang park.
No machining lay to be seen and only a slight surface mismatch on one surface. Drop-Ded-Gorgeous.
Each one had their bore .010" oversize :yikes:
I bored them oversize, pressed in a 4140 bushing, fusion welded with the TIG, and then re-bored to .001" under the journal size of my barrel.
now there is an idea. My new bubba'd Remington m1903 has a rare R stamped milled lower band whose screw was stripped. My plug with a bushing, solder it (I don't weld) to hold fast, and tap the correct size as opposed to tapping for a larger screw. need to measure it first I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by jesse_
Is it POSSIBLE that they were repros? Never seen in a military contract? I've seen my share of reproduction tags and packaging... They sound terrible and how would those ever be packaged and sent forward to stores? Made in Mexico or whatever...?Quote:
Originally Posted by ssgross
I've messed with some horrible M1917 stocks that were produced during WW2 (the ones marked with a number where the WW1 E, R, or W would have been). In-letting way off, ect. Those were on actual rifles.
There is a comment in the Army authorized history about accepting something like 10k M1917 barrels that didn't quite meet specs. As the war was essentially over and the rifles would probably never be used in service they were accepted.
I wonder if that happened with stocks at the end? 3.8 million M1s produced, and an insane amount of 1903/03A3s as well, *plus* the war coming to a conclusion. The need for additional replacement 1903 stocks?
I need to read up on contracts at the wars end, although I have read that we didn't want a repeat of what happened to Winchester at the end of WW1. In some areas of California ordinances were passed that required hardwood flooring of 3/4" thickness to keep wood usage up.
Would not surprise me if some of these contractors shipped out of spec products with the belief that they would be surplussed out in the near future and none would be the wiser.
There are fakers who also reproduce the packaging... Bill Ricca was the pro at spotting them, often listed what was wrong.
That was my point Bob, the whole thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob seijas