no1 mk3 beech woodwork.

On coal fires ~ try being the fire officer like I was in a coal fired power station where bunker fires are just par for the course we had other bigger nasties to worry about apart from the H2S & CO gasses being ERT its like what happens if a Turbine gets out of shape like one did years ago and decides to break apart you have @120 tonnes of steel doing 3000rpm, red hot oil, used hydrogen gas to cool the generating end, steam at 300 degrees celcius at 20 atmospheres each boiler in C&D of which there were 8 held 90 tonnes of steam each if a catastrophic failure happened in one then the 90 tonnes of steam would increase 1,500 times x volume pretty much instantaneously.
So I doubt where our emergency shed which was about 700M from the boiler would have survived I think we would have all been toasted.

Google power station failures and appreciate what goes or can go bang in a power station makes you appreciate the light one other our turbine operators were bound to stay in that control room if a turbine got loose no matter what they could not leave meaning they like my ERT team were bound to open up Pandora's box to hell after 3 years of that thank goodness I am now in a fairly safe sedentary job pushing a mouse.....

I just tried this a few days ago on my warped forestock. Worked. Until I shot the rifle, and the heat from the barrel re-heated the stock and it started moving back to the warped condition as before.

I believe this is a great method for bending butt stocks etc. Essentially applying heat and bending in areas where same amount of heat will not be applied again. Most woods require about 300 degrees to become bendable or pliable, and you can get there while firing the gun, however, a buttstock area never receives that heat, so this method works out well.

Just my limited experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MosinVirus

I shot the rifle, and the heat from the barrel re-heated the stock and it started moving back to the warped condition as before.

---

That's sort of what I've suspected. That's why Peter changed them out. For a collector it might work fine...

Wonder if you straightened it and rodded it with a steel rod glued in place whilst it is straight countersink the end sand off some wood dust from an old scrapped stock mix in the glue and cover up the hole just a thought cannot hurt as it appears knackered anyway if you have the inclination or straighten it again and sell it to a chap that may have a wall hanger Mk III forewoods in Aus are commanding very good prices.

Well, I tested my No. 4 and the forend didn't show any tendency to go back to it's former shape. I will admit I carefully shoot groups of 5 followed by a stroll down the range to see what I did so the barrel definitely doesn't reach anything close to 300deg. I suspect the tendency to revert to the old shape depends upon how effectively you manage to heat the core of the piece in question. All in all, probably a pretty hit and miss process but I'm glad I tried it.

Ridolpho

As mine was only top wood, it may be different being thinner, but it too stayed put.
I did leave it clamped at least 2 full days to take on the new set though.

Maybe you needed to leave it clamped longer, Mosin V??.............. bit like a lady taking her curlers out too soon?...........needs to take on the new set.

Just guessing and all that, as we all agree there is nothing very technical about this!

i posted this at the end of the last page, but think it might have been missed so...

i have turned up a top wood that looks to be beech, but it has been routed for a H barrel. will this have a negative effect on accuracy? will it cause any other issues?

Should not matter in the top wood the bedding into bottom wood was the main one to worry about and the fit of the barrel muzzle into the front nose cap.

Interesting thing about top handguards on SMLEs.

Somewhere along the time-line, somebody worked out that making the top wood with in internal channel that closely matched the taper of the barrel was a good way to involve the use of VERY expensive machinery AND tooling.

So, a "relaxation" was invoked.

This involved ROUTING out the channel.

Original drawing of "parallel groove version: R.S.A.F. 3225.

This was derived from specification S.A. 1031.

One Lithgow "redraw" is A-665. (Traced 10 Feb 1921 and probably earlier as well). This is for a "proper" handguard.

HOWEVER Lithgow A-665 contains a note referring to "Handguard, Front, with parallel groove, See Dwg. C-648".

The drawing for the "Handguard, Front, with "Parallel" Groove is interesting:The radius of the parallel channel is 0.355".

The REALLY tricky part is that the centre-line of the channel is NOT parallel to the lower surface of the handguard timber as one would imagine.

At the REAR of the front hand-guard, the 0.355" radius groove is centred on the bottom of the timber. By the time it gets to the muzzle end, the centre-line of the groove is 0.060" BELOW the bottom edge of the handguard. Thus it retains a bit more wood in the critical area that supports the end-cap and rivets. And, unlike a few other rifles, it has that little end cap to give it a bit of extra strength where it is needed.

Does anyone know on what scale this "relaxation" occurred at British factories? Lithgow certainly held the drawing and a local "redraw".

Obviously, the Oz "H" barrel jobs had both the fore-end and handguards "opened out" to accommodate the beefier barrel.