AIA #4 clone proofing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villiers

I´ve never yet looked askance at any Enfield on the basis of where it was made. Why should I start now with the AIA rifles?

---

That's an easy one... because it's not an Enfield!

Ask them who they are paying royalties to for the use of the design...

Or even just show me where on the alleged "Enfield" action the factory name is notated in some recognisable way like every other "Enfield"...

I think you'll find they changed enough of it so they didn't have to. Not like the old days when Lee had to pay for the use of the P14 action design because Paul Mauser successfully contested it was copied from his!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Son

I think you'll find they changed enough of it so they didn't have to. Not like the old days when Lee had to pay for the use of the P14 action design because Paul Mauser successfully contested it was copied from his!

---

I don't think Enfield had to pay Mauser for the P-14.
I don't see any contribution by J P Lee in the P-14 design. I think he died before it was designed.
I'm fairly sure that Springfield jumped the gun by only a few months when they built the first 1901-1903 actions, if they'd waited Mauser's applicable patents would have expired.
There was never any doubt that the extractor and magazine of the 03 were mauser types, the ejector (not a Mauser type anyway) and twin forwards lugs were not exclusive to Mauser, the only reason they went to court was to settle on the price for using those features that Mauser held patents on.

Mauser bought up patents of other European gunmakers to hedge his bets.

DWM also sued for some features of the spire point bullet and stripper clip, but they never collected.
The spitzer bullet had been experimented with in the US long before the Europeans tried it out. J H Hardcastle, designer in part of the "Swift Bullet' that led to the MkVII , wrote of the use of spire point bullets by US long range shooters in the BP days, Stripper clips were in use with hand cranked machineguns in the 1860's or 1870's. Those fed directly into the feedway instead of into a magazine.
The case was thrown out due to WW1.

Patent protections don't last forever. Also it was common practice in those days for the winner of a war to confiscate technology as reparations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred

I don't think Enfield had to pay Mauser for the P-14.

---

Then you'd be wrong both the United States (due to the M1903 till the US declared war in 1917) and Britain (due to the P13/P14) paid royalties to Mauser. However considering the rifles development was so close to the first World War Britian paid effectively very little to the Germans for the design.

Funny thing is I think the P14 is a better rifle then the K98's I've handled. But that is just my opinion. :)

Dimitri

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitri

I trust AIA rifles less then I trust a non-proofed to 308Win level No4 that was converted by bubba in his garage.

But that is just me.

Dimitri

---

Well that's just plain silly. If they pass Birmingham proof, and they do, then they are up to, if not better than SAAMI specs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harry mac

Well that's just plain silly. If they pass Birmingham proof, and they do, then they are up to, if not better than SAAMI specs.

---

They'd only pass Birmingham proof if they were exported to England, and that still is not a good judgment of function without it being checked for microscopic cracks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

INSTEAD OF THE CASE-HARDENED MILD STEEL OF THE ORIGINAL, WE USE A FULL MILSPEC ALLOY STEEL TO MAKE OUR FORGINGS. YES, WE STILL DROP FORGE THE RECEIVER AND BOLT. THEY ARE NOT MADE BY JUST CNC-MILLING FROM BAR STOCK. THE FORGING PROCESS PROPERLY LINES UP THE CRYSTAL STRUCTURE IN THE METAL FOR GREATER STRENGTH.

---

Went back and re-read the posted reply from AIA, other then the annoying cap lock being in use I did find this gem. The best materials for recievers out there are mild steels, that is steels with under 0.4% carbon content as you want the receiver to flex in the inner core, while having the hardened case to handle the loads without shearing.

For example the M14 line of rifles use 8620 steel, its a nickle-chromemoly steel, low carbon content (a mild steel) which is case hardened and in the M14 platform handles a life of 425,000 rounds.

Only tool steel I'd trust in a firearm other then 8620 is probably S7 or similar, as they are designed to be shock proof, running a piece of metal that is all the way through hardened can cause very large problems due to the shock loading that a firearm receives.

Mind you I am still laughing at the "Mil-Spec Alloy Steel" bit, as all steels are alloys and any commercial steel has a military specification number attached to it. So really they can be using just about any steel they wish.

Even Mild Cold Rolled steel (1020) has a Mil-Spec number "MIL SPEC MIL-S-11310" ... so they are not telling you anything of value in their email.

Dimitri

I've drilled holes in enough Lee Enfield receivers to doubt that they are case hardened.

:rofl: You know why they can say "military spec steel"?

Because the country they are making the parts in is still cutting up left behind US military hardware and melting it down!




(PS- The laugh is about the wording of the AIA statement, not anything to do with the brave souls from your country and mine who fought for a cause there side by side...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiriaq

I've drilled holes in enough Lee Enfield receivers to doubt that they are case hardened.

---

The No1 MkIII receivers were case hardened in several places (not all over) mainly for the purpose of resisting wear or impact from moving parts. The locking lugs being one such area. In fact, the manual will tell you that the headspace check conducted with a test bolt body is to determine the amount of wear on the lugs. If a rifle fails headspace with it's own bolt, but passes with the test bolt fitted it can be repaired with replacement parts- (eg bolthead bolt body or both) If it failed both tests then the receiver was scrapped (hardened surfaces worn away or damaged/extruded) Funny thing that most don't realise- the spec for a NO-GO headspace gauge is set to fail an action (testing with the test bolt) for a worn receiver because the .004" wear is the approximate depth of the case hardening on the lugs.

All this just adds weight to Dimitri's point about tensile steels. To do the job, the receiver has to be elastic. That is, to be able to absorb certain forces and return to it's original shape. In doing that job, certain areas are subjected to impacts that would alter the shape, so they must be hardened to protect against it. Hardening the area effectively increases the surface area of the impact and reduces the effect.

I would be very concerned about the suggestion the receivers are all hardened steel... Hmmm... isn't there a lesson learned previously on the topic of receivers being too hard to the point of being brittle. What serial number early Springfields were they that were prone to cracking or shattering?

PS- (from further back) I think the Birmingham Proof Mark is alongside the factory stamp.

On WW2 Lithgow receivers you can see a slight colour difference in the areas which are selectively hardened - primarily in the locking and camming areas. I'm not sure its case hardening, I suspect it is more likely induction hardening. During the period these rifles were made, case hardening was usually done using the pack method, and I don't think that spot hardening like this would have been practical using a case hardening technique.
No. 4 receivers seem to be hardened in the same areas.
If some of the AIA rifles were made up using brand new left behind Minigun barrels, these would be absolutely first class barrels, made of superior steel, and internally chromed, of course.
Forging might or might not produce a better receiver than machining from a billet. If it is not done properly, there is a really good chance that forging could produce an inferior product. As we all know, it is possible to produce a quality receiver using precision casting technology. It doesn't really matter - any production method can produce acceptable parts, if it is done properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitri

Then you'd be wrong both the United States (due to the M1903 till the US declared war in 1917) and Britain (due to the P13/P14) paid royalties to Mauser. However considering the rifles development was so close to the first World War Britian paid effectively very little to the Germans for the design.

Funny thing is I think the P14 is a better rifle then the K98's I've handled. But that is just my opinion. :)

Dimitri

---

Never heard of Britian paying any royalty to Mauser for the P-14 action. Can you give further information on this?


Now heres an interesting development.

Turns out Mauser no longer owned the U S Patent rights for the design elements used in the Springfield 1903, he had transfered these rights to " Messers Von Lengerke & Detmold of New York".

According to the linked PDF
http://books.google.com/books?id=gN1...esult&resnum=4
"Decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury 1905"
The legal question was whether the Chief of Ordnance over stepped his authority in committing the US to paying such a royalty to Von Lengerke & Detmold, who may have been acting as agents of Paul Mauser.

There is another case of Patent infringement that may have been conflated with the Mauser/Springfield case, that of "Russell v. United States 182 US 535" in which Russell claimed that manufacture of the Krag Jorgenson rifle in the US infringed his patents.