Printable View
And the difference between John Sukey being overbearing and Ed being overbearing is the side we are supporting, and the winner of the popularity contests is…………………
A. Neutral Americans.
B. Spiteful Americans who bring up sensitive subjects.
C. Americans who are willing to fight alongside our British allies.
D. Latecomers to the discussion with nothing constructive to say.
E. Armchair commandos who refight wars they never took part in.
F. Who gives a rats A$$ what John Sukey thinks.
Hmm, I'm a bit of a bastard in here. I think I'm somewhat a little bit of a "D". I'm a bit of a "non-F" too, but there's no mention of this item in the list.
G. Canucks who are able to find bits and pieces of useful information in this Epic Thread? :D
Lou
Lou
I keep asking myself why is it we have so many American experts on a British and Commonwealth rifle, it baffles me no end.
It is one of the reasons I tracked down 90% of the Enfield manuals you see in the forums now so we would have the correct information.
So Lou here is some useful information that has NOTHING to do with imaginary experts, arm chair commandos or insulting our English speaking cousins.
I would like to thank Tom Ready in the U.K. for supplying me with so much information on the Enfield rifle.
(I didn’t get the information by spitting on the British flag)
Please note the order of sequence of these ACI messages
(If the enfield ain’t broke don’t take it apart for yearly inspections in combat areas unless necessary)
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6/Page10-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6/Page11-1.jpg
Odd choice of words in that document, British guns hadn't been Browned since the days of the muzzle Loaders.
By 1940 rifles would have been Blued or Parkerized.
Pickled steel went out with beaver hats.
If a manual doesn't deal with a particular aspect of a rifle design then its of no use in looking into that aspect of the design.
Instructions on painting barrels can't tell you anything about the strength of the barrel or what alloy of steel it was made of.
Military documents are often superseded by up revisions or completely new documents. Unless you have current active access to the controlling authority you have no idea if the document in question is still approved or active. Notice that ACI 88 of 1940 was canceled by ACI 1848 of 1940 illustrating that military documents are not static and change if needed.
Since a significant number of years have passed it is likely that the document has seen further revision.
I am still trying to figure out what the tensile and yield strength of the steel used to manufacture the #4 receiver. Do any of you experts know?
Ireload2,
I was pleased to see that someone has made an effort to calculate what the compression in an Enfield bolt might be. Even if your calculations cannot be exact, I also reckon that an approximate calculation is still a lot better than none.
As you are obviously aware, the mechanical parameters of steel can vary enormously, depending on steel composition, hardening techniques, cooling/tempering profile etc etc etc - including any forging or forming process. So "typical" values for modern steels may be misleading, as the "state of the art" has surely moved on over the last 65 years.
I am not a metallurgist, but I do have a book on the heat treatment of steel from 1944. If you know the composition of the steel used for the Enfield bolts (and once again, an approximation is better than nothing) and the heat treatment appliied, then I could dig through the book and see if there are any close matches. At least they would be typical values from the right period!
Patrick
Hi Patrick,
I have engineering reference books for steels. I just don't know which steel to use. The calculations for the stretch and compression are very simple and only require the modulus of elasticity which is basically the same for all steels. The calculations are so simple any one that disputes them could easily makes the same calculations and provide his own results for discussion.
I have calculated the average load/sq in for the #4 receiver. Since I do not know what steel is used I do not know if the loads approach the yield point of the steels. With very high test pressures it appears that the right receiver rail can approach yield stresses. That occurs at 85ksi and higher. However that is based on an assumption of the steel used. Without knowing the tensile and yield strengths of the alloy any results will remain disputed.
My measurements for the area of the right wall give .1582 Sq inches.
The area of the left wall is .2838 sq inches.
Both receiver walls added have a total area of .442 sq inches.
This data can be used to determine the stress in the steel per sq inch.
From the stress calculation your result can be compared to the physical properties of the steel at various chamber pressures.
From comparing the areas of the two rails you can see the tendency of the #4 receiver to bend with each shot. Since there are two locking lugs if you assume you apply the same load to each rail the right rail will stretch almost twice as far as the left rail. When this happens the receiver bends.
In all fairness, the 3rd Canadian Division at Juno beach (2nd highest casualties suffered that day by the way) were the closest to getting all of their objectives on D-Day getting off the beach within hours of landing with a force of 15,000 men, only losing their final objective due to the infantry not being able to move up as fast as the tank column did to capture it (the Caen–Bayeux highway) with the final line drawn at 10km's inside of France from the beaches, and as for Utah was that not a disaster, considering they landed in the wrong beach. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by John Sukey
The British were the first to successfully employ a RADAR net, and the Spitfire fighters to take out German Air Force bombers, their technique over time improved, which made the Germans produce the V-1 and V-2 rockets with greater urgency to continue the scare tactics against British Civilians.
As for the U-Boats, I do believe the British were the ones to develop the methods to fight the U-Boats the most successfully, with advance RADAR detection, better weapons to combat the enemy subs, and were the ones who were dealing with the U-boats for 2 and a half years before the US joined the "war effort".
Dimitri
AlfredQuote:
Originally Posted by Alfred
It is not an “odd choice of words” Alfred, it is YOUR “inherent weakness” in researching the subject matter on the Enfield rifle. Color, colour, “browning” is blueing in British English just like “stoving” means oven baked or heated. If you read the documents I have placed on the internet on the Enfield rifle the terminology would not be foreign to you.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARMOURERS (1931)
Part 1
CHAPTER III
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
17. The re-browning of small arms and machine-guns will be carried out in accordance with the instructions contained in Parts II and III, Appendix I, and Equipment Regulations, Part I.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
Browning Mixture and Process
(See Part I, Chapter III.)
Mixture
The following quantity is sufficient for 50 rifles. One- third of this quantity will be sufficient for 50 bayonets and scabbards:—
Rain or soft water . . . . . . 12 oz.
Blue stone . . . . . . . . . . 1/16 ,,
Nitric acid . . . . . . . 1¼ ,,
Tincture of steel . . . . . . 3½ ,,
Spirits of wine . . . . . . 2 ,,
,, ,, nitre . . . . .3 ,,
Note.— For the first coat only, take 2 oz. of the mixture and add ¼ oz. of nitric acid.
The above-mentioned ingredients will be mixed by the armourer in the order shown, directly they are received. They must not be kept in separate bottles, as danger from fire is likely to arise from the nitric acid if it is spilt before being mixed with the other ingredients.
If the armourer has a larger quantity of ingredients than he actually requires for the arms he has to brown, he will at once return the surplus to the quartermaster’s store.
Ingredients for browning mixture should be measured byfluid measure as follows:
60 minims = 1 dram.
8 drams = 1 oz.
20 oz. = 1 pint.
Process
1st Day.
Boil components in strong soda water for hour (1½ lb. of soda to one gallon of water) to remove the grease. Wipe down with clean wet cloths to remove soda (inside of barrels to be wiped out with rod and wet jute). When barrels and components are cold, coat with the mixture, rubbing the first coat well in. Stand in a dry place for 3 to 4 hours, then coat cold with the mixture, and stand in the drying room for the night.
2nd Day.
Boil components in clean water for 20 minutes and, when cold, scratch off. Coat cold with the mixture and stand them in a dry place for to 4 hours. Then again coat cold and stand them in the drying room for the night.
3rd Day.
Repeat as for the 2nd Day.
4th Day.
Boil in clean water for 20 minutes. When cold, scratch off and oil.
Note.—Materials for less than one quart of the mixture will not be supplied to home stations, nor for less than a gallon to stations abroad.
P.S. You would look good in a beaver hat or do you still wear your coonskin hat. :rolleyes: