Does anybody know what the CM marking on WRA bullet guides stands for? TIA :cheers:
Printable View
Does anybody know what the CM marking on WRA bullet guides stands for? TIA :cheers:
Lots of chromium and moybdenum in there and supposedly required a slightly different finishing procedure so they had to mark the individual parts to keep track. A marks denote another type of steel, as well (the details must wait for Bruce Canfield's new book there!), but what gets me is the double marked ones with both A and CM ... :lol:
I do not find references to chrome moly experiments at Winchesters leisure, in Hatchers Notebook or his Book of the Garand.
Winchester followed the contract exactly, causing many little headaches and did not revise the receiver version from "-2" till 1945. they were not paid to change it, so did not. Same thing on many parts.
Chrome moly is generally in the 4000 steel range.
That steel is not up to the required "WD8000" steel series standards-- (War Dept for WD) after the "diamond change" and not referred to in the earlier mixes at all. I also refer the reader to the Kuhnhausen book and the Pyle book.
Op rods were a mix of two parts and two steels, but no chrome moly. Gas cylinders were a SS blend. All parts had specified steels that were used.
That is fact, and no messing around.
I believe that the long held idea that "CM" was just a reference to a local manufacturer or subcontractor is still substantially correct.
Winchester would NOT experiment, could not experiment or be ALLOWED to experiment with ANYTHING in metal composition outside of specs-- due to the specified contract costs and specific materials being specified in detail.
For Winchester and their reputation to go way out on a limb and say "hey we gotz some time and lets try some new plastic copper nickle wizbang new process to stick in those them there Garands"--- it is ludicrous to consider it in war time, with all the inspectors and Art Tuttle and John Garand so close by.
I can almost guarantee that CM would not refer to any different steel or extra process, secretly done by Winchester, any more than "A" refers to the human posterior.
Redleg,Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
You need your research updated. GCA Journal , Winter 2006, the CM mark has been solved (it's Chrome-Moly steel) 5 years ago. And "A" marked WRA parts has also been solved by Bruce Canfield, GCA Journal, Fall 2010. It's also another steel type that WRA tested and used. There's no secrets about either anymore.
What about the parts that were stamped with an "A" and "CM" ?
For the same reason this happened: Human errorQuote:
Originally Posted by cgroc09
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9fcb34f0-1.jpg
It's pretty clear that if you don't want to spend the 25 bucks for a GCA membership, you will not be up to date on the latest Garand discoveries. The CM was nailed by Tony Pucci in chemical analysis and later confirmed by Bruce Canfield from the private memos of the head of WRA. Nobody who has read those two articles would advance theoretical guesswork on the subject, it is proven and closed.
With all due respect, the argument rings hollow. It does not seem to be credible, whatsoever.
I could believe that during the years from 1930-40 that John Garand may have experimented and changed metallurgy for failing components, based upon user experience and wear patterns.
I find it simply beyond the pale that Winchester had any lattitude at all in deciding what sort of metal to use, other than what was mandated. They changed nothing unless paid.
To suggest that they did what they wanted seems to be contradictory and without foundation or support from SA.
Anecdotally, gunsmiths like G fisher would have noted some sort of pattern over the years with those CM marked items; that has not shown to be true.
I suspect that in fact there is no deviation at all in metallurgy between CM, A, and punchmarked and SA items.
Only a test of all types of bullet guides, clip latches, trigger housings etc of all of them would show such a claim to be true.
That has not been done.
In any sort of scientific method there is a way to prove things and "one" does not make a trend or a truth.
The list of metals used is available in any of the above mentioned books.
Do you have a link?
That, and WRA's dislike for the design but the ability of that robust design to handle such things. About the only thing I ever thought about the double marked parts was that they pretty much disproved the subcontractor ideas on CM and A marked parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramboueille
There are also double marked parts with 2 CM's, CM's with dashes, several sizes and fonts of A's and CM's ...
This one still makes me scratch my head though ...
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...follower-1.jpg
(hee hee hee) ...
PS; I am pretty sure I was the one who noticed this particular double marking on the trigger housing when I got to handle this rifle in person.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9fcb34f0-1.jpg
I LOVED that rifle. Scott had just gotten it in, and hadn't really gone over it with a fine toothed comb yet - I took out the trigger housing and low and behold, there it was! "You seen this yet?", I asked. "Well, would ya look at that ...", he replied.
I have only ever seen one other trigger guard like it for sale, loose, and it went for a really tidy sum. Oddly, both of them were offest like this so they can be read ... like somebody wanted them both to be read. But WRA never put the same effort into markings like SA and dots and dashes just don't quite have the same weight. Drove the SA guys crazy, but the WRA guys really wanted to know how it helped them on originality ... that and the use of Chrysler's Amola is really quite a story.
That was done, a metallurgical laboratory conducted sceleroscope tests of various A marked, CM marked and unmarked WRA parts and the test showed conclusively CM marked items contained a large percentage of Chrome-Moly steel across the board. The others did not. How can you refute what you have not seen or read? It's proven metallurgically and in the WRA archive records. It's one thing to be in denial but quite another to refute valid based metallugical sceleroscope tests and WRA Archive records that state specifically what you are denying. What more do you want?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
A link for what? The articles? Yes:
http://www.thegca.org/pdfs/back_issue_order_form.pdf
Winter 2006
Fall 2010
How was such a deviation approved? It flys in the face of existing knowledge. Kuhnhausen noted no differences.
You cannot say that one is softer or harder than specs, or that one is better than the other or more or less durable--that would not be allowed.
I suspect the lab is not what it is cracked up to be.
Voodoo stuff at best.
Jeff,
Those who never took the time, effort, or spent the money to do valid research think all war time production is set-up like nice little bowling pins all in a neat little row without any variation for millions of parts. When the unexplainable (to them) appears, many are not able to think "out of the box" because the neat little bowling pins are suddenly all askew. This doesn't only pertain to the M1 rifle, it pertains to all war time production of small arms. I'm sure Peter Laidler, Ian Skennerton and John Beard will verify that over and over gain.
All research isn't done by sitting in front of a computer on the Internet as you well know because after you read enough "Internet Legends" and don't really understand mass production, one denies valid and irrefutable proof. Doing your own research is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.
---------- Post added at 01:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------
Keep in mind it's been proven the moon isn't made out of green chees either. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
What you are saying is that Winchester was permitted to use and experiment with any number of different composition metals to produce a weapon under government scrutiny during war time without compensation or contract changes.
1. Composition CM
2. Compositon A
3. Composition "dot"
4. Compositon unmarked.
It simply begs credulity that 3 or 4 difference non conforming non standard non approved metals would or could be used to build Garands without any Government explanation or notes by Hatcher and others. Heat treatment would be a bitch.
The fact that some guy said this or some guy said that at some substandard soils or plastic testing lab doing gratis stuff, is well, shoddy.
One metal difference is pretty wild to consider, but three or 4 different compositions during WAR time as an EXPERIMENT--plus standard WD steel is just too much. EXPERIMENTAL. John Garand would puke.
The weakist link in any evidence chain is the deviant factor--that is the so called lab's results. Many people have been sent to jail on hearsay and bogus lab results. I call BS on that lab and its source.
The gov't imply did not allow 4 different steels to produce weapons, without permission and a paper trail that is incontrovertible, especially after the 1930's development period-- and the mandated revision numbers on all 1940's parts changes and drawing numbers-- referring to drawings and changes.
Different metals would require a new drawing number ot reflect changes. At least that is what history tells us about the Garand.
You guys are far more sophisticated than to have the wool pulled over your eyes on one labs supposed results long ago.
Time for a comprehensive test based upon blind neutrals and competing labs to reveal the truth.
There is an awful lot here but don't just rely upon Kuhnhausen or even Hatcher. Both awesome but neither going over 'experiments'.
Chrome-moly was WRA's name for something developed earlier that was known as 'ordnance steel'. High in chromium and molybdenm, it had a number of desireable properties and starting in the early 20's, Winchester chose to market their own proprietary version of it (?) under their own term that we have come to know and accept as 'chrome-moly'. WRA used this both before and after WWII so they had it on hand when, say, they ran low on steel due to a lower priority rating which we see from the documentation that they complained.
Ordnance steel we developed prior to WWI ... at SA in conjunction with Ordnance ... they were all very familiar with it and I suspect SA used it in several places on the Garand themselves. Documentation has not been found but then they would not have referred to it as 'chrome-moly' as that was WRA's name for it. There are a number or reasons that I think this but I will not bother going thru them here. Instead, suffice it to say that the properties of this 'blend' of steel was not news to any of them and they were well versed in its potential uses and benefits.
As to it being approved, JCG himself would never be allowed to design such a weapon again - he just would not have used the now required standard procedures all of which would produce a document trail that you desire. He was a seat of the pants engineer, and those days are gone - back then it just didn't happen, but then one of the big reasons that the Garand is so endlessly fascinating is because of this very fact.
These trails are very hard to find and follow today and one must go to the various anthologies about these times at places like Winchester (where there is just more that has been written) in order to try to figure out what was going on. On top of that, the Garand had some rather public egg on various faces early on with things like the 7th round stoppage problem, so they were further dis-inlcined to no leave a paper trail of their resolutions of such issues (in spite of what both Hatcher and Kuhnhausen have in their texts, was the 7th round stoppage problem due to low guide ribs at all, or was that just the public answer that could be easily digested? Remember that WRA had low guide ribs on many early production rifles but never were those recievers pulled to be 'repaired' ... odd, isn't it.) - there was no upside for some of these things so we are not likely to see these paper trails that we would like to see today.
The story of how Amola came out is completely intriguing itself and if anyone from that time were to actually know what was written in those records, well, I am quite certain it would have generated congressional hearings on the subjects!!! Yes, it is THAT earth-shaking. But those records are where we learned of the use of Amola steel.
Relying upon one source for the information to draw conclusions is really just drawing upon a narrow sample - you just don't know how naarrow the sample may have been for the author so it is even harder to judge how much weight to give statements like this. Other sources for example would be actual 'fossil evidence' like the very rifles produced - we know they used 'chrome-moly' at WRA starting in the 20's, but they used THE VERY SAME "CM" stamp on Model 94's both before and after WWII. With all of this, the use of Chrome-moly at WRA on the Garand is not that much of a stretch and begins to look quite reasonable. The metalurgy just proved it.
Sorry if I was a bit flippant in my initial response, but it really is a well settled idea that is now being used to build upon for further ideas in this area.
CM = chrome-moly.
Thanks for the info!
Is the Amola steel a type, or a Mfg?
Exactly why they had to mark them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Probably did, or at least spit on the floor when the name Winchester was mentioned. Winchester felt the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
OK. Now what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
You mean like when SA sent WRA the old, outdated drawings for the receiver - you mean that would never happen? Or when they sent WRA the wrong drawings for the clips - drawings that used different dimensions than SA, dimensions that had NEVER been used at SA and that had never been tested at SA and that SA had NEVER even considered using in their design that would surely make the rifle malfunction and did causing the well documented 'clip interchange program' that is all over the SRS database - you mean like that would never happen? Or like later when SA didn't like anyone else swimming in their little chamber pot so they sent IHC test fixtures that virtually guaranteed the rifles would misifre and that it was only found when HRA was sent in to help with all the production problems and they found it because SA had done the same to them? Or when Overton was being derrided for sending a whole shipment of stocks to SA that were all out of spec and only found it because they immediately set out from Michigan and drove all night only to find the entire load of unfinished wood being stored outside in the rain ... None of this stuff is in Hatcher, or Kuhnhausen, excellent though they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
SA did many things that caused those around her to question the status-quo and they did, regularly. SA had a higher material rating than WRA and WRA ran out of steel to make things like trigger housings (way back in the day a few painfully original WRA's turned up with SA housings ... yup) the steel was at WRA and ordnance knew it was still within spec for the uses so why is it surprising that it was used? After all, as you say, there was a war on. Were I a betting man, I would bet that WRA made a few bucks more by using it, especially if they had it sitting on a shelf and it wasn't making them money there. The fact that both chrome-moly and Amola were used is in WWII production WRAs is really past the moment of debate.
If you are so certain that it was not, then why not send a few of your parts off and disprove it? I await your results.
In the end, how does it help us determine the originality of a given rifle? We already know the parts are original to WRA production and the eras are relatively well established, the rest is really little more than interesting dicta ....
Best all.
Redleg,Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I don't see anything you presented as factual, it's your opinion based on hearsay and misinforation. There is no need to cast insults on valid documentation by calling it "voodoo" and "BS" inless you have your own facts to refute. I gave you links for where the documentation can be found. I'm not posting copyright articles here.
It has also been shown the Springfield marked some of their parts with a A showing most probably that they dabbled in this early on. Rick B
---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------
I have seen this A on numbered and unnumbered. I also have a double stamped WRA housing.
I forget whose picture this is at this time. I think it was Rick Hamby's. Rick B
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ytrigger-1.jpg
---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------
A marked Springfield Op rod catch.
http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/116883...sTrapParts.JPG
---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...take4JPG-1.jpg
I think Redleg must feel comfortable and safe with his opinion and of course, he is welcome to have an opinion, regardless of the facts presented to him in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramboueille
Some people simply cannot accept new things--it's not in their nature to do so.
Unless Redleg actually presents the facts supporting his opinion as Ramboueille has asked him to do, there's little more to say in this thread.
So sad.
FWIW, I work in the defence industry and I can tell you that material substitutions happen quite regularly. The buzz words are "fit, form, function". If/when a contractor experiences a material shortage or can demonstrate that a substitute alloy is "fit, form and function" to the relevant technical authority at the relevant defense department, a deviation (from spec) is quite regularly granted - it's standard practise. Usually an identifier marking is required. these days, the part would be stamped with an alternate NSN or other identifier. In the ways of Garand production it would have been another marking - maybe even CM.
Specifications are guidelines that are to be adhered to, but they are not always set in stone. The can be deviated from if the client will accept the change. In the case of chromoly being used for bullet guides or whatever, the change would be inconsequential in the function of the firearm and a no-brainer for the test engineer at DoD to approve. Been there, done that.
WRA could not get the steel it needed, but they had a large stock of chrome moly on hand from commercial production. They tried to get permission to use it, but Ordnance kept dithering. When the situation got critical and threatened to halt production, the Works Manager T.I.S. Boak sent this memo to his production head:
“Confirming our conversation this morning, you are to go ahead with the use of chrome molybdenum steel in the production of the hammer, the follower and the catch operating rod for the M1 rifle. I am taking this responsibility on my own shoulders because I fully believe we should not allow a break in production of the M1 even though the Ordnance Department fails to get us steel or give us permission to use steel which we do have.
You are only to make these components of chrome moly steel until the #3115 steel which we have on order arrives. In other words, I don’t want a lot of chrome moly parts made up – simply enough to keep us going so as not to shut down the assembly of M1 rifles.”
I think you miss one of my questions, as welcome as that info is.
The question is "Subcontractors or no Subcontractors, using CM and A, or is it clearly all Winchester internal stamping?
My early Win only has one CM part, the rest A-- so I will not be spending the thousands to answer the question myself as that is what a study would cost if you paid for one and did not just ask a friend to do a simple metal composition "spark test" with a grinder.
Colt Manufacturing--CM, was just down the line. Were they used?
I found Amola Steel brand razor blades from 1939 and Chrysler Amola Steel coil springs, still available on a Google Search.
so Amola is an MFG or a Composition??? and different from CM and WD steel?
As far as asking question, I ask for all the others who would ask or will ask the questions about CM and A.
Forums are in essence info interchange arena's and debating societies as history shows us. They are democratic to a fault and questions can be asked that would normally turn a closed meeting into a perceived insult society. I know no one so that cannot become an issue. It is all for info and what logic may tell us on a path that others have trod before--it is an info superhighway, not a toll road.
Thanks again, but I am still not sure what CM and A are--mfg's or steels of differing compositon from WD steel.
I see we crossed posts, Great info again!
Now, the bullet guides and trigger housings are ALSO stamped CM early on, as well as clip latches, in addition to the above mentioned hammers and op rod catches. "A" came generally later.
The bullet guides are pretty easily worked and even welded to peen them/raise up the worn down area. That does not sound like chrome Moly, but more like a 1050 spring steel or typical mild steel.
Chrome moly in the thin dimensions can crack easily for the heat treat does not leave a softer center core, like it does in Barrels.
Chrome moly, 4130-4150 was used for Barrels, I assume at both plants, and is listed by Hatcher as so.
The springs in a Garand include the Trigger housing which in essence is a large spring. Many were subsequently modified in the pad area by remachining. Again it sounds more like a milder form of 1050 steel, than heat treated 4150 chrome moly.
The metallurgy of the Win receiver stayed inthe 3100 series, I believe till the end of production. That steel is not as potentially brittle as the 4150 series of chrome Moly, which was not used for receivers.
Heat treat for the different steels pre production and post production would seem to be a problem as chrome moly in its raw state would need to be anealed to be forged, machined, stamped,--- especially stamped, or cracks would dominate.
Due to the above and your preceeding post, it seems that CM does not necessarily refer to Chrome Moly.
Amola process Steel is historically, a spring steel--likely in the typical 1050 range for spring steel, and is not chrome moly,--far from it and quite different in composition, yet is used for the same parts marked CM.
So the marking of the parts CM or A may not actually refer to the metals used or to ID them, as there seems to be no or little discernable difference upon history/inspection of those marked parts, and little reason to ID them for material.
Also a simple "C", would have sufficed, like A for ID purposes---unless it was Colt Mfg for example.
Historical accuracy is what is in the alpha numeric markings, just like the -1,-2,-3 SA bbl mystery.
Thanks again.
@redleg:
41XX series steels are far more than just 4130 and 4150. Additionally, "heat treat" is a very diverse term. You need to take a look at a phase diagram for steel alloys to see that most carbon steels, even CM, can be made to be almost as soft as low carbon steel, as hard as a file or as tough (hard surface, ductile core) as required - hence why a lot of firearm receivers are made of alloys like 4140.
Here's a basic examples of a phase diagram for carbone steel:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rbon1gif-1.jpg
And here is a good read on what this diagram means in more or less layman's terms:
http://www.gowelding.com/met/carbon.htm
A "spark test" won't tell you anything useful. In engineering, a spark test is a specific conductivity test usuallyused to test the efficiency of insulative materials. To determine composition we usually use mass spectrometry if you are destructively testing, or for NDT, we would go to a material composition gun. Both these test aparatus are big dollars though - so you would normally use a lab and pay their fees accordingly.
In any event, your observations about the nature of the parts themselves is not sufficient to change the hypothesis that CM=chromoly.
Redleg,
I am not sure what part of Tony Pucci had them tested that you cannot understand? You talk a good game but it does not make the proven facts change. I do not understand the philosophy you are trying to use to argue against fact? It appears that no matter what proof is given, you will refuse to believe.
Please get a hold of the GCA article mentioned before you continue to argue a fact. It really pains me to read how you are treating Bob Thanks,, Rick B
But, but, but,,, wait!!!! It can't be true! It's not in Harrisons book. :madsmile:
OK, FWIW, I just went and read the two GCA articles in question and IMHO the debate is OVER. Anyone who would question this data has clearly not read it.
Let me summarize the points since I can't re-print the articles in full here without violating copyright law.
1) Bruce Canfield has the wartime correspondence records of Edwin Pugsley, the long-serving General Superintendent of Winchester Repeating Arms Company in his possession and he is using it to write a new book.
2) In the Pugsley material there are a series of written memoranda on WRA stationery clearly indicating WRA received permission for the use of CroMoly and Amola as substitute standards from the Ordnance Department for the purpose of producing non-critical components.
3) Staff from Chrysler, who was providing the Amola alloy, were brought in to help Winchester maste the different heat treatment required for the alternate alloy.
4) The following "non-critical" parts have been made with substitute standard steel: “CM” or “A” marked: Bullet Guide, Clip Latch, Hammer, Follower Rod, Operating Rod Catch, Sight base, Trigger housing, and Follower. “A” marked only: Trigger.
5) The CM and A markings were applied specifically so that the heat treatments would match the material when the machined parts went to the heat treating facilities at Winchester - this because at times all three types of steel were being worked and used for these components at the factory. Ordnance steel was used whenever available in sufficient quantity, but often it was not in great enough supply from 1942 onward.
6) Springfield Armory also used Amola steel. Their Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1942 stated: “An extensive program for the substitution of less critical steels for those now being used in the M1 and M1903 rifles has been and is being undertaken. As a result, several changes have been recommended and it is expected that many more will be. A large number of high alloy components were replaced with steels of the Amola type in test weapons and results are encouraging. The Armory is working with the Winchester Company in an effort to find more readily obtainable steels that are suitable for the M1 rifle components.”
7) In 1996 Tony Pucci of Orion 7 had CM parts tested for composition. According to his report: "In April and May of 2006, part samples were submitted to Lehigh Testing Laboratories, Inc. New Castle, Delaware for both nuclear and destructive testing of the parts. [...] The CM-marked part showed positive for Chrome-Molybdenum alloy steel. It is also interesting to note that Winchester changed steel alloys at least four times during their production of [bullet guides]." Subsequently four additional components were submitted to Lehigh for testing. These components were all CM marked and consisted of the following components: rear sight base, aperture, clip latch, and hammer. All tested positive as Chrome-Molybdenum alloy.
I'm not sure what Tony meant by "nuclear" testing, but as he is not a test engineer, I suspect he likely was referring to the samples being run through a mass spectrometer.
In any event, in my opinion as a mechanical engineer and student of history and having actually read the Lehigh composition reports personally, this debate is over.
Thank you!
I am now satisfied about the paper trail;explains a lot. I was not party to that info, as many are not.
As the facts that have been discovered will eventually hopefully end up in books to be published all is good.
The 25 years of GCA issues are likely not available in toto and the eventual pulbication or archieve on boards like this one, will help everyone who does not possess the library, like me.
Thanks again.
It was my job to be inquisitive.
Hi All,
First, let me explain this thread bump.
I am a WWII Jeep preservationist. In addition to the vehicles, many of us in the hobby also collect and preserve the on-board toolkit that was issued with each Jeep. Willys and Ford factory documentation is scant. Research and analysis continues, aided somewhat by found NOS partial kits, as well as government manuals (the Ordnance Department assumed responsibility for vehicles and tools from the QMC in late 1942). One of the biggest puzzles remains the double open end engineers' wrenches, specifically, brands (Mfgrs) and markings.
As you can probably guess where this is going by now, these wrenches were made of steel. Alloy Artifacts, a website dedicated to mid-century hand tools, has been a good source of information for us, but the major premise of its wartime dating methodology, which hinges on War Production Board (WPB) controls and composition restrictions on smelting alloys (chromium, molybdenum, and vanadium) and finishes (chrome plating) in late 1941 and early 1942, is vague, and has created A LOT of debate in our community.
That debate, and continued research into the WPB restrictions and the resulting low-alloy "National Emergency" or "War Department" steels, is what led me to this forum and this thread.
WPB records show that the entire chromium supply, including excess stock, was allocated (OPM Order M-18) for defense in July 1941. Molybdenum, including excess stock, was allocated in December 1941, when all alloy steel production was allocated for defense (OPM Order M-21). Effective January 1, 1942, all of the pre-war high-grade alloy steel formulas were disallowed by composition restrictions that capped manganese content at < 1.65%, chromium and molybdenum content at < 0.6%, and restricted vanadium in ANY quantity. That order disallowed the use of Chrome-Molybdenum AISI 41XX. Only the new N.E. or W.D. formulas (AISI 86XX, 87XX) or AISI 13XX or carbon steels (AISI 10XX) were allowed after January 1, 1942. Unless a smelter or a Mfgr had an A-10 or higher preference rating. And that was increased to A-1-K or higher after March 1942.
We have no record of Willys or Ford having those preference ratings for its tools, and some of us assume that common sense dictates that those certificates were likely reserved for airframes, tanks, guns, and munitions, not vehicle toolkit wrenches.
Reading this thread confirms that, since it appears that even a Garand rifle mfgr like WRA had difficulty getting the preference ratings to use chrome-moly for certain parts.
But I do have some timeline questions..
(1) What is the date of the note that WRA Plant Manager T.I.S. Boak wrote to his production chief (per Bob Seijas, post #21)?
(2) In general, I'm trying to figure out when these alloy steel production changes (references to Amola steel, substitute steel, and "WD8000" steel) hit WRA.
If anyone is interesting in reading more about the OPM/WPB alloy restrictions, we have a long thread dedicated to that subject, with many historical documents posted, here:
G503.com Message Forums View topic - Wartime Alloy Restrictions (click here)
The Boak memo is dated February 25, 1942. Bear in mind that this chrome/moly was steel Winchester already had on hand from commercial rifle manufacture. Your tools were more likely Amola steel that WRA also used because it was pushed on them as a substitute. Amola was developed by metallurgists at Chrysler and was being touted as something of a wonder metal. It was also a chrome/moly alloy but with different proportions. Chrysler made a lot of car springs out of it, even featured it in some magazine ads.
Thanks much, Bob. Appreciate the quick reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob seijas
Most tool makers used the "National Emergency" (also called "War Department") steels that metallurgists at AISI, from industry, and the WPB created in collaboration with each other as a result of the WPB cutting chromium and molybdenum content at <0.6%. These were AISI 86XX, 87XX, and 92XX triple alloys that used <0.4% nickel, chrome, and molybdenum. (Some makers, most notably Herbrand, actually forged-in the AISI numbers on their wrenches. Others went with the more generic "Alloy" or no markings at alll.) Other mfgrs used manganese steels (AISI 13XX). And others just perfected carbon steels.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob seijas
Do you have any technical references for Amola, Bob? I've been unable to find anything definitive that provides its chemical composition or AISI grade number. What is your source for identifying it as a chrome-moly steel? If it was indeed a chrome-moly, it had to be a low-chrome chrome-moly, which is AISI 4118, 4120, or 4121, which all had <0.6% chromium content. I have been unable to determine when those grades were created. If I can link them to Amola, that would be a big breakthrough for us, as Ford and Willys documentation both refers to "Chrome-Molybdenum" steel well into 1943, which has confused us, since we know that the WPB restricted high-grade Chrome-Moly (AISI 41XX) after January 1, 1942. Anything you could point me to that provided Amola's formula would be much appreciated, Bob.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob seijas
Quick additional comment: The one puzzling thing about the Boak memo is the implication that the "#3115" steel on order was a substitute for the chrome-moly. AISI 3115 steel is low-chrome (.55%) but high nickel (>1%). Nickel was also capped at <0.6%, so I can't figure out how AISI 3115 nickel-chrome steel is a substitute for AISI 41XX chrome-moly steel. Unless WRA had an A-10 or higher priority rating from the ORD. But if they had that, getting and using chrome-moly steel shouldn't have been a problem. So I'm still puzzled.
Tony Pucci solved the CM mystery and wrote it up in the Winter 2006 GCA Journal. He had both CM and A-marked WRA parts analyzed to confirm it. In the Fall 2010 Journal Bruce Canfield expanded on it from the Pugsley files, including this:
Amola was a relatively low cost steel that was extremely competitive in price with various other types of alloy steels and had greater availability at the time. Despite its comparatively low price, Amola was a high quality steel with a very fine grain that required no imported alloys. The Chrysler Corporation developed Amola steel and used it extensively in the manufacture of its Dodge and Plymouth line of automobiles, including the top of the line “Airflow” models...
I hope you can read the details in this photo of the analysis.
Thanks much, Bob! No problem reading it with the 'expand to normal size' feature. I'm assuming the part made with Amola steel is the #3-C bullet guide marked with an "A." (Incidentally, Fairmount made wrenches marked with an "A", and we've assumed it was Alloy. Might have to relook.) That is an odd composition. A moly-chrome with very low chrome content. I don't think there is an AISI/SAE grade that matches it precisely. Something lower than AISI/SAE 4021, which is the grade of the unmarked #4-D moly-alloy bullet guide.
Can you give me some approximate date ranges for the parts that were tested? Did WRA stop using the nickel-chrome-moly sight base and the chrome-moly aperture, clip latch, and hammer? If so, when? And what did they replace them with? Amola steel for those parts as well? Or was the Amola and the moly-alloy steel only used to replace the #2-B chrome-moly bullet guide?
I don't recall the dates, but CM and A parts were only used until they could get the normal steel. The WRA mavens on the board can give you chapter and verse. WRA clearly had some left over when they finally got the regular steel, because we see them again at the very end of production when they were sweeping the floor to use everything up.
Since I am prominent in the older posts, I am now playing the musical themes to the Twilight Zone and the X files; the truth is out there now.
I am also quite convinced that Continental Machine and Alcoa had no part in the A and CM stampings, nor did aliens provide the steel , no matter what Childress and Psoupolokoupolous say on NatGeo.
Reading those old Chrysler Ads featuring Amola steel for their auto springs, is entertaining.