-
Please help with WRA finishes
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkerizing
Use this link for information on parkerizing. It may be zinc phosphating not zinc oxide.
John
-
I meant zinc phosphate! Sorry
-
-
Thats what I always was wondering about, there is no deep green park, but could it be a faded zinc phosphate, as Im learning the manganese phosphate was deeper green with the years, and cosmoline?
These pics were taken outside, with no flash..gray zinc phosphate finish, not a coating, as the process didnt coat?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...95272708-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...95272708-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...95272708-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...95272955-1.jpg
No signs of buffing, polishing, finish removal, Ive had it 30+ years..
-
From what I have read, Manganese was needed for other things during the war. Zinc and black oxide were used instead.
Ours are just 1575 apart.. Notice my slide does not match, I have since found an original slide, also my barrel is a blackish color like yours.
This is a good write up..
"Somewhat analogous to the improved manganese phosphating process improvements discovered by Baker and Dingman, a similarly-improved method was found for an improved zinc phosphating process as well. This improvement was discovered by Darsey of the Parker Rust Proof Company, who filed a patent in February 1941, which was granted in August 1942, U.S. Patent 2,293,716, that improved upon the zinc phosphatizing (Parkerizing) process further. He discovered that adding copper reduced the alkalinity requirement over what had been required, and that also adding a chlorate to the nitrates that were already used would additionally permit running the process at a much lower temperature in the range of 115 to 130 °F (46 to 54 °C), reducing the cost of running the process further. With these process improvements, the end result was that a low-temperature (energy-efficient) zinc phosphating (Parkerizing) process, using strategic materials which the United States had ready access to, became the most common phosphating process used during World War II to protect American war materials such as firearms and planes from rust and corrosion."
-
The barrel I believe is dulite finish.
-
Quote:
....the end result was that a low-temperature (energy-efficient) zinc phosphating (Parkerizing) process, using strategic materials which the United States had ready access to, became the most common phosphating process used during World War II to protect American war materials such as firearms and planes from rust and corrosion."
O.K., with the above information in mind, we also know through Inland documents, that they were using Parco-Lubrite for their phosphate coating. Parco-Lubrite is a manganese phosphate coating. How does that fit in with the above statement?
There's no doubt in my mind that Winchester was using zinc phosphate on their receivers throughout production. Barrels appear to have a black oxide finish early and a zinc phosphate finish later. Winchester was even using zinc phosphate on, at least some, M-1 rifle production (see GCA Journal, vol 22, issue 2, pages 11-14). The finish on those two Garands match Winchester receiver finish.
Finish on carbines varied, depending on the prime contractor, the part, and the time period.
-
Thankyou Chris, how would you classify the receiver finish on my WRA? 1108196? Zinc Phosphate is what Brian Q stated on another board? Mine and FTD,s are so close, but his finish is greener, but seems like the logo, and serial numbers on FTD's are more filled in with whatever finish it has??
I think my barrel has the earlier black oxide, or dulite finish..
-
Quote:
how would you classify the receiver finish on my WRA?
Original, but worn.
Quote:
Mine and FTD,s are so close, but his finish is greener, but seems like the logo, and serial numbers on FTD's are more filled in with whatever finish it has??
FTD's may be refinished. The color doesn't look right. I would have to see more photos.
-
I didnt want to state that to FTD, but it looked funny to me too...mine supposedly was used by a Marine in the So. Pacific. I have the original bill of sale, and the gun shop owner told me it came in from an ex-Marine who was in the pacific in WW2
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...95285275-1.jpg
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Garandrew
Thats what I always was wondering about, there is no deep green park, but could it be a faded zinc phosphate, as Im learning the manganese phosphate was deeper green with the years, and cosmoline?
It's the chromic acid rinse that imparts the green tint to the finish not the base metal of the phosphate coating or cosmoline.
-
Brian, does that green from the acid rinse wear out? Here a comparison between barrel/receiver
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1295288211
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Garandrew
Brian, does that green from the acid rinse wear out?
No, but the finish wears.
-
$240.00 in 1980 is like $480 in 1990, $960.00 in 2000, and $1,920.00 in 2010 dollars.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Here is good original Winchester color. This is a 5.6, Mar 1944
-
Great example Dave,
Do you think the lube hole was added while in service? (WWII era)
I ask because I have a W code Underwood that looks to have had just the lube oil added, but still has the flip rear sight and Type I barrel band.
Other than the lube hole, looks to be original finish with expected wear found on the metal where it contacts the stock...etc.
Charlie
-
Hi Charlie
A very, very, very good source offered an opinion that this carbine shows no signs of a rebuild. There is also a known example very close in number to this one that is a "mirror image" right down to the Underwood recoil plate. So it may very well be that the type five TH came into use earlier than thought. The variations are not surprising as the recent Winchester featured in the CC newsletter was made on probably the same day as this one and had no oil hole and a flip sight. Both have type 2 bands. I've owned this carbine a long time, nothing has been changed and as mentioned it is all Winchester except for the Underwood recoil plate which etched the wood and appears original to the stock (it was extraordinarily hard to get out as well).
Thanks Charlie
