Is it normal for them to have not been fitted?
Printable View
Is it normal for them to have not been fitted?
When the wood production was taken from Lithgow and given to Slazengers in Sydney, they started out making the foreends without them, probably as a production expediency. The dates are in the bible, not at home ATM so won't go guessing any more than late '42 to near mid '43.
There was a batch of foreends at the time that were not used and most of them ended up in JJ co's hands and were used in the assembly of their "Lithgows"... Hence them being pale, no copper plates, and a lot were warped.... More on this another time... Still seeking to verify some info on the topic after ten years...
I don't own the bible :ugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
Its a Slaz43 foreend Son
Is it an intact rifle of a lose forend?
It is a bitser rifle, a really bad siamese contract action with what looks like a near new coachwood fore end save a couple on one side. It certainly crosses me as being NOS and not off a service rifleQuote:
Originally Posted by Homer
I've had a few of these NOS coachwood forends and one definitely had an allignment problem. But rather than warped, it seemed the profile machined for the nosecap, was off centre to the barrel channel, by quite a significant amount. Was never going to work. A friend of mine who has quite a lot of these stocks put away, has one same. Factory rejects?
I dont know, it seems to have all the right service marks stamped into it and a barrelled action seems to sit straight in the channels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer
How anyone gets to put a lot of these stocks away? where do people find these things!
Mate some of these people have been accumulating for a very long time and these bits and pieces were a lot more available from the 90's back. I never had much trouble finding these things myself but I'm not an accumulator like some. It's staggering what this bloke has in his gun room.
The woodwork was passed over to Slazenger in November 1941, recoil plates were a standard fitment on Forewoods at that time still being predominately Qld Maple.
When Coachwood became the predominant timber, these plates were still being fitted, but towards the end of 1942 and into 1943, the practice ceased.
With the increase of failure of Coachwood stocks the practice recommenced mid 1943 and continued until the factory ceased repairwork in 1960.
Several different methods of repair were tried from 1930 on, the copper plates being the most cost effective.
The Jensen Report and Tony Griffiths volumes cover part of this information.
Thanks muffet. If you are going to make target rifle with it, would it be worth altering the draws straight away? Seeing its NOS and not of a service rifle, i would be happy about altering the barrel channel for H barrel, seeing its clearly not seen service
My old boss in the NZ Army, WO2 'Jock' Annandale, the chief Armourer at the Northern District Base Ordnance Depot who taught me all I know about the No1 rifle (we only touched on them while we were apprentices) explained to me that the copper blocks used by Australia were a frill - if not a direct fraud. I have got my steel helmet on and awaiting the incoming mortars from you wild antipodeans now..... Because the notion of keeping these blocks in place, under load, using a small wood screw INTO the grain of a wood was an idea based on fuzzy logig. If the wood wasn't tough enough at the end grain to tale the load/pressure of the drawers, under load............ then what makes it any more successful in taking the load of the drawers with a copper block between it?
I'm just repeating what he said but using more polite language. And in any case, he explained politely........ when the draws need repairing, then what....... Thicker copper blocks with longer and equally useless screws? Or just cut them out as with the No4's and patch using hardwood as per the NZ equivalent of EMEI's
why would a hardwood block be any different to a copper block.:dunno:
The copper plates were a reasonable enough fix for the problem given there wasn't much else. The screw doesn't have to hold much being virtually in line with the axis of recoil. The plates present a hard surface to even the load over a broader area. No doubt was easier to throw a worn stock away rather than repair.
Either the coachwood is hard enough to take the recoil or it isnt, if it isnt, should the draws be replaced with something that is?
Bindi, thread 12 and others. Hardwood blocks are a patch, glued in sides and rear and pegged side to side and set back 1/2" or so as shown in thread about patching fore-ends
Screws are not in line with the recoil.
Plates are not practically a larger area than normal. The drawers are the bearing surface.
Throw away unserviceable fore-end. Cheaper to fix it especially when they're coming into NZ from overseas
Bushy it was replaced, with the copper plates. You can't fix what is a poor choice of timber but the plates remedied the problem well enough to finish the war and beyond. The screw may have presented a weakness, but I've never noted the draws give away because of the screw. Its usually the whole area of wood right back to the receiver ring that breaks away. Happens in Walnut too but to a much lessor extent no doubt.
Walnut inserts were tried for a brief period in Qld maple stocks in the late 20's.
It seems the factory engineers thought the plate design good enough to see out production.
Then why would they swap to copper blocks if they had alrwady tried hardwood inserts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Im confused by the need to do this (copper blocks) if a tried procedure (hardwood inserts) already or is this one of those "not sure why" government procurement mess-up type issues
I don't know mate, I wasn't there. I'm only posting what happened as well as I know it. The walnut inserts were used in qld maple stocks in the late 20's. Maybe the method was not a success and maybe its because the technique was poor. I've had some very sound examples and a couple with busted inserts as pictured. Whatever the reasons, they persisted with the copper plates.Quote:
Originally Posted by BushyFromOz
Here are a few pics that might help everyone visualise what is being discussed.
First pic shows a foreend without any reinforcement of any kind. Note the size and location of the compression of the draws from recoil... less than half the width of the ledge, all at the inside edge
Attachment 82305
Pic2, a foreend that according to the description that came with it, was an armourers repair. Seems to only replace the bit that was compressed, not significantly wider or deeper than the contact area.
Attachment 82304
Pic 3. Three foreends with the draws area highlighted...
Left is a coachwood foreend, without the recoil blocks, showing the contact area as less than half the surface.
In the center is a SLAZ 43 foreend, unfinished and unfitted- like so many of the JJ Co builds- very pale and also a tad out of shape- but when touched to a barreled action, it marked where the lugs were going, less than half.
On the right is a coachwood foreend with the copper plates fitted at the factory and unused. Note the copper plates are not only covering all the surface, but have been cut in further at the outside to increase the surface contact. This keeps the center line of the screw outside the impact area, so it won't be directly effected by it. The screw can keep the plate square to the lugs and spread the load evenly over about triple the surface area of the recoil lugs- the marks from which can just be seen at the points of the arrows.
Attachment 82303
I suggest the copper plates were more than just an ok fix for a timber that was not really suitable for the job.
Getting back to the "unused" Slaz 43 foreends... from my theories folder...
Coachwood blanks were milled green and block stacked a long time in advance to allow them to dry naturally. By late 1942 rifle production had been out stripping the supply of dried/ seasoned foreend blanks to the extent that other methods of drying were needed. They experimented with kiln dried blanks but found the rapid drying left them unstable and very prone to warping once cut to form. A lot were treated this way and some used while new supplies of blanks were being seasoned as they had been before. By the time they decided the kiln dried blanks were not a good option, supplies of naturally dried blanks were ready and all the kiln dried cut foreends were stuck aside. Seemingly to be sold off many years later as untreated SLAZ 43 foreends without recoil blocks.
I have been trying to confirm this info for years, but certain snippets are in the books, and added to stuff I got from another source, went together into the rough timeline above.
Interested in any or all comments. Its an open book at the moment.
Gents and particularly Bushy(your thread mate), the dates Ian Skennerton and other sources quote for this period of production the recoil plates were not installed, don't correlate precisely to what can be observed on rifles. The first rifle pictured, a 1944 action, serial number E95000 and barrel date 5/44 doesn't have plates. This is close to the latest serial number I've had without plates, but not the latest.
The second rifle is a 42 action but assembled in 1943, barrel date 5/43 and serial numbered D64000. No plates. The gap between these two rifles is roughly 12 months but more than 120000 rifles.
Ive had rifles that were manufactured during the period quoted earlier as not having plates, that had the plates. Can't unequivocally prove to the forum that the plates were not later additions on these examples, but it was my opinion and the opinion from others, after very close observation, they were installed from new.
Now I'm not challenging the published information, just posting what I have seen.
Is it because of a lag in production from the time the directive to stop installing the plates was handed down and implemented to the time the rifles were mated with those stocks and assembled?
Sons thread and photos do show the WIDER copper plates but this amply illutsrates a couple of points that I couldn't mention because I don't have a fore-end handy. The wider plates ARE wider but is that simply because if they weren't wide, you'd never(? or hardly without totally weakening) get a wood screw countersunk head into the plate! And no matter how you put it, the rearward loading in that situation goes straight down through and into the wood where the drawers sit, tilting the copper block as it does so.
I had a funny feeling that this would run as soon as I put pen to paper.
Here's another question chaps........ How do you repair a copper blocked fore-end when there's end float? Bin it and get a new one, put thicker copper blocks in place and plug and re-screw the screw hole or just wood patch in the usual manner observed amongst Armourers
Peter to your first question, I would respond, when properly fitted, there's no allowable movement between action and wood, so the plate can't tilt.
Second question, I'm interested to know also if there is some kind of armorers instruction to repair end play. To be honest, I haven't come across any coachwood forends with recoil plates that presented any noticable end play with the action. I'm inclined to think the harder copper plates almost completely remedied the problem of wood compression from bruising directly behind the bearing surfaces.
Ah, but we're not talking about when the fore-end is nicely fitted with plates. Then of course there ISN'T a problem. We're asking about when end float in the taper between the butt socket and drawers takes place.
The NZ Army repair at the huge Base workshop facility where I was based* was to remove the fore-end, remove the blocks and screws, simply machine out the worn drawers, wood patch, re-fit and send back out again or return the weapon to Ordnance. Exactly as we, the NZers, Australians et al had been doing for 40 years BEFORE the introduction of copper seating blocks and we've been doing for 70 years since on No4's. Same meat, different gravy of course. Indeed......, Son has shown photos of such repairs
*I'm just telling you what my boss told me and as I also mentioned, while there were some old No1's still doing the rounds they weren't something that I was working on. My job was war preparation in-inspection stuff
I have a foreend somewhere where the recoil plates have turned in toward the center pivoting around the screw just as Peter suggested might happen. That particular foreend is well and truly drenched with oil that has probably run back from the barrel when over oiled and racked upright. The coachwood has turned into soggy mess just like the worst of the walnut ones we have seen, allowing the part supporting the inside edge of the copper plates to compress. Of course, once any movement is present, the damage gets very bad very quickly.
I would suggest this is avoidable, and therefore the exception rather than the rule with well kept, tight fitting coachwood foreends fitted with the copper plates.
As for tightening them if they do get loose... I cannot say I have ever came across any that were loose that did not show a good reason for being loose. Tell-tales like the square in the tie plate spread and burred from having the butt screw moved while the foreend is attached. This spreads the tie plate, and cracks and spreads the back of the foreend, stripping the grip of the threaded cross wire at the back, allowing the foreend to spread freely and loading the copper recoil plates more toward the inner edge as the gap between them is opened. The draws cracked out along the screw holes- pic below.
I have, on a foreend I have fitted plates to (and didn't get right first go), used shim material behind the plates to get them to even tension again. Another I did was on a H barreled range rifle that looked to have had the foreend removed by pulling down at the front first instead of tapping off at the rear. Luckily the motion seemed to only compress the draws slightly and few thou of shim each side tightened them up.
Attachment 82313
[QUOTE=Peter Laidler;395801]Ah, but we're not talking about when the fore-end is nicely fitted with plates. Then of course there ISN'T a problem. We're asking about when end float in the taper between the butt socket and drawers takes place.
The NZ Army repair at the huge Base workshop facility where I was based* was to remove the fore-end, remove the blocks and screws, simply machine out the worn drawers, wood patch, re-fit and send back out again or return the weapon to Ordnance. Exactly as we, the NZers, Australians et al had been doing for 40 years BEFORE the introduction of copper seating blocks and we've been doing for 70 years since on No4's. Same meat, different gravy of course. Indeed......, Son has shown photos of such repairs
*I'm just telling you what my boss told me and as I also mentioned, while there were some old No1's still doing the rounds they weren't something that I was working on. My job was war preparation in-inspection stuff[/QUOTE
Which begs my next question. If the copper blocks were no better at withstanding recoil, perhaps they may have reduced the number or frequency of rebuilds in the draws area?
I honestly think the coachwood furniture was accepted as being no better than Qld maple for the task, but perhaps the easiest wood to machine and control as far as warping was concerned.... Maybe it's good points (compared to what was available in the absence of good English or Spanish walnut) outweighed the bad, and seeing it was during WW2 by then, any attempted fixes were limited to working with what you already had....
just my 2c
Fitting copper plates at the factory would have been quicker ,easier, cheaper than finding the skill to fit hardwood blocks when numbers out the door was the name of the game. We are seeing the ravages of time etc which is also unkind to all other for-ends. The luxury of more time in workshops when repair was needed could be used because the numbers were up from the Factory. Obviously without the plates the work load at base workshops was too high not enough rifles going out the door to replace those coming in the door. Solution fit copper plates win win and some think they are hard done by because these old ladies need a little TLC and repair. The Aussie soldier would have been much happier knowing his rifle was going keep doing what it should do when needed.
I agree Bindii, it was all about economics and repair turnaround.
I do have pics on another computer that show a more substantial wood patch.
Brad, the oil soak syndrome probably had a lot of bearing on the copper block usage, being more able to protect the timber.
We must remember that other methods had been trialled before this, the solid rods of 1934-35, which though effective, did not last long.
Then there were the aluminium blocks of the '50's. followed by Joe Wards patent 12132/52 which used adjustable threaded rods as per the 34-35 modification.
This allowed the slack to be adjusted as required.
As per the fitting of blocks to forewoods, the question would be was the production standards of the time good enough that these blocks were prefitted to all forewoods before the timber was mated to the firearm? If it was then there would be a high volume of forewoods complete with plates to be used up before exhausting the supply and reverting to bare timber.........just a thought, as the quality of the early coachwood was pretty good.
Great read on a much overlooked subject. :cheers:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...vtmiwzdl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...jilyrnvq-1.jpg