DIY heat treating

Hello all, does anyone know the procedure The contractors used to heat treat carbine extractors? I know you can heat treat things like springs yourself using a simple kitchen oven and was wondering if you could do the same to reproduction extractors which are very soft. I know most people would say what's the point when USGI extractors are plentiful, but I was just wondering if junk extractors could be turned in to normal functioning useful extractors by heat treating them yourself. Years ago I bought a reproduction extractor just to see how long it would last and the edge was peeled back a quarter of the way after three shots if I remember correctly.basically useless except for show.would it take temperatures above what a kitchen oven could produce? Just bored and curious. Thanks in advance for any and all replies

Having the proper steel alloy is important to heat treated parts. If junk extractors are made from junk steel you probably will not get the results you are looking for.

for such a small part you can surface harden pretty easily with just a torch. plenty of videos on how to do it out there.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1006364292
This would at least make it more serviceable, but don't expect perfect-like-factory-original results, per bml's post above.

If the steel was capable of being properly hardened and tempered, to the correct specs, it probably would have been carried out when the item was first made. It would be pointless a manufacturer making the part out of the correct grade of "high carbon alloy steel" and then "not bothering" to correctly heat treat the part.

Case hardening is a process that can be used to surface harden steels that can not be hardened by normal methods. It does involve heating the part to high temperatures, much higher than a domestic kitchen oven.

I would assume that reproduction extractors are cast and that would depend on what steel was used. 4140 is a good steel but can it be cast? There have to be some really great machinists still out there. Reading War Baby, it seems that the parts were arrayed on a wire platform and heated to a specific temp then quenched. The part was troublesome because the makers were not in any hurry to get the red hot parts into the oil bath. This left the rack with half treated parts and soft parts. Looking at finished US extractors under a glass, they are terribly crude looking and those are the keepers. I guess this is why I don't use Wolf Ammunition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

I guess this is why I don't use Wolf Ammunition.

---

I've only broken one on a Carbine and I'm pretty sure that's what caused it. I did shoot quite a bit of it in a Mini 30 without extractor trouble. I think it was about $1.30 a box for the 7.62x39 at the time! - Bob

I agree Bob. A lot of people shoot a lot of Wolf and have zero problems. Consider that the US Ordnance made some 30 carbine steel case and it was used for everything but combat says a lot.. I look at steel cased 45 made by Chrysler during the war and it is basically a shortened 30-06 case, robust, not flexible just like the regular brass cases. That's why you don't ever trim 45 cases, they never grow. Now 30 Carbine is a whole different kettle of fish. Long, thin, easy to dent and distort. A case that is easy to stick in a chamber. Soviet weapons get away with steel cases because they are rimmed and tapered, the Germans used mild steel because they had to make it work, varnished and with a short shelf life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

I look at steel cased 45 made by Chrysler during the war and it is basically a shortened 30-06 case, robust, not flexible just like the regular brass cases.

---

I just sold a box of Evansville 45's at a recent show. I think I still have some empty cases - will take a closer look at 'em. Thanks! - Bob
(Sorry for the "hi-jack", Jon) :surrender:

No worries Bob, no hijack at all. Every comment is an opportunity to learn I always say. Plus, my question was basically answered by the steel not having enough carbon in it to be able to properly harden it which I can't believe didn't dawn on me before even asking the question haha.

I just checked the few steel 45 cases I have and compared them with '06 - almost exactly the same like DaveHH mentioned. Several of the head stamps are "TW 5" for Twin City 1955, if I'm reading those correctly. Only have (2) left of the "EC 43" - one has a large font and the other is small. I thought once about reloading them just to see if that would work, but never got around to trying it - I probably wouldn't have been the first! :dunno: - Bob

During the war, Chrysler wrote two books about their contribution to the war effort. One was about steel cased 45 ammunition "Bullets by the Billion" and one on the Sherman tanks they built using five flathead sixes on a common crank, making one of the better tank engines of the war. "Tanks are Mighty Fine Things".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

...using five flathead sixes on a common crank...

---

I've gotta look that up, sounds amazing!

Russ

I'm not certain, but I think each individual engine had it's own crankshaft, but they were all connected (somehow) to a common shaft running down the center of the layout. We had an 8 cylinder ammonia compressor at the plant I retired from, that had four banks of 2 cylinders each, all connected to a crank with just two throws on it. Four rods connected to each throw and it was not easy to get to all those rod caps through (2) hand hole covers, one on each side of the block - all while laying on the floor! At least no bombs were being dropped outside at the time! - Bob

The Chrysler A57 was 5 individual 250 cubic inch 6 cylinder engines with geared flywheels that simultaneously engaged a common transmission input shaft. They were functional but far from loved by the field mechanics who were responsible to keep them running. The fuel delivery system was sub par and was constantly revised throughout its production life.

It's estimated that 7500 M4 Sherman's and hundreds of M3 Lee tanks were built with this engine in 1942 and 1943. The large majority were shipped to Britain as a part of lend-lease. The engine was so big weighing over 5000 pounds the Sherman's engine compartment had to be lengthened to fit the beast. In general the Sherman was powered by obsolete radial aircraft engines but that was a time when even those were being used to push aircraft out the door. Much later in it's production the Sherman finally got 2 GM diesels mated much the same as this.

The A57 could start and run with as many as 2 individual engines not firing and made huge explosive backfires when those fuel soaked engines finally lit up. Not very desirable for battlefield stealth. It was said they were so loud when running they could be heard a week away. If you've ever heard 1 of these little solid lifter flatheads run you'd be able to imagine what 5 combined sounded like. I did a paper on this engine in high-school for an automotive class where we had to research odd uses of car engines, that's the only reason I ever heard of it.

Oldphoneguy: Pacific Telesis about 40 years.

That Chrysler A57 once they got the carb situation and water pump situation fixed was not a bad engine. Heavy but it had to be almost like an electric dynamo with that many cylinders. The rumors I read about it were that if a few cylinders just checked out who cares? Anyone who's worked on those Chrysler sixes in Plymouth, DeSoto, Dodge and Chrysler cars can tell you they are bulletproof. Tiny carburetors that will not allow it to wreck a crank or blow up. 4 1/2" stroke, Inserts on the rods and cranks, cheap and easy to make. I'd say the 30 cylinder was anything but cheap and easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

Oldphoneguy: Pacific Telesis about 40 years.

That Chrysler A57 once they got the carb situation and water pump situation fixed was not a bad engine. Heavy but it had to be almost like an electric dynamo with that many cylinders. The rumors I read about it were that if a few cylinders just checked out who cares? Anyone who's worked on those Chrysler sixes in Plymouth, DeSoto, Dodge and Chrysler cars can tell you they are bulletproof. Tiny carburetors that will not allow it to wreck a crank or blow up. 4 1/2" stroke, Inserts on the rods and cranks, cheap and easy to make. I'd say the 30 cylinder was anything but cheap and easy.

---

What was your job title Dave? I was a field tech that survived 3 incarnations of bell system. Nynex, Bell Atlantic and the worst of the worst Verizon. I started late, was in my 30's but still managed 24 years.

It wasn't a desirable power system and was incredibly difficult to service. Nobody was going to replace that engine in the field like they could with the radial aero engines. It was a long trip to a depot for any major servicing especially engine replacement. I remember reading some unkind comments from the British techs that worked on these things. These were guys that mostly cut their teeth on tiny little scooter or MG engines. Could you imagine the horror in their faces the first time they saw one of these massive 30 cylinder things.

Hired as a Lineman 4/1964, drafted in 9/1965 till May 1967, then Installer_Repairman, foreman for I&R Crew 1977 then Died and went to Telephone heaven, last 8 years, Engineer. Early retirement 1992 with Pension and benefits at 46. Contracted back for another 10 years as Field Engineer.

Apparent most of the WW2 tank engines were makeshift aircraft or truck engines. Proper diesel engines were developed late in the war.

Thank you for your service Dave.

You were what us later hires called a golden boy. Ran the gammet of careers in the company then got to get out and come back with a they can't touch me attitude. Worked with a lot of guys like you and always had a lot of laughs while getting the job done.
Started as residential I&R. My last 15 years I did Industrial and Business I&R as well as Special Services while on loan. I worked with a bunch of the retread engineers. You guys really had no quams about telling the higher ups where they should go when they became a pain you know where. Good times. I almost miss it but I like retirement better.

Very late war and into Korea the M4's were mostly powered with a pair GM 6-71 naturally aspirated diesels. This model of engine remained in production with varying numbers of cylinders, an eventual V configuration and turbocharging well into the 1990's. What's sad is this engine went into production in 1938. In hindsight none of the M4 tanks actually had to use aviation gas which gave them the nickname of Ronson by the Tommy's for how easily they became a fireball.

The nickname Ronson is a post WWII affectation.

I always thought that the "Ronson" connection was bogus considering that all of Germany's front line armored fighting vehicles were gasoline powered. 3" of sloped armor put out a lot of fires, huh? Look at photos of a Panther taking one in the side and watch it go up in about 3 seconds.

Thinking about tempering extractors in burning Panzers.......

If today extractors, genuine ones are $30 each, it sure seems plausible that a cheap and efficient way of casting and tempering a part that small is a viable business opportunity. The scrap rate would be tiny because there isn't much metal involved. If they can copy machine a gun part, why not an extractor? A tree casting would give up a dozen or so with a cup of material? The government already made cast extractors, why not do it again. I've seen that most exotic and common steels can be precision cast today, why not.?

Not sure it would hold up on a Carbine extractor, but look at all the manufacturers now putting MIM (metal injection molding) parts in their guns. New pistols for $200 and they seem to work OK. - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

Not sure it would hold up on a Carbine extractor, but look at all the manufacturers now putting MIM (metal injection molding) parts in their guns. New pistols for $200 and they seem to work OK. - Bob

---

Yes they say Glock extractors which are MIM, hold up just fine. I have a few spares but my Glock was made before they switched to MIM so I haven't had any experience yet shooting with them.

I've never read anything about this subject but I'd bet that the wear and tear on a semi-auto carbine and an M2 must be night and day.

It would be interesting to see how one of those MIM extractors done with some exotic modern steel would hold up with no heat treatment at all? I'd bet just common 4140 would do just fine. The MIM casting would be a perfect part as opposed to the junky looking Wartime part. It was a troublesome part from the very beginning. Looking closely at one of the surplus extractors made by some contractor during WW2 will disappoint you. They probably don't fit as well as a new MIM part would.

I had my RIA "Rock" apart a couple years ago. When I first got it, I thought some of the parts (MIM) looked like they were made out of plastic. When I got it apart I found out they weren't! - it's pretty neat for a relatively inexpensive gun. - Bob

Attachment 128501Attachment 128502