Printable View
Could anyone say if the two parts are interchangeable? They looked pretty similar to me and I cannot tell if the one in my parts box is one or the other.
Trying to hustle some parts together for a No 4 and want to use up what I have on hand.
Thanks-Brian
I don't think so. I admit I've never tried though. I have lots of nos No.4 handguard rings if in need.
Thanks- I need to round up all the forward wood parts and a hg ring for a victimized No 4. so I'm looking for parts.
I'm pretty sure the O3,P-14 and P-17 are all larger than the No.4.
Thanks for your reply, I'm positive the 14-17 are a larger diameter. At one point I seem to recall having parts for both the 03 and no4 out at the same time and having to double check I didn't get them crossed up. I just never verified they were actually different or happened to select the right one by chance.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are more or less the same the more I think about it. I'm going to do a rudimentary check now that I have a chance and that assembly frenzy has now past. For all I know they very well may have both been for a No4 being there is no R mark between any of them.
Quick check shows 1.307 across the ring on a no4 and 1.3075 ID of this stamped ring inside a lopped off no4 stock.
Inside the ring is a RP mark. I'll sleep better tonight knowing all of this that I didn't run down my other rifle with a Rp marked handguard ring :yikes:
Attachment 100726
Not a chance. Two very different philosophies for the designs. And another for the Pattern 13, 14 and 17.
I think I disagree, the two different parts based on the quick check I did seem very similar. If they are different and not interchangeable for a dead swap so be it, I'll be able to determine that in a relatively short amount of time. What is interesting to me is the coincidence between the two parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunray
Not being a subject matter expert on manufacturing processes it would however seem to me that regardless of the finished product, raw material acquisition and handling, production method and tooling apparatus rapidity for a non critical part is an easy win. Certain design exigencies and consideration for further development surely would have occurred between two allied nations regardless of finished product appearance. The intent of both rifles was the same and surely collaboration between engineering teams would have existed for any purpose that was easily adaptable. Thats a no brainer for impressing the boss.
Besides, everybody on all sides already knew a stamped HG ring would work, why build different machines to do the same thing if you want to get to the same place. Not to mention maintenance and training of personnel. My philosophy is that's how not to win a war when you know the drums are already beating.
Just my take at the moment.