Printable View
Hi all
I recently acquired a 1946 faz no5mk1. The furniture is in excellent condition and other than some paint that is oxidizing it looks virtually unused. The magazine isn’t a match however which leads me to believe it saw service somewhere.
But my almost mint condition carbine has a #3 bolthead....did they come from the factory like that, or is it an armorers adjustment?
Previous information from PL suggests that from the factory or after re-build (FTR) the rifle MUST have a number 2 (or smaller) bolt head to allow for wear. A Rifle after FTR must have 80% life left and with a No3 bolt head it is (probably) in its last 1/4 of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by squamish5
However the Bolt head number is pretty much irrelevant as the number is only a guide, you can get a No 0, a No1, a No2 ALL a bigger size than a No3. The critical number is the actual bolt head size - NOT number.
For example a size 0.632" could be a No0, a No1, a No2 or a No3
And the reason bolt head size markings can be misleading is more to do with armourers and others grinding them down than poor QC.
Looks pretty pitted to me, but all depends what you paid, what you want to do with it, and what the bore is like.
Whatever happened to the Squamish Five anyway?;)
Thanks for the helpful spread sheet Alan. I have taken the liberty of saving it - I hope that's ok. When I change bolt heads I have them stored by size (a box of 0's & 1's & another box of 2's & 3's), but I always drop a micrometer across the likely suitable examples before fitting. The number is at best a very rough guide, as the spread sheet illustrates. I also try to match by manufacturer if possible, although a good fit is the most important thing. It is surprising how much difference there is between bolt heads in the (thread) timing - resulting in unacceptable under or over turn. If the head under turns you won't get the bolt back in the rifle; if there is excessive over turn the threads will be taking considerable pressure on firing rather than the resistance shoulder/lug.
Dumb question... If you rebarrel a LE, which obviously also requires head spacing, do you essentially reset the life of the bolt head?
I'd say NOQuote:
Originally Posted by amadeus76
The reason that headspace increases is due to the bolt locking lugs being pounded back into the locking lugs of the body, this eventually wears thru the body hardening and it is the body that becomes 'scrap', not the bolt or bolt head.
If you put a new barrel onto an an 'old' rifle body' it does not become new.
YouTube
A post from Peter Laidler April 2008 on the old Jouster forum
I was having a chat to one of the most senior examining Armourers at a huge Base Workshops at Warminster a few days ago. Long retired, he was a 1930's apprentice and one of the very strict examiners. I was asking him about chroming bolt heads to get longer life out of heads bolts and bodies when he reported back something that was VERY interesting.
He said that during the mid 50's, there was a plan mooted to make a No4 size bolt head available so as to decrease the number of old wartime/tired/just plain worn out rifles being condemned as unfit simply because of excess CHS. The alternative was to increase the MAX CHS to .078".
He was involved in this project as the research Officer, so was in from the start. The PROBLEM was that once the BOLT, Inspectors, Gauge (a calibrated slave bolt used to test wear) plus a calibrated No2 bolt head (No3 not permitted at Base/Factory don't forget) had been inserted into the inspectors gauge bolt, then making a further bolt head available was palliative and not a cure because these simple tests indicated that it was the BODY that was worn and not the bolt or the face of the barrel. And thinking about it, while it's obvious really, it's absolutely correct!
Another problem they encountered was that with the speed of wartime production, the induction hardening of the bodies was at best, mediocre, and at worst, sometimes virtually non existant. The hardening sometimes had no depth and it was tested at Base Workshops by the old IZOD impact test method. Apparently, all manufacturers were as bad or good as each other including Savage and LB (I bet that has shocked a few of you who were probably lead to believe that some makers were 'better' than others......)
I spoke about resurfacing bolts but he just shook his head sternly and wagged his finger as if to say. 'No, it's the BODY that's worn beyond the point of no return and once the hardness is gone, then there is no cure.'
There, that's straight from the horses mouth and it doesn't come any clearer or louder than that. If you cannot get CHS with BOTH bolt lugs bearing evenly using a No3 bolt head, THEN trying a new bolt, then it is the BODY that is finished. Sorry about that.....................
Lol, the squamish5 went to prison for a timeQuote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Btw, that’s not pitting of the metal, it’s the paint only....
Except on the sight eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by squamish5