Gallery of Dramas. Broken Enfield Parts!

[Peter Laidler]

That's an interesting piece Bruce. It's almost archaic now and as you say, just SOO subjective too. We used an old IZOD tester to test the body locking lug and bolt lug hardness at the big Base workshops. It was a ball impact at a certain load. Certainly no Brinnell or DPN. When they were doing the trials to test the suitability of a longer bolt head, they used a similar testing method. But as I mentioned, it was soon established that if a rifle had run out of CHS on a No3 calibrated bolthead in the gauge, inspectors, bolt, then the hardness had broken through or down

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Claven2]

That's an interesting piece Bruce. It's almost archaic now and as you say, just SOO subjective too. We used an old IZOD tester to test the body locking lug and bolt lug hardness at the big Base workshops. It was a ball impact at a certain load. Certainly no Brinnell or DPN. When they were doing the trials to test the suitability of a longer bolt head, they used a similar testing method. But as I mentioned, it was soon established that if a rifle had run out of CHS on a No3 calibrated bolthead in the gauge, inspectors, bolt, then the hardness had broken through or down

Ah yes, the wonderful IZOD method. I work with a lot of milspec UK kit and almost all of the old specs call for IZOD while here in North America most of the specs I see are based on CHARPY testing. Not sure why the British penchant for IZOD, but if memory serves the IZOD test require more sample prep and therefore always annoyed me back in the day.

Of course, apart from batch stock proving, most of our testing these days is NDE such as ultrasonics, LPI, etc.