"Deep hole" drilling problem - Inland receivers

[firstflabn]

any where in a receiver that you can see through would make me nervous.

Might want to avoid all Quality Hardware receivers then. And don't drive over any bridges with a section of grating.

[ABPOS]

I've got a Standard Products. Chicago has some of those grates over a bridge in town. I used to date this girl that was going to some school down there and I remember my car would kind of go left and right while going over that bridge. Meaning the grates seemed like they allowed the car to faintly "slide" from side to side. Didn't track well. It was always an uneasy feeling. hhehehhehe

[DaveHH]

(mine were 160 mph Continentals) and ride on freeway with rain grooves; it is like being on marbles. Perfectly safe. You might try reciting the 23rd psalm next time you cross a scary bridge, worked for me a couple of times in 1966-67.
Consider how much work went into the receiver and think about wartime pressure to perform, none of these carbines was finished like a Model 12, more like a brick. I think that the actual finish was excessively fine for what it was. Look over the top of a carbine from about the top of the stock comb, not much lines up or is straight. It's not how it looks, it's how it worked.

I'm probably totally wrong, but I think that this thing just went right through after an inspection to determine utility and was assembled.

[firstflabn]

For anyone who has ever worked on fabricating something to a standard, this is pretty obvious. The question immediately becomes: does it meet specs or not? (Not to say humans don't miss things here and there.) Companies bid jobs based on time/cost/quality requirements as stated in contract documents - drawings, specs, standards, etc. No way that several people overlooked this anomaly.

CCNLs vaguely mention Inland putting together an inspection manual for in-house use. Everybody - including the ordnance folks - liked it so much they saw to it that it was adopted by all makers. I would very much like to see that document. If it was a rare occurence, then you just put it in writing and send it to engineering to evaluate (and take respponsibility for).

If I was the 1943 engineer I would ask if the recoil spring moved freely without any binding, and if OK, then direct that all sharp corners and rough edges be removed.

[jimb16]

There were specs for the amount of drillout that was allowable. That one is well within specs, so it got used. No big deal.

[ABPOS]

(mine were 160 mph Continentals) and ride on freeway with rain grooves; it is like being on marbles. Perfectly safe. You might try reciting the 23rd psalm next time you cross a scary bridge, worked for me a couple of times in 1966-67.
Consider how much work went into the receiver and think about wartime pressure to perform, none of these carbines was finished like a Model 12, more like a brick. I think that the actual finish was excessively fine for what it was. Look over the top of a carbine from about the top of the stock comb, not much lines up or is straight. It's not how it looks, it's how it worked.

I'm probably totally wrong, but I think that this thing just went right through after an inspection to determine utility and was assembled.

I have a bunch of scripture memorized for anxiety. But I'm a work in progress. Not quite done yet.

[firstflabn]

That one is well within specs

Kindly tell us what those requirements are. Just saying that you've made the comparison doesn't really get us very far. If you ask me if I know what time it is, answering 'yes' would fall a bit short of a complete response.

[JimF4M1s (Deceased)]

Jim,

Are you able to share where you are finding the specs on the drill out tolerances? I would think that is of interest to many of us. Other parts as well.

Thanks,

Jim

There were specs for the amount of drillout that was allowable. That one is well within specs, so it got used. No big deal.

[DaveHH]

If I opened a bible, it would catch on fire.

[ABPOS]

If I opened a bible, it would catch on fire.

That went right over my head.