" If he then just sticks in a no-go gauge and closes the bolt on it, then he has failed the test - not the rifle! The M1917 has a huge camming action, and can quite simply squeeze a no-go gauge down to fit the chamber without requiring much force on the bolt handle. This topic has been covered more than once before, hence the advice you will have found to only go to a gunsmith who knows how to check M1917s. "
"The M1917 has a huge camming action, and can quite simply squeeze a no-go gauge down to fit the chamber without requiring much force on the bolt handle"
The part that no one seems to understand is the part where the no go-gage is squeezed down, the no go-gage is .004" longer than the go-gage, the field reject gage is .005" longer than the than the no go-gage.
Back to the tacky behavior at the Utah arsenal, one smith did not use three different gages, he used one, he measured the length of the chamber in thousandths. the petty little smiths at the arsenal accuse the the one gage smith of stretching receivers (they did not accuse him squeeze-ing the gage down, because they knew the gage was 'tuffer' and had more resistance to compressing than the actions ability to resist stretch/flex) meaning the rifle would flex before the gage would compressed?
A no go-gage is not necessary, a field reject gage is not necessary, camming as in heavy camming of the bolt because it is cock on close is not necessary, back to the smith at the Utah arsenal, he knew it was not necessary to cam the bolt closed, he understood abuse of tools and guns, he was a smith he understood shop practices, he was accused of stretching receivers, he was accused of stretching all the M1917s that went through the Utah Arsenal, he had class, he did not argue with the petty little people he worked with, he was not in a contest for MR. (most) Popular person.
Closing the M1917 bolt and camming, I have never found it necessary to close the bolt with the lugs engaged, I close the bolt with the heel of my hand compressing the spring does not require bolt lug engagement, unless! someone is closing the bolt on something/anything that is longer than the chamber from the bolt face to the shoulder of the chamber, the one gage smith, understood the length of the chamber, he understood the relationship between the length of the chamber and the length of the case.
Back to bolt advance, has anyone measured the difference in bolt advance between engagement and closed on the M1917, Springfield 03 and Mauser, small ring Mauser, again, the lugs on the cock on close small ring Mauser do not contact anything because I applying pressure on the bolt handle with the heel of my hand.
Set-back is caused by a bad habit, then there is the assumption all the problems with perceived bolt set back started after the rifle left the Arsenals, I have M1917s that do not have ware on anything, I have like new M1917s, with long chambers, I off set the length of the chamber with the length of the case. Again, one has .016" added between the bolt face and and shoulder of the chamber, I add .016" to the length of the case from the head of the case to the shoulder of the chamber. One more time, I could order a bucket of bolts, I have 14 bolts, none of the bolts in the bucket or other bolts I have in other M1917s would change and or improve the length of the chamber.
Then there is the other overlooked thing about M1917s, without a barrel how far will a bolt move forward and or backward. The bolt handle is the third lug, it should be easy for someone that is familiar with the M1917 to measure the forward thrust of the bolt without a barrel, or with a barrel if they understand the question. meaning with 'a lot' of ware between the mating surfaces between the receiver and back of the lugs I would think the bolt handle would be worn also, I have no visible indication there is ware between the bolt handle and receiver.
F. GuffeyInformation
![]()
Warning: This is a relatively older thread
This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.