-
Legacy Member
-
Thank You to lawrence_n For This Useful Post:
-
11-27-2014 08:24 AM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Legacy Member
-
-
-
Advisory Panel
I can see the outline of a screw in that mess on the side. There's actually what looks like two round spots, one up to the 11 O'clock of the lower bigger one. I suspect more like someone's tried to hide some work. They may or may not go all the way through. It's not an original flaw though. No inspector would accept that disfigurement. You say there's no inspector's stamp, but I still think this was done way after by less than the rifle team. Still, a nice shooter.
Last edited by browningautorifle; 11-27-2014 at 09:14 AM.
Regards, Jim
-
-
Advisory Panel
Originally Posted by
lawrence_n
You can clearly see the forging flaw and perhaps that's why this receiver was chosen for the build. Maybe it was a reject and thusly not a problem to obtain.
[URL=http://s292.photobucket.com/user/no1naboz/media/2014DuncansampLBrifle012_zps3c100171.jpg.html]
You're spot on I believe. It seems from other rifles that not much useable was thrown away there and cosmetic rejects were used for "projects".
I suspect Ross Rifle Co. did the same thing, only in their case the cosmetic rejects were tidied up and made into sporters, where the defects were inconspicuous enough. This applies to the 1905-actioned .303 sporters IMO.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Edward Bernays, 1928
Much changes, much remains the same. 
-
-
Advisory Panel
I can see the outline of a screw in that mess on the side. There's actually what looks like two round spots, one up to the 11 O'clock of the lower bigger one. I suspect more like someone's tried to hide some work. They may or may not go all the way through. It's not an original flaw though. No inspector would accept that disfigurement. You say there's no inspector's stamp, but I still think this was done way after by less than the rifle team. Still, a nice shooter.
The original serial number has been XXXX'd out, certainly not at the factory, or in the military where it would have been barred out so that it was still legible.
Is it possible to see the inside of the bolt raceway on the inside of the receiver from the external damage?
-
-
Can anyone else see what appears to be a hole outline in the middle of the "flaw".
I suspect it has been a hole for mounting something and an attempt made to fill it with electric weld which has not held or was broken off.
It is way too far back and too high for an attachment of the Sterling specific ejector button, unless someone made a boo boo and drilled the hole in the wrong spot. The flaw in the locking recess area. Maybe someone started to drill the receiver for a T and then tried to fill in the hole.
Just speculating, but think about it...............
-
-
Advisory Panel
It looks like a flaw in the forging. I have an ROFM 1941 with the same type flaw except it's on the left hand side of the butt socket. It was built a a service rifle and put out for issue anyhow although it didn't see much service since it's in excellent condition too.
-
-
Advisory Panel
I went and pulled the '41 Maltby from my vault and it's worse than I remembered with the forging flaw also running under the rear sight on the left hand side of the body.
-
-
Advisory Panel
-
-
Legacy Member
Is it possible to see the inside of the bolt raceway on the inside of the receiver from the external damage?[/QUOTE]
Internally, there's no sign of the forging flaw. The bolt and raceway are clean and crisp.
-
walnut spare that I modified to tame the recoil and give me the length of pull I needed. The original is put aside. You can clearly see the forging flaw and perhaps that's why this receiver was chosen for the build. Maybe it was a reject and thusly not a problem to obtain.
PM
