AIA #4 clone proofing

[Dimitri]

You did it as a red herring. Why would you discuss a military autoloader here that is subject to different import restrictions than a commercial bolt gun?

Because we are talking AIA rifles which claim to be military arms. I am trying to keep the topic on track, None the less know why Remington 798's made in Serbia are marked as such:



Its not because Remington wants that, its because its the current US law. Just as in Canada we have a similar law, and in most developed countries as well. Come August 27 or so, when I got access to my desktop, I will post the PDF files of both Canadian and American law on the marking on firearms stating the manufacturing location (even if its only the country as in the case of the picture above) needing to be marked on the firearm.

Dimitri

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.

[ireload2]

Because we are talking AIA rifles which claim to be military arms.
Dimitri

I don't think this is correct. I believe they are replicas just as an H&R Trapdoor is a replica.

[Alfred]

I looked up the applicable Mauser patents that the US paid a royalty for use of, and found that none of them had anything to do with the bolt, receiver, magazine ,or extractor, all three were improvements of the stripper clip.

DWM claimed that their cartridge patents covered the design of the .30/06 cartridge. I suppose the rimless case and spire point.

International patent protections were still a murky issue back then. To be sure of protection you'd have to file a patent in several jurisdictions covered by international agreements.

Near as I can tell Enfield receivers are hardened to some extent, more like a sword blade , and the locking surfaces are given an extra hardening process.

The thread on Indian proof testing tells of a substitution of a non hardened steel that resulted in failures during proof firing.

From 1908 to 1950 all military bolt action rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with a dry proof round followed by an oiled proof round. The proof cartridge was loaded to 24 tons (2240lbs = 1 ton) psi breech presure, or 25% higher than the service pressure.

In 1950 the material for rifle bodies (they made No.1 Mark 3* rifles; my addition) was altered from an EN steel to SWES 48 steel (not heat treated) except for the recoil shoulder and cam recess in the receiver. With this change the rifle receivers distorted when oiled proof cartridges were fired. This was discovered when hard and sometimes impossible bolt retraction was experienced. Large quantities of rifles were rejected. To avoid rejections the authorities ordered discontinuance of the oiled proof. Therefore from 1950 to the end of SMLE rifle production (June 1965) rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with one dry proof only, although the specification called for both dry and oiled proof.

A bolt action rifle similar to the SMLE Mk. III*, modified to fire the 7.62 NATO cartridge was produced at Ishapore, first in February 1965. Their receivers were made of SWES 48 steel, un-heat-treated, and with the NATO proof cartridge receivers were found to distort with the oiled or the dry proof round! The material was changed to an EN steel so now the rifles stand up better to dry and oiled proof.

The low number Springfield receivers didn't fail because of the type of hardening, but rather due to poor execution of the forging and hardening process. They did not intended that the receivers be hardened to the same extent all the way through. Overheating of the steel resulted in many receivers being brittle.