#4 charger guide attachment welded VS pinned

[ireload2]

This subject is probably pretty mundane but I remember the first #4 rifle that I owned had the bridge cross piece held in place by what looked like 2 pins driven down into the top of the bridge supports.
My current #4 and many that I have seen photographed show that the cross piece is welded in place. Has anyone ever notice if the welded areas are the site of any cracking?

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.

[Alan de Enfield]

There cannot be many more ways left to imply that the LE is "Inherently Weak"

Oiled cartridges
Weak action
"Expolding bolt heads"
7,62 rounds destroying the action
Cracking around the bridge

Its getting monotonous !

[ireload2]

Are you implying that a Lee-Enfield would be weaker with the bridge cut off?
What about the early models that have no bridge?
Welding the bridge on is probably a superior way to attach it if there are no stress relief issues. Stress relief of the welds would be easy to do.

I have seen a photo of a 98 Mauser receiver that broke through the thumb cut. A weak point. Not in the way you would think. The 98 receiver left wall is no9 weaker there than most of the right rail. However when a hot piece of steel is quenched for heat treating the narrow section between 2 larger sections cools first make it more brittle. Perhaps the Germans did not stress relieve that area. Maybe they did but the missed that one receiver.

I was just curious why the first method was ever used, while it is more photogenic it not as strong as welding the bridge in place. If it were truly found to be a weak point I am sure the Brits would have designed a charger bridge suitable for the purpose.

Lee-Enfields are not the only rifles that went through a number of design changes and manufacturing processes. Hiding from the changes is not what I thought collectors did. I think a finite element analysis of the #4 action would be very interesting to Lee-Enfield collectors.

[Peter Laidler]

Here it is from the horses mouth. Nothing to do with weak bodies. They were all MANUFACTURED by being pinned in place. Early on, they were screwed in place with two 'taper-lock' screws. During the 'in inspection' process at Field and Base workshop, you'd lever a screwdriver under the bridge and if you saw an oil squeeze or felt any looseness, you'd drill a small countersink along the base line on both sides and fill the countersink with weld. Simply as a means of retaining it for good.

I've done literally hundreds on No4's and 5's ......................

[jmoore]

All 'youse guys wit de weak 'n dangerous Enfields otta toin 'em ta me fer safekeepin'. I'll only charge youse a "small" disposal fee, see'in as hows youse are nice guys....

[ireload2]

Here it is from the horses mouth. Nothing to do with weak bodies. They were all MANUFACTURED by being pinned in place. Early on, they were screwed in place with two 'taper-lock' screws. During the 'in inspection' process at Field and Base workshop, you'd lever a screwdriver under the bridge and if you saw an oil squeeze or felt any looseness, you'd drill a small countersink along the base line on both sides and fill the countersink with weld. Simply as a means of retaining it for good.

I've done literally hundreds on No4's and 5's ......................

Why did the charger bridge cross pieces loosen?
What was the composition of the steel used to manufacture the #4 action bodies and what was the heat treatment cycle. How was the heat treatment verified? Were any #4 action bodies found to be cracked during maintenance and over haul and where were cracks if any found?

[tiriaq]

FWIW, I have salvaged some really horrible, rusted No. 4 specimens. I have soaked the receivers in industrial rust remover. Interestingly, the hardened & non-hardened areas show slightly different colours when removed from the bath. Based on these observatons, I would suggest that receivers were induction hardened in the camming and locking areas, but not end to end, through and through. I would not expect to see cracked Lee Enfield receivers, because they are not hard enough to be brittle.
If you can find a WW2 Lithgow, with unworn original finish, you will be able to see the discolouration from selective area hardening in the same regions.
I have a low numbered '03 receiver which cracked through the right siderail when tapped with a light hammer. These receivers were through hardened and drawn, and it is well established that some are brittle.
Mauser receivers tended to be made from clean low carbon steel and carburized. This is why badly worn, or over loaded mauser receivers can show setback in the locking area. I suspect that the left sidewall thumb notch cracks occur because the section is thinner there, and consequently there is less core relative to the thickness of the case. Leaves the receiver brittle in that area.
Peter - were the little welds on the charger bridges only applied during repair or FTR, or were any receivers manufactured that way?

[Alfred]

A late production Savage No.4 MkI* had the bridge brazed in place, with no sign of any pins being used as locators during the process.

A Bristish Manufacture, don't remember what factory, No.4 Mk I whose bridge I removed had the bridge secured only by two small diameter screws with the heads ground flush. Don't know the threads of the original screws but 4X40 screws went right in and fitted perfectly.

There was no sign of welding on either, just the brazing on the Savage.

These receivers were used to test my own scope base design which works very nicely. Neither rifle was restorable at the time.
Each replacement bridge/base was secured with screws and High Force 44 silver solder. The Savage required that holes be drilled and threaded to mimic those of the other rifle.

I'd become curious about how the bridge was secured because the Mk I bridge was just loose enough to be able to tell that the mounting was done with screws. If it was ever brazed or silver soldered then some refinishing process may have dissolved a non ferrous filler, like hot bath bluing can sometimes cause older double barrel ribs to separate.

Welding may have been instituted due to brazing or soldering not holding up well to a finishing process.

Sporting rifles built with the entire bridge and upper portion of the left wall ground down seem to be just as strong as as issued receivers.
The charger bridge neither adds nor detracts from the strength of the No.4 receiver.

SMLE bridges are secured with shrink fitted rivets, rather than screws, I was suprised to learn this since seeing the flush ground screws of the No.4 Mk I which I examined and the similar ground flush screws of a No. 4 T scope mount pad.

There would be manufacturing variants and shortcuts of course, and probably some non standard repairs.

[Alfred]

FWIW, I have salvaged some really horrible, rusted No. 4 specimens. I have soaked the receivers in industrial rust remover. Interestingly, the hardened & non-hardened areas show slightly different colours when removed from the bath. Based on these observatons, I would suggest that receivers were induction hardened in the camming and locking areas, but not end to end, through and through. I would not expect to see cracked Lee Enfield receivers, because they are not hard enough to be brittle.
If you can find a WW2 Lithgow, with unworn original finish, you will be able to see the discolouration from selective area hardening in the same regions.

The junker Lithgow I have here showed a very noticable difference in appearance when cold blue was applied.
A previous refinishing had deeply scored the surface of the receiver and left the hardened locking surfaces standing proud of the surface, with shreds of brass wire stuck in the surface around them.
I had thought at the time that it was a reactivated drill rifle, probably is anyway, that had the cut away locking surfaces rebuilt by welding, the difference in the surface was that distinct.

I have a low numbered '03 receiver which cracked through the right siderail when tapped with a light hammer. These receivers were through hardened and drawn, and it is well established that some are brittle.

The theory was sound but the execution was poor. They weren't meant to be hardened all the way through, and only a small percentage were.
Poor quality control and out of date methods doomed those receivers.

Mauser receivers tended to be made from clean low carbon steel and carburized. This is why badly worn, or over loaded mauser receivers can show setback in the locking area. I suspect that the left sidewall thumb notch cracks occur because the section is thinner there, and consequently there is less core relative to the thickness of the case. Leaves the receiver brittle in that area.

The use of WW2 surplus German ammo of unknown qualities is probably why so many Mausers have set back, and why some developed cracks.
Some early WW2 production AP MG ammo has a far higher working pressure that can stress even LMG actions. They quit making that ammo in 1942 due to shortages in tungsten, but it shows up every so often.
Ammo interchangability between rifles and LMG often goes only one way. The LMG can safely handle and operate with infantry rifle ammo, but MG ammo is often loaded to pressures that can damage rifles.
The MkVIIIZ MG ammo was not considered suitable for the SMLE rifles, and was authorized for use in the No.4 only if MkVII ammo was in short supply.
There are references to MkVIIIZ ammo that was far beyond acceptable tolerances, and showed flattened primers, "like the primer was painted on" as one officer put it. Ammo of that sort could damage any rifle.

[jmoore]

Just purchased a 10/43 ROF(F) a couple of hours ago that has the bridge welded on from the sides. Its as unused as any mid-war No. 4 as I've seen, w/ no signs of ever having been pinned (like most I've seen). The vibro-penciled markings are still white!