Cleaning rod ID help needed

[larryhoosier]

I am asking in this forum because I know that the M1891 Carcano long rifle rod threads into the front band as this one seems to also. This rod threads into a base in the stock too and is 27.5" long. Here are couple of photos of the ends with threads.




I had no idea why the jag end is cut off. This rod interestingly enough came in a M1885 Japanese Murata rifle that I recently obtained. I knew the rod in it wasn't complete but I figured that it was what was left of the jap rod, but this one was in there instead!

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.

[Aragorn243]

The 1891 Carcano long rifle cleaning rod does not screw into the front band. No idea what you have there.

[larryhoosier]

Thanks for the reply Aragorn243. Isn't there some Italian rods that thread into the front band ala this one? Or am I just hallucinating?

[Aragorn243]

I have to apologize. I didn't look close enough at the photos. They do screw into the bayonet lug. But, they are much longer than the one you show. The distance between the screw and the end of the rod on a carcano rod is approximately double what you have. That's what threw me off, they all stick out about 4 inches from the barrel band.

Cleaning rods for the 1891 long rifle, the TS Carbine and the M41 have the screw for the barrel band. The screw section is fully threaded and the rod is the same thickness both before and after. This makes the end more distinct.

[larryhoosier]

Thanks again for your input. I do think that this one has been cut off for some reason but it is also thicker following the front band threads. I thought that Carcano rods were the same thickness all of the way along the rod.

[Patrick Chadwick]

This cleaning rod is most probably not in its original configuration. As it is, it is mechanically implausible.

It would be completely impractical to make a rod that engages screw threads at front and back simultaneously, since the thread sections would have to be accurately phased to match the threads in the barrel. This match - if you could even achieve it satisfactorily with a new rifle - would soon be spoilt by the slightest longitudinal shrinkage of the stock, resulting in a very hard jam. AND it could only work if both thread sections had an identical pitch. (It is not clear from the photos whether the sections have the same pitch - that is something you could check yourself) And why on earth would anyone need such an awkward design?

The back end appears to have had the screw turned down to make a taper that pushes into the lug beneath the action, without actually engaging a thread. The front section may engage the thread in the rifle for which it was intended, but looking at the metal surface in the photo, it is likely that the threaded front end has been grafted on to the rest of another rod.

Strong suspicion: a bit of bodging in order to use a surplus rod in a rifle for which it was not originally designed.