-
My old boss in the NZ Army, WO2 'Jock' Annandale, the chief Armourer at the Northern District Base Ordnance Depot who taught me all I know about the No1 rifle (we only touched on them while we were apprentices) explained to me that the copper blocks used by Australia were a frill - if not a direct fraud. I have got my steel helmet on and awaiting the incoming mortars from you wild antipodeans now..... Because the notion of keeping these blocks in place, under load, using a small wood screw INTO the grain of a wood was an idea based on fuzzy logig. If the wood wasn't tough enough at the end grain to tale the load/pressure of the drawers, under load............ then what makes it any more successful in taking the load of the drawers with a copper block between it?
I'm just repeating what he said but using more polite language. And in any case, he explained politely........ when the draws need repairing, then what....... Thicker copper blocks with longer and equally useless screws? Or just cut them out as with the No4's and patch using hardwood as per the NZ equivalent of EMEI's
-
Thank You to Peter Laidler For This Useful Post:
-
03-29-2017 06:51 AM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Legacy Member
why would a hardwood block be any different to a copper block.
-
-
-
Legacy Member
The copper plates were a reasonable enough fix for the problem given there wasn't much else. The screw doesn't have to hold much being virtually in line with the axis of recoil. The plates present a hard surface to even the load over a broader area. No doubt was easier to throw a worn stock away rather than repair.
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Either the coachwood is hard enough to take the recoil or it isnt, if it isnt, should the draws be replaced with something that is?
-
Bindi, thread 12 and others. Hardwood blocks are a patch, glued in sides and rear and pegged side to side and set back 1/2" or so as shown in thread about patching fore-ends
Screws are not in line with the recoil.
Plates are not practically a larger area than normal. The drawers are the bearing surface.
Throw away unserviceable fore-end. Cheaper to fix it especially when they're coming into NZ from overseas
-
-
Legacy Member
Bushy it was replaced, with the copper plates. You can't fix what is a poor choice of timber but the plates remedied the problem well enough to finish the war and beyond. The screw may have presented a weakness, but I've never noted the draws give away because of the screw. Its usually the whole area of wood right back to the receiver ring that breaks away. Happens in Walnut too but to a much lessor extent no doubt.
Walnut inserts were tried for a brief period in Qld maple stocks in the late 20's.
It seems the factory engineers thought the plate design good enough to see out production.
Last edited by Homer; 03-29-2017 at 09:19 AM.
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Bindi, thread 12 and others. Hardwood blocks are a patch, glued in sides and rear and pegged side to side and set back 1/2" or so as shown in thread about patching fore-ends
Screws are not in line with the recoil.
Plates are not practically a larger area than normal. The drawers are the bearing surface.
Throw away unserviceable fore-end. Cheaper to fix it especially when they're coming into
NZ from overseas
Then why would they swap to copper blocks if they had alrwady tried hardwood inserts?
Im confused by the need to do this (copper blocks) if a tried procedure (hardwood inserts) already or is this one of those "not sure why" government procurement mess-up type issues
-
Legacy Member
Originally Posted by
BushyFromOz
Then why would they swap to copper blocks if they had alrwady tried hardwood inserts?
Im confused by the need to do this (copper blocks) if a tried procedure (hardwood inserts) already or is this one of those "not sure why" government procurement mess-up type issues
I don't know mate, I wasn't there. I'm only posting what happened as well as I know it. The walnut inserts were used in qld maple stocks in the late 20's. Maybe the method was not a success and maybe its because the technique was poor. I've had some very sound examples and a couple with busted inserts as pictured. Whatever the reasons, they persisted with the copper plates.
Last edited by Homer; 03-29-2017 at 09:39 AM.
-
Thank You to Homer For This Useful Post:
-
Advisory Panel
Here are a few pics that might help everyone visualise what is being discussed.
First pic shows a foreend without any reinforcement of any kind. Note the size and location of the compression of the draws from recoil... less than half the width of the ledge, all at the inside edge
Attachment 82305
Pic2, a foreend that according to the description that came with it, was an armourers repair. Seems to only replace the bit that was compressed, not significantly wider or deeper than the contact area.
Attachment 82304
Pic 3. Three foreends with the draws area highlighted...
Left is a coachwood foreend, without the recoil blocks, showing the contact area as less than half the surface.
In the center is a SLAZ 43 foreend, unfinished and unfitted- like so many of the JJ Co builds- very pale and also a tad out of shape- but when touched to a barreled action, it marked where the lugs were going, less than half.
On the right is a coachwood foreend with the copper plates fitted at the factory and unused. Note the copper plates are not only covering all the surface, but have been cut in further at the outside to increase the surface contact. This keeps the center line of the screw outside the impact area, so it won't be directly effected by it. The screw can keep the plate square to the lugs and spread the load evenly over about triple the surface area of the recoil lugs- the marks from which can just be seen at the points of the arrows.
Attachment 82303
I suggest the copper plates were more than just an ok fix for a timber that was not really suitable for the job.
Getting back to the "unused" Slaz 43 foreends... from my theories folder...
Coachwood blanks were milled green and block stacked a long time in advance to allow them to dry naturally. By late 1942 rifle production had been out stripping the supply of dried/ seasoned foreend blanks to the extent that other methods of drying were needed. They experimented with kiln dried blanks but found the rapid drying left them unstable and very prone to warping once cut to form. A lot were treated this way and some used while new supplies of blanks were being seasoned as they had been before. By the time they decided the kiln dried blanks were not a good option, supplies of naturally dried blanks were ready and all the kiln dried cut foreends were stuck aside. Seemingly to be sold off many years later as untreated SLAZ 43 foreends without recoil blocks.
I have been trying to confirm this info for years, but certain snippets are in the books, and added to stuff I got from another source, went together into the rough timeline above.
Interested in any or all comments. Its an open book at the moment.
Last edited by Son; 03-29-2017 at 10:38 AM.
-
The Following 4 Members Say Thank You to Son For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
Gents and particularly Bushy(your thread mate), the dates Ian Skennerton and other sources quote for this period of production the recoil plates were not installed, don't correlate precisely to what can be observed on rifles. The first rifle pictured, a 1944 action, serial number E95000 and barrel date 5/44 doesn't have plates. This is close to the latest serial number I've had without plates, but not the latest.
The second rifle is a 42 action but assembled in 1943, barrel date 5/43 and serial numbered D64000. No plates. The gap between these two rifles is roughly 12 months but more than 120000 rifles.
Ive had rifles that were manufactured during the period quoted earlier as not having plates, that had the plates. Can't unequivocally prove to the forum that the plates were not later additions on these examples, but it was my opinion and the opinion from others, after very close observation, they were installed from new.
Now I'm not challenging the published information, just posting what I have seen.
Is it because of a lag in production from the time the directive to stop installing the plates was handed down and implemented to the time the rifles were mated with those stocks and assembled?
-
Thank You to Homer For This Useful Post: