+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: No.1 Mk3 Bolt Cracks

Click here to increase the font size Click here to reduce the font size
  1. #21
    Advisory Panel Surpmil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last On
    @
    Location
    West side
    Posts
    4,651
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    01:15 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by muffett.2008 View Post
    I'm sure I've posted pic's of fractures around the small lug before...................that's my excuse to visit the local aircraft maintenance boys and use the crack testing gear.
    As have others here. The granular structure at the breaks in those photos was commented on IIRC. I don't know if that was within the normal range or reflected progressive embrittlement due to stress.

    The recoil lug in the body that was in closer contact with the bolt lug would have taken more load than normal obviously. Whether that would cause deformation of the lug in the body I don't know, but are they not surface hardened? Sub-surface deformation? Seems likely that the lugs would already have already "compressed" from prior loading as much as they ever would?

    As for bolt "set-back" during proofing I will leave that to the experts to explain as well!

    Another virtue of the design seems to be that if the bearing is unequal the worst that can happen is this kind of failure, rather than ejection of the bolt, because no matter what happens, that large recoil lug isn't coming off the bolt body.
    “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.

  2. # ADS
    Friends and Sponsors
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Milsurps.Com
    Posts
    All Threads
    A Collector's View - The SMLE Short Magazine Lee Enfield 1903-1989. It is 300 8.5x11 inch pages with 1,000+ photo’s, most in color, and each book is serial-numbered.  Covering the SMLE from 1903 to the end of production in India in 1989 it looks at how each model differs and manufacturer differences from a collecting point of view along with the major accessories that could be attached to the rifle. For the record this is not a moneymaker, I hope just to break even, eventually, at $80/book plus shipping.  In the USA shipping is $5.00 for media mail.  I will accept PayPal, Zelle, MO and good old checks (and cash if you want to stop by for a tour!).  CLICK BANNER to send me a PM for International pricing and shipping. Manufacturer of various vintage rifle scopes for the 1903 such as our M73G4 (reproduction of the Weaver 330C) and Malcolm 8X Gen II (Unertl reproduction). Several of our scopes are used in the CMP Vintage Sniper competition on top of 1903 rifles. Brian Dick ... BDL Ltd. - Specializing in British and Commonwealth weapons Specializing in premium ammunition and reloading components. Your source for the finest in High Power Competition Gear. Here at T-bones Shipwrighting we specialise in vintage service rifle: re-barrelling, bedding, repairs, modifications and accurizing. We also provide importation services for firearms, parts and weapons, for both private or commercial businesses.
     

  3. #22
    FREE MEMBER
    NO Posting or PM's Allowed
    RobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last On
    12-14-2023 @ 03:21 AM
    Location
    UK / South Africa
    Posts
    942
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    09:15 PM

    Wot no stretch?

    Peter, have I understood you correctly?
    Do you say that
    (a) the Lee Enfield action body never stretches [or at least, never stretches significantly];
    and
    (b) this is because the forces produced on firing compress rather than stretch the Lee Enfield action?
    Rob

  4. Avoid Ads - Become a Contributing Member - Click HERE
  5. #23
    Legacy Member Pzkw38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Last On
    01-11-2023 @ 06:23 PM
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    2
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    03:15 PM
    Yes, that does not make sense, the bolt will be compressed by the charge, react on the action which will be in tension from the bolt engagement to the breech. Else that bolt is moving rearwards.

  6. #24
    Contributing Member 30Three's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last On
    03-19-2024 @ 03:50 PM
    Location
    France
    Posts
    809
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    09:15 PM
    The pressure on the bolt is directed on to the lug surfaces at the rear of the receiver. There is no load to stretch the receiver from the barrel to those lugs; just the felt recoil of the rifle moving rearward.

  7. #25
    Advisory Panel
    Peter Laidler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last On
    03-24-2024 @ 09:52 AM
    Location
    Abingdon, Oxfordshire. The home of MG Cars
    Posts
    16,507
    Real Name
    Peter Laidler
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    10:15 PM
    RobD, Post 22, yes. There is nothing for the body to be in tension against. The bullet is travelling up the barrel while the cartridge case is pushing the bolt rearwards. Equal and opposite and all that. I wrote this all up as a paper. Bren, L1A1, they're all the same. As students it was a very simple and easy to see classroom project.

    PZKW, cvan't fathom out whether you agree with the laws of physics or disagree. You'll have to elaborate. There's nothing in tension..........., the round is moving forwards, pretty-well frictionless* up the barrel. I even explained this in the original paper too. I wonder if the paper might be in the L1A1/FN thread somewhere when that related to the mythical 'stretching' bodies.
    * there is friction oif course but nothing to cause sufficient tension in our lifetimes sufficient to 'stretch' a body!!!!!

  8. Thank You to Peter Laidler For This Useful Post:


  9. #26
    Contributing Member CINDERS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last On
    03-25-2024 @ 11:01 AM
    Location
    South West Western Australia
    Posts
    7,734
    Real Name
    CINDERS
    Local Date
    03-29-2024
    Local Time
    04:15 AM
    What I alluded to with the original OP's dilemma was the spare bolt is not just a drop in fit and away you go, I could swap the bolts on my wifes 308 Barnards and they will work just as well in either that's because Barnards are held to ultra tight tolerances built for precise breeching up by the gunsmith (My G/S is excellent at his craft when he does a barrel its in a locked up workshop so no numpties will annoy him from the shop)
    Dropping a random bolt into a random Lee Enfield without the required fitting of the bolt & bolt head up correctly is just asking for trouble or you may just jag it and be as happy as Larry just do not shoot next to me........

  10. #27
    Legacy Member Maxwell Smart's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last On
    03-03-2024 @ 07:37 AM
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    411
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    03:15 PM
    Peter's discussion about action body stretching is the FN FAL forum in the thread "FN distruction tests", post #23
    Last edited by Maxwell Smart; 05-05-2018 at 06:22 AM.

  11. Thank You to Maxwell Smart For This Useful Post:


  12. #28
    FREE MEMBER
    NO Posting or PM's Allowed
    RobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last On
    12-14-2023 @ 03:21 AM
    Location
    UK / South Africa
    Posts
    942
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    09:15 PM
    Peter, I am still lost here ...
    in your original post on the subject which is here: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=50730&page=3
    You correctly say" Put simply, to stretch something, you need to pull it apart between two fixed points."
    Now, I know nothing about the FN/FAL. But to me it seems obvious that when there is an explosion in the L-E breech, the forces are equally+oppositely directed forward [bullet] and rearward [ bolt face]. The bolt transmits these forces to the back of the action through the locking lugs, and hence through the back of the action to the shooter through the stock [recoil].
    BUT the sides of the action body in front of the locking lugs and behind the barrel ring are, surely,"being pulled apart" between those fixed points? Or am I missing something? As a thought experiment, if you sawed through the sides of the action directly above the magazine well, and reassembled the rifle, and fired it, it seems to me the rifle would separate into two parts at that point. So, it seems to me that everything behind the locking lugs is compressed on firing - but the action side walls do experience a "stretching" force. [Whereas in a rifle with locking lugs at the front of the bolt, like a Mauser, virtually the whole action is compressed on firing].
    Am I completely mistaken here? Indeed I thought there was a special L-E Armourers' bolt-type gauge which could be used to look for the stretching effect - am I bonkers?
    Rob

  13. #29
    Legacy Member Terrylee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last On
    Today @ 12:18 PM
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    210
    Real Name
    Terence Willson
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    10:15 PM
    An interesting thread. Of course, if the receiver does not stretch, the bolt must obviously be shortened under compression. Otherwise why do we require bolt heads which progressively need to be lengthened over the rifle's life?

  14. #30
    Contributing Member rcathey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last On
    Yesterday @ 11:56 AM
    Location
    St. Louis, MO Area
    Posts
    1,645
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    03:15 PM
    Rob,
    I think at first blush I would have felt the same way about it as you. But putting on my engineer cap (my business card folds into one), I find it helpful to think of the path of least resistance. If one were to strap the action right at the barrel threads to the theoretical immovable object, then yes, it probably would deconstruct itself as you suggest.
    But as a shooter, we’re not doing that. We’re placing the butt on our shoulder. So what seems more likely, the forged steel stretching or your shoulder moving and absorbing the shock?
    Path of least resistance.
    Now maybe I’m missing something too but that’s how I see it.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 03A4 Original Bolt vs. 03A3 Reciever - should A4 Bolt close in unmodified A3 reciver?
    By Col. Colt in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-29-2013, 09:40 PM
  2. 1917 Stock Cracks. Prevention ?
    By MOS-45B in forum Pattern 1913/1914 and M1917 Rifles
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-27-2012, 01:23 AM
  3. MLM handguard dry out cracks
    By Noel in forum The Lee Enfield Knowledge Library Collectors Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-11-2010, 10:08 AM
  4. Bolt Release lever or do you rotate the bolt head?
    By Williamb in forum The Lee Enfield Knowledge Library Collectors Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-05-2009, 01:04 PM
  5. Repairing cracks in stocks
    By glp70 in forum The Restorer's Corner
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 10:04 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Raven Rocks