Gunboards Forums banner
21 - 40 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,695 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
Random thoughts:

With all the concerns over mismatched bolts, what would you do?

Leave it alone for the next guy to figure out it fits?

Strike out the Savage serial number?

File it away and leave it blank?

Renumber it showing it fits?

No intent do do anything as I’ve never “matched” a part in my life. But I might be talked into doing ‘something’ if the general consensus says I probably should.

Even during a rushed wartime FTR using hurriedly linished & refinished used parts, I cannot conceive Faz allowing a critical component to go out the door that way. (???)
I do have a feeling those reconditioned parts may be responsible for the A suffix serial number.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,206 Posts
Random thoughts:

With all the concerns over mismatched bolts, what would you do?

Leave it alone for the next guy to figure out it fits?

Strike out the Savage serial number?

File it away and leave it blank?

Renumber it showing it fits?
No intent do do anything as I’ve never “matched” a part in my life. But I might be talked into doing ‘something’ if the general consensus says I probably should.
Sledge hammer a (DP) on the bolt handle & call it a Win-Win?

🤭😱😉
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,695 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
Leave it as is would be my preference, my favourite Maltby has a mismatched bolt, would have preferred matching of course but it is what it is.
That’s the direction I was leaning. Maybe a single chisel strike across the center portion of the number…hey…
I know why you said leave it be. If you agreed to a strike, you know I’d talk you into holding it very steady while I whacked it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,206 Posts
I’m tilting the way & go with the scrub & matching reS/N route.........it’s a mismatch anyway & from where? 🤔
If’n ya want to mismatch it again ya can always buy another bolt.🤷‍♂️
Cheer’s & good luck 👍
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,695 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
I’m tilting the way & go with the scrub & matching reS/N route.........it’s a mismatch anyway & from where? 🤔
If’n ya want to mismatch it again ya can always buy another bolt.🤷‍♂️
Cheer’s & good luck 👍
Now you’re talking “force match” and those are bad words around here.
Then to top it off, you condone a “forced mismatch” too??

^^^^ An Aussie in the American outback. Smuggles in domestic beer on horseback then shoots cows…
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
59,037 Posts
Now you’re talking “force match” and those are bad words around here.
Then to top it off, you condone a “forced mismatch” too??

^^^^ An Aussie in the American outback. Smuggles in domestic beer on horseback then shoots cows…
he has help in the smuggling dept, I know of at least 2 beer fairy's that have made deliveries
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,695 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
Linseed is drying and the metal is degreased. Almost ready for reassembly.
A few questions since it’s quicker here than getting oily fingerprints off my books and notes.

1: When did Century begin import markings of “GEORGIA VT” instead of St Albans VT”

2: This weakly struck marking on the Nocks Form resembles an encircled D. (a very slight impression of a radiused stamp above the D but not visible in the pic)
To me it means ‘draw lapped barrel’ but I have only seen it on No1’s not No4’s.
What is it and why?
Glass bottle Alcoholic beverage Fluid Wine Cylinder


Cannot recall the particulars of the differences in the receiver milling.
Safe to assume this was a Faz prior to the ‘43 FTR?

Thanks

Pics would help….
3982486

3982487

3982484
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,840 Posts
You may have quite a rare (unique) faz rifle that was manufactured using an alternative, lower cost, quicker production method.

Being a Fazakerly marking invariably meant that it was rarely "well-struck" (like all their other markings)

It was discussed in some depth on the old Jouster forum in 2008 when Peter Laidler explained what a No4 with a "D-in-a-circle" meant :



Posted By: Peter Laidler
Date: Mon 11 Feb 2008 1:49 pm

The mystery of the Circled ‘D’

First, a bit of a history lesson. The actual manufacture of the No1 and No4 barrels is well documented. In short, it was manufactured as you see and one of the last but crucially important operations was to machine the indexed thread. This is important because if the indexed thread is not exact, then it’ll be impossible to align the knox form and subsequently, the sights and extractor way. This was the cause of many thousands of barrels being rejected. There was nothing that could be done economically to save an incorrectly indexed threaded barrel and an answer was urgently sought. At first, it was thought that a new chamber end could be shrunk on, similar to that of the already obsolete tube type Mk2 barrel. But if that was obsolete, then why try the same trick again?

It was decided that the barrels would be partially turned and threaded in one hit regardless of where the thread aligned but instead of cutting the foresight and bayonet columns, they’d be left as two complete rings around the barrel. The same applied to the knox form, the breeching-up flat at the reinforce. Now you have a complete barrel. Bored, rifled, chambered and machined (almost) to the exact contour of the finished article. What happened then was the threaded end was put into a milling machine headstock and automatically positioned into its correct 18 degree underturn position. This WILL automatically mean that the thread is indexed to any subsequent operations. Then another two sets of cutters would simply mill away the surplus material leaving two perfect sets of lugs for the foresight block band and the bayonet. Another cammed cutter would swiftly come over and scallop the rear of the longer bayonet locking cam segment

At the same time, another horizontal rotary milling cutter would slice across the knox form, leaving the flat. A space in the milling machine headstock allowed a cutter to slice away the extractor groove. Simple isn’t it? Further to this, it is said that the extractor way is narrower for a reason that I cannot quite understand ….., on the basis that it’s either aligned … or it’s not!

From this, you can see that the non essentials (….well, they’re all essential of course but not to ultimate alignment …..) were done but the very last operation was the critical one of aligning the foresight block band and bayonet lugs, knox form and extractor way with the existing breeching up thread THAT WAS ALREADY INDEXED IN THE MILLING HEAD, just as it will later be, in the body of the rifle. In, hand tight, tweak it to 18 degrees underturn and tighten with the cramp. This applied to all barrels, including the No5 and No8 too of course that were indexed

This was a major departure from the Enfield and Ministry of Supply specification and as such these barrels, manufactured using this method were marked with a distinct letter D, readily identifiable, on the knox form.

This information has been passed to me by a former Army liaison AIA. The initial D does not mean anything in itself except that the barrel was manufactured using a different method. Incidentally, this was a faster method of barrel production too. There, has that answered the question? I did ask about the No5 barrel with the scalloped reinforce but that was before the AIA’s time as an inspector. However, this would be a similar operation to the extractor way, although not an important one

As a matter of interest, this was a Fazakerley method of manufacture only and SHOULD indicate a Fazakerley barrel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,840 Posts
AdE to the rescue!!!:)

I surely hope you have hard copies to back up all your digital files.

Thanks a heap on this!
No problem - I back up onto memory sticks every couple of months - the problem is now 'my' memory, it used to know every document I had and under what section it was filed, it now takes me a while to find things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,840 Posts
Just to add - the AIA that Peter mentions is the top level of armaments inspection "Army Inspectorate of Armaments"

It was referred to in the recent thread on 'markings' where they made the final decison on what happened to the rifle after rejection up the REME chain of Armourers.

Only they, or the REME Chief Inspector could 'scrap' a rifle and declare it UR (for replacement)


Font Line Parallel Rectangle Pattern
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,695 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
You may have quite a rare (unique) faz rifle that was manufactured using an alternative, lower cost, quicker production method.

Being a Fazakerly marking invariably meant that it was rarely "well-struck" (like all their other markings)

It was discussed in some depth on the old Jouster forum in 2008 when Peter Laidler explained what a No4 with a "D-in-a-circle" meant :



Posted By: Peter Laidler
Date: Mon 11 Feb 2008 1:49 pm

The mystery of the Circled ‘D’

First, a bit of a history lesson. The actual manufacture of the No1 and No4 barrels is well documented. In short, it was manufactured as you see and one of the last but crucially important operations was to machine the indexed thread. This is important because if the indexed thread is not exact, then it’ll be impossible to align the knox form and subsequently, the sights and extractor way. This was the cause of many thousands of barrels being rejected. There was nothing that could be done economically to save an incorrectly indexed threaded barrel and an answer was urgently sought. At first, it was thought that a new chamber end could be shrunk on, similar to that of the already obsolete tube type Mk2 barrel. But if that was obsolete, then why try the same trick again?

It was decided that the barrels would be partially turned and threaded in one hit regardless of where the thread aligned but instead of cutting the foresight and bayonet columns, they’d be left as two complete rings around the barrel. The same applied to the knox form, the breeching-up flat at the reinforce. Now you have a complete barrel. Bored, rifled, chambered and machined (almost) to the exact contour of the finished article. What happened then was the threaded end was put into a milling machine headstock and automatically positioned into its correct 18 degree underturn position. This WILL automatically mean that the thread is indexed to any subsequent operations. Then another two sets of cutters would simply mill away the surplus material leaving two perfect sets of lugs for the foresight block band and the bayonet. Another cammed cutter would swiftly come over and scallop the rear of the longer bayonet locking cam segment

At the same time, another horizontal rotary milling cutter would slice across the knox form, leaving the flat. A space in the milling machine headstock allowed a cutter to slice away the extractor groove. Simple isn’t it? Further to this, it is said that the extractor way is narrower for a reason that I cannot quite understand ….., on the basis that it’s either aligned … or it’s not!

From this, you can see that the non essentials (….well, they’re all essential of course but not to ultimate alignment …..) were done but the very last operation was the critical one of aligning the foresight block band and bayonet lugs, knox form and extractor way with the existing breeching up thread THAT WAS ALREADY INDEXED IN THE MILLING HEAD, just as it will later be, in the body of the rifle. In, hand tight, tweak it to 18 degrees underturn and tighten with the cramp. This applied to all barrels, including the No5 and No8 too of course that were indexed

This was a major departure from the Enfield and Ministry of Supply specification and as such these barrels, manufactured using this method were marked with a distinct letter D, readily identifiable, on the knox form.

This information has been passed to me by a former Army liaison AIA. The initial D does not mean anything in itself except that the barrel was manufactured using a different method. Incidentally, this was a faster method of barrel production too. There, has that answered the question? I did ask about the No5 barrel with the scalloped reinforce but that was before the AIA’s time as an inspector. However, this would be a similar operation to the extractor way, although not an important one

As a matter of interest, this was a Fazakerley method of manufacture only and SHOULD indicate a Fazakerley barrel.
Is there a known timeframe when these “alternative” rifles were made?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,695 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
She’s ready to join her stablemates.
Last rubbing with linseed oil, and a new-to-her unnumbered magazine.
Air gun Trigger Wood Shotgun Hardwood

Wood Wood stain Hardwood Varnish Flooring


I thought this a nice touch:
Rectangle Material property Strap Jewellery Electronic device


Here are her old warhorse neighbors. Getting to know one another while trying on grandpa’s old bayonets:

Trigger Wood Air gun Shotgun Gun barrel

Wood Air gun Shotgun Hardwood Gun accessory


1917 peddled scheme rifle (matching). WW1
The old ‘43 FTR Faz all snuggled in. WW2
International Harvester M1. Korea
 
21 - 40 of 42 Posts
Top