View Full Version : Lithgow stock finish...
I just acquired a new-condition Lithgow #1 Mk 3* (one of the John Jovino guns). It is perfectly new, but the stock is bone-dry and doesn't appear to have ever had any sort of finish applied to the wood. So... what sort of finish is appropriate? Linseed oil? Boiled, raw? Something else?
Thanks;
mhb - MIke
They used BLO, I use two parts turpentine to 1 part BLO and I get good penetration, let it dry for a day and do it again. On an unfinished stock it may need several coats. j.B or Sunray might be able to narrow down the actual cut Lithgow used with turpentine but if memory serves its two to one. When you get it done some before/after pics would be awesome.
As a side note I used some raw Linseed cut oil in a coachwood stock once to see what the difference would be. I'm not sure it completely dried after a week. The end finish was similiar but the finishing wax really didn't rub in. I think it was because the Linseed oil had not completely dried. It ended up being a pain in the rear but I still got it.
Raw Linseed oil doesn't dry. Boiled will.
Biggest issue with oiling stocks is that most people slather the stuff on like they have stock in the company. Better to use several light coats.
Kind of doubt the Aussies cut anything. Costs money. Stocks were usually dunked in BLO and hung to dry.
The U.S. used BLO (heated), and dunked the stocks in it, then allowed them to 'drip-dry'. It doesn't appear that these coachwood stocks were oiled at all before they went into storage.
I do use BLO, but apply it with my bare hand and rub it in thoroughly a small amount at a time, while leaving sufficient time for it to dry between coats. That usually gives a nice finish and fills the grain well, without leaving drips and runs.
I also like to use a varnish (Minwax polyurethane) on the inside of the stock (where it won't show) for waterproofing and to help prevent warping, and, in the case of a 2-piece stock, as on an Enfield, also varnish the socket end of the butt and under the buttplate.
mhb - MIke
Raw Linseed oil doesn't dry. Boiled will.
Biggest issue with oiling stocks is that most people slather the stuff on like they have stock in the company. Better to use several light coats.
Kind of doubt the Aussies cut anything. Costs money. Stocks were usually dunked in BLO and hung to dry.
Thanks for hammering that point Sunray. I dip two fingers in the jar and rub the wood till it creates some heat.Lightly wipe excess off and let dry. I think a lot of the overuse is the thought of original factory dipping the entire gun.
Your probably right as dipping freshly cured timber en mass versus old timberone at a time is much different. When I started I did 50/50 BLO but didn't get great penetration. the 2 to 1 came from info learned here.
JB White
01-24-2017, 06:31
For lack of a drying room, BLO is the way to go in my opinion. Others will bang their fist while screaming "originality", but at this stage of the game I don't think it matters. We aren't churning out factory fresh stocks on brand new ordnance approved rifles.
The trick is to go slow as already mentioned. Slather on the first coat diluted and let the wood drink. Rub it all off after 20 minutes. Then let it dry well. Afterward just rub in small amounts and rub it off while buffing with a soft cloth.
For that dark blood color, add a few drops of creosote into the mix if you have some available. Gives it that 'smell' too. ;)
is whether any stain was used by the Aussies, and if so, what? Or did they simply apply the BLO and let time provide any darkening effect?
mhb - MIke
JB White
01-26-2017, 08:54
Let time do the job.
The creosote made it darker, giving what a few collectors call an ox blood color. It can be faked with aniline dyes, but if you aren't familiar with them you can ruin the desired effect. For now just oil it.
FWIW using straight, undiluted BLO will darken quicker but the penetration won't be as much. With coachwood it needs to be oiled well. Also, the 'king screw' needs to be torqued "gorilla tight" to help prevent the forend from splitting on recoil. Of course this is a moot point should there be improper contact at the draws.
Did the Aussies actually use creosote in their oil mix?
And, I've been studying-up on bedding the Lee-Enfields - this will be my first attempt at setting-up a #1, though my work on a #4 yielded good results. I'm hoping that the new condition of the wood (and metal) on this Lithgow will give me a good starting point for an accurate rifle.
FWIW, my 1934 edition of the A.G. Parker catalog says that they guaranteed the SMLE rifles they built would deliver 1 1/2 MOA at 100 yards, but did not specify with what ammunition. If they could do that with Mk VII ball, they were really good... I spoke with a couple of friendly Brits at the Las Vegas show (one a director of the British NRA and long-time competitor), and they didn't believe it, either, but thought it might have been possible with selected lots of Radway Green ball - which seems unlikely, as the information I've been able to find says that the RG factory was only established in 1940.
mhb - Mike
musketjon
01-29-2017, 02:00
JB,
Which is the "King Screw" on a No I Mk III*?
Thanks
Jon
JB White
01-29-2017, 07:27
Did the Aussies actually use creosote in their oil mix?
mhb - Mike
From what I've been told over the years, yes. But only a couple drops in a one ounce mix.
JB,
Which is the "King Screw" on a No I Mk III*?
Thanks
Jon
What we have now nicknamed the 'king screw' is the main triggerguard screw. It must be tight on the screw bushing while allowing for sight compression of the TG against the wood.
If AGP said their rifles could do 1.5" MOA it could be true. From the shop at least. Once it leaves and owners and nature take a toll...who's to say what might happen after that?
I know of a 1955 No4 MkII that would do 1" @ 100 off the bags with ammo it liked. Also a '41 Lithgow with a 1960 barrel that did 1.5" using the same ammo. Winchester white box ball/ WCC 81.
if memory serves king crew was an Aussie term that worked its way off the big island.
mhb if you want to traditionally bed it I would read all of Peter Laidler's writings on milsurps.com. If you are going modern then disregard that advice. The No. 1 has been much more of a challenge for me personally than the No 4. using traditional methods. However, a lot of it probably has to do as much as the rifle you get to start with as anything. I like Aussie No 1,s and that is what I have the most of in that category. However, I wish they were all queens maple (Missouri Walnut would be a dream) as Coachwood is a PIA. Good Luck
Thanks for the feedback, guys.
I'm assuming the stock on the #1 is coachwood - it is pretty light in color and fairly open in grain.
I'm looking at this one as a learning project, to see what I can accomplish with it in terms of accuracy - I may try several approaches, but will probably start with the traditional mods.
If you've read 'The Emmagees', by H.W. McBride, he commented on the trouble he and his gunners took to acquire accurate and reliable ammunition; and that they preferred the American contract-made stuff, when they could get it.
mhb - Mike
It looks to me that there are 2 different woods used on the stock set of this Lithgow. They all appear to be marked 'SLAZ 42' (Slazenger 1942), and the handguards and foreend are distinctly darker in color than the buttstock, which is rather pale. The handguards and foreend might be described as a light walnut color. All of the stock parts are obviously new and not previously used.
What I will likely do is lightly stain the buttstock to as close a match as I can get with the handguards and foreend and then oil them - I think they would come out looking better-matched, and not too pale, overall.
mhb - MIke
bigedp51
02-11-2017, 09:33
Enfield stocks were placed in heated tanks of "raw linseed oil", todays BLO contains chemical drying agents and if it was put in a heated tank it would turn into the consistency of Jello.
The raw linseed oil soaks deeply into the wood and hydrates the wood and prevents wood shrinkage. During the yearly tear down inspections the stock was again soaked in a tank of raw linseed oil over night.
As a side note the M1 and M14 rifles also had raw linseed oil applied to the stock, NO military rifles ever had BLO applied to them when in service.
You can also soak your fore stock in a wall paper wetting tray using raw linseed oil mixed 50-50 with turpentine and let soak overnight.
If you have a doubts about raw linseed oil you can go to Milsurps.com and ask Peter Laidler the senior British armourer in the UK.
Raw Linseed Oil is indeed original along with creosote. It's also a pain in the rear compared to BLO so hence why I use BLO. None of my Lee Enfield stocks will ever be new again. Hell one of my shooter coachwood stocks cracked along the left side last week and I've shot it a lot....then after a 50 round session....seriously a crack. In the middle of fixing that now. You can spend days reading Peters stuff. At the end of all that you have to decide how your going to work on your rifle, mostly one off jobs. No big work centers with heated dip tanks, just you and your skill set. That is unless you want to pay someone else to do it.
It looks to me that there are 2 different woods used on the stock set of this Lithgow. They all appear to be marked 'SLAZ 42' (Slazenger 1942), and the handguards and foreend are distinctly darker in color than the buttstock, which is rather pale. The handguards and foreend might be described as a light walnut color. All of the stock parts are obviously new and not previously used.
What I will likely do is lightly stain the buttstock to as close a match as I can get with the handguards and foreend and then oil them - I think they would come out looking better-matched, and not too pale, overall.
mhb - MIke
Mike
I've done exactly that stained to match. For instance the Lithgow that cracked on me is a 42 rearsenaled in 45 and got a new barrel and Forewood in 45. The buttstock and handguards are darker and beat up some do to dirt, use and a$$. Once I get the Forewood fixed I'll stain it to match the others before oiling it. What I need most is time, which I always run out of. I'll probably have to use oak for my Dutchman as I have no sacrificial coachwood.
for the input. I did stain the buttstock, and came-out with a fairly good match in color (not perfect, but the other pieces aren't perfectly matched, either.
Still, I've finished oiling the stock (several coats of BLO, well rubbed-in, but not polished. It doesn't look bad, at all.
I've re-assembled the rifle, with attention to the bedding (WHO is responsible for this mechanical botch-up?), and hope to shoot it this week, weather permitting.
Although the parts are all actually NOS or re-finished, I discovered that both the bolt lugs and their seats in the receiver are somewhat 'experienced', and had to be lapped-in for reasonable bearing on both, which left the headspace a bit longer than before, but still in the serviceable range. (The bolt head is not numbered, but marked with a letter 'M', if that is significant. Is there a source of new Aussie bolt heads?
Will report results...
mhb - Mike
The number bolts were just done on the No 4 rifles. Is your head space at .074 or greater. If not it's still in spec. If your are using American Brass the rims are thinner, you might try Privi Brass which generally has a thicker rim. You can also use an O ring in front of your new ammo to fire form it to your chamber as long as its in spec. The O ring method is heavily discussed on the inter web and can be found explained very well on several forums. I think it has even been explained here recently.
Your Lithgow bolt if it needs one will have to be honed and fitted. Just the cost of good stones makes it hard to justify fitting one bolt, but that's your call. It is not a job for the faint of heart. Sarco has boxes of bolt heads. You might have to call them to see if they have any OEM old new stock. You'll be looking for one that slightly longer than you need, which might be found on a used one also. You can also fit it tighter if you want to use thinner rimmed American brass but were in geek status now. However based on your post I'm not sure you are there.
If the #1 bolt heads were not numbered, were they actually available in a range of lengths (they must have been), and how were they distinguished without having to measure each one?
As I mentioned earlier, I did have to lap-in the bolt lugs with their seats in the receiver - the headspace is still within the permissible range (I do have headspace gauges), but I'd like to reduce it to the minimum, if possible, and replacing the bolt head with a longer one (if available) is the solution, I think, but need to know how to be sure of getting one of the required dimension.
I do have a large assortment of stones, but stoning the bolt lugs alone would not have solved the problem, in this case, as the receiver seats showed some setback, also: lapping them in corrected the wear problems on both bolt and receiver surfaces and provided good contact on both sides of the bolt, which is what the stoning procedure is intended to achieve when fitting-up a new bolt and receiver.
Depending on how the rifle shoots, it may not actually be necessary to do anything about the headspace issue, though the vagaries of bedding the barrel, foreend, handguards, etc. for best/acceptable accuracy may yet drive me around the bend...
mhb - MIke
bigedp51
02-13-2017, 12:36
Enfield rifles were proof tested with two oiled proof cartridges, this seated the bolt lugs and bolt head to the bolt body. If the headspace increased over .003 the rifle failed proof testing.
No.1 Enfield bolt heads were measured and then fitted using a bolt head spanner wrench to work in and seat the bolt head to the bolt body. Bolt head timing was used when the rear of the bolt head was to contact the collar on the firing pin. Meaning the bolt head was to contact the firing pin collar and push the firing pin to the rear the last 90 degrees of bolt head rotation.
Bolt heads marked with the letter "S" for spare were the longest and were to be used on worn rifles where new or used bolt heads failed to meet headspace requirements.
When a new bolt and a "S" marked bolt head failed to bring the rifle into headspace requirements the rifle was sent for FTR/Overhaul. When this happened normally the surface hardening of the receiver was scraped and the rifle parted out.
Before you do anymore stoning on the bolt lugs I would contact Peter Laidler. Your rifle is a bitser and made up of leftover parts put together by untrained New Yorkers and the very reason you are messing with your bolt lugs. These rifles were never proof tested and the bolt lugs and bolt head were never seated properly as they would be during proofing.
The following is an expert from Captain Peter Laidler who was a British armorer and has done more for the Enfield community than we can ever repay him for. He has also forgot more about Lee Enfield's than I will ever know. This should answer some of your questions. I will add once fitted one must also check that you have proper firing pin protrusion. I'll also agree with bigedp51 not to stone the bolt lugs anymore. Peter posts on milsurps.com and is very responsive to questions. Brian Dick is also a member there and answers a lot of technical stuff to. Good Luck.
Spare bolt heads issued from the factory were actually oversize and marked with a small ‘S’….., but nobody can tell me by how much! Other Armourers of the period have told me, only yesterday over a frantic phone call, that this is incorrect but they WERE all to the longest specification. Whatever it is/was, there should be room to stone to size. And THIS is where Armourers were always taught DON’T OVER CHS. Or in this case, should that read don’t UNDER CHS. If your rifle closes on the .074” NO GO gauge, this is what you do. Go to the No1 bolt head drawer and select half a dozen bolt heads that don’t overturn by more than 10 degrees (later, 15 degrees was permitted to make best use of remaining spare parts stockpiles), the bolt face is not ringed sufficient to allow the escape of gas past the primer and the striker hole is not greater than .084” dia. Try them all until you get the best fit. If necessary machine or stone the bolt head square and true until it closes over the .064” gauge and doesn’t close over the .074” gauge. The point at which the bolt doesn’t close prior to the .050” limit is academic because so long as it doesn’t go/close, it’s passed the test.
Now, how you shorten the bolt head it is up to you. You can machine it in a lathe if you like but some are quite hard, or surface grind but I was taught that the best way was to rub the face down on a sheet of ‘400’ wet and dry carborundum paper on a sheet of glass, just covered in slow running water. Go round and round with equal pressure, rotating the bolt head slightly every so often, taking a gnats knacker off at a time for several minutes and trying it again and again. Every so often, smear a smidgin of engineers blue on the rear of the .074” gauge and close the bolt head lightly against it to ensure a crisp round witness mark on the face of the bolt. This is the acid test of it being perfectly square to the bore. Be sure to remember these old Armourers technical words such as ‘gnats knacker’ meaning something too insignificant to be measured and ‘smidgin’, indicating a quantity equivalent to a gnats knacker.
That is very basically it! Once again, this is weeks of practice in the classroom and on the bench with discussion groups all put into one short period. And if we destroyed a rifle or bolts and boltheads while learning our trade ….., who cared so long as we learned and got it right eventually.
I appreciate the further input, but am not sure how to apply any of it, at this point.
I do not see any further need to lap-in the bolt to the receiver, at this point, and don't plan to do so - the bolt lugs and their seats in the receiver are well-enough mated and should be O.K. - the reason lapping was necessary is that both the bolt and receiver showed deformation of the mating surfaces indicative of previous service, evidence that neither was actually new. The firing pin hole, bolt face and firing pin protrusion are good.
I'd be happy to acquire a new-condition spare parts bolt head, but I don't want to buy a bunch of them, or one after another in an effort to achieve better, if not minimum, headspace: unfortunately, I don't know anyone with a box of spares to try. Even if I had a perfectly new receiver and bolt, I surely wouldn't attempt to seat the parts together by firing oiled proof loads, so have done what seemed proper and feasible with what I actually have. I guess I'll just have to try the rifle as-is and see how it performs, for now.
Some of the information in CPT Laidler's excerpt is a bit confusing: 'CHS', though obviously related to headspace, is not explained, though 'GO' and 'NO-GO' limits are clear enough; the '.050" limit' referenced is unexplained, and not self-explanatory. The permissible degree of over-rotation of the bolt head is interesting, but only useful it there are a number of candidate bolt heads to work with. The suggestions for methods of shortening the bolt head are clear enough, and I got a chuckle out of the Brit technical term 'gnat's knacker', which I suspect is their equivalent of the American 'RCH' (Rat's C..t Hair).
I was unaware of the need for the rear of the bolt head shank to contact the firing pin collar before the head is fully turned-in to the bolt body: is this critical in some way? If so, it would seem that it could be achieved (if not currently present in the assembled bolt) by increasing the firing pin protrusion until contact is achieved, and then shortening the protruding tip of the pin as necessary.
Weather permitting, I hope to shoot the rifle tomorrow, and will report results...
mhb - MIke
If testing indicates you need a new bolt head and you determine the length you need pm with that measurement. I've been picking off both no 1 and no 4 bolt heads like JB White picking off body armor for a walk on the south side of Chicago. Good luck.
Parashooter
02-13-2017, 02:14
CHS = Cartridge Head Space.
.05" limit = minimum stopped distance of bolt handle from butt socket when checking with NO-GO gauge.
If the firing pin doesn't stop by contacting the rear of the bolt head, it stops when the cocking piece hits the bolt. This puts axial stress on the firing pin threads and leads to breakage there.
Firing pin protrusion is controlled by the distance between tip (A) and flange (B) - as well as the overall length of the bolt head. It cannot be correctly adjusted by screwing the pin in/out of the cocking piece.
http://i48.tinypic.com/rl94zb.jpg
The primary advantage of raw linseed oil for military gunstocks is that it dries very slowly, ensuring that any excess can be easily wiped off before forming a shiny surface film that is inappropriate in military use. Raw oil that has penetrated below the wood surface does eventually dry there - exactly where it is needed to protect the wood interior from moisture. "Boiled" linseed oil can make an excellent finish for a sporting gunstock, where shiny reflections are desired by some and scratches can be promptly repaired. Producing an appropriate dull, sub-surface, military finish with "BLO" requires significantly more skill and attention than raw linseed.
Thank you para shooter I always enjoy your informative posts and you summed up BLO vs RLO better than I could. Having used both, the times constraints imposed by work, trying to shoot, trying to keep wife moderately happy is why I chose BLO at this time. Maybe if I make it to retirement and things slow down that will change. There is also the argument of using Tung Oil instead for its minor water proofing qualities but I probably shouldn't stir that pot.
On a side note you've save me a lot of headaches with you're post on bullet casting for mil surps, so let me thank you for that also.
bigedp51
02-13-2017, 07:04
At one time I told everyone to tighten up their headspace, on one rifle using different bolt heads I was well under minimum headspace with the bolt face just kissing the rear of the case. I got chewed out by Peter and he sent me a PM and stated that the longer the headspace the less bolt thrust that was delivered to the bolt. The case when it grips the chamber walls acts like a shock absorber and delivers less bolt thrust.
The bolt head timing or when the collar on the firing pin is contacted by the rear of the bolt head effects trigger pull. The Canadian manual just gives you a plus or minus air gap between the cocking piece and the rear of the bolt. This could change the bolt head timing from the 5:00 position to the 2:00 position as to when the the rear of the bolt head contacted the collar on the firing pin.
The Canadian No.4 manual has greatly reduced standards to keep the rifle in service with the Canadian Rangers. One example is excessive wood crush below the receiver and above the trigger guard which effected trigger pull. Normally when the wood crush was over .020 compined the fore stock was replaced. Because there were no new replacement fore stocks and to make up for excessive wood crush the trigger guard was bent to bring the trigger pull within limits. It was funny Peter sent me a PM and asked why the Canadians were allowed to bend the trigger guard when no self respecting British armourer would ever do this. I replied because they don't make new furniture any more and he told me to bugger off. The funnest one was in a open forum I was talking about raw linseed oil and the stocks being dry as a popcorn fart. The next night Peter thanked me because he ordered a beer in his local pub and said he was dry as a popcorn fart and got free drinks. Peter said something to the effect about acting like a wild colonial and dry British humor is why everyone bought him a round.
On bedding the No.1 Son the Australian and Roger Wadham a New Zealander who wrote a book on the Enfield rifle will give you good pointers.
[QUOTE=bigedp51;487612]At one time I told everyone to tighten up their headspace, on one rifle using different bolt heads I was well under minimum headspace with the bolt face just kissing the rear of the case. I got chewed out by Peter and he sent me a PM and stated that the longer the headspace the less bolt thrust that was delivered to the bolt. The case when it grips the chamber walls acts like a shock absorber and delivers less bolt thrust.
The bolt head timing or when the collar on the firing pin is contacted by the rear of the bolt head effects trigger pull. The Canadian manual just gives you a plus or minus air gap between the cocking piece and the rear of the bolt. This could change the bolt head timing from the 5:00 position to the 2:00 position as to when the the rear of the bolt head contacted the collar on the firing pin.
The Canadian No.4 manual has greatly reduced standards to keep the rifle in service with the Canadian Rangers. One example is excessive wood crush below the receiver and above the trigger guard which effected trigger pull. Normally when the wood crush was over .020 compined the fore stock was replaced. Because there were no new replacement fore stocks and to make up for excessive wood crush the trigger guard was bent to bring the trigger pull within limits. It was funny Peter sent me a PM and asked why the Canadians were allowed to bend the trigger guard when no self respecting British armourer would ever do this. I replied because they don't make new furniture any more and he told me to bugger off. The funnest one was in a open forum I was talking about raw linseed oil and the stocks being dry as a popcorn fart. The next night Peter thanked me because he ordered a beer in his local pub and said he was dry as a popcorn fart and got free drinks. Peter said something to the effect about acting like a wild colonial and dry British humor is why everyone bought him a round.
On bedding the No.1 Son the Australian and Roger Wadham a New Zealander who wrote a book on the Enfield rifle will give you good pointers.[/QUOTE
Peter can be opinionated that's for sure. I can see why the trigger guard thing threw him, not the traditional British way. I have read a lot of "Son"s stuff and enjoy it. I have also read some stuff by Muffet2008 I think that's pretty good but I've seen him go high right a few times also.
for the additional information.
I now understand the '.050" limit', and know that it is not a problem in this rifle. The bolt head does, indeed contact the flange on the firing pin before being fully turned-in to the bolt body, though the rotation after contact is more like 270 degrees.
I did shoot the rifle this morning, and was quite pleased with the initial results: 3999439995
Fired a total of 25 rounds: 10 to seat the rifle parts and adjust the sights for windage and 3-5 shot groups; 1 of the Hornady 174 gr. .312" RNFB, and 2 of the Hornady .312" HPBT match. I'm gonna need a taller front sight, too. Still, with a group of 1 1/2" or less with each bullet type, I consider that I've achieved the A.G. Parker guarantee for the #1 rifle, and am declaring conditional victory. I suspect that further load development and testing of available bullets will yield results as good or better.
mhb - MIke
Good target for the old Battle Rifle. Take that thing to Camp Perry...
I decided to measure the headspace more carefully, and have now determined that the actual measurement is .076", even longer than the generous Brit maximum, and I'd certainly like to bring it as much nearer to the minimum figure (.064") as possible.
The bolt head measures .629", from the shoulder which contacts the face of the bolt body to the face of the bolt head itself. In order to achieve the desired headspace measurement of .064", I'd need a bolt head which measures .641" - .012" longer than this one. I don't know whether such a measurement is available, but hope so, or that one as close as possible to that length can be found, so as to bring the headspace into the desired (near minimum) range. I thought about making a shim to fit between the bolt body and bolt head, but realized that would throw-off the bolt head timing.
Well, I knew this was a project when I bought the rifle, but I think it's worth the effort.
mhb - MIke
Yes shim will not work. Brits had an emergency gauge of .078 for war time use (I think that's the measurement someone can correct me if I'm wrong.) I checked my stash which is all use bolt heads. I don't have one that is .641. You could call Sarco and see if they would look for a old stock OEM bolt that slightly exceeds what you are looking for. You could send it to Brian Dick or see if Chuck in Denver does L.E. if you decide fitting the bolt head is more than you want to tackle. I've only done it twice and it was under the watchful eye of an old dude that knew what he was doing. He wouldn't do it for me, but would walk me through it. I can tell you without his help I would have never tried it. Just my 2 cents. He was a retired machinist I met through a friend. He was a hard core Lee Enfield guy, but lately has started messing with old double barrels. I think he got bored with L.E.s and moved on to another challenge. He also had some project L.E.'s that he sold me cheap. They are in the corner for retirement projects if I make it that long.
Parashooter
02-15-2017, 12:01
mhb - your recent posts on this thread indicate you're concerned about slightly generous headspace in your SMLE. Perhaps a review of the basics and some thoughts on handloading will help alleviate your concern.
Several generations of American shooters have been convinced by bad information that "headspace" should be checked and re-checked on almost any surplus rifle, especially Lee-Enfields. The truth is less interesting but still worth knowing.
Stripped to its essentials, with a rimmed cartridge like the .303, headspace is simply the distance between the front of the bolt and the back of the barrel. It's the space where the "head" (rim) of the cartridge fits when the rifle is loaded.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2v2gswz.jpg
Since there has to be some room to allow for varying rim thickness, the headspace is normally a bit more than necessary - giving what I call "head clearance" (or "end play"), a little extra space so the bolt can close easily, even on the thickest rim allowed.
In addition, Lee-Enfields and their ammo were often made with a fair amount of space for dirt, mud, snow and other battlefield debris between the chamber and the cartridge's body and shoulder ("Body/shoulder clearance"). Since the cartridge is controlled by its rim, this clearance doesn't do any harm (except to handloaders who insist on full-length sizing).
When a full-power .303 cartridge is fired, a whole string of events occurs.
http://i39.tinypic.com/2u5z31t.jpg
1. The firing pin shoves the case forward, rim against the breech.
2. The primer detonates. If it's not heavily crimped in place, it backs out, shoving the bolt and barrel as far apart as it can.
3. The thin, forward part of the case expands to fill and grip the chamber while the bullet moves out of the case and down the barrel.
4. The solid case head can't expand and grip the chamber, so it moves rearward, re-seating the primer, stretching the case walls just forward of the head, and stopping when it hits the bolt face. (In rear-locking actions like the Lee, the bolt and receiver also compress/stretch to add a little more movement. The higher the pressure, the more they move.)
5. If (and only if) the amount of head movement exceeds the elastic limits of the case, the cartridge separates into two pieces.
New cartridge cases can normally stretch a lot before breaking. Even with a minimum rim .054" thick and maximum "field" headspace of .074", the resultant .020" head clearance is well within the limits of new brass and it's very unlikely a new case will separate even if the headspace is somewhat more than the field maximum.
Unless you're consistently getting broken cases when firing new ammo or brass, there's not much reason to be worried about headspace in the sturdy old Lee-Enfields. Relax and enjoy!
If you handload for a .303 with generous headspace, there's no need to mess with bolt heads - changing the rifle's clearances to yield longer case life. You can control head clearance simply by changing technique.
When you fire a new case for the first time, use an improvised spacer ahead of the rim - anything from a precision metal washer to dental floss can work to hold the the cartridge head firmly against the bolt face and eliminate or reduce stretch even if head clearance is significant. Another way of accomplishing the same end is to use a bullet seated out far enough to jam into the lands, "headspacing" on the bullet instead of the case. Such techniques are useful only if the rifle has excess headspace. With normal headspace, initial stretch isn't enough to worry about.
After you've fire-formed your new cases they will fill the chamber fully, stopping on the shoulder just like a rimless cartridge. If you neck size, you'll have zero "headspace". If you have to full length size, adjust the die so the cases chamber with just a bit of resistance in the last few degrees of bolt rotation.
Finally, don't try to turn a .303 into a magnum. Keep the pressures below the limit and you reduce the small amount the bolt and receiver compress/stretch on firing in a rear-locking action.
With these techniques you can make your .303 cases last for dozens of loading cycles, even if your "gauge headspace" is well beyond the .074" field spec.
Thanks for the additional effort and info. I'd be happy with a bolt head which came close(r) to the minimum headspace (say, in the range of .638" to the desired .641").
I was aware of the facts concerning headspace, case stretch and the methods of dealing with it. BUT: I build rifles, and firmly believe that it is best to keep headspace at or near the minimum established figure (when possible) to avoid the need for special handling of the brass, and to allow for maximum case life, as well as longer service life of the action itself. I neck size only, so long as the case treated so will chamber without excessive effort, and keep loads well within the established maximum for the caliber and rifle - the load I have been shooting in my LE rifles is relatively mild, but gives good accuracy. Rim thickness, per-se, does affect headspace, but none of the available commercial brass I have measured exceeds the .064" nominal dimension, and is mostly less than that, which increases the effective headspace in the rifle - this, too, militates in favor of reducing the rifle headspace.
In this case, changing the bolt head for one of greater length will permit correction of longer-than necessary headspace, and I definitely want to do so, so will keep looking for one - I believe it possible to acquire one of the desired dimension. Given that I have a fairly complete range of tools and machinery, and experience as a machinist, toolmaker, barrel maker and riflesmith, I do not anticipate any insurmountable difficulties in fitting a new bolt head, and am willing to try it.
The search continues...
mhb - MIke
bigedp51
02-15-2017, 08:46
Below is once fired factory loaded Winchester .303 British case that stretched and thinned .009 on the first firing, The rifles head space was just under .067 and within SAAMI limits.
"IF" I had fire formed the cartridge using the O-ring method the case would not have stretched at all.
http://i.imgur.com/YoV80b4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jDCS39v.jpg
I fire form my .303 case with a 100 grain .312 pistol bullet, a rubber o-ring with reduced loads. The reduced loads make the brass butt plate softer when forming 100 plus cases at a time.
http://i.imgur.com/HHDfGl9.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FCHGvIZ.jpg
The o-ring holds the case against the bolt face, and when compressed centers the rear of the case in the chamber.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2010/02/headspacestretch_frame_0001-1.jpg
Thereafter you neck size and let the case headspace on its shoulder and not the rim.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2010/02/fireformedzeroheadspace-1.jpg
bigedp51 can I ask what O ring you are using. I use dental floss but its kind of a pain. I got some black O rings from the auto parts store once but for some reason after a few firings they broke so how the dental floss got introduced. I will add it works in all but one Ishy. That one blows the case mouth open much further. Since the bore is in really good shape I think it was how it was cut (over cut) at the factory.
MHB good luck, Sarco will have the bolt head if you want to go that route. I'm out on whether to do it or not, as that's your call. The bolt heads I had help fitting were for rifles that were bought without an entire bolt in one case and the other was missing the bolt head only. I have two more sitting in a corner with missing bolts and good action and bores but probably won't mess with them for a while. Your rifle is shooting pretty good though so all in all it must be fitted well and the bore in decent shape.
I am going to acquire another bolt head, and, possibly, a new bolt body (Springfield Sporters has them, and, failing that, I'll check Sarco).
This rifle is such a nice one, and shoots so well, that I think it's worth the effort to 'optimize' it - the barrel is perfectly new, and all the other parts are either new or have been re-finished to appear so.
mhb - Mike
JB White
02-16-2017, 10:56
Mike, is this a Jovino import or a Jovino in-house build from spare parts? You never did show the rifle as far as I recall. What is the date and serial number alpha prefix?
Since you started gunsmithing on it I decided to step aside. If it's a collectible Lithgow you may want to stop. If it's a parts special then go ahead and learn all you can.
Just so you know where I stand. I'm not one that caters to all the "must do's" the target shooters insist upon doing to a surplus rifle. It's good to know though. If you plan on using the O-ring trick...save your money and use it. Don't bother with all kinds of new parts for this and that.
bigedp51
02-16-2017, 11:23
bigedp51 can I ask what O ring you are using. I use dental floss but its kind of a pain. I got some black O rings from the auto parts store once but for some reason after a few firings they broke so how the dental floss got introduced. I will add it works in all but one Ishy. That one blows the case mouth open much further. Since the bore is in really good shape I think it was how it was cut (over cut) at the factory.
I worked on aircraft and had access to small hydraulic system o-rings and my supply is going down. But just use the smallest o-ring you can find and lube the bolt lugs to prevent lug wear.
I remove the extractor when fire forming because it cuts into the o-ring. With the extractor removed the o-ring lasts forever, and I use my fingernail to flick the case out of the chamber.
I highly recommend using Prvi Partizan brass, it has thicker rims, thicker case walls in the base and has a larger base diameter.
Parashooter
02-16-2017, 01:35
Don't get hung up on finding and buying O-rings if you don't have a supply on hand. There are plenty of other ways to do the job, some of which are very low-cost like this old fishing line.
http://i43.tinypic.com/e5s8es.jpg
(Ed, it's still not "weedwhacker" cord.:hello:)
I did say it is a Jovino gun, but neglected to state that it is apparently one of those built-up from spares. The receiver is dated 1943, while the stock parts are 1942. The serial number is 771A, which is one of the series applied by Jovino, as I understand it.
It looks good, and shoots so well, that it is an irritant to have excessive headspace. I bought the rifle as a shooter, and would much prefer to have its mechanical aspects up to spec., and avoid the need to resort to dodges to save the brass for reloading.
It appears possible to correct the problem with new parts, and I'm going to try that.
mhb - Mike
JB White
02-16-2017, 02:34
Mike, the A suffix sums it up as would a prefix of G or higher. It's a spare parts rifle so no harm is being done. Have at it! :)
Keep in mind the chamber itself is oversized. Even though the headspace can be reduced to help save the web area, thin and undersized commercial brass is still going to stretch quite a bit.
Thanks, again!
FWIW, I have shot it with my customary mild load, and bulging was not very noticeable - no worse than in my #4, which was FTR'd in 1948.
I'm gonna keep after this thing until it's as 'right' as I can make it.
mhb - MIke
bigedp51
02-17-2017, 04:24
Don't get hung up on finding and buying O-rings if you don't have a supply on hand. There are plenty of other ways to do the job, some of which are very low-cost like this old fishing line.
http://i43.tinypic.com/e5s8es.jpg
(Ed, it's still not "weedwhacker" cord.:hello:)
You forget Parashooter in your first headspace 101 you told the readers to lube their cases to fire form them. I told everyone that lubing cases increased bolt thrust and should not lube their cases.
You didn't change your headspace 101 to weed wacker/fishing line until I posted this from the 1929 British Textbook of small arms.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/TBOSA2-1_zpsa7ivzvbb.jpg
And rubber o-rings are used for two reasons.
1. They hold the case against the boltface to prevent the case from stretching.
2. When the rubber o-ring is compressed it centers the rear of the case in the chamber. Meaning the case does not just lay in the bottom of the chamber and warp when fired.
Your thick weed wacker/fishing line does not compress and center the case like a rubber o-ring would and being harder increases lug wear. The rubber o-ring trick has been around for a very long time and works. And your weed wacker/fishing line idea died at birth and wasn't a good idea, and you just used it because I promoted the rubber o-ring method and you wanted to be different. And the problem is your idea never caught on and your the only one in the world who uses weed wacker/fishing line.
Signed
bigedp51 the non case greaser
Below is from the H.P. White Testing Laboratory and why you should never lube your cartridge cases that greatly increases bolt thrust.
"1.4 Failure of a gun assembly from internal pressure may be from either
of two (2) failure mechanisms.
1.4.1 The general perception is that those failures are the result
of a single exposure to a CATASTROPHIC PRESSURE level. This
may be an over simplification in that the strength of the
assembly may have been degraded by previous repeated exposures
to excessive, but lesser, levels of pressure whose cumulative
effect is to reduce the ultimate strength of the assembly.
1.4.2 Repeated exposure to pressures which exceed the elastic limit
of a material will continually reduce the ultimate strength of
the material until the ultimate strength is exceeded by a
relatively low pressure level causing fatigue failure."
Thanks bidedp51 for the info.
JB White
02-17-2017, 08:48
Mike, since now we know it's a Jovino tool room rifle...
Have you looked to see if the recoil plates have been retrofitted to the draw areas of the forend? Coachwood was prone to failing over time, so it shouldn't be bedded to the draws like walnut or beech etc.
It's another topic but one I figured I should mention before you begin shooting it seriously. The guys over on the other board have lots of pics to give you a good look at what is needed
Mike, since now we know it's a Jovino tool room rifle...
Have you looked to see if the recoil plates have been retrofitted to the draw areas of the forend? Coachwood was prone to failing over time, so it shouldn't be bedded to the draws like walnut or beech etc.
It's another topic but one I figured I should mention before you begin shooting it seriously. The guys over on the other board have lots of pics to give you a good look at what is needed
I have checked the draws - the copper plates were never fitted to this Coachwood forearm, which is new. The bearing at the draws is as good as it should be, and the rifle shoots into 1 1/2 MOA as it is now. I am aware that Coachwood is not as durable as some other stock woods, but, since I don't plan to shoot the rifle a great deal, I'm going to leave it as-is for now, and watch it for signs of deformation/displacement at the draws. If it becomes a problem, I'll deal with it at that time.
Appreciate the heads-up.
mhb - MIke
I was able to obtain a bolt head of the length I wanted - headspace is now reduced to .065" or just an RCH (q.v.) over, and will not close on .066". It still shoots as well as at first, but I'm happier about it now.4020140202
mhb - Mike
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.