Bolt interchangeability

[mhb]

as to photo #4: No. The problem which might cause excess headspace would be on the back of the locking lugs (having been battered, filed, etc. thus shortening them) - the photo shows only the front of the lugs.
Photo #5: the punch marks might be hardness test indents, to show whether the part had the proper temper, though that is a large number of tests, if so. Still, parts undergoing Brinnell or Rockwell testing must be rigidly supported, and that is an awkward location, which might have caused difficulty in obtaining a reliable reading.
mhb - Mike

[fguffey]

Quote:
"I think we've taken over the original poster's post. My apologies to Marine from Virginia"

Changing a bolt is more than just changing a bolt, the bright side, your curiosity about the gap between the rear receiver ring and third lug may have help you. Then there is that remote chance someone on the outside is reading this thread that could be helped also.


Those with ambition could even think about trying their hand at using a feeler gage, again, reloaders, there are options and additional choices when a reloader becomes a case former.

F. Guffey

[chuckindenver]

1st 2 pics,.bolt is wasted, has set back. 3rd pic bolt sits right...
dont use the first bolt..should be a slight gap from the safety lug to the receiver. i noticed that the bolt on the left in pic 4 has a chip, i suspect this bolt has suffered a case head failure at some point.

[fguffey]

There is a chance the length of the chamber was too short to allow the bolt to close on a minimum length case to. In the absence of a chamber reamer the builder could have altered the front lugs.

When you replace the bolt and know the front lugs are seated check the chamber for length from the shoulder back to the bolt face.

Again, when a bolt will not close on a case the person checking the rifle can determine the (interference) as in how much longer is the case than the chamber. Convencing them is a whole different matter.

F. Guffey

[Tom]

1st 2 pics,.bolt is wasted, has set back. 3rd pic bolt sits right...
dont use the first bolt..should be a slight gap from the safety lug to the receiver. i noticed that the bolt on the left in pic 4 has a chip, i suspect this bolt has suffered a case head failure at some point.

Right Chuck!, I just grabbed it out of the trash for more pictures for mhb. Now it is back in the trash. The fact remains that a "no go" gauge closed on this bolt. The rifle headspaces OK now, even though I'm not too happy with the new bolt.

[mhb]

The photos do not show any obvious gross alteration of the locking lugs of your original bolt. The bolt does show the typical semi-circular deformation of the left hand (slotted) lug caused by impact with the cutoff - this is seen in bolts which have been much used, and cycled with more force than necessary, as in training and/or drill team use. The bolt was very 'experienced', and it's just as well you replaced it.
mhb - Mike

[fguffey]

Bucket of 10 bolts: I have boxes of bolts, total number of bolts in boxes and rifles? I have 45+, I do not have an 03 or an 03A3 that will not accept all 45 bolts. Because I determent the length of the chamber in thousandths I do not use head space gages as in go, no and beyond. When changing bolts it is a matter of checking the replacement bolt’s effect it has on head space/the length of the chamber.

Tom, your third lug has clearance, the bolt will not close on a no go-gage, that means your chamber could be .008” longer than a minimum length/full length sized case. Or it could be anything less than .008” longer, that is the reason I am a reloader, I off set the length of the chamber with the length of the case. I have one military type rifle with a chamber that is .016” longer than a minimum length case, .011” longer than a go-gage length chamber or .007” longer than a no go-gage length chamber, or .002” longer than a field reject length chamber. I off set the length of the chamber by forming cases that an additions .014” added to the length of the case body.

Checking your receiver: I would suggest you attempt to install one of the other bolts, you said the front of the bolt moves through the rear receiver ring with no problem, it is my understanding the bolt has trouble when the third lug starts into the rear receiver ring. I suggest you check the alignment with the top of the rear receiver ring and the third lug on the bolt.

F. Guffey

[Tom]

FG, yes, no other bolts will go through the rear receiver ring without help from large rubber hammer. (I probably just voided the warranty from 1943). I tried 6 bolts from rifles and 10 bolts from spare bolts bucket. They will all interchange with each other, in a different rifle though. New subject, will include pictures of the, obviously, out-of-round rear receiver ring. (As you said, "out of alignment".)

Good-bye to the bolt below!! I have another one that is blued, if I ever get it to fit. I liked the Nickel Steel on the old one, though.

Click Picture

[mhb]

is obviously out-of-round, it has been mashed, squashed, crushed (choose one) in some way, making the opening at the rear too tight a fit on the bolt body, and it sounds like that is the actual problem with your receiver.
A receiver which is out of line has been twisted, bent, sprung (choose one) on its long axis, in which case the bolt passes through the rear opening in the receiver, but is then pointed in some direction which causes it to jam, wedge, bind (choose one) somewhere in its travel forward of that point.
If the out-of-round condition is the problem, and is not severe, it may be possible to relieve the binding at that point and still use the receiver. A bent receiver is not easily repaired.
mhb - Mike

[fguffey]

A magnificent rifle, thanks for taking the time.

I have mandrels that are designed to return oval holes back to round, if the rear receiver ring is crushed returning it to round is the easy fix. I would suggest Persian blue layout ink, it is possible the receiver is twisted, the most unlikely suspect’s’ is a twisted bolt, rational, the receiver rejected a bucket of bolts.

I would appreciate it if you would keep me informed, I do not have plans on participating in the next thread.

Unlike the picture you posted of the magnificent rifle I have what was voted the ‘UGLIEST’ rifle ever altered from a military rifle, I could not believe the builder could build the rifle that ugly without knowing what he was doing, anyhow, I won the auction for $120.00 for parts. I took it to the range with 12 different loads of 5 rounds each. There is nothing I could do to improve the accuracy, so I applied the ‘leaver policy’ I left-er the way I founder.

As could be expected when the auction hit the Internet forums etc., etc.. I was concerned about the attention driving the price up, but, no one could get past the ugly part.

F. Guffey