Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Webb,
The first example posted has been altered as suggested by the file or grinding marks on the toggle link, the poor and incomplete weld leaving voids between the pin and the toggle link, and the brighter metal on the end of the pin — as seen when contrasted with the other examples subsequently provided. The original pin likely got too worn down to function correctly and it was replaced or it became lose and was re-welded. After a 100+ years anything is possible. Whoever performed this work went so far as to file the side of the pin flat when they were removing the excess weld material, or maybe they thought it was supposed to be flat instead of round (the 4th photo in the original post). As can be seen in your example, there is some wear to the pin subsequent to its replacement or modifications made. Natural wear commonly occurs on the pin out toward the end, not necessarily the full length of the pin. Suggest taking a closer look at the examples provided.
Its not a matter of interpretation, its plain English. The whimsical and home-spun adages do carry the meaning expressed and aren’t necessary or welcomed.
Bob’s one of the most knowledgeable persons I know when it comes to 1873’s. And a great guy to boot if you’d ever had the opportunity to met him.
Chris
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
Hi There,
I don’t see any evidence of welding. Possibly staking. Are the pins on the
originals welded in? I was under the impression that they are pressed in
(possibly swaged) and the back side (not pictured) finished. The filing
isn’t from reducing weld but to inactivate the firing pin retraction. This
is the quandary I was attempting to answer. I wondered if there was
some practical reason that escaped me and so I posted here. From the
answers so far, it is clear that no one else here knows either.
Has anyone done a detailed study of the links before? That is, chronicled
their material (possibly changing over time as the Steel Industry evolved)
and their thicknesses and the processes used in their manufacture? It is
possible to glean information and the evolution of their manufacture and
therefore to apply this information to specific situations (like mine).
My apologies for my earlier posts but I was trained as a scientist and I like
data. Experience is all fine and good but unless the experience is translated
into hard data, it just becomes subjective with no hard bases for application.
It has been a long time since I have authored anything but I did co-author a
couple papers on adaptive quadrature when I worked for The National Bureau
of Standards (I worked in the Scientific Computing Division). This was back in
my college days while I was getting my BSCS. So, I approach problems scientifically.
I have appreciated the works of authors like Kenneth Moore and John Kopec and
Don Wilkerson. I like the work of Keith Cochran and the logical layout of his
encyclopedia (but some of his data has turned out to be incorrect). Even Herbert
Houze has his place in detailing the history of Winchester. I appreciate them
because they did hard research and show examples of their findings. That is
what impresses me. This is what I did in the examples I provided. I haven’t
seen any examples in refutation of them. There haven’t been any references
to accepted published books or articles that would bear on the subject provided
here to support the opposing contentions. So tell me, what is a scientist to conclude?
Good Luck!
-Blue Chips-
Webb
2 Guest(s)
