Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
This is a follow up to the hardness testing I did recently to try to identify Winchester barrel steels. This time, I used the Rockwell hardness tester to try to identify the receiver steels used in the levergun era. As a bonus, I tested a few other parts and even a gunmetal frame. Mark
Mark,
Very educational, now I know. I was surprised by how hard that gun metal receiver was and the fact Winchester stayed with mild steel on lever receivers. I expect it was easier to machine. Thanks for your time, greatly appreciated. T/R
Mark,
Interesting video and findings… however, I believe that it would be of benefit to test more than (1) Model 71.
Per the original Winchester advertisement document for the Model 71 (sentence no. 3), and the 1938 catalog, Winchester very clearly stated that the receiver frames were “heat treated Proof Steel“.
Bert
p.s if you would like digital copies of the documents pictured above, shoot me an email.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Mark,Interesting video and findings… however, I believe that it would be of benefit to test more than (1) Model 71.
Per the original Winchester advertisement document for the Model 71 (sentence no. 3), and the 1938 catalog, Winchester very clearly stated that the receiver frames were “heat treated Proof Steel“.
Bert
p.s if you would like digital copies of the documents pictured above, shoot me an email.
Yes, I was as surprised as you by the results of the test on the 71 I have and even mentioned that I expected it to be proof steel. I did go back after making the video and tested the side of the upper tang twice with the same result as I got on the lower tang. I can’t explain it either. Mark
Mark Douglas said
Bert H. said
Mark,
Interesting video and findings… however, I believe that it would be of benefit to test more than (1) Model 71.
Per the original Winchester advertisement document for the Model 71 (sentence no. 3), and the 1938 catalog, Winchester very clearly stated that the receiver frames were “heat treated Proof Steel“.
Bert
p.s if you would like digital copies of the documents pictured above, shoot me an email.
Yes, I was as surprised as you by the results of the test on the 71 I have and even mentioned that I expected it to be proof steel. I did go back after making the video and tested the side of the upper tang twice with the same result as I got on the lower tang. I can’t explain it either. Mark
I have to wonder if Winchester changed back to mild steel after WW II. The receiver you tested was a relatively late production rifle.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert, I was thinking along the same lines. The bean counters at Olin may have got involved in a cost-cutting move. It makes me wonder if there was possibly a change back to mild steel receivers when they changed from the long tang version to the short tang. This one is a short tang made in 1952. I would sure like to test a pre-war 71 and compare the results. Mark
Mark Douglas said
Bert, I was thinking along the same lines. The bean counters at Olin may have got involved in a cost-cutting move. It makes me wonder if there was possibly a change back to mild steel receivers when they changed from the long tang version to the short tang. This one is a short tang made in 1952. I would sure like to test a pre-war 71 and compare the results. Mark
More mysteries & questions to be solved & answered!
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Online
My theory is that Henry and later Browning built a fair bit of margin of error in the design of their guns. I think they understood metallurgy much better than we may give them credit but they overbuilt anyway. That said, the comparison of gun metal to iron is a bit puzzling. Smokeless powder was a game-changer but alloy updates were apparently focused on barrel steel. The consistency and quality of steel from 1860 to about 1920 is pretty impressive considering the technology available then vs. now. With every video, Mark, I gain a new respect for the craftsmen who built the Winchesters we love.
Food for thought, thanks Mark!
Mike
This a very interesting topic. Just think what is going on now with all of the composite parts in place of metal.
Chuck said
This a very interesting topic. Just think what is going on now with all of the composite parts in place of metal.
Mark, you could turn this into a recurring series….I’d even enjoy seeing some of those modern things tested and compared!
I don’t know how to test the new products but they obviously are strong enough.
I’m not one that bashes the newer guns. I have a few and shoot the crap out of them. I can wear out a barrel to hunting standards in less than a year . The only guns I don’t shoot are my percussion guns because of the hassles with loading and cleaning.
Maybe Winchester was saving money but they knew they were still safe. The barrel and bolt absorb the worst pressure.
1 Guest(s)
