Anybody ever rebuild a Milsurp Rifle?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steel Horse Rider said:
Finding parts is the main issue. I am currently rebuilding an Enfield No 5 which was given to me by a friend who obtained it from a bubba who had desecrated it by cutting off the end of the muzzle and relieving most of the stock forearm. I currently have replaced the sight/muzzle cone and the rear sight assembly but have yet to obtain the trigger guard assembly and the forearm stock. I will eventually get all of the necessary parts but will not be in a "positive" financial position on the rifle but that is not my primary consideration.
Click to expand...

Try brpguns.com. They are some good folks and ship quickly. Stocks for the No. 5 occasionally come up on Ebay but you can make a pretty good ersatz copy by buying a sportered No. 4 Mk. 1 stock.
 
boom boom said:
Rust bluing is fairly labor intensive and will cost you for the gunsmith's time. A realistic and cheap finish would be parkerizing but depending on what era you are emulating, the original 1917's that were parkerized are dark black (wwi era) or grey (wwii era). Starting somewhere in Sept. of 1918, 1917 rifles were parkerized. The WWII stuff apparently got its greenish color by the cosmolene saturation of gray parkerizing. The P14's and the earlier m1917's were apparently rust blued into a matte finish. Another cheap option is caustic hot bluing offered by a lot of gunsmiths but the color will be off compared to the original rust bluing.
Click to expand...
I guess I'll just have it parkerized then. I wonder if there's any way I could do that at home.
 
William Dykstra said:
I guess I'll just have it parkerized then. I wonder if there's any way I could do that at home.
Click to expand...
It is one of the things that a home gunsmith can do. Here is Brownells step by step Parkerizing instructions which are pretty detailed. I suspect that you can find videos on Youtube about it but make sure to read Brownell's instructions before viewing them. https://www.brownells.com/userdocs/learn/Inst-482 Parkerizing.pdf

Major issue is tanks long enough to hold the barrel and receiver during solution reaction--these have to be made out of a non-reactive material to the solutions--stainless steel is the old favorite with seams sealed with High Temp RTV type sealant or some other non-reactive material, some report using hi-temp pvc pipe or other materials and the temperature has to be maintained at near boiling by some means. A lot of folks use something like pipe burners homemade or use a grill. I think the PVC tube guys use water heater heating elements or something like that. Parkerizing is done right at the boiling point of water so do not worry about having really high temp tanks. The rinse tanks can be made out of any type material that will hold water.

Manganese produces the dark black type while zinc based produces the WWII looking grey (dousing with cosmolene or some other such gives the greenish gray color of a lot of Garands, etc. from that era.)

People have used tanks of all sorts which you can read about online taking with a grain of salt unless you come across the same material used multiple times. Brownells and a guy called Big Jim sell stainless steel tanks specifically for rifle length projects which work fine but are a little spendy unless you are doing multiple projects.

Here is one source, https://mg34.com/product/home-parkerizing-kit-manganese/
Another, https://www.duracoatfirearmfinishes.com/collections/parkerizing

Durocoat also makes a look alike spray paint that resembles parkerizing.
 
Oh, one last thing, once you parkerize, it etchs the surface of the metal and would require extensive polishing before you could hot blue it which is not really worth it in time and money. Parkerizing though is a wonderful subsurface for firearms paints as the etching causes it to hold paint tightly to the surface.
 
boom boom said:
It is one of the things that a home gunsmith can do. Here is Brownells step by step Parkerizing instructions which are pretty detailed. I suspect that you can find videos on Youtube about it but make sure to read Brownell's instructions before viewing them. https://www.brownells.com/userdocs/learn/Inst-482 Parkerizing.pdf

Major issue is tanks long enough to hold the barrel and receiver during solution reaction--these have to be made out of a non-reactive material to the solutions--stainless steel is the old favorite with seams sealed with High Temp RTV type sealant or some other non-reactive material, some report using hi-temp pvc pipe or other materials and the temperature has to be maintained at near boiling by some means. A lot of folks use something like pipe burners homemade or use a grill. I think the PVC tube guys use water heater heating elements or something like that. Parkerizing is done right at the boiling point of water so do not worry about having really high temp tanks. The rinse tanks can be made out of any type material that will hold water.

Manganese produces the dark black type while zinc based produces the WWII looking grey (dousing with cosmolene or some other such gives the greenish gray color of a lot of Garands, etc. from that era.)

People have used tanks of all sorts which you can read about online taking with a grain of salt unless you come across the same material used multiple times. Brownells and a guy called Big Jim sell stainless steel tanks specifically for rifle length projects which work fine but are a little spendy unless you are doing multiple projects.

Here is one source, https://mg34.com/product/home-parkerizing-kit-manganese/
Another, https://www.duracoatfirearmfinishes.com/collections/parkerizing

Durocoat also makes a look alike spray paint that resembles parkerizing.
Click to expand...
I shouldn't need a fairly large tank because Criterion already parkerized the barrel. My Smith-Corona '03-A3 has a parkerized receiver and a blued bolt so I'll probably hot blue the bolt to kind of match that. I would like a dark parkerized receiver so I'll use the Maganese based solution.

Another thing that I've been thinking about is Sarco sells a 1903 Springfield 80% receiver casting for about $25. I realize that having a gunsmith heat treat it and finish the milling will be so expensive that I'm better off just buying an old receiver. But, I could always get the materials and knowledge to do it myself in the future. The only issue is. I've heard that gun control advocates would like to ban civilians from making their own receivers. If for some reason I can't finish off an 80% receiver I'll only be out about $50 because I plan on buying two of them.
 
William Dykstra said:
I shouldn't need a fairly large tank because Criterion already parkerized the barrel. My Smith-Corona '03-A3 has a parkerized receiver and a blued bolt so I'll probably hot blue the bolt to kind of match that. I would like a dark parkerized receiver so I'll use the Maganese based solution.

Another thing that I've been thinking about is Sarco sells a 1903 Springfield 80% receiver casting for about $25. I realize that having a gunsmith heat treat it and finish the milling will be so expensive that I'm better off just buying an old receiver. But, I could always get the materials and knowledge to do it myself in the future. The only issue is. I've heard that gun control advocates would like to ban civilians from making their own receivers. If for some reason I can't finish off an 80% receiver I'll only be out about $50 because I plan on buying two of them.
Click to expand...


People have parkerized something like a receiver in a stainless steel pot which is considerably easier than the long tanks involved with barrelled receivers. The problem with an 80% receiver is that the folks heat treating it need to know the specific alloy that they are dealing with--different alloys require different heating and cooling times and temperatures. There is no generic heat treatment but it is specific to the steel alloy used. There is at least one cast 1903 receiver that has a very bad reputation--that of National Ordnance and remember that Sarco bought stuff wholesale from whomever had it to sell.
 
boom boom said:
People have parkerized something like a receiver in a stainless steel pot which is considerably easier than the long tanks involved with barrelled receivers. The problem with an 80% receiver is that the folks heat treating it need to know the specific alloy that they are dealing with--different alloys require different heating and cooling times and temperatures. There is no generic heat treatment but it is specific to the steel alloy used. There is at least one cast 1903 receiver that has a very bad reputation--that of National Ordnance and remember that Sarco bought stuff wholesale from whomever had it to sell.
Click to expand...
Weren't the original 1903 receivers milled from a forged block of steel?
 
William Dykstra said:
Weren't the original 1903 receivers milled from a forged block of steel?
Click to expand...
The details on the 1903 production and others such as the 1917 are found in Hatcher's Notebook who was in the Army's Ordnance section. What you are seeking is p. 212. Complete pdf found here http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=439-Hatcher-s-Notebook-(by-Julian-S.-Hatcher) Warning, it is a large file about 90mb and will download slowly on a low bandwidth connection.

If you are thinking about buying some receivers and having them heat treated, that is something that is a specialty in and of itself and requires expensive equipment as well as training. It is not something for a home gunsmith to tackle. Ironically, you would actually do better building something more modern like an AK variant as the receivers on these are amenable to being made with relatively crude methods. It is similar for the AR which is why 80% lower receivers are in vogue. There are such threads on this on forums such as the AK files or ar15.com. In part, it is because these were designed from scratch to be easier to produce and require less skilled labor to do so.

Imho, bolt action receivers or other forged receiver type products--M-1 Carbines/Garands, etc., are not amenable to home production unless you have access to some pretty expensive tools such as mills, lathes, precision drills, etc. If you were to do such, the easier ones to duplicate would still be something like the Remington 700 receivers that are basically tubes hollowed out by machining operations instead of machining receivers out of square solid billets. Some of the posters here could probably do such like MachIV Shooter etc. and others are on forums like the Practical Machinist's gunsmithing forum.

Re cast receivers sold by Sarco and some comments about them. Some folks have had similar problems with their cast Garand receivers.
http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=250471

Last but not least, occasionally you will see Springfield prototype 1901 receivers. To the best of my understanding, these were used to test machining, parts fit, etc. but the ones that you see around as loose receivers were most likely NOT heat treated. These were sold for scrap but they do pop up every now and then on auction websites in varying degrees of completion. Tark, having access to the RIA Museum might know of some completed prototypes for trials before production began.
 
boom boom said:
The details on the 1903 production and others such as the 1917 are found in Hatcher's Notebook who was in the Army's Ordnance section. What you are seeking is p. 212. Complete pdf found here http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=439-Hatcher-s-Notebook-(by-Julian-S.-Hatcher) Warning, it is a large file about 90mb and will download slowly on a low bandwidth connection.

If you are thinking about buying some receivers and having them heat treated, that is something that is a specialty in and of itself and requires expensive equipment as well as training. It is not something for a home gunsmith to tackle. Ironically, you would actually do better building something more modern like an AK variant as the receivers on these are amenable to being made with relatively crude methods. It is similar for the AR which is why 80% lower receivers are in vogue. There are such threads on this on forums such as the AK files or ar15.com. In part, it is because these were designed from scratch to be easier to produce and require less skilled labor to do so.

Imho, bolt action receivers or other forged receiver type products--M-1 Carbines/Garands, etc., are not amenable to home production unless you have access to some pretty expensive tools such as mills, lathes, precision drills, etc. If you were to do such, the easier ones to duplicate would still be something like the Remington 700 receivers that are basically tubes hollowed out by machining operations instead of machining receivers out of square solid billets. Some of the posters here could probably do such like MachIV Shooter etc. and others are on forums like the Practical Machinist's gunsmithing forum.

Re cast receivers sold by Sarco and some comments about them. Some folks have had similar problems with their cast Garand receivers.
http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=250471

Last but not least, occasionally you will see Springfield prototype 1901 receivers. To the best of my understanding, these were used to test machining, parts fit, etc. but the ones that you see around as loose receivers were most likely NOT heat treated. These were sold for scrap but they do pop up every now and then on auction websites in varying degrees of completion. Tark, having access to the RIA Museum might know of some completed prototypes for trials before production began.
Click to expand...
Well I guess I would be better to just find an old 1903 Springfield receiver then. I don't know of any companies that would heat treat a receiver.
 
Blanchard Metal Processing at Salt Lake City is a traditional one for Mausers https://www.bmproc.com/
Usually though gunsmiths send them in batches to lower the individual price and they may require someone with a commercial account for all I know. Here is a description why not just anyone can do it even if they have heat treatment furnaces.
https://www.sporterizing.com/index.php?/topic/7597-heat-treating-recievers/

Major gist of it is that you have certain critical surfaces such as the receiver ring, lug recesses, etc. and then you have long steel raceways for the bolt that are rather thin. It is easy to warp the receiver, make a receiver too brittle, and so on, if the heat treatment is not done precisely which requires experience.

For the price, obtaining a real 1903 receiver would be cheaper would be my guess but maybe not as the prices on these has climbed over the years for high number receivers. Sometimes cheaper to simply buy a sportered version.
 
boom boom said:
Blanchard Metal Processing at Salt Lake City is a traditional one for Mausers https://www.bmproc.com/
Usually though gunsmiths send them in batches to lower the individual price and they may require someone with a commercial account for all I know. Here is a description why not just anyone can do it even if they have heat treatment furnaces.
https://www.sporterizing.com/index.php?/topic/7597-heat-treating-recievers/

Major gist of it is that you have certain critical surfaces such as the receiver ring, lug recesses, etc. and then you have long steel raceways for the bolt that are rather thin. It is easy to warp the receiver, make a receiver too brittle, and so on, if the heat treatment is not done precisely which requires experience.

For the price, obtaining a real 1903 receiver would be cheaper would be my guess but maybe not as the prices on these has climbed over the years for high number receivers. Sometimes cheaper to simply buy a sportered version.
Click to expand...
Now, wasn't the standard load for the P17/1903/ M1 Garand a 150 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of around 2750 fps at the muzzle?
 
Arisaka parts are coming from various family members for Christmas and birthday. Going to be a fun one. I haven’t built a bolt rifle before so I am excited.
 
William Dykstra said:
Now, wasn't the standard load for the P17/1903/ M1 Garand a 150 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of around 2750 fps at the muzzle?
Click to expand...
You will find a lengthy discussion of the development of the 30-06 cartridge in the Hatcher book but yes, the original load was very similar to the original German 8x57 spitzer load with a light bullet flat based bullet traveling at relatively high speed. The later move to a heavier bullet with a boattail was primarily because the U.S. wanted to use the same ammo for some of its machine guns such as the BAR and the 1919 models but the flat based bullets were demonstrated in WWI to be inferior in range for these machine guns.

These bullets were so effective that a lot of the Army rifle ranges were no longer safe due to the longer trajectory with these. Then because of the Garand, there was a return to the 150 gr. labeled M2 Ball and this ammo was designed for the Garand and its gas system but off course the 1903 could shoot it quite well.

https://olive-drab.com/od_firearms_ammo_30-06.php
 
boom boom said:
You will find a lengthy discussion of the development of the 30-06 cartridge in the Hatcher book but yes, the original load was very similar to the original German 8x57 spitzer load with a light bullet flat based bullet traveling at relatively high speed. The later move to a heavier bullet with a boattail was primarily because the U.S. wanted to use the same ammo for some of its machine guns such as the BAR and the 1919 models but the flat based bullets were demonstrated in WWI to be inferior in range for these machine guns.

These bullets were so effective that a lot of the Army rifle ranges were no longer safe due to the longer trajectory with these. Then because of the Garand, there was a return to the 150 gr. labeled M2 Ball and this ammo was designed for the Garand and its gas system but off course the 1903 could shoot it quite well.

https://olive-drab.com/od_firearms_ammo_30-06.php
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info, Boom Boom. Now what would be a period correct finish for the rifle stock? I thought about boiled linseed oil
 
boom boom said:
For a 1903, boiled linseed oil and that is true for the 1917 as well.
Click to expand...
I bought a front sight carrier and front sight blade from Numrich. The issue is that the sight blade is very easy to move around with my finger. Is there any thing I can do to make it harder to move back and forth?
 
The front sight blade is likely aftermarket----you can either thicken the front sight blade or peen the front sight carrier. Usually the best is to work on the cheapest part so if it gets messed up, then you can simply get another one. Thus, the sight blade is a bit easier to work on. The method depends on whether you ever want to remove it. Some use black electricians tape at the base, soft solder can work, dark colored resin, and the bottom of the sight blade can be more or less peened to be wider by striking the bottom with a hammer etc.

If you want to work on the sight carrier, then you will need to carefully, bend it in evenly using a vise, or you can carefully peen with a staking tool or a punch--again evenly. What you do not want is a crooked front sight blade when all is said or done and then have to bubbaized it by bending the sight blade. It is much easier to adjust the side blade evenly in the slot than make the slot even. Or, you can buy a surplus sight blade and not install the Numrich part which might be the best if your sight blade carrier is not aftermarket too. At a certain point, your time is worth something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Is "rebuilding" a milsurp action worth it?
Replies
2
Views
555
Zeke Menuar
Z
M
  • Locked
Good milsurp rifle?
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
451 Detonics
4
G
  • Locked
Milsurp safety concerns?
Replies
10
Views
822
Dr. Unclear
D
I
  • Locked
Milsurp Rifle for Hunting/SHTF?
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
5K
Sheepdog1968
S
J
  • Locked
Milsurp dilemma (British vs. Yugo)
Replies
20
Views
869
.45Guy
4
Back
Top