Re: Paul Curtis comment on cross bolting 1934 Archived Message
Posted by USMC Armorer on September 23, 2008, 6:50 pm, in reply to "Re: Paul Curtis comment on cross bolting 1934" |
Interesting that you mentioned the late John Olin, and from both your excellent analysis along with Dr. Drew's here, we have a good topic "afoot"- Now I see, possibly, as layperson on gun mechanics- why John Olin's design for the Model 21 has such a long "water table" and greater distance from the hinge to the standing breech-The M21 has a adjustable set screw in the underlug face, to allow greater bolt engagement over time, and the Parker had the beveled tool grade steel "wedge?" in their design for the lug-both allowed for either adjustment or replacement- but the Smith with the spring behind the rotary top bolt will just drive the tapered bolt into the rib opening to compensate from wear- as long as the metal surfaces wear evenly and the spring holds its strength-should never need adjustment-correct?? What a genius design indeed. Were there ever any patent right law suits by Smith against other gun makers back "in the day" for using that design? I just read that the USArmy Ordnance Dept. was sued by Mauser for infringement with the 1903 Springfield, which apparently had copied many of the great Mauser features--firearms history certainly is a most captivating study, and we are lucky to have such knowlegable folks here willing to answer our questions and share their expertise.
|
|