Delisle Carbine Project

Yes, a lot of custom parts. I hope to finish the bolt in the next few days. One part that has me concerned is the ejector. I can't find a picture or a detailed description of it anywhere. I know the original ejector screw hole was enlarged, and a new ejector assembly added. Not a problem to build one that works, but would be nice to have it look authentic, which is hard to do without a photo.
 
After the last post, i went back over various Delisle photos. Found one that is quite dark, but i think solved my ejector dilemma. I knew the side of the bolt head was notched for an ejector, and the original ejector screw hole was notched out lengthwise with the action. Also read the new ejector required a new hole to be drilled and tapped. The picture shows this screw head about 1.5" back from the original ejector hole. So it appears the new ejector was just built out of spring steel, fastenened at one end. Kind of hard to explain, but once made, I'll share pictures of it.
 
Just a question...so please don’t this the wrong way....because that isn’t my intention, so here I go , why would you move the bolt back? Instead of leaving it where it was? And redoing the head space? Is it because of the mag well , or bolt face...? Just wondering , love the build! It takes a lot of talent to do what your trying ,very nice, maybe ,I’ll be there one on theses day.
Cheers
Brian
 
quinnbrian said:
Just a question...so please don’t this the wrong way....because that isn’t my intention, so here I go , why would you move the bolt back? Instead of leaving it where it was? And redoing the head space? Is it because of the mag well , or bolt face...? Just wondering , love the build! It takes a lot of talent to do what your trying ,very nice, maybe ,I’ll be there one on theses day.
Cheers
Brian
Click to expand...

Hi Brian,
My reason for shortening the bolt and setting back the barrel is because the original Delisle was built this way. You would be absolutely correct in thinking that leaving the bolt full length, and just moving the mag forward would be simpler. And many people who want a Delisle-ish carbine go that route. But it just isn't the original format, and going that route would have triggered my ocd big time, lol. And since i have access to a lathe, milling machine and other equipment to follow the original concept, it makes sense for me. I suppose being retired, and having time to custom make the parts is a factor as well.

Why Delisle opted to go the route he did is an interesting question. I suspect it never occurred to him to just move the mag forward.
 
Fargone4sure said:
Hi Brian,
My reason for shortening the bolt and setting back the barrel is because the original Delisle was built this way. ...snip...

Why Delisle opted to go the route he did is an interesting question. I suspect it never occurred to him to just move the mag forward.
Click to expand...

Technically it was Bapty's that built the prototype centrefire Delisle carbines.

There were some technical reasons they shortened the bolt:
1. They were using worn out stripped actions. Worn out SMLE actions allow the bolt to "dolphin" at the front and jam in the receiver ring. Shortening the bolt minimizes this problem.
2. Shortening the bolt throw- in theory this helps minimize feeding jams.
3. They were able to use the factory mag latch .

Needless to say #1 is the single most important reason the bolts were shortened.
 
Last edited:
Fargone4sure said:
Hi Brian,
My reason for shortening the bolt and setting back the barrel is because the original Delisle was built this way. You would be absolutely correct in thinking that leaving the bolt full length, and just moving the mag forward would be simpler. And many people who want a Delisle-ish carbine go that route. But it just isn't the original format, and going that route would have triggered my ocd big time, lol. And since i have access to a lathe, milling machine and other equipment to follow the original concept, it makes sense for me. I suppose being retired, and having time to custom make the parts is a factor as well.

Why Delisle opted to go the route he did is an interesting question. I suspect it never occurred to him to just move the mag forward.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reply, I thought there must have been a reason.... keep up the great work (-: .
Cheers
B
 
Lee Enfield said:
Technically it was Bapty's that built the prototype centrefire Delisle carbines.

There were some technical reasons they shortened the bolt:
1. They were using worn out stripped actions. Worn out SMLE actions allow the bolt to "dolphin" at the front and jam in the receiver ring. Shortening the bolt minimizes this problem.
2. Shortening the bolt throw- in theory this helps minimize feeding jams.
3. They were able to use the factory mag latch .

Needless to say #1 is the single most important reason the bolts were shortened.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. You learn something new every day. I would have never thought the actions could be worn bad enough to make that an issue.
 
Not unusual for photos of originals to show a DP stamp. They weren't converting first class service rifles.
 
Finished counter boring the face of the barrel, milling in the slot for the extractor, did the chamber reaming for 45acp. Assembled and test fired. Picture below shows how the bolt head partially enters the counter bore in the barrel face. Interesting setup to get the headspace right in. But everything worked out really well.

20190517_171930.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20190517_171930.jpg
    20190517_171930.jpg
    53.6 KB · Views: 602
Last edited:
This is the coolest thread I've seen on here for quite some time. Very jealous.

Looking forward to seeing the rest of the build.
 
This picture shows the new ejector fitted. The original ejector screw hole is enlarged, and a new hole is drilled and tapped about 1.5" closer to the safety lever. The new ejector was ground out of an old band saw blade, then heated up, bent into the correct shape, heat treated and tempered.

Moving forward i will be working on modifying the 1911 magazine. Normal 1911 mags have too steep of an angle, causing the catridges to come out of the mag nose up. And a new rib needs to be ttached to the back of the mag to work with the smle mag release.

Once done the mag, I'll start on making the mag well, and getting it welded into place.

20190522_153203.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20190522_153203.jpg
    20190522_153203.jpg
    47 KB · Views: 661
buzzmagoo said:
Tommy gun mags couldn't they be an Option? Realizing that they are double stacked and are wider and are angled more vertically period Correct parts for the time line . Or sten gun mag ?
Click to expand...

No doubt other mags could be made to work, but the original Delisle used 1911 mags. I'm trying to keep everything faithful to the original design, as much as is possible anyway.
 
Below are pictures of the modified mag on the right, compared with a standard mag on the left. The modified mag has a guide rib soldered onto the back of it, as per the original smle mag. So the original mag release will work still. The feed lips and shell plate have been modified so the cartridges will come out much shallower than in a standard mag, to work correctly with the angles in the smle action.
20190525_150702.jpg
20190525_150738.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20190525_150702.jpg
    20190525_150702.jpg
    61.9 KB · Views: 591
  • 20190525_150738.jpg
    20190525_150738.jpg
    40.2 KB · Views: 593
buzzmagoo said:
Tommy gun mags couldn't they be an Option? Realizing that they are double stacked and are wider and are angled more vertically period Correct parts for the time line . Or sten gun mag ?
Click to expand...

Better and perhaps easier going back to the Delisle and see how in was done there.

Additionally, Valkyrie Arms in the US does them on a custom commercial basis. Perhaps they could be a source of information or parts to avoid rebuilding or reinventing the wheel?
 
the Valkyrie arms and SIA are a different set up for the #4 LE action using a kit , the original Delisle is more of a custom build and requires skill and tools to achieve and not for the faint of heart to build from plans and pictures
 
lapua001 said:
Better and perhaps easier going back to the Delisle and see how in was done there.

Additionally, Valkyrie Arms in the US does them on a custom commercial basis. Perhaps they could be a source of information or parts to avoid rebuilding or reinventing the wheel?
Click to expand...

Interesting thoughts, but I doubt that Valkyrie would share their technical info. Would be cutt,ing their own throat so to speak. They don't sell parts for Delisle as far as i can tell, but even if they did, all the difficult bits and pieces are one off. They need to be fitted. And of course there would be the issue of cost.. They sell their copy of the Delisle for about $3000 Canadian. Even if they were willing to sell parts, the cost would be prohibitive. Kind of like trying to buy the major components of a car individually. Pretty soon you've exceeded the price of a whole car.

Those issues aside, for me part of the desireto dothis project is to push my abilities, learn some new skills, and have the satisfaction of doing it. Maybe not the easiest way, but the most rewarding for me personally.
 
Looks like you’re doing a great job. I wish my project had worked out better. I could never get it to eject properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom