SMLE - worn or worn out?

J

johnrw

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
111   0   0
Location
Southern Alberta
A family friend was moving out of his home and he had a couple of guns that he wanted to get rid of. One of them was a 1918 BSA No1 Mk3 which I agreed to take.


Would this be a typical FTR match of the bolt - ground and then re-stamped? (Note that I can't see 'FTR' stamped anywhere and it doesn't appear that the wrists have been scrubbed).



The letter code on the barrel and receiver is a K so they 'almost' match.




What worries me more is that there seems to be a lot of play in the bolt on this one. (I have a Lithgow and an SSA and their bolts are much tighter).

Here the bolt is forward but not locked.



and here I am pushing down on the cocking piece with my thumb.




What occasionally happens is that I get some binding between the bolt head and the top of the receiver and the bolt will not close unless I push down on the bolt head.



(Headspace, according to my Okie gauges, is in spec ... but barely. However, I neck size & handload cast so not too worried about that).

So is this one just worn ... or is it worn out?

TIA

rj
 
Totally worn out. PM sent with my address where you can send it for proper disposal :)
Sorry, no idea. Sounds sloppy but if bolt rotates and locks it should be shoot able?
 
Not a FTR (Factory Thorough Repair/Re-condition) but just a armourer replacement bolt that while in spec is barely satisfactory, like others have said, try to find a better replacement bolt for shooting and keep this one as the matching serial numbered one for when and if you sell it.
 
A very slight BEVEL on the forward edge of the Bolt-head will get rid of most of your 'problem'.

Another point to remember: generally, when you are cycling the action, you should be doing it quickly. The Knob of the Bolt-handle is being thrust forward by the heel of your thumb, preparatory to being turned down by the rotation of your hand. Thus, the rear of the Bolt is being thrust slightly upward, which, with a sloppy Bolt, thrusts the forward part of the Bolt DOWN. The rifle was never designed to be worked like a Mauser, with a distinct up-back-forward-rotate down motion. It was always at its best being almost slapped to and fro, carried to the rear by the 3 bunched fingers of the hand and thrust forward with the heel of the thumb. This takes full advantage of the 60-degree rotation of the Lee bolt and also gets rid of the hesitation of the ####-on-close which bedevils so many people. This is how the troops were trained, BTW. This modern way of doing it would get you screamed-at monumentally by any old-time Sergeant.

Have fun!
 
Cost you 50 bucks for a Bolt and you have no way of knowing if it will headspace right or mate properly with the locking areas.

Cost you 10 minutes of work with a tiny file to bevel the forward edge of the bolt-head you have.

Please READ post above.
 
right - bevel the bolt head slightly...and don't be gentle when working the bolt.

So the loose bolt really makes no difference as long as it fully engages when closed and the headspace is within spec.

rj
 
smellie said:
A very slight BEVEL on the forward edge of the Bolt-head will get rid of most of your 'problem'.

Another point to remember: generally, when you are cycling the action, you should be doing it quickly. The Knob of the Bolt-handle is being thrust forward by the heel of your thumb, preparatory to being turned down by the rotation of your hand. Thus, the rear of the Bolt is being thrust slightly upward, which, with a sloppy Bolt, thrusts the forward part of the Bolt DOWN. The rifle was never designed to be worked like a Mauser, with a distinct up-back-forward-rotate down motion. It was always at its best being almost slapped to and fro, carried to the rear by the 3 bunched fingers of the hand and thrust forward with the heel of the thumb. This takes full advantage of the 60-degree rotation of the Lee bolt and also gets rid of the hesitation of the ####-on-close which bedevils so many people. This is how the troops were trained, BTW. This modern way of doing it would get you screamed-at monumentally by any old-time Sergeant.

Have fun!
Click to expand...

^^^this is why I love this forum, lots of good info freely given.
 
Good reply by smellie. These rifles were never intended to be on a par for accuracy with Mauser or the Springfield. But the accuracy they did have was more than enough for the battlefield. Very tough and reliable and made to withstand even the terrible conditions of WW1 that the makers of it could never have imagined.
 
Try another bolt, but it likely won't solve the problem.

Whaat is going on is that the left side of the receiver is wearing out allowing the bolt to have too much play in the raceway.

SMLE actions are plain low carbon "ordnance" steel while the bolts are much stronger nickel alloy steel. This results in the action wearing out due to any abrasive materials working against the weaker material.

This was partially the reason that the Australians specified 1915 and earlier receivers for the HT sniper rifles.

In 1915 the British changed the receiver and bolt tolerances to accommodate the sand jams they were having problems with in Palestine.

Post 1915 bolts used the pre1915 smallest diameter as the largest permissible diameter.

At the same time the largest allowable receiver clearance became the post 1915 smallest permissible clearence within the bolt raceway.
 
Last edited:
Well - the small bevel has certainly improved things. (Thanks Smellie).

Although my cheapo files could not touch the bolt head....way too hard. I ended up using a small stone and that seemed to do the trick.

rj
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom