------------------
UH

I don't know if my opinion is qualified or not, but I own 2 A-Squares, a 1917 Sporterized Enfield and have another Enfield receiver for a project gun.

The A-Squares, both early models, are P-17s (known as Pattern 17) or 1917 Enfields.

My gunsmith says that next to the Arisika, the 1917 Enfields are the 2nd strongest receiver ever made.

The knock against them is that they cock on close. So when you close the bolt there is quite a bit of spring pressure against the bolt handle.

For a receiver, in my opinion, you can not beat them.

------------------
Speak softly and carry a really big MAGNUM.

Regards,

Mark

However, metallurgy has progressed quite a bit since 1917. I will not name the company, but one company making actions progressively overloaded its own action until it gave way somewhere above 110,000 psi. They then used the same barrel (undamaged) and load on an Enfield action. The Enfield blew apart like a hand grenade.

That is the difference in metallurgy.

------------------
If Elmer didn't say it, it probably ain't true.

I see so many people posting about how strong the Arisaka action is. The over design of this action was done entirely because the Japanese understood their limitation with regard to metallurgical and heat treat process control (quality control). The Arisaka actions were notorious for blowing up in combat. This was due to poor metallurgy and heat treatment i.e. hard and soft spots. Due care should always be taken with these old actions. In other words they should not be pushed very hard period. The same holds true for some of the Mausers (depending upon where and when they were made and by who none of them are as bad as Arisaka's though).

Todd E

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd E:
The more important issue with 500grains example is quality control. The enfields as I recall were of relatively good quality. The Arisaka's on the other hand were not.

I see so many people posting about how strong the Arisaka action is. The over design of this action was done entirely because the Japanese understood their limitation with regard to metallurgical and heat treat process control (quality control). The Arisaka actions were notorious for blowing up in combat. This was due to poor metallurgy and heat treatment i.e. hard and soft spots. Due care should always be taken with these old actions. In other words they should not be pushed very hard period. The same holds true for some of the Mausers (depending upon where and when they were made and by who none of them are as bad as Arisaka's though).

Todd E

---

------------------
UH

I have also received feed back from some Japanese gentlemen regarding the vaunted Arisaka. These gentlemen used these rifles. Their comments were not flattering towards the rifles or the Americans that use the now.

I was only trying to make a point about quality control. Quality control today is orders of magnitude better than 50 years ago let alone 80 years ago when some of these actions were made. Specifically Japanese metallurgy has improved 100 fold since the 70's.

Magnafluxing will detect surface cracks.
X-ray may pick up porosity and subsurface cracks, again I stress MAY. What A-Square does not do, because they could not, is check hardness (both surface and subsurface), metallurgical composition, purity, etc. There are better nondestructive tests than X-ray by the way.

I would use a modern action over any of the mil surp actions. I have stated my reasons why. If other want to go through the hard ship and pain of using the mil surp actions so be it.

Todd E

[This message has been edited by Todd E (edited 04-29-2002).]

The point is that if you make a handloading mistake, modern metallurgy will be more forgiving than 1917 metallurgy. of course, all of us would prefer not to blow up any action at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd E:
Why would I look at Ackley's book? I have some personal experience with both actions. I can assure you I have 1000 times more metallurgical experience than Mr. Ackley. In all honesty I have no idea what Mr. Ackley has to say about these actions. The simple truth is I do not care. I have been there done that.
I have also received feed back from some Japanese gentlemen regarding the vaunted Arisaka. These gentlemen used these rifles. Their comments were not flattering towards the rifles or the Americans that use the now.

I was only trying to make a point about quality control. Quality control today is orders of magnitude better than 50 years ago let alone 80 years ago when some of these actions were made. Specifically Japanese metallurgy has improved 100 fold since the 70's.

Magnafluxing will detect surface cracks.
X-ray may pick up porosity and subsurface cracks, again I stress MAY. What A-Square does not do, because they could not, is check hardness (both surface and subsurface), metallurgical composition, purity, etc. There are better nondestructive tests than X-ray by the way.

I would use a modern action over any of the mil surp actions. I have stated my reasons why. If other want to go through the hard ship and pain of using the mil surp actions so be it.
Not trying to pull your chain, but I also have a modicum of experience with metals,
A.S.N.T. T.C. 1 A level III MT, PT, UT, & RT, in addition to being a C.W.I. and a level III Visual Inspector, and as for why you should care about MR. Ackleys opinions of rifle actions, he was a technicaly trained engineer of whom the U. S. Government thought highly enough to entrust most of Springfield Armoury to his care.

[This message has been edited by Todd E (edited 04-29-2002).]

---

The cock on closing can be altered in about 45 mins by milling the extising cocking piece and TIG welding .

Eric G

I agree with your statements 100%.

richard10x,

I am sorry if I upset you by my statements regarding the esteemed Mr. Ackley. Personally, I think the guy was a hack! That is my opinion and I am not sorry for it. I apologize further for not immediately recognizing all you acronyms, could you please enlighten me as to what they mean?

Todd E

Bottom line: it might have been the action of choice for the biggies in the fifties, but today I would take a CZ 550 Magnum any day. If I could afford it, a Heym Safari or Johannsen action. I�m sure there are more Magnum actions out there today than ever before.

Hermann

------------------