It seems I remember a number of years ago a thread on AR where a Springfield bolt was modified to resemble a 98 Mauser bolt by machining/grinding the left lug back below the bolt face. Then using a flat breech barrel with a bolt nose recess. Anyone have any knowledge of this mod and perhaps some pics?

I have seen that reference but doing that just makes work for no real gain. Here's why; the extractor is already the forward most part of the bolt, like a Mauser. So even if you made a bolt nose recess in the barrel, you will still have to cut an extractor groove in the right side. I suppose it might give you more brass coverage, but with modern brass, that is unnecessary. OTOH, surrounding the brass more is not a bad thing. I have never actually done it; just thought about it and decided to just cut the cone as close as possible.

I seem to remember a fad that just made the barrel flat , like a Mauser , eliminating the need for the extractor cut . It works , but why ? You lose a thread or 2 and May ( not likely ) have feeding issues .
I've taken a few apart that had that arrangement . They shot good , feed normal but my feelings are if it was designed with extractor cut and coned barrel , make it that way .
Maybe it was an aftermarket barrel or company advertising easy fit barrels for your Springfield , no harder than a Mauser . I can almost see the add .

It was promoted to provide deeper case head insertion in the chamber, and it does that, but in reality it is just more work and the cone breech is plenty even though more case head protrudes, compared to a Mauser. .
.147 case protrusion compared to .105 on a Mauser. Still of course, only the solid head is exposed.

Seem to recall this was called safety breeching and promoted in the 1960's. Supposed advantages already listed by dpcd. Was thought by some to improve the safety of Springfields, Enfields, Winchesters etc.

Bill

Yes, it would basically be the Mauser safety breech as in the M24, 24/47 and 48. The coned breech of the Springfield was believed to focus the energy of as blown case head back at the shooter. Even with modern brass this can be a problem. I work in a repair gun shop and we occasionally see rifles with blown cases in the chamber. Most of these are from reloads or wrong cartridge.

quote:

Originally posted by WJW:
Seem to recall this was called safety breeching and promoted in the 1960's. Supposed advantages already listed by dpcd. Was thought by some to improve the safety of Springfields, Enfields, Winchesters etc.

Bill

The idea was, when the bolt was closed, the counterbore would, to a certain extent, contain or deflect gas from a ruptured case head which would otherwise have been directed down the left raceway by the open bottom of the bolt face. Possibly some validity to this and I have done this to a couple of model 70's and a 54 when I was obsessing over gas handling but I don't consider the resultant counterbore to be deep enough to be real effective. Certainly not as good as an Arisaka, for example, which has a counterbore which is quite deep. A good-sized vent hole in the receiver is probably as effective, from a safety standpoint, as any effort at containing gas with an action which just was not designed that way. Regards, Bill.

I have a couple Enfields that way. I can’t post pics anymore but shoot me an email and I can send you pics.
Don

I first became aware of (safety breeching) from old Gus Crites who taught machine shop at CST. He had me rebarreling an old P17 for my first rebarreling project and he went into great detail about it. When everything was said and done I didn't know whether it was a good thingy? Or a bad thingy. So I asked him directly what he though. His response was: "Horseshit, absolute rubbish, no practical gain what-so-ever. It's a lazy mans excuse to get out of cutting the cone. Cut the damned cone so that it will feed properly!" I though about the subject many times over the last 35 years and I have actually seen quite a few converted in that fashion. After all of those years of thinking about it and looking at guns that had been converted, my personal opinion is: "Horseshit, absolute rubbish, no practical gain what-so-ever. It's a lazy mans excuse to get out of cutting the cone. Cut the damned cone so that it will feed properly!"

It did take me 35 years to come to that conclusion though. I'm kinda funny that way.

So 15 years ago or so I bought an old custom Springfield 35 whelen with a Crites gun shop Topeka ks pad on it. No other markings. 25 inch barrel that is about .800 at the muzzle. Heavy old pig and I love it! Cone breech. Don't know if that is the same person.

I seem to recall old Gus worked at Springfield for a number of years. He was between 60 and 105 years old and looked like he fell off a charm bracelet when I attended CST in 2002 so I doubt it's the same Crites.

This is the only picture I have of him.

Gus Crites by Rod Henrickson, on Flickr

How could the altering of the bolt and the cutting of a counterbore in the barrel possibly be considered the lazy man's way of doing things? Cutting a flat breech could be considered this way but doing more work doesn't seem to fit the description.
Like I said, I'm not sure it works all that well but it certainly doesn't save any work. Regards, Bill

Well, there is one important factor that I overlooked with the safety breeching, Billy! You can charge the customer a lot of money to do it. After all, you're (SAFETY BREECHING) it. And that's gotta be a good thingy. Right? LOL

You realize that the original design and manufacture of the Enfield did not include a cone breech; it was a flat breech with a small bolt nose recess, for the 276 Enfield, and 303. Not until the US altered it for the 30-06 did it have a cone breech.

On Crites Gun Shop; when I inquired at a gunshop outside Topeka, owned by the oldest gunsmith I knew at the time, he was 70 anyway, he said: "Crites Gun shop has been closed for years. Old man Crites died years ago."
Gus looks like Mr. Roger's Uncle...!

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
You realize that the original design and manufacture of the Enfield did not include a cone breech; it was a flat breech with a small bolt nose recess, for the 276 Enfield, and 303. Not until the US altered it for the 30-06 did it have a cone breech.

Why did they add the cone breech?

It seems I read somewhere it was thought to aid in directing the cartridge into the chamber. Alternatively it could have been a patent detour to avoid royalties to Mauser.

quote:

Originally posted by speerchucker30x378:

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
You realize that the original design and manufacture of the Enfield did not include a cone breech; it was a flat breech with a small bolt nose recess, for the 276 Enfield, and 303. Not until the US altered it for the 30-06 did it have a cone breech.

Why did they add the cone breech?