1919 A4 Forums banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have 2 1919a4 Barrels...

- the top barrel in image
after a member pointed me to m1919tech.com appears to be the latest revision of the barrel as it is stamped D-35233-14 and has an SG stamped above it. Does this make for the better barrel to use?

- bottom barrel in image (was the one that came installed on the 1919
can't seem to find any markings thinking it as an older barrel? main difference seems to be the chamfers on barrel end

both are 30.06
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,467 Posts
Many times a revision to the drawing means nothing as to the actual part, sometimes it is merely an administrative thing. Also, most times the piece mark on the part didn't change with the revisions without looking, IIRC there is a -6, and -8 barrel there is no -7 even though there is a revision 7 to the drawing Generally, if the drawing number (irregardless of the revision number) stays the same the part is fully interchangeable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
Many times a revision to the drawing means nothing as to the actual part, sometimes it is merely an administrative thing. Also, most times the piece mark on the part didn't change with the revisions without looking, IIRC there is a -6, and -8 barrel there is no -7 even though there is a revision 7 to the drawing Generally, if the drawing number (irregardless of the revision number) stays the same the part is fully interchangeable.
What kkkriverrats says is absolutely correct. Here is a link to his site on the technical aspects of the 1919 Browning, specifically as to drawing and piece marks:

http://m1919tech.com/22913.html

This webpage explains the drawing numbers in excellent detail. (Thanks for the work on this web site!!!) Changes were made for a variety of reasons including changed heat specs, material specifications, improved (cheaper, quicker, easier or a combination) manufacturing methods, etc.

As a for instance on the M1 Garand rifle, Springfield Armory (who was the major mfg of M1s during WWII) was generally in charge of updating the drawings when a change was made to a specific part. SA was also very good about implementing the change when the drawing was updated. On the other hand, Winchester who was the only other WWII mfg of M1s usually stayed with the initial drawings that they were provided when they started series production. Of course there are exceptions (e.g., the famous WIN-13 Garands). In the end, Winchester parts were supposed to interchange with SA parts (and also with later IHC and HR parts) and usually did. SA did frequent interchangeability tests from Winchester and SA production samples to audit this interchangeability requirement. For example, one of the most visible parts changed on the M1 during its production (excluding gas trap M1s) was the trigger guard that went from a milled type to a stamped version. However the base drawing number (drawing number suffix was updated) remained the same and the revised part was expected to interchange. Functionally, from the military's perspective the stamped trigger guard isn't any better or worse than the earlier milled model but it was cheaper/quicker/easier to mfg.

Almost anything (including the sub components - just think of all the drawing numbers for every part in a Sherman Tank) the military procured had drawing numbers (toilet paper???) and the contractor (government or private) was expected to comply with the strict specifications of the drawing number of each part/item produced. In fact, I'd guess that ration specifications (C-rats, K-bars, etc.) were one of the strictest enforced specs., but that's purely speculation on my part.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top