Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1940 gas port restorations with the correct follower

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    1940 gas port restorations with the correct follower

    Ever since Duff listed the early follower or "high hat" or "T" tail in his data sheets on 1940 gas port rifles, collectors doing restorations keep using this part which will be a Winchester follower. As Mr Redfield stated: Winchester used the un-marked Springfield revision 2 follower.

    The last Springfield early "T" tail follower is the un-marked revision 3 which was replaced by the revision 4 while gas trap rifles were still in production.

    As Redfield also points out, the Springfield revision 3 has a 85 degree front face while the Winchester has a 90 degree front face, so when you stand them up you will spot the difference right away.

    Last two photos show the correct follower which is the un-marked revision 4

    #2
    Your picture shows two unmarked early followers. The one on the left is Springfield with a 20 deg. slide. The one on the right is Winchester with a late slide. Neither is a rev. 3 follower. I'll try to post a pic of a rev. 3 later.

    Comment


      #3
      Paul, I am not writing about the slides, the Winchester follower has the 45 x 45 degree slide and the Springfiel has the 45 x 20 degree slide but my concern is the follower types.

      Second photo shows the un-marked revision 3 as verified by Redfield and included in his line drawings for "The Garand Stand report". In the second photo the Winchester with the 45x45 degree slide is on the right side, it has the 90 degree front face which is why it is straight up while the SA revision 3 is at an angle because the front face is 85 degrees

      Comment


        #4
        Paul, you are right, I had the wrong follower in the photo, it has the bevels but still has the 85 degree front face. Here is a photo of a un-marked revision 3 with hand modified slide next to a Winchester follower. Note the 85 degree SA front face and the 90 degree Winchester fronr face

        Comment


          #5
          I see what you are talking about now. The angle on the body face. What GSR report had the article ?

          Comment


            #6
            All of my rev. 3 followers have a 90 deg. front face and a round dismount hole .

            Comment


              #7
              Photos posted for Bubba1.
              Not to be reused without his expressed written permission.
              Welcome to the Addiction!

              Comment


                #8
                Paul, The Garand Stand report Spring 2005 No 58 has line drawings by Redfield on Springfield revision 2 variations and revision 3 variations

                There is another article on revision 3 and 4 too plus later articles on the WW2 followers and yet another on the Winchester followers.

                Redfield has a line drawing of an un-marked very late revision 3 with 85 degree front face and D shaped snap-out hole

                It would appear that during production of the revision 3 there are many variations

                Comment


                • Bubba1
                  Bubba1 commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Fall 2009 GCA journal, vol. 23, issue 3 shows 2 original gas traps, 1630 & 1684 , with 2 different early unmarked followers and both have D shaped dismount holes. This shows the D shaped dismount hole being used very early in production . Most of production up until the revision 4 follower has a round dismount hole including the 1934 pattern modelshop follower assy. I cannot tell at what angle the front face is on the followers by the pictures. Hmmmmm. The guide ribs are also inconsistent in some production followers. After looking at several revision 1 , 2, & 3 followers along with some Winchester followers , the guide ribs will have very slight 3 degree rake to a greater angle . I will need to compare a larger amount of followers to get a more accurate base of data but by what I have seen there is new evidence to add to Redfield's data. An interesting note is the guide ribs are 90 degrees on the 1933 and 1934 pattern follower assys in the modelshop era and then progressed to an angle on the ribs into production.

                #9
                Posted for Bubba1.

                First two photos:
                Interesting anamoly, rev. 4 follower with early slide that was modified to a rounded end. This follower is on an original gas trap.

                Third photo:
                Rev. 3 to rev. 4 comparison.
                Rev. 3, 90 deg. front face ( left )
                Rev. 4 , 85 deg. front face ( right )
                Welcome to the Addiction!

                Comment


                  #10
                  Another photo for Bubba1.

                  Guide Rib Comparison
                  Left to right, rev 1, rev 2, Rev 3, unmarked, Winchester.
                  Welcome to the Addiction!

                  Comment


                    #11
                    To quote Redfield from his GSR article " Revision 3 numbered and unmarked. very late. Small channels (arrows). Gibs are at 90 degrees. Front face is 85 degrees. Snap out hole is round at front and square at back. Small bevels on the bottom and sides. Fig 1 This follower is the predecessor to Revision 4 " This was the last variation he showed.
                    Last edited by RCS; 10-05-2016, 09:01 AM.

                    Comment


                      #12
                      A lot of good information has been put in print and used , I'm not doubting that . What I have shown through the pictures posted is there is new information to be had and should be added to Redfield's data as not all revision 3 followers have a 85 deg. front face nor a D shaped snap out hole . I cannot agree with any revision 3 followers having small bevels on the rails though as the whole front end of the follower is completely different from a revision 2 that has that style rail .

                      Comment


                        #13
                        Revision 2 vs. Rev. 3 comparison photo posted for Bubba1.
                        Welcome to the Addiction!

                        Comment


                          #14
                          Paul, there are still other variations: where does my un-marked early follower that looks like a revision 2 but has the 85 degree front face fit in ? Redfield calls it a unmarked revision 3. I have seen your revision 3 before and they are quite rare. Redfield wrote his article in 2005 but little additional information concerning these followers has surfaced any articles.

                          Years ago Mac sent me (as a gift) the unmarked early follower with the bevels on the bottom without any information. Later Chip Walker found an identical unmarked follower with the bottom bevels on serial number 4016 - but there still is no way that could be verified as being original to that rifle.

                          In the mid 90's Tony Pucci sold me a un-marked revision 2 with 90 degree front face and 45 x20 degree slide, it was a smooth dark blue and speculated as very early Winchester and in fact, I did use it on my 100931 restoration.

                          Interesting conversation, but my original post was to show that restorations of early gas port rifles in 1940, would indicate the revision 4 follower

                          Comment


                            #15
                            Yes there are slight variations to these parts. Your follower that looks like a revision 2 with the 85 deg. face is not a revision 3 follower. Is it a variation of a revision 2 or a Winchester perhaps, maybe. The revision 3 followers have the front end of a revision 4 and the back end of a revision 2 ( top hat end ). I'm sure in 2005 intentions were well meant and it was assumed that may have been a revision of a revision 3 follower but with the addition of data and time this has been disproved. Also, slight modifications to a part may not incorporate a complete revision change but a large change, such as the whole front end , will indeed be a revision change. Information changes with the addition of data. This is information that should be added to Redfield's article and Duff's data as a revision to their information not as a replacement of there whole data.

                            Was 4016 the gas trap that was found complete ? I'll have to check my datasheets on that one. If so, why can it not be verified as being original to that rifle ? 1630 and 1684 was found complete and both have unmarked followers with the D shaped dismount hole in them ? That is completely out of the realm of what was known as correct data. The D shaped dismount hole wasn't known to be used until revision 4 follower assys. On another note, Educational Winchesters, how do we know what is correct for them ? There are no known original rifles in existence with the exception of number 100,001 and we are not sure when it was assembled as there are a few anomalies in it such as a no hole hammer. All of the other data on early Winchesters are based on a 2k, 4k, and 5k rifle . So that puts roughly 4 rifles to cover the first 10k produced for data. Data changes with the addition of new information that is not saying all old information or assumptions are wrong. Sometimes revisions to data need to happen when viable proof exists .

                            Definitely need more data on identifying Winchester early followers from Springfield. Winchester received all of their drawings and blueprints from Springfield but it has been seen that sometimes small changes to possibly help identify their parts from Springfields do exist. Case in point is the type 1 follower rod . A Winchester rod has one fat serration whereas a Springfield does not.

                            As always I do enjoy our conversations. As for your original post on 1940 restorations, yes I would agree to 95% that would require a revision 4 follower with the exception of extrememly early ones that may have a revision 3 only because gas ports were first produced in the 44k range in production and that is around the transition time from a revision 3 to a revision 4 but this only applies to very few rifles. Also what started my conversation into your post was seeing a revision 2 follower you posted as a revision 3 , by Redfield's article , and I wanted to add more current data so others may add this information to their data as a revision to what was known from 2005 to what has been added and changed in 2016.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X