Читать книгу Gun Digest 2011 онлайн

293 страница из 495

To meet the cost objectives, the single shot and safety requirement seemed the most logical answer. To preserve the Model 94 look, the lever action would be used for loading, extraction and ejection only. Lever function would not cock the hammer. For safety reasons, the hammer had to be manually cocked for each shot. With the hammer forward in the down or fire position, the gun would not discharge if the gun were dropped or suffered a hard blow on the hammer. This required the shooter to perform deliberate, separate motions to load and fire the gun.

To meet the low cost objectives, a concentrated effort was centered on reducing the direct labor wherever possible. The two main components that presented the greatest cost savings were the bolt and the receiver. The bolt did not move horizontally but its front end swung vertically, Martini fashion, thus exposing the barrel breech for loading and ejection. This normally would require a complex bolt that was expensive to machine from a solid bar. A tremendous cost saving was employed here by using a new process utilized by Chrysler and Ford for certain engine parts at great savings: the forming of parts by compacting powdered iron under tremendous pressure and then sintering them under high heat. The advantage of this process is extreme accuracy and very low cost. The cost saving for the bolt was substantial and the strength was more than adequate, as attested by the performance of many thousands of rifles. The powdered metal process today is common and utilized by many industries.