I again appreciate the time that you spent on your post very much. And also your concern for my and other reader' safety. There actually was nothing in your post that was upsetting to me in the least. I do apologize for equivocating 7.62 NATO and .308 in my post. Since I reload I am well aware that there are differences in the cartridges. In the past I have been more precise in forums dedicated to firearms.
I did a considerable amount of research before acquiring the “BM-59” and spent a lot of time discovering the issues that you so effortlessly recited in your post. Before the trade was made I had the gun inspected by a knowledgeable gun smith and collector that I trust who specializes in vintage firearms. The friend I acquired it from, a Korean War Veteran bought it new, and used it for many years but had no idea that is had been made from a re-welded receiver. But I went into the transaction with eyes wide open.
There actually is no outward evidence that the receiver was made from a re-weld. And there is still the possibility that the receiver was not welded. But in my research now many years ago I learned that every Golden State Arms “BM59” rifles should be considered to be made from a re-welded receiver. I found that the work was done in some sort of jig. After that they were heat treated and refinished in a way that at least in the case of my gun did a very good job of concealing the work. I assume that if one removed the finish completely that the repaired section would become visible.
I personally have been welding since high school and worked as a millwright for nearly a decade. In mild steel my fabrication and repairs were as strong and sometimes stronger the rest of the structure. But I would not have as much confidence in a part made from alloy steel that was then heat treated.
My “BM-59” is marked 7.62 NATO. All of the cartridges that I have put together for it have been from government surplus once fired 7.62 NATO brass. And all of the factory cartridges that I have fired through it over the years have been 7.62 NATO as well. I have always been more comfortable using my own reduced charge cartridges in the gun because of the issue with the receiver. Even my own reloads the gun gets frequent inspection.
So thank you again for taking the time to write a very well written and knowledgeable post. The person I acquired the gun from was disappointed when I told him of what I found out which was very similar to what you wrote me. After using it for years with no problems ever he never would believe that the receiver was probably a "re-weld". The gun had been well taken care of, didn't need any repairs, and he was a trusted friend so we were still able to make a good trade. As I think I said it actually is one of my favorites to this day.
Just for fun, take a look at the flyer from Golden State Arms at the following link. You might notice that they say it is chambered for ".308 sporting ammunition" and list both .308 and 7.62 NATO in the Caliber Specs. even though mine is clearly stamped 7.62 NATO. They also make no mention that the receiver was made from "re-welded". They call it a "New Beretta Licensed Lightweight Semi-Automatic Rifle". http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/MGBoards/BM59/BM59_SantaFe_Flyer.pdf
“...I do apologize for equivocating 7.62 NATO and .308 in my post...
Again I offer my respects to fireman15, for the level of courtesy: he tops the list.
I have for decades seen this or that article in the (non-technical) gun magazines, casually mentioning how 308 Winchester and 7.62mm NATO were “the same.” And they are close, though the latest research I have run across judges that neither was developed from the other.
But the min/max dimensions for one are a bit different from the other (I forget which is bigger or smaller, and cannot locate my reference at the moment). Tolerances are different also. Just as important (and something never mentioned by gunwriters) are min/max chamber dimensions and tolerances: so it is quite possible to find a cartridge for one caliber that is at its maximum permissible dimensions, and it might be oversized (unsafely so) in relation to a rifle chamber cut to minimum permissible dimensions for the other caliber.
As a practical matter, most such mismatches are a vanishingly small problem, especially when the rifle in question is manually operated, especially a bolt action, in which the bolt is never closed with the speed or violence that happens each time a self-loading action fires and cycles.
fireman15 is to be rightfully regarded as prudent, in the selection and examination of his Golden State BM-59-type rifle. But as he noted, we cannot check something we don’t know about. There is an upper limit to what one individual can know, even an expert. And the pool of expertise is not growing, now that M1s and M14s have been out of the DoD supply system for so long a period, and gunsmiths and custom-makers continue to retire.
I have seen all manner of praise and criticism in print for Golden State, and I cannot say for sure what they used when it came to receivers. The arms trade is filled with situations like that, which we may never resolve. I can say that I have eyeballed ads dating all the way back to 1910 or thereabouts; lots of purveyors of military surplus claim “100 percent original” but I have to see and ad that reads “built from rewelded parts.”
And it comes as no surprise that fireman15’s receiver looked unaltered. Great effort was put into some rewelds, with painstakingly fine machining over the welded areas, and meticulous refinishing over that. I admit to a lack of understanding, as to why any gun builder would put so much effort into a fake (it’s not like it was a Paterson Colt): the profit potential could never be high enough, to say nothing of the ethical violations and legal actions that might suddenly become an issue. I myself have spent more than a few hours with a strong magnifying glass, looking for mismatches and tell-tale marks.
“... I would not have as much confidence in a part made from alloy steel that was then heat treated. ...”
The various parts of a firearm must perform a wide variety of functions. The conditions they must endure are so different that often, very different alloys must serve as raw materials. And the tempering can often be quite different. Major manufacturers are notorious for keeping their alloy formulations and heat treating or tempering techniques secret; also, their quality-control methods.
It’s not that rewelding is a dead-end technique. It’s that the alloys used won’t always retain their original composition and so lose strength. And few rewelders can assure limitation of heat spread, or atmosphere exposure, to the rest of the part, that original manufacturers apply, as a matter of routine. What’s the outcome? No one can say. Will it be great? Don’t bet on it.
I have experienced just what fireman15 reported about welding, performing repairs on a customer’s gun, for which parts could no longer be found. Mostly, it involved the smallest of arc-welds we could possibly perform, adding the tiniest amount of material to small parts, that had worn down from decades of use. Sometimes we would fuss about for hours, determining what welding-rod composition to employ, to work best with the original. When we had built up a blob a little oversize, we’d quit, then file and stone it down, to fit it to the gun. At times, it had to be quite beyond a part of original dimensions, simply to function with the other parts of the gun, that were worn themselves. Some weld-jobs thus completed would end up softer than the originals; some would be harder.
Original parts are cut from raw stock, or forged and machined, then carburized or tempered after final shaping and sizing. This sequence cannot be copied, when a part that has broken, or been deliberately cut, is welded back together.” Results might be perfectly OK, but they might be flirting with disaster. And no one can guess the odds beforehand.
“... bought it new, and used it for many years but had no idea ...”
It may come as no surprise to fireman15 that I heard words to this effect from many owners, when I had to tell them their old guns had become dangerously out of spec. Few grasped the essential point, that devices thus compromised experience failures in a probabilistic fashion, and when they do occur, they seldom happen in a safe or graceful manner. It might fire just fine 10,000 times, but on 10,001, it might come apart - violently. And - despite what fighter pilots believe, and what we see in every action movie - not everybody can duck in time.
Who wants to bet on such odds? I have met many, but confess I don’t know what turned them into such relentless optimists ... at the extremes, where the chances of disaster are very small, but the consequences of such disaster are large indeed, it’s inherently difficult to predict anything, tougher still to chart a course. It’s a riddle each of us must read ourselves, then decide.
I don’t like deciding these sorts of things for other people, but my repeated experiences in the gun repair business induced me to become, over time, much more blunt and graphical, in describing problems and potential risks. People prefer simple, even when they don’t like the news they’re getting.
And I’ve grown far more conservative in gun purchases, at least when it comes to an arm intended for shooting. My inclination to trust anything made before 1940 has dwindled; I confess to a growing wariness about WWII-vintage arms. Everything for sale starts to look like a maintenance headache.