Below is a 416Rem.


How much metal is really needed behind the locking lugs of an m98,they appear to have removed a rather noticable amount.

If this is acceptable,then the concern people have about removing metal from the std98 feedramp for 375H*H (which is far less than this)sounds exagerated. Cause there is a hell of alot more metal removed from the top of the ring, than from the ramp, as seen above.

Selbys Original .416Rigby By Rigby;Std98 large notch


Another .416Rigby by Rigby Magnum98 Reciever,small notch


.404J by Jeffery Std.98 no notch


Reimer Johannsen .416

No to be short with you, but


the 375 HH, 416 rem and 458 lott require EXACTLY the same LENGTH of metal to be removed. The statement that the 375HH required more removal is a non-sequitor, as if you weighed it, after feeding, the larger rounds require a tiny bit more metal removed.

The notch on top is to facilitate LOADING.

To explain this to you in very direct terms.
NO ONE complains/says that a full length HH based round CAN NOT be done on a Mauser 98

people disagree on HOW it should be done, and then what should be done to it later.

Interarms/Zavasta/CD/Mark X, etc, all took all the metal from behind the front ramp. I believe FN did the same. So, that covers about 90% of all commerically made 3.65" mauser actions. THis also include HH, Rigby, and other "fine gun" makers

then there's the folks that feel it should be taken fore and aft. That is, that the guys above take too much metal out for safety. This is mostly a new-since-america-became-sue-happy approach.

Frankly, both work. I prefer the second if I am making it for someone else.

jeffe

Thanks Jeff,

1. I did not say the 375h*h needed more metal removal.
2. I did not say,nor did I say that anyone else said, that, 375h*h CANNOT be done on astd98.

I dont know how you interpreted my words that way

3. For you to say that NO ONE complains about doing 375H*H on std98, is untrue.
4. I am well aware what the top notch is for.

So far you have been everywhere but in the bowl.

MY QUESTION WAS HOW MUCH METAL IS REALY NEEDED BEHIND THE LOCKING LUGS OF AN M98? ...using the photo as an Example....ie; if the feedramp is shortened, and so much material is removed from the top rear of the ring,Then how much rear metal is actually(minimum) needed?
Going from the photo above, how much metal do you estimate is behind that top lug?

(sorry if you felt I was being rude.. rather early here, and I was on my first cup of coffee )

Please read this entire post before replying.

1:Actually you stated that the 416 require FAR more than a 375, see bolded statement from your post.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
Below is a 416Rem.
If this is acceptable,then the concern people have about removing metal from the std98 feedramp for 375H*H (which is far less than this)sounds exagerated. Cause there is a hell of alot more metal removed from the top of the ring, than from the ramp, as seen above.

2: nor did I, so we'll agree that neither of us said that


-so, on the first two, you actually did state the 416 required FAR more metal to be removed. Sorry.
3: you are changing the tense of my statement, i said "no one says it can't be done" which is in answer to your implied statements. You said "..about DOING" one, totally different statements.. and I agree with both positions.

4: your knowledge of the TOP notch wasn't in question, rather as a clarifican for purposes of NOT getting into a with anyone that would, (rightly) say "there is obviously more metal removed from this one than a markx, look at the top notch"

How much metal is the MIMIMUM needed? This probably will never be answered in a lawsuit friendly america. What is Actually left (totally different question to an engineer) Perhaps a simple measurement of one the actions listed below will tell you how much is normally left. You can bet your mottom dollar that NONE of the makers below use the "minimum"

quote:

Interarms/Zavasta/CD/Mark X, etc, all took all the metal from behind the front ramp. I believe FN did the same. So, that covers about 90% of all commerically made 3.65" mauser actions. THis also include HH, Rigby, and other "fine gun" makers

No pissin match intended, and this will be my last post on this thread. If you would like to or
go right ahead, without me
jeffe

Woodjack,

I think I'm on track w/ your question. You're showing a 416 Mauser that has metal removed from the top of the ring (to facilitate loading). This particular 416 Mauser has more material removed for this port (which is behind/supports the top locking lug) than what is normally removed (MX, FN,etc.) from the feed ramp (which is behind/supports the lower locking lug) for the 375H&H. Therefore, it appears that this 416Mauser (if it is safe) makes moot of any compaints of the material removed from the ramp as has been done for decades.

I agree w/ you by your pic that this 416Mauser appears to leave far less metal behind the top locking lug than I see behind the bottom locking lug on factory 375H&H FNs. So I too wonder what is the definitive answer as to how much material is actually needed behind the lug(s).

Gary

GaryVA,

Yes,you are reading my post correctly.

www.waffenJung.de who made the above 416, are not exactly farmyard gunsmiths or priced for the budget conscious, so I gather they are confident with the action mod.
I would be more relaxed with the mod if it was for 416Rigby and its traditional lower pressures. But I personally would not have a mod like that,if loading for modern pressure 416 or 375, especially in older metalurgy military recievers.

I don't know how much metal can safely be removed, but I had the pleasure of removing a barrel from an original Rigby .416 rigby on a M98 with the identical top notch. Very expensive DGR with excellent history! Both action locking lugs showed definate evidence of lug setback ( .009). Not good! Unhappy owner. Nasty fix.-Rob

Photos moved up.

I think what it boils down to is that there are some things you may be able to get away with, but they may also exist in the grey area between good idea and bad.

In modern times, is there really a need to carve this much metal out of a standard M98 to build a full length magnum? Or aren't there simply too many actions available that are better suited to the purpose? We can argue what ifs all day long, but when it comes down to it, why not use a slightly larger, more safe action to build a cannon?

Or at least, such is my point of view.

To the point that it is complained that too much metal has been removed from the front ring behind the lug area I agree.....there are those that complain about it.....Zastava does the same and there is very little metal behind the lugs on their .375 length actions.....that said, there is no evidence that it's not enough metal to still be safe. It's been done for many years and (seems to) work fine.

I'm a degreed engineer and I assure you there's no way I can calculate the amount of metal that can be safely removed as the contours are very complex in these areas.....maybe there's those that can but I've yet to meet the guy!

The answer is (IMO) to remove metal and test.....remove more and test...etc.

As to set back of the lugs.....I suspect that is more due to compression than insufficient amount of metal to hold the lugs although it is possible that the setback can be from insufficient support as well. In that case a bulge should appear on the external portion of the receiver. The compression failure would have happened if no metal was removed as the tensile wasn't sufficient to hold the forces. Modern heat treating is the solution to this.

In the photo of the 416 above it appears as though much more metal has been removed than necessary. However One cannot tell the hardness of the metal and other factors just looking and it's impossible to say it's too much or wrong..... One winds up relying on the reputation of the builder.....and we read they had setback as well.....what to believe?

to the question:

quote:

How much metal is really needed behind the locking lugs of an m98

There is no answer.....It's very dependent on the cartridge, the loading pressures, the hardness and metalurgy of the particular mauser being used, the geometry of the metal removal, etc

I'd venture that any company building this gun today with modern metals has done the testing and is competent in their designs. However the gun in the photo is a '98 and not a recent manufacture as the thumb cut is evident and if the action was newly made there would be no reason for the cuts to the receiver ring.

While the manufacturer seems to have all the requisite artistic talents and finishing skills and make a pricey firearm I wouldn't share any opinion as to the suitability of the product.

You simply have to rely on the reputation of the manufacturer. Scarely eh?

Hint! Buy one in minty original condition from: England, Belgium, Germany,......they have proof houses!

Do .404 J's require more or less metal removed than the above mentioned rounds

See photo of Harry Selby's .416 Rigby on a standard M98 action posted above. Nothing longer than that can function in such an action.

Selby wore out the barrel before he stopped using that rifle. Then it was rebarreled and it's still shooting just fine, IIRC.

I would not worry about anything larger then .416 Rigby necked up to .50 in a magazine rifle, your CSF might not be able to protect very vital part of your body!