Hi all.

Hope to get some help.
Back in the pre WWII time, there was made some very pretty take down rifles. But, what system was used and what is the "best"?
I am seeking a rifle like these and hope some can help me out.

Also, was the carabin, full stock, rifle made as a take down rifle to?

http://www.justincustomguns.com/

this guy makes great rifles and they are not too expensive. you can get what you need here

Vegard_dino, HS Precision makes an interrupted thread take down as well. Quite expensive, and quite heavy I believe. I considered them and then bought a Blaser R93. Never looked back.
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by vegard_dino:
Also, was the carabin, full stock, rifle made as a take down rifle to?

Mauser makes a full stock takedown carbine.

http://www.mauserwaffen.de/index.php?id=394&L=1

M 03 Stutzen
Specifications:

* Calibres: .243 Win., 6,5×57; 7×64, .308 Win., .30-06, 8×57 IS, 9,3×62
* Barrel: 50 cm / 19”
* Length: 102 cm / 40”
* Weight: approx. 3.7 kg / 8 lbs.
* Main stock derived from M 03 Alpine stock with fine fish scale chequering
* Stutzen forend to remain on barrel as separate part
* Drop point forend at muzzle
* Double fold Bavarian cheek piece
* Re-shaped pistol grip with ebony end cap
* Subtle hog-back rear stock
* 2nd spare fore-end tip to fit main stock allowing for the use of all standard profile M 03 barrels

The 2 main "British" methods were

1. The Holland style - where a small piece of metal is inletted into where the tang goes and the whole action, barrel etc is lifted out.

2. Then you have the unscrew the fore end / barrel method. WR and H&H used this method. I have a Take Down 404 like this.


Which is best.

I would say the H&H method - it means the gun doesn't loose it's accuracy, it has less wear and tear.


Just my HO, others may differ.

The H&H method is also the Mannlicher-Schoenauer and Newton method. There are accuracy issues with this method but the same accuracy issues are present with the screw-in method as well, and the screw-in method will also eventually result in a loose fitup due to friction waar, IMO totally UNSAT! But nevertheless the screw-in method is very popular since it's also very easy for the smith to do.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
The H&H method is also the Mannlicher-Schoenauer and Newton method. There are accuracy issues with this method but the same accuracy issues are present with the screw-in method as well, and the screw-in method will also eventually result in a loose fitup due to friction waar, IMO totally UNSAT! But nevertheless the screw-in method is very popular since it's also very easy for the smith to do.
Regards, Joe

How can the "same accuracy issues are present with the screw-in method as well"
as the H&H method ?

Do you mean they both have accuracy issues - yes, I agree with that, but the screw in method is worse because the barrel / action are separated.

I have not had any problems / accuracy issues with the H&H method.

I think the Blaser R 93 is the best takedown rifle currently made.

They do make a full stock version, the Stutzen.

quote:

Originally posted by 500N:
The 2 main "British" methods were

1. The Holland style - where a small piece of metal is inletted into where the tang goes and the whole action, barrel etc is lifted out.

2. Then you have the unscrew the fore end / barrel method. WR and H&H used this method. I have a Take Down 404 like this.


Which is best.

I would say the H&H method - it means the gun doesn't loose it's accuracy, it has less wear and tear.


Just my HO, others may differ.

I don't really get the Holland style as you refer to it. To me this is no different than just removing the front and rear action screws on any rifle and removing it from the stock. The slip in lip on the tang just does away with the rear action screw. The front action screw stays attached to the stock, easy enough to modify the front action screw on any conventional rifle to achieve the same thing if you don't want to loose it.

The issue I have with this 'take down' method is that generally once a barreled action is removed from a stock, it does take one or two shots to bed in again and unless fully glass bedded, which many will not want to do with an original British or Oberndorf Mauser, the more often the barreled action is removed and replaced, the more likely the bedding will be upset each time due to compression changes to the wood. The change in POI might not be much but there will always be doubt in your mind if you do not have the chance to target at your hunting ground.
The barreled action is also more likely to suffer damage to mag springs and the trigger assembly if being taken down and re-assembled often. Not the sort of thing you would really do once left home and at your hunting destination.

The true take down of old is the interrupted thread method resulting in two neat packages, the stock and receiver and the barrel and attached fore-end. The magazine and trigger assembly are fully protected during transport.

The trick to preserve the integrity of the threads is to also not constantly take down the rifle. That is, clean and store it assembled after use, and only use the take down feature when travelling by public transport. If travelling by own vehicle to the range or hunting ground just treat like a non take-down rifle.

As always clean threads and use a top EP grease to prevent wear.

Eagle


Thanks.

.

Hello and thanks for all help and info.

I am thinking of having a old mauser or a Mannlicher made as a takedown rifle.
I do seek a system that they used PRE WWII, so I guess it is the H&H system or the unscrewing of the barrels.

Mannlicher used the H&H system, did Mauser also use that?

From what I understand, the H&H system is best, when having accuracy in mind.
But, are these takedown systems also ok when it comes to larger calibers? Like the 10.75* calibers?

Eagle thanks.

So, the turning, unscrewing of the barrel/front end is the best way to go.
Keeping the trigger and magazine safe.

Both methods have accuracy issues, that is, the rifles are not as accurate as they would normally be without the takedown feature. IMO the H&H/M-S system is better for most rifles having scope sights, and would be still better if the rear attachment was actually a screw instead of a 'patent breech'.

The recoil surface of the M-S rifles is far more supportive than that of the Mauser types and, again IMO, the Mauser types would greatly benefit from having a factory-type steel recoil plate like the military M98s. IMO this recoil plate would serve to better support the rifle's first 'settling in' shot.

There are 2 main areas of concern with the screw-in method; accuracy and wear. The POI accuracy with a scope can easily go away as a result of the relatively wobbly barrel attachment, especially since the scope would also need a QD dismounting method of some sort. (A partial solution would be a Scout scope.)

In addition, these 2 relatively wobbly attachment points (barrel and scope) can/will easily wear and become even more wobbly over time.

It's easy to say, "Don't keep putting it together and taking it apart!" but that's a little disingenuous IMO. The takedown feature is way cool and most owners will sit and play with it for hours while fondling the rifle. Perfectly understandable to me, and that's the reason that most factory-designed screw-in systems have some sort of take-up mechanism incorporated into them. The screw-in design WILL wear and cause looseness, and any take-up mechanism will result in increased headspace as the parts wear. That's OK with blowback actions like the little 22LR Browning autos, but I don't want it in my CFs.

IMO the best screw-in TD system I've seen, by far, is the old original Marlin CF lever rifle design from the 1890s period. The square threads of the Marlin barrels provide a much firmer surface for tightening the takedown and the tightening leverage of the Marlin TD parts is unsurpassed by any other system I've seen.

I've not seen any modern bolt rifle screw-in TD designs that I'd use; I've not seen ANY with a satisfactory take-up mechanism, and most don't even have any sort of leverage for tightening the joint any more than hand-tight. Now, I'm 6'-5" and 300 lbs with hands like a gorilla but I want more than hand-tight, more than even MY kind of hand-tight!
Regards, Joe

J.D.; Your reference to the Marlin is interesting. I've been tempted to make a take-down over the years and it would make sense to start with a rifle that already has square threads. I believe the P-14 (no doubt there are others) has square threads (I could be corrected) and interrupting them would be doable, with a lot of the work already done if you like the .303 Brit. --- John303.

there is no need to interupt the threads just screw the whole thing in takes maybe 30 seconds longer but lasts a lot longer. just like screwing in a benchrest bbl hand tight but with a latch I like the holland style latch.

Barney Worthen, a prewar US smith, made takedown 1903 Springfield sporters to a very high standard; they have square threads and he fabbed some sort of take-up nut at the barrel breech over the chamber. IMO not perfectly satisfactory but still a LOT better than vee threads; the Marlin tightening lever would be a further improvement.

Sorry, interrupted threads will GUARANTEE premature wear!
Regards, Joe

I think the best approach is to allow the barrel to progressively tighten as wear occurs.

I do this and put the sights on bands that can be brought back up to battery.

Vee threads are very self centering (note Vee threads on internal grinders for instance)

Maybe the very best threads for a takedown would be Acme. But they ALL will wear to some extent, so having a method of taking up wear is very important for sustained accuracy over the long haul.

quote:

Originally posted by CRUSHER:
there is no need to interupt the threads just screw the whole thing in takes maybe 30 seconds longer but lasts a lot longer. just like screwing in a benchrest bbl hand tight but with a latch I like the holland style latch.

I would imagine that an interupted thread would last longer/ have less wear.
only a 1/4 turn to lockup for interupted, as opposed to how many full thread turns?
In the case of mauser 6 full turns, other like Rem amd Win much more [9 threads].
With the mauser full thread,its 23 times more turning than the interupted version, with the Rem /Win. its 35 times more turning.
- Which has greater propensity for wear, interupted or un-interupted?

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
...Maybe the very best threads for a takedown would be Acme...

Hartmann Weiss select Square in preference to Acme thread for its t/D magnum mausers, just on its own its a difficult/challenging thread form to cut,
more so when attempting to achieve a close "miminal wobble" fit with the mating thread in the receiver [according to Otto Weiss].
however, square is stronger than any other thread form, an advantage when removing sections of thread for interupted versions.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
I would imagine that an interupted thread would last longer/ have less wear.
only a 1/4 turn to lockup for interupted, as opposed to how many full thread turns?

I know it seems counterintuitive, but most anyone experienced with old Winchesters and Marlins will quickly tell you that the Winchesters will wear about 10 times faster. Let's put it this way, I've seen only one loose Marlin TD lever rifle but have seen many dozens of loose TD Winchesters, too loose for the factory method to tighten them up any more without some 'persuasion'. I've owned several of each in several calibers, a total of around a dozen combined, and examined perhaps a hundred more in my hands.

Maybe it's the square threads vs the vee threads, but whatever the reason the Marlins seem to outlast the Wins about 10 to 1 in my experience. (LOTS more accurate too.)

I believe it's the combination of the square profile providing more direct thread support and the geometry of the vee threads allowing the inevitable wear to affect the dimensions to a greater extent than the square threads, plus the twice-as-large bearing area of the full square thread resulting in less overall slack. IOW the Winchester vee threads have only half the bearing area of the Marlin square threads because they're cut away for half their circumference.
Regards, Joe

Thread wear is something for your great grandkids to worry about. If you want a take-down, get one and feel confident knowing it's highly unlikely you'll live long enough or use it enough to wear out the threads. They cost less than a car and last a whole lot longer.

Just what is a take down rifle? Why not simply pillar bed the action and pull two bolts and the action is removed from the stock.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
Just what is a take down rifle? Why not simply pillar bed the action and pull two bolts and the action is removed from the stock.

That is my preferred method. I make sure the guard screws are captive, though, and provide a special place for the required screwdriver.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
Just what is a take down rifle? Why not simply pillar bed the action and pull two bolts and the action is removed from the stock.

Well Howard this is exactly like the original Oberndorf Mauser is made, having it's own in built pillar bedding at the front action screw and a pillar in the stock at the rear screw.

The issue with just removing the barreled action from the stock is that you still end up with a longish piece because of the action attached to the barrel and then the trigger group and mag spring are exposed and hanging in limbo.

Having to undo a screw or screws is not really take down. Just as most scope rings can be undone with a coin or knife to remove a scope it is not the same as lever rings which can be undone in an instant and the scope removed, true 'detachable' scope.

The interrupted thread method (or coarse threaded method) of rifle take down usually just requires a squeeze on a button, a twist of the barrel and fore-end unit, and voila you have two neat units to pack and travel with. Many use a spring loaded ball in the fore-end to index everything.

Of course nothing can beat the accuracy of any rifle than that properly bedded and torqued 'permanently' into the stock, likewise the barrel 'permanently' threaded and torqued into the action.

Anything else is just going to be a compromise for handiness of packing and transporting, and shootability. Not withstanding some of the high cost Blasers etc have a more modern take down method but this cannot be used to convert the old Mausers or Mannlichers.

It is really a shame there isn't a way to make a set up like the Savage barrel nut look attractive.
Thirty seconds on or off, no head space issues, no loss of accuracy, and lots of spare barrels.

Imagine a set: 300 and 375 H&H and a 458 Lott barrel.

Rich

Thanks for all the replays and great information.

As sad, I guess I will not wear out a takedown, so maybe no need to worry about that.
I do dream of finding a old Mauser in a 8-9-9.3 caliber, takedown style.

Thanks for all technical help. I sure need it

quote:

Originally posted by vegard_dino:
As sad, I guess I will not wear out a takedown, so maybe no need to worry about that.
I do dream of finding a old Mauser in a 8-9-9.3 caliber, takedown style.

With all due respect, IIWY I certainly WOULD worry about that! Many takedown systems won't last more than a few hundred rounds before needing adjustment, depending upon the design and the workmanship process.

And many takedown systems HAVE NO take-up adjustment!

I've built several screw-in takedowns and am 'in-process' on another one right now, and have taken many precautions to prevent premature thread wear and ensure a tight joint that will last more than a few hundred rounds.

In the distant past I actually sat down and fondled my (first) new takedown I built, assembling and disassembling it repeatedly while admiring the ease and convenience.

Imagine my chagrin when I realized that it was actually loosening under my hands! Time to fall back & regroup & consider alternative methods!
Regards, Joe

quote:

Well Howard this is exactly like the original Oberndorf Mauser is made, having it's own in built pillar bedding at the front action screw and a pillar in the stock at the rear screw.

Yes I know. That was my the system I was thinking of.

quote:

Having to undo a screw or screws is not really take down. Just as most scope rings can be undone with a coin or knife to remove a scope it is not the same as lever rings which can be undone in an instant and the scope removed, true 'detachable' scope.

Maybe. It is debatable hence my orginail question of just what is a take down. Blaser comes to mind. The claim to be a take down switch barrel system yet you need a wrench and have to loosen two screws to separate barrel from stock.

To me, the takedown feature means that I can pack it in a smaller space for travel and still expect it to perform whenever assembled, without any mandatory sight-in. Well, whenever I get to where I'm going, why in the world would I ever NEED the capability of instant assembly or disassembly? Sure it's way cool but so what?

The deer/lion/elk/buffalo/moose/elephant certainly doesn't care.

For non-Scout scoped bolt rifles I'll choose to take an extra 2-3 minutes to firmly torque my screws down onto their pillars and then I'll go shooting, with full confidence in the performance even if not full braggin' rights to my buds.

Yes, the required TD hard case must be 6" or so longer than if the barrel unscrewed, but to me it's worth it on many longer-range rifles.

However my latest TD is a Martini Cadet Varminter with screw-in barrel, but its scope is rib-mounted and its barrel attachment is firmly secured by axial receiver-ring clamping rather than a shoulder abutment.


So you can see that YMMV depending upon the specific application and I recommend some forethought and research before choosing the specific design.
Regards, Joe

What do you folks think about the Sauer 202 Takedown system?? I can say the 3 I have are damn near if not spot on after assembly as to accuracy pre disassembly versus after reassembly. Grouping always good, maybe a slitghtly different POI for the group, but not so much that I can't attribute it to me or the shooting setup when afield.

Pretty slick system IMO... pretty pricey though....

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
For non-Scout scoped bolt rifles I'll choose to take an extra 2-3 minutes to firmly torque my screws down onto their pillars and then I'll go shooting, with full confidence in the performance even if not full braggin' rights to my buds.

Yes, the required TD hard case must be 6" or so longer than if the barrel unscrewed, but to me it's worth it on many longer-range rifles.

I would argue that the "barreled action" takedown requires a case that is about 10" longer than the case required for a "removeable barrel" takedown.

10" doesn't sound like much but it is the difference between a medium suit case and short guncase.

JMHO.

I am kind of like JD.

To me a take down system has very limited value unless its also capable of substantial caliber change. By that I mean you can go up and down in case size and bullet diameter.

Got to love choices.

I think they are very cool, however the barrel action coming out together isn't nearly as appealing to me as the other which effectively halves the length of the gun/case. What I always think about though is, with the modern way we travel, the cases we have now, is a breakdown really necessary or even very beneficial?

I'd like to hear more about Duane's method, but it's probably proprietary and only those fortunate enough to own one are lucky enough to see it.

Red
PS
all threads like this should have LOTS of photos to help us know what we're talking about.

Id spend on a well executed t/d barrel system before spending on xtrafancy walnut,engraving,goldinlay, that offer no practicle advantage in a hunting rifle.
A short travel case t/d Hagn or lightweight compact mauser[ with just one barrel], is pure delight.



You could make a more petite [flatter and shorter] case by opting for a shorter barrel,
and fitting a compact scope on the same layer as the action and barrel.

Very nice rifle
A small Mauser will also make a easy to travel with case/rifle combination.

RE: travel issues.

I used to think that take downs were a cool thing that was doen in the old days with little real world value today.

However, I have flown a lot with a full lenghth aluminum rifle case in the belly of a lot of planes, across a lot of land and water. I have had problems several times and got to wondering if my rifle would have wound up where I was if the case were smaller and easier for employees to handle. In a Bevaer or Super Cub, using the full length hard case is not even an option.

One of the things in htis world that just blows mind is how the airlines can so regularly have your luggage land with you. The system required to make that work out at such a high percentage of the time is just mind boggling. If you are pressed for atight connection through schedule or delay, then I think a smaller case upps the odds of your gun arriving where you are. Same goes for traveling through ro hunting in very anti-gun countries. In some countries it is illegal for a firearm to be visible inside a parked vehicle. In places like this oflks tend to like cases that do not loook like they ar carrying a gun.

The problem is that i am only familiar with the workings of the old fangled way of making a take down. Every one of them suffers from what JD talks about. And people being people, we would play with them and every gun nut friend we had would want to see the gun break down and put back together. Next thing we know there is already a lot of wear on the thread system. Plus i would always worry about zero without shooting a round or or two.

The Dakota system was copied from another gun, but I never see anyone doing it that way. Don't know if that means there is a problem with th esystem, is too hard for a custom maker to make with typical machines in a custom gunshop, or what.

I actually like the Sauer 200 and 202 rifles for their looks and the fact that i can swap calibers so easily. I have come close to buying them befoe. I may still get one one of these days. I am very intersted to see how the take down system works and figure out how it could be replicated on manual mahcines.

I have absolutely no knowledge of the Blaser and it's design. Blaser owners tend to really love them, so however the are broken down and reassembled, it must be working well.

If nayone following this thread has a Blaser or Sauer, i woudl love to see some pics of the rifle and barrel assemblies.

I have a suggestion for anyone evaluating any sort of takedown system or QD/QC scope mounting system. Of course these 2 options are often combined into the same rifle and takedowns are especially likely to have quick-detachable scope mounts. This is the testing system I use for all my takedown/QD/QC scopes and rifles.

Shoot a 5-shot group with the rifle fully assembled and zeroed. Now shoot another 5-shot group but this time, between each and every shot, completely disassemble the takedown/QD/QC on both the rifle and the scope. IOW shoot the first shot and then take everything apart, scope completely off the rifle and the rifle in 2 pieces; then reassemble and shoot the second shot; then once more disassemble & reassemble and shoot the third shot; et cetera until all 5 shots have been fired.

Now compare the POI(s) and the 2 group sizes.

IMO if there is any noticable difference, by more than 1/2" in either POI or group size, then the TD/QD/QC system needs work. This is assuming that the rifle will perform at about the 1-1.5 MOA level; if it's not that accurate then IMO you need a new rifle.

For a yardstick, my old 1939-era Springfield 30-06 with Jaeger side mount will shoot factory loads into ~1 1/8 MOA when NOT disassembled, and ~1 1/4 MOA when disassembled between shots, with no change in POI.

I'd be interested to see how some of these takedown systems would perform when tested this way. I started doing this back in 1970 and it gives me great confidence in the performance of the rifles that pass the test.
Regards, Joe

Interesting discussion. I bought my R93 for two reasons:
1. The "takedown" capability.
2. The interchangeable barrel capability allowing multiple calibers within the same family of bolt head. Thus I have 3 barrels in the magnum bolt head family: 375 H&H; 300 WM; 7mm RM.
Because the scope is mounted on the barrel, and because I do not use QD mounts, scope repeatability is not an issue for me. (However barrel/scope repeatability is 100% at 100 yards when the barrel and scope is removed and remounted). I think that a QD scope mount whereby one uses one scope for multiple calibers is of questionable utility due to the need to either re-sight in, or reset the scope the set number of clicks when changing calibers. Another reason is that the Blaser case I have allows for storage of barrels with scopes mounted. However I do have experience with the Blaser QD system on my double rifle and it functions 100% every time. The scope is always removed and stored separately and then remounted at the range.
Peter.

In another life I came close to working for Remington R&D. I had taken a T D as part of "Show and Tell" They liked my imigination enough to offer me a job, but were not enthused about interrupted threads.

The gap that was created...they thought..would not be real defensible in event of a case head seperation.

I took that concern to heart and will not interrupt threads anymore. Adds at least a whole 8 seconds to assembly and disassembly..

Someone mentioned my proprietory take down system. No secrets here, but I do not have drawings to share...Besides, I tend to make each one just a little different from the previous one anyway.

For big guns, I think the old system..srewing in the barrel and providing a latch to keep it in place is very satisfactory.

For smaller stuff, used at long range, I get a bit more eloborate, using a powerful cam to draw the two halves together.

There... I told everything I know...didn't take long...did it?

The Dakota 76 Traveler; its barrel extension sleeve does not seem to have much wall thickness. I assume it utilises the same thread size as the fixed barrel.

http://books.google.com.au/boo...r%20takedown&f=false

somewhat similar to the patented "Ortho" system used by Reimer Yohannsen;

wow, does look thin. There is lots of pressure right in front of your nose with what looks like not a whole lot to contain it