I agree; there are only two steels anyone would use for a rifle receiver after WW2; 4140 and 8620. Most makers use the former, and only if you want to CCH is, would you use 8620. For example, M1 Garands were made from 8620 and were cased glass hard. I just threw that in.

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
My observaion: I've seen two cocking pieces on the Mark actually BREAK???? Seems to be a casting. or maybe just britle

If you examibne the lower locking recess on a 375, version, the meterial removed is kind of eyebrow raising...Never heard of a failure, though.

The Mini? Personally do not hold them in high regard. Nicely scaled but that's about it.

Have you looked at the lower locking recess on a pre64 M70 that has been opened up at the factory for the 375 length cartridges? That will raise your eyebrow too.

Nope...not nearly !

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
My observaion: I've seen two cocking pieces on the Mark actually BREAK???? Seems to be a casting. or maybe just britle

If you examibne the lower locking recess on a 375, version, the meterial removed is kind of eyebrow raising...Never heard of a failure, though.

The Mini? Personally do not hold them in high regard. Nicely scaled but that's about it.

Have you looked at the lower locking recess on a pre64 M70 that has been opened up at the factory for the 375 length cartridges? That will raise your eyebrow too.

Nope...not nearly !

Here's one example;

Here is your picture of two MK X shroud threads, and the inside of the receiver. The others I have are just like these, and all operate very smoothly.

Why are the left side rails different thickness? Is that to lighten the action?

Bottom one is a 7mm Mag; top one is a 30-06. They obviously wanted to make magnum receivers stronger.
(I made all that up, but it sounds plausible)

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
WHAtT???!!!
Different bolt shroud timing? NO it isn't; MK Xs are 98 Mausers in every way, and the bolt should is 100% the same thread. And just to prove to myself that I wasn't getting a soft brain (I might still be) and forgot it, I literally just checked two of them and they fitted perecttly. SAME.

@dpcd, You posted something about Zastava triggers on another thread; someone had asked about installing military two stage triggers on commercial Zastavas. You mentioned it probably wouldn't work without fitting work on the commercial cocking piece and/or trigger.

I tried installing an FN military trigger on one of my commercial Zastavas which has the commercial cocking piece - it seems to fit and work just fine so far.

Am I potentially missing some sort of issue pertaining to the safety of doing such a thing?

quote:

Originally posted by Lester Brooks:
The Mark X regular and Mini Mauser actions are better than most older 98 Mauser designs. Speed lock on the firing pin and modern metals make for a fine custom rifle...

...I know you can't make a very good show at the Country Club telling people about your Mark X Custom built hunting rifle. They want to hear about your Weatherby making 600 yrd shot on elk.

Just a few thoughts.

Les Brooks

You did two things for me, which I thank you for.

You made my day with your compliments to the Zastava actions.

You alerted me that my winning the lottery and being able to buy a country club membership would not erase the stigma and shame of my choice of rifles to own.

What about the Remington 798, a little newer take on these same actions? I have one in 375, and it seems to work well. Are the Mark X, Interarms, Charles Daly and 798 about the same, or are some better than others?

quote:

Originally posted by Condorcet:

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
WHAtT???!!!
Different bolt shroud timing? NO it isn't; MK Xs are 98 Mausers in every way, and the bolt should is 100% the same thread. And just to prove to myself that I wasn't getting a soft brain (I might still be) and forgot it, I literally just checked two of them and they fitted perecttly. SAME.

@dpcd, You posted something about Zastava triggers on another thread; someone had asked about installing military two stage triggers on commercial Zastavas. You mentioned it probably wouldn't work without fitting work on the commercial cocking piece and/or trigger.

I tried installing an FN military trigger on one of my commercial Zastavas which has the commercial cocking piece - it seems to fit and work just fine so far.

Am I potentially missing some sort of issue pertaining to the safety of doing such a thing?

Swapping a military trigger for a Commercial Zastava trigger is fine, on early model Zastavas. They used a Single stage trigger that in essence is nothing more than a military trigger with the second stage removed. Cocking Pieces are the same. The issue arises when you try that on a Speedlocked action. Note: as always, some fitting may be required. Just cuz you tried it and it "works", doesn't mean it always works out that way.

I don't remember what I said, but do what Z said.

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
My observaion: I've seen two cocking pieces on the Mark actually BREAK???? Seems to be a casting. or maybe just britle

If you examibne the lower locking recess on a 375, version, the meterial removed is kind of eyebrow raising...Never heard of a failure, though.

The Mini? Personally do not hold them in high regard. Nicely scaled but that's about it.

Have you looked at the lower locking recess on a pre64 M70 that has been opened up at the factory for the 375 length cartridges? That will raise your eyebrow too.

Nope...not nearly !

Here's one example;

Good photo, shows a M-70 receiver..Now..how about posting a Mark The difference will apparent.

I don't have a Mark X or photo of the amount of opening out but would be interested in seeing one. As can be seen in my photos of the M70 the factory have scalloped out quite a bit of the receiver ring face too that could be seen as weakening the upper locking recess.
I guess the Win factory knew what they are doing when they opened up their own action for the longer 300 and 375 magnum cartridges.

All pre 64 MOdel 70s are built on a 30-06 length receiver. Hence, they had to chop out so much material to accommodate the H&H lengths. But they are made from 4140 bar stock, (not forged as many believe; forged Model 70s did not appear until 1965 which also introduced the full H&H length receivers, which all calibers were made on) and are strong. As are the MK Xs. Actually the MK X is stronger because of the M70 cone breech and no internal ring.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I don't remember what I said, but do what Z said.

Lol, you sound like me!

Seems like every time there's a discussion on action design/quality the cone breech of pre-64s comes up-as in "bad design." Its interesting that Darcy Echol's new action, which is arguably one of the most well thought out bolt designs ever, uses the cone breech.

It is a poor design, from a strength standpoint. Fortunately we rarely have brass catastrophically fail, within which a cone breech is much worse than a Mauser. And the Yugo 24 safety breech ie even better. Some think the cone breech feeds better; they don't.
What a strong breeching system? Rem 700. Or Jap Arisaka. Not a Model 70, which was derived from the Springfield.

Mine (some marked Mark X, some marked Whitworth) were all from the 70's or 80's.

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Here is a Zastava; the MK X are made there. Note the terrible machine work and polishing.

That must be an early one.

As far as Mark X action based builds go, they can be worked up into a nice wood or synthetic stocked rifle. I've used a few of the Mark X actions over the years. They do need refining in every category as far as I'm concerned. If you are any good you can get it all knocked out inside of 35 hours to include cartridge conversion and barrel installation with sights. This is a Mark X I did in 416 Ruger, in my own stock.

35 hours plus the cost of the action. Seems like you would be money ahead to start with a different action. But I am guessing a 1909 also requires quite a few hours of work...as do the other more sought after mauser actions, correct? A winchester pre-64 or post 64 classic action not as many hours? But going that route leaves you with a different end result, just curious about the comparison. And thanks again to everyone responding and educating me. Stewart's rifle above would embarrass no one!

I can't fathom spending 35 hours on a MKX action to make it good, and they are not rougher than a pre 64 Model 70. Which were sand blasted.
Maybe if you hand polished it slowly for a week.
As I said, I have three of them here; they are quite smooth (definitely not worse than a Model 70, and I have like 8 of them here too) and very usable as is. Sure, you can hand polish it all you want. What this tells me is that if someone spends that time on a MKX,, they will also spend as much on any other action out there. Ok, 4 hours less.

Every time I see a Mauser in Satterlee’s stock I get excited. Just love that look.

Timan, you’ve made posts about building rifles out of FN actions before. How significant is the difference in using the Interarms and FN’s? FN actions can be picked up pretty reasonably as well.

there doesn't seem to be much Mark X mauser left there. New safety, new trigger, new bottom metal, new barrel, new bolt handle, new iron sights. But damn nice!

quote:

Originally posted by Timan:
They do need refining in every category as far as I'm concerned.

There's a huge difference between a functional firearm and a high class custom.

AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH EITHER CATEGORY!!!!!

I mostly hunt with functional firearms, but I build something else. So does Stu, as well as many others.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I can't fathom spending 35 hours on a MKX action to make it good, and they are not rougher than a pre 64 Model 70. Which were sand blasted.
Maybe if you hand polished it slowly for a week.
As I said, I have three of them here; they are quite smooth (definitely not worse than a Model 70, and I have like 8 of them here too) and very usable as is. Sure, you can hand polish it all you want. What this tells me is that if someone spends that time on a MKX,, they will also spend as much on any other action out there. Ok, 4 hours less.

Around 35 hours to build the barreled action, and get it functioning as a 416 Ruger. Some polish work to the receiver is included in that time. Time not included, time to make the bottom metal or safety.

quote:

Originally posted by Keechi Kid:
Every time I see a Mauser in Satterlee’s stock I get excited. Just love that look.

Timan, you’ve made posts about building rifles out of FN actions before. How significant is the difference in using the Interarms and FN’s? FN actions can be picked up pretty reasonably as well.

A little better execution on the FN in terms of line and form as it relates to the outside finish work. Neither being perfect as made commercially. Both will show a certain amount of dubbing over on the front ring and rear bridges. This can/should be corrected depending on the class of rifle one is creating. The perfectionist can't stand this and will be a glaring aspect of unexecuted work still needing to be done. Correction of this makes for better scope ring base fit weather it be for custom bases or production bases and general aesthetics. The list really goes on and on getting right down to it. Cocking piece to firing pin fit, loose or sloppy? one of my peeves for sure, A good fit there makes for a truly properly functioning 3 position safety and a repeatable trigger pull the Zastava's are the worst in this department, a good way around that particular issue is 09 Argentine pin and cocking piece assembly, good stuff, made well over 100 years ago. It's all the little things that add up to one big thing. A painting without detail isn't a painting, it's just paint.

quote:

Originally posted by Timan:

quote:

Originally posted by Keechi Kid:
Every time I see a Mauser in Satterlee’s stock I get excited. Just love that look.

Timan, you’ve made posts about building rifles out of FN actions before. How significant is the difference in using the Interarms and FN’s? FN actions can be picked up pretty reasonably as well.

A little better execution on the FN in terms of line and form as it relates to the outside finish work. Neither being perfect as made commercially. Both will show a certain amount of dubbing over on the front ring and rear bridges. This can/should be corrected depending on the class of rifle one is creating. The perfectionist can't stand this and will be a glaring aspect of unexecuted work still needing to be done. Correction of this makes for better scope ring base fit weather it be for custom bases or production bases and general aesthetics. The list really goes on and on getting right down to it. Cocking piece to firing pin fit, loose or sloppy? one of my peeves for sure, A good fit there makes for a truly properly functioning 3 position safety and a repeatable trigger pull the Zastava's are the worst in this department, a good way around that particular issue is 09 Argentine pin and cocking piece assembly, good stuff, made well over 100 years ago. It's all the little things that add up to one big thing. A painting without detail isn't a painting, it's just paint.

Well said Stuart, but as my old 458 MkX has shown, paint can cover up a lot !

If I intend to build a full custom rifle it will be on a milsurp Mauser of my choice such as a Chilean 35 or ?? Not spending all that cold hard cash on a mkX or whatever...why? may want to sell that gun down the road is one reason, and just prefer a Mauser to start with.

On a strictly hunting rifle I wouldn't mind a MKX but normally use a pre 64 m-70..Thats not likely to change at this late date....but to each his own.

I doubt that a nice Mark X Custom Rifle would not be saleable, and especially so if it had the same level of work and same kinds of accessories as a military surplus action.

Another virtue of LK-M70 Zastavas is that they were made in left hand.

Didn't mean or say the mkX would not be "salable", but it will effect the price by the buyers of custom guns for sure if for no other reasons than to get a better deal , had to deal with that in the past..which action in a custom rifle can be the closing deal factor in any custom rifle.

The very early Mark X actions consistently hold better tolerances than most of the later-production examples I've handled. Later on (after they got the side-button floorplate release) they are more variable and as time went by it just got worse. Gotta kiss a lot of frogs before finding a later action that can compare to an average very early Mark X.

An example of just one recurrent issue: My own experience tells me it would be exceedingly difficult to find another make of M98 action where the striker nut (cocking piece) rides as low due to the poor tolerances between bolt body and receiver.

This slop affects the height of the nose of the comb on the stock. Comb height affects sight acquisition, cheek weld, repeatability etc. Some of the earlier Mark X actions are acceptable to me in this regard; most of the later ones are not. This can be corrected, but then I've handled very few "customs" where it was.

Where an action is used with a bolt this sloppy, I consider it is a LOT of trouble to build a rifle where the bolt needs an extra (approx) 3/16" or so of wood wiped from the nose of the comb (compared to most other 98's I've stocked). If the rifle is built with iron sights made low to the bore centre line this is not so bad, but generally the modern trend is toward high-mounted irons and/or scopes.

There are few customers that have come through my shop that have facial dimensions that accommodate such a comb height. On that basis alone, I have rejected a lot of jobs where the owner was not willing to sort this issue. Yet, as I already stated, I see a lot of Mark X "customs" down under with this issue.

Get a good Mark X action that has been worked over well, however, and they make into a fair rifle.

It would much simpler to use a Ruger MKII.

3 position safety, double bridge, integral scope mounts, modern steel, plenty of good after market triggers.

Just a little smoothing and polish ready to go.

I agree with p dog, my 77 ruger is an RJ Renner custom and I don't see how it could be improved for a using custom, or a closet queen for that matter..