I am getting ready to start on my 458 American project and was curious if anyone here has gone down this path prior. My reciever is a VZ24, custom stock, and an 18" 458 McGowan barrel. Just looking for prior experiences.

Adam

I tried the 450 Marlin in a bolt action once, and it didn't work out too well. The short cartridge didn't feed well. Although I'm relatively sure it can be made to feed properly, it can be tricky and lot of trouble and may fail to be satisfactory in the end result and in the process the action and thus the whole project is ruined.

I messed around with various Mauser actions including military and commercial, but one day it just happened --- I realized that I liked success better than messing around.

So, I suppose one could say I graduated the school of trial and error, experience, been there done that, etc.

My 458 of choice now is based on a Ruger 77 stainless action, originally a 300 WM. The barrel is PacNor, 20" long with 1 in 20 twist rate, chambered in 458 WM. I had a Timney trigger installed. I had PacNor do the chamber with a standard 458 WM reamer, no throat, and cut the throat secondly. I used the same 450 Marlin barrel, just set back and recut the threads and chamber. It drops in perfectly into a Hoag stock, since I had the barrel contour cut to fit from the get-go.

I had the throat cut short on purpose because I wanted to use bullets designed for the 45-70 which have a different ogive than those for the 458WM. I use up to 405gr bullets. I was hoping the short throat would enhance accuracy, and along with the 20" twist it worked out just right. I don't shoot factory ammo, and the 500gr ammo wont fit anyway -- the bolt wont close since the bullet hits the lands in the barrel. IMO, that's a good thing for safety reasons in case someone inherits this rifle.

The advantages are many. First, there were no modificatations to the action necessary to get it to feed perfectly. I did order a magazine box from Ruger made for the 416 Riger, and it fit perfectly. The original box was bowing out in front from the recoil.

Other advantages are the action and barrel are stainless, and the Hoag drop-in stock is perfect, and the whole set-up is simple.

The main advantage is the 458 WM feeds much more reliable than the 2" versions. Brass is easier to deal with. There are many hand load references in the manuals for full and reduced loads. The 458 WM can easily be loaded for 800 fps to over 2500 fps, with a large variety of bullets. It's inexpensive too.

I bought a picitiny rail that clamps onto the top of the receiver, and plan on mounting a red dot sight. It's a solid platform.

If your vz24 feeds the 458WM well, then use it. Otherwise, my advice is to sell the VZ24, and after the hunting season find a used stainless Ruger in a magnum caliber in a pawn shop, and build a 458 WM with a 45-70 throat. It's much more versitile than the 2" 458, and easier to load.

KB

I see where you're coming from. Why the 458x2", because the instructors here at school throw a fit when I discuss cutting into the front ring on a Mauser. Also I have the reamer, which makes the choice a little easier.

Although I know it's not business savvy to tinker but I really don't want to use a nice action. I want that experience to take a "sub standard" action and make it nice.

I had kicked around the Winchester Classic with CRF in a WSM but then it's just a barrel change and very minor fitting.

But your experience is what I was looking for.

Adam

Yea, I understand more now. I figured you had good reasons for your choice of action. I too would not cut into the front ring to get the length needed for std 458 WM.

In your situation, the use of the VZ24 in 2" 458 is a good choice. It's a learning experience and likely to turn out satisfactory, given the resources avaliable to you.

IMO, there is nothing sub-standard with the VZ24. It just needs a new trigger, safety and bolt handle. But I would avoid/reject all advice about re-heat treating, if it comes up. If the action isn't set back already, then it's proven. Just don't load it hot.

I trust that the reamer you have has a short throat for use with 45-70 type bullets.

What is the twist rate of your barrel?

KB

Sub Standard was a view of the average zombie/ long range tactical/ couch assasin. I think the VZ is an under rated action.

Adam

VZ24s are the best 98s made, far more consistent quality than German. As for putting straight cartridges on Mausers, they won't feed unless you mill or grind out the feed rails so the ammo can sit and stack corrrectly. Once you do that, it is a piece of cake and will work perfectly. The reason that the Ruger fed was that modern receivers are not caliber specific; the feed rails are formed into the magazines not the receiver. As for making long mags on 98s, I take as much metal as possible from the rear and as little as possible from the front. Make the bolt stop shorter too.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
The reason that the Ruger fed was that modern receivers are not caliber specific; the feed rails are formed into the magazines not the receiver.

That didn't seem correct to me so I inspected two of my Rugers. The 458 is burried deep right now, but I'll get to it soon. My 6.5 Grendel and the 308 both feed off the rails. Caliber specific -- yes. The 6.5 Grendel was initially a 6mm PPC, and the 308 was initially a 243, which will feed any of the cases in the 308 family.

I'm certain the Ruger action I used for the 458 was initially barreled in 300 WM, and the cartridges also feed off the rails. I made no modifications to the rails and it feeds the 458 slick.

I can't say for sure, and don't know why, but the replacment magazine box (for 416 Ruger - I couldn't get a 458 box) fits and works better than the original, which was bending up front. The replacment must be stronger metal, but it doesn't appear to be thicker as expected. It actually fit in the alloted space and under the feed ramp better than the original and I was surprised, and naturally pleased. I just lucked out. It was very inexpensive, BTW.

One other interesting tidbit of info: I accidentally inserted a 30-06 follower in the magazine once since I had both rifles apart on the table at the same time. Suddendly the 458 wouldn't feed right. At first I thought it was the new batch of handloads, etc., etc. WTF ??? It fed good one day and poorly the next. Then I just sat back and pondered the situation, having been there before, and knew this was different. Then I compared the followers, and merely switched them back. Bingo. I was surprised at how much difference it made.

It is correct that the VZ24 can be made to feed, but the rails have to be opened up a lot, and probably the feed ramp too. Doing that causes another problem which is the factory magazines I've seen are too narrow for the 458, and especially up front. With the wider feed rails the cartridges often pop up and free prematurely, defeating the controlled round feed aspect of the Mauser, and causing a jam or simple misfeed. The magazine has to be wide enough to allow the cartridges to stack right, and allow what's left of the rails to capture enough brass long enough for the cartridges to pass the point of no return, so to speak. Also, the little hump on each side of magazine has a specific sweet spot. In my experience with a Mauser mil-surp, the best way to deal with the magazine issue is to fork out cash and get a custom milled bottom metal assembly specifically designed for the cartridge class/family of choice. But that defeats one of the main virtues of the old Mausers - economy, and completely defeats practicality and satisfaction for me. The magazine box and feed rails on both the Mauser and the Ruger 77 work together as mates and messing with one or the other, but not both as a team, will not work out right, IME. I can also remember several instances where the specs of the follower made a lot of difference, and in the specific cases I remember, the difference was working vs not working.

So, now we are talking about the geomotry of variables --- three or four or five or six or more --- the rails, the feed ramp, the magazine box, the little humps on the sides of the box, the width of the box from back to front and the length, and the follower. Even the follower spring is critical. Any one of them can be wrong or off and make the whole thing utter frustration.

As I said before, messing with feeding is tricky business and could ruin the whole project. It's happened to some of my projects.

In a Mauser it has come down to that I really like to use the 8x57 to avoid dissappointment.

That's why I feel so blessed to have discovered the utter simplicity of just rebarreling the Ruger 77 action which left the factory wearing a 2.5" belted magnum barrel. Practically no attention was given or needed on feeding, thus freeing my attention on issues of barrel contour, make, twist, length, trigger, stock, metal finish, piciteny rail, sights, chamber, throat, all of which was enough to worry about and get right.

Your situation is different, and so it may be for others, but for me there are at least two certainties that I will never do again re rifles. one is a 2" 458, and the other is a 45-70 bolt action project. Not that there is anything wrong with the cartridges, but it's the feeding issues primarily (in bolt actions). It's a matter of working near perfectly, or varying degrees less than that, and what one is willing to put up with. I see no need to put up with feeding issues since I don't have to.

I feel so strongly about it that I've gotten rid of at least four new custom rifles within a few days of their reciept from the gunsmith, having fired few or no rounds through them, simply because they wouldn't feed right. At a loss in every case, of course. The last was a custom 7-08 on a short Winchester 70 CRF action, which shot tiny groups.

Feeding issues are a deal breaker for me.

KB

Yes, it takes work to the entire system to make Mausers feed with cartridges with less taper than the 8mm, but it is not hard. Yes, followers matter too. But as you are finding out, with modern rifles, it is easier as the feeding is controlled by sheet metal mag boxes, not milled receiver feed rails. One way to make Mausers work is to remove all the feed rails and form sheet metal boxes to get them to feed, just like Ruger, Rem, Savage, and everyone else does. More cost effective to make one receiver than one for each caliber. Don't give up on Mausers. If your smith can't make a M70 feed, time for a new smith. That one was hard to make NOT work.

Has someone told you that there is an issue with long(er) cartridges in a VZ-24? I ask because I have one chambered for the 404 Jefferys sitting here next to my desk. It feeds flawlessly.

Every action/rifle/cartridge has a blend of features that make it right. The 404 J on a VZ24 ain't one of them, IMO. There are much better choices of actions.

I would however do a 458 WM on a VZ24.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
But as you are finding out, with modern rifles, it is easier as the feeding is controlled by sheet metal mag boxes, not milled receiver feed rails. One way to make Mausers work is to remove all the feed rails and form sheet metal boxes to get them to feed, just like Ruger, Rem, Savage, and everyone else does.

I took some pictures of the receiver of my Ruger 77 MKII in 308. I think I'm seeing feed rails in there. If not, then I ask you what you would call that thingy in there (milled into the receiver) that affects feeding and timing of exit from the mag box?

KB

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Yes, it takes work to the entire system to make Mausers feed with cartridges with less taper than the 8mm, but it is not hard.

If it's not difficult, then why the frequent failure rate?

KB

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
One way to make Mausers work is to remove all the feed rails and form sheet metal boxes to get them to feed, just like Ruger, Rem, Savage, and everyone else does.

That's a sure way to ruin a perfectly good Mauser.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
If your smith can't make a M70 feed, time for a new smith. That one was hard to make NOT work.

We wern't talking about the M70, but since you brought it up, I have had two M70 CRF short actions and my "expert" gunsmiths couldn't get either to feed correctly. The first one was a factory rifle in 308. I sent it back to Winchester three times. The third time they offered to pay me the retail price for the rifle, so I gladly took it and used the money to buy a Ruger SS Mod 77 MKII in 308, and never had any (feeding) trouble with it.

BTW, I've got the impression that you don't know what you are talking about, and listening to advice such as yours has cost me a lot of money, frustration, and wasted time in the past.

KB

You certainly have the right to your opinion about me, not even knowing me. I feel that you might be the one who does not understand what I am saying, so it is likely I am not explaining it clearly enough. Those "thingys", as you called them in your pictures can be called feed rails, but if you look at your receiver from underneath, you will see no contoured angles that occur on military actions such as Mausers, Springfields, etc. Those milled angles are what controls feeding on Mausers. New commercial receivers are made, one size fits all, and they use different mag boxes to actually control feeding. If you remove the sheet metal box, there is nothing to control feeding. I can't explain why your experts can't make your rifles feed. I will post some pics so you can understand fully how rifles are designed and feed. In the meantime I recommend reading some books like "The Bolt Action" by Stuart Ottoson, and studying the geometry and design of some bolt action receivers.
I can tell you are frustrated with work that was done for you, but I am not a cause of that.

This is a Win M70; see the underneath of the receiver; how it is flat; no contours for any cartridge; and see the mag box angled at the top? And the "A" on it; that is how they control feeding; by using different mag boxes. The next pic is of ann 03 Springfield and 98 Mauser; see how, inside the receiver, the angled surfaces that are contoured for the 30-06 and 8mm. In order to make them feed something else with a straighter case, those surfaces have to be altered and that takes a lot of experience to do well. The last pic is of a Rem 700 box and the M70; note the angled mag box tops. I have built Mausers on everything from 308 to 375 H&H, to 404 Jeffery with success. You might think I know nothing; other's opinions might differ.
BTW, this discussion really belongs on the Gunsmithing page. There are others there who can explain it to you better.

I don't really have an opinion about you personally - but opinions about what you say, instead.

You may be right that I merely don't understand.

I would certainly like to continue the conversation with some pictures from you.

I disagree, or don't follow you, with your statment that one size fits all and the mag box comment. Ruger 77 MKIIs are definately not one size fits all receivers/mags combos.

Various mag boxes specific to the cartridge was common in Mausers prior to FN and Zastava standardization -- their attempt of one size fits all. One of the worst examples of poor and unreliable feeding is the MK X in 458, which basically uses the same box as in their 30-06.

One size fits all concept works better with actions such as the Rem 700, but a poor idea in a CRF action.

KB

Sorry, Bentley; not sure what happened with your original post; I am trying to make things clear. I apologize for taking over your thread.

I said the receivers are one size and the mag boxes are changed with the cartridge. And yes, commercial Mausers had lots of magazine boxes, widths and lengths, but NONE of them had any provision for feeding; that was milled into the receiver like you see in the pics. We are talking about making a 458 short feed; and to do that, you have to mill the receiver feed rails. To make a Ruger feed them, you would alter the mag box lips.
As for CRF feeding, that takes some attention to the way the extractor picks up the cartridge from the mag and that might have been the problem with yours instead of the magazine. It is a system.

I see no need for apology. I think the discussion is on topic. The main path for failure of the 2" 458 on a VZ 24 action is failure to get it to feed right.

All the rest of the gunsmithing on the project is rather straight forward.

The spot where I think you are wrong is in classing the Ruger 77 MKII with the M70 CRF. Or worse yet classing it with the Rem 700 or Savage. You are correct about the M70 CRF and it feeding off the lips of the mag box. The push feed M70 is almost like the Rem 700. But the Ruger 77 MKII feeds off the rails, much like a Mauser '98. The main difference in the Ruger and the Mauser is the sheet metal box on the Ruger, but the feeding geomotry is basically the same as a Mauser.

Also, I think you are wrong about the mag box in Mausers and Rugers having no provisions for feeding. The ones I'm familiar with have little humps inside the box to kick the rim or belt of the case over in just the right spot as the case proceeds forward into the breech.

Altering the mag box lips on a Ruger 77 MKII would only serve to ruin the box, and have no useful effect on improving or favorably altering the feeding.

Another tidbit of useful info that I discovered relevant to this discussion is the CZ 550 action. They use different mag boxes for different cartridges. The 30-06 is different compared to the 6.5x55 and the 7 mag. I like it that they gave the attention to detail that way, rather than default to simple one size fits all. Their followers are different and cartridge specific too.

If I really wanted a PERFECT CRF project, economically, I would start with a used CZ 550 in 7 mag, replace the barrel with a 458 WM in 18" or 20" twist. I tried feeding the 458 WM through my CZ 550 2.5" belted mag action and it feeds nearly perfect, with no mods necessary. A guy would have less money in the project, using the CZ 550 action, and a much better outcome. The CZ has a modern forged receiver and all the correct features for true CRF. IMO, the CZ 550 action project is as close to a sure thing as one can get today, without a lot of money into it. It would have real resale value too, where the resale on the 458x2" on the VZ24 is practically worthless.

If I was set on the 458x2" I wouldn't use a CRF action at all. Instead, use a short action Savage, Rem, or Rem clone. The push feed will resolve feeding issues with the short cartridge right from the get-go. If economy is the issue, use Howa or Weatherby Vanguard short action, if they make it with a magnum bolt face.

KB

I just look at my Ruger; there are no cartridge specific contours in the receiver. It is made exactly like the Rem 700. Ruger mag boxes are angled at the top; I did not say, or mean to say, that they didn't control feeding; they certainly do. And Ruger boxes have little indents in the lips to help feeding but that is a feature of the sheet metal box, not the receiver. I said the Mauser feeding is controlled by the cartridge specific coutours in the receiver; a feature not on the Ruger. They do not make a different receiver for each cartridge, like Mauser did. And CZ does. Study some of these receivers and mags and you will see.
Anyway, I have made 98 Mausers feed straight ammo like the 458. One policy I follow here on AR, I do not comment on things I have not actually done. If I give an opinion, I will say that.

All the things I have commented on herein, I have specific experience with - - not from having done the gunsmithing myself, where actually done, but through observations and specific projects, failures and successes, and suffering the losses of the failures, and the joys and satisfaction of a successful project.

I do not believe anything I have said herein is incorrect, misleading or misinformed. If so state specifics. I have tried to choose my wording carefully and be specific.

IMO, you are wrong or misleading in many ways, but I'm tired of arguing with you. You are specifically wrong in classing the Ruger with the Remington 700. They are two distinctly different feeding concepts - CRF vs push feed.

Over the years I have tired of dealing with the egos of certain gunsmiths, which has often cost me money for poor results.

Anyway, my knowledge about this was hard earned, and accurate in every way I know possible, however, I'm willing to be corrected and learn something new. So far such hasn't been forthcoming from your input.

KB

Pardon me, but my Ruger to which I compared my 700 Rem is a push feed. I will take a pic and show you; they are duplicates. I have no ego; just facts as I have actually done them. I can' t change your opinion on how Ruger and Rem make their receivers and mag boxes. If you will just look at each of them (which I don't believe you have) you will see. I am done too; I just try to educate people. I will take one more pic so you can see for yourself.

Top one is a Ruger 77, bottom one is a Rem 700; you can see there are no cartridge specific feeding contours milled into the receivers; they are milled out to feed anything, depending on the sheet metal magazine for feed lips. You should look at yours and check it. If you think I am wrong, fine; I will continue to successfully build rifles on Mausers, and others because I understand how they are made and how they function.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Top one is a Ruger 77, bottom one is a Rem 700; you can see there are no cartridge specific feeding contours milled into the receivers; they are milled out to feed anything, depending on the sheet metal magazine for feed lips. You should look at yours and check it.

The CRF Ruger 77 MKII does not appear to me to feed off the mag box lips, but instead to be controlled by the feed rails as the rim slips under the extractor. The feed rails guide the cartridge until it is captured by the extractor, then as it moves forward it's released with a little nudge from the hump in the mag box side.

I do not have a push feed Ruger to inspect, but I'll take your word that it's comparable to the Rem. 700.

Feeding off the sheet metal lips is very clear when talking about the Win M70. What is clear to me is that the Ruger 77 MKII utilizes rails for cartridge guidance and the W M70 uses the box mag lips.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I just try to educate people.

Well, I just try to inform people - especially when they are being given incorrect info, even though well intended. I've heard it before, sincerity and supposedly intend to educate, but when corrected, fail to learn, and keep harping the same misinformation. It's tough enough to inform people without getting into direct countepoint of misinformation, which is close enough to seem plausable to the uninformed, but off far enough to waste their time and money.

KB

You are correct. What I am saying is there are no cartridge specific ramps or angles milled into the receiver as there are on Mausers, Springfields, Enfields. Modern receivers are made to fit anything with the mag box being the variable in the system. That is why they make a mag box for standard cartridges, and one for magnums using the same receiver. They have milled out the feed rails to be big enough to allow anything to fit through, unlike a Mauser, which is tapered smaller in the front. Modern receivers are bigger in the front to allow any cartridge through. Look at the pics and you will see that. And Model 70s, Rugers, 700s, Savages, all work the same way; of course the ammo slides against the receiver rails, held by the mag box lips, but those rails are not made for any particular ammo; that is my only point.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
And Model 70s, Rugers, 700s, Savages, all work the same way

My point is that the Ruger 77 MKII feeds off the rails, not the mag box lips. The M70 feeds off the lips of the mag box sheet metal. I can't speak exactly about the Rem or Savage since I haven't examined them close enough to remember.

I know that the action assembly (reciever, bolt face, rails, mag box, follower, width of box, width apart and length of rails, feed ramp) for the Ruger vary, by my recollection, each family of cartridges represented by their own action assembly. The different action assemblies examples are: 223 class, PPC class, 7.62x39 class, 308 class, 30-06, 2.5" belted mag, 2" belted mags, short mags, 458, 416 Ruger, 416 Rigby, and others perhaps. This is confirmed by the various parts of the assembly, mag box and follower, being different part numbers. The mag boxes are not interchangable, which means to me that the inside of the reciever is milled differently for each.

Thus the Ruger is definately not one size fits all.

KB

I have a 458 x2" on a mk 10 action, 20" McGowen barrel by the way. The feed rails had to be altered as it started out a 243. I also did a little altering of the follower. It was all long ago, but the rifle has never failed to feed with cast or jacketed bullets.

theback40,

Did you alter the magazine length? Was this action of which had the spacer in the magazine to shorten the space available, for the short cartridge? If so, did you retain the spacer, or is the magazine full length?

Did you open up the feed ramp?

Obviously you had to open the bolt face and extractor.

When you load the cartridges, do you stack them to the front of the magazine or the rear?

Do any of the cartridges pop out of the magazine prematurly, as you cycle a full magazine through?

BTW, my Ruger feeds cast or jacketed bullets, pointed or flat nose or round nose. I've used the Barnes 300gr and 350gr TSX and 300gr SOCOM, and Speer 350gr and 400gr, Rem 405gr, Swift 350gr and 400gr, Hornady 350gr RN & FN, and several FN cast bullets. They all feed properly -- the whole magazine full, and I pay no attention whether I'm stacking them to the front of the magazine or the rear - I just push them in. They all move forward nicely with the first shot anyway.

I've loaded it using Trail Boss at about 800 fps, and 1100 fps to about 1400 fps with SR4759, up to close to 2500 fps using AA2230 and Barnes 350gr TSX. I'm able to drive the 350gr Swift or Speer or Hornady almost as fast, but I don't like the recoil. I wouldn't want to suffer the recoil of a full factory load in my rifle. I can push the 400gr Swift to about 2300 fps, which I believe is enough for large brown bear or moose. Other powders producing excellent results are 4895 and RL7. The surprising bullet is the 300 Barnes SOCOM at about 1800fps to 2000 fps - very accurate, (remember short throat) but special purpose - hogs.

BTW, the rifle is light for a 458, and I made no provisions for an extra recoil lug. It uses the std Ruger recoil lug. Initially, I used an out-of-the-box Hoag drop-in stock, but soon I bought a used take-off Ruger/Hoag stock from a 416 Ruger, and it fits the barrel contour of my 458 very well. This stock is holding up under the recoil just fine, although my 1x4 Leupold busted - the insides came loose.

H4895 works very well compressed and also somewhat less than compressed. It's quite versitile. For stout loads, the compression really helps hold the bullet in the crimp, from setback. I do not believe 4895 will be a good powder in the 458x2" simply because of case capacity. I expect the velocity will be low, but maybe acceptable or what you are looking for. With the 458x2" perhaps the faster powders will be the ticket. The nice thing about the 458x2" is that most likely any powder recommended for the 45-70 will be a good choice, and there are lots of options there.

What I really like mostly about the 458WM is that it will do everything the 45-70 or 458x2" will do and a lot more, plus it's designed to feed in a std length bolt action.

I went to using the Lee factory crimp set to the max crimp without damaging the brass. Hornady brass so far has been the best to work with, and produces the best crimp. The Winchester brass crimps well only after several firings to work harden to mouth a little. New, they are too soft, IMO.

You see, I would rather use my time in load development and at the range or hunting than phucking around with feeding issues.

Here are links to articles about handloading the 458WM, 45-70 and 458x2". The first is comparing the 45-70 and 458WM, but the data for 458x2" will be close to 45-70 loads. The third is about the 458x2".

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1011537/posts

http://www.chuckhawks.com/458Win.htm

http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/w458x2.html

KB

I purchased a 458x2" a few years back at a local gunshow. It's a great little custom rifle made on a remington 600 action. Not sure on the barrel, but it looks like a skinny .410 barrel from the muzzle end. The whole rig, with a swaro 6x scope is under 7 lbs. When you touch off this little girl, she sure gets your attention, but it is so light, it has gotten to be my "go-to" bush gun.
I can get one in the chamber, and two in the mag. There are MINOR feeding issues if you try to rush it on the first of the two in the mag. The short cartridges will flip up on occasion and jam on the first reload, but usually the last shell, without the extra mag spring pressure, never fails.
I was always told to use 450 marlin data for reloading this cartridge, and I have never pushed for higher velocity, or pressure. So far, so good. I get decent grouping (1-1 1/2") at 100yds using loads with either IMR 3031, or H4198.
I have taken a few black bears, and my cougar with this gun, with great results. The guy I bought it from used it to take his grizzly in northern B.C. I keep packing it in the thick stuff for elk, but so far no opportunity. I love the gun and the cartridge. This is one that I will not part with.

Well I wiped the front ring and sidewall on the VZ. I also fitted a Lyman rear aperture. A big thanks to Nathaniel Myers of Myers Arms LLC for welding on an Oberndorf style handle.

Adam

What frequent failure rate?
Yours are the only ones I have ever heard of.
People can get the 45-70 to feed in Siamese Mausers.
The first .458X2 that I ever saw was about 1969.
It was built on a FN Supreme action by the A&M Rifle Company. That is Atkinson and Marquart.
It worked perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Yes, it takes work to the entire system to make Mausers feed with cartridges with less taper than the 8mm, but it is not hard.

If it's not difficult, then why the frequent failure rate?

KB

If you think there are no failures in getting the 45-70 or 458X2" to feed corectly then you are just blowing smoke - don't have a clue of what you are talking about. Oh yes - now I remember - you do that all the time, on practically any topic.

In fact, one of the posts herein mention feeding issues with his favorate 458X2".

I've looked at dozens of Siameese Mauser 45-70 conversions and tested 6 or 8 and none of them fed right, even though I asked the owner in advance how they fed. They always said it fed properly, but I was able to get a jam the first try --- on all of them.

I already described my experience with the 450 Marlin cartridge in a short bolt action.

KB

I built a 450 marlin on a rem 670. It has some issues feeding. Also, I get sticky extraction with some factory ammo.It is very accurate with barnes tsx around the low 2000 fps

It's because people lacking skill, knowledge and patience are building them. As I have said many times, Military rifles were designed to feed ONE cartridge; putting any other one in it will require grinding the receiver rails and using the correct follower. Some know how to do it and some don't. The process is much easier on modern rifles like Rugers, M70s, and Savages; those all use stamped mag boxes which the box top angles need to be tweaked to handle fatter ammo than the box was made for, and the correct follower is very important. Yes, all of those operate the same way regardless of what some think. I should not have said it is easy; I should say, It is easy if you know how.
Siamese? harder to make work due to the big rim.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpcd:
It's because people lacking skill, knowledge and patience are building them. Some know how to do it and some don't.

This is apparently so.

The problem is that once it's been done wrong, it's more difficult, and perhaps not practical, to fix it. Generally speaking, if it ain't done right the first time, the action is ruined.

Another thing, shopping for a "gunsmith" to make it feed results in finding lots of guys who talk big and who seem to know what they are talking about, and say they have lots of experience and success, blah-blah, but when the end result is presented, it ain't right. Then it's too late, the money is forked out, or a dispute erupts. The "smith" says it works, or minimizes the glitches, or calls the customer too difficult, and so forth. In many cases these "smiths" turn the action into junk.

It can be simple, if the customer just lucks out and the job is done right, in which case he may think this is normal and easy.

Personally, I think that a good feeding action that's converted and had lots of work on the rails and such is just a matter of luck - the process and finding the right smith, and perhaps starting with the right action.

I have several Mausers - more than a dozen now, and lots more in the past, and they all feed differently. It is very difficult to see the actual difference in the metal parts, but some feed extraordinarily well and some just so-so. Some feed one cartridge well and not others. Some feed practically any cartridge with the correct head. BTW, all the Mauser actions I have now, except one, are commercial actions.

Feeding is a very subtle thing. IMO, it might be difficult to get my worst feeding Mauser action to work as well as my best feeding one. (Out of the box actions - no previous mods) And this is working with one cartridge, for example, close or exact to what the actions were designed around. What has worked best for me is to find a donor action that was designed to feed the cartridge of choice, or perhaps one of the cartridges in the family of parent case. It's simpler, cheaper, and likely to produce the desired end result, by just trying the action out for feeding before starting the assembly. If it feeds properly or close, then proceed. If not, seek another action, or choose a cartridge that fits. There are so many cartridge choices, but generally there are actions available designed for the cartridge of choice.

The 458x2" is different in that there are no specific actions designed around that cartridge. It's a challange, and I'm curious as to how this is gonna work out. I hope the OP keeps this thread updated with his progress.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
The process is much easier on modern rifles like Rugers, M70s, and Savages; those all use stamped mag boxes which the box top angles need to be tweaked to handle fatter ammo than the box was made for, and the correct follower is very important. Yes, all of those operate the same way regardless of what some think.

Yes they use stamped mag boxes. The M70 feeds/directs the cartridge off the mag box lips, while the Ruger does not. Tweeking the Ruger box will likely ruin it.

Furthermore, tweaking the box to handle a fatter cartridge means you've made a mistake up front, and chosen the wrong donor action. Ruger, for example makes an action that's already set up for the fatter cartridges, so the practical thing is to start with such an action, no tweaking necessary. You simply don't use a mag box with ammo fatter than the box was designed for, and if you do you're wasting time and customer's money. Generally such actions come with the right follower too.

The Rugers that I'm talking about are CRF, and the Savage and Remingtons are push feed. They definately do not operate all the same way. Also, the M70 feeds off the lips of the mag box and the Ruger does not.

The VZ24 is different. We know up front that the mag box wasn't designed for the fat cartridges, nor the follower, nor the feed ramp, or the rails. So all of them will need some tweaking, plus the bolt face and extractor. Good luck with that.

KB

A friend of mine had a 458x2" on a Mauser action, many years ago.
It would feed good with Hornady 350gr RN bullets.

There a lot more pointed .458 bullets avilable today.
They should make the cartridge feed better.

If all that failes you could modify the magazine to be a straight line single stack feed, like the BIG Weatherbys, and the 458 Win Mag Colt Sauer.

For deer I would take a look at the Hornady 325gr Leverevolution bullet.

For tougher game the Barnes X bullets and the CEB's would be my pick.