Hi,

I have a BSA Majestic rifle (long action) which has a push-feed action that I would like to replace with a controlled-feed action, namely a VZ24 mauser raction.

First question is will the barrel & action threads be compatible or is this a square peg/round hole scenario. I have been trying to find info on this through Google, without too much success.

If anyone can assist, I would appreciate it very much!

Thanks

If it all works well as a Majestic I wouldn't bother after all your and my countrymen in TWO World Wars used push-feed rifles to defeat an enemy equipped with controlled feed rifles!

But if it does "float your boat" all the technical stuff on what thread was used might be available from John Knibbs International who holds stocks of all the old BSA spares.

He has a website http://www.airgunspares.com which lists a telephone number in UK as 01675 481006 and if he doesn't know it about BSA probably it isn't worth knowing!

Hope it helps! What calibre is your barrel?

Thank you for the advice.

I thought long & hard about it last night, took the rifle out of the safe and cycled a few rounds from the magazine. All functioned almost flawlessley.

The problem occurs when the rounds shft back in the magazine to the rear of the magazine and the bolt edge is not able to pick up the top cartridge and push it forward.

Taking more care when loading cartridges into the magazine reduces the incidence of this problem but it does become prevailent when in the field and carrying the rifle over one's shoulder the cartridges settle down to the rear of the magazine.

I am sure a gunsmith could assist?

My BSA is a Majestic featherweight in .30-'06.
My late grandfather prchased int in 1963 here in South Africa. As a veteran of the SAAF in WWII I don't believe he would approve of a Mauser action on his rifle

quote:

Originally posted by umshiniwam:
Thank you for the advice.

I thought long & hard about it last night, took the rifle out of the safe and cycled a few rounds from the magazine. All functioned almost flawlessley.

The problem occurs when the rounds shft back in the magazine to the rear of the magazine and the bolt edge is not able to pick up the top cartridge and push it forward.

Taking more care when loading cartridges into the magazine reduces the incidence of this problem but it does become prevailent when in the field and carrying the rifle over one's shoulder the cartridges settle down to the rear of the magazine.

I am sure a gunsmith could assist?

My BSA is a Majestic featherweight in .30-'06.
My late grandfather prchased int in 1963 here in South Africa. As a veteran of the SAAF in WWII I don't believe he would approve of a Mauser action on his rifle

Not sure how the bolt stop functions on that action, but modifying the bolt stop to allow the bolt to come a bit further back would eliminate that problem.

Also, adding a thick enough strip of flat steel shim stock to the back magazine wall might do the trick if the magazine has enough (too much?)length.

Sounds like a manufacturing defect that would be easy to fix.

quote:

Originally posted by wildcat junkie:

quote:

Originally posted by umshiniwam:
Thank you for the advice.

I thought long & hard about it last night, took the rifle out of the safe and cycled a few rounds from the magazine. All functioned almost flawlessley.

The problem occurs when the rounds shft back in the magazine to the rear of the magazine and the bolt edge is not able to pick up the top cartridge and push it forward.

Taking more care when loading cartridges into the magazine reduces the incidence of this problem but it does become prevailent when in the field and carrying the rifle over one's shoulder the cartridges settle down to the rear of the magazine.

I am sure a gunsmith could assist?

My BSA is a Majestic featherweight in .30-'06.
My late grandfather prchased int in 1963 here in South Africa. As a veteran of the SAAF in WWII I don't believe he would approve of a Mauser action on his rifle

Not sure how the bolt stop functions on that action, but modifying the bolt stop to allow the bolt to come a bit further back would eliminate that problem.

Also, adding a thick enough strip of flat steel shim stock to the back magazine wall might do the trick if the magazine has enough (too much?)length.

Sounds like a manufacturing defect that would be easy to fix.

Thanks for the suggestion. The bolt stop is a sear which is disengaged by holding the trigger back.

I have read that after much use this sear can become worn with th result tha the bolt can (unintentionally) be pulled out of the action when cycling a round.

Cheers

Sounds more to me as if Grandad's rifle may need a new magazine spring and nothing more. It may be that the rounds aren't coming up high enough any longer?

If you try and replicate the problem with just a single round...pushing it back against the extreme rear of the magazine are you actually saying the rear face of the cartridge head is BEHIND the front face of the bolt in the bolt's rearmost position?

The comment about ...defeat... is not correct as many British and American troops were armed with "controlled feed" Enfield P-14 and P-17 rifles as well as the Americans were armed with various Springfields, also "controlled feed" to begin with. These are ALL inferior copies of the finest bolt action design of all, the P-98 Mauser.

Most Commonwealth troops were armed with Lee-Enfields and these are a sort of "controlled feed" and are, again, an inferior design to the superb Mauser.

The Yanks went to the Canadian-designed Garand and IT was not as good as the Stg.44; NOBODY had weapons equal to the best German ones, EXCEPT for the Thompson sub-machine gun, the Colt 1911 pistol and the .50 Browning machine gun.

In any event, "we" did not "beat" the Germans in the first war and would not have succeeded in the invasion of Europe on D-Day, had it not been for the huge sacrifices of the brave, but, poorly led Russians and Hitler's insane interference with his superb generals.

Three of my immediate relatives volunteered and served in Canadian uniform in WWI and five in WWII and, of these, four were wounded. I simply think that "we" too often consider ourselves the victors in what were, tragically, inconclusive slaughter fests.

" . . . victors in what were, tragically, inconclusive slaughter fests."

In WW1, the Germans asked for an Armistice and formally surrendered at the Treaty of Versailles. WW2 ended in the total defeat and occupation of the Axis Powers, following their uncondtional surrender. Pretty conclusive. As to slaughter, consider this, "Nothing is won without sacrifice". Also consider the consequences of a Nazi and Imperial Japanese victory.

Well, the situation concerning WWI is far more complex and is not as clearcut as you seem to think. The surrender and it's ramifications led to WWII, which, in turn, led to the "Cold War"; hence, my comments about ...conclusive...

We can debate this "ad infinitum" and to no productive end as this is a "gunsmithing" forum, not a historical one; I merely wanted to comment on the "controlled feed" related aspect of the situation, but, probably should not have responded.

As I am a Canadian, I sometimes get a bit "concerned" at comments that seem to state that the UK and USA "won" the wars in question as there were a "few" of we other nations involved, as I am sure you will agree.

I agree with you Dewey. I have always considered the Lee Enfield to be controlled feed, and a much better Battle rifle than the Mauser.

The decimation of the Russians in WW2 is a fact, approximately 25 Million as I recall. WW1 and WW2 were the best things that ever happened to America, they resulted in the transfer of a lot of the British Empire's wealth to the U.S.