Ray
It is pretty easy to see why your posts started the myth:

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
soc,
Yes you can do that but be sure your smith opens the action in the rear, not the front and you will have a nice rifle indeed.

As far as opening them up in the rear so that you only have to open them a "tad" in the front, well, that is simply incorrect. The Blackburn bottom-metals that you were recommending when you made these posts were designed to move the magazine box back about .055" or .060" to the rear and about .125" towards the front.(Wisner's were similar, BTW.)

No matter how you slice it, that means that you would need to remove TWICE as much from the front as you would from the rear....

It is incorrect to state that you can remove enough from the rear that you will only need to remove a "tad" from the front.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Taken in full content, my meaning was and always has been to open them in the rear, but you still MUST open them up a tad in the front , but by openning them up in the rear you save a lot of metal in the front where it is supposedly a plus.

BTW Ray, this is not about making you look bad, I would just like to see this myth die once-and-for-all.

Well I understand that and am in agreement, but I would wonder how anyone in the world wouldn't read between those lines. You could not build a 404 or a 416 Rigby without opening it up in the rear and in the front as far as I know? You could with a Mauser and with a .375, but I wouldn't do it that way.

I realize my text were unclear and poorly stated as you contend. I apoligized so don't know what more I can say.. I mistakenly assumed all would know that it would be necessary to open the front a bit also, depending on most calibers. My point was the guns needed to be openned up in the rear to be properly done and I have stated in other post you could remove the front metal with your fingernail as it was very little and the less, the better IMO! You missed those posts I suppose, and of course caliber would play a hand in how much and where metal is to be removed.

At any rate, I have done these converstions as have many gunsmiths along with Wesley Richards and Holland and Holland etc.

Not trying to get in conflab and didn't mean to fluff your feathers just a suggestion as to how its done and been done in the past, and has worked well as far as I know.

Ray

I should not have mentioned your name. I only did so because I believe your posts were the ones that, inadvertently, started the myth.

The fact that it carried on for so long is a testament to your influence on the WWW.

I know that you tried to dispel the myth around 2003-2004, but it just kept going.

Anyway, I didn't intend any ill will to come through in my posts.... You once said:

quote:

The internet is a cold mindless creation that does not reflect humor nor sarcasim, and many times the written word takes the spoken word out of context....

This should be taken to heart by us all, me as much if not more than everyone else here.

I've never seen or personally heard of:

a 98 Mauser receiver opened to 375 totally in the front fail from shooting

a low number 1903 Springfield receiver fail from shooting

a trapdoor Springfield receiver fail from shooting

OTOH I HAVE personally seen several 98 and other Mausers with noticable lug setback. At least 2 were totally unaltered and another 2 had had their mag boxes lengthened to the front with a corresponding recoil lug support reduction.

IMO it's a questionable practice; why not use or fab an appropriate-length action?

Lengthening an action ain't rocket science and certainly SHOULD be within the capabilities of any good smith. In fact by marrying two actions it would be child's play to end up with one magnum-length action and one Kurz-length action!

The possibilities for an increased client base (with less liability) are, at the least, encouraging!
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Lengthening an action ain't rocket science and certainly SHOULD be within the capabilities of any good smith. In fact by marrying two actions it would be child's play to end up with one magnum-length action and one Kurz-length action!

If that were remotely true we would see them everywhere. But it's not and we don't.....

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Lengthening an action ain't rocket science and certainly SHOULD be within the capabilities of any good smith. In fact by marrying two actions it would be child's play to end up with one magnum-length action and one Kurz-length action!

If that were remotely true we would see them everywhere. But it's not and we don't.....

In your opinion. I did an action shortening when I was at Trinidad as a 19-year-old 2nd-year student, you can't get much more inexperienced than that! BTW it turned out fine and is still shooting.

Perhaps the smiths that YOU know aren't capable or (likely) are not inclined but the operation is not difficult, only time-consuming. I refer you to some of the shortened-action rifles that the ACGG has raffled, seems like I've seen a 1903 and a Mauser that were done that way and there may be a few more that I missed.

Of course, cutting steel away is always a lot easier than going to the extra trouble of doing it right.....

I liken it to the old auto-racing practice of boring a small-block Chevy V-8 0.125" over; yes, they've been doing it for over 50 years now and it works just fine more than 95% of the time, but sooner or later you'll hit water.

If I have an engine malfunction while racing, I can probably get along just fine living the rest of my life without winning that particular race. If I have a rifle malfunction while hunting dangerous game, there might not BE any 'rest of my life'!

Of course if all you want is braggin' rights for your safe queen, you'll probably never have any problems. If I just HAD to have a 375 H&H then I'd buy an M70 or an original Magnum Mauser, or, more likely, use a shorter and better-designed cartridge. JMO.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:

Perhaps the smiths that YOU know aren't capable or (likely) are not inclined but the operation is not difficult, only time-consuming . I refer you to some of the shortened-action rifles that the ACGG has raffled,

Joe
The best smiths in the world(Echols, Miller, Wiebe, Simillion, etc.) are not welding two actions together to make a magnum action because it is too time consuming(and time is money).

If you look at the cost to fully customize a M98 action($1500-$3500) it is not too far behind the cost of a custom aftermarket action($3000-$5000). You could try to argue this, but the numbers don't lie.

Now if you add the cost of welding two actions together(+-$2000) to the cost of fully customizing the action, you are looking at a total cost that is far greater than the cost of an aftermarket action.

And the ACGG raffle rifles with shortened actions don't really have a place in the conversation. They are about showcasing a smiths skill and creating a conversation piece. They represent very little of what is happening in the custom gun world.

Jason, you make some good points.

However I question your cost totals for many builds. The idea of spending up to $3500 to cobble a short action into a longer one is, to me, ludicrous. It's still a cobble job. If I was gonna spend that much, you can bet your sweet bippy that I wouldn't use an action that had been weakened to such a degree.

I also question your choice of the best smiths in the world but that's largely a matter of fashion and outward appearance. Don't forget that it wasn't so long ago that 'the best smiths in the world' made rifles with white line spacers and skip-line checkering, not to mention rollover combs and brush-hook pistol grips! For proof I refer you to Monte Kennedy's checkering book and the tight PG curve of many of Tom Shelhamer's stocks.

Yes, it's certainly a lot cheaper for the smith to cut away metal without adding any back, but IMO that's a poor practice when done to such a degree. And when done to a DGR costing up to five figures, IMO such a cheap shortcut should have no place, no place at all.

Especially when I see true original Magnum Mauser actions for sale for $3K-$4K. And if Mauser had thought that the std 98 was adequate, then why oh why do you think they ever began making the Magnum length?

I don't expect my comments to change anyone's mind when it's already made up, but I believe these points are worth considering by the folks who are still undecided about the question.

98 to 30-06? Sure. 98 to H&H? Not one of mine. I have a brand-new never-fired 375 H&H Shilen bbl fit & threaded for a 98 (got it on a trade) but I'll never use it unless I find a longer action. You want it, cheap?
Regards, Joe