Good video. Obviously it is a standard length Mauser opened up for the longer 375H&H cartridge identical to my Mauser opened up for the 404 Jeffery cartridge.

I have duplicated what you show in the video with my Mauser using dummy rounds (w bullet) down in the mag and an empty case fed into the chamber with the bolt uncocked to mirror extraction and ejection after firing.
Mine does show the 2nd round down lifting at the front as the empty case is extracted and this doesn't inhibit good ejection of the case when the bolt is racked back not violently but not softly softly either. The first 'fired' case is ejected well clear of the rifle.

Everything in your video seems to be the same as in my opened up Mauser including the charger humps and the sharp edged top corner of the charger hump/ejection port that Timan refers to in his post. This sharp edge doesn't effect ejection for the slightly fatter 404 cases.

There seems to be a bit of crud around that charger hump area showing in your video, can see bits falling out, probably grasping at straws but could explain sudden failure to eject the top case.

Is the ejector spring working properly, mine is free and reasonably strong i.e. push the ejector blade in and out on it's pivot, it should be a positive spring loaded movement.

Other than that I don't know what else could be causing the problem.

Put a longer ejector in it.
And/or, move the right bridge front surface back 1/8th inch.
I did that yesterday on a Model 70. Moved the bridge front back 1/4 inch to allow the brass to eject properly. Yours is hitting the bridge.
Longer ejector first; you can make one.
Of course I can't see inside the receiver to see how they machined the inner feed guide surfaces. An 8mm or 7.65 receiver will need opening up in there.

What Timan said.

quote:

Originally posted by Timan:
Check the rear top corner of the ejection port.
If that corner is still square you will need to grind that corner off with a die grinder. Allow the case a little more room to be ejected clear.
In addition, ensure the extractor is holding the case firmly. If the extractor only has light to marginal control of the case ejection will be lack luster.

And what Tom said.
Quote
Of course I can't see inside the receiver to see how they machined the inner feed guide surfaces. An 8mm or 7.65 receiver will need opening up in there.

Right, and let me expand. I just had dinner and I did expand a bit, but not that way.
When I made 375s on 98s, so as not to have to remove too much of the borrow lug seat, I would move the rear of the mag box, rearward. Then I would cut the bolt stop in half, thereby moving the bolt travel rearward so it would feed. What also had to happen is the bridge right side would have to be cut away to allow proper ejection.
Check and see what the builder did.

A word of cation about removing metal from the rear bridge on the right side.
That section contains/keeps the tail of the extractor in place.
Removing too much and the tail of the extractor is hanging in the wind and will cause a much more serious binding problem.

Unless you wish to weld onto the tail of the extractor to lengthen it, or replace the extractor with a custom longer one.
Very little can be removed from the outside edge of the rear bridge.

Look at the area that the body of the case contacts when trying to eject, some metal can be removed there to reduce the bumping of the case body

The Pre 64 Winchester M70 actions in short magnums, had a extra cut in that area. Winchester came in at about a 45 degree from the right side, and upwards about a 30 degree tapering toward the center of the bolt. Removing enough of the area that the case body would hit when ejecting, BUT leaving enough for the tail of the extractor to be contained.

If you go to the other thread about the M70 receivers in 375 caliber and look at those pictures. You will see where the right outside edge of the rear bridge is still there to contain the extractor tail, while the rest of the cut would go back and towards the center of the rear bridge.

A slightly longer ejector will change the timing of this case pivoting and get away some what from the case body hitting the rear bridge. BUT you will only be able to lengthen it about 1 mm. The BIG Problem caused by that is then the loaded rounds will have the tip of the bullet bumping/binding in the front bridge.

This is a two edged sword, too long of a ejector or ammo and the bullet nose binds. A normal length ejector and the case body bumps the rear bridge.

Can the rear bridge be altered, Yes it can but only SO MUCH unless a longer extractor is fitted

J Wisner

The answer is on page 16 of Duane's book, remove metal from that right angle in the front of the clip slot, the left hand arrow in the photo.
And yes don't remove too much as Jim said.

The OP has told us "I bought the rifle second hand but it was pretty new and hardly used, I have shot a fair amount with it and this weekends comp was the first time this problem presented itself. No3 round sits on left. As mentioned other cases are ejected 100%."

So we have a rifle the OP has shot a fair amount without issues then at a weekend comp it presented with this ejection problem but only for the fired case from the cartridge first out of the magazine, all other cases from cartridges subsequently stripped from the magazine and fired extract and eject perfectly as the OP's video shows.

Theories about how the rifle has been opened up for the longer cartridge and what should have been removed etc, etc, don't explain why the rifle has worked perfectly then suddenly started not ejecting the first case but does eject following cases.
If the cases and bullets have not changed from before and after, and the OP assures us they haven't, then something on the rifle has, or, the OP is not operating the bolt the same as he has prior to the issue arising. Maybe this was the first comp where the OP had to cycle the bolt quickly or hold the rifle differently than he has before so the issue only manifested itself at the comp due to a panic factor. No disrespect to the OP, just something that may have crept in.

Obviously whatever is the problem needs fixing and doing some work on the ejection port and ejector as dpcd is suggesting will be the fix.

Thank you all for your feedback it is really appreciated.
To answer some of the queries. We were doing the test outside under an acacia tree and the little leaves were raining down and I think that what appeared in the video.
To be honest we must have ejected and done this test close to 50 times and the results were completely consistent.
Once or twice I rammed the bolt back with excessive force and the cases barely flopped out the action.
Before I have any of the action ground I think this is the course of action I am going to take:
1. Get a new ejector spring
2. Lengthen ejector
3.Replace the magazine follower spring.

After each component is replaced I will do the test again and see if anything changes.

A new Ejector spring won't help; it ain't the spring that is the problem; since other brass ejects fine. And the spring is part of the bolt stop/ejector box.
And what JW said; altering Mausers is a balance of Goldilocks options; I make them work like the Pinball Wizard.
If I could see it, (or smell it), we could get it running.

By the looks of things your rifle is a 3 shot rifle. Two rounds on the right side of the magazine one on the left. Loading sequence right left right.
Feeding sequence right left right. Final round feeding off the follower.
What this means is when you fire your 1st round and go to eject the case, the next round that is sitting under the left rail will reduce available space under the rear bridge, in addition to the reduced available space we add the fact it is a belted magnum case head. The Belted magnum cases do have a tendency to hang up to a certain degree.

The video is proof positive you need to take the right rear upper corner of the E-port to get yourself needed extra tolerance to clear the case head and belt from the one below it that is still under the left rail.

By the way, somewhat related topic.
The smooth non-belted case head of the 404 Jeffery is slick and clean and free of belts this helps in both feeding and ejection of both live rounds and fired cases.

One other thing you will find out and I don't consider it as anything proper or correct.
When you attempt to eject fired #1 and its hanging by a thread at an angle at which it will likely not make it back into the chamber simply feed #2 off of the left rail, doing this will simply plow fired #1 out of the way sending off the side of the gun and onto the ground.

This function of plowing things out of the way with the bolt is much like the way these rifles worked in military configuration. Anyone who has used a Mauser in its military form will know that the operator can insert a stripper clip into the receiver shove all the rounds down and then simply plow the stripper out of the way with the nose of the bolt feeding the 1st round and getting rid of the stripper all in one jab of the bolt handle.

None of any of the proffered fixes explains why the rifle has ejected perfectly through a reasonable amount of use until the OP got to the DG competition where it started faulting. That to me says something has changed (with the rifle, ammunition or user operation), bent or broken.

The OP has used the rifle for sometime in it's opened up configuration without ejection issues. Before changing anything I would want to identify exactly what has changed.

On this thread you have advice given from the rifle feeding gods, Timan & D’Arcy.
Snav, there’s no easy way out of this, you need to remove metal.

OK, I'll dive into the rabbit hole: does your ejector have a round or oval hole?

Clearly, with the thumb notch, that is a military Mauser. And just as clearly, this is another good example of why converting a military action, designed to feed, fire, extract an 8mm cartridge with a case head of 0.470 diameter, to a belted magnum is a bad idea.

One issue I want to point out, the excessive bolt thrust loading from the service cartridge, using a 300 Win Mag as an example

From Cartridges of the World

8 mm case head diameter 0.470” Area 0.1735 square inches

300 Win Mag case head diameter 0.515” Area 0.2083 square inches

Bolt face loads

8mm (Mauser design loads) 0.1735 in ² X 43, 371 lbs/ in ² = 7, 525 lbs

300 Win Mag = 0.2083 in ² X 65,000 lbs/ in ² = 13, 539 lbs

The 300 Win Mag provides an 80% increase in bolt thrust over standard military loads.

And then, the action feed lips, magazine width, magazine length, were all made for 8mm class cartridges. I have a Mauser made for the 30-06, so there were longer service actions. And there were massive Mauser actions made specifically for the belted magnums. These actions are highly collectable.

The feed angle geometries of magazine, follower, and feed ramps were designed around an 8mm cartridge. And regardless of what profit seeking quack gunsmiths may claim, reliable feed and extraction of a larger, and longer cartridge, will always be problematic.

I recommend not spending any more "gunsmithing" money on this action, but rather trade it in at a local gunstore and buy a new rifle built specifically for the 375 H&H cartridge. Don't throw good money after bad.

I predict, at some point in the future, you will realize you are merely a continuance in a line of owners who had unsolvable issues with this rifle, and all previous owners passed the rifle down the line to the next dreamer.

Here we go again, the Mauser hater is on the pond talking BS.

quote:

Originally posted by copperlake:
OK, I'll dive into the rabbit hole: does your ejector have a round or oval hole?

Round. I asked him this offline and he sent pics. ;-)

Yeah, and the math is flawed too; pressure does not act on the case head OD; it can only act on the internal surface area. Also, cartridge. brass alone will hold almost 40K PSI, with dry cases, so the back thrust values are suspect.
People who actually hate Mausers that much should stop using them.
Meanwhile I am building a 300 Win Mag on a 91 Argentine.

quote:

Yeah, and the math is flawed too; pressure does not act on the case head OD; it can only act on the internal surface area.

Bolt thrust data is rather rare, the bolt thrust data I have seen, for a 223 Remington, when I took the measured load, which were with heavily lubricated cases, and backed into a case diameter, that would have placed it into the sidewalls. Which, if you take into consideration parasitic frictional losses, modeling the bolt thrust as OD is a better, safer way to model.

What is the coefficient of friction between case and chamber? And how do you maintain a perfectly clean case and chamber to maximize case and chamber friction? What happens if the barrel was recently wet patched? What about smooth chambers? The smoother the chamber finish, the less the case is able to grip the chamber. One of the worst case situations are chromed chambers. Again, what coefficients of friction do you assume when sizing lug size and receiver seats? What back thrust do you use to size your action?

But then, where is your bolt thrust data? The onus is on you, the manufacturer of your rifles, to know the loads and the limits of the rifles you make. So, share. What bolt thrust loads do you have?

quote:

Also, cartridge. brass alone will hold almost 40K PSI, with dry cases, so the back thrust values are suspect.

One inch of quarter hard brass has a yield of around 44,000 psia, so maybe that is where you are getting your numbers? Professor Boatwright, in his blog the well guided bullet, showed with maximum case adherence, when pressures hit around 24,000 psia with a 243 case, that was when the case sidewalls start to give way. And the interesting point he made, unless you are stretching the case sidewalls each and every time, you are not reducing bolt thrust. No case head separations, no bolt thrust reduction. And, that also means, crush fit cases, cases that are zero clearance in the chamber, (think neck sized cases) no sidewall stretch, no bolt thrust reduction.

So, how to you ensure that each and every cartridge has sufficient clearance between the case head and bolt face to ensure the case is stretching the sidewalls?

quote:

People who actually hate Mausers that much should stop using them.

Oh, I like Mausers, I do not like vintage actions. And, you have not convinced me that using an action made of vintage low grade plain carbon steels is particularly safe, and you have not convinced me that using actions, designed and built for 8 mm Mauser cartridges, operating at 43,000 psia cartridges, are safe to use in 65,000 psia applications, and more particularly belted magnum applications operating at 65,000 or more.

quote:

Meanwhile I am building a 300 Win Mag on a 91 Argentine.

Just this week I was discussing the safety of old guns at a Custom Gun Shop in Louisiana. The gunsmith there, pointed to a man in a picture on the wall. The “Old man” was in a line of people, included of which was the deceased owner, and National Bullseye Champion who started the business. The Old Man was one of those who was always pushing pressures in his guns. Old man had cracked the lugs off a P1914 chambered in 300 Win Magnum. And the Old man had blown the barrel of one of his rifles, taking off fingers of his left hand, which was holding the rifle at the time.

Maybe the owner of your 1891 Argentine Mauser in 300 Win Mag will post what his face and hands look like if the receiver or lugs blow. I sure as heck would not want to be behind an 1891 Argentine if there was a case head rupture of pierced primer.

No gas venting at all. No gas port holes to vent gas down the magazine. No third locking lug to block gas flow under the bolt



No stripper clip thumb cut that might vent gas out the side of the action.



The bolt root might keep the bolt in the gun if the lugs shear, but if the shooter gets a receiver ring in the forehead, or a firing pin in the eye, that will be small consolation.

Have you communicated these risks to your customer? Including the part where that rifle was never designed or built for the loads of a 300 Win Mag?

In the mean time, I am suggesting to the OP that his military Mauser conversion to 375 H&H is a pig in the poke and he should reconsider spending any more money on it. But it is his choice to go down the rabbit hole, and it is his money. I would be curious to know if the problem is ever fixed, or if he just gives up and passes that thing off to the next useful fool.

Ol' slammy has a rare form of Tourette's Syndrome; he can't help it, poor guy just HAS to pop off when he smells Mauser in the air. At least he didn't trot out his fav pics that we've all seen a dozen times...

And cp, you should be ashamed of yourself!

good lord

I am ashamed; baiting and reeling them in is getting way too easy. It's no longer a fair chase sport!

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I am ashamed; baiting and reeling them in is getting way too easy. It's no longer a fair chase sport!

You have no reply to my issues or questions other than sarcasm. That makes you a

Question: If the magazine follower spring loses tension slightly, could this possibly cause this issue? Perhaps not holding the cartridges securely enough causing movement somehow in the stack of cartridges which could be affecting the way this first cases is held by the bolt once it clears the 2nd cartridge?

Snav
I don't know thd answer to your question but how easy would it be for you to try a newer / stronger spring to test if it corrects the issue ? Worth a try I guess but one would think spring pressure would be strongest with a full magazine, becoming less as the magazine empties, not really correlating to ejection failure of the first fired case...??

Fair point.

I have another rifle which I could swop the spring with and see if it changes anything.

Worth trying a sprinv swap. You never know....

Remove All of the feed things. No anything. No follower or spring and try again.

quote:

Remove All of the feed things. No anything. No follower or spring and try again.

Or, just open the floorplate letting both follower and spring hang down. No need to separate anything.

quote:

Originally posted by SlamFire:
Clearly, with the thumb notch, that is a military Mauser. And just as clearly, this is another good example of why converting a military action, designed to feed, fire, extract an 8mm cartridge with a case head of 0.470 diameter, to a belted magnum is a bad idea.

One issue I want to point out, the excessive bolt thrust loading from the service cartridge, using a 300 Win Mag as an example

From Cartridges of the World

8 mm case head diameter 0.470” Area 0.1735 square inches

300 Win Mag case head diameter 0.515” Area 0.2083 square inches

Bolt face loads

8mm (Mauser design loads) 0.1735 in ² X 43, 371 lbs/ in ² = 7, 525 lbs

300 Win Mag = 0.2083 in ² X 65,000 lbs/ in ² = 13, 539 lbs

The 300 Win Mag provides an 80% increase in bolt thrust over standard military loads.

And then, the action feed lips, magazine width, magazine length, were all made for 8mm class cartridges. I have a Mauser made for the 30-06, so there were longer service actions. And there were massive Mauser actions made specifically for the belted magnums. These actions are highly collectable.

The feed angle geometries of magazine, follower, and feed ramps were designed around an 8mm cartridge. And regardless of what profit seeking quack gunsmiths may claim, reliable feed and extraction of a larger, and longer cartridge, will always be problematic.

I recommend not spending any more "gunsmithing" money on this action, but rather trade it in at a local gunstore and buy a new rifle built specifically for the 375 H&H cartridge. Don't throw good money after bad.

I predict, at some point in the future, you will realize you are merely a continuance in a line of owners who had unsolvable issues with this rifle, and all previous owners passed the rifle down the line to the next dreamer.

wow, you really are full of *hit aren’t you? Your understanding of physics and internal firearms ballistics is so flawed, with so many obviously false assumptions it makes your biased and incorrect opinions about Mausers laughable. To pick the easiest one - as dpcd also pointed out - calculating external bolt thrust directly and solely from internal cartridge pressure and bolt face area is just plain dumb. They have some connection, but I might as well try and calculate the breakaway force of my tyres from Tyre pressure using your logic. That p=f/a formula models a perfect world hydraulic piston with externally acting fluid pressure from one direction, not a cartridge with internally generated pressure.

You ask what the coefficient of friction between the brass and the chamber is, and how you define clean. Even if these remain unanswered, the fact still remains they are massive factors. EVEN if the chamber and case were fully lubed with a thick coating of moly grease, the coefficient of friction would be a long way off one, making the friction force large (and even larger with larger pressure). Maybe if both the chamber and cartridge were mirror polished hardened steel it would start approaching 1. But it’s not, and even a light film of oil is still going to leave a high enough coefficient to make the assumption it’s negligible fatally flawed. Why would you say because we forum members don’t know that coefficient off the top of our heads mean it isn’t a massive factor in the calculation of bolt thrust?

And then there’s the blatantly flawed assumption that 8x57 is the service limit of all mausers. You’re assuming they were designed with 8x57 as the maximum ever conceived cartridge by Paul mauser. For one thing they offered at least a 10.75x68 in their 98s (I know it was lower pressure than some modern loadings, I’ll get to that). He clearly designed an action that is capable of taking far more thrust and pressure than the low pressure and thrust carriages of the day - maybe he could see the way things would evolve? Either way, several well known commercial manufacturers were very happy to build and put their name on rifles built with original 98 standard actions on rifles chambered on 65k psi rounds like 270 (many still do to this day, Voere to name one). Even though it’s the barrel chamber taking the pressure, it has never been accepted in the gunsmithing trade that 98s aren’t capable of taking 270 or magnums. Husqvarna even decided it was safe to chamber 308 and 270 in 96 actions. Quite a few made 375 H&H on standard length 98s, which are not known for backthrust issues.

So you recommend not bothering to resolve this ejection issue - based on your biased opinion or ignorance? You reckon the majority of larger cartridges have feeding/ejection issues on standard 98s? I’m sure at least 90% of all longer-than-30/06 length carriages on 98s built by a competent smith feed and eject perfectly, and 9% of the remainder can easily be made to. I’ve known several, none with issues. Maybe I’m really lucky? Must be a coincidence. Why on earth would snav trade this rifle in on a rifle that’s probably not as good in many ways? What a pathetic defeatist attitude. I assume that’s just the way you operate - “oh it has a problem I’d better trade it”. So why did zastava build a 375 h&h on a standard length 98? Or Jeffery build his 404s on standard length? To name a couple out of hundreds. You think they all had feeding/ejection issues when they left the factories - is that why they were so popular? Yes they switched to magnum when they could, but that was to reduce there production costs by eliminating the time spent converting them.

I’ve had and used considerably more push feed rifles with feed and ejection issues than 98s, I guess that means they’re all junk and no one should ever bother with them?

Did you miss the part where snav said it used to eject perfectly? Or did you just ignore it because it doesn’t fit with your propaganda message?

Sorry for the de-rail snav, but i feel this sort of disinformation mustn’t go unchecked

quote:

Originally posted by brnomauser:
wow, you really are full of *hit aren’t you? Your understanding of physics and internal firearms ballistics is so flawed, with so many obviously false assumptions it makes your biased and incorrect opinions about Mausers laughable. To pick the easiest one - as dpcd also pointed out - calculating external bolt thrust directly and solely from internal cartridge pressure and bolt face area is just plain dumb. They have some connection, but I might as well try and calculate the breakaway force of my tyres from Tyre pressure using your logic. That p=f/a formula models a perfect world hydraulic piston with externally acting fluid pressure from one direction, not a cartridge with internally generated pressure.
You ask what the coefficient of friction between the brass and the chamber is, and how you define clean. Even if these remain unanswered, the fact still remains they are massive factors. EVEN if the chamber and case were fully lubed with a thick coating of moly grease, the coefficient of friction would be a long way off one, making the friction force large (and even larger with larger pressure). Maybe if both the chamber and cartridge were mirror polished hardened steel it would start approaching 1. But it’s not, and even a light film of oil is still going to leave a high enough coefficient to make the assumption it’s negligible fatally flawed. Why would you say because we forum members don’t know that coefficient off the top of our heads mean it isn’t a massive factor in the calculation of bolt thrust?

How would you size the lugs on a bolt action? How do you calculate bolt thrust?

This is how Llija does it:
https://riflebarrels.com/a-look-at-bolt-lug-strength/

Now Llija does assume an ID, but, others books assume OD. There are good reasons to use OD, as I said, the bolt thrust data I have with a heavily lubricated 223 cartridge, when you back into case diameter, the load is in the sidewall. I therefore consider OD, and not assuming cartridge friction a more conservative way to size the lugs. Also OD applies if there is a case head separation.

Notice, Llija does not weaken the locking system assuming that the case carries load. Neither do the designers who wrote the Brassey’s “Military Small Arms”. No gun design book I have assumes the case carries load and weakens the mechanism thereby. At rifle matches I have been able to talk to cartridge makers, gun designers, and cannon designers! None of them assume the cartridge's purpose is to remove load from the locking mechanism. A cartridge is a gas seal, it must be supported or it will burst. Stressing it is bad. If you assume the cartridge carries load, then by how much would you weaken the locking mechanism assuming the case is carrying load?

So, how would you size the locking mechanism?

quote:

And then there’s the blatantly flawed assumption that 8x57 is the service limit of all mausers. You’re assuming they were designed with 8x57 as the maximum ever conceived cartridge by Paul mauser. For one thing they offered at least a 10.75x68 in their 98s (I know it was lower pressure than some modern loadings, I’ll get to that). He clearly designed an action that is capable of taking far more thrust and pressure than the low pressure and thrust carriages of the day - maybe he could see the way things would evolve?

Your comments on what Paul Mauser used to design his action are interesting. I know that the period cartridges of the era, that is the 7 X 57, 8 X 57, and even the .6.5 X 55, the maximum pressures were 3000 atmospheres. And it is reasonable to assume that Mauser sized his action for those loads. (and why would he add un necessary weight to service rifle?) But you claim special knowledge. Do you have Paul Mauser’s design notebook? How about making that public.

quote:

Either way, several well known commercial manufacturers were very happy to build and put their name on rifles built with original 98 standard actions on rifles chambered on 65k psi rounds like 270 (many still do to this day, Voere to name one). Even though it’s the barrel chamber taking the pressure, it has never been accepted in the gunsmithing trade that 98s aren’t capable of taking 270 or magnums. Husqvarna even decided it was safe to chamber 308 and 270 in 96 actions. Quite a few made 375 H&H on standard length 98s, which are not known for backthrust issues.

I do not recommend using a pressure vessel at pressures above what it was originally designed and built. Your discussion shows you know nothing about vintage metallurgy. Do you believe the Kaiser had a cell phone? He was lucky to have in door plumbing and gas lights. You confuse the materials of WW1 through WW2 with the materials of today.

If someone were to tout the wonderful benefits of 1G cell phone technology, I am certain you would know 1G technology is inferior to 4G and even 5G. But Mauser Cultists literally believe 1900 or earlier metallurgy is equal or superior to the metallurgy of today.

No one uses those old plain carbon steels for firearms. (black powder excepted). And those period plain carbon steels, even the cheapest plain carbon steel Chinese bolts and nuts are superior in strength and fatigue life to those vintage steels due to the lack of residuals and slag. Both of which are intrinsic to early materials. Cultists know nothing of this. And they don't want to know either. The High Priests of the Mauser cult have closets full of old actions, and make their money feeding the delusions of the ignorant. Recently I purchases a $65.00 transmission flywheel, called the manufacturer and found they use 4340. Maybe the Mauser Cultists ought to call the chief metallurgist and convince him to use 1035 steel, and not only 1035, but 120 year old 1035.

I am 100% certain that modern Mauser M98's made of modern alloy steels are capable of handing higher pressures, and will take longer to crack lugs or deform the receiver seats. The FN Deluxe actions used by Weatherby were cracking lugs and could not hold up to his cartridges, so he had to design a new action, and that was in the 1950’s. I do not know what materials were used in FN Deluxe actions, and they were sold in 30-06 and 270 Win, but I am aware of issues of lugs cracking on a FN commercial action that was built in 264 Win Mag.






Firearms from the 1950’s can be hard, they can be soft. It was still the vacuum tube era and while process control were vastly better than WW1, they are vastly inferior to modern process control technology. I am not going to risk my health, my face and hands, by stressing old guns made out of old materials beyond their design limits. You can do whatever you want.

I highly disagree taking pre WW2 actions and pushing them at pressures they were never designed nor built for. And none of the advocates of this, have provided any sort of analysis showing that it is safe and prudent.

I will continue to piss on the all the collections of customized Military Mausers made into cartridges inappropriate for the structural limits of the actions. I have seen some works of art, at reasonable prices, saw the cartridge the rifle was chambered in, and passed on them. And, when an individual factors into the initial cost of a military Mauser action (hundreds) adds in the machining, drilling, tapping, face truing, lug truing, receiver face truing, (hundreds), heat treatment (hundreds), bluing (couple hundred maybe?) and then the turning and chambering a new custom barrel (three to four hundreds) aftermarket stock (hundreds to thousands for extra fancy Walnuts) and then mounts, rings, irons, glass bedding, single stage trigger, aftermarket safety, etc. (what have I forgotten?) and the final product is going to be well over $1000, probably closer to 2000 dollars. It just does not make sense to spend all that money on some old military action that the owner has no idea if it will grenade in front of his face, when a modern rifle can be had for under $1000. Handled a nice new Savage that was ticketed for $350. I think it was Axis XP. Good price for a beater.

quote:

So you recommend not bothering to resolve this ejection issue - based on your biased opinion or ignorance? You reckon the majority of larger cartridges have feeding/ejection issues on standard 98s? I’m sure at least 90% of all longer-than-30/06 length carriages on 98s built by a competent smith feed and eject perfectly, and 9% of the remainder can easily be made to. I’ve known several, none with issues. Maybe I’m really lucky? Must be a coincidence. Why on earth would snav trade this rifle in on a rifle that’s probably not as good in many ways? What a pathetic defeatist attitude. I assume that’s just the way you operate - “oh it has a problem I’d better trade it”. So why did zastava build a 375 h&h on a standard length 98? Or Jeffery build his 404s on standard length? To name a couple out of hundreds. You think they all had feeding/ejection issues when they left the factories - is that why they were so popular? Yes they switched to magnum when they could, but that was to reduce there production costs by eliminating the time spent converting them.

Factories can, and do, analyze action geometry, have the capability to add material where needed, machine the feed lips, bend magazine boxes, and produce a rifle that will feed belted magnum cartridges. At least responsible factories. There are irresponsible brands that shovel out junk. A gunsmith taking a military Mauser action, and whittling on it to make it feed a belted magnum, that’s like those guys who shoe horned 350 V8’s into Volkswagen beetles. No problems there, obviously. No cooling, frame stretch, or center of gravity issues there, right? Hey, it’s the OP’s money. If it don’t work, then it is more money. An individual has to know when to hold them, when to fold them, when to walk away, or when to run.

Why don’t you Cultists start a crowd funding activity, and fund the materials and labor the OP needs to make his military Mauser work? Money talks, BS walks.

quote:

I’ve had and used considerably more push feed rifles with feed and ejection issues than 98s, I guess that means they’re all junk and no one should ever bother with them?

I remember an old lady who called. It was a wrong number. She continued calling in the hope that my phone number would eventually turn into the right number. She probably had dementia. So, did you continue buying the same models of push feed rifles that did not feed and eject well, in the hope that the next one would be perfect?

Maybe this is an example where the factory did not break the design and design a new action specific to the cartridge. I will bet some of those same guys designed the Boeing 737 Max. You know, the bailing wire and duct tape design that is so unstable that it requires automation to keep the plane level. A couple of times, the automation got confused and crashed the plane. I have seen a number of gunsmithed actions converted to radical new cartridges that were very unreliable in feed and extraction. The owners were very frustrated.

quote:

Did you miss the part where snav said it used to eject perfectly? Or did you just ignore it because it doesn’t fit with your propaganda message?

Used to work. Does not work now. So what’s the OP’s problem? You know the fix?: tell him.

Hey Scamfire, when will it dawn on you that no one gives a shit what you say.
And if the only reason you participate in these threads is to piss on customised military Mausers, it just proves that you are nothing more than a toxic idiot.

Snav,
Was hoping for an update by now on whether this issue was resolved, and how. Hoping you can post a reply.
Cheers

How did I miss ol' Slammy's latest repetition? I wish he would, at the very least, come up with some new pics seeing as how mauser's are blowing up every day killing and maiming so many it would seem that he would have a copious supply of new material.

quote:

Originally posted by SlamFire:

quote:

Originally posted by brnomauser:
wow, you really are full of *hit aren’t you? Your understanding of physics and internal firearms ballistics is so flawed, with so many obviously false assumptions it makes your biased and incorrect opinions about Mausers laughable. To pick the easiest one - as dpcd also pointed out - calculating external bolt thrust directly and solely from internal cartridge pressure and bolt face area is just plain dumb. They have some connection, but I might as well try and calculate the breakaway force of my tyres from Tyre pressure using your logic. That p=f/a formula models a perfect world hydraulic piston with externally acting fluid pressure from one direction, not a cartridge with internally generated pressure.
You ask what the coefficient of friction between the brass and the chamber is, and how you define clean. Even if these remain unanswered, the fact still remains they are massive factors. EVEN if the chamber and case were fully lubed with a thick coating of moly grease, the coefficient of friction would be a long way off one, making the friction force large (and even larger with larger pressure). Maybe if both the chamber and cartridge were mirror polished hardened steel it would start approaching 1. But it’s not, and even a light film of oil is still going to leave a high enough coefficient to make the assumption it’s negligible fatally flawed. Why would you say because we forum members don’t know that coefficient off the top of our heads mean it isn’t a massive factor in the calculation of bolt thrust?

How would you size the lugs on a bolt action? How do you calculate bolt thrust?

This is how Llija does it:
https://riflebarrels.com/a-look-at-bolt-lug-strength/

Now Llija does assume an ID, but, others books assume OD. There are good reasons to use OD, as I said, the bolt thrust data I have with a heavily lubricated 223 cartridge, when you back into case diameter, the load is in the sidewall. I therefore consider OD, and not assuming cartridge friction a more conservative way to size the lugs. Also OD applies if there is a case head separation.

Notice, Llija does not weaken the locking system assuming that the case carries load. Neither do the designers who wrote the Brassey’s “Military Small Arms”. No gun design book I have assumes the case carries load and weakens the mechanism thereby. At rifle matches I have been able to talk to cartridge makers, gun designers, and cannon designers! None of them assume the cartridge's purpose is to remove load from the locking mechanism. A cartridge is a gas seal, it must be supported or it will burst. Stressing it is bad. If you assume the cartridge carries load, then by how much would you weaken the locking mechanism assuming the case is carrying load?

So, how would you size the locking mechanism?

quote:

And then there’s the blatantly flawed assumption that 8x57 is the service limit of all mausers. You’re assuming they were designed with 8x57 as the maximum ever conceived cartridge by Paul mauser. For one thing they offered at least a 10.75x68 in their 98s (I know it was lower pressure than some modern loadings, I’ll get to that). He clearly designed an action that is capable of taking far more thrust and pressure than the low pressure and thrust carriages of the day - maybe he could see the way things would evolve?

Your comments on what Paul Mauser used to design his action are interesting. I know that the period cartridges of the era, that is the 7 X 57, 8 X 57, and even the .6.5 X 55, the maximum pressures were 3000 atmospheres. And it is reasonable to assume that Mauser sized his action for those loads. (and why would he add un necessary weight to service rifle?) But you claim special knowledge. Do you have Paul Mauser’s design notebook? How about making that public.

quote:

Either way, several well known commercial manufacturers were very happy to build and put their name on rifles built with original 98 standard actions on rifles chambered on 65k psi rounds like 270 (many still do to this day, Voere to name one). Even though it’s the barrel chamber taking the pressure, it has never been accepted in the gunsmithing trade that 98s aren’t capable of taking 270 or magnums. Husqvarna even decided it was safe to chamber 308 and 270 in 96 actions. Quite a few made 375 H&H on standard length 98s, which are not known for backthrust issues.

I do not recommend using a pressure vessel at pressures above what it was originally designed and built. Your discussion shows you know nothing about vintage metallurgy. Do you believe the Kaiser had a cell phone? He was lucky to have in door plumbing and gas lights. You confuse the materials of WW1 through WW2 with the materials of today.

If someone were to tout the wonderful benefits of 1G cell phone technology, I am certain you would know 1G technology is inferior to 4G and even 5G. But Mauser Cultists literally believe 1900 or earlier metallurgy is equal or superior to the metallurgy of today.

No one uses those old plain carbon steels for firearms. (black powder excepted). And those period plain carbon steels, even the cheapest plain carbon steel Chinese bolts and nuts are superior in strength and fatigue life to those vintage steels due to the lack of residuals and slag. Both of which are intrinsic to early materials. Cultists know nothing of this. And they don't want to know either. The High Priests of the Mauser cult have closets full of old actions, and make their money feeding the delusions of the ignorant. Recently I purchases a $65.00 transmission flywheel, called the manufacturer and found they use 4340. Maybe the Mauser Cultists ought to call the chief metallurgist and convince him to use 1035 steel, and not only 1035, but 120 year old 1035.

I am 100% certain that modern Mauser M98's made of modern alloy steels are capable of handing higher pressures, and will take longer to crack lugs or deform the receiver seats. The FN Deluxe actions used by Weatherby were cracking lugs and could not hold up to his cartridges, so he had to design a new action, and that was in the 1950’s. I do not know what materials were used in FN Deluxe actions, and they were sold in 30-06 and 270 Win, but I am aware of issues of lugs cracking on a FN commercial action that was built in 264 Win Mag.






Firearms from the 1950’s can be hard, they can be soft. It was still the vacuum tube era and while process control were vastly better than WW1, they are vastly inferior to modern process control technology. I am not going to risk my health, my face and hands, by stressing old guns made out of old materials beyond their design limits. You can do whatever you want.

I highly disagree taking pre WW2 actions and pushing them at pressures they were never designed nor built for. And none of the advocates of this, have provided any sort of analysis showing that it is safe and prudent.

I will continue to piss on the all the collections of customized Military Mausers made into cartridges inappropriate for the structural limits of the actions. I have seen some works of art, at reasonable prices, saw the cartridge the rifle was chambered in, and passed on them. And, when an individual factors into the initial cost of a military Mauser action (hundreds) adds in the machining, drilling, tapping, face truing, lug truing, receiver face truing, (hundreds), heat treatment (hundreds), bluing (couple hundred maybe?) and then the turning and chambering a new custom barrel (three to four hundreds) aftermarket stock (hundreds to thousands for extra fancy Walnuts) and then mounts, rings, irons, glass bedding, single stage trigger, aftermarket safety, etc. (what have I forgotten?) and the final product is going to be well over $1000, probably closer to 2000 dollars. It just does not make sense to spend all that money on some old military action that the owner has no idea if it will grenade in front of his face, when a modern rifle can be had for under $1000. Handled a nice new Savage that was ticketed for $350. I think it was Axis XP. Good price for a beater.

quote:

So you recommend not bothering to resolve this ejection issue - based on your biased opinion or ignorance? You reckon the majority of larger cartridges have feeding/ejection issues on standard 98s? I’m sure at least 90% of all longer-than-30/06 length carriages on 98s built by a competent smith feed and eject perfectly, and 9% of the remainder can easily be made to. I’ve known several, none with issues. Maybe I’m really lucky? Must be a coincidence. Why on earth would snav trade this rifle in on a rifle that’s probably not as good in many ways? What a pathetic defeatist attitude. I assume that’s just the way you operate - “oh it has a problem I’d better trade it”. So why did zastava build a 375 h&h on a standard length 98? Or Jeffery build his 404s on standard length? To name a couple out of hundreds. You think they all had feeding/ejection issues when they left the factories - is that why they were so popular? Yes they switched to magnum when they could, but that was to reduce there production costs by eliminating the time spent converting them.

Factories can, and do, analyze action geometry, have the capability to add material where needed, machine the feed lips, bend magazine boxes, and produce a rifle that will feed belted magnum cartridges. At least responsible factories. There are irresponsible brands that shovel out junk. A gunsmith taking a military Mauser action, and whittling on it to make it feed a belted magnum, that’s like those guys who shoe horned 350 V8’s into Volkswagen beetles. No problems there, obviously. No cooling, frame stretch, or center of gravity issues there, right? Hey, it’s the OP’s money. If it don’t work, then it is more money. An individual has to know when to hold them, when to fold them, when to walk away, or when to run.

Why don’t you Cultists start a crowd funding activity, and fund the materials and labor the OP needs to make his military Mauser work? Money talks, BS walks.

quote:

I’ve had and used considerably more push feed rifles with feed and ejection issues than 98s, I guess that means they’re all junk and no one should ever bother with them?

I remember an old lady who called. It was a wrong number. She continued calling in the hope that my phone number would eventually turn into the right number. She probably had dementia. So, did you continue buying the same models of push feed rifles that did not feed and eject well, in the hope that the next one would be perfect?

Maybe this is an example where the factory did not break the design and design a new action specific to the cartridge. I will bet some of those same guys designed the Boeing 737 Max. You know, the bailing wire and duct tape design that is so unstable that it requires automation to keep the plane level. A couple of times, the automation got confused and crashed the plane. I have seen a number of gunsmithed actions converted to radical new cartridges that were very unreliable in feed and extraction. The owners were very frustrated.

Do you want to have a rational conversation or be moronic? You sound like whats his name that threw a hissy fit and left. He didn't like dealing with "facts" and "information".

If you actually want to have a conversation about Mauser's great, lets have a conversation, but drop the "cultist" bullshit, and stop the stupidity. No one, not even those most avid Mauser enthusiast thinks that the metallurgy of a pre WWI or pre WWII Mauser is superior to today. Have you taken the time to actually RESEARCH any of the claims you are making?

A great deal of your numbers and information are wrong, and if you want to learn, then great, but there is no reason to be an idiot about it.

Nearly all the Pre WWI rifles were pressure tested at manufacture for 4000 ATM, post WWI most were tested to 6000ATM. At 6k ATM Mauser tested chamber elongation along with several other aspects during testing. The metallurgy was absolutely improved from pre WWI to pre WWII as was the heat treating process. Mauser tested bolts up to 100k psi leading up to WWII.

In 1895 when Paul first put together the "98" action and it was tested in its original 6mm form by the German government, he very likely did not know that his action would be continuously improved upon and used with cartridges several magnitudes beyond its original design. Then again, maybe he did. Since he continued to grow the design over nearly 5 decades.

Weatherby cracked lugs, what were the pressures of his test cartridges? What was the hardness of the lugs? Material? Heat treat process? There are endless questions to determine what the issue was. Was it Weatherby? Was it FN?

When I was at the Colorado School of Trades there was a Remington 700 on the wall that the bolt had no locking lugs. The shooter nearly died from the bolt hitting him in the face. Was that a metallurgy failure? Was that a design failure? No, it was an idiot failure. Your 264 is one example out of how many? (side tangent about your flywheel, I would love to know what company you called and the phone number you called. No Tier 1 automaker will release materials. And, this may come as a shock, a good portion of your transmission components are made from 1005 and 1010.)

I'd love to see who these cultists are that you refer to, you used to call them zealots, are they different, or the same people? Cause I know some really big Mauser fans but none of them think the things you claim they think.

And, one final point, Paul Mauser's design books (books, as in plural) are in a private collection, but parts of them have been made public. A great deal of the Mauser companies historical papers are public as well. If I had chosen an affluent career, maybe I would own them, but alas, I chose this one.

Slamfire,

Please, go away.

You are doing nothing but taking up space.

Don't go away mad.

But please, just go away.

Great reply Fal. I’m still new here but have noticed a trend. Slamfire repeats the same fabricated bull*hit over and over. He doesn’t read the detailed technical replies, or doesn’t understand them, or ignores them if they don’t fit his biased agenda. Frankly I think the mods should boot him off the forum as all he does is spread misinformation which is bad for the industry. Eventually someone’s going to take his fantasies as fact which will be unfortunate… it’s like he was beaten with a Mauser when he was young and taken it as his life mission to turn the world against them.

His standard tactic is to take a minor detail from a post, change its context, fabricate some pseudo-science to support a wild assertion and attach a random out of context photo that fits his story, while making assumptions about other posters’ backgrounds that are completely wide of the mark. Essentially fitting the definition of “fu*ckwit” unerring well. Its a testament to the patience and dedication to technical expertise and knowledge of people on this forum that they are still replying to his imbecilic posts

One thing to remember, about the M98 system is that it is OVER ENGINEERED, to the point of absolute redundancy.

The M98 design is all about safety and reliability in that order.

Bolt lug failure is rare, however if that happens to anyone, lord...my it be on a M98 as the 3rd lug on the bolt is there just for that reason.

The reason being,....in the Event of a double front locking lug failure there is a 3rd, safety lug on the rear of the bolt to protect the shooter from being killed or seriously injured by a bolt being blown out of the receiver.

Roughly ten years ago at a rifle range about 5 miles from me. There was a guy KILLED DEAD ON THE SPOT by a Remington 700 in 243 Win. both front lugs failed and the bolt body itself just kept on truckin, right thru the dudes head. The bolt body? which was pretty much a .700 diameter bullet at that point sheared its silver soldered bolt handle with ease.

Any and I do mean any, all the way back to the 1st M98 ever built, serial #1 case hardened with whatever means the Gerrys could scrape together may have failed to function after such an overpressure. Wrecked the rifle, yes, death to shooter? not happening.
The guy would still be with us.

Right through the poor bugger's head? Seriously? Wow. We forget the immense pressures we unleash when we fire a rifle.

I have seen a couple of 700s fired with pistol powder; nothing like that happened. In fact, the shooter did not even know what happened until he broke the bolt handle off with a hammer. I disassembled them.

Barrel obstruction

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I have seen a couple of 700s fired with pistol powder; nothing like that happened. In fact, the shooter did not even know what happened until he broke the bolt handle off with a hammer. I disassembled them.