Here is one I did for myself; I made it in .410 groove diameter as I already load for the 450-400 and there is no reason for the .423 to start with (Mauser was already making them so convinced Jeffery to take it). I use mostly the 300 grain Hornady .411s made for the 405 WCF. I made the stock pattern. Douglas barrel I contoured. Arg 1909 Action. I made the peep.

G'Day Fella's,

Apprentice, are you copying my rifle or something?
Just kidding!!!
Apprentice, I have a .404 Jeffery rifle that was made by Australian "Best Grade" Gunsmith, Ross Waghorn.
It has a Browning Safari, magnum length action, 3 Position safety, barrel banded front sling swivel, Talley rings and bases etc.

Let me know if I can be of any assistance with details!

Doh!
Homer

yes it does. I have a Mauser M 03. The rifle is either 'on safe' bolt closed and unable to open or in the 'fire' mode. I really prefer that method!

Nice Rifle dpcd! Good idea!

dpcd, That is a pretty neat set up you got there. Is that a swivel stud that you used for the rear peep? Your are one crafty fella.

HomerOz, You should post some pics of your rig. I'd love to see it and I know everyone here likes gun porn.

I have decided to go the Wisner 2-position safety conversion route. Now all I need is a suitable bolt sleeve, the one currently on the action is not a good candidate. I'm looking at the shroud that is on dpcd's rifle. You see how it is almost "straight" on the top, except for the shoulder in the rear? Most of the "military" shrouds I am seeing have a step or two in them. I would like to find one of these clean looking shrouds, like what is on dpcd's rifle or like what is on this rifle:


See how nice and clean those lines look? That's what I am after. Now, where to begin looking for bolt sleeves...

Well, I had an interesting find in one of my gunsafes. I found an almost pristine 1909 Argentine Mauser, DWM manufacture. Pretty bad that I'm only 29 and forgetting about the guns I had stored away. Anywho, should I consider this for the build? It would be a bit more nostalgic, but I wonder about the metallurgy of the 1909 vs the FN commercial action. I would enjoy your thoughts on this gentlemen(and ladies???).

Can you see that mine is made from a 1909? True, these are prone to lug setback, but I am not going to shoot it thousands of rounds anyway. And these rounds operate at pretty low pressures; I have not calculated the back thrust but I guess I should. The FN commercial would certainly be a stronger action if that is what you want. I use 1909s on lots of builds. I can't believe you caught me on that peep; I got tired and used that in a hurry and it worked so well I never went back and made a real one. Bolt shrouds are easy to get; just look until you find an early one without the step in the top of it. And you can grind it flat too.

quote:

Originally posted by Apprentice:
Anywho, should I consider this for the build? It would be a bit more nostalgic, but I wonder about the metallurgy of the 1909 vs the FN commercial action. I would enjoy your thoughts on this gentlemen(and ladies???).

It should work fine with standard loads. For extra peace of mind, send the action to Pacific metallurgy, after the feed work is done, for recarburizing/heat treat.

When I do magnums, I don't use pre WW1 actions; I use VZ4s usually. I don't want to but spend money having them re-heat treated. But for this and other standards/low pressure rounds, I use the Arg 1909s and Brazilian 08s.

I'll just go with my original choice, the FN Mauser. Better safe than sorry. I've been needing a nice 7x57, which the 1909 would fill that void nicely. The bottom metal came in last weekend, I finally got around to taking some pictures for those interested.



As you can see, there's quite a bit of room in there. It makes the factory FN metal look tiny. Makes the factory stuff feel cheap too(sigh). Getting closer everyday. Hopefully the barrel will be here in about another month.

Well, Duane has me convinced that the 1909 action will do just fine. After all, I don't plan on hot rodding loads. If I wanted something hotter I would have built a 416. I am going to take a look and see if I can't find another action(1935 Chilean or 1909 Argentine), just for grins. Never hurts to have a contingency. I started a thread in the classifieds to aid my search.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
OK...before the "1909 Argentine police" have a terminal fit.....I only mentioned to Apprentice that in my personal observation of over 40 years, I have not PERSONALLY seen a 1909 with set back.

On the other hand, I have had in my shop two FN's with set back.. One in 7x61 S&H the other 7mm Mashburn Super Magnum.

Probably means nothing in the "round up"

Well look at that. A new member!

After some thinking, here are my thoughts on the matter(disclaimer: I am in no way an expert and I admit to knowing nothing about metallurgy and the subject of lug set-back). When Duane mentioned set back on the FN's, I wasn't all that surprised because of the cartridges he said they were chambered in. In my feeble attempt to process this I have come to three(and a half) conclusions on the "soft(er)" reciever issue.

A. Reloaders didn't know when to quit. Judging the fact that the cartridges Duane mentioned were both "velocity" cartridges, I have a tendency to think maybe reloaders were pushing the envelope in the pressure department. Just think of how many wildcats were built on older, "softer receivers". Not to mention poor reloading data. Ever tried to use the loads out of PO Ackleys books? Just because the primer hasn't disentigrated yet, doesn't mean things are ok...

B. Poor headspace... Either because of the gunsmith, poor case forming techniques causing loose headspace, OR poor universal cartridge dimensions(think SAAMI). I tend to lean on the latter two for root causes.

C. This is the 1/2 I was talking about and it's a stretch. If the heat treatment on these receivers consisted of essentially hardening the surface, wouldn't it be detrimental if a person was to "over-lap" the bolt lugs when attempting to get 100% contact, not to mention truing them up on a lathe?

D. Any or all of the above.

Like I said, I really have no idea what I'm talking about, but it is just my hypothesis of the matter. I think any gun built right, and fed quality ammunition should perform well without self destructing.

I'm not riflesmith, but I think your (3), cutting through the heat treat when lapping lugs, etc., may not be too far fetched (Not just on 1909s, but any firearm). My past experience runs mostly with AR-pattern rifles, and this is a COMMON problem with shade-tree trigger jobs. Someone thinks they can save a few buck by working the bearing surfaces of their fire control group themselves, end up going too far and get to the zone that is normally under the heat treated section, and end up ruining their parts.

I don't know how deep the heat treat goes on a Mauser receiver. You'd probably have to lap the hell out of the bolt lugs to break through to softer metal?

Pre WW1 actions are not case hardened as deep as later actions. I have seen two Argentine 09s with lug set back, years ago some dealer or distributor used to re-chamber them to 30-06. Both the ones I saw (back in the late 70s or early 80s) had been done that way. Apparently the 06 was enough extra back thrust to set the lugs back. BUT, I have used them for lots of sporters without problems; like I said, I don't use them for magnum rounds. Just low pressure stuff like 7mms, 404s; I am working on now now in 35 Rem.

dpcd, according to research there was a reason for the .423" diameter bullet in the development of the 404 Jeffery cartridge. An article on the .404 in Big Bore Journal No.21 March 2007 contains this information.

According to the article the .423" bullet (400gr) was developed to suit a shorter fatter cartridge duplicating the 450/400 3" while keeping the pressure at a safe level for modified standard length Mauser M98s that Jeffery used instead of paying for the magnum length actions only Rigby could supply.

Whether these reasons are valid today with the modern smokeless powder we have instead of the old cordite that was used back then, is doubtful as even some factory 404 ammo has been loaded to much higher specification than that of old.

So you would most likely be correct in stating that 'today' there is no reason for the .423" bullet but there was a reason when the 404 was developed back around 1905.

BTW nicely made and finished 404 you have there.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Apprentice:


HomerOz, You should post some pics of your rig. I'd love to see it and I know everyone here likes gun porn.

G'Day Fella's,

Apprentice, unfortunately I don't know how to post images with Photo Bucket etc!
How about I send you a PM with my email address and you can contact me and I'll send you the description and images?

Being a computer Luddite sux!!!

Doh!
Homer

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:
dpcd, according to research there was a reason for the .423" diameter bullet in the development of the 404 Jeffery cartridge. An article on the .404 in Big Bore Journal No.21 March 2007 contains this information.

According to the article the .423" bullet (400gr) was developed to suit a shorter fatter cartridge duplicating the 450/400 3" while keeping the pressure at a safe level for modified standard length Mauser M98s that Jeffery used instead of paying for the magnum length actions only Rigby could supply

We know Jeffery was building their 404's on standard length actions in 1905 with modified magazine boxes as mine was built in 1907 with a standard length commercial action produced in 1902.
But if I read the Mauser sales records correctly in Speed's book,other than the earliest "stepped" actions built for the .350 Rigby, there were no magnum actions until 1912.
Speed states that "the first 20 magnum .416 actions" were ordered by Rigby on Aug 28, 1912.
It wasn't until the larger magnum actions were developed and open to the trade that builders started using them.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:
dpcd, according to research there was a reason for the .423" diameter bullet in the development of the 404 Jeffery cartridge. An article on the .404 in Big Bore Journal No.21 March 2007 contains this information.

According to the article the .423" bullet (400gr) was developed to suit a shorter fatter cartridge duplicating the 450/400 3" while keeping the pressure at a safe level for modified standard length Mauser M98s that Jeffery used instead of paying for the magnum length actions only Rigby could supply

We know Jeffery was building their 404's on standard length actions in 1905 with modified magazine boxes as mine was built in 1907 with a standard length commercial action produced in 1902.
But if I read the Mauser sales records correctly in Speed's book,other than the earliest "stepped" actions built for the .350 Rigby, there were no magnum actions until 1912.
Speed states that "the first 20 magnum .416 actions" were ordered by Rigby on Aug 28, 1912.
It wasn't until the larger magnum actions were developed and open to the trade that builders started using them.

From the article mention in my post above "The first Rigby Magnum action was used on Rigby rifle, serial number 2345 with Mauser magnum action serial number 207. It was chambered for the Rigby 400/350 Rimmed and delivered on 16 August 1904 and came with a 25" barrel fitted with Aldis telescope and is the oldest rear slanting box magnum for the 400/350 Rigby case.

So it does seem that the true Mauser magnum actions were available prior to the development of the 404 Jeffery but as the article explains, Rigby was the sole agent of Mauser in the UK at the time and not all other gunsmiths were prepared to pay for actions from Rigby so used the standard M98 military action as a starting point for their own creations.

I guess it is a matter of semantics and the stepped ring/slant box actions built for the rimmed 400/350 were longer versions of the standard length/slant box actions Rigby was using for the 303 Rigby-Mausers. So while it may be fair enough to call them the first magnum actions, to my knowledge they were designed and only originally used on the rimmed 400/350 and then the rimless 350 Rigby. Although you can find some now re-barreled to 375 and other calibers.

From the Mauser record in Speed's books it appears that it wasn't until the development of the 416 Rigby in 1912 that Mauser started producing what most now call "magnum actions".

And, like all Mauser actions, each was designed and made for a specific cartridge.
I would be interested to see exactly when, and for whom, they first began building them for the 404. Most likely it was for Jeffery but since Jeffery did not keep proprietary ownership of the 404, It could have been any number of builders.

Maybe some of the followers on AR know of Magnum Mauser actions with serial numbers showing earlier dates that could shed a little more historical light on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
I guess it is a matter of semantics and the stepped ring/slant box actions built for the rimmed 400/350 were longer versions of the standard length/slant box actions Rigby was using for the 303 Rigby-Mausers. So while it may be fair enough to call them the first magnum actions, to my knowledge they were designed and only originally used on the rimmed 400/350 and then the rimless 350 Rigby. Although you can find some now re-barreled to 375 and other calibers.

From the Mauser record in Speed's books it appears that it wasn't until the development of the 416 Rigby in 1912 that Mauser started producing what most now call "magnum actions".

And, like all Mauser actions, each was designed and made for a specific cartridge.
I would be interested to see exactly when, and for whom, they first began building them for the 404. Most likely it was for Jeffery but since Jeffery did not keep proprietary ownership of the 404, It could have been any number of builders.

Maybe some of the followers on AR know of Magnum Mauser actions with serial numbers showing earlier dates that could shed a little more historical light on the subject.

Yes I wondered that too. Hard to really garner the facts now as there are seemingly conflicting information on development of the Mauser magnum actions, with the development of the 404 Jeffery cartridge further confuses the issue.
The commonly held year for development of the 404J is 1909 supposedly the time Mauser relinquished Rigby’s sole distributorship in the UK and provided magnum actions for the trade and obviously then available for Jeffery to use for his new .404 cartridge development. However there are catalogue entries available advertising the new .404J as the 1905 Model made on the standard length M98 action. That is not to say that the true magnum actions were not available from Mauser at that date, just that they were not available directly from Mauser for the trade in general.
The notation preceding the paragraph I have quoted from the Big Bore Journal article states that Mauser disliked Rigby’s proposal to open up standard length actions so agreed to provide the magnum length actions to him, the first being the one for the 400/350 3” cartridge in 1904.
That is how the seemingly well researched article reads in its entirety but of course others have done different research and come up with other development pathways and dates. Just maybe the new 404J was first available in 1905 on ex-military standard length actions and then in 1909 on true Mauser magnum actions. Just glad the 404J was developed I guess as I have one and like it.

It is interesting and all speculation at this point but I would surmise that, since my 404 was built by Jeffery in Jan of 1907, on a standard length commercial Mauser action, that if there were a larger magnum length action avaliable, they would have chosen it instead ?

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
It is interesting and all speculation at this point but I would surmise that, since my 404 was built by Jeffery in Jan of 1907, on a standard length commercial Mauser action, that if there were a larger magnum length action avaliable, they would have chosen it instead ?

One would think so but maybe Rigby who seemingly had sole distributorship of commercial Mauser actions until about 1909 would not release magnum ones to the trade.

458Win have you posted pictures of your 404 I'm always keen to see how the different smiths/makers open up the standard length Mausers?

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:
458Win have you posted pictures of your 404 I'm always keen to see how the different smiths/makers open up the standard length Mausers?

There are a few pics on the first page, and I absolutely love the looks of that rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

One would think so but maybe Rigby who seemingly had sole distributorship of commercial Mauser actions until about 1909 would not release magnum ones to the trade.

I suppose that is possible but what, and where, are the other rifles built on those actions ?
The fact is that the 404 Jeffery was THE FIRST large bore DG cartridge designed specifically for bolt actioned rifles. Jeffery did use commercial Mauser actions that they modified to fit it.
It appears that once Mauser started building their magnum action for the Rigby 416, and Rigby lost their exclusive contract to Paul Gutheinz in 1912, that Mauser then began building their number 19 action for the 404.

You do have to admit that the 404 on a standard action makes for a lot slimmer, lighter and easier handling rifle than the 416 Rigby on the larger magnum action.

Cody, thanks I missed going back to see the photo's of 458Win's 404.

458Win, two nice rifles there and yes agree the 404 in a standard action lends itself to a slim and light rifle. My own Type A hits 9lb with 3 down, 1 up, and a 2x Leupy on board but still kicks at the bench for me. Probably a better pad on the back than the ventilated pad now on would be better. As expected, off the bench recoil is not felt.

Might I ask how much is taken from the loading ramp/lower lug area on your 404? I always though mine was a bit radical but have seen a few photos now of opened up Mausers and a Win 70 and they are much the same as mine in terms of what is left in the feed ramp area for the lower locking lug.