Anyone had any experience with these actions, specifically the 375 H&H model?

I've got them in .243, .270, and .458. They aren't finely finished, but are functional and quite durable, the blue seems, very resistant to corrosion.

These are Mark-X actions.

500: I've had a Mk X Zastava in 375 H&H for many years. The action finish was a little rough, but it has been a great action. It's accurate as well.

Nitro,

I have built everything from 22x250 to 475 Ackley mags using these actions and even some based on the big 378/460 weatherby case without ANY problems. The majority were used for the 375 H&H Ackley and 450 Ackley cartridges.

The 475 Ackley's were contracted through the Philadelphia gun exchange years ago for a guide service in Africa. Along with the rifles, I made up 50 solid brass projectiles for these things in a sabot configuration to be tested by the outfitters in the field. I as always, tested them first and were they ever brutal. I was damned glad I didn't have to pack them in the bush. Anyway yes, the Mark X actions work pretty well. But like everything else, I am sure there are those who don't like them...

Malm

Slightly edited as to the wording; two overly strong expressions changed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by G.Malmborg:
I have built everything from 22x250 to 475 Ackley mags using these actions and even some based on the big 378/460 weatherby case without ANY problems.

---

In one plain word: unwise and risky.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the various metallurgical flaws that Zastava actions have presented over the past, and which resulted in blown-up rifles and injured shooters. Call the DEVA eV and have a chat with them: they have done the court expertises after the case.

You might be endangering your clients. You should not.

Carcano

[ 12-21-2002, 12:19: Message edited by: carcano91 ]

Carcano,

Your post begs for a little more information, like how many of these actions have blown up and what was the actual cause? Be a little more specific and perhaps provide a website or better directions to a viewable source where we can obtain actual documents to support your post.

Malm

You are welcome, of course.

As a first step, here is their website URL; the phone and fax numbers are indicated there:

http://www.deva-institut.de

The accidents are briefly described and also pictured in their annual printed reports (yearbooks). Evidently, such cases are rare, but they were not unique, alas: sometimes faulty metal. Linear inclusions, coarse cristalline structure.

Just as the last-ditch 1945 Mausers and Arisakas will very rarely actually fail, yet would not be chosen as a base for a commercial sporter. I estimate *their* quality (as far as metallurgy goes) as comparable; the superficial worksmanship of the Zastavas is a bit higher of course.

Regards, Carcano

[ 12-20-2002, 00:26: Message edited by: carcano91 ]

Carcano,

First, a rare occurrence of any type does not a pattern make. We have a term here in the States that goes something like this "Shit happens". We can neither define it nor anticipate it, it just happens.

IF, there were a design flaw or metallurgical failure based on materials used, or an unsafe practice was being employed by the manufacturer in the production of these weapons, don't you think a manufacturer, with a long, rich tradition such as the makers of the Mark X action, would take steps to inform their customers that a problem exists, or, don't you think in a country where law suits out number business suits, that the importer, who by the way is still in business, would have issued a notice, warning or recall? Were this a problem, the word would have spread like wild fire throughout the gun industry in America and I and others would have probably heard about it.

As unfortunate as these incidents are, they are rare and isolated. I don't believe one person or one body can put forth an honest or completely unbiased opinion and expect the world to stop based on hearsay. "Where there's smoke there's fire" isn't always the case surrounding accidents. If there were indeed a pattern, or evidence of more cases of blow-ups from varying sources to support your claim, then I would agree that something "might be" amiss. But there isn't. All there is, is innuendos from you based on one bodies supposed court testimony. Hardly evidence to claim "reckless" behavior on my part, or anyone who elects to customize weapons using these actions.

I had a customer whose rifle blew to pieces while using ammunition produced by a major arms manufacturer. This company dispatched one of it's top engineers, a ballistics expert and their attorney's to my shop on a fact finding mission in search of answers. It was later proven in court that the ammunition was to blame for the blow up and the company settled, the manufacturer issued a recall on that particular lot of ammo and went about it's business producing ammunition. Because of these rare and unfortunate accidents, do we throw our arms in the air and run the other way? Hell no, not in America, Shit happens and we know it.

Most blow-ups can be explained in a way that favors both sides of an issue. All you offer is one side. These receivers are in use around the globe and have been used by some pretty top notch gunsmiths as the neucleus of custom rifles, and successfully I might add. Therefore based on all of this, I believe I will take the remaining 5 Mark X actions I have sitting behind me on the shelf, and make them into something wild yet safe, for my kids...

Malm

Malm, what do you think of a .375 H&H Zastava rechambered into .375 RUM? Isn`t the long action to Zastava a bit shorter than for instance Sako`s long action. Do you get any feeding problems?

Carcano91--

As a firearms and ballistics investigator and expert witness in all U.S. courts, I'd be interested in more information, also.

I went to the link, but unfortuneately don't speak or read German.

I've never run into a failed Mk-X so have never run metallurgical analysis on one and would be very interested in seeing what was found.

I HAVE seen them set back the right (bottom) lug when opened to the front for large calibers. For that reason I no longer use them.

this is also the new charles daly/kbi import bolt action.
www.charlesdaly.com

jeffe

.358PCAK,

Don't know, never considered that round.

Belk,

Anytime metal is removed from behind the right hand lug mortise in any 98 style action, the possibility and likelyhood that lug set back or failure will occur increases. Because I lengthen these style actions to the rear, I have yet to see this problem occur with the Mark X action.

Carcano,

I too went to the website and clicked on everything I could see, but my German is also a bit rusty. I too would be interested in getting information that is readable (preferably in english) of the data that you speak of.

While the Mark X receiver is not my 1st choice for building custom rifles, I see no reason as of yet, to avoid these all together. Until I have seen scientific evidence or data, not hearsay, stating that the use of these actions pose a higher than normal risk to the users, then I am not going to worry a whole hell of a lot about them. I simply don't believe that the rare instances you have spoken of, where these have had problems, would warrant any action at this time beyond the usual CAUTION with which I ALWAYS EXCERCISE, when working with ANY receiver.

This is not to say that MY thinking won't change at some point down the road, I just haven't seen or heard enough to warrant it at this time. I reserve the right to withhold judgement on these receivers until a later date.

Now, to all those who own and are using rifles based on the Mark X action. Don't panic, there is no need to throw away or otherwise discard these rifles. Continue to use your head when using these and ALL firearms. Excercise caution whenever reloading for ANY firearms, and at the first sign of any trouble i.e. sticky, stuck or hard to open bolts, backing out of primers, blown and missing primers, Cracks, etc., have the weapon examined by a Gunsmith... Above all, need I say it? USE YOUR HEAD!

To all the owners of Ford Explorers, Keep both hands on the wheels, stay alert, keep your eyes on your tires and use your seat belts.

To those who like to talk on cell phones while driving, and to all those who eat hamburger...

Malm

I shall edit this response piecemeal-wise, so bear with me.

As far as general quality and esteem goes, Zastava actions are the *cheapest* available new actions here in Europe; even Santa Barbara has become more expensive. The quality of Zastava and Santa Barbara is probably comparable, although the former is definitely lower esteemed in Germany than the latter. Here is the URL for the instructive thread on Santa Barbara from the US perspective:
http://www.serveroptions.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=004686

I must admit that I would never even have dreamed of encountering a gunsmith who would be using a Zastava action (with exception of the L 99 action, the Mini-Mauser) for any kind of custom rifle, leave alone for a magnum cartridge. Now, that does not make the Zastava 98s "bad" guns. Actually, I feel that they offer quite decent value for the little money they cost, though they are far below any decent military 98 system (of, let's say, pre-1943 or pre-1942 manufacture). They are plainly the downside low end of commercial rifles, with corresponding quality of finish and worksmanship. Czech Brno-made guns (which are also not extremely expensive, mind you), are lightyears away in these respects. Not to speak of the fact that one can always get a decent DWM 1908 or 1909 action here for a fraction of the costs of a Zastava rifle.
Notwithstanding this, the quality of Yugoslavian actions has certainly improved over the years (see the comments of Frank de Haas), and the time when he could truthfully state (about the then-Herter's J9) "It is the poorest commercial centerfire turnbolt action I have seen" may be over now, at least in this absoluteness (compare his positive comments on pp. 257 ss. on a 1994-imported Interarms Mark X Whitworth).

But back to the topic.

First of all, my former term "recklessness", while expressing genuine concern and some amazement, was probably too strong (oh Lord - it happened - he really thought twice about what had written ). Reckless would be someone who uses actions that are *known* to fail. In this case, the actions are of low quality and have shown materials flaws in the past, but maybe that does not yet qualify for recklessness; I should rather call it "unwise" and "risky", and I shall edit my above posting. Let's not exaggerate. And I apologize for this strong world to G. Malmborg.

Secondly, I must admit that any man-made product can exhibit flaws and faults. This is true for guns as well as for cars. And no, the Zastavas do not suffer from a design flaw or design-inherent risk, as do the Blaser R 93. Their design is good and proven. It rather has happened a couple of times that their metal was not up to the task. Don't know whether the culprit was faulty heat treating, wrong forging, rolling of the barrel blank (the latter was briefly suggested by the DEVA in a half-sentence) or what else. Most gunsmiths which I know would not use a Zastava action except maybe for experimenting. On the other hand, there are many of their rifles around which have given good service and good accuracy for many years.

And lastly, this has nothing to do with Yugoslavia and Serbia, or East Europe in general. I am known to commend Czech and Russian guns regularly, and the Serbian ammo of Prvi Partizan is of *high* quality, definitely better than e.g. Winchester or Remington . My warning is really limited to the Zastava 98 actions and rifles.

Regards,
Carcano

[ 12-21-2002, 12:50: Message edited by: carcano91 ]

Carcano,

Tell me, when speaking of Zastava are there differing grades of these actions floating around? The only Zastava action I have used or heard of is the Mark X actions sold through Brownells and imported through Interarms as the Mark X "Whitworth" action which Frank De Hass mentioned favorably.

These "Whitworth" actions are the magnum actions I have used to build the custom magnums that I speak of and I don't believe that I am the only gunsmith who has ever used these either. I think if the truth were known, I am probably in some pretty good company in this respect.

Yes, that "Recklessness" reference was a bit much. The term "Wish you were here" was never more true than when I read that...


I accept your appology. Check your email, you have a PM awaiting you.

Which is the L-99 you mention?

Regards,

Malm

Carcono,

If the 98 is bad why is the mini mauser excellent (as discussed in a private e mail)?

1894
Do you always disucuss private e-mails publicly?

I think Carcarno and most on this board know I'm not a stirrer. I'm merely interested as to the differance because I'm considering the Mini Mauser and this caught my attention.
The e mail was not private so much as off line because it would have bored people. I offered it as a referance.

Merry Xmas

Carcano and Malm,

Malm, you say "Excercise caution whenever reloading for ANY firearms, and at the first sign of any trouble i.e. sticky, stuck or hard to open bolts, backing out of primers, blown and missing primers, Cracks, etc."

I have owned 2 Mark X's (7mm Mag and now .30-06 rechambered to .30 Gibbs) and maybe all of this talk got me too concerned, but that might not be a bad thing. What kind of cracks (have not seen any, but where would I look)? With the .30 Gibbs I have found that the first REAL pressure signs I see are head stamping then I back off .5-1.0gr and test for case life per R. Gibbs (10 firings without case failure). I have fired about 800 rounds through this rifle and so far so good, but you two sound like real experts so I would appreciate a little SOUND advice.

Deke.

Deke,

What I meant by the "Crack" caution, is that while performing your routine cleaning and inspection of your weapon, if you were to spot a crack or other suspicious looking mark or wierd looking scratch, you would want to be safe and have it looked at by someone knowledgeable before you used it again.

Places to look at while maintaining your weapon are in and around the bolt lugs and bolt head, the feed ramp directly behind the bottom lug recess and the area around the top receiver lug recess as well. Any distortion or questionable appearance around the area that locks and contains the explosion of the round should send a signal. This area is always worthy of alittle more than just a casual glance when cleaning. This applies to ALL weapons.

Regards,

Malm

I've had one for about 15 years in .375 H & H. I think it just may very well be buried with me. (Just joking as my nephew would dig me up for it and might not put me back)
I love it!! Not great fit and finish, but it sure works everytime I use it. Friend of mine has one he made into a 338/378 KT. He had some problems with his feeding rounds (not the actions fault--it wasn't made for it) but it sure did have a good finish on it. It also worked except for the feeding (again-- It wasn't designed for the weatherby case.) Guy

Carcano,

Many thanks. I'll investigate whether it is possible to fabricate a hinged floor plate for the CZ527.

1894---

Of course it's possible to make a hinged floorplate. What are you going to do about a magazine?
The gun is set up for a single stack removable magazine. I think you'll cut capacity to 2 rounds if you shorten it.

If you want one of the very best small actions ever made look for a Rihimakii or Kimber of Oregon M-84.

Carcano: Perhaps you would start a thread on the R93, or is there one already? Friends in Europe have raved about this rifle in recent years. I'm sure they would find the postings interesting.

Forgive my crossposting by adding this comment, but I feel that I have to somewhat relativize what I wrote *sigh*:

The CZ 527 is a nice, though somewhat frugal rifle. Its fine little action (which is far better than Zastava, though not actually ravishing) is a copy of the German Krico "old Model 400/410 small action" from the late 1950s / early 1960s - now that was a truly superb small Mauser action, probably the best factory little action ever made (apart from 6,5x54 and 8x51 Zivilmauser, and the semi-custom Hannes Kepplinger).

Regards,
Carcano

[ 01-04-2003, 22:54: Message edited by: carcano91 ]

Carcano91--

I'm talking about the early post-war 222 Sako marked Rihimakii. It had a square shroud with cocking piece safety, M-70 trigger, and a single stack magazine.

I think the Rihimakii is the action the Krico was patterned after, but the only Krico I've ever seen was a Walther-type tube action with dual opposed rear locking lugs like a Winchester M-43. Have I missed something?

The new CZ-527 is so close to the old BRNO ZKW-465 the stocks will interchange. The 465s were made just after the WW-II but weren't imported into the U.S.. They've always been hard to find and expensive here.

Carcano91--

NOW we're getting somewhere!!

Let's divide the actions into features to better describe their heritage and maybe we can figure out who did what and by what name.

Sako Rihimakii is a front lug, push feed with fixed extractor.

Winchester M-43 is a rear lug CRF with fixed double extractors.

BRNO ZKW-465 and CZ-527 is front lug CRF with rotating Mauser-style extractor.

Kimber of OR. M-84 is front lug CRF with rotating Mauser extractor.

Interarms Mini is front lug push feed that uses Rihimakii fixed extractor.

Walthar is rear lug CRF with fixed double extractors.

Of these the Sako Rihimakii, BRNO/CZ, and the Mini Mauser are forged and milled "square" actions. The rest are machined tubes.

I'm very surprised you're not familiar with the ZKW-465. The only difference between them and the new CZ-527 is the magazine and release, a double set trigger instead of single, and a slim, classic stock with a schnable tip. Mine is dated 1949. The ZKWs are un-heattreated and set back lugs rather quickly with hot loads.

The "Fox" was a crudely made and nearly unfinished action with few of the features present on either one of the others. I've not owned of of those and have but memories to go by, but have had and still have several of the others named.

I'm interested in the Krico you mention. The only ones I've seen were just a better finished M-43 Win.

This is a very instructive thread for me :-).
The Brno ZKW 465 was as unknown to me as the Krico 400 to you. The similarity of the two actions is indeed stunning.

For a picture of the Krico 400 (produced 1954-1963), see the company homepage:
http://www.krico.de/historie.htm

Regards,
Carcano
(I also was made as a miniature action in .25 ACP in Brescia once - what a cute idea)

Carcano91--

Truly it is so!! I believe the Krico 400 and the ZKW-465 are the same gun.

This is a picture of my action in the stock. It needs some repair and a new barrel now. I put just over 13,000 rounds through it before having some moderate damage (and minor injury) from a VERY hot load. The headspace as a K-Hornet was already borderline big. It needs some re-building but I might just put a CZ-527 in the original stock and save a lot of work and trouble.

It's marked made in Checka----etc etc on the right rear side of the bridge and the receiver and barrel are marked with a small '49 just like the M-21 and M-22 BRNOs are.

Picture one

Picture 2

Jack, is that your "bullet testing pool" in the background of pic #2?

The forearm checkering pattern looks identical to the Ruger 77.

Brad

Jack,

Indeed that is a good point!

This future project arose out of my desire to get as near a Mauser sporter in 222rem as is possible. I have a Sako S491 at present but nice as it is it isn't a Mauser!

My smith suggested a mini mauser but cautioned that it would be necessary to get a good tight action so that any cosmetic grinding/polishing didn't result in a slack action.

Jack,

Indeed that is a good point!I'm not a fan of single stack nor detachable so the CZ is out.

This future project arose out of my desire to get as near a Mauser sporter in 222rem as is possible. I have a Sako S491 at present but nice as it is it isn't a Mauser!

My smith suggested a Zastava/Interarms mini mauser but cautioned that it would be necessary to get a good tight action so that any cosmetic grinding/polishing didn't result in a slack action.

1894--

The only CFR, non rotating extractor, staggered internal fixed magazine action for the Duece I know of is the Kimber or Oregon Model 84.

There were two main variations. One had a trigger-mounted safety like the M-82 and the other had a three position M-70-type.

They were tube-type actions with the recoil lug dovetailed in the bottom and the rear tang was ugly, but the two that I converted (to 22 K-Hornet) I changed considerably to make them more Mauser-like. I think Ross Seyfried still has his. I might be able to get a picture.

His comments on the gun in Guns and Ammo was, "If John Rigby had made a Hornet, this is what it would have looked like."

The M-84 was made in 221, 222 and (mainly) 223.

I am trying, but I neither am able to come up with a frontal-lug Type 98 small action (I am searching for the old flyers from Kepplinger however).
There are Ansch�tz, Walther, Weihrauch who are offering small .222 actions, but theirs are not Mod. 98 types.

Regards,
Carcano

1894 and Carcano91--

All it takes is cubic dollars to rebuild a CZ-527 to use a staggered box internal magazine.......or a new receiver for a CZ-527 bolt. Let me know when you want me to start.