OK Guys,

What do you have to do to a Mauser extractor to get it to slip over the rim of a case in the chamber by pushing on the back of it as you close the bolt?

The .458 AR needs to be able to load the one in the pipe as well as the three in the magazine.

Thanks,

mike

Hello Mike,

The Mauser claw extractor has to be beveled on the edge to allow it to act somewhat like a push-feed and slip over a cartridge without feeding out of the magazine.

Another option is to load the magazine and feed a round into the chamber from the magazine then open the floor plate and drop the additional round into the magazine.

I believe a round can be chambered as you mention by pushing down on the portion of the extractor behind the collar, allowing the extracter rim to ride over the cartridge rim.

That's what Jack Belk said, anyway.

Never tried it.

Tin Can. It works.
Paul B.

I use one of two methods:
1. The one Tin-Can uses works everytime.

2. so does the The one my Father taught me (He hunted in Africa during the Golden age of African hunting), slide the bolt forward about a 1/4 inch over the top round, and depress the chamber round down just enough to engage the rim under the extractor and slide the bolt and cartridge home. Most magazines even if they won't take another down will allow enough depression to allow this manuver.

Hansel

The Above posted two methods Require NO modification to the extractor. Thus no loss of strength. I have had two .416's, and top off both rifles using these methods, never modified either extractor!

Hansel

I know a lot of people do it, but I think to modify the Mauser extractor to get it to slip over rim defeats the purpose of the Mauser design, which is, total controlled round feeding. JMO, FWIW.

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
I know a lot of people do it, but I think to modify the Mauser extractor to get it to slip over rim defeats the purpose of the Mauser design, which is, total controlled round feeding. JMO, FWIW.

That is what I thought until a sporterized VZ24 30-06 followed me home with a beveled extractor.

Now I have done a couple .223s and a 300WM that way. I was modifying them anyway, so while I was there, I made them push overs.

If one would get a case stuck, I could find out if it is still strong enough for pogo sticking and hammering the bolt handle.

Guys,

I know how it is supposed to work. The point is that in its current shape ... pushing the rear end of the extractor inward will not move the extractor over the rim. So how do I reshape it to allow that?

What good is having total control of the round when you are being charged by something that can eat you and you have to fumble a loose round from the ground and into the magazine just to get it into the chamber? It doesn't make sense.

If carefully done by someone who knows what they are doing, you do not lose any strength, you still have the ability to feed the round from the magazine just as "it was designed", plus you have the added benefit of being able pick up a round while in full blown panick mode, throwing it into the chamber, closing the bolt and firing the weapon without having to think about it. THIS ALONE, makes the little modification to the extractor worthwhile.

Where is it written (or etched in stone) that Mauser type claw extractors were not designed to cam to the side to allow them to climb over the case head rim and snap onto a chambered cartridge?

The face of the extractor claw is beveled and contoured for that very purpose.

Paul Mauser designed and built rifles for combat and it is ludicrous to assume that a man of his talent would design a combat rifle that would not allow for single loaded rounds to be cycled through the weapon.

Just because some people don’t know how to properly fit and adjust those extractors doesn’t mean that they weren’t designed to operate a certain way.

quote:

Paul Mauser designed and built rifles for combat and it is ludicrous to assume that a man of his talent would design a combat rifle that would not allow for single loaded rounds to be cycled through the weapon.

You can shoot single loaded rounds - I do it all the time. You just have to push them down into the magazine first so the bolt will properly feed them. Somebody once explained to me why Paul Mauser decided against allowing pushfeed operation when he began building the Mauser series and his reasons were quite valid for a combat situation, but I'll be damned if I remember why. I will say this though, Mausers work well when they do what they're intended to do, but they're a bloody nightmare when something goes afoul.

To respond to mstarling, it is entirely possible to rebevel your extractor to allow for snap over feeding. In fact, you're going to have to rebevel it at some point because the 458 AR has a larger head size than the 8x57JS. Since there's no real way someone could put into words what you'll need to do, I would encourage you to put another Mauser action side by side and study how it feeds and how the extractor works. I myself have tinkered with the beveled edge of a Mauser extractor (recutting it for an 8x68s) and this is all the advice I can offer you.

For What it's worth:

Paul Mauser designed the 1898 rifle as a military service rifle. He intended it to have total control of the round at all times, and to be fed by an 18 year old infantry private from 5 round stripper clips, all while a battalion of enemy infantry/Cavalry who were shooting back at you bore down on you with the intent of dealing you a great bodily harm. In other words, in complete "panic mode".

The 5 round stripper clip was found to be of such tactical value on the battlefield that The U.S. took the feature for use on the 1903 Springfield. Later, Mauser was awarded, I believe it was $100,000 by the Courts for patent infringment, the award was later nullified by the terms of the treaty of Versilles as part of war reperations.

The fact that we are using his Model 1898 action for sporting purposes, speaks to the superior design and adaptablity of his Design.

While theoretically, beveling the extractor will weaken it, The 98 has so much redundency built into the basic design that this modification has been done since the first 98 was turned into a sporter, without problems, after all The 98 is "Private proof".

While I personally haven't had my rifles so modified. It is not wrong to so modify them, I am the last to be a traditionalist...If it makes it easier for you to top off, do it and be happy I don't think it will ever cause you a problem!

Hansel

Does anyone have a photo of a modified and unmodified extractor? I'm having a hard time following this.

Also, is there typicaly enough clearance between thee extractor and receiver for the extractor to open over the rim?

I can think of absolutely no valid reason why there would be a “combat related†reason for a rifle to be limited in how it could chamber and fire a round. If someone else can think of one I would be more than willing to hear it.

What if a round in the magazine jammed up and prohibited the soldier from feeding rounds into the mag? Is he supposed to use his rifle as a club at that point?

Read page 61 of Kuhnhausen’s shop manual for Mausers and see what he says about the proper fitting and adjusting of extractors.

In part he says: “The cam surface at the front of the claw must remain at the original factory 45 degree angle and contour in order to cam the extractor over the rim of a chambered cartridge.â€

He doesn’t say on a “modified†extractor, he clearly says “at the original factory angle and contour.â€

I have a bunch of unissued 1909 Argentine extractors and all of them have the 45 degree bevel present, so this is not some after the fact modification that someone did.

Put lipstick on the back of a case and drop it in the chamber. Now push the bolt up against it. Then pull it out.

The lipstick will mark the front of the extractor where the bevel needs to start.

Simple,

Rojelio

quote:

I can think of absolutely no valid reason why there would be a “combat related†reason for a rifle to be limited in how it could chamber and fire a round. If someone else can think of one I would be more than willing to hear it.

I think the "absolute" CRF allows the rifle to be charged in any position, and that may be why it is designed as it is. I said "I think", and "may".

And if anyone asks me for lipstick me because of my avatar...

Guys,

The commercial Mauser I started with was chambered for 7 Rem Mag.

I notice three things:

1) the extractor does not appear to have been relieved quite enough, as it is pushed out just a little when a round is placed under it. Is there supposed to be any inward pressure applied by the edge of the extractor into the case at the bottom of the groove?

2) The extractor is beveled ... but not a lot.

3) The outside edge of the extractor may not have enough room to move outward when the bolt is moving to closure. Anyone have a picture of the top view of an extractor that has been tuned to allow loading an extra round into the chamber?

Thanks,

quote:

Originally posted by tin can:

quote:

I can think of absolutely no valid reason why there would be a “combat related†reason for a rifle to be limited in how it could chamber and fire a round. If someone else can think of one I would be more than willing to hear it.

I think the "absolute" CRF allows the rifle to be charged in any position, and that may be why it is designed as it is. I said "I think", and "may".

And if anyone asks me for lipstick me because of my avatar...

I promise I won’t ask to use your lipstick!

Springfield 1903’s are CRF, are they not? Yet they also incorporate a magazine cutoff that allows for single loading of rounds not inserted into the magazine.

The US Army also did a field test in the late 1800’s of a Belgian Mauser (with Mausers patented non-rotating claw extractor) that also had a magazine cutoff installed to allow single round loading. (see Olson’s Mauser Bolt Action Rifles page 63.)

I truly believe, and have yet to hear anything credible to the contrary, that Paul Mauser designed his extractors to allow for both CRF feeding from the magazine as well as single loading of rounds. There is just no plausible reason to design them otherwise.

As far as cycling in any position, that can be done with PF’s just as easily and reliably as it can with CRF’s.

The 1903 was truly designed to be fed from BOTH clips and from single rounds fed into the chamber, this was to conserve ammunition by slowing the rate of fire, and to hold the magazine in reserve for times when rapid fire was needed. Such was ARMY fire discipline doctrine.
In some respects the 1903 was a product improved Mauser 96/98 and in other ways it should have more closely followed the model 98!

Clearly the Model 98 was the high point of Bolt action Design!

Hansel

This is pretty funny.

I’m trying to give a complement to the design genius of Paul Mauser and all the Mauser lovers seem to be taking offense to it!

Is there something I’m missing here, or are some of you claiming that Mr. Mauser must have screwed up if he designed his extractors so they would function in both ways?

funny you should mention jamming a round in a Mauser chamber today. Just last night I was reading an article in the January/February 1987 issue of "Rifle." In the Issue 109, a Don Graham makes the case that th eMauser is about th eworst possible action on which to build a custom rifle. He states over and over that the Ruger 77 or Remington 700 are far superior, he can see no valid reason to need controled round feeding, if you do have a CRF action then it should ahve a cone breach like the M70 or Springfield, etc etc. He says that the 1917 and 1903 are far superior if you insist on using a military action.

anyway, he mentiones being stationed at an air force fighter base in Bavaria right after WWII. He talks about scrounging for guns and actions and mmentions how many battlefield Mausers are picked up and have rounds jammed in the chamber. He would try to push them out with a rod through the bore, but often he would have to remove the extractor, insert the bolt and fire the round and then drive the case out with a rod. He then says, "I was told by one of th eGermans that in the excitement of battle, such jams often happened."


I am just the messenger, so don't shoot me. I just thought it was ironic that at the same time I read a 20 year old article, there is a thread about cast actions for customs (he liked the Ruger 77) and rounds jamming in Mausers (this thread).

quote:

Originally posted by fyj:
This is pretty funny.

I’m trying to give a complement to the design genius of Paul Mauser and all the Mauser lovers seem to be taking offense to it!

Is there something I’m missing here, or are some of you claiming that Mr. Mauser must have screwed up if he designed his extractors so they would function in both ways?

Exactly the point I was trying to make originally!

quote:

In the Issue 109, a Don Graham makes the case that th eMauser is about th eworst possible action on which to build a custom rifle. He states over and over that the Ruger 77 or Remington 700 are far superior, he can see no valid reason to need controled round feeding, if you do have a CRF action then it should ahve a cone breach like the M70 or Springfield, etc etc. He says that the 1917 and 1903 are far superior if you insist on using a military action.

The author is certainly entitled to his opinion.

He and many of us would have a fun time around a campfire discussing the merits of the Ruger verses Mauser actions for customs.

I've had nothing but excellent results with both Remington and Winchester push feed actions..... and I agree the CRF feature is vastly over sold but to say that it's a serious detriment is likely going to cause a lot of lively discussion.

Is there a more polite way of saying it?

quote:

I was told by one of th eGermans that in the excitement of battle, such jams often happened."

I have never read or heard of that before.

For whatever it's worth.

I wonder how many "DG" animals have fallen victim to a lowly pushfeed?

I’m wondering exactly how the “excitment of battle†causes rounds to stick in the chamber???

As an afterthought, how many MG’s and semi-autos used by the armed forces of the world have CRF as opposed to PF cycling? Has this ever been considered a handicap for those weapons? I would assume that reliable feeding and extraction would be considered as a fairly important function of any weapon designed to be used in battle.

quote:

Originally posted by tin can:

quote:

I was told by one of th eGermans that in the excitement of battle, such jams often happened."

I have never read or heard of that before.

For whatever it's worth.

Someone else posted on AR several months ago about the number of dead Germans found in foxholes with "jammed" Mauser rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by tin can:

quote:

I was told by one of th eGermans that in the excitement of battle, such jams often happened."

I have never read or heard of that before.

For whatever it's worth.

Someone else posted on AR several months ago about the number of dead Germans found in foxholes with "jammed" Mauser rifles.

I think it’s appropriate to recall that shortly after the Normandy invasion the entire Germany army was pretty much on the retreat and the quanity and quality of their supplies was dwindling rapidly. This was especially true for small arms ammunition. Old, dirty, and poorly produced ammunition will put just about any weapon out of commission pretty fast.

I doubt if there were many such incidents at Dunkirk or in the early battles in North Africa, or in the trenches in France in WWI where supplies didn’t have to travel so far and before all the German munitions plants were being bombed on a daily basis.

The m odification is about as simple as dirt. You make the forward "cam" sorta in the shape of a quesion mark...I'll send a photo to show what I mean...but in the meantime, try to close the bolt over a round "up the spout" There will be a "smear" carefully grind/polish off the "smear"...It will be on the upper part of the cam...very little metal will have to be removed...It may take a bit of extra effort, but you'll soon be able to snap the extractor over the groove...this is mostly only a modification of the angle of t he cam....do not take metal off the h ook itself. some of the "New" Mauser's do not have sufficient clearance in the R. side of the ring...BIG MISTAKE! D o what ever You need to do to make said clearance...especially on dangerous game rifles....seeya Duane

It is ok for the military rifles to have the long extractor hook, as they used stripper clips and had cleaning rods stowed in the stock under the barrel. With that cleaning rod, they could clear a round that got ahead of the extractor.

For sporting, I feel that the chisel face shape is a better compromise, so I can do it both ways.

I find it amazing that with all the Mausers used in the various countries (20 million +) that nobody caught on to them jamming.
Good Luck!

Mike,
jbelk, i think, posted a good write up of how to properly bevel the face of the extractor to override the shell rim. essentially you have to bevel it where there is no "square" or mechical binding of the extractor when it hit the rim... so that the bevel acts like a ramp and slips over the rim.

quote:

Originally posted by fyj:
I can think of absolutely no valid reason why there would be a “combat related†reason for a rifle to be limited in how it could chamber and fire a round. .

Sorry to hear that, THIS IS A BATTLE RIFLE, and the "valid reason" is TIME.

this is not saying you are a poor shot, don't know how to handle a rifle, or can't shoot fast.

lets you and I go to the range. we'll take (near enough) full military mauser 98s. m48s are cheap enough and fun enough. we'll both start with empty rifles, 4 loaded stripper clips. we won't even time how long it takes you to peel off the rounds to have singles ahndy.

Someone can hit a buzzer to start, and we'll have a man sized target at WHATEVER range YOU want. you can not "top off" but must load "one in the pipe over a fully loaded mag", I, on the other hand, will use the stipper clips.

let's time how long it takes each of us to fire 5,6, 10,11, and 15, 16 AIMED SHOTS.

We can do it easier.. you have 3 loaded stippers and 5 loose rounds, I have 4 loaded strippers (heh, that would be funny, out of context), and you have to load EACH STIPPER LOADING with 5 down and force load one in the pipe.. then manually load the remaining. I will use the 4 strippers, fire off the 20 aimed shots, and be back with the strippers about the time you have at like round 12 or 14.


the mauser is designed to be loaded from a single step (en bloc), shot , and be reloaded rapidly... hand loading the top round actually takes as much TIME as loading an entire stripper clip. (load mag, insert last round, do the mauser strangulation steps (see mauser field manual for steps) to get last round in, bang).

The front of the mauser extractor, as issued, will NOT "slip" over, but can be forced to do so.

the springfield cut off allows the follower go down a bit to take a single round and put it under the extractor., and stay in CRF.


this is REALLY basic stuff.

Now, making it work like a model 70 SHOULD work (lot's dont) requires a little patience and talent...


jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by hawkins:
I find it amazing that with all the Mausers used in the various countries (20 million +) that nobody caught on to them jamming.
Good Luck!

When a stock Mauser comes in with a mechanical malfunction, it's most likely to be either a problem with the extractor, or, with the operator. The cure for both is fairly simple. When confronted with the occasional problem, I modify the extractor as described, and, relieve the lower portion of the extractor to allow the case head to slip under the extractor a little easier. This solves 99 percent of the problems. The other 1 percent can be remedied through a little education on how to operate the gun.

quote:

Originally posted by malm:
The other 1 percent can be remedied through a little education on how to operate the gun.

LMAO

jeffeosso,

Your post confirms two things quite well:

1. You have NEVER fought in a war.

2. You don’t know much about Springfield 1903’s and how their magazine cutoffs work.

There is no reason, in either theory or design, that a Mauser extractor when properly fitted and adjusted on the bolt will not cam off to the side and snap back over a chambered cartridge as the bolt is closed. I have a bunch of brand new, never issued, 1909 Argentine Mauser extractors purchased from Tennessee Gun Parts and all of them have the proper contour and 45 degree beveled edges to allow for this.

Despite what some people on here seem to believe that is a HUGE plus in the design of the weapon and does not detract one bit from its ability to grab onto cartridges as they are fed from the magazine in “normal†CRF fashion.

Mauser extractors are not a drop in (or on) part. They need to be fitted and adjusted to the bolt they are being installed on, and if a guy just sticks one on I have no doubt that it may not work as it was designed to do.

I have still not heard anyone offer a credible or plausable explanation of why Paul Mauser would have designed his rifle to prevent it from loading single rounds if that need arose in a combat situation.

Picture this yourself. Paul Mauser is designing the rifle and some German military guy says: “Oh no, you can’t allow soldiers to load single rounds because.............â€

Fill in the blank for me with something that makes the least bit of sense to anyone familiar with rifles or combat.

I find it amazing that most Americians shooters can't figgure out how Paul Mauser intended it to be loaded "with one in the pipe", while millions upon millions of unedcuated farm boys had absoulty no problems doing it in multapal wars over the course of 75+ years.

quote:

Originally posted by mstarling:
OK Guys,

What do you have to do to a Mauser extractor to get it to slip over the rim of a case in the chamber by pushing on the back of it as you close the bolt?

The .458 AR needs to be able to load the one in the pipe as well as the three in the magazine.

Thanks,

mike

To the original post:

Here's a photo of a Mauser bolt and extractor (left) and a M-70 bolt and extractor.

(the M-70 from a magnum)

I tried to draw circles to show the case head and as you can see the Mauser chamfer on the extractor does not extend beyond the case head as the M-70 does. The M-70 in this case will snap over the single fed round and the Mauser won't.

I've never converted a Mauser for this feature as it's never been something I needed in a hunting rifle.....but it shouldn't be a big task if it was wanted.

FYJ,
so, you refuse to accept the challenge or the reason why?


Mausers don't snap over OUT OF THE BOX, which is why there is a section in the manual is on how to FORCE it over.

Now, please show me where the hell I said I fought a war?

and, btw, you are merely be contradicting, not actualy discussing your post. but that is your standard approach when called out.

I don't udnerstand your OBSESSION with being "totally" correct, even when you ask a question as to why.

In short, you have a challenge before you. come show me how a STOCK mauser is faster forcing one up the pipe, for shooting 20 rounds.

You can't, you won't, but you'll argue about it for days.


jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
FYJ,
so, you refuse to accept the challenge or the reason why?


Mausers don't snap over OUT OF THE BOX, which is why there is a section in the manual is on how to FORCE it over.

Now, please show me where the hell I said I fought a war?

and, btw, you are merely be contradicting, not actualy discussing your post. but that is your standard approach when called out.

I don't udnerstand your OBSESSION with being "totally" correct, even when you ask a question as to why.

In short, you have a challenge before you. come show me how a STOCK mauser is faster forcing one up the pipe, for shooting 20 rounds.

You can't, you won't, but you'll argue about it for days.


jeffe

Jeffe



we all know he's full of it