Got some Questions about inletting an after market Mauser trigger guard for thoes in the know.
First let me explain what I've got so far with my semi-inletted stock. The front seat under the recoil lug of the action is, within .02 of bottom of front guard seat, so the inletting gold is showing me in the transfer.
The BACK of the guard BOX lip comes up into the action and slightly touches the action and is within .02 clearance of touching bottom of feed rail, and the box lip is evenly spaced on both sides of entering action at this point but not touching the two sides of the action.
The guard has a very slight gap under the action, meaning the box is not hitting the action at all equally on all three sides... front and two sides.
Question: Drum Roll Please... Should the GUARD BOX itselfe make contact with the wood on any of the four sides, or should it be lets say somewhat free floated.
I have this one fitted fairly snug seems all the way around the four sides of the box. I have never seen or heard this explained and thought I'd throw it out there, and ask.
Thanks!

It should not touch the back for sure and I have always made sure there was No contact of the box to wood anywhere but the bottom, which is only the edge that shows. But hey, I am a rank amatuer, so hopefully some more experienced folks will chime in!

Should be ~1/16" gap between the bottom of the action and the top of the magazine box at the front and both sides, with the rear/top box extension entering up into the action between the rails.

We were taught, on Mausers and similar, to make sure that all four sides of the magazine box fit the wood as snugly as possible, all the way up to the top but mainly at the bottom where any gap wowuld show. And ESPECIALLY the entire rear face should have full contact on factory-type Mausers and 1903 Springfields, since it helps as a secondary recoil surface.
Regards, Joe

If you use a rear piller like the orginal stock had, between that and the front pillar on the guard it will maintain the proper spacing.
Don

The boat is getting off coarse!!!

Let me re-ask it,
Should the wood to metal fit of the OUTSIDE of the magazine box be a tight fit, snug or say free floated?

I have two diffrent answers to my question so far,and they dont jive with each others...

The weather is fantistic here today, I'm feeling my oats...SO where are the damn professional stockmakers we have on this fourm...Trying to make a living or what?

Let me explain further. The VISIBLE part of the box should be a tight fit around all sides with no gaps. This is the bottom edge of the box just underneath the floorplate, visible when the floorplate is removed.

The NON-visible outside of the box, the portion hidden beneath the visible bottom wood line and running up between the floorplate and receiver, should also fit snugly on the front and sides but this is not super-critical; however it should fit VERY tightly against the wood across the entire vertical back of the magazine box.
Regards, Joe

JD, Thanks for your answer. I got it the first go around...we want 100% penatration on the back side of the guard...
Thank You for your answer!

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
We were taught, on Mausers and similar, to make sure that all four sides of the magazine box fit the wood as snugly as possible, all the way up to the top but mainly at the bottom where any gap wowuld show.
Regards, Joe

Joe
I might be misunderstanding you but.....

This runs contrary to every thing I know. Fitting the sides of the box tight to the wood will guarantee the stock will split at the web between the trigger guard and magazine box(or worse).

quote:

Joe
I might be misunderstanding you but.....

This runs contrary to every thing I know. Fitting the sides of the box tight to the wood will guarantee the stock will split at the web between the trigger guard and magazine box(or worse).

Jason

Thats why I ask the question, my thinking is the recoil lug takes the blunt of the recoil, but I have heard the back of the magazine box acts to take up some recoil in the Mauser design. I wondered if the sides and front should be free of wood contact at thoes points.
Good question Jason!

I don't understand the comment about splitting the stock. Box is tapered toward the front and top so recoil will move the sides away from contact, the opposite of a wedge effect. Maybe you think I meant to wedge the unit into the stock without properly relieving the sides of the cavity for 'no gap' inletting.

The idea is to have spotty transfer on the non-visible wood inside the stock's magazine cavity while at the same time having very full transfer contact along the entire top TG line where the wood visibly meets the metal.

Concerning the flush fit at the rear face helping with recoil support, the helping effect is admittedly small but it's there. The little round guard screw tenon protruding from the bottom of the Mauser and Springfield recoil lugs fits snugly down into a matching counterbore in the top of the pillar on the front of their respective trigger guards. This snug fit serves to tie the receiver directly to the trigger guard with longitudinal as well as vertical support, and the recoil force is transferred somewhat directly to the TG unit and thus to the firm support at the rear of the mag box. Doesn't work very well with separate mag boxes such as the M70 and 1914/1917 Enfield.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
I don't understand the comment about splitting the stock. Box is tapered toward the front and top so recoil will move the sides away from contact, the opposite of a wedge effect. Maybe you think I meant to wedge the unit into the stock without properly relieving the sides of the cavity for 'no gap' inletting.

The idea is to have spotty transfer on the non-visible wood inside the stock's magazine cavity while at the same time having very full transfer contact along the entire top TG line where the wood visibly meets the metal.

I think the splitting through the web happens when the wood expands and contracts with varying moisture contact.

I was hoping someone else would chime in as I'm just a rookie. I will look into Linden's book as I believe he goes into detail on this subject.

Why not go right to the source and see. (Peter Paul Mauser)

Most of the military mausers I have seen have had tightly fitted boxes.

And most of the ones I have seen have had pins to prevent splitting.

The usual split from recoil normally begins behind the mag box and is due to the recoil serving to spread the sides of the stock away from the sides of the mag box as it is transferred to the rear by the primary recoil lug at the front of the action. Actually having firm wood-to-metal contact at the mag box front and rear will tend to lessen the tendency for the stock to momentarily spread under recoil.

I usually glass-bed a hidden crossbolt through the web of wood behind the mag box, even on light kickers.
Regards, Joe

Why would a tight magazine box prevent the
sides of the stock from spliting ?.

When the receiver recoils and compresses the wood, the sides of the stock at the mag box try to flex outward. This outward flex movement means that the distance between the front of the mag box stock recess and its rear face will tend to shorten as the sides move outward. If the ends of the mag box are in firm contact with the wood, the distance between them cannot shorten and so the sides are inhibited from so much sideways flex.

Try this experiment: get 2 cardboard boxes that fit tightly one inside the other, then remove the inner one. Now push on one end at the top and pull outward on the sides; notice the sideward flex. Now reinsert the second box inside the first and repeat the experiment, manipulating ONLY the outside box.

Not NEARLY as much flex, is there? The firm longitudinal support of the inside box has largely mitigated and even prevented the excessive outward flex.
HTH, regards, Joe

Got out my professional Stockmaking book by Westbrook and of course nothing was said in this subject.
I got out the rattiest book I own, broken spine, highlighted everywhere, and side notes all over the place. This book is the one I have learned from more than any other book I know, Gunsmithing by Roy Dunlap.
Quote..."It is not necessary and seldom disirable to have magazine box closely inletted and baring on the wood at all points." for rifles of very heavy recoil, the rear of the magazine box can be inletted to bear against the wood, but be sure to leave at least 1/32" clearance at the corners of the box on the sides.
That is the only reference that I can find in writing, so...???

quote:

Originally posted by srtrax:
This book is the one I have learned from more than any other book I know, Gunsmithing by Roy Dunlap.
Quote..."It is not necessary and seldom disirable to have magazine box closely inletted and baring on the wood at all points." for rifles of very heavy recoil, the rear of the magazine box can be inletted to bear against the wood, but be sure to leave at least 1/32" clearance at the corners of the box on the sides.
That is the only reference that I can find in writing, so...???

Like the Madam said to the Bishop, "You pays your money and you takes your choice!"

Follow whichever method sounds most logical to you. I personally don't worry about it too much since I normally install hidden or visible cross bolts in front of and behind the mag box, effectively preventing any undue side flex.
Regards, Joe

Linden recommends .005" clearance on the sides of the box.

BTW I didn't see a copy right in the book.

Thanks for showing that Jason!

Jack Mitchell's book mentions, "The magazine box should not fit too tightly into the inletted area, as it could lead to cracking of the wood in the web area during the recoil."(p187)

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
Jack Mitchell's book mentions, "The magazine box should not fit too tightly into the inletted area, as it could lead to cracking of the wood in the web area during the recoil."(p187)

If you consider that statement logically, with full attention paid to the actual recoil forces and their vectors, it's evident that Jack is wrong about the recoil causing the split via the tightly-fitting mag box. The split actually happens in a completely opposite fashion.

That's one reason I don't use that particular book.

But, like the Bishop, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Me? I'll stick with simple mechanical physics, logical thinking and 40 years' experience; by making the sides fit loosely and the ends fit snugly.
Regards, Joe

I agree with this latest statement of yours:

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Me? I'll stick with simple mechanical physics, logical thinking and 40 years' experience; by making the sides fit loosely and the ends fit snugly .
Regards, Joe

But it looks like you and I both disagree with the statement you made in your earlier post:

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:

We were taught, on Mausers and similar, to make sure that all four sides of the magazine box fit the wood as snugly as possible , all the way up to the top but mainly at the bottom where any gap wowuld show.
Regards, Joe

There is a huge difference between making the sides fit "as snugly as possible" and making the sides fit "loosely".

No matter how many years you have been doing it your way, and how much physics you have backing you up, you are contradicting yourself.

Jason, please note that I said that "...we were taught...". You may have gotten the impression that it was my opinion but that's not what I said.

Like I DID say, you pays your money and you takes your choice. None of my concern either way; you now have the info from several angles and you can do whatever you decide is best for you.
Regards, Joe

Well, Jack Mitchell is wrong, and now your teachers are wrong...
I had hoped more would have given an answer and not be so one sided, but...
I have good contact front and back, may take a hair more off the side of box...
Soooo, Guess eyes pay my money and takes my chances!

quote:

Originally posted by srtrax:
I had hoped more would have given an answer

+1