After reading many posts and a few articles, I am starting to think that no Mauser reciever is safe to rebarrel without re-heat treating. Is any year or maker's reciever usable as is or is it a crapshoot? Seems like now the 1909 Argentinian and peruvians are soft junk. How about VZ-24s? K98s? Even Jerry Kuhnhausens shop manual recommends re-heat treat for any rebarrel job. Is lug set back really that common a problem? Thanks for any help. Swede96.

I believe this is more of a concern for case hardened Mausers -- pre-1924. Even with case hardened Mausers, I'm not sure you'd have a problem unless you had headspace issues to begin with, which allowed the bolt lugs to hammer into the receiver lug recesses, or if you had improper bearing on the lug surfaces (i.e. non-original bolt with poor lug to bearing surface contact), or someone aggressively lapped the lugs and cut through the case hardening.

I had lug setback on a 1909 Argentine action, probably due to poor contact with the lower lug. The upper lug set back, until the lower lug started to make contact, then stopped. Once re-case hardened, I will re-use it. I also have case hardened DWM actions which have fired thousands of rounds in their lifetime, and a few hundred more with me, with no problems. I have somewhat backed off of my stance that all case-hardened actions require re-casing, since I figured out what really happened to mine.

Later models are alloy steel, heat treated. I don't think you need to do anything with them.

In any event, they are definitely NOT junk -- those old Mausers are some of the finest ever made. If it's case hardened, have it re-barrelled by someone who knows what they are doing -- tight headspace, no bolt / lug lapping (try a few bolts with dykem prior to sending it out, to get one with good lug contact).

Just my thoughts, your mileage may vary...

Todd

Swede96--

In 37 years of rebarrelling M-98s I've had three re-heattreated. I've seen a dozen or more that were ruined.....mostly by somebody in a garage rechambering to AI without a lathe.

Go HERE to see the pictures of the lapping tool for the locking lug recesses.

Here's a good example of set lugs in an early M-98.

Todd and Jbelk: Thanks for the info, Am i to assume that a pre 30s reciever can be rebarreled if it is set up with lugs bearing evenly and zero headspace? What about mid 30s recievers or early K98s? Are K98s worth rebarreling? Are heat treated recievers better than case hardened? Thanks Again!

Todd, it isn't just the pre 1924 Mausers that are case hardened. My 1943 Oberndorf was ,and poorly at that. Don't trust any war time mauser, have it retreated.

Todd, Need to know source of this frequently voiced & written contention that Mausers in toto magically became made of alloy steel after 1924, Each time I try to run that one down it disappears into the limbo habited by the kissin cousins of our present media military strategy pundits ( on going Great Sandbox War II).
Case hardening. Once you have established the lack of exclusivity of that ancient and abused term, how do you apply it to the Mauser Hardening process? Do you mean selective surface carburising? You can declare all made to German mil-spec Mauser receivers and bolts Low alloy low carbon steel. because they have on average almost half again more manganese present in the recipe and not have .35 or more carbon. The carbon runs from .27 to .33 measured in pathology type sectioning not contaminated by the addition of extra carbon in a carburising process. Manganese ?
The average reading on this "alloying " element could be generalised as 1.35, low 1.05 -high 1.55.
A sample reading 1.55 might prompt some metalurgist to describe the steel as an alloy, particularly if it had a plethora of other miniscule element percentages. (Like Uranium,
Germanium, Zirconium, Copper,Selenium, and probably 10 other elements which were present in the coke used to smelt the starting pig iron and were absorbed by and not burned out of the original steel melt. The steel used had to meet machinability, tool wear, and destructive tests as well as other production related requirements , because carburising could make up for lower carbon, or lower (or higher)manganese contents there could be and occasionally were production lots where the incoming steel had - or+ on carbon as well as manganese in solution yet still meet proofing tests with great room to spare.

Mete, Mate, I'm with you. Better safe than sorry.
but I go further. In the last 35 years probably 90% of the Mausers through here have been carburised. For some ten years I had them Cyanide pot carburised because I knew the heat treater and he followed my prescription, ultimately he took sick and so did the results by his replacement. For the last 20 years I have had them Gas Carburised because That particular firm has and exercises far greater control over the result.
Todd, I'm not trying to be nasty, you'd have no doubt if I were, I really would like to know where this 1924 bit started

Thanks to Mr. Burgess from Kalispell on the metallurgy information on old receivers. So, if starting to build your dream bolt action what would your steel choices be for bolt and receiver and heat treat goal and procedure?
Jay, Idaho(have shot matches at Whitefish)

Jay, During the time I was shooting hi-power I turned out a few Match M-1's, for Teams and individuals. My test bed was my own Match M-1 and I put over 32000 rounds through the receiver, 2 bolt bodies and 9 or 10 barrels. I didn't have to buy the ammo. The receiver markings indicated that my receiver was 4130 chrome- moly steel supplied by Republic and it should have been gas carburised judging by the date of manufacture. The "skin" was about .020 deep, or I should say I had to use a carbide drill to go that deep before I could use a twist drill and reamer to drill the spring and plunger hole for 1/2 Min windage alteration to receiver. This caustic blackened OK indicating that it must not be cyanide pot carburised. Those made of 8625 frequently wanted to turn green unless you buffed through the surface before bluing. These receivers did not get a very high tempering temperature, so they had about an Rc 60 surface and perhaps 46 or 47 core hardness. ( Rockwell test) This was fine with me although these receivers were probably that hard so they could endure being run over by a tank ,Make a fine handle for the bayonet favored by some in the WW II officer corps, or not bend when used as a maul.
I would make a Mauser without the bulged rear end to the bolt, probably use the ejector and safety lug system of the CZ (Brno)ZKK make a wider and stiffer rear tang and use the 70 Win trigger design. The ZKK trigger, had a feature I like, the yanker pivoted from the guard bow and a thin blade extending upwards to trip a reverse method but still design family of the 70 trigger. It required only a 3/8 " hole in the stock for the trigger part which makes for a stronger stock at that otherwise weak point for bolt actions. I'd use same steel, AISI E 4130, carburising Depth - .028-.030" Surface Rc 55 and core about Rc 36-38 for the receiver.
The bolt I'd make of the same but about surface hardness of Rc 48. Bolt stop might be like the Mannlich/Schoenauer, inasmuch as no ejector needed in its housing. Might even try the model 1932 (Solothurn) hollow fire pin/ cocking piece idea and a bolt sleeve with safety that could be operated from either side of sleeve. The magnum PH version would have the recoil lug & guard screw where it is from the receiver face as on the std length action. I'd keep the Mauser bolt diameter and use the stepped left hand lug finally produced by the WERKE for the big heads. Of such stuff day dreams are made.

Mr. Burgess, no offense taken. I'm not sure where exactly I first heard the statement that most Mausers after '24 were alloy -- I heard it from so many places, it would be hard to pinpoint. Definitely various places on the internet. It may also have been in a gunsmithing book, perhaps Dunlop? I'll have to check it out again and look through it.

Having no metallurgy background, I sure wish I could find an easy way to determine whether a receiver is case hardened or alloy. It has been my observation that receivers I know to be case hardened (early DWMs, like 1908 Brazilians and 1909 Argentines) are often 'file hard' or perhaps even harder than the file judging by the way they burnish it, around the bottom of the front receiver ring. I always attributed this to pack / selective case hardening. Short of using a file on someone else's receiver (always frowned upon), I have also noticed that they often do not blue well in this area. However, I have not looked at nearly enough receivers like this to make any kind of reliable or scientific jugdement.

Best,
Todd

Edited: Let me emphasize I would REALLY like to figure out an easy way short of destructive testing to figure out an action's metallurgy. I am about to regain posession, from my gunsmith, of a 9.3x62 built on a low number (B series I think) 98/22 action, which I would have re-cased if I knew for sure that's what it was.

[ 04-03-2003, 16:11: Message edited by: Todd Getzen ]

Todd, contact Climax Research Services over in Wixom. They have a complete metallurgical lab and can tell you what you have for a reasonable amount of money.

Their phone number is: 248 960 4900.

Tell them what you have and what you want to know. Don't worry about not being "technical" in the vocabulary.

Axel

Todd, Sent you an E mail.
I had hopes you could pin the tail on that donkey, but this has been the problem for years.
Two different times I got it all the way back to a remark in one of Parker O Ackley's various Magazine utterances, only to find out that if indeed it had been he that first said it, he later repudiated it and ,well, "Speak not ill of the dead..........
Thanks anyhow.

Jerry Kuhnhausen's Mauser shop manual recommends re-heat treat on nearly every page.

That is only part of the problems with that book.

Walsh's book was written in part, I believe, to de bunk Jerry's organization, vague references to tooling, re facing the bolt face, and compulsive heat treat prescriptions.

Yet if I had not bought Jerry's book, I would not have got the mandrel built for turning the large ring, or built a inner stop ring lapping tool. That is the cause of my frustration with Jerry's book, there is real incentive to read it, despite the maddening faults.

I have not had any of my ~25 Mausers re heat treated, nor have I tried myself. I am careful not to let straw color get to the cocking cam when bending the bolt [with a home made butress threaded heat sink and heat paste], and careful not to lap through any surface hardening when lapping the lugs.

[ 04-04-2003, 02:22: Message edited by: Clark ]