Bought a barreled action, had it stocked, and now have a problem. It holds 3 in the magazine, it feeds fine, but when the first fired round is extracted, the ejection leaves it lying on top of round #2. It must be picked out with fingers. Rounds 2 and 3 eject OK. Spring is strong, but perhaps I need a longer ejector blade? Is such a thing available?

I switched ejector assemblies with another 458 mauser I had, and still had the same problem.

quote:

Spring is strong, but perhaps I need a longer ejector blade? Is such a thing available?

I had the same issue a couple weeks ago with an old 98 trying to eject an almost straight 06 case. I swapped extractors and the problem went away.

Don't know about a longer ejector but the bolt stop can altered to allow the ejector to expose more.

It sounds like someone worked on the extractor and it is dropping the case. If you can't hold a case on the face of the bolt with it out of the rifle that just may be your problem. Midway has extractors for standard and magnum cases.

http://www.midwayusa.com/ebrowse.exe/browse?TabID=9&Cat...36***10560***9144***

Rad

Sounds like someone thought it would be a good idea to work on the extractor so it would slip over a case in the chamber.

The extractor holds cartridges tight against the bolt face. It looks like either a longer ejector blade (I've tried with the other 3 mausers in the house--none solve the problem) or relieving the front inner corner of the right rear receiver bridge would solve the problem.

Reworking the extractor to single load IS a good idea, and even more vital on a dangerous game rifle. Only the cam angle needs to be modified very slightly, with no loss in extracting power...fact is, that about 50% of 98's will single load without any modification. I've never observed a contract 98 that does not have the room for the extractor to move over enough for single loading

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Reworking the extractor to single load IS a good idea, and even more vital on a dangerous game rifle. Only the cam angle needs to be modified very slightly, with no loss in extracting power...fact is, that about 50% of 98's will single load without any modification. I've never observed a contract 98 that does not have the room for the extractor to move over enough for single loading

Only if done right. I've seen more that were ruined than I have done correctly.

Besides, I've found that it is easier to push a round into the magazine than it is to try and get one in the chamber when your heart is racing. Not much, but I find it to be more reliable.

I'm sure that you do the work correctly but not all do.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Reworking the extractor to single load IS a good idea, and even more vital on a dangerous game rifle. Only the cam angle needs to be modified very slightly, with no loss in extracting power...fact is, that about 50% of 98's will single load without any modification. I've never observed a contract 98 that does not have the room for the extractor to move over enough for single loading

Should the cam angle against the bolt face be opened? The only difference I can see in extractors on the different mausers is that the 458 cam angle appears tighter against the bolt face.

OK guys, I'm going to chime in here, and I'll try to be polite. I realize that I'm not a gunsmith, and I don't know much, but I have experienced this problem before, several times. I have gotten rid of some otherwise good Mark X Mausers because of this very problem. Currently, I have one or two which eject "lazy" as I call it, just a little better than sgraves describes the problem.

I once spent a bunch of money on a custom 338 barrel and didn't test the feeding and ejection with a full magazine first. The darn thing would not flip one of the shells, I think #2. I was so disgusted, I traded it off.

I have seen several of the Mark X actions this way, but noticably worse with the magnums, but they are not all that way. Some are OK, some are marginal, and some just won't flip the shell out with assurance. I tried changing the ejectors too, and that didn't solve the problem for me either.

I don't think any of you guys have hit the mark on solving this problem.

Last time I spoke with my gunsmith about this, he assured me he has solved it before, and can do it again. But he has said that before on other issues, and it did not turn out to be so. However, he is the best I know, and is right on more than 95%. He says that some metal needs to be removed from inside/right side of the rear bridge. I dunno for sure, because I have an action with the same problem, and it's at his shop to resolve it. We'll see when I get it back.

I do know this problem is unique to the Mark X action. I have tried the FN action with magnum cartridges with no problem relating to ejection. It's strange.

If you want, I can give you my gunsmith's phone number, and you can ask him yourself.

I'm just trying to be helpful, and I really want to know the answer to this problem too. In the past, one of my solutions has been to simply use a Ruger action for magnums, and use the Mark X only for std cartridges.

KB

I don't know off hand the number of Mark X actions I've converted and built Magnum rifles on over the past 30 years, including a pair of 338/378 KT's, but I have never had a failure as described above that wasn't somehow follower related.

SGraves155, I am assuming this is a .458 Win Mag. If so, number 1 might be hitting the belt of number 2, killing the momentum of the strike. Number 2 may be sitting too high, which would indicate a possible stacking problem that could be traced to the follower.

This could explain why numbers 2 and 3 are not affected. Number 2 won't hit number 3 if number 3 isn't forced into a high position by a number 4. Insufficient room under the feed rail could also be a cause. I would try a different follower first, and if it still exhibits the problem, then I would recommend sending it to a gunsmith who is good with feeding problems.

Westpac is probably on the right track. The Mark X uses the same exact receiver for short magnums and standard cartridges. Same bottom metal too. Except for the H&H length rounds, they use a one size fits all approach.

FWIW, Westpac solved feeding and ejection issues in an M70 conversion of mine.

The ejection issue was exactly what he just described. The follower was too narrow allowing round #2 to ride high and disrupt ejection of #1. It was so bad that round #2 actually pinched round #1 in place between the top of the left lug raceway. A proper follower now keeps the round stack down and ejection unobstructed.

Can someone recommend the correct follower (Mark X .458) by part name or number? Is this an easy replacement?

Of course, mine is further complicated because the floor plate does not want to release -- I suspect someone who owned it before "fixed" a too-eager to open latch...

quote:

Can someone recommend the correct follower (Mark X .458) by part name or number? Is this an easy replacement

Can't help you. All my 06 & magnum MKXs have the same follower.

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_Helm:
Can someone recommend the correct follower (Mark X .458) by part name or number? Is this an easy replacement?

Of course, mine is further complicated because the floor plate does not want to release -- I suspect someone who owned it before "fixed" a too-eager to open latch...

One cannot expect a receiver that is designed to house a standard '06 type case to accomodate a larger diameter magnum case without first making room for the larger case. Once there is room, the standard Mark X follower should no longer pose much of a problem.

The floorplate latch should be fairly simple to correct. Have you looked to see what is hanging it up? Too heavy of a spring?

This is a real reach ... but I have seen funky ejection when the stock is not fully clearanced for the pointed screw that holds the ejector. This can result in the ejector not coming out smoothly because the housing is torqued a bit.

May be a dumb suggestion, but it easy to locate visually and so won't cost you a lot of time to check.

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:

One cannot expect a receiver that is designed to house a standard '06 type case to accomodate a larger diameter magnum case without first making room for the larger case. Once there is room, the standard Mark X follower should no longer pose much of a problem.

The floorplate latch should be fairly simple to correct. Have you looked to see what is hanging it up? Too heavy of a spring?

Thanks for the reply.

The rifle is a factory Whitworth .458. It ejects fine in front of the television but at other times wants to leave the round sitting on top of the next round. I was thinking about ejector work but on reading this thought that maybe changing the follower would help.

I have not taken the action out of the stock to look at the floorplate release, but when you depress the release the floorplate comes down a bit but never disengages. I had not changed it because these have a bit of a reputation for dumping the magazine. I am sure ther is a happy medium though.

I suppose the real answer is that I need to make the road trip to the gunsmith again with all my project rifles.

I think it is the extractor. I have seen several magnum Mk-X's do this when their extractor was not kosher from the factory.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
I think it is the extractor. I have seen several magnum Mk-X's do this when their extractor was not kosher from the factory.

I will have to look into that on my rifle, although I am pretty sure it acted in a similar fashion both before and after the extractor was replaced.

For this particuliar problem we tried
1) longer ejector blade
2) adjustment of follower
3) polishing and adjustment of extractor

Still had the problem

4) Relieved the right rear receiver bridge and beveled the inside

Problem solved.

Thanks to all.

Thanks very much for the update. I hope to get mine in the gun doctor's soon.

Good grief: The whole damn thing has to work together..sorta like timing ignition is your 1950 Chevvie. The magazine box must be the proper config to fit the cartidges, the follower must be the proper width fore and aft to FIT the magazine box and cartidges. The rails must be VERY carefully regulated and worked to allow proper feeding. The extractor must be fitted to allow feeding and ejection...it's not a science, it's an art! All the discussion in the world will not make medicine unless you've had a whole bunch of practice and experience..Pierre van der Walt said " Malfunction is not the fault of the cartridge design, but of sloppy workmanship"

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Good grief: The whole damn thing has to work together..sorta like timing ignition is your 1950 Chevvie. The magazine box must be the proper config to fit the cartidges, the follower must be the proper width fore and aft to FIT the magazine box and cartidges. The rails must be VERY carefully regulated and worked to allow proper feeding. The extractor must be fitted to allow feeding and ejection...it's not a science, it's an art! All the discussion in the world will not make medicine unless you've had a whole bunch of practice and experience..Pierre van der Walt said " Malfunction is not the fault of the cartridge design, but of sloppy workmanship"

Not a single line was spoken regarding faulty cartidge design.
A problem existed and potential solutions were tried until the problem was alleviated.

Sgraves155: Obviously I didn't express my self well...I give up!

quote:

Reworking the extractor to single load IS a good idea, and even more vital on a dangerous game rifle.

Gee, where have you been? Everytime I say the same thing all the detractors come out of the woodwork! Obviously they have never needed the full cpapcity of a bolt-action.

Thanks, Bill I needed that...$55.00 on the way