This topic has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum but with more anecdotal claims and rumors than actual facts. Here, we will use actual facts.

I am not a gunmaker, gunsmith, or machinist, and I hardly ever stay at the Holiday Inn Express, being more of a Starwood or Hilton points guy. I have, however, been given some really good advice from some really smart guys in the trade- I try to be a good listener. I have a mill, a lathe, a surface grinder, and various other tools and try my best to use them well.

I have purchased more than one surplus 1909 over the past few years in order to harvest the actions for quality sporting rifles. The action in-question is one that I bought as an original military rifle; it was complete and in good condition- it showed no sign of having been altered in any way. I removed the barrel and was able to see and feel visible lug setback inside the action.


In advance of re-machining the action, I sent it to Blanchard’s in Salt Lake City to be vacuum annealed. I happened to be heading to Utah to do some business and visit with D’Arcy Echols, and I brought the action with me. We decided to set the action up in the mill to measure the runout.

The action was set up vertically in a jig and a .707” Manson action bushing just slip-fit into the C-ring opening. An indicator was used to center the mill spindle and the centerline of the action for this operation. The bushing was removed and the test indicator was then placed inside the action with the stem adjusted so as to ride on recoil lug seat. The indicator was zeroed on the undamaged surface and rotated until it dropped into the portion that was set back by the locking lugs of the bolt.



As is shown by the indicator, the lug setback measured .006”. Interestingly, you could watch the indicator ride over the notch left by the ejector slot in the locking lug, which left a raised rib between the two .006” pockets.

The lug seats were recut using a tool designed specifically for that purpose. As we begin to remachine the surface, the notch left by the ejector slot is evident.




The setback has been removed. Because the action was annealed before being re-machined, it should not “spring back” when it is re-heat treaded (at least according to Tom Burgess’ theory). Now, we’ll work on the C-ring, bolt face, lugs, etc. and have a new bolt handle welded-on before sending it back to Blanchard’s.

This may have been the only 1909 Argentine in human history to have set-back, but I sort of doubt it. Why anyone would spend thousands of dollars converting a 100-year old action into a quality sporter and skimp a few hundred dollars on annealing and heat-treating is beyond me, but to each his own.

It would not surprise me if the setback was caused during the original proof process and has existed ever since! I have used several 09's for custom rifles and never had a problem. I found all four of mine in pawn shops and they had all been rechambered to 30/06. I saw no sign of setback and figured if they had not set back by then, they were good, so I rebarrelled them, .257 R, .318 WR, and .375 H&H and one in .308. 1908 Brazilians are sought after and they have the same reputation as 09's. Luck of the draw, I guess, as I have several of them with zero problems. It kind of reminds me of low number Springfields, a good number of them were brittle, as they heat treated them by eye (looks red enough to me!) I guess the day the guy with cataracts was on, QC went to shit! You did everything right and will have a fine sporter, I will just consider myself fortunate.
Excellent post and pictures!

DWM or FMAP ?

Almost assuredly DWM.

I know a lot of people reclaim actions after setting them back. Personally, I have always questioned the integrity of them after metal has moved. Not that I'm right, I'm no metallurgist. But, the idea has always seemed a bit spooky to me so I have always washed my hands of those jobs. Actions are pretty cheap. But that's just me being chicken.

It was never a rumor; it happens SOMETIMES because of the variable nature of pre WW1 case hardening. Yours is not the only one set back at all; I have seen 2 1909s and lots of 93s with set back lug recesses, (all 09s I have seen were 7.65s converted to 30-06) and I have used many others with no problems.
Now, it is not a safety hazard; the lugs will set back very slowly and never cause any safety problems; you will run into very hard or impossible extraction long before any safety issue exists. It is far safer to have a soft receiver than a very hard one.
I have a Rock Island Arsenal 1903 receiver with two cracks in it. I showed it to my boss when I worked there, and he said that the warranty ]had expired. The issue with Springfields was a completely different, and potentially far far worse, problem than any Mauser ever had.

Very generous of you- PM sent.

Tom Burgess did a lot of research on the 1909.
He found case depths of .007" and variable Rockwell 'C' readings, average Rc 9.
This would be typical of any pack hardened low carbon steel Mauser of the time.
Another thing he did say was that a lot of 1909's that turned up in the US had fired high pressure machine gun ammo intended for the Schwarselose Machine Gun, which would account for the "new" rifles still in grease that showed signs of lug seat pocketing.
One FACT that I do know - Duane Weibe sent an original HT DWM 1909 off for testing in Europe to CIP standards, 2 X .404 Jeff proof loads at 65k.
Passed with flying colours. Fact.

Is the bolt timed correctly for that receiver? From the mark in your pictures, it looks like the lug was not fully rotated into position and thus had less contact area between the bolt and receiver. I'm not familiar with these actions though, just a casual observation.

Thanks for posting the pictures and sharing the info!

Speerchucker , I am a metallurgist and sent out my M98 to re-HT after questioning the HTer While I was in gunsmithing school [CST ] I had no problem with their proceedure.
No Deer has complained !
I didn't think it wise to spend $ and labor unless I did the entire job.

quote:

Originally posted by mete:
Speerchucker , I am a metallurgist and sent out my M98 to re-HT after questioning the HTer While I was in gunsmithing school [CST ] I had no problem with their proceedure.
No Deer has complained !
I didn't think it wise to spend $ and labor unless I did the entire job.

LOL Yeah, it's largely just a difference in protocol and procedures. When I went to CST I asked old Gus Crites about reclaiming actions. He went all wild-eyed, ate 17 bananas and asked me if I was fawking crazy or had a death wish? Later, working for the manufacturers, even suggesting the idea of reclaiming an action which had suffered damage from an over pressured round was grounds for horse whipping and dismissal. They made us cut them in half. But, it's still largely a differing of opinion, protocol, liability and an how far you wish to press the edge of the envelope. Like a lot of other things, there is a large amount of paranoia surrounding the issue. Some of it may be justifiable, and some of it is just about as dumb as putting on a life jacket before you go to the toilet in case you fall in.


But that's just me and the subject is too far out of my pay grade for my opinion to have much net value. I just personally don't like the idea of messing with metal after it's moved so I stay away from it.

Excellent information Woodhits. I've been waiting for actual proof of '09 Argy lug setback for years. Did you first chamber a cartridge or empty case before the barrel was removed? If so, did you feel any change in resistance when you closed the bolt?

All you had to do is ask; I have had them before; you will know when your bolt is hard to open. As I said, it was never a rumor; it always was actually, a fact. It is more common on Spanish 93 Mausers.

I guess the humor of calling it a "rumor" was lost on some...

If you go back and read some of the old threads and you'll find that many claimed to have never seen a Mauser with lug setback.

Custombolt: I never chambered a cartridge in the original barrel.

Oops.

Old military rifles made before the advent of modern steels and heat treatment NEVER, set-back. In face, they are so tough, the receivers will often, actually flow forward into the bolt lugs. No bullshit. I've seen it happen many times!

Yes the militarys and commercials were basically the same, they were pack hardened up until the 1930's when the re-armourment started and they went to the Durrferrit salt bath method.
Most experts say that the steel used was SAE 1330.
All those old British and German rifles were proofed for the cartridge they were chambered for. If you overload them past the proof pressure they may set back which is what they were designed to do.

Metal is right. Only when you chamber them for something they were not designed for do they tend to set back. All the ones I have seen were 1909 Argentines in 30-06, and Spanish 1893s.
Do not get confused; most of the large bore calibers operate at fairly low pressures. Pre WW1 rifles are the worst as heat treating knowledge was still in the 19th century.
Any rifle of the era might be subject to setback. Depending.

True. If old "Hans" came to work on Monday with a severe hangover he might not have packed his quota of receivers with enough burnt bone and leather to properly harden them. I've encountered only one 1909 action with setback and it was re-chambered to '06 and lived in a sporter stock. No telling what it had been fed.

I currently own four '09 rifles, 3 in original caliber and 1 re-barreled to 7x57. The latter had a worn out barrel and no evidence of any setback. The 3 '08 Brazilians I have also show no setback.

You all must be well over 100 years old as you all talk about pre-WWI !
My WWII is only one year younger than me ,1943.By then even in Oberndorf ,things were changing and my M98 had spotty hardness on the receiver .So what did I have ? a big unknown ! Mine is still here , toned down to a 6.5x55 .