quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:

No beef with Mausers, love the design...

What you don't understand is the metallurgy is part of the design. It's worked for over 120 years and will keep working long into the future.

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

What you don't understand is the metallurgy is part of the design.

Oh I understand that plain carbon steel and horse hoofs is what they had to work with back then, some of us have moved on.

I believe Prechtl is the last 98 holdout of plain carbon and case hardening. Using modern steel and methods of course.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:

Oh I understand that plain carbon steel and horse hoofs is what they had to work with back then, some of us have moved on.

I believe Prechtl is the last 98 holdout of plain carbon and case hardening. Using modern steel and methods of course.

Moved on? How far have you moved on? Don’t tell me you own a car, because if you do, your still stuck in the past with all those carbon steel components that are case hardened.

Even Tesla . . .

There seems to be a much larger argument that you guys are having that I have missed? Is this some long running feud you guys have reoccurring arguments over? There’s a lot of missing “train of thought” that doesn’t connect.

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:

Moved on? How far have you moved on? Don’t tell me you own a car,,,,,

.....

There seems to be a much larger argument that you guys are having that I have missed?

No, I pile in a horse drawn wagon with my coworkers, just like the Mauser workers in 1898.

Nah, any of these Mauser hardness, heat treat, metallurgy threads always bring out emotionalism and a crazy claim or two.

Last go around it was Mauser receivers are so hard no saw or file known to man can cut them.

I am already looking forward to the next thread. LOL

Woodhunter, please do the Model 70's and share. I have pre -64 and Modern Classic and would love to see the differences.

quote:

Originally posted by WoodHunter:

I will run a couple of M70 actions across the Rockwell tester. A Pre 64 and a Post 64 CRF. Should stir up another rattlesnake.

Be careful, they could fragment into shrapnel at the slightest provocation.

Unfortunately I do not have any source documents on bolt inspection. When inspecting a failed bolt, I have on several occasions tested everywhere that I was able to securely hold the bolt and test. Since your testing with Rc this will leave a lot of noticeable divots, but you may not care.

Of random note, I recently received an FN action that had a very indicative Brinell test mark on it.

I think the average Joe should know that Mauser mod. 95s and 96 and the old Remington single shots should be shoot at less than 40,000 PSI...I know which 98 have the best metal or at least the best reputation, leave the rest up to a "good" gunsmith..I prefer the Mauser over any other action, the win. pre 64 runnging second place..My favorite all time action is the G33-40 or Brno models 21 or 22 for 30-06 and under actions. A good 1908 usually suits me for larger actions, and a mag mauser for the big boys. I trust my gunsmiths..

Nice work Woodhunter. Whats the chances of testing a Mark X ?.

quote:

Originally posted by WoodHunter:
Santa Barbara Corona. 20 on the Rockwell C scale.



Bolt from the Corona. 50 to 53 C, made several readings, might have a deep case?????

That confirms my experience -- the SB actions are slightly harder than a good cheddar!!!

When you do a bolt thrust calculation, what allowance is made for the friction of the brass case held in the barrel? This should take some of the force and transmit it to the barrel and move it back into the receiver bypassing the bolt lugs. Or is my reasoning just screwy?

quote:

Originally posted by WoodHunter:

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:
Unfortunately I do not have any source documents on bolt inspection. When inspecting a failed bolt, I have on several occasions tested everywhere that I was able to securely hold the bolt and test. Since your testing with Rc this will leave a lot of noticeable divots, but you may not care.

Of random note, I recently received an FN action that had a very indicative Brinell test mark on it.

Actually the divots from the diamond penetrator are very small. I am testing the bottom anyway so they will not show in a finished rifle.

Tested a Santa Barbara today, on the bottom of the receiver and on the top of the receiver ring, in the middle of the crest. Cannot see the divot amidst all the engraving unless you have very good eyes or use a magnifier.

Edit: A Brinell mark? Not the usual testing method for actions. Bigger penetrator! NO wonder you have a noticeable mark.

I am building a Brinell tester now for lead, I do not like the testers on the market today for testing bullet casting lead. Mine will be larger and able to test ingots.

The divot from an Rc test is quite large and noticeable in my experience. Especially on something as soft as 20Rc. Have you taken a look at the math on the Rc Scale? I think you’ll be surprised at the depth of penetration on a 20Rc reading.

Take a picture of your 20Rc scale indentation next to a 64ths scale. Then send me an email. I’ll make you a picture to post to compare. I think you’ll get a kick out of it and understand a little better what I mean.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I think the average Joe should know that Mauser mod. 95s and 96 and the old Remington single shots should be shoot at less than 40,000 PSI...I know which 98 have the best metal or at least the best reputation, leave the rest up to a "good" gunsmith..I prefer the Mauser over any other action, the win. pre 64 runnging second place..My favorite all time action is the G33-40 or Brno models 21 or 22 for 30-06 and under actions. A good 1908 usually suits me for larger actions, and a mag mauser for the big boys. I trust my gunsmiths..

I think this touches on one of the core issues of this topic. I was very fortunate to grow up around knowledgeable men who shared their knowledge and experience with me. I was able to watch and help them do tricky things, safely. I was able to watch them test, and fail, test, and succeed.
Today many grew up with a father who didn’t know how to check the oil in his car, or how to check a blown fuse, and that doesn’t make them bad people but it removes a certain level of mechanical intelligence that many take for granted.

Doug W wants something perfectly safe and modern, that’s fine, that’s his prerogative. Here’s a good comparison. Not too long ago I had a 1997 F-350 with 380,000 miles. It was mostly held together with rust, and consumed a quart of 15w40 every tank. I am now very blessed to have a 2017 Ram 2500. With the F-350, when I hooked up a load, say a 10k lb mini hoe, I had to be careful and THINK about every aspect of hauling from point A to point B. I had to make sure I had my tool boxes, jacks, spares, etc. What route, grades, stop lights, idiots, train tracks, etc. With the Ram, I don’t need to think about any of that. I still do, but I don’t need to. It’s safe. It has such a WIDE safety margin compared to the 97.

Doug and many others prefer this wide safety margin. They don’t want to have to think about the nuances and variables. That’s OK, there’s a booming market of custom rifles built on 700’s which have proven you can put just about anything in them.

For me carbon steel and case hardening is perfectly acceptable. Whether in a Mauser, my F-350, or my fancy new(ish) 2500, they get the job done within their limits.

I was always told that you cannot get a good Rc reading on case hardened steel because of the thin hardened surface and the soft steel underlying it. I think that is the reason you are seeing such low numbers on the Mauser actions. It's all false information as the soft underlying steel will not support the hard layer from the diamond penetrator. It's a poor way to test case hardening. https://www.hardnesstesters.co...pth-hardness-testing This says that it's best to test case hardness near an edge where the underlying steel is the same hardness as the surface steel. Testing behind the recoil lug is not the place to do this.

quote:

Originally posted by clowdis:
I was always told that you cannot get a good Rc reading on case hardened steel because of the thin hardened surface and the soft steel underlying it. I think that is the reason you are seeing such low numbers on the Mauser actions. It's all false information as the soft underlying steel will not support the hard layer from the diamond penetrator. It's a poor way to test case hardening. https://www.hardnesstesters.co...pth-hardness-testing This says that it's best to test case hardness near an edge where the underlying steel is the same hardness as the surface steel. Testing behind the recoil lug is not the place to do this.

Correct, this is what the Superficial scale was developed for. 15kg, 30kg, 45 kg.

That is why I use a Superficial tester.

Remember though, Rockwell C Scale is just that, a SCALE. When I have laboratory testing done, they use Vickers and convert to Rockwell C. When I test a piece with my Tukon, it is measuring in Knoop. Both Knoop and Vickers are measuring the relative linear surface distance in um. While the Rockwell C and the Superficial are measuring in depth.

Herein lies some of the difficulty in Metrology and Metallurgy. Most people assume manufacturing is a clear cut, YES/NO. A lot of times it requires interpretation and experience. I am not a metallurgist, and I am always in awe when I work with the guys in the lab who do this on a daily basis.

If I take a M96 bolt that is cracked, and measure it as follows, what is the correct reading?

84.3 15N ~ 48 Rc
64.0 30N ~ 45 Rc
51.5 45N ~ 47 Rc
40 150kg C

The correct reading is whatever the manufacturer specified. If your designing and specifying, then you have to come up with that number either through experience, or trial and error. If your testing someone else's product, you have to know how they tested it.

quote:

...When you do a bolt thrust calculation, what allowance is made for the friction of the brass case held in the barrel?....

Frictional force varies - chamber roughness, lube present - probably not taken into consideration for worst case scenario head separation design.

Case adhesion is not taken into consideration in the bolt thrust math; it is just worse case scenario with an oiled case. Which, BTW is how the British test pressure on the Enfields. Used to at least.
PO Ackley proved that brass cases can handle up to 40K psi, all by themselves. No locking lug needed. Read his book on how he tested the 30-30 AI in a 94 with no locking lug installed.
So, that is why actions are, in practical use, subject to very low strain/pressure. A fraction of the calculated value of 9000 pounds or so.

I just read above where someone said that the hardness data is all False Information; He is right! (not that it is false, just hard to interpret)
It only serves to energize the Mauser nay sayers whilst the guys who use them will carry on as if nothing changed. Which it didn't.
So, again, interesting data; the detractors will not be satisfied with any of it; let them eat cake. I mean let them shoot 700s which can't be blown up. More Masuers for me.

quote:

Originally posted by WoodHunter:
I have a couple of sacrificial M98 actions, think I will grind off the case in various areas and take some readings.

Yea I see the problems with case hardening in trying to determine overall strength. Ackley or someone said the case is just for wear resistance and the tough inner core does all the work.

I have most of Ackley's books and refer to them on occasion. He was a great guy and technically savvy.

I have a big Excel spreadsheet with bolt thrust calculations and lug shear calculations. I put it together when I was designing a 50 BMG action. Once I had the formulas set up I ran calculations on most of the popular actions just to see the "What Ifs". Interesting.

The difficult action to calculate is the M98: Just what is that mystery metal????? Soo many variations.


I will run a few more tests today.

No need, unless you want to do it just for the fun of it. I have sectioned several actions and had samples prepared and tested. I then retested myself.

On the actions I tested there was no "tough core" to do any work. However, all the actions I tested were pre-war.

I do not have any prewar source documents to show composition. Post WWI Mauser made receivers from St.C. 35.61 DIN 1661.

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:

Doug W wants something perfectly safe and modern, that’s fine, that’s his prerogative. Here’s a good comparison. Not too long ago I had a 1997 F-350 with 380,000 miles. It was mostly held together with rust, and consumed a quart of 15w40 every tank. I am now very blessed to have a 2017 Ram 2500. With the F-350, when I hooked up a load, say a 10k lb mini hoe, I had to be careful and THINK about every aspect of hauling from point A to point B. I had to make sure I had my tool boxes, jacks, spares, etc. What route, grades, stop lights, idiots, train tracks, etc. With the Ram, I don’t need to think about any of that. I still do, but I don’t need to. It’s safe. It has such a WIDE safety margin compared to the 97.

Doug and many others prefer this wide safety margin. They don’t want to have to think about the nuances and variables.

Sort of right.

I think it is economically foolish to pour a lot of money into a gun where the receiver may, yes may be iffy.
Would you pour a lot of money restoring/customizing the body and interior of that F350 with a marginal frame?
Where one deep pothole or rough RR crossing could fold the frame.
I wouldn't.

2nd you may not need that margin of safety and >margin of durability<, but life happens. Guys overload cases, ram home the wrong cartridge, jam mud down the barrel etc...

Where some of those conditions would set the lugs back requiring scrapping or serious rework, a receiver of better steel and heat treatment would slough it off.

There is almost a religious zealotry around military mausers, where many beliefs by the faithful simply are not supported by the facts, where miracles of 'great strength, files skipping off all surfaces, unsawability, and cores of 90,000 psi' are repeated as gospel and any criticism or talk of lug setback is regarded as heretical producing great offense and anger.

I have a more secular view.

Don’t forget that Mausers are selectively hardened, so the exterior generally has no carburised skin. In the lug seats it is as hard as hell.
I know this because I’ve filed, drilled, milled and polished lots of them.
One thing I’ve always been fastidious about is to make sure all traces of case lube are cleaned off my reloads. Hot loads, case lube and/or oily chamber = setback.
Merry Christmas.

quote:

Originally posted by WoodHunter:
Yes Doug I agree. Building a 98 into a good looking weapon takes a lot of time and work. Good training for the apprentice.

The more I test the 98's the better the M70 looks.

A guy could get burned at the stake around here talking like that.

Oh man, not the 36.
I guess I have taken enough passes at other people's sacred cows, it's my turn. I'll man up And then likely cry. I have done some dumb things to 10s and 36s. Though I would expect the 24 to be a brie

All this just cut the value of any Mauser Sporter out there in half at least. Now no AR member will ever buy a Mauser action again.
And I am sitting on a ton of them; I guess they will make good trot line sinkers......I better sign up for the catfish forum instead.

I should be more disturbed than I am. Anyhow, I'm planning to rebarrel my 93 with another 7 x 57 barrel, can't let its Williams peep go to waste.

Willful ignorance is even more blissful...

A lot of this thread reminds me of MSN reporting the "news" on Trump

what from the chaff, Duane

I like catfish. Provided they come from a nice river or stream with clear running good water. Not an effluent creek downstream from a feed lot.

Good cornmeal beer batter, fried in a big cast iron skillet, with a side of onion laced hush puppies. And we want fillets from big catfish, none of those tiny 2 pounders full of little bones.

I am headed to the fish camp.

No more hardness posting from me, I am done.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:

quote:

Originally posted by WoodHunter:
Yes Doug I agree. Building a 98 into a good looking weapon takes a lot of time and work. Good training for the apprentice.

The more I test the 98's the better the M70 looks.

A guy could get burned at the stake around here talking like that.

Think I smell the fire.

That gent running in my direction with a 5 gallon can of gas is bothersome.

catfish.. caught, not bought .. farm raised fish tastes like mud to me!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
I wonder if anyone has a "Set back" 1908 or 1909 that they would section and send to have the lug seats tested?

Yes his name was Tom Burgess.
I spent a few very pleasant hours reading through Mr Burgess's posts last night and found this gem which addresses the 1909 setback issues (whether you believe they have issues or not) with an entirely well reasoned, rational explanation.

" What a nasty surprise. I pulled the barrel (270) off a 1909 Arg action, planning to grind down the charger hump, reshape the rear tang a little, and reblue it. This is the action I just got the PME 2 pos safety set up on, new Leupold bases / rings, stock in the works, etc.

Looking it over, I thought 'my, that upper lug recess looks funny' -- actually it looks like the Steyr that Jack has posted pics of. I grabbed a small punch, and sure enough you can feel a step off when you run it over the front of the lug recess.

I will try to post pics if I can borrow a digital cam; the real bummer is, this was a DWM, in almost perfect shape, never fired with hot loads, barrel installed properly by a smith who knows how. I can't figure out why it happened.

Todd." [endquote]

Tom Burgess reply ;....

[quote] " For Todd, Jack, et all ref lug seat pocketing in
various mausers. DWM '09's; After rockwell, DIN,and other hardness testing of between 450 and 500of these animals (category-09's)which included
cadaver research, (of some few that were beyond salvage), disecting and acid etch to determine carburising depth, I came to the conclusion that without exception they would all need additional depth of "case". Where it counts the depth rarely exceeds .007". Hardness? average about Rc 9.
Some were in the minus numbers, and rarely- perhaps 2 or 3 made it all the way up to Rockwell C 18.
The Argentines wanted to shoot up several 10's of millions of rounds of ammo made for the '91.
The bottom liners at DWM (Loewe) saved Marks by cooking the receivers and bolts in 10-12 minutes
less time. All that was determined to be needed for the '09 and the '91 ammo. Austria provided spitzer ammo about 200 FPS faster for the Schwarselose Machine gun, Troops and Jr ballons being the same the world over this ammo naturally got fired in the '09 rifles and carbines with a similar result to Todd's.
.... Remember that you are not dealing with a static load during the "instant" of firing. It is, rather
DYNAMIC- very much so with U.S. style propellants
as opposed to the early 1900's flake powders of the Germans. The .270 Todd can have as many as 5 "benches" in the so called pressure curve starting at about 93K PSI levelling of in the low 40's yet read a uniform load to load 58K in the old copper crusher method of pressure testing..."


There you have it, the 1909's were hardened to the bare minimum for shooting low pressure ammo designed for 91 mausers and suffered lug setback with ammo of only 200 fps faster.
And modern US powders are dynamic with pressure jumps that 1900 German flake powders didn't produce.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...043/m/8571079811/p/4
^This was a copy and paste, I haven't found the original post.


Another gem, is Tom's dream mauser receiver if he was to build one, the steel selection and hardening.

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.
http://forums.accuratereloadin...?r=53810084#53810084

Hmmmm, seems the guy who made a lifetime of extensively studying the 98 system would dump the case hardening of plain 30 carbon steel and go with 4000 series chrome moly.

Which is exactly what every "improved" mauser by the US major manufacturers has done, every faithful mauser repo has done. With the exception (that I know of) of Prectel low carbon/case harden, Mayfair and Granite Mountain's use of 8620.

I have never seen an 09, nor a 91, set back the lugs with the original barrel on it. Only ones InterArms chambered for 30-06, or those rebarreled into sporters.
Left in 7.65, and 7mm for the 08s; I have never seen a set back one.
Of course if you are making a new receiver you use 4140.; that is what every major maker does since WW2. If you use 8620, you have to add carbon to the surface.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
But attaching mythical properties to the design and especially to the metallurgy is absurd.

This is exactly my point. I don't see anyone in the thread, attaching mythical properties to the Mauser design, especially the metallurgy. Everything I read was well reasoned, some of it WAS incorrect, some of it WAS ignorant, but I did not see any psycophants preaching?

The only person claiming mythical attributes, that I saw, was ME. Based on a report, preformed at Mauser. A primary document. Is it right? Is it wrong? It is what it is. Did they make it up? I doubt it!

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
There is almost a religious zealotry around military mausers, where many beliefs by the faithful simply are not supported by the facts, where miracles of 'great strength, files skipping off all surfaces, unsawability, and cores of 90,000 psi' are repeated as gospel and any criticism or talk of lug setback is regarded as heretical producing great offense and anger.

I have not seen anyone claim any of these things? Can you find them in this thread and quote them for me because I missed them?

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
Mausers, 98 was a exceptionally well designed military rifle for it's time, conditions of low quality brass, escaping gas, etc and used the best metallurgy, heat treatment and cutting tools that was available then, 120 years ago.

Great, glad you think so, why don't you put that with your comments in the other thread?

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
Where else in the mechanical world do people believe that metallurgy from a century ago is superior to today?

No one. But I can't find anyone that is arguing with you that it IS?

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
You couldn't even build modern vehicles or aircraft subject to the speeds and stresses with steel/metal they had available 100 years ago.

No you can't, your absolutely right. But again, I don't see anyone arguing with that you CAN? Oh, but wait, that was me. Because you are. A large portion of your drivetrain is carbon steel that is case hardened.

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:
I suspect you would now rank them nearly as poorly as a Mauser.

Mausers are junk, I suppose that means Krags are too, as well as 03’s, 1917’s crack, 64’s grenade and 700’s peel apart, what are you going to shoot? Running out of options? Tikka? Oh, wait, no. A-bolts? No one seems to actually shoot those so the jury’s still out. Howa? Blazer?

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
^ I never said anything even close to that and really don't appreciate you claiming or implying I did.

What I said was,
"If heat treated 4140 and a large bolt handle 3rd lug notch catastrophically failed from this gross overload, do you really think low/medium carbon steel and a dinky 3rd lug would have faired better?"

Feel free to answer that if you care to.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
No irrational hysteria here, modern steel and heat treatment is just vastly superior.

I am not going to spend anymore time copying and pasting your own statements for you. When I read this, and I am a simple person, comparing two objects, if ONE is "vastly superior", the other is then "vastly inferior", which being a simple person I abbreviate to "junk". I think most people would agree "vastly inferior" would be reasonably substituted by "junk".

I've been in manufacturing all of my life. I don't know much else. Like I said previously, your car is chock full of plain carbon steel components that are case hardened. And shockingly, with all the superior metallurgy, heat treating, computers and what not, there are still issues with those parts. Ie pending recall for some components that were improperly tempered, leaving them brittle. 122 years later we are still having quality issues in mass manufacturing. Sometimes they are soft, sometimes they are hard. Most are just right.

I can reply to your Burgess posts later if you wish, but again, your arguing with I don't know who? Making I don't know what point? If you think Mauser's are such exceptional quality, then what is your point? If they are junk, then good?

If you want to have a "reasoned" discussion as you claim, then have one, and drop the theatre act arguing with whoever these zealots and sycophants you keep referencing.

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:

This is exactly my point. I don't see anyone in the thread, attaching mythical properties to the Mauser design, especially the metallurgy.
.....

I have not seen anyone claim any of these things? Can you find them in this thread and quote them for me because I missed them?

Sure page 1 in this thread.
Metal asserts that Mauser steel was equal to 90,000 psi yield, 22Rc at the core and cold rolled.

I need to get back to work so my previous post and this one is rushed, but hopefully I will convey my post. I will stand here, in front of all the other gun makers and say that Tom Burgess was wrong.



.007" depth of case - in spec
Rc 9 - this measurement is useless because he does not specify how it was obtained. 150kg Rc then it is within spec.

We know today that using the 150kg Rc test is not reliable at this low of a number, so presumably he obtained it some other way?

How do we know the bottom liners at DWM wanted to save money and cooked the receivers and bolts in 10-12 minutes? That is awfully specific? Please provide documentation? This contradicts the documentation that I do have.

Austria provided spitzer ammo 200FPS faster for the machine gun. You and I both know that fps is not a directly proportional "linear" increase in pressure. The 1909's were tested at 4000 ATM. What was the ammo? If the ammo was over pressure why do we not see lug setback in 1891's?

So your statement...

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
There you have it, the 1909's were hardened to the bare minimum for shooting low pressure ammo designed for 91 mausers and suffered lug setback with ammo of only 200 fps faster.
And modern US powders are dynamic with pressure jumps that 1900 German flake powders didn't produce.

Is based on incorrect or anecdotal information.

As to a dream Mauser... why screw around with all the issues you have with 4140. If I ever take the time to make a Mauser action it'll be A2 through hardened. It is far superior to antiquated 4140.

How far do you want to take the argument? The powdered metals of today make 4140 nearly a filthy open hearth melt of questionable origin.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:

This is exactly my point. I don't see anyone in the thread, attaching mythical properties to the Mauser design, especially the metallurgy.
.....

I have not seen anyone claim any of these things? Can you find them in this thread and quote them for me because I missed them?

Sure page 1 in this thread.
Metal asserts that Mauser steel was equal to 90,000 psi yield, 22Rc at the core and cold rolled.

No, he did not. He quoted 1030 specs. As you replied. Cold drawn bar.

A Mauser receiver is neither cold drawn as you stated (again, agreeing with you), nor is it 1030.

So continue with your point...

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:

A Mauser receiver is neither cold drawn as you stated (again, agreeing with you), nor is it 1030.

So continue with your point...

No it isn't. That is why I a wrote "1030ish", because there is no AISI equivalent to the steel that Mauser used and no values of yield, etc..

But for practical purposes it is close enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:

A Mauser receiver is neither cold drawn as you stated (again, agreeing with you), nor is it 1030.

So continue with your point...

No it isn't. That is why I a wrote "1030ish", because there is no AISI equivalent to the steel that Mauser used and no values of yield, etc..

But for practical purposes it is close enough.

Agreed.

Continue with your point.

(edited to add) I never finished my engineering degree, you may have, can you calculate out the relevant figures using 1030 as data point for a hot forging in a drop hammer?

This isn't a snide comment, it is a question.

Well, then if we are OK with comparing mauser steel to AISI 1030, why are we looking at the yield and hardness of 1030 cold rolled and comparing them to heat treated 4140?

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
Well, then if we are OK with comparing mauser steel to AISI 1030, why are we looking at the yield and hardness of 1030 cold rolled and comparing them to heat treated 4140?

I do not see anyone saying they are comparable, as in equal, what I do see is 4sixteen posting about a modern action(claiming it is 4140, I have no idea what they are made of) and its potential strengths. Is your issue with this that the modern action is NOT made from 4140? That is not really clear in what you posted. Or maybe I completely missed the comparison you are referencing. I take comparison as looking at the qualities of two similar or dissimilar items. Saying that they are comparable means that they are similar. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by comparing?

I do know in the last few years, it is difficult to get US made 4140. Most of it comes from the eastern block it seems. Except for the big stuff. 4" and up is still made about 30 minutes away at Timken.

Oh, except to add, I wouldn't make a Mauser action out of A2, because you can't find any thats made in the damned United States. Every source I have found for it gets it from China. I make all sorts of stuff from 8620 because it is the ONLY material I can consistently get made in the US. 4340 would be ideal as well, but it is apparently all made in China.

What do you think the steel yield strength is of a typical military mauser?