quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
How many countries used the Mauser 98 for their military?

They should have just bought a box of chinese bolts.

Alternately, maybe they should have made them from Chinese grade 2 bolts.
$2.49 lb at the ranch store.

Why don't you ask the passengers of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 about the quality of chinese screws.

Oh wait....

YOU CAN'T

quote:

Originally posted by metal:

I didn't claim that Mauser cores were anything.

What I did say was IF 1030 was hardened to 22 RC (cold rolled, carburised or whatever) it would have 90,000 yield.

No what you did was quote my post where the name Mauser was referred with its hardness and steel qualities AND then disputed it.

See, I had this nutty idea when I said Mauser receivers which you quoted and replied to, that you also were referring to Mauser receivers and not some lump of metal elsewhere that has nothing to do with Mauser receivers.

I’ve been following this thread for a while, and can’t help jumping in... It seems this it is going round in circles now - the subject seem to crop up quite a bit. But it seems we still don’t know the yield strength, what steel they used and can’t definitively agree how they heat treated it.

I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing a new action using higher degrees of control in steel composition and heat treating would be stronger, but so what?

Original Mauser Oberndorf actions are still the single most desirable actions for high quality custom hunting rifles, followed closely by various other 98 actions. Up until a few years ago BRNO was still making new rifles on surplus mil 98s (BO98 - mine was built on a German receiver), likewise Voere and I imagine others. They have the best gas venting (who knows - maybe if old mate in the 24HCF thread might still have his eye if he’d been shooting a 98 with his overload? Not a statement just an suggestion). They are strong and hard enough to cope with modern rounds at modern pressures, even 270 (with the caveat pre WWI actions may need heat treating with hotter chamberings) - on average there are no more reports of people blowing 98s up than other actions despite the millions out there. Obviously they still need checking for external defects before a build...

Not to get in the middle of things, but I have a question.
The yield strength of the brass case is far less then any of the steel. And so, wouldn't the strength of steel in the barrel that's holding the case, play a part in over-all strength of a receiver letting go?

^^
Weakest link of all load bearing components of a firearm is the one that lets go first. Case head separation can also result in a wreck.

I know that this will energize the pressure and steel "experts" who have been doing all the commentary here. It is planned that way; the "Sharp Stick" approach.
The brass case is the weak link in the entire system, and yes it is a system. If the brass didn't let go, then the action would handle far more "pressure" than it can when it is subject to a massive release of gas. It is the gas release that does the damage, not the static pressure on any component. Brass cases, unless totally supported, will rupture at a pressure far below the strength of actions. That is how the Rem 700 stays together with massive overloads. I have seen them and disassemble them after a case full of pistol powder. Just don't release gas; contain it.
Is it a chicken and egg scenario? Does the action fail due to pressure first, or the brass case ruptures and releases gas that damaged the action first? No one has proven that either way. I say it is the brass case that fails first, and the action is damaged secondly. We already know that the actual back thrust on a case head is relatively low; that is easy to calculate. I would like to see a static test of a bolt and receiver with a load of 5 tons placed on the bolt face.
I would like to perform tests on actions with steel cases ammo but they can't have conventional pressed in primers.
That is how our M256 Tank Cannon operates at 100K PSI; steel cases with steel electric primers, screwed in. (One of my jobs was to manage tank ammo production, and later, my group managed the cannon and breech production. )
The Mauser haters will still be here. None of this affects me. I know what they are capable of. Mausers I mean.

Should be firearm/details-dependent. Handloads exceeding maximum recommended could cause incipient damage - tensile and/or shear stress cracks - before case strained to rupture. Stress level just enough to initiate tensile or shear yielding.

For example did hoop stress calc's for 1 of my rifles. Chamber max hoop stress ~1.4x chamber pressure. If max average load pressure listed as typical 65 ksi then barrel material yield strength better be > 91 ksi plus safety margin.

quote:

Originally posted by brnomauser:
But it seems we still don’t know the yield strength, what steel they used and can’t definitively agree how they heat treated it.

But we do know, it was plain, low carbon steel and whether it was closer to 1330 or 1030 is insignificant in yield strength or heat treatment.
Because either of those or somewhere in between are 42,000-50,000ish psi, and that is way on the low end by modern standards.
It is immaterial what the exact yield strength is, because it is just plain low.

And we do know how it was heat treated.

What we don't know is how deep the case is on a particular receiver and the only way to find out is by dissecting the receiver and acid etching or grind steps/taper and repeatedly hardness testing to plot the depth.

Hardness testing can't be done in the location that counts and Rc shouldn't be used under 0.030 case depth, and file testing the lug seats doesn't tell you how deep the case is.

So you are left with guessing/hoping/not worrying about it or having it retreated.
Where the heat treater doesn't care about the exact steel composition is either because it basically is plain, low carbon steel and will be treated as such.

Easier yet, is simply to deny there ever were problems with case depth and resulting setback.

But one of the funniest and oddest aspects of all these mauser threads is the suspension of time. Where the past and present are the same.

Such as Mausers have great strength through design, or they are made of the finest steel.
No, they WERE at the time, but that is in the past. Over 120 years ago!!

Funny you never see people on a car forum repeatedly saying Barney Oldfield's 999 is a really fast car.


Matters not to me who uses what action for what, but could we finally in 2021 stop believing/pretending that mausers didn't have hardness issues, acknowledge the steel strength was low and heat treatment were primitive by todays standards.

Oh my God, Look out!
It's gonna blooooowwwwww.
5556GDBob by JAMES ANDERSON, on Flickr

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:

But we do know, it was plain, low carbon steel and whether it was closer to 1330 or 1030 is insignificant in yield strength or heat treatment.
Because either of those or somewhere in between are 42,000-50,000ish psi, and that is way on the low end by modern standards.
It is immaterial what the exact yield strength is, because it is just plain low.

And we do know how it was heat treated.

What we don't know is how deep the case is on a particular receiver and the only way to find out is by dissecting the receiver and acid etching or grind steps/taper and repeatedly hardness testing to plot the depth.

Hardness testing can't be done in the location that counts and Rc shouldn't be used under 0.030 case depth, and file testing the lug seats doesn't tell you how deep the case is.

So you are left with guessing/hoping/not worrying about it or having it retreated.
Where the heat treater doesn't care about the exact steel composition is either because it basically is plain, low carbon steel and will be treated as such.

Easier yet, is simply to deny there ever were problems with case depth and resulting setback.

You’re still missing the point, it’s strong enough. It’s still the most sort after action world wide for top quality builds. No one else shares your concerns. If rifles of otherwise equal features were offered side by side - one with a MWO 98 action and one another commercial (say CZ, M77, M70, 700, sako, Tikka etc.) the 98 would be more desirable and sell for a higher price. You could argue that is foolish, but it goes to show there is no problem. Otherwise no one (or almost no one) would be building on them - eg like people avoid high back thrust rounds on pre 98s.

We can speculate on the steel, and estimate but we don’t exactly. But that’s beside the point, it doesn’t matter. What we do know, is that it’s good enough. It can be made stronger, but it isn’t necessary- they’re not weak enough to be an issue even with high back thrust cartridges. And seeing as the pressure is held by the barrel as stated, the cartridge pressure isn’t even the issue. The receiver isn’t holding the cartridge - it’s holding the bolt against the barrel. It doesn’t need to be 90k psi.

Hardness of lug area is a separate issue, and it is common practice to re heat treat for high back thrust cartridges in pre wwI actions, like I said. I’ve always understood this is the time proven rule with Mausers. I’ve never heard of anyone re heat-treating a post wwi action unless they had a unique reason (like been in a fire, overlapped lugs etc.). I’m assuming you don’t have an issue with low carbon steel/case hardened actions as you haven’t bashed Prechtl yet - or is that still to come? If not why?

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
Funny you never see people on a car forum repeatedly saying Barney Oldfield's 999 is a really fast car.

That analogy is absolutely bonkers, I’m really Struggling to find any similarities and it is a serious red flag to your logic on the matter.

I've enjoyed this discussion. I greatly admire 98 action design. And apparently there are very rarely any issues with them, even when barreled to hot cartridges. However, I wonder how many high end customs are actually built each year. I kind of doubt the numbers are very high. Its one thing to say "most all of my customers use a Mauser" but what if "my customers" only equal 3 or 4. Just wondering. I use M70s because I'm not willing to pay the cost to have a mauser done like the hi-end folks do: M70 safety, another trigger, and all the little things to make it just right. In one of Jim Carmichals books in the chapter on custom rifles, he said he thought it was "false economy" to have a true custom built on anything other than a M70. I do wonder why at least a couple of the most expensive custom builders use predominantly M70 classics for their customs: these guys know action design as well as anyone but mostly choose the 70. I'd like to know their rational when so many think the 98 is better. Thanks especially to the guy who rockwelled those actions. Thats really interesting to me.

serious question -
Why is it that these discussions either go
1: unnoticed
2: turn into a goat rope?

Look, in old steel, quality varies, and that scope of acceptable quality varies by contract, too ..

I'd rather see data, even if that includes my beloved mexican mauser 1936 being a brie cheese

quote:

Originally posted by brnomauser:
You’re still missing the point, it’s strong enough. It’s still the most sort after action world wide for top quality builds. No one else shares your concerns.

Using low carbon steel and case hardening was always marginal for a gun receiver, otherwise prewar mausers and 1909s wouldn't have the setback reputation they do, even with originally chambering.

Burgess said every 1909 should be rehardened.
A guy who examined and tested 450-500 of them, what did he know?

Winchester was using nickel steel in 1894, with yield of about 100,000psi. Far superior steel before the 1st 98 was made.

Mauser metallurgy and heat treatment was inferior to what was available right out of the gate and was quickly bested even by another military rifle, the japansese with their mauser clone.

Way bested by Winchesters proof steel (chrome moly) in 1940.

Still Mauser and FN commercials trudged on with their butter soft, low yield strength steel.
Even late FN commercials had issues of setback and handling higher pressure loads that even the lowly Vanguard can easily take.

Someone must have shared my concerns, because every gun manufacturer has dumped using low carbon steel.

And every boutique gunmaker (maker as in actually makes the action) of mauser clones has done likewise with the exception of the Prechtl.
Aside, is Prechtl even imported anymore??

When Grisel made, yes made his DSB clones he used chrome moly.

When Reimer Johannsen started making his mauser clone, chrome moly.

Satterlee, 4140 as I recall, don't see it on his website to confirm.

Granite Mtn and Mayfair 8620.

quote:

Originally posted by brnomauser:
You’re still missing the point, it’s strong enough. It’s still the most sort after action world wide for top quality builds. No one else shares your concerns.

Yet doug just keeps pi$$ing into the wind.

James you are clearly heavily emotionally invested and your antics offer nothing of substance to the discussion.

But I am neither offended or distracted, so carry on if you must.

quote:

Originally posted by brnomauser:
You’re still missing the point, it’s strong enough. It’s still the most sort after action world wide for top quality builds. No one else shares your concerns.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug W:
James you are clearly heavily emotionally invested and your antics offer nothing of substance to the discussion.

Thats the pot calling the kettle black.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I know that this will energize the pressure and steel "experts" who have been doing all the commentary here. It is planned that way; the "Sharp Stick" approach.
The brass case is the weak link in the entire system, and yes it is a system. If the brass didn't let go, then the action would handle far more "pressure" than it can when it is subject to a massive release of gas. It is the gas release that does the damage, not the static pressure on any component. Brass cases, unless totally supported, will rupture at a pressure far below the strength of actions. That is how the Rem 700 stays together with massive overloads. I have seen them and disassemble them after a case full of pistol powder. Just don't release gas; contain it.
Is it a chicken and egg scenario? Does the action fail due to pressure first, or the brass case ruptures and releases gas that damaged the action first? No one has proven that either way. I say it is the brass case that fails first, and the action is damaged secondly. We already know that the actual back thrust on a case head is relatively low; that is easy to calculate. I would like to see a static test of a bolt and receiver with a load of 5 tons placed on the bolt face.
I would like to perform tests on actions with steel cases ammo but they can't have conventional pressed in primers.
That is how our M256 Tank Cannon operates at 100K PSI; steel cases with steel electric primers, screwed in. (One of my jobs was to manage tank ammo production, and later, my group managed the cannon and breech production. )
The Mauser haters will still be here. None of this affects me. I know what they are capable of. Mausers I mean.

The most likely scenarios are one of two. In both the brass gives up first. The case yields and the gas escapes blowing holes in wood, venting out the side and into the magazine. The shooter shits his pants and life goes on as usual. The second scenario involves the case yielding, but it manages to plug the escaping gases and other things have to yield. Steel cases would do the same thing. They are made of low carbon (0.04% max, usually much lower) drawing steel and actually have a similar yield and tensile strength to the brass cases. Somewhere around 80ksi yield with about a 90ksi tensile strength. It all in the brass chemistry, steel chemistry and amount of cold work.

And I know these things because I've developed mill products to make both types of cartridge cases.

The ones that I'm interested in are the plastic cases and what steel they use for the head portion. I haven't gotten my hands on those yet.

Jeremy

The M829A3 120mm Cartridge operates at 105 KSI. So how does it do that with a steel case if they fail at 80? The barrels are made from 4340 steel and have about a 150 KSI yield, if I recall correctly.
I know of no plastic cased tank ammo. The 105s are steel and the 120 is compressed propellant except for the stub base, which is steel with a rubber obturator. I've fired hundreds of them.

just for fun. I think there's a rockwell spot on there somewhere but I have no idea of the hardness.

While looking through some recent files I found a letter dated Sept 28th 1988 I received from Milt Ohrn at that time the Heat Treating Manager at Blanchard Metal Processing Co. in Salt Lake City. Milt was very good at what he did. Under his eye I never lost an action or bolt while I'm sure everyone of them warped to a minor degree, they all will.

I had sent 3 de-milled, read: cut in half at the thumb notch 1909 Argentine Large Ring 98 receivers, the front ring and left side wall portions identifying crest and DWM Arsenal marks confirmed the origin. I had purchased these parts for this very purpose.

At that time I had decided to try and use only the 1909 when building a rifle using a Large Ring 98. The finish quality of most 1909's was excellent and at that time you could pick up real gems for $300 as I recall.

I do remember that all 3 receiver portions showed recoil lug set back.

Milt subjected all the parts to Spectrographic Analysis to determine the relative steel composition to help the both of us decide how to best
re-carborize any 1909's I planned to use in the future. Milt no doubt already had a handle on it.

The results were as follows:

Carbon .27
Manganese .50

Then was quoted (With no other alloys effecting harden-ability, This material conforms with A.I.S.I. C-1025

Any heat treating done would have to with carburizing, hardening and tempering. Case depth and hardness should be specified by you.)



Just some more food for thought

Thanks for adding your data to the discussion!

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
The M829A3 120mm Cartridge operates at 105 KSI. So how does it do that with a steel case if they fail at 80? The barrels are made from 4340 steel and have about a 150 KSI yield, if I recall correctly.
I know of no plastic cased tank ammo. The 105s are steel and the 120 is compressed propellant except for the stub base, which is steel with a rubber obturator. I've fired hundreds of them.

Tank ammo, or anything above .50 cal I have no knowledge of. I can only speak to small arms cases. I wasn't arguing, but agreeing with you.

The rest of the thread is a train wreck. I read through it and want my 10 minuets back.

Jeremy

Once upon a time, there was company that sold steel cased, or based, cartridge cases that operated in standard rifles at very high pressures. I forget how they solved the primer problem. I think that the discussion was on this forum, but maybe someone else can remember.

I cannot find it here, or on the net because the results are covered by discussions of plain old steel cased cheap ammo. I will dig when I have more time.

This would indicate that it is the case not the steel in the receiver/bolt that matters.

I remember them; called OConner Steel Heads, in the 80s. Didn't last long. They were a two piece case and the steel heads screwed on to a brass front. They promoted very high pressures but in reality, couldn't get much more than a brass case; Problem was the primer; still the weakest link. Like the TV show.
Train wreck is very appropriate. But guys have nothing else to do; it's winter and no hunting season open, with covid; arguing with other internet creatures is a sport in and of itself. I do it all the time; just have to be subtle.

I just read an article on the new military trials for the SAW and M4 replacements. Sig’s entry included a 6.8 SPC with a steel base and brass case.

Military times.com .......
During the annual Maneuver Warfighter Conference at Fort Benning in Georgia, Maj. Wyatt Ottmar, project officer over NGSW for the Soldier Lethality CFT, laid out some of the recent developments and next steps for the weapons system.
Ottmar noted that Sig Sauer provided a combined steel lower and brass upper ammunition cartridge to reduce weight. A contract is expected to be awarded to one of the three companies this coming fiscal year with fielding to start in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2022, or sometime between August and October 2022, to Infantry, Stryker and Armor Brigade Combat Teams.

So we have chased the goat around the circle and roped the rascal. Our problem is not the actions, it might be the case, but it is the primer. Or we could not "push" it too hard.