How much ham-fisted gunsmithing is likely to make an FN Mauser action unsafe?

We have a sporterised 1951 FN Mauser .30'06 on which I finally put a scope in a Leupold (STD?) swing-out bridge mount. The base has two screws at the front and one right at the rear.

Because I wanted to maximise eye relief and keep the old PH aperture's base in place, I taped the scope on with the the bridge's rear mount kissing the (clip) boss, the other end near perfectly over the front receiver ring. At this position one of the front screws would be well forward over the barrel threads and the other 14mm from the rear of the receiver ring, over the locking-lug recess.

I took a photo of the placement and desired eye relief and gave it to the local gunshop owner with the gear to pass on to his (unnamed) 'gunsmith' to mount. Years later I noticed the bolt was rougher to cycle than even a Mauser should be, and discovered the rear screw protruded into the bolt's anti-bind guide's run way. I loosened the big side screws to swing out the scope but it would not budge. Scope out of rings, the small offending screw would not move either, so the front screws were tried. They finally let go from the Locktite, so a fitter-and-turner mate dared to forced the rear screw - and we took the whole base off.

There, under the rust and over-flowed Locktite, we discovered the 'gunsmith' had not originally followed my instructions but drilled and tapped three other holes, each a quarter inch behind where they were supposed to be. (He had filled just the rear one with a dummy screw when he realised his mistake.)

The redundant second hole occurs right in the middle of the meat behind the upper lug (and this in a receiver that had been grooved to facilitate the clip loading of longish military .30/06 rounds). The gunshop is too convenient to want off side and litigation in Australia is not to be trifled with, so I would just like some technical advice, if you don't mind.

What is the likelihood that those two extra holes in the front receiver ring have compromised the integrity of the action? Would dummy screws in all the holes make it any safer?

Nobody can give a quantitative answer to your question, but if the 'meat' as you put it let go behind the top lug of the closed bolt on a Mauser action, the whole receiver ring behind the bolt lug would have to let go and a small screw hole in this area is not going to cause that.
When I mount bases I always dry mount them one screw tight at a time, loosen and then tighten the next screw to see that they are tightening the base down individually and not rolling or lifting the base because of irregularities on the receiver or base. Then I check screw depths to see none are protruding into spaces that will bind the bolt or locking lugs. Only then do I apply epoxy glue to the base and screw threads and tighten everything down removing squeezed out excess glue from around the base or bases and from thru screw holes. Sloppy work to not do this whole sequence.

You have highlighted one of the reasons why I epoxy glue bases to receivers using the same epoxy on the screw threads - keeps out moisture wicking and rusting under the base.

In your case you should have used a gas pencil flame torch on the screws, this would have released the Loctite and allowed the screws and base to be removed easily.

Similarly if using epoxy e.g. Araldite two tube glue, heating the base and screws allows everything to removed easily if need be.

Hello from UK. I'd guess that in "Aus" just as in UK you've seen the pre-WWI Mauser sporter rifles that the guys that served with the ANZAC brought back from WWI?

They had a huge dovetail cross-cut straight through the front receiver at the top. I owned one and wish I'd never sold it.

I'd reckon that they would be far more weakening to the integrity of the thing than three screw holes.

Now that style of fitting a 'scope base is now banned in Germany but I've never known of any such 'scoped Mauser 98 that is used with standard pressure standard 8x57 cartridges "let go".

But...in those days they were not shooting .300 Winchester Magnum nor .308 Norma Magnum and I'd always assess strength against what cartridge the rifle is being chambered in.

One other though. If any degree of excessive heat has been used then the whole rules of the game change.

Well, I guess the old saying still prevails: "It hasn't blown up so far so it's highly unlikely that its going to fail in the future." I would however be slightly annoyed, bordering on righteous indignation and harrumphing loudly. But I wouldn't be worried unless I re-chambered it to something with more bolt thrust.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

There, under the rust and over-flowed Locktite, we discovered the 'gunsmith' had not originally followed my instructions but drilled and tapped three other holes, each a quarter inch behind where they were supposed to be. (He had filled just the rear one with a dummy screw when he realised his mistake.)

I have a Winchester mdl 43 in 218 Bee that my grandfather gave me 30 years ago.
Originally it had a Kuwarski (sp) Bros mount on it that was long gone with an odd mounting pattern.

I special ordered a Bueller blank base, the only blank one I could find to have drilled to match the holes on the receiver.
Waited months to get it.

Conveyed all that the the gunsmith, only to have him drill 4 new holes that left the small diameter receiver looking like swiss cheese and insult to injury the mount wasn't even at top dead center, or parallel to the bore.

That was the last time I took a gun to a "gunsmith".

Most "gunsmiths" are ignorant hacks; very few good, true gunsmiths left. No money in it.
Anyway, has your receiver been weakened? Of course it has. When it blows, it will follow the path of all those holes. But, is it strong enough for the job in hand? Remember there is a big difference between just holding the fired round, which is very easy, and the job of containing 50,000 pounds of escaping gas. That is very hard.
You always have the lower lug and the safety lug, so I wouldn't worry. But I still wouldn't like it.
I would bet it is; not being a betting man though.
I would make them give you a new receiver.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Would dummy screws in all the holes make it any safer?

Possibly. If the action has been weakened enough to indeed cause a catastrophic failure in the future than some solidity in place of vacant metal could conceivably "bridge the gap" enough to help. Or not.. I had an old small ring commercial Mauser that had been hacked by bubba and the screw holes werent even in line! I had considered having them filled and then re-heat treating the action. But I never did, it has a new owner now.

Well at least those screw holes are round and not square. So there's no "edge" where a failure might start...as we Brits found out with the de Havilland Comet airplane and its square windows.

I did some tests a long time ago..I found the Mausers with case hardened on the outside and soft underneath tended to swell up like a cream puff but they never slung shrapnel, sometimes the action puffed up and the barrel split a bit. The mod 70 being very strong and hard as hell to blow up, but when it did parts went in all directions, a virtual bomb..One of the reasons I like Mausers over mod. 70s, but I still prefer one or the other.

As a side note I found the mod. 51 FN and later milsurp FNs to be more brittle than the 98 Mauser, they are not the same action..I also have been told by some very good riflesmiths that the FN is fine for 30-06 type rounds but not recommended for the short or long magnums like the 300 win. or 300 Wby etc..The early Milsurps Mausers made for FN with the single c ring seem to be first class for about any caliber that will fit.

Thanks everyone,
I find most of your thoughts a little reassuring.

Having mentioned the points most salient in the first post, I will add a few more in case they alter the situation or give you some amusement.

The rifle has a Columbian crest and was, I believe, one of the batch Fuller Firearms brought into Oz in the 1970s; they sold some in full wood and some with rudimentary sporterizing - mine was one of the former. The name 'Famage' seems to have been associated with them and I suspect this may refer to them being rebarrelled to .30'06. This one appears to have the action broached(?) on both sides of the breech rather than having a C ring.

Another demerit with this rifle is that it appeared to have 12 thou headspace, so I have never reloaded for it, just trashed the once-fired cases. Unlike a similar one I sporterized years before, it has never been particularly accurate, even after I glass bedded it and replaced the trigger.

I had toyed with rebarrelling it to .35 Whelen or 9.3x62 but unless I do replace the receiver, that won't happen now. I don't suppose a Zastava barrelled action would fit the stock or mounts?

I spent a fair bit of time reshaping and chequering that stock but am sorry to say it now seems to have a fine crack behind the tang, so is probably not worth saving, either.

If this all sounds a bit second-rate, you might be even more bemused to know that I passed it on to No.1 son when he turned 18, all of 10 years ago. I don't think he's ever used it because, unlike his brother, he can't be bothered coming hunting. He does like to shoot skeet occasionally, though.

Anyway, about five years ago I saw a new Kahles Helia C 1.1-4x24 at a great price and thought it might work well on this rifle.

Finally finding the right mounts, I handed it all over to the gun shop guy a quarter-mile away, to give to his secret smith to install. As the reticle grows with the power, I assumed the scope was still the old reticle-movement type. Knowing these required extra care, I made it clear to the dealer that I wanted it mounted to boresight without recourse to the knobs. I also asked if the gunsmith could add a low-scope safety (on the right side, so it could be released with thumb and forefinger when noise is a problem).

I rang the shop the morning it was due back and the dealer said it was funny that I'd called at that moment, as he was just tweaking the alignment. Yes, I was a bit peeved but, as you all probably knew, the Europeans had succumbed to the decadance, too, and almost all scopes are now image-moving, so it didn't matter much.

The required safety was added, and seems to work, but I recently found that it is only held by friction and sometimes backs out of the hole. Is that usual?

So, you can see this has been a sorry business from start to finish - just as well I didn't get him to mount the scope on a Rigby

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I would make them give you a new receiver.

From post #1
Years later I noticed the bolt was rougher to cycle than even a Mauser should be, and discovered the rear screw protruded into the bolt's anti-bind guide's run way.

It is done, no way they are going to give anyone a new receiver years later.
Sadly just another mauser like many before it that has been hacked on....... by well, a Hack.

Oh, oops; that "years later" thing.
Sambar; no your safety should not back out on it's own.
But a 12 thou excessive headspace is nothing; just make your brass fit the chamber; open up the necks and move the shoulder forward. No reason not to make it into a 9,3.

Thanks Doug and dpcd,
I was not inclined to ask for another receiver, anyway, and installing it with scope remounted would be another expensive bunfight, not to mention the complications of registration identity.

However, in this country we have a thing called statutory warranty, whereby a buyer's claim may exist far beyond the guarantee any maker may wish to give. In a case where the merchant's fault is as glaring as these are, yet concealed from normal scrutiny, I suspect there might be some coverage.

I'm thinking of asking the dealer to shout me at least a couple of grub screws (presumably 6-48, apparently a bit hard to find around here, according to my fitter-and-turner mate), which I would epoxy into the dud holes.

Then, assuming silver solder could affect the action's temper, I might epoxy the mount bridge on, too, hoping this might add a fraction of safety in case the action does succumb.

Would that be a big problem if we ever did rebarrel, dpcd?

Also, how are those safeties normally held in place?

The safeties like the Mk11 are held into the bolt shroud by grinding a little notch into it that the safety fits into so it won't back out.
I don't really see a problem with the receiver; Mausers are very forgiving. However, tin solders like Brownells force 44, melt at less than 500 degrees so that would be ok.

Thanks dpdc,
I'll see if I can get some screws and ask if this dude knows of that means of tethering the safety.

Cheers

Saga update: the dealer found some grub screws, put them in and gave me a spare that I could stone to fit even better in the most contentious hole.

I took out the safety (yes dpcd, it is branded 'Mark II') and found, up from the flat bit along the end, a 2mm dia. blind hole in the shank. The dealer said he had once used a similar safety that just sat there - he could not work out how just removing metal from the shroud would make anything engage with the hole. Since the FN doesn't have that mixed blessing of a circular firing-pin locator in the stock, I have not managed to remove the striker from the shroud to look further. I would have thought a spring-loaded ballbearing might be needed for that hole in the safety's shank to be much help.

The dealer suggested a bit of grease might increase the friction to stop the safety backing out - but I'm not convinced.

Ok, you don't need the stock washer; just put the firing pin on a block of wood, and compress the shroud. On the safety that little blind hole you found had a nylon plug in the shaft to keep them from rattling, and when installed correctly, the safety handle sets into a notch in the bolt shroud to keep it from backing out. You have to file that slot. Nothing engages with that little hole. Your gunsmith needs some remedial training. Send me a picture of your safety from the back and I will tell you what to do from here.

Thanks dpcd,
so, should I find a piece of neoprene that fits into that hole, first up?

I'll drill the block and send the pic ASAP. Do you want to see the safety in the rifle or showing the small hole?

Here are those pics (with luck):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cgmo...5n/DSC04755.JPG?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w0vo...fw/DSC04763.JPG?dl=0

I have removed the firing pin and striker, too. It looks as though a hole might need to be drilled through from the striker location to the safety channel to engage with that small hole in the safety shank.

It kinda looks like the guy that installed that safety didn't cut the locking notch in the shroud sambarman338. They probably just took metal off the cam until it would fire or off the lower portion of the safety lever. That's why it's backing out. Putting grease on it or trying to Micky Mouse them never works out well.

The cheap fix is probably the Timney/Buehler clone. It catches on the flange on the exit of the safety port.

http://www.brownells.com/rifle...afety-prod13149.aspx

No, do not drill any holes; that won't help, or work. put a piece of nylon or hard plastic into the little hole. And, as I suspected, and as Speer said, your gunsmith, well, isn't really one. He didn't fit the safety correctly to the shroud. I can't tell if there is enough metal left to engage into a slot in the bolt should (which you have to cut) or not. Get another safety and fit it yourself. Or, as Speer said, get the Buehler one which requires no cuts on the shroud. Or get a trigger with a thumb safety; I use bolds.

Ditto on dpcd's trigger idea, if it doesn't already have an after market trigger in it. There are folk who swear by the old military triggers and while they are actually more safe and more reliable than the modern, single stage, double sear triggers, they aren't my cup of tea. Get a Timney or Bold trigger with a side safety and kill two birds with one stone. More money of course, but you get more toys for the dollar and whoever has the most toys when he dies, WINS THE COOKIE !

Thanks guys,
looking at Youtube efforts, I'm inclined to think he stoned the safety's cam to fit it. I am not impressed with the amount of bearing it retains against the striker and, compared with the original military safety, the lack of detent in the safe position. I think my aftermarket trigger is a Timney - but it has no safety. Part of the reason I didn't get one with a safety was a report I'd heard that if not using a top-fastening safety there is some danger the striker might be bumped up into the gap and released. The rifle only had a receiver sight at the time and I did not have a modern bolt shroud, so left the old safety in place.

Not sure whether Brownells will send me a safety (I couldn't even get a two-quart GI water bottle from one US supplier), but I'll have a go.

Many thanks for all the advice.

Here is your final solution; leave the bolt handle up; do not close the bolt until you are ready to shoot.

SB, life's too short and too precious...yours, you friends' or your kids'...to risk on a rifle you've no confidence in. And the quarry you shoot deserves a precise shot placement for a quick, clean, humane kill.

If you've doubts dump it.

Put it down to experience, bad luck, write it off but dump it. You'll feel mentally better for it and it's a new reason to buy a new (to you) rifle.

But, eh, maybe not from the same vendor!

And if you hurry you'll be just in time for AA Arms next Melbourne Auction.

Yes dpcd, that's what I used to do because I didn't like the safety sticking straight up and disengaging to the left side. (I now realise the sticking-up safety is part of why DG hunters like the Mauser - if you can't see the sights, the safety is still on!) The Mauser has a notch point that helps hold the bolt forward and, if the trigger is somehow pulled and released before the handle is lowered, the striker remains cocked - not so with my Sako, however.

Good point, enfieldspares, but I hate to waste things unnecessarily. For all the use this rifle gets, I am prepared to plug along until I get it right. The lack of accuracy is never likely to be a problem in our deer-hunting conditions, since a shot over 60 yards is pretty rare.

I do prefer to buy guns s/h for investment reasons and will keep an eye out for that auction, but sometimes the "devil you know ..." argument has some merit.

In the light of speerchucker's suggestion and enfieldspare's urge to take no chances, I have ordered a nickel-plated safety (to go with the in-white shroud) from Brownells. So far, so good.

Hopefully the nickel won't scare the critters

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
Well at least those screw holes are round and not square. So there's no "edge" where a failure might start...as we Brits found out with the de Havilland Comet airplane and its square windows.

In the world of high performance engines it is known that parts like piston rods have a far greater tenancy to fracture if there is already a pre-existing gap or groove (for lack of a better term). And so in conditioning such parts for strength it is desirable to make the surface smooth and free of any such inconsistency that may be a catalyst to a fracture.

Good news: it would appear the new safety has been shipped.

G'day sambarman338,

dpcd is absolutely correct - that blind hole is there to hold a hard nylon friction piece. This is to keep the safety in position when it's on 'safe'. And if the so-called smith has removed it, he has NFI, and can't even follow the packet instructions! Click on the pic for the M98 version HERE to view this.

Fitting one of these Mk II safeties also requires that a notch be cut into the RHS of the bolt shroud, that the root of the safety lever turns down into, to positively retain it in the 'off' position. Doesn't look like this has been done, from those pics.
Here's a detailed how-to: http://www272.pair.com/stevewag/turk/turklosafe.html

I've only fitted one of these Dayton Traister Mk II safeties, but it was an easy job - Dremel to cut the notch, which was the only metalwork required.

I presume you've gone with the Timney/Buehler type for the new safety? If so, it doesn't require cutting a notch [as has been said above], but may well require stoning of a bevel on the cocking piece.

BTW, Cobb & Co, then out in Canterbury Road, Surrey Hills, brought in a lot of those .30-06 Colombian Mausers back in the 80's. They had full length rifles, 18" barrel carbines, and plenty of bits - barrelled actions were $55.

Thanks Gadge,
that's interesting info and I may have to look back at it when the new safety arrives. I do have a Dremel-type tool (came as a bonus with a cordless drill) but have never bought the bits for it - and with luck won't need to now.

You are probably right about the Columbian Mausers, too, as I'm pretty sure that's where I bought mine (unless it was also Warwick Militaria, where I'd got a Greek MS). The Fullers FN .30/06, bought c. 1974, had cost me $50; the Columbian one (about 1986) was $150.