i have a mauser action

I really know nothing about Mauser actions, as you will see from the balance of this post.

On the left forward part of the receiver, it says something similar to "mauser Modelo argentino 1909"

On the left side of the action it says something in German "Deutsche waffen und munitionseabriken "Berlin".

The reciever is stamped 30-06. On the top of the receiver is an emblem of some sort.

and a "T" on the trigger.

I was thinking that maybe this would be a neat gun to turn into a .300 win. Is it worth it, or would I be better off using a Remington action. Also, there is no bottom metal (Magazine box, floorplate, triggerguard). Is this action more trouble than its worth?
Anyone wanna trade or offers accepted.

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks

Biggun

Depends on what you want.
If you are looking for a basic to average hunting rifle, Trade it off or sell it. You will spend the cost of two rifles building this into a basic or average rifle.

If you are looking to build a decent to nice custom then use it But be prepared as the cost to build starts at around $5K to the sky's the limit. This is a good barrel, Good to XX grade wood, Bottom metal, Trigger, scope bases or sights, & bluing.
No engraving, No checkering, Nothing fancy.

What do you want for it???

Judging from the fact you use a Mac and could build your own gun from scratch, it will be higher. lol. Any trades? Rem action?

quote:

Originally posted by DMANCAN:
(1) Is this action more trouble than its worth?

(2) would I be better off using a Remington action.

Answers:
(1) Yes, without any doubt.

(2) Not by much


For the kind of money you are talking about, done right - assuming that's actually possible with either of those actions - you would be better off buying a CZ 550 Ultimate Hunting Rifle in 300 WM.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Aucti....aspx?Item=246384459

KB

Basically, it is a good action, but customizing military actions into sporters more desirable than a lot of modern factory guns is expensive.

If you can do your own work (ALL of it), then I'd suggest keeping it, NOT making it into a magnum of any breed, and going with some medium power cartridge which would function well through an unaltered magazine box, putting on a medium quality aftermarket trigger such as a Timney, and spending the coming winter making your own stock of whatever grade of wood or man-made fibers you want.

You'll end up with a good medium-size game rifle that way, and maybe a family heirloom you can pass on to the grandkids someday.

Sights can be whatever you want/can afford.

But unless you have bucks to burn and really want a piece of art which is like every other piece of art (worth what it's value is as art to YOU alone), I'd recommend a good factory or semi-custom small maker's rifle instead. Both will deliver the goods in the field with a lot more dollar efficiency than having somone else re-make your action into a silk purse rifle.

If you DO have bucks to burn, then do whatever turns your crank. It IS a good solid action.

quote:

It IS a good solid action.

IMO, an action is good only when you can use it as it comes from the factory, and that applies especially to the heat treatment. The question I answered was "is it more trouble than it's worth?" I advise to sell it quickly. Count your blessings and call it good riddance, IMO.

I agree with his advice of not doing a 300 WM with it.

I only recommend stuff that I would be happy with, and I would like to own a CZ 550 U.H.R., which I'm sure is a rifle that will outlast both of us, and someone will inherit a nice rifle someday.

It may need a little gunsmith tweeking, but I suspect not much - maybe bedding, or straightening the bolt handle to make it classic looking. I would be surprised if it doesn't shoot very accurate right out of the box.

KB

quote:

I also agree with his advice of not doing a 300 WM with it. It's best use is a non-magnum cartridge, IMO.

Its best to stay away from the magnum rounds mainly because of the costs involved to properly convert it.
as far as pressures go, .270win has SaMMI spec of 65,000psi, 7mmRMag- 61,000psi.
I know which loads id rather run through the old girl.
Anything operating in that pressure range deserves re-heatreat.
Be aware that a number of 1909 mausers experienced lug setback after using military issue ammunition of the time.
in some batches their hardness can average as low as 9 Rockwell, varying up to 18 Rockwell in the same batch.

quote:

Originally posted by DMANCAN:
Judging from the fact you use a Mac and could build your own gun from scratch, it will be higher. lol. Any trades? Rem action?

???? Not sure what that means. But you need to be more clear on exactly what you want.

Like I said if you are looking for a basic to average hunting rifle Buy one of the shelf And as Kabluewy pointed out a CZ 550 would be a good fit and a very nice rifle for the money.

Now if you have $12K plus to drop on a rifle then box up the action and send it off to one of the custom builders and wait two to four years for and absolute perfect example of artistry in wood and metal.

Your choice.

If you want to sell it, pm me with a price and condition. Lee.

quote:

Originally posted by lee440:
If you want to sell it, pm me with a price and condition. Lee.

Hey Hey Hey now i had first dibs!!!!

i think what he meant kcstott was that since you can do all the work on it yourself he'll charge you more for the action

HAHA thats exactly what I meant Dago. I was just hsving a little fun. thanks for everyones input. I appreciate it. I havent decided what i am going to do with the mauser yet. I havent got any offers.

See I actually though he was talking about if I built it for him it would be higher.. But that's why I asked before getting bent. It would be just my luck to get ticked off at someone just having a little fun.

And just to be clear I can't do all the work myself. My stock work sucks and I don't have bluing tanks but other then that yep I can doit.

And to tell you the truth I don't even know what one is worth regardless of condition

quote:

Be aware that a number of 1909 mausers experienced lug setback after using military issue ammunition of the time.
in some batches their hardness can average as low as 9 Rockwell, varying up to 18 Rockwell in the same batch.

Trax
Have you ever test a 1909 receiver?
Do you know how to do it?
Do you know what the limitations of the test are?

I found that one of the 1909 actions was already set back from the military ammo.

Another one set back after I had it barreled.

Later, I sent another one, unmodified, to a barrel maker to install one of their barrels, but they refused. They said the action was too soft, and they wouldn't install one of their barrels.

I have had several other good mil-surp actions, all sold now but three.

I managed to get rid of all the 1909s, at a significant loss.

KB

Here we go again! This ground has been plowed so many times...the more you plow it, the more it becomes the stuff that makes grass grow green

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Here we go again! This ground has been plowed so many times...the more you plow it, the more it becomes the stuff that makes grass grow green

Might you be refering to ?

I've used both the DWM and DGFM-(FMAP) versions of the '09 and have not had any problems.

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
I've used both the DWM and DGFM-(FMAP) versions of the '09 and have not had any problems.

That's what gets to me. I tell what happened, and to some it doesn't matter. If someone could explain why there is such a vastly different experience, with the same actions, I would appreciate it.

First of all, I don't believe it is due to variations in the hardness of the actions, producing random and occasional success. I think it's something to do with human perceptions and subjectivity. Just like the old song goes, some hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest.

Regardless of whether there has been some success, perhaps isolated or random, perhaps regularly, there are some factors about this that seems to be in agreement. Number one is that the 1909 is among the softest of Mauser actions, and the most known for lug setback. In other words, setback is common, and a fact, and happend often in their original use with military ammo, and otherwise "normal" ammo in sporter conversions.

It also appears that it's commonly agreed that the actions need reheat treatment, to ensure suitability for a custom rifle.

Name one other desirable action that reheat hardening is even an issue?

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Here we go again! This ground has been plowed so many times...the more you plow it, the more it becomes the stuff that makes grass grow green

When this ground is plowed, and the seeds of discussion fertile, and the product fruitful, then and only then will this topic rest.

If it's crap, then so is your perception. It's as simple as that.

I'll even go a step further. Perhaps you would like to discredit it as crap to avoid some from second-guessing whether their beauty and expensive show piece is slowly setting back in the lugs every time they pop a cap, or merely waiting for the chance to imitate their US clone, the Springfield.

KB

quote:

I've used both the DWM and DGFM-(FMAP) versions of the '09 and have not had any problems.

The Argentine military also used the 1909,and in far greater numbers, and they encountered lug setback.

FWIW Douglas wouldn't do my 09 in 7x57 till it was re-hardened. I had no problem with Blanchards.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

I've used both the DWM and DGFM-(FMAP) versions of the '09 and have not had any problems.

The Argentine military also used the 1909,and in far greater numbers, and they encountered lug setback.

That's what the DGFM-(FMAP) is, the Argentine made 1909. The ones I've done were heated treated by Pacific Metalurgy, no warping, no problems.

quote:

Originally posted by richj:
FWIW Douglas wouldn't do my 09 in 7x57 till it was re-hardened. I had no problem with Blanchards.

Rich

PacNor wouldn't do mine either way, which gained a lot of respect from me. Including commercial Mausers, I've sent several actions to them since with complete satisfaction.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
The ones I've done were heated treated by Pacific Metalurgy, no warping, no problems.

I can't remember for sure. It was a long time ago - over 25 years. I'm pretty sure that is the same company I used in Salt Lake City. All three of the actions and bolts I sent to them (at the same time) came back warped to some degree. Perhaps they have improved since then. They were aweful ugly, but I didn't wait to see how they looked polished out, or straightened out. I didn't wait to see if they could be made to function properly. I just got rid of them.

KB

Pacific Metalurgy is in Kent WA, Blanchards is in SLC UT. Two different oufits. FWIW, I'm in the process of putting together a 98 in 7x57 AI. I'm using a VZ-24 action that I had heated by PacMet. Lots of guys will say that VZ-24s don't need it. Maybe, maybe not. Better safe than sorry, and, it's pretty cheap insurance in the long run.

quote:

Lots of guys will say that VZ-24s don't need it. Maybe, maybe not. Better safe than sorry, and, it's pretty cheap insurance in the long run.

I'm one who thinks the VZ-24 doesn't need it, which is the only reason I'll consider using one.

Insurance??? Better safe than sorry??? It depends on how you look at it.

I think the way they were originally done was with adequate consideration of "better safe than sorry". I don't have vast experience with VZ24s, but I don't remember hearing or reading of one that failed or set back under normal use.

I would rather have one fail from set back than explode like some of the early Springfields did. From what I know about the reheating process, the reciever is made to conform to a uniform hardness throughout, to the extent possible.

I have a Mil Surp Mauser in 35 Whelen, and I have pounded the crap out of that thing with hot loads. The original heat treatment was retained. I check it often for any sign of setback, with none so far. It's what I think is called a Banner Mauser, made in Oberndorf, in the 30s. Finally, I developed a load using the Speer 220gr, and H4895, at about 2150fps, which is very mild and accurate. I like the load, so that makes me far more comfortable shooting it as often as I want to. I have a CZ in 35 Whelen to pound with full loads now.

Blanchards isn't a familiar sounding name to me at all. Pacific somethingorother in SLC seems more familiar. Could be what 25 years does to memeory.

KB

Holland & Holland re-HT all their old mauser actions for rifle builds,...nor is the concept foreign to Belk,Blackburn,Echols,Dave Miller,Ralf Martini, Satterlee and the late mauser guru, Tom Burgess.
I believe Pacific Metallurgy has the Tom Burgess spec. for M98 HT.

One needs to choose carefully which method of re-HT one uses on old mausers.
The cyanide salt process is self limiting as to depth, it throws up boundaries in the higher manganese steels in the Mauser. Some prefer a more graduated transition into the core.

Terry,
Can you give some details about what you didn't like about the result? Thanks.
Ray

Use cartridges of the pressures that were used in the original design.

I would not go to a belted round because the increased diameter would increase the bolt thrust.

The problem with the 1900 era actions is not the design, it is the metullurgy. These were made from plain carbon steel.

Today, it would be hard to justify using such a cheap, inferior grade of steel on something that was so complex, so safety critical, and so expensive to manufacture.

I am assuming that the low carbon steel used in these M1909 receivers is the same plain carbon steels used in early 03 receivers. If you look at MatWeb, these steels are not used for complicated parts, unheated it is used for rebar, if heat treated for medium duty shafts, studs, bolts and nuts. I did a composition search and found AISI 1117-1118 steel, which is similar in composition to Springfield Armory Class C steel used in 03 receivers. I could not find something that was just carburized and quenched , I found data for 1 inch round AISI 1118 mock carburized, reheated to 1450 F, quenched, tempered. This is similar to the double heat treatment. The Ultimate strength is 103,000 psi, yield 59,300 psi, elongation at break 19%. For something similar to WD2340 Nickel steel, used in the 1927 and later nickel steel 03 receivers, I found one inch round AISI 4820. For that material, mock carburized, 1450 F reheat, water quench, the ultimate strength was 163,000 psi and the yield strength was 120,000 psi, elongation at break 15%.

In a couple of decades metal technology had improved considerably, alloy steels were becoming common. By the time you get to WW2 metal technology is mature.

Today’s receivers are usually made of 4140. For a 1 in round AISI 4140 Steel, normalized at 870°C (1600°F), reheated to 845°C (1550°F), oil quenched, 260°C (500°F) temper, ultimate strength 270,000 psi, yield 240,000 psi, elongation at break 11%

The closer you get to 1900 the worse the steel. Everything I read about the quality of period steels shows the same issues: slag, impurities , poor quality. Process controls were primitive to non existent.

This death trap was state of the art three years after your receiver was made.

Think maybe materials have improved since then?

The problem with 1909 Argentines is not that they are not capable of handling more pressure[with proper HT],
rather that DWM, through production cost cutting measures, reduced the amount of HT/cooking time applied, creating a softer receiver which they deemed sufficient for the millions of rounds Argentina had in stockpile for its older model 91'

However,when the used the other Austrian supplied ammunition, it resulted in lug setback.
The 1908 Brazilian is of similar vintage, but does not seem to have the same issues with softness/lug setback with military issue rounds.

With Modern HT, 1909s' seem to hold up well to Std.length magnum rounds.
A typical 1909 in orig. form will have about .007" case depth[in critical areas], an 1909 to Tom Burgess spec. about .030" case depth.

Color case hardening like Carburizing, has inherit risk of warpage, but Turnbull makes quite a living out of applying such process.
Many collector and bespoke rifle & shotgun regularly undergo such process.

Not all old M98 receivers that undergo Re-HT process, emerge as twisted wrecks, no doubt there are many success stories.

Ok so I have a boat anchor.lol. So basically what your telling me is even when it was rebarreled to 30.06 it was unsafe? What calibers would be pressure acceptable for this action?

quote:

Ok so I have a boat anchor.lol. So basically what your telling me is even when it was rebarreled to 30.06 it was unsafe? What calibers would be pressure acceptable for this action?

Old actions are not risk free. The materials and processes used were highly variable due to the primitive process controls of the era.

As in the previous post, even if the materials were as clean and well heat treated as today's equivalent, plain carbon steels will never have the strength of a mid 20th century alloy steel.

I am of the opinion that it is not worth converting one of these actions because you run the real risk of paying a lot of money and ending up with a receiver that develops headspace because the receiver material is not that strong.

It is risky to operate these older receivers at pressures higher than what they were designed for. It is risky to open the bolt face for belted magnums as that will increase the bolt thrust. These actions were designed to carry a load. That load was the pressure max time the area of the cartridge case head.

I encourage everyone to break out their calculators and see just how much bolt thrust is increased from a standard head cartridge to a belted magnum at the same pressure. It’s a lot.

Is your receiver safe? That is a difficult question to answer through an internet connection.

Have you experienced any difficulties opening the bolt after shooting? If the lugs are peening in the receiver recesses then you will have difficulties opening the bolt because the rifle is developing excessive headspace.

Even though M1903A3 National Ordnance receivers are an entirely different receiver made at a different time, I think the experiences of these people, who used rifles built around these soft receivers, is instructive.

A poorly built, improperly heat treated receiver made of inferior materials does not have to telegraph catastrophic failure. It just might let go. Poof!

This guy had one blow up on him due to the soft receiver stretching.

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/535...gun-broke.html
The owner reported he had only 76 rounds of factory ammunition before the lug set back caused a cartridge rupture.

The original post was on the old Culver's, which deleted all of its old messages after the update. Luckily I saved the pics.

This young man was very lucky he did not lose an eyeball. I expect he had more facial damage than what you see in these poor camera phone pictures.

And he did nothing that was his fault. He simply fired enough factory ammunition until the National Ordnance receiver failed.



















This is another account of a National Ordnance which blew up in the gentleman’s face.
http://www.milsurps.com/showth...ht=national+ordnance


Later he commented on his injuries

quote:

i was the guy who had the National Ordnance 03A3 blow up in my face. I like you am still pushing people away from those ticking time bombs they call rifles. I had one surgery after I last conversed with you. Had to have a tooth removed, piece of brass was blown into my nerve and the sun still burns my eyes from absorbing heat.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2893

Another Gentleman whose father was saved from serious injury by retiring his National Ordnance when he experienced the first signs of case head separation.

quote:

http://www.thehighroad.org/sho...=6853297&postcount=3

Yesterday, 10:35 PM #3

Chainsaw2
Member


Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 33 Thanks! This thing will get cleaned up and the firing pin removed to be a keepsake. Now that I saw the pictures of that guy with the injury and the ruptured brass I remember the same thing happining to my father. He fired a ball load, and the brass had three evenly spaced hairline ruptures in the same place. The gas blew back and caused the cocking piece to hit his thumb and almost break it. We thought it was an over pressure round, but now I bet it wasn't. He never fired it after that, and I guess it was a good thing. I'd be afraid to fire a cast bullet load in it at 1200 fps.

I'll just find a decent Mauser and use that instead.

Thanks again!!!
jim

Yes these accidents were not with M1909 actions, so you can discount them, but they are examples of what can happen to someone behind a soft receiver.

These old receivers are a gamble, so, why risk it?

quote:

It is risky to operate these older receivers at pressures higher than what they were designed for. It is risky to open the bolt face for belted magnums as that will increase the bolt thrust. These actions were designed to carry a load. That load was the pressure max time the area of the cartridge case head.

I encourage everyone to break out their calculators and see just how much bolt thrust is increased from a standard head cartridge to a belted magnum at the same pressure. It’s a lot.

Orig. 375H&H loads were around 47,000 psi.
Pressures were kept low because of the sensitivity of cordite/possibility of dangerous pressure spikes.
Modern powders allow one to operate at higher pressures but without such extreme spikes.
However, US powders despite giving a constant CUP reading, can still have considerable variation in the pressure curve for each shot.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Orig. 375H&H loads were around 47,000 psi.

asking a question - I believe you mean CUP not psi.. again, not smarting off ..

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Okay, here we go again. Sorry, I'm paraphrasing Duane Wiebe.

The 1996 "core" assay of a generic WW-I era 1898 Mauser receiver:

Carbon: 0.29%
Sulfur: 0.022%
Phosphorus: 0.019%
Manganese: 0.45%
Silicon: 0.16%
Nickel: 0.05%
Chromium 0.02%
Molybdenum: <0.01% (trace)
Vanadium <0.01% (trace)
Copper 0.17%
Columbium: <0.01% (trace)

The 1996 "core" assay of a WW-I era 1898 Mauser bolt:

Carbon: 0.18%
Sulfur: 0.018%
Phosphorus: 0.014%
Manganese: 0.76%
Silicon: 0.23%
Nickel: 0.29%
Chromium: 0.06%
Molybdenum: <0.01% (trace)
Copper 0.15%
Aluminum: 0.02%

The assessment of these assays was that the steel was not standard carbon steel but a copper bearing, high strength low alloy steel.

Notice the different percentages of alloying elements in the bolt versus the receiver, particularly the nickel and manganese content.

Manganese with a low carbon content steel helps to harden the steel and increase the tensile strength without it becoming brittle.

My "C" Rockwell tests show the bolts on some of my 1908 Brazilian Mausers around 10-20 points higher than the receivers. After a fair amount of research, I have decided not to Rockwell test my 1909 Mausers, since I think the whole process of Rockwell testing case hardened steel is a waste of time.

I've pulled about seven 1909 Argentine Mausers of DWM manufacture apart, but have not built one yet. The "setback" that I have seen, including two that were rechambered to 30-06 was not setback, but excessive wear.

One of the receivers had so much lug seat wear, that the lug seats were badly rounded off on the corners of the cams. On first glance this might appear to be lug set back, but after a thorough cleaning it was obviously wear from mega use or a lack of lubricant.

Some of the Mauser test receivers at the factory of origin were pressure tested to 6000 atmospheres or roughly 88,200 psi with no lug set back at all. These were specialized pressure test actions, but essentially they were 1898 Mauser actions.

I for one, will never re-case, re-carburize or re-harden an 1898 Mauser action. Why do you want a warped grenade in your face?

Think about it, the bolt is harder than the receiver. Under extreme stress from an overloaded or more likely a mud blocked/obstructed barrel, what should the bolt do: yup, that's right set back into the receiver. And what is the third safety lug for with about .011-.012" relief? Safety after set back.

I am of the Pete Grisel/Duane Wiebe Mauser school. I leave them alone.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Agreed that Chrome Moly 4140 has a higher tensile strength than the original Krupp Mauser steel, but so what?

The question is: Is the Krupp Mauser steel adequate for the application?

In my limited experience, but heavily researched opinion, yes.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Dear Slamfire:

Thank you for the informative photographs of the Springfield, which shows its atrocious gas handling characteristics.

That split stock and ruined magazine was a common failure of ruptured case Springfields. Just read a bit of Jack O'Connor, and he describes this flaw. His 1898 Mauser 7x57 where an entire case head blew off just stung him a bit in the face, not like the poor soul with the Springfield that you are showing.

O'Connor related how he pulled the remainder of the case out, buried the old ammo, and shot the rifle for many years afterwards.

Did you know that Springfield Armory in Massachusetts had the Mauser and I think Krupp engineers/metalurgists over for a bit of help before WW-I? If I remember correctly, the Mauser and Krupp guys told the Springfield guys that they were burning their heats of steel, making the steel too brittle.

Krupp and Mauser used actual temperature gauges rather than the Springfield guys, who used their eyeballs, watching for the right color of the steel heat to emerge under lousy lighting conditions in the plant.

Also, from my research, you could give a good rap with a hammer to an early, pre-Krupp helped, Springfield receiver, and it would crack.

Don't underestimate German steel.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
The "setback" that I have seen, including two that were rechambered to 30-06 was not setback, but excessive wear.

One of the receivers had so much lug seat wear, that the lug seats were badly rounded off on the corners of the cams. On first glance this might appear to be lug set back, but after a thorough cleaning it was obviously wear from mega use or a lack of lubricant.

I for one, will never re-case, re-carburize or re-harden an 1898 Mauser action. Why do you want a warped grenade in your face?

Think about it, the bolt is harder than the receiver. Under extreme stress from an overloaded or more likely a mud blocked/obstructed barrel, what should the bolt do: yup, that's right set back into the receiver. And what is the third safety lug for with about .011-.012" relief? Safety after set back.

I am of the Pete Grisel/Duane Wiebe Mauser school. I leave them alone.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Perhaps the action that I had, which had "setback" when I got it, was due to wear. I can't be sure now, but I do remember that it was a good looking action, with little evidence of use, and the bottom metal was real clean. However the one I had built, I am sure about. It had no setback when I had it barreled, and developed noticable setback within less than 50 rounds. The setback became obvious because the gap between the root of the bolt handle and the receiver became wider, with definate step and resistance in bolt lift. As I remember, part of the reason I discovered it was because I had to adjust the dies as the shoulder moved forward. I was kinda ignorant about such things back then, and it took a while to notice the obvious. For one thing it was very unexpected, actually unimaginable.

KB

Dear KB:

You are right, set back can happen.

Pete Grisel told me that he received set back Savages, Mausers, Remingtons, etc. in his shop in South Dakota. The two common problems causing the setback in his experience were (1) excessive pressures caused by poor handloading techniques or (2) barrel obstructions.

The point is the actions were doing what they were designed to do, give a bit instead of grenading. He also had some in his shop that were re-heat treated, which he blew up in the basement with over loads, and they grenaded. He used to blow up a number of actions to see how they held up.

After you re-heat treat, etc., what have you done to the design features, especially safety?

Now to your example, let's get a few more facts:

1. cartridge type and bullets used;
2. any pressure marks on the cases;
3. was the receiver, original or already gunsmithed;
4. DWM or FMAP production;
5. did you pull the barrel and see lug seat set back, and
6. did you see any set back on the bolt lugs themselves.

Of course, you may have had a bum action, just like you could get a bum 350 Chevy block. But with the 100+ million Mauser 1898 actions out there, how many are bad?

My data pool is small, probably under 30, but none of them had setback, and of the two I've built with hot rounds, 6.5-06 and 7x57 AI, one a 1908 Brazilian and the other a WW-I Brno, neither set back after 100's of rounds. Actually, a member on this forum still can't blow up my old WW-I Brno nor give it any real set back, even with 260 Remington loads that are mushrooming the heads.

I use a Starrett depth gauge and measure at five clock points on the bolt face with the action cocked for my reference points and later checks after pulling both barrels.

Again, you could have had a bum receiver.

I was concerned, too, back in 1998 about set back on 1898 Mauser after reading Jerry Kunhausen's book, but Pete Grisel and a local Reading, Pennsylvania heat treater set me straight.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
Now to your example, let's get a few more facts:

1. cartridge type and bullets used;
2. any pressure marks on the cases;
3. was the receiver, original or already gunsmithed;
4. DWM or FMAP production;
5. did you pull the barrel and see lug seat set back, and
6. did you see any set back on the bolt lugs themselves.

Again, you could have had a bum receiver.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

1. 280 Rem - can't remember the bullet. I had replaced the original magazine with a longer commercial bottom metal.

2. No unusual pressure signs on the case

3. Original

4. DWM

5. Yes, I did have the barrel pulled, and I used it again on a Mark X action. Also, I could see the gap between the bolt handle root and the receiver, and know it grew, because I had inspected it close when the bolt handle was replaced (welded). I could feel the bolt lugs overcoming the ridge in the receiver, as I opened the bolt. Also as I said, another indicator was in the FL die settings. I had to reduce the amount of sizing, (back off the die) to maintain a tight fit on the shoulder of the brass. I remember this well because that was someting I was intentionally doing at that time with that rifle, and it bewildered me at first, as to why the die setting needed changing. That was before I got a neck sizing die. It's probably a good thing that I was paying attention to that, and it probably is the reason I avoided case head seperation for so long.

6. No set back on the lugs themselves.

I'm sure I did have a bum receiver. That's what I've been talking about all along.

KB