Dear KB:

Too bad that you don't have that receiver. I'd really like to look at the upper lug recess where the split bolt lug rests, and see how much of a bump is protruding between the split lugs.

The other question would be was the bolt lapped in before building?

I know that the 4140 chrome moly receivers are quite resistant, and will not usually let the touching lug set back when only one lug is contacting. I have a gunsmith friend who told me about a later production used Model 700 Remington rifle with a .010" difference in lug machining. The action had been fired a lot, and still only one lug touched with other having .010" clearance.

I've always lapped in my 1898 Mausers for at least an 80% full contact on both lugs, so I have no comparison in plastic deformation (setback) being more likely with an 1898 Mauser versus a modern 4140 steel receiver.

Why don't you try another 1909 in its original format with a left over barrel, and see what happens.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
Dear KB:

Too bad that you don't have that receiver. I'd really like to look at the upper lug recess where the split bolt lug rests, and see how much of a bump is protruding between the split lugs.

The other question would be was the bolt lapped in before building?

Why don't you try another 1909 in its original format with a left over barrel, and see what happens.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

There are some interesting questions in there.

I do not remember if the lugs were lapped before rebarreling. Considering the gunsmith at the time, I doubt it.

After the barrel was pulled, I remember the bump in the upper lug recess - a shiney spot that could be felt when opening the bolt. I remember that top and bottom lug recess showed setback, but I can't remember if they started with good contact.

I used that barrel on a commercial action, and it has long since been sold. Many years after those initial 1909 experiences, I found another really good looking 1909 action in a gunshop in south Georgia, and I bought it along with a VZ24. I didn't really inspect the actions for set back. After a few years, I decided to send the 1909 to have it barreled. The barrel maker contacted me and informed me that the receiver was too soft and they refused to install one of their barrels onto it. They said the lug recessess were already showing set back. When I got it back, I then looked closely, and I could see and feel the slight setback myself. As I recall, the gunsmith I bought it from said he pulled a 7.65x53 barrel off it, so I feel pretty confident that it was not one of those rechambered to 30-06.

I compared the recoil lug recesses to the VZ24 to find out if I could tell any difference, and I could. The VZ has no evidence of set back. I still have the VZ24 action, and I got rid of that 1909, and made myself a promise of never again.

The 1909 was gone by the time I took this picture, and these are not all the Mauser actions I had at one time. I think I had 18 when this picture was taken, and three were at a gunsmiths shop. I also had several complete rifles on Mauser actions, which are not shown. I have had at least 25 Mauser actions since getting rid of that last 1909, and I've checked them all for set back, finding none. As you can see not all of them are military actions, and I checked them all anyway, just to get a feel for any differences that I may find. The first thing I look for is the buldge from the ejector split in the top lug. I also have a tool that i can run over the recess area, to feel for a lip or dip, then visual inspection with a flashlight too.

I think these are all used actions, some that have been shot a lot. I have a few new commercial mauser actions, but they are not in this picture. You may notice several of the mil surp actions wearing 1909 bottom metal. At one time, I was buying the bottom metal off Ebay, and Gunbroker.

Never mind the carpet, it's not of my choosing.

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
Ladies and Gentlemen:

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.

A point I've been trying to make for a few years now.

You can't just slap a piece of cases hardened steel in a Rockwell tester and give it a go. There are other procedures that need to be followed to get a proper RC reading of or case hardened steel.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
Ladies and Gentlemen:

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.

A point I've been trying to make for a few years now.

So, you are saying that the surface hardning will give a false reading, relating to the overall status or suitablity of the receiver?

I presume two things:
one - is that the surface is harder than the inside or interior.
two - is that if an action tests soft on the RC scale at the surface, then surely it's at least that soft inside, and most likely a lot softer.

One way I see testing is a waste of time is in the situation of doubt, because I'm not certain that a satisfactory reading of hardness will satisfy that doubt. It depends on the source of the doubt. If caused by evidence of set back on a particular receiver, then a hardness reading of whatever makes little difference, IMO. If the doubt is cause by vast evidence on a large scale, such as with the 1909 receivers, then as in my case, I don't care what the RC test reading is. I wouldn't use a 1909 action whatever the reading is, or whatever has been done to it, known or unknown.

Another example of a waste of time is to test the hardness of some of my CZ 550 actions. I think it's a safe presumption that they are just fine in that regard.

KB

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.

Oberndorf were also happily producing commercial magnum mauser actions from about 1904 to accommodate the larger case head/higher bolt thrust rounds, for Rigby and Holland-Holland.
IIRC, the bolt thrust increase from std. to magnum case head, is about 30% at same pressure.

quote:

:
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.

The notion of a re-HT mauser exploding like hand grenade..?..........

the likelyhood of that happening would depend on;
- what spec. it was re-HT to
- which HT method was employ
- how severe the overload was. [even a soft M98 with a severely wrong load will explode into several pieces and in several directions AT dangerously HV!]

1909 receivers were originally[& intentionally]Heat-treated by DWM to a softer lower spec/more shallow case depth, to specifically accommodate a lower pressure spec. military round. They could have easily HT the 1909 to a higher spec. to suite other higher pressure military loads of the time. They simply decided not to. That decision not to, resulted in Lug setback when the higher pressure Mil. rounds were fired. Proper/longer time in the HT furnace would have circumvented that problem.

DWM had no problem to HT other M98 actions like the 1908, to higher spec.
Despite this higher/harder spec. of the Brazil 1908 they still don't seem to grenade in ones face, when typically loaded too hot by the somewhat overzealous.
likewise,.. re- H-treating an orig. 1909 to reasonably higher spec. today, does not automatically put in the "hand grenade" category with hot modern loads.
However, if one was to reHT too hard and not carefully select which HT method to apply, one would be inviting trouble/higher propensity for "hand-grenade" behavior.

A couple of things
My reason for not hardness testing a case hardened part is a typical Rockwell tester will give a false reading depending on how thick the case is. Since I've only used conventional Rockwell testers. When it comes to a case hardened part I trust the heat treat shop to produce a part to my spec per depth and hardness.
Kabluewy your points are valid considering your lack of faith in the action at hand. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Personally I'd use the action as is or with heat treating either way. But with certain limitations.

First off the heat treat needs to be properly speced out. About 35 to 40 RC on the action and 40 to 45 on the bolt with a case not to exceed .030" is about right and leaves enough core on the action soft enough to prevent a failure from "grenading" And even 40 RC on the action is a bit on the hard side I'd easily settle for 35 RC. But this is only after a good consult from the Heat treater as they are the ones that can tell you with limited uncertainty what the properties of the steel will be after hardening.

That seems like good info.

There are several reasons that I've moved away from Mausers in general, and more so for the mil-surp actions. It's not so much that it can't be done, but more about simply getting it done.

Frankly, I have never been readily successful at getting a Mauser project from start to finish. It's tedious. I've managed to get various gunsmiths to move through the process eventually, and I have some nice shooters.

But there are so many opportunities for something to go wrong with a from-scratch Mauser project. I have enough trouble with a Mark X or a FN commercial action, and a military action just compounds the process and the expense.

Adding on another layer, at the beginning, of heat treating is just over the top for me.

You see all those actions in the picture posted. I enjoyed having them and playing with them, but I had no intention of actually using them all. I did plan on sorting through and having rifles made out of a few.

I have sold most of them, but I have a few left, and I have been very resistant to letting them go. Several have been ready for a visit to a gunsmith for a long time, with all the parts together - trigger, safety, barrel, stock, etc. - all the parts to make complete rifles, just needing assembly.

While the Mausers just sit there, waiting for a gunsmith to move the one in the shop to the top of the list, meanwhile I discovered the CZ 550 medium action and rifles. I have purchased at least six, and had them all tweaked by a gunsmith, and all but one is finished and ready to go hunting, while one Mauser project has gone through to completion. All the cartridges that I want to shoot, are now represented in Winchesters, Rugers, and CZ 550s, simply because I managed to pass them through a gunsmith's shop quicker.

Mausers are becomming less and less important, and especially a receiver that may need heat treatment.

For the last few days, for example, I have been considering parting one out, just because it will take years for me to get it into a rifle that I can use. Years I may not have, or may not matter. Meanwhile, I can raise the money to buy a new 3X scope from the Leupold custom shop, and put it to use right away on the Ruger 458.

At some point, things just have to get practical. A 458 for deer and hogs, that's practical - right?

KB

Kb there is no doubt that a Mauser mil surp action is a very long road to hoe when building a custom. There are better platforms to start from as you have found.

CZ being a very inexpensive way to get your foot in the door. Having a Win reworked rebuilt is right up there in cost and time. I couldn't afford to commission a rifle but I'd have to think about it long and hard to decide for one what action to use then whom I could afford to send it to to have it turned into a work of art.

.458 for deer and hogs Yeah thats practical. I jack rabbit hunt with an M1 Garand and plan to get a .375 H&H and a .416 Rigby. They will never see the type of game they were intended to hunt but they will be damn fun to shoot anyway.

There are several things that can go "wrong" when building a custom mauser;
- You could get a dud barrel,
- the smith could stuff up when machining the integral feature oct. barrel,
- the smith could stuff up in the chambering process,
- he could stuff up on the inletting or checkering,... etc.
- Color Case hardening can crack or warp an action.
- The engraver could stuff up.

Why is it that carburizing/ReHT is such a major worry and the other processes not so much?
Plenty top builders who are advocates of re-HT, take the risk, like they do with every other part of the build & embellishment process.
IF re-HT was all so risky & not worth it, why would they unnecessarily risk wasting their shop time/profit doing it?

Numerous smiths certainly take the risk with colour case to simply dress up/make pretty their single shots,mauser actions and super expensive side lock receivers -[the CC process also progressively weakens the steel]

Who approves of CC process on the receivers of firearms they build?.....
Ralf Martini,Martin Hagn,Duane Weibe,Steve Heilmann,Dakota,Dave Norin,Soroka,Todd Ramirez,
HartmannWeiss,Rigby,Westley Richards,H&H,Purdey,Boss&Co,Mckay&Brown.Famars,Fabbri,Piotti,Perazzi,....and the list goes on and on and on......

I can really appreciate the accomplishment of getting a Mauser action to completion without some kind of screw-up. Now I'm talking about the kind of high-end projects that you are talking about. There have been some shown in pictures on this forum. If there were any screw-ups, they were fixed or covered up.

Frankly, in person, I have never seen a custom Mauser rifle without some screw-up, minor and major. Of those I've had started, a certain significant percentage I've abandoned somewhere in the process, because of a screwup.

I have bought at least two really nice custom Mausers because someone had screwed something up, which was fixable for a reasonable price. It seems that the more complex, the more opportunity for a visit from Murphy.

Bear in mind, that the things you talk about are really out of my league. I try to be polite to gunsmiths, because why mess with someone in their own way of making a living. So I avoid many specifics regarding my opinions, because being nice is simply a better way to be, and rudness accomplishes little or nothing.

My way of avoiding screw-ups is to eliminate as many opportunities as practical. For example, I would never do an octagon barrel, or fluting, or engraving, or ribs, certain integral features. Heat treating is just another opportunity for Murphy visitations, perhaps multiple invitations to stay for dinner while the oven is hot.

So, since I'm not a gunsmith's dream, I try to be polite, and not be too critical in something that is out of my league. I sorta get pulled into it somewhat, because of my opinion of the 1909, but frankly it was just one of many steps along the way of learning to just keep it simple. There's less for Murphy to work with there, and it costs a lot less.

I don't think of the CZ 550 medium actions as a cheap option, for example. The way I look at working with a gunsmith is that by keeping it as simple as possible, it increases the probability of success, without Murphy interfering. Starting out with a CZ 550 action, or complete rifle, in too many ways to list, simplifies things, and shortens turn-around time with the gunsmith. In my way of thinking it increases the probability of gunsmith success and customer satisfaction. Apparantly most gunsmiths don't look at it that way, seeing it as just a revenue opportunity lost. Only so much can be squeezed out of a CZ project, and AHR has made an art form out of that. Perhaps there is something to learn from that.

KB

quote:

Heat treating is just another opportunity for Murphy visitations

Whether one likes it or not HT is necessary even on new modern alloy steel mauser receivers, they to can warp.
Thats why some advocate Pre-hardened steels.
Yet it has no stopped others to continue to produce modern alloy steel receivers that require HT after machining. they[Prechtl,HartmannWeiss] continue to take that HT/warp risk...and surprise,surprise,... manage to turn out a mighty fine product.
and they have considerably more $$$ invested/at risk in their new receiver production process than a US smith has when starting work on a $150-$200 x-military unit.

Here are some interesting links that I found.

http://www.czub.cz/en/catalog/...apabilities/NP-SURF/

http://www.czub.cz/en/catalog/...racovani-kaleni.aspx

http://www.tsplzen.cz/en/hydraulicke-lisy-kovaci.asp

http://forums.gunboards.com/sh...r-....got-an-answer!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forging

Dear Trax:

I'm curious, where did you obtain your information that the 1909 Argentines were heat treated to a different specification, meaning a softer steel specification than the 1908 Brazilian?

Obviously, KB has about as much experience with old Mauser actions as I do, but I just haven't seen a set back 1909. Actually, I've assembled two completely myself, using a pre-chambered Pac-Nor in 6.5-06 and a pre-chambered Douglas in 7x57 AI.

The 6.5-06 was on a 1908 and the 7x57 AI on a WW-I Brno. No setback, even with a massive overload (my fault) in the Brno.

I just don't understand how the 1909 could be heat treated to a softer specification than the two actions mentioned above? That doesn't make sense.

My present 1909 action came from a sporterized military rifle and was re-chambered for 30-06. I have no idea how often it was fired, but it is as smooth in the lug recess area as all of my 1908 Brazilians.

Also, according to my research, the case hardness was not added for strength but for smoothness of operation and wear resistance. The underlying alloy steel accomplished the strength part.

Look at 416 stainless actions. I'll bet the RC on them is pretty low, but they are sufficiently tough to resist plastic deformation in the lug recess area.

Also, according to Jon Speed the contract 1908's and 1909's were proofed at 4200-4600 atmospheres, which roughly translates to 61,740 CUP to 67,620 CUP. This was the same designation of proof all the way up and through WW-II.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Dear Trax:

One more question.

When you have the heat treater, re-heat treat a military 1898 Mauser action, how does he or she remove all the old case carbon?

I'll bet that the standard annealing process doesn't do it.

Do you really want .030 or more case on a Mauser action right in front of your face?

I don't. Think early number Springfield.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Also, according to my research, the case hardness was not added for strength but for smoothness of operation and wear resistance. The underlying alloy steel accomplished the strength part.

Um slightly incorrect Yes the core of the action is softer then the case it is by no means immune to the heat treat process. It has increased in hardness a little but more so the steel has gained strength. Pull out any metal properties manual and you will see that with any steel the tinsel strength, & yield strength have risen considerably.

quote:

Look at 416 stainless actions. I'll bet the RC on them is pretty low, but they are sufficiently tough to resist plastic deformation in the lug recess area.

416 stainless can be hardened just as hard and nearly as strong in tensile and yield strength as 4140. And it's trough hardening just like 4140

quote:

One more question.

When you have the heat treater, re-heat treat a military 1898 Mauser action, how does he or she remove all the old case carbon?

I'll bet that the standard annealing process doesn't do it.

Do you really want .030 or more case on a Mauser action right in front of your face?

I don't. Think early number Springfield.

Annealing actually does reduce the carbon content of the part being heat treated. that called oxidation and the scale is highly carbon rich. This is why most top of the line heat treat shops use either inert gas furnaces or vacuum furnaces to control how much carbon is lost, and on the reverse how much carbon is absorbed on the next Carberizing run. .030" is not that thick considering you only want a final RC hardness of 35 to 40 tops. staying closer to 35 for my personal preference. Again it's not so much the thickness of the case as it is the hardness that makes is usable or unusable and dangerous.
Ever shoot an M1 Garand, M1A or M14 these are 8620 receivers and case hardened. harder then a whores heart too and yes the dynamics involved are different as to how the action contains and disperses the energy from the cartridge. It's still a damn hard receiver. Again Proper application of the heat treat process is key. Just as you comment on the springfield receivers. Improper heat treat can make them brittle

Whether you are in favor of re-heat treating an action or not, I think we can all agree "If the heat treating is not performed properly you may at the least end up with a banana for an action and at the worst waiting for it to fail".

The thing is to simply say it was re heat treated is very vague. Ok what heat treat? was it carberized first? How deep was the carberizing layer? how hard is the core? how hard is the case? and most importantly where is the certificates saying this part meets theses specs as tested in our QC lab as certified and traceable to ANSI? You can ask for a cert. It adds a little in terms of cost but it assures you that the process was conducted properly.

You can also request a cert on the steel you buy. I request certs all the time on critical components it adds like 10% to the bill to get one.

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
I'm curious, where did you obtain your information that the 1909 Argentines were heat treated to a different specification, meaning a softer steel specification than the 1908 Brazilian?

Tom Burgess informed that 1909 were HT to softer spec. and suffered lug setback from military ammunition. His testing/inspecting of some 500 1909 actions confirmed so.
Tom recommended re-carburizing for both Arg.1909 and Brazil 1908 actions.

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
Do you really want .030 or more case on a Mauser action right in front of your face?

I don't.

That would depend which HT process was employed and how well it was executed.
some set up self limiting case depth barriers, where other HT methods create a more gradual transition into the core of the receiver.

So, which specific HT process are you referring to [with .030" case depth] that you don't like, or is it that you just don't like .030" case depth, regardless?

Dear KScott and Trax:

Not being a metallurgist, I cannot answer some of the questions that you have posited.

Having done a fair amount of research on the 1898 Mauser heat treatment/carburezation process, and speaking to some who appear to know what they are talking about, I've formed the following conclusions:

1. Annealing an 1898 Mauser receiver (who would do the bolt anyway?) does not remove all of the formerly impregnated case/carburezation carbon in the skin, so you are adding more carbon to the surface by re-carburezation/re-casing the receiver. Therefore, you cannot accurately estimate your new case depth, and can make the part too brittle for its application.

I obtained this information from another forum member, who obtained it from an heat treating company, who specializes in aerospace parts, and has experimented with 1898 Mauser receivers. Their opinion was that you could not remove the old case carbon sufficiently to be assured of a new case depth.

2. It appears that a case depth of .010-.015" is about right for the Mauser steel. As far as 8620 used in Garands, etc., I have no knowledge, nor opinion. Different steel, different case application, different properties. Sorry, but irrelevant to the application of Mauser/Krupp steels at issue.

The .030" or greater case depth was originally done by some of the re-heat treaters of Mauser actions, and was found to be dangerous when the action was overloaded.

3. I'm sure that Tom Burgess did a lot of cutting down of Mauser receivers. As to his basis for his advice to re-heat treat 1909's and 1908's, I have no opinion.

4. The action destruction tests in Volume 2 of P. O. Ackley's Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders are informative. It shows an original 1916 Spandau 1898 Mauser that failed properly when severely overloaded with a 270 Ackley Magnum with .532" case head. It was curious that it even worked so well with a mis-matched bolt. The winner of the blow up competition was the 6.5 Arisaka, which shows that the 1898 Mauser was not the pinnacle of bolt action strength nor safety.

5. My minimal experience in using two actions, a 1908 Brazilian and a WW-I Brno show no set back issues with hot loaded 6.5-06 and 7.57 AI rounds, and in the Brno's case extreme strength in the face of a severe overload. I have not built on a 1909 Argentine as yet, but the seven 1909 actions that I've torn down, including two that were sporterized and re-chambered to 30-06 showed no signs of set back.

6. Duane Wiebe has built numerous rifles using 1909 Argentine Mauser actions, and hasn't even seen one that was set back.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Interesting discussion with plenty of opinions and few hard facts. Here are some more (grin).

The carbon content is important but perhaps more important is the actual hardness state of the skin. The carbon by itself adds little strength, but when it's hardened by the heat-treatment then the hard skin becomes one of the major strength factors. The skin hardness is NOT a black-&-white either-or situation, it varies with the operator's technique and application.

The Japanese actions in particular were selectively case-hardened by varying the carbon pack and temp in certain action areas needing more strength or toughness. This resulted in some areas being quite hard but with other areas being much softer.

I have personally seen more than one Mauser receiver that had a hard skin but a far-too-soft core, with the difference in hardness SO great that my center-punch wouldn't make a sharp-edged mark in the skin but it DID deform a larger area of the hard skin into a wide shallow depression. Spot-annealing allowed D&Ting but the experience was interesting to say the least.

IMO all repeat ALL Mausers are soft when compared to other actions, on the average. We don't hear about soft Springfields or Enfields or Remingtons or Winchesters or Arisakas or Weatherbys or Mannlichers or Savages or in fact any other bolt actions, not even CLOSE to as much as we hear about soft Mausers.

Some Mausers are softer than others but it's hard to tell which ones.

Yes, some smiths don't hesitate to use Mausers, even the 1909s and even with alterations that further weaken an already questionable action. So what? We used to bore small-block Chevy blocks to 0.125" over, too, and most of the time we didn't hit water.

Most of the time.

IMO it all depends upon what you want to accomplish and what you're willing to give up for it. The 1909s have acquired SUCH a spotty rep that I personally would be hesitant to use one without checking it extensively beforehand and keeping in mind the possibility that the lugs might set back in the future.

Where there's smoke there's usually fire too, and there's certainly a LOTTA smoke around the 1909's rather spotty rep.

In my experience the VZ-24s have generally proven to be among the best; FWIW I've never seen a too-soft one.
Regards, Joe

quote:

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.

Yale: Your posts have been very interesting and the chemical composition of that alloy confounding.

I just don’t know what to say about this chemical composition. It is a witches brew of elements. Is this an alloy or a Rorschach test on German steel?

Copper is a unusual alloying material with steel. So unusual I had to look it up. Both my google searches and my older metal handbooks show “weathering steel”, and corrosive, I assume chemical plant, applications. There were a few German super alloys that used copper, in my 1950’s book, but as a general rule there are very few steel alloys that use copper. For one thing, copper is not cheap. It is used as a precipitation hardener in stainless steels.

There are lots of claimants for the discovery of stainless steels but in 1910 Monnartz & Borchers patented Stainless Steel. The chromium percentages in this alloy are not high enough to be a stainless steel.

Is this some steel made from a scrap steel drive, a version of “Kettles for the Kaiser” where anything was tossed into the ladle?

I will totally agree that back then, even as now, the Germans were beating the stuffings out of English and Americans when it came to manufacturing technology. Germans take manufacturing seriously and they are the #2 exporter, dollar wise, of manufactured goods in the world. China is #1.

But this alloy, it is sort of like someone pulling an Imperial German Space Ship out of a Zeppelin hanger. It just does not fit in with what I know of the metals of that period.

Here is a short chronology of early alloys

Manganese Steel licensed to use in US in 1890

Nickel Steel Armor adopted in by US Navy1891,

1910 Monnartz & Borchers patented Stainless Steel

Hatcher's Notebook has data on a few early actions, and what he reports the Germans used was not an advanced alloy.

quote:

Hatcher’s Notebook, page 230

German Mauser GEW 98

Analysis of the metal taken from several bolts and receivers indicates that they are made of plain carbon steel similar to SAE No. 1035, which has carbon .30% to 40% and manganese 0.60% to 0.90%.

A manganese steel would be consistent with the period given that it would have been a mature steel.

Does anyone have period documentation showing commercially available
German steels and their compositions? A 1900/1910 version of a Der Machinist Handbuch?

This is what happens every time a discussion of the 1909 gets going. Lots of experts, with differences in facts and opinions.

Why, why why?

When there is a sure thing alternative. No guessing, no need to know the alloy.

Try pricing out the cost of converting a Mauser action, commercial or military, to bring it to the state of readiness of this action out-of-the-box. Hinged bottom metal, crisp single set trigger, three-position safety, intgral scope bases front and rear bridge, feeds perfectly with cartridges it's designed for. And that's just to get the Mauser to function like the CZ.

Most importantly, old Mausers, like the 1909, can't be favorably compared, no matter what is done to them, with a receiver that has modern steel alloy, forged, machined, properly hardened.

Although the commercial Mark X interarms receiver probably compares favorably in metallurgy, with the CZ, it would at least double the cost of the action to convert it to have as good a trigger, plus the three-position safety. And it still wouldn't have several desirable features of the CZ. I like the floorplate release far better on the CZ than the old Mark X in-the-bow, and certainly better than the later Daly and Rem798 actions.

BTW, the CZ 550 action retains the Mauser feature of original design, the integral C-ring breach, something not found on the Zastava Mauser actions or the later FNs, or any other commercial Mausers that I'm aware of.

Notice the small front ring of the CZ. Nice and sleek, eh? Also, the CZ action is a lot stiffer than a true Mauser action, especially the military Mausers. Besides the rails, notice the rear tang, it's a lot beefier than a Mauser.

Dear Slamfire:

The assays came from R. A. Walsh's book "Mauser M98 & M96". He was a design engineer in Glen Burnie, Maryland and a Mauser nut.

He claims that the copper was added to the steel for atmospheric corrosion resistance, since the 1908's and 1909's sported bare steel receivers.

I also took a gander at Metallurgy and Merallugical Engineering, The Physics of Metals, published in 1943 by Frederick Seitz (McGraw Hill) and General Engineering Handbook, published in 1940 by Charles O'Rourke (actually my dad's old Sheffield Scientific School handbook when he was at Yale University from 1937 to 1941). I used both as period texts to become acquainted with some of the metallurgical practices of pre-WW-II.

I am not a metallurgist, but I've cut a fair amount of automobile steel, and the sparks coming off a 1908 Brazilian Mauser that I opened up to a magnum were silver yellow in color, not the normal orange sparks from straight carbon steel. Thereore, I believe that the original Mauser/Krupp steel was much more complex than straight 1030-1040 carbon steel. Also, the low carbon content with the higher Manganese content was alloyed as such so that the carburezation would not harden up the receiver's core too much, making it brittle and causing it to fail by impact from the constant firing.

But, hey, I'm not a pro. So, there are a whole bunch of guys out there, that probably know a lot more than me.

But in tearing down seven 1909 Argentines, including two that were sporterized and rechambered to 30-06, I found none of them with set back. Some were worn pretty badly in the lug seat area, but not set back.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Dear Slamfire:

I'll hit you with another one.

The dome of the Pantheon in Rome. No one could build one with that great of a diameter without it collapsing. Think Brunelliski's (sp?) dome that failed I think three times, when he was building a Renaissance era cathedral.

It wasn't until the invention of sonar/radar that a sonar scan was done of the Pantheon's dome in Rome. Guess what hollow, honeycomb construction, making it comsiderably lighter than a solid stone or cement dome.

And that puppy was what 50-100 A. D.? or B. C., I'll have to look it up.

I've learned to never underestimate human invention, no matter the period.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

BTW, the CZ 550 action retains the Mauser feature of original design, the integral C-ring breach, something not found on the Zastava Mauser actions or the later FNs, or any other commercial Mausers that I'm aware of.

Notice the small front ring of the CZ. Nice and sleek, eh? Also, the CZ action is a lot stiffer than a true Mauser action, especially the military Mausers. Besides the rails, notice the rear tang, it's a lot beefier than a Mauser.

Yea, but it looks like shit!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What happens if you get half scared to death twice?

Yea, really ugly:



You can dress up a turd, but it's still a turd. Right? I think that no appology is necessary for thinking that the above rifle is very good looking. It accomplishes what the 1909 can not do, IMO. It's both pretty in appearance, and it's pretty in what it will do. I think its real beauty is in what it will most likely not do, and that's fail in some regard, particularly a cracked receiver, or set back.

Excerpt from Yahoo Answers:
“'Pretty is as pretty does' is the Americanization of the English proverb 'Handsome is as handsome does' taken to mean that 'Physical beauty isn't important; good behavior is.'

The proverb was first recorded in Chaucer's 'The Wife of Bath's Tale' (c. 1387). In 1766, in the preface to 'The Vicar of Wakefield,' Oliver Goldsmith wrote: 'Handsome is that handsome does.'

First attested in the United States in 'Journal of a Lady of Quality' (1774). The saying is found in varying forms, including 'Beauty is as beauty does'."

from that side you can't tell much.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

How can you tell when you have run out of invisible ink?

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
from that side you can't tell much.

Really, I see the irony in your post. That's very funny, ha ha, hee hee. From an attorney's perspective, it's so true.

To a divorce attorney, it's like reading a memoir of a marriage and divorce.

KB

Dear KB:

That CZ action certainly makes a lot of sense.

I remember a gun store in Allentown, Pennsylvania, called Toonerville Junctions, run by a Long Island refugee named "Smilin' Bob", easily one of the most pissed off old coots in existance in 1998. He was really pushing the CZ's NIB.

I bought five original military 1908 Brazilian Mausers from him. I was a fool, I should have bought 15 from him at $165-180.00 per rifle.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Was it an old factory building? I remember that place. It had an "english" den/trophy room. I bought an 300WM - Texas Magnum from him.

Rich

quote:

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

When true believers do their own analyses, they tend to validate their assumptions.

This is old, but I did my research and I am of the opinion that the copper based metal is not some super alloy from WW1. That there might be a better reason the copper is in the alloy than claims of superior performance.

The first clue was the PBS show on Old Secession, an 1840’s Spanish cast iron cannon which had trace copper. Something that the metallurgist said “And the typical other kinds of things you might find, a little bit of copper”

http://www-tc.pbs.org/opb/hist...1_cannonshavings.pdf

Since then I have heard that copper was added to metals to improve their machinablity. It sounds reasonable.

The design limits of these early actions was not that severe:

Rifle Magazine Issue 159 May 1995 Dear Editor pg 10

http://www.riflemagazine.com/m...PDF/ri159partial.pdf

quote:

Ludwig Olsen

Mauser 98 actions produced by Mauser and DWM were proofed with two loads that produced approximately 1000 atmosphere greater pressure than normal factory rounds. That procedure was in accordance with the 1891 German proof law. Proof pressure for the Mauser 98 in 7 X57 was 4,050 atmospheres (57, 591 psi). Pressure of the normal 7 X 57 factory load with 11.2 gram bullet was given in Mauser’s 1908 patent boot as 3,050 atmosphere, or 43, 371 pounds.

While many Mausers in the 1908 Brazilian category will likely endure pressures considerably in excess of the 4,050 atmospheres proof loads, there might be some setback of the receiver locking shoulder with such high pressures.

Even Phil Sharpe, writing in the 30’s, he had seen metallurgy advance very quickly in his lifetime, and this is his general comment of 1890’s-1910’s type steels:

quote:

There has been a great deal of improvement in steels, whether they be ordinary soft steels or various forms of nickel steel. No attempt with be made here to describe steels, as the subject would require and entire book. Thirty years ago, very little was known about heat treatment..

If you had a Winchester Model 1892 manufactured in 1905 and an identical model manufactured in 1935, assuming the original gun to be in perfect condition inside and out, you might place them side by side and notice absolutely no difference at firs glance. Careful study, however, will reveal that the later gun is manufactured better, with a minimum of tolerance, slap, looseness or whatever you may choose to call it. That, however, is the minor part of the of the whole thing. There will be little laboratory resemblance between the material of which the two gun are manufactured. Changes and improvements are being made constantly, and where changes in the quality of steel or the strengthening of certain parts through heat treatment are made, the factory rarely, if ever, makes any announcement. If these same Model 92 rifles were fired with a Magnum .38/40 load, it is quite possible that the earlier gun might go to pieces, while the later one would be perfectly safe. These facts must always be considered in handloading.

Complete Guide to Handloading by Philip B Sharpe. First Edition 1937, Chapter XXX, Magnum Handgun and Rifle Possibilities. Mr Sharpe was born in 1903, died 1961.


Anyone using these old actions at pressures and loads higher than they were originally designed, is taking risks.

I recently sold a nice 1909 reciever and bolt on Gun broker for a friend. I could have bought it myself, for a really good price. Instead, I sold it for him, and consider it good riddance.

I still have one 1909 bottom metal unit with no serial number. In other words, it's new. I also have one really nice VZ 24 (1937) receiver and bolt. They look like a good combo to me. No heat treating necessary. Feeds any of the original Mauser cartridges perfectly. 6.5x55, 7x57, 7.65x53, 8x57, 9.3x57, 9.3x62. All feed great.

KB

I would like to add this to the thread. Mr Phil Sharpe was one of those who had first hand experience of the advance in metallurgy from products of the earlies era, all the way to the 60’s. Here, in 1937, he is writing just how “bad” early steels were compared to the modern advanced steels of the 30’s! :

quote:

There has been a great deal of improvement in steels, whether they be ordinary soft steels or various forms of nickel steel. No attempt with be made here to describe steels, as the subject would require and entire book. Thirty years ago, very little was known about heat treatment..

If you had a Winchester Model 1892 manufactured in 1905 and an identical model manufactured in 1935, assuming the original gun to be in perfect condition inside and out, you might place them side by side and notice absolutely no difference at first glance. Careful study, however, will reveal that the later gun is manufactured better, with a minimum of tolerance, slap, looseness or whatever you may choose to call it. That, however, is the minor part of the of the whole thing. There will be little laboratory resemblance between the material of which the two gun are manufactured. Changes and improvements are being made constantly, and where changes in the quality of steel or the strengthening of certain parts through heat treatment are made, the factory rarely, if ever, makes any announcement. If these same Model 92 rifles were fired with a Magnum .38/40 load, it is quite possible that the earlier gun might go to pieces, while the later one would be perfectly safe. These facts must always be considered in handloading.

Complete Guide to Handloading by Philip B Sharpe. First Edition 1937, Chapter XXX, Magnum Handgun and Rifle Possibilities. Mr Sharpe was born in 1903, died 1961.

I bought a first edition of Machinery’s Handbook, the replica version, for a lark, and a lark it has been to thumb through the thing.

You only have to read a bit to understand how primitive things were in 1914. In the 1st edition there are heat treatments A to U for all carbon and alloy steels!.

I found the section on riveting to be, riveting!

I saw on a television show a shear bend test of a riveted section representing the rivet joint of the ship Titanic. They actually used period wrought iron rivets. The rivet joint held while the plate section failed. That was surprising.

However, I do not believe for a second that the Germans were producing space age alloys in the 1890's through 1920. Nor would their manufacturing processes nor their inspection processes, nor their process controls be on a par with modern technology.

quote:

The dome of the Pantheon in Rome. No one could build one with that great of a diameter without it collapsing. Think Brunelliski's (sp?) dome that failed I think three times, when he was building a Renaissance era cathedral.

Was it not called the Renaissance because Western civilization was having a “rebirth”?. When the Roman Empire collapsed and barbarism ruled the west, the intermediate era was called the dark ages for a reason.

Brunelleschi's Dome http://www.brunelleschisdome.com/ was a remarkable achievement in the 1450’s, and it is a masonry dome. The west lost the understanding of concrete, according to Wiki, not to be found again till the 1650’s.

If the Roman Legions were armed with Mausers, we might all be speaking Latin!

Don't kid yourself about steel with a little copper in it. The materials like chrome, nickle, molybdenum and vanadium are expensive. In most countries they are so expensive that they are considered "strategic materials" and the government actively discourages the use of them in military designs. If necessary a written justification may require approval due to the added cost of the design.
In the case of a Mauser being manufactured by the thousands per day and being exported it would represent an unnecessary use of important materials that the government may need in war time emergency. The purchasing government would not want to foot the bill for exotic materials either.
Even today your favorite rifles are being made out of ho-hum materials compared to materials used in tool and die work.

Iron is cheap. Carbon is cheap. The pixie dust to make the best steels is not cheap. Nor are the advanced furnaces....

Dear Slamfire:

quote:

quote:
Ludwig Olsen

Mauser 98 actions produced by Mauser and DWM were proofed with two loads that produced approximately 1000 atmosphere greater pressure than normal factory rounds. That procedure was in accordance with the 1891 German proof law. Proof pressure for the Mauser 98 in 7 X57 was 4,050 atmospheres (57, 591 psi). Pressure of the normal 7 X 57 factory load with 11.2 gram bullet was given in Mauser’s 1908 patent boot as 3,050 atmosphere, or 43, 371 pounds.

While many Mausers in the 1908 Brazilian category will likely endure pressures considerably in excess of the 4,050 atmospheres proof loads, there might be some setback of the receiver locking shoulder with such high pressures.

Some thoughts.

Jon Speed has the contract 1898 Mauser proof loads as being between 4200-4600 atmospheres which translates to approximately 61,740 CUP to 67,620 CUP. I don't think that Mauserwerk used Piezo electric pressure until the 1930's. So, Olson's translation from atmospheres directly into PSI is incorrect. The proper translation is to use CUP. So, even 4050 atmospheres times 14.7 psi (approximate sea level pressure) equals 59,535 CUP, not 57,591 PSI.

By the way the SAAMI maximum average specification for the 270 Winchester is 52,000 CUP and 65,000 PSI. So a proof load of 61,000-67,000 CUP would make the 270 Winchester a safe chambering in an 1898 Mauser action.

The commercial and military contract actions were most likely made from the same Krupp forgings.

I fail to see how the Von Hoff super magnums of pre-WW-I fame made using Mauser commercial receivers didn't deform the receivers, if the proofing was so low as Olson says.

In my limited experience with a WW-I Brno in 7x57 AI and a 1908 Brazilian Mauser in 6.5-06, I experienced no lug set back at all even with a diet of full power loads in both actions.

Pete Grisel blew a bunch up in his basement, and none of the unmolested 1898 Mauser actions grenaded. The re-heat treated ones did grenade, and would have caused injury to the shooter.

I'll stick with my WW-I Mausers as is.

If any fail, I will surely inform anyone of that failure, too.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Don't kid yourself about steel with a little copper in it. The materials like chrome, nickle, molybdenum and vanadium are expensive. In most countries they are so expensive that they are considered "strategic materials" and the government actively discourages the use of them in military designs. If necessary a written justification may require approval due to the added cost of the design.
In the case of a Mauser being manufactured by the thousands per day and being exported it would represent an unnecessary use of important materials that the government may need in war time emergency. The purchasing government would not want to foot the bill for exotic materials either.
Even today your favorite rifles are being made out of ho-hum materials compared to materials used in tool and die work.

Iron is cheap. Carbon is cheap. The pixie dust to make the best steels is not cheap. Nor are the advanced furnaces....

Interesting thoughts. Thank you.

I believe the Germans were as serious and anal in pre-WW-I manufacturing as they are today.

They are not perfect though. My 2001 330CI BMW has the same screwed up blower fan in it as my 1987 and 1989 325iC's had. It only has one strap in the center holding the heavy bastard in place. It needs two straps. I had to jerry rig both of the old ones, and I'll have to do the same with my 2001 soon.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Dear Slamfire:

After reading through my old e-mails, I have another intriguing bit of information from a forwarded message from Jon Speed in 2008.

Mr. Speed asserts that some specialized 1898 Mauser actions were used to test sub-standard rifle barrels up to 6000 atmospheres with no lug set back at all. 6000 atmospheres times 14.7 equals 88,200 CUP. Wow!

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Don't kid yourself about steel with a little copper in it. The materials like chrome, nickle, molybdenum and vanadium are expensive. In most countries they are so expensive that they are considered "strategic materials" and the government actively discourages the use of them in military designs. If necessary a written justification may require approval due to the added cost of the design.
In the case of a Mauser being manufactured by the thousands per day and being exported it would represent an unnecessary use of important materials that the government may need in war time emergency. The purchasing government would not want to foot the bill for exotic materials either.
Even today your favorite rifles are being made out of ho-hum materials compared to materials used in tool and die work.

Iron is cheap. Carbon is cheap. The pixie dust to make the best steels is not cheap. Nor are the advanced furnaces....

Yes sir any Uddeholm steel is top notch suff. and NAK 55 and NAK 80 is right up there. A very specialized steel for its application.

I truly believe that the strength in a Mauser is 60% design and 40% material or there about.
I don't believe that all this Heat treat stuff is as critical as some believe it to be.
Lug set back in my book means the action is being used beyond its design limits.

I have been reading Roy Dunlap's 1950 classic, Gunsmithing. He has interesting things to say on this subject:

"Mauser receivers are particularly troublesome to check [for hardness], because of the great variation in the steel and the heat treatment. Some are exceedingly hard on the surface yet quite soft under the case-hardening or carburized skin, others are soft, but tough, and still others are just plain soft. When a Mauser receiver checks out on the soft side, do not throw it away before putting in a barrel and running a batch of proof loads through it to see if it sets back. If it would seem to be too hard and therefore possibly brittle, stick on a barrel and try to blow it up. If it takes 10 proof loads, it will undoubtedly be safe for any standard cartridge. . . . Test the receivers for hardness on the receiver ring, and the bolts on the locking lugs and the body of the bolt between the two front lugs."

One can prove ANYTHING with antecdotal info so why not me? I recently built a 404 Jeff on a un-reheated action...Oh Yeah.....it was a 1909!

Had to be proofed before registry in Europe...final proof came in at 63100 PSI.

I have a copy of the cetificate for any expert to examine.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
One can prove ANYTHING with antecdotal info so why not me? I recently built a 404 Jeff on a un-reheated action...Oh Yeah.....it was a 1909!

Had to be proofed before registry in Europe...final proof came in at 63100 PSI.

I have a copy of the cetificate for any expert to examine.

So is this debate with a bunch of gunsmiths?

So let me ask, if a customer supplies an action and you build a rifle around it. Lets say the parts and labor come to thousands.

Lets say that action fails proof, or develops lug set back with the customer's reloads, who pays for the rebuild? Is is 100% customer, or 100% gunsmith, or some percentage inbetween?

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
One can prove ANYTHING with antecdotal info so why not me? I recently built a 404 Jeff on a un-reheated action...Oh Yeah.....it was a 1909!

Had to be proofed before registry in Europe...final proof came in at 63100 PSI.

I have a copy of the cetificate for any expert to examine.

jajajaja - The Italians have proof houses too.
Even the crappy Pedrettis will pass that.
And the Brits- they do not trust the houses on the continent so they proof over the German proofs. The crappy Lee-Enfields dumped in the US were all proofed too.
What does it mean? The proof houses were/are probably little fifedoms going back to the origins of black powder and are a sham tax. Just another way for the government to suck money out of the popluation.