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.

Dear Duane:

We keep getting sucked into this discussion, don't we.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

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.

Dear SR4759:

I am confused by your reply.

Okay, the CIP maximum average pressure for the 404 Jeffery is 52,975 psi or 46,444 CUP.

Therefore a rifle that passed a proof of 63,100 psi, assuming they used Piezo electric chamber pressure equipment, means that the proof is approximately 119% of the maximum allowable average CIP pressure for the 404 Jeffery. Looks like a winner to me.

Under what liability legal theory would a proof house intentially manufacture false readings on firearms that they proof tested and marked with their seals? If they were intentionally or negligently doing such, their general counsel should be fired immediately.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Get government off your back, close the Proof
Houses.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

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.

What IF?...... I tend to deal in the realm of FACTS....but WHEN that happens, let me know. In the real world of proof houses, A gunsmith will submit to multiple proofs as the build progresses. In this cass (France) there were no provisional proofs....a fully completed rifle was submitted and passed...By the way, at no surprise to me at all.

Fact: lots of Mausers are soft, lots are just fine and a VERY few are too hard. Caveat Emptor.

Fact: some Win pre-64 70s are too hard, most are just fine, again caveat emptor.

Fact: lots of low-number 1903 Springfields are too hard, most are just fine, none are too soft; most if not all double-heat-treated 1903s are just fine while most if not all 1903-A3s are just fine but mighty durn hard anyway. Again caveat emptor.

Fact: some 1914/17 Enfields are too hard, some are too soft while most are OK. Again caveat emptor.

The above FACTS are set forth in Ackley's Handbook, with photos of a blown-up M70 and a partial account of his blowup test results on militery rifles. Hatcher's Notebook has photos of 1903s in various stages of destruction.


My point is that a statement that 'all' Mausers of a particular vintage are the same (soft, hard, whatever) is patently false. Some are, others aren't.

You CAN say, however, based on absolutely overwhelming empirical evidence, that SOME Mausers are too soft for their chamberings and MOST Mausers are softer than many of their contemporaries.

A further point: identical pressures in different-diameter cases WILL result in a greater or lesser total load on the internal recoil shoulders. IOW a 50K psi load in a 404 WILL generate considerably more total bolt thrust than the same pressure in a 30-06.

How much more? Don't know right offhand but it's easy to run the calcs if necessary for argument's sake (grin). Don't forget to use the internal diameter of the powder chamber for your calcs, though, and not the OD of the case.

A simple analysis will show that 'pressure' is only one component of 'thrust', and that the total 'thrust' is what causes the setback. The inescapable conclusion is that larger-ID cases require more resistance to setback than a smaller-ID case at the same pressure.

That's why many folks will not alter the standard 98 Mauser to take the 375/404 cartridges, they simply don't want to take the chance of increasing the total thrust while at the same time reducing the support for the lower bolt lug to enable feeding of the larger cartridge.

For some of you old-time racers, it's like boring a 283 Chevy block out to a 302: most of the time everything is OK but occasionally you'll hit water.

Like the Madam said to the Bishop, "You pays your money and you takes your choice!"
Regards, Joe

Dear J. D. Steele:

Correct assessment.

I'll paraphrase from a conversation about Mauser actions I had years ago with Pete Grisel. He said that he received lug set-back 1898 Mausers from customers, just like he received set back Remingtons, Savages, etc.

His comments were, that the set back was usually caused by a barrel obstruction or dangerously overloaded hand loaded ammunition. He felt that the set back Mausers, Remingtons, etc. performed as promised by not grenading when overloaded. What more is there to say?

So, we as handloaders and users of 1898 Mauser actions would want to know where the upper limit is of a lack of plastic deformation in the lug seats versus where the set back design feature kicks in, and saves us from our own stupidity.

I suggest after my research and experimentation with two vintage WW-I issue 1898 Mausers, that the upper limit is around 65,000 psi as measured by Piezo equipment, since they were proofed at 4200-4600 atmospheres which translates to 61,740 to 67,620 CUP (not Piezo PSI).

Also, you are correct in manufacturing specifiation anomolies. With over 100 million Mausers out there, there will be some defective ones.

In comparison, I recently restored six 1950's and 1960's Belgium Browning Auto 5's. Two of them had identical machining mistakes in the breech block. One mistake was an off specification hole for the relief of the left hand side shell extractor. The extractor got held up and broke probably years ago.

The other mistake was the position of the locking block cut in the breech block where the locking block rode in a hemispherical motion. The cut was too far back, and caused the locking block to lock up without bearing on the inside surface of the breech block. Therefore, the thin metal raised portion of the locking block that rode in the recess became the main recoil shoulder for the breech block. Guess what happened?

The thin metal cracked and broke, allowing the locking block to slightly shift forward, and finally support the breech bolt's recoil.

This was obviously a serious jig set up or machining error, if I found two failures out of six period shotguns randomly purchased and of various date based upon their serial numbers.

Extrapolate that possibility to 100 million Mausers.

Nevertheless, how many 1898 Mausers has anyone really seen that failed without pressure abuse as discussed by Pete Grisel?

By the way, I don't mess with no stinkin' Chevy's man! I was a Ford and Chrysler man, and ran a 1969 Mercury Cougar Eliminator with a 351 W 4V with a close ratio 4 speed top loader and a tall 3.25 posi rear. High 12's and low 13's at Maple Grove drag way in SE PA.

The car topped out at 157 mph on the street.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
I tend to deal in the realm of FACTS....

I love that quote, do you mind if I use it?

Most of those slinging mud at the 09 and other military Mausers have never actually built one. However they have overwhelmingly strong (here comes another F-word) feelings about the subject.

The FACT is, Duane has been doing this for over 35 years and is one of the best in his field.

I pose a few questions to the mud slingers here:

1)What do you do for a living?
2)Are you considered one of the best in your field worldwide? (this doesn't mean being a legend in your own mind)
3)How does your field of expertise help this discussion in any way?

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
I tend to deal in the realm of FACTS....

I love that quote, do you mind if I use it?

Most of those slinging mud at the 09 and other military Mausers have never actually built one. However they have overwhelmingly strong (here comes another F-word) feelings about the subject.

The FACT is, Duane has been doing this for over 35 years and is one of the best in his field.

I pose a few questions to the mud slingers here:

1)What do you do for a living?
2)Are you considered one of the best in your field worldwide? (this doesn't mean being a legend in your own mind)
3)How does your field of expertise help this discussion in any way?

Dear Mr. Anderson:

If I may add a further thought.

Why don't we only deal in empirical evidence from now on. For instance, I've personally barreled two WW-I era 1898 Mauser actions in 6.5-06 and 7x57 AI. I rode the 7x57 AI hard to come up with maximum loads.

I used a Starret depth gauge, and checked the depth from the front of the receiver at five different positions on the bolt nose, averaged the depths and came up with a number. I did this before and after 300 rounds in each action.

No set back.

Maybe the next Mauser I build up will be like Jello, but not these two.

Duane Wiebe knows what he is talking about. So does Pete Grisel. Maybe Tom Burgess had a different take, and I sure would have listened to him, too.

Let's see that empirical evidence.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Are you asking for empirical evidence from "expert" only? I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once.

Another thing, this conversation has diverted to Mausers in general, but the title is about Argentine actions specifically.

I posted empirical evidence before:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
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

Chris
I hope you don't think I consider you one of the mud slingers.

I too have gathered empirical evidence over the years that backs up using military contract Mausers for best quality custom rifles.

Just an example:
My personal elk rifle is an 09 Arg barreled in 30-338 that's pushed a few hundred 180 grain bullets @ 3150fps over a chrono. No setback. Feeds like greased lightning as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Are you asking for empirical evidence from "expert" only?

Why don't you answer my 3 questions above so all reading here can see the wealth of information you bring to this table of discussion.

I know why you don't.

quote:

1)What do you do for a living?
Tool & Die Maker
2)Are you considered one of the best in your field worldwide? (this doesn't mean being a legend in your own mind)
Not in the slightest
3)How does your field of expertise help this discussion in any way?
Beyond experience in metallurgy and heat treat the company I work for does extensive case hardening on a number of our parts before they are assembled into the final product. So I get the chance to pick a few brains here and there

I certainly do not have 1/35 the experience of Mr.Wiebe, nor have I built 1/100 of the guns he has. In light of this I have one question to ask: How are we differentiating between lug setback and wear?

Had this question come up about a month ago I would have had 6 1909 actions on hand I could have measured. At this moment I only have 2.

Total though I did a quick survey of about 12 different actions and found a variety of results.

So in an effort to show some empirical evidence, how are we differentiating between lug setback and wear?

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Are you asking for empirical evidence from "expert" only?

Why don't you answer my 3 questions above so all reading here can see the wealth of information you bring to this table of discussion.

I know why you don't.

I don't have to, and refuse to run your gauntlet. Empirical evidence is what it is, regardles of whether one thinks of himself as an expert. You are just trying to control the conversation to be among peers who agree with you and stroke your ego, which is no small thing

I don't need to bring lots of info to the table, but specific info, whether it's a "wealth" or not is up to you. It is to me because I'll never let an "expert" talk me into using a 1909 action again.

KB

I'm not a mud-slinger although Duane and I have disagreed before.

Occupation: retired gunsmith, machinist (NOT toolmaker), engineer, surveyor and writer, in that order.

Best in the field? Hardly. Not even close.

What makes me think I can contribute? 1967 graduate of TSJC in gunsmithing, same as Duane and hundreds more. Barreled probably 400 rifles of which probably 200 or more have been Mausers. 50 years' smithing experience (NOT one year's experience repeated 50 times) plus an analytical and inquiring mind. And a willingness to share this hard-won experience with others, as previous smiths have shared their guidance with me in the past.

But mainly I have an opinion, just like all the rest of you here. And my opinion is worth what, you may well ask? It's worth

A) just exactly as much as anyone else's and
B) just exactly as much as it cost you (grin)

I've got a suggestion for those of you who have several Mauser bare receivers handy. One by one, hang them from some appurtenance while you tap the sides with a plastic mallet or a hardwood dowel. IOW pretty much exactly the same procedure that's commonly used to check double guns for loose ribs.

Notice any difference in the sounds from the various different receivers and how you strike them? Well, as Bill Engval (sp?) says, "There's your sign!" Crude, yes. Revealing, also yes.

They are simply not all the same. Sometimes you're gonne hit water (grin).

And re empirical/anecdotal evidence, how come we never seem to have this argument about Springfields or Enfields? There's your sign again....
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
Chris
I hope you don't think I consider you one of the mud slingers.

I too have gathered empirical evidence over the years that backs up using military contract Mausers for best quality custom rifles.

Just an example:
My personal elk rifle is an 09 Arg barreled in 30-338 that's pushed a few hundred 180 grain bullets @ 3150fps over a chrono. No setback. Feeds like greased lightning as well.

Dear James:

No worries, to quote a South African friend of mine. I'm firmly in the Duane Wiebe/Pete Grisel camp.

Its just my lawyer training that demands facts, and like J. D. Steele said, one of those analytical/mechanical minds, where I have to know all about my tools. Thats why I'm a gun nut and a car nut.

Are there bogus Mausers out there, I'll bet there are. Are there worn out 1909's with lots of lug seat wear, yup, I had two of them.

Its like anything else, the vast majority work, and some don't to paraphrase J. D. Steele. Its just that the ones I have used, worked beautifully.

What really blows me away is the simplicity and sophistication of the 1898 Mauser design. Its tough, strong and really safe. Look at all the gas deflection incorporated into the engineering.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

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.

What IF?...... I tend to deal in the realm of FACTS....but WHEN that happens, let me know. In the real world of proof houses, A gunsmith will submit to multiple proofs as the build progresses. In this cass (France) there were no provisional proofs....a fully completed rifle was submitted and passed...By the way, at no surprise to me at all.

And what does that really mean for you?
Nothing. If that rifle never fails it means nothing. If it does fail it protects you not one bit does it?

Facts are indeed important things.

The Argentine military experienced lug setback in the 1909 well before any person posting on this forum was born.
DWM 1909 rifles that arrived on US soil several decades later[ still in orig. factory applied cosmaline]...exihibted lug setback.....Which means it took place during the factory test firing procedure.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
I'll never let an "expert" talk me into using a 1909 action again.

the 1909 is fine if used within its limitation. Re-HT can increase its ability to handle modern loaded rounds.
However for those preferring to use a military M98 action whilst retaining its orig. HT,.... there are better options available.[1935 Chilean,Vz24,Persian]

Roy Weatherby ordered M98 actions[from FN] specially Heat-treated,..and they were still known to exhibit lug setback.

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:

I'm firmly in the Duane Wiebe/Pete Grisel camp.

Grisel has stated that even his own modern produced m98 action, could well benefit by increasing its hardness.

quote:

Originally posted by DArcy_Echols_Co:
Duane
Trust me I am not trying to sling any mud around here. Lord knows you have been at this longer than I have. However I have seen all to often a case of set back in many Mausers. I know of one commercial sqaure bridge magnum Oberndorf that was over-loaded with 4064 instead of 7828 and it blew the action to bits, sent the barrel down range, turned the scope into a satellite and drove the bolt through the driver side door of a new Ford pick up. The client was OK however the action did not bend and "protect" the shooter from certain doom. To this I will add that I once stocked a pair of Grisel Small ring Mausers as well. Both actions were chambered before I got them, Hell my job was to stock them. Out of curiosity I had them Rockwell as they were very easy to file. If I remembered correctly they registered between 29-30 RW-C, which I thought was pretty soft. I even called Pete to inquire if this was a standard RW hardness and he responded "yes". Both were made from C/M. Both were chambered for 270 Winchesters. The pair was split up and one of the pair went all over the world hunting. I got the traveler back years later to clean and service and it had set back so much the no go gage rattled into battery, I called Pete and told him and he felt the owner was shooting hot loads but very well might be helped by increasing the RW hardness. I had it re-hardened to 40 RW C, I cleaned up the lugs and seats and re-barreled it. To date it hasn't moved a bit. I only believe what I can see, and I'm still skeptical for what its worth.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Facts are indeed important things.

The Argentine military experienced lug setback in the 1909 well before any person posting on this forum was born.
DWM 1909 rifles that arrived on US soil several decades later[ still in orig. factory applied cosmaline]...exihibted lug setback.....Which means it took place during the factory test firing procedure.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
I'll never let an "expert" talk me into using a 1909 action again.

the 1909 is fine if used within its limitation. Re-HT can increase its ability to handle modern loaded rounds.
However for those preferring to use a military M98 action whilst retaining its orig. HT,.... there are better options available.[1935 Chilean,Vz24,Persian]

Roy Weatherby ordered M98 actions[from FN] specially Heat-treated,..and they were still known to exhibit lug setback.

Dear Trax:

Let's return to that little empirical evidence notion.

Have you ever had a 1909 Argentine Mauser that experienced lug set back? One, that you actually owned, shot and/or had constructed.

As a matter of full disclosure, the two Mauser actions that I built from were a WW-I Brno in 7x57 AI, that Clark Magnuson is presently blowing up, using overloaded 260 Remington rounds, and a 1908 Brazilian in 6.5-06.

So, I, too have no first hand experience with the 1909 Argentine Mauser.

But, based upon Duane Wiebe's extensive experience with the 1909 Argentine, I'd support his proposition, that they work well as a foundation for a modern sporting firearm.

I have a pristine 1909 that I'll be building into a 6.5x55. If it fails, I'll certainly let everyone know.

Your statements attributed to Pete Grisel are questionable, and do not conform with the conversations that I've had with him over the years about firearms production and Mausers.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

And , there are two "versions" of the 1909. The German DWM and the Argentine made DGFM (FMAP). Another variable in the equation.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

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.

What IF?...... I tend to deal in the realm of FACTS....but WHEN that happens, let me know. In the real world of proof houses, A gunsmith will submit to multiple proofs as the build progresses. In this cass (France) there were no provisional proofs....a fully completed rifle was submitted and passed...By the way, at no surprise to me at all.

And what does that really mean for you?
Nothing. If that rifle never fails it means nothing. If it does fail it protects you not one bit does it?

This is getting boring! but one last statement. I have built probably dozens of 1909 acion based customs...everything from 6.5-06 Imp to 500 Jeff. One customer (416 Rem Mag keeps records,,,well over a hundred full blown handloads. In 43 years I've NEVER seen a 1909 set back..I repeat NEVER! I've never had anyone produce for my examination a 1909 with set back.

Oh, there are those who've seen a fat lady drinking diet Pepsi and leap to the conclusion that drinkilng diet Pepsi makes you fat!

Having said that, I'll admit no action is completely idiot proof

I just saw a fat lady drinking Kool-aid, while I was out looking at farmland this morning.

Causation?

The more that I think about it, it may have been a Super Big Gulp. I see a marketing opportunity in NYC.

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
But, based upon Duane Wiebe's extensive experience with the 1909 Argentine, I'd support his proposition, that they work well as a foundation for a modern sporting firearm.

A number of respected people[Belk,Burgess,Echols,Miller,Ralf Martini, H&H, etc] also trust the 1909 as basis for a modern sporting rifle,...and they also see advantage in re-HT.

A good number of those people and others[including Mike McCabe,Bill Leeper] have witnessed LSB on the 1909.
Their combined industry knowledge and depth of experience far outweighs mine....hence I take sound heed of it.

I have no reason to doubt that DuaneWeibe has never seen a 1909 with LSB. He is merely giving account of his own experience,whatever that may be.

I also have no reason to doubt that several other well established-high repute operators in the industry have witnessed LSB in the 1909.

One can choose to only give substance to what one industry respected man says, or choose to consider/give substance to the empirical evidence based findings of a broader collective experience base.

Reports based on imperial evidence coming from numerous smiths over the decades, indicate the 1909 does have hardness/LSB issues. This includes military 1909 rifles still in their orig. factory grease.

If a person had the attitude that the trusted word of one is good for all occasions, then one would have to believe that Harry Selby never suffered LSB in his stdM98 .416 Rigby....and Mr.Roberts may well be able to confirm that the Selby .416 never suffered such over decades of use,...yet Mr.Roberts collective experience of other stdM98 .416 Rigbys that they built and had come back to the shop, may not parallel Mr Selbys individual experience.

quote:

Originally posted by DArcy_Echols_Co:
... I have had the lugs seats set back on a couple early projects (1980-83). I corrected the seats and lugs and had those actions Re-heat-treated, set back the barrels, etc (non had Iron sights) and have never had them move again. This would include two 1909's, one Radome. I have familiar with two other FN's and two VZ-24's that set back dramatically and were shot with factory loads only. I have seen a half dozen commercial Oberndorf's one set back so far it required .025 of metal removed form the lugs and seats to true it up again. Three of these were chambered for older British cartridges.
I can not think of one client of mine that loads ammo for himself that does not try to milk every last bit of velocity they can out of the cartridge that the 98 is chambers for, well except the guys getting the Gibbs.

LSB with factory loads.
...I gather thats why Mr.Echols requires any old mauser action [intended for use in a build] to be sent out for HT.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
... I have built probably dozens of 1909 acion based customs...everything from 6.5-06 Imp to 500 Jeff. One customer (416 Rem Mag keeps records,,,well over a hundred full blown handloads. In 43 years I've NEVER seen a 1909 set back..I repeat NEVER! I've never had anyone produce for my examination a 1909 with set back.

1909 actions exhibit notable variation in factory hardness/case depth.
Possibly that .416rem is built on a 1909 that faired better in the factory HT process?

Duane and DArcy have one thing in common, they both have clients who attempt to ring the last bit of velocity from their 1909 based rifle......- It appears some 1909 actions can handle it and some cannot.

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
Your statements attributed to Pete Grisel are questionable, and do not conform with the conversations that I've had with him over the years about firearms production and Mausers.

Many things posted on the forum can be questioned.

When Grisel did the blow-up tests on the 98[both orig. and ReHT]...what HT method did he use and what were the re-HT specs - on the M98 actions that blew into pieces..?....and how extreme were the overloads?

Mr.Echols has experienced M98 actions[FN]from the factory that were at both extremes, one way too hard, and one way too soft.

HT method and hardness-case depth, are all important factors which determine how an action reacts to high pressure loads.
Ht methods differ, some can set up boundaries in the steel, where as another HT method can have a more graduated transition to the core. Depending which reHT method is used, the action can react differently to the same overload.

Don't assume that old M98 actions that retain their orig. softer HT, don't blow into pieces when fed incorrect loads.

There are fools out there well capable of blowing up any old 1909,1908,Vz24, etc M98 action, regardless of whether it retains a softer orig. HT or has a new harder reHT.

Dear Trax:

Your detailed response to Duane Wiebe's greater experience and my limited experience with 1898 Mausers is interesting.

Again, I'll reiterate Pete Grisel's comments on 1898 Mausers, Remingtons, Savages, etc. He said that he received all of the above rifles in his shop with lug set back from time to time. He believed that the two most likely causes were overloaded handloaded ammunition or barrel obstructions.

His conclusion was in the 1898 Mauser's case, to leave the actions alone, and not re-heat/re-case it. Pete Grisel said that his conclusion on this score was supported by Ted Blackburn. The Mauser receiver (just like the Remington, Savage, etc. receivers) was performing as to specification. It was setting back instead of shattering.

I've been researching this issue since 1998, when I bought my first military 1908 Brazilian Mauser. I was even dumb enough to have five of them Rockwell tested, using the diamond tip "C" scale, which is a total waste of time. My conclusion is the same as Pete Grisel/Ted Blackburn/Duane Weibe's: leave the SOB alone.

Can you get a bad 1898 Mauser, sure. Have I? No. Has Duane Wiebe? No.

Hell, even BMW can screw up. The E46 body style cars, ~2000-2006, had weak rear floors where the tubular sub frame attaches over the rear axle. The sub-frame can tear out, starting on the LH side. Class action suit, BMW lost, and a number of floors have been replaced. Fortunately, my 2001 330 CI just had micro-cracks on the LH front mounting position in the floor, which BMW fixed.

Shit happens, but not often with BMW's or Mausers in my experience.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Dear Trax:

Being a former lawyer, I have one or two questions for you. Have you ever built or had someone build a rifle for you, using a bone stock 1898 Mauser action? Did you actually shoot it?

What is your experience on this score, meaning what is your empirical evidence vis a vis 1898 Mausers? Not just others' opinions.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

J.D.Steele nailed it. "Experts" argue if
the total number of 98 Mausers was 50, or
100 million. They were made for over 50 years
in 20 odd countries. No one statement can
cover all of them.

I wonder how many set back issues of various actions were the result of shooting with an oily chamber for several rounds? All the time chasing their buddies bragging load ballistics.

It's common knowledge that the system 98 was designed when ammunition was not as reliable as it is today. It handles all the gas & brass coming back in your face better than most all the "modern" actions built today.

Think it's possible that any of the setbacks could have been caused by this unreliable ammo?

Unreliable proof loads????

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
I wonder how many set back issues of various actions were the result of shooting with an oily chamber for several rounds? All the time chasing their buddies bragging load ballistics.

It's common knowledge that the system 98 was designed when ammunition was not as reliable as it is today. It handles all the gas & brass coming back in your face better than most all the "modern" actions built today.

Think it's possible that any of the setbacks could have been caused this unreliable ammo?

Unreliable proof loads????

Dear James:

You raise an intriguing issue.

I have a pristine 1908 Brazilian DWM action, that I purchased in full military configuration. It had original grease on it, and had no primer leak marks on the bolt face. I'd bet it sat in the Brazilian armory from before WW-I until it made its way into the USA in the 1960's or 1970's.

My point is, I'll bet it was proofed in Germany, then at the Brazilian armory upon receipt and that was it.

Now, I'll bet the proof in Germany was done at 60-70 degress F. and in Brazil near 90-100 degrees F.

You can see a slight maybe less than .001-.0015" depression caused by the top lug seating from the proof loads. The bottom lug seat is unmarked.

I'd be willing to bet that the Brazilian proof may have exceeded Mr. Speed's 4600 atmospheres. Or when the receiver and/or bolt were cased, one or both warped a bit, causing the extra tolerance in the lower lug seat or LH bolt lug.

My other 1908's don't show this slight indentation, and their bolt faces are about .001-.0015" higher in reference to the receiver face.

Funny, though the 1909 Argentine that I have of DWM manufacture has no lug seat marks at all, and its probably been fired more, since it was sporterized years ago into a 30-06. On the other hand, I've purchased 1909's with excessive lug seat wear, that was not set back. The edges of the cams were rounded into the lug seat.

Poor or no lubrication? These were calvary carbines with a lot of external stock wear. Pretty banged up.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Enough of this- '98's should be scrapped due to poor heat treating and inferior steels. The photo below is what was once a '51 FN after a primed cartridge with its powder charge mistakenly omitted was fired in the rifle.

Omitted powder charge? Looks more like it was a compressed load of bullshit, I mean Bullseye, to me.

Yo, Tincan, is that your handiwork?

If it was, nicely done.

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:
Dear Trax:

Being a former lawyer, I have one or two questions for you. Have you ever built or had someone build a rifle for you, using a bone stock 1898 Mauser action? Did you actually shoot it?

What is your experience on this score, meaning what is your empirical evidence vis a vis 1898 Mausers? Not just others' opinions.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Yale,

I stripped an orig.DWM1909 rifle then had it barrelled .270win, action sharpened up and all tricked out with top shelf components.
It ended up passing into my friends hands, who never really loads rifles for top velocity.
It never suffered setback, but then again neither did Mr. Selbys .416.

So my personal empirial evidence and that of Mr Selbys is the same, each of those individual rifles never suffered LSB.

But I'm not silly enough to ignore more extensive & compelling empirical evidence based reports from folks with much more accumulated knowledge and experience than me.......overall, my sample of -one- does not really count for too much.


responses relating to M98 setback,..

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:
I run into people all the time who claim never to have seen setback. That could be, especially if they've never bothered to look for it. I've seen it a lot.

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:
Yes, Many thousands may have been converted with no "apparent" effect. Maybe some really did suffer no ill effects. But many did.

I've seen plenty with setback and I've seen a relatively small sampling in the scheme of things. Enough though to convince me that any rifle worthy of more than a couple hundred dollar investment is worth having carburised. I suppose if all one is going to do is slap on an A&B barrel and put it in a plastic stock then fine, use it as-is. If setback occurs, then I suppose oe could try to fix it by setting back the barrel and rechambering. But the problem will only continue. I sure wouldn't want to risk going this route if I've invested in a nice stick of wood and painstakingly inletted it.

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:
Beautiful machining but keep the pressures down or heat treat. DWM Argentines and Brazilians are soft, subject to setback.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
I have seen lug ste back in rifles that cost well into 5 figures. Have also seen it on cheaper rifles. It is real possibility with any military Mauser.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
A few years ago I saw a Duhmoulin (never can remeber which "first initial" Duhmoulin it was, but it was the GOOD one) that had serious lug set back. It was a .416 Rigby on a M98. THis rifle that cost over $6500 in the '90s was as soft as butter. It did not take many rounds to get it in this condition. After seeing this, I decided to start ehat treating my Mausers. I am working on one right now so I can send 3 off at one time to get a little price break. I consider it cheap insurance and it gives me peace of mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
This seems to be a little more common on the 1909 and the 1908 DWMs than one would like. I recently had what had been a new 1908 in the shop and it was also showing signs of setback.<br />I used a lot of unfired '08s in years past and most were just fine but occasionally one would be soft. The 1935 Oberndorfs we got at the same time were never soft and were definitely the better of the two. Regards, Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by DArcy_Echols_Co:
... I have had the lugs seats set back on a couple early projects (1980-83). I corrected the seats and lugs and had those actions Re-heat-treated, set back the barrels, etc (non had Iron sights) and have never had them move again. This would include two 1909's, one Radome. I have familiar with two other FN's and two VZ-24's that set back dramatically and were shot with factory loads only. I have seen a half dozen commercial Oberndorf's one set back so far it required .025 of metal removed form the lugs and seats to true it up again. Three of these were chambered for older British cartridges.
I can not think of one client of mine that loads ammo for himself that does not try to milk every last bit of velocity they can out of the cartridge that the 98 is chambers for, well except the guys getting the Gibbs.

quote:

Originally posted by TGetzen:
What a nasty surprise. I pulled the barrel (270) off a 1909 Arg action, planning to grind down the charger hump, reshape the rear tang a little, and reblue it. This is the action I just got the PME 2 pos safety set up on, new Leupold bases / rings, stock in the works, etc.Looking it over, I thought 'my, that upper lug recess looks funny' -- actually it looks like the Steyr that Jack has posted pics of. I grabbed a small punch, and sure enough you can feel a step off when you run it over the front of the lug recess.I will try to post pics if I can borrow a digital cam; the real bummer is, this was a DWM, in almost perfect shape, never fired with hot loads, barrel installed properly by a smith who knows how. I can't figure out why it happened.Now I guess I'll be shopping for another good old 22 or 24.

quote:

Originally posted by schromf:

I can speak from experience here, I built a 1909 into a 30-338, it didn't get 20 rounds through it when it set the lugs back, my smith completly went back through it at on his dime, the barrel needed setting back a couple of threads, it needed heat treating, plus all the trueing and lapping all had to be redone. TIme was my penatly on this it took a lot of work to straighten it back out.

Somewhere recently I read how D' Arcy Echols works on these, and I figure he has forgotten more about gunsmithing than I will ever know. Ignore the warnings on the heat treating if you want, but I will never put together another modern high pressure round on one of these and not heat treat, $40 bucks on the above rifle would have saved me a lot of grief.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
A very large number of Mausers have been converted to sporters by professionals and by back yard "blacksmiths" and without even the thought of heat treating the receivers.

It is possible that all of them have some setback but has not yet been identified and/or measured.

Of the ones I have owned none of them have presented a functional problem and the chamberings have been for the 220 Swift, .25-06, 6 mm Rem, 7 X 57, 280 Rem, 270 Win 300 Win Mag.

This does not mean they didn't have setback.....one must be careful about what he knows and what is thought.

My past experience does not qualify as proof of anything......except that I've not encountered problems due to not heat treating actions such as 1908 Brazilllians and 1909 Argies.....but when I build one today I have them heat treated as a precaution.

So many folks here have posted this recommendation that it has to be observed.

Tom Burgess did actual testing/analysis on several hundred 1909 actions [and most likely saw many more that he did not test]...according to Tom, a number of those factory grease military 1909 rifles that came to the US, already had LSB.

Its clear that both Duane Weibe and myself, have not seen or experienced the things that numerous others have seen & experienced.

I also think Kabluewy is being a little rough on the 1909....He had a bad experience some 20yrs ago, with his 1909s coming back warped from the HT shop....however many folks m98 military actions come back fine.

Do you know which actual reHT method and specs, Grisel used on the M98 actions for his comparison blowup tests?
Its not difficult to make reHT appear somewhat detrimental, should one happen to select the less appropriate HT method and specs.

You being a former lawyer, why would you choose to take the testimony of one persons experiences, but ignore the empirical based testimony of another person[s], on the same subject?

Eg:

quote:

Originally posted by ShopCartRacing:
If you have not taken the temper out of the metal, then there is no need to heat treat the action.FN's were all made commercially and properly heat treated.

quote:

Originally posted by DArcy_Echols_Co:
For what it's worth. I barreled a comercial FN (circa 1950)that came to me in the white and had never had a barrel on it (ie new in the box). I chambered it to 300 Win and sent it one it's way. It began to seperate cases inside 50 rounds. When it returned I checked the hardness on the "c" scale and found it dead soft. The lug set back and head space was corrected and the action was sent off to correct the limp noodle situation. Hasn't moved at all now in 14 years.

If reHT is considered by some as not required, why then would knowledgeable & practical guys like Echols and Dave Miller spend so many hrs refining & modifying a 1909[$$$]...to then send it out to HT and risk ruining it by putting through a process that essentially was not really required?.
I don't think those guys are so silly to needlessly put an expensive action through such process,that offered risk -but no real benefit, to a high priced modern high intensity cartridge rifle build.

Having said that, when barrelling up to a modern high pressure round [6mmrem,270win,.338win] a person is free to do as they please, choose to leave your military M98 action "as is" or reHT - and wait see how she happens to handle the workload....

Keep in mind, that empirical based reports indicate that 1909 actions that setback[whist retaining org. HT]...often no longer setback when fed same high intensity hunting loads after reHT.

Should one persist in loading modern high pressure rounds beyond all reasonably sensible boundaries, there is no doubt one can manage to damage a ReHT 1909.

What fun!

Am finishing a .376 Steyr built w a Douglas bbl on a 1909 DWM Argie action.

Was not the prettiest action I ever saw ... lettering on the side is partially gone.

Bought it on here in the For Sale Forum. Had been reheat treated by PacMet.

Douglas did the barrel. Planning to use 225s with it at a moderate velocity. Has only fired 12 rounds so far.

Guess I'd better watch it carefully and understand that I may have to swap the action out at some point.

quote:

You being a former lawyer, why would you choose to take the testimony of one persons experiences, but ignore the empirical based testimony of another person[s], on the same subject?

Dear Trax:

You said: "I stripped an orig.DWM1909 rifle then had it barrelled .270win, action sharpened up and all tricked out with top shelf components. It ended up passing into my friends hands, who never really loads rifles for top velocity. It never suffered setback, . . ."

So, you have one 1909 that did not experience setback, and I have a WW-I Brno and a 1908 DWM Brazilian that did not have any setback.

So, in that hugh morass of verbage, you actually answered my question as posed, what was your actual experience? I did not ask about other's opinions.

The key to being a good lawyer is to cut through the bull shit. The judge appreciates it.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

I've seen several references to actual tests run by Tom Burgess and Pete Grisel, apparently at different time periods. I also have descriptions of Ackleys's and Hatcher's blowup results as shown in their books.

Where can I find the actual written results of the tests run by Burgess and Grisel? Are these results available anywhere in actual written form, or are these results an example of what folks call 'urban legend'? Any photos, as in Ackley's and Hatcher's results?
Regards, Joe

Dear Joe:

Me, too, I'd love to see some of Tom Burgess's data.

Why don't you call Pete Grisel in Oregon. He doesn't use a computer, the last time I spoke with him about a year ago, so e-mail is not an option.

The Ackley tests in Vol. 2 of the Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders are interesting, but still a bit inconclusive, since the number of actions was so few. He even mentions that failing in the dialogue immediately after the test results.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Dear Trax:

Just a professional irritation, but it is still necessary to stop this.

"Testimony" is a term of art. It means "[e]vidence given by a competent witness under oath or affirmation; . . . " - Black's Law Dictionary, 1979.

I sincerely doubt that the opinions that you copied above were under oath.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

So far mine is holding up fine. 1909 Argentine DWM (not treated) in 9.3X62.

Terry

Orginal question..."argentine mauser build or sell?"

Sell the fucking thing so we dont have to go through with this every 6 months!