Not at all! That FN in the ad, which even they called an FN Mauser, is simply a 98 Mauser design, made by FN. If it is not a Mauser, what is it? Not like it is something entirely different; it is the Mauser 98 patent action.
Ok, they did cut out the inner ring, but most guys don't even know about that. And they didn't call it a K98, which it definitely isn't. It is a 98 though.
Here is my favorite FN; definitely not a Mauser. I have several of these. You have to specify which model of FN; FN-FAL, or FN Mauser. So, Ray, you were right and Jack was wrong, dead or not.

TIL about Mausers.
Gentlemen Thank you for enlightening me.
Very interesting discussion.
dpcd, hope you’re feeling better. Don’t let the gun shop guys get you down.

Your favorite FN looks very much like the one our troops used in Vietnam, dpcd. They used to call it the SLR.

Yes, I'm much better now.
NV; I'm glad. There is a lot more....
Sam, your guys did actually not use the FN-FAL. They used the L1A1, the Inch version of the FN. Different, yet look much the same. They were made at Lithgow. They have wood stocks and the long L1A1 flash hider. More like the original Belgian one.
I have one of those too; come over and we can shoot it.

Here is your Lithgow L1A1. They are inch versions of the FN-FAL, with some minor changes.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Right; from a design standpoint, I would have liked to see the extractor made to snap over a chambered round. German tactical doctrine and soldier training was to load only from the 5 round clip; never to load one into the chamber. Unlike British and American doctrine, which was to allow single loading and save the magazine for rapid fire; in fact the 03 Springfield and early Enfields have the magazine cutoff to allow that to happen. Only some 93 Mausers for Turkey had that cutoff.
And of course the 91, my favorite Mauser action, allows it.

I know single loading has been kicked around ad infinitum. Ponder this: The bridge dimension on the 98 holds the extractor snug against the extractor groove..

Yet by the time the extractor nose reaches the ring, we find there is about 1mm extra opening...Why would this be unless the action was designed to allow the extractor to snap over a loaded round?

The dimensional change, of course, leads to an additional machining step. I can't think of another bolt action that has this change...All simply make the extractor clearance one straight shot the entire length.

Tom Burgess claimed the ammo of the day was beveled to help this "snap over" easier. In my experience, I've found that that ...Oh....at least half 98's will allow this snap over without modification

I make it a point that every 98 custom that leaves my shop will do the "snap over" Modification, if needed, takes but a couple minutes.

quote:

2

DW Good to hear positively from a seasoned pro on this subject. 12+ years ago, a first attempt at reducing the LR 98 extractor tip radius and rearward a bit to allow snap-over on a dropped in round was successful with a bit of excess perspiration since I acted purely on a whim. Thanks.

Thanks dpcd, if I ever get back to the US I might drop in on you, to say hello at least.

As to extractors snapping over rims, my Zastava's will do it but not the military FN 'Mausers' I've had. The first one seemed stiff in feeding a neck-sized cartridge one hunt, causing me to bump the bolt handle. Bad move! That knocked the cartridge ahead of the extractor, after which it jammed in the chamber. Fortunately, I'd brought a cleaning rod.

The fact remains that the 98 Mauser as designed, and manufactured by all German makers, were NOT designed to snap over the rim of a cartridge, not were the soldiers of Germany ever trained to attempt to do so. They were taught to load and fire, from the clip only. All ammo was issued in 5 rounds clips.
I welcome any documentation to the contrary, (there is none).
Of course, commercial variants are made to allow this, as do all modern gunmakers, make that alteration to the extractor.
If you attempt to single load a 98, you will have a jam, at least half the time, as Sam had.
Trust me, no German soldier was ever trained to grasp the extractor to allow it to snap over a rim. This notion is a recipe for disaster. You will do one of three things; it will load, it will jam, or the extractor will break. You will hot know which one will happen until is too late.

HAR! If soldiers were not TRAINED to grasp the extractor to allows a "snap over"....would lead one to believe that three IS clearance to allow that.

Measuring the difference in dimension between ring and bridge..Well..I just can't come up with another reason for the extra machining step.

Bottom line: If needed, the snap over mod can be easily accomplished in a matter of minutes.

Years ago there weas an article that took this to the Nth degree. The nose of the extractor was made thicker (Copy the M-70) thereby allowing a longer "ramp" Of course, the barrel has to be modified to accept this (ie. extractor groove)

PS...One does not increase the extractor radius... just reshape the bevel, mostly at the top

A word of caution...There are some modern 98 variants that DO NOT have that extractor clearance...Brevex comes to mind...a real bitch to do that on a hardened action!

Proves again: Changes to the original 98 design is a step backward

Such great information! Thanks fellas
Rick

DW; I do not know why that clearance is there; all I know is that there is NO documentation to prove that it is there so soldiers could grasp the extractor and load. They definitely were NOT trained to do that. That would be a foolish loading method. They were trained to load ONLY from clips. Load 5 rounds, shoot 5. Reload.

Well...not an easy thing to document ..but Sambarman's experience can easily be avoided and that's about my only point.

As usual, your encyclopedia of knowledge is damn awesome.

I'd hate to try and lift the book that contained all that information