Since the popular opinion is that the large barrel threads cause weakness in this small ring action, has anyone ever seem one that has failed? If so, please post pictures. Just trying to blow away the smoke. CB

I don't worry about it but I don't put magnums on them either. And they aren't made from modern alloy steel.

Duane: Ahhhh. "real world" information. Good stuff. Do you recall how the barrel was affected after the Pete Grisel "bullseye powder" test?

dpcd Thanks. I thought there are better options out there for magnum builds as well.

Yeah; remember that the receiver doesn't take much stress until one or both of 2 things happen; you go much over 40K psi, (below which the brass case takes most of the back thrust; or you release high pressure gas into the ring area, after which bad things happen. Ackley proved that under about 40K psi, there is little need for a breech except to keep the primer in. Of course, rifle designers, especially in the era of poor quality brass cases, continued to design receivers to contain the above mentioned phenomena and we got the 98 Mauser instead of the 93. Just something to think about. So, the small ring 98 has all the bells and whistles except for a thick ring. If it was made from 4140 steel, then no worries but they ain't.

The Kar98a small ring/large thread actions are soft and weak. I never saw or heard of a catastrophic failure as with the low number Springfield type, but have owned and saw 3-4 Kar 98a's with excess headspace and even more than that with stripped out receiver scope base holes. The metal in the receivers is very thin behind the "C" ring. The guns were all 30-06, 8x57, or 257 Roberts and 257 Improved.

I like these trim little actions, but they won't stand heavy use. They are OK for a hunting rifle that isn't shot much.

Yep, I have never seen a hard one; they are soft; I would not use one for 30-06 or any improved caliber. As you said, fine for hunting rifles that shoot a few rounds a year.

The only one I ever saw that had a problem was one that appeared to have been got run over by a tank.

The barrel threads were crooked, to the axis of the bolt, and the barrel would sit 1/2 inch off to the left at the muzzle.

Went over it several times and that is the only thing I could figure out may have happened to it.

Built my share of sporters on those actions in the 70's
I had a 35 Whelen on one I used from 1978 till 1993. Put a LOT of rounds thru that one.

J Wisner

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Pete Grisel made a small ring 98 based action...small thread, but the clearance for extractor is still thinner than a large ring configuration.

He tried and tried to blow the action with ever stiffer loads, finally filled the case with bulls eye! That worked! and indeed the top half of the ring seperated.

Shouldn't we take into consideration the differing strength characteristics of modern alloy Smll ring receivers such as a Grisel or Kimber, or NULA ,
as compared to the old steel & heaTtreat of an old mauser?

I know one can comfortably run chamberings at full 65kpsi Weatherby type pressures in new manufacture CrMolly Magnum Mauser actions,
who does anyone know that is happily doing the same in their old orig.1930s Oberndorf magnum mauser?

Grind the front ring down to 1.3" on an orig. Oberndorf, then run modern 65kpsi+ hunting loads through it,
and wait see what happens in time...


Crash Testing a new 2014 Mercedes SLS Gullwing will not give the correct results
if you are attempting to find out what happens to an old 1954 SL300 Gullwing on impact.

Thanks for the input gentlemen. The consensus on milsurp KAR98 actions seems to be, keep the loads moderate. Don't push it. As P.O. Ackley (handbook 1 & 2) has proved time and time again, push anything far enough and/or make big mistakes and you're asking for trouble.

airgun1 : Could you provide more details on your experiences such as factory loads or reloads, and amount of use on the lugs setback rifles?

My loads were:

8x57, 180 gn Nosler Ballistic Tip, 49 grains IMR 4064

30-06, 180 gn Nosler Partition, 55 grains IMR 4350

257 Roberts Ack Imp was stout loads of IMR 4350, can't remember what grains. My friend has had that gun, formerly mine, and built by me 20 years ago.

The guns didn't have lug setback, they had receiver stretch between the C ring and lugs. They give plenty of warning that the headspace is increasing, it is not like they burst apart or anything.

I'm not a seasoned expert on lug setback by any stretch. However, it does seem odd that a "soft" action would be absent of any indentation where the lugs contact the raceway as the gun is fired yet will permanently stretch the middle of the ring without any signs of cracking. How were you able to determine the stretch?

quote:

Originally posted by airgun1:
My loads were:

8x57, 180 gn Nosler Ballistic Tip, 49 grains IMR 4064

30-06, 180 gn Nosler Partition, 55 grains IMR 4350

257 Roberts Ack Imp was stout loads of IMR 4350, can't remember what grains. My friend has had that gun, formerly mine, and built by me 20 years ago.

The guns didn't have lug setback, they had receiver stretch between the C ring and lugs. They give plenty of warning that the headspace is increasing, it is not like they burst apart or anything.

Two that I personally remember developed .025" headspace. One was a 30-06 and I think the other was a plain 257 Roberts, not even Improved. My memory may be off and it may have been an 8mm. This was in the early to mid 1990's; there may have been Internet then, but I didn't know it.


I know that the guns were built right, chambered accurately, and then developed excess headspace, Serious excess headspace. I remember the dimension as .025" and I remember that because we were amazed that the cases didn't separate. There was definitely no lug indents. Common practice in the day was to try and scratch the lugs with a carbide scribe to see if an action was suitable. The actions both passed that test before and after.

Two different old time gunsmiths, long since passed, both told me that it was receiver stretch. I did not say this part, because I never truly witnessed it, but they both told me: "that they had seen similar actions do this and the owners continued to use them until the barrels nearly fell out". I also remember that these two in particular stripped out the scope base holes in the front ring no matter how oversized you tried to repair them.

The site or my computer is freezing, hence the edits/additions.

Thanks for the explanation. Hope you had a good deer season up there.

Will a 'Burgess style/type' heat treating of these actions help/cure the problem(s) ?

Following this thread with interest as I have a 1916 Erfurt small ring 98 with almost all numbers matching. It has no collector value as the stock was "bubba-ed" at some point and the metal re-blued. I'll be curious as to what conclusions the experts come to.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Trax: Not sure about your point,. but I have documentation of a 1909 Arg. based 404 Jeff proofed in France at 68000 PSI

I can be selective also:

I'll use Harry Selbys .416 (based on an old Std. M98 action) and conclude that particular example prooved quite suitable for .416 Riby.

However, Paul Roberts of Rigby can tell about the numerous other examples of stdM98/ .416 rifles from Rigby, that came back
to the shop with lug Set-back problems.... (Rigby orig. ordered magnum length actions for very good reason way back in 1904)

and let me repeat:
- how can one test a new modern alloy smllring Grisel action and conclude that an old kar98 will hold the same?

If such conclusions were so easy and reliable across the board for actions made decades apart, one would not have to 'proof test' individual rifles.

AND If someone said they had blow-up tested a modern Grisel - and by such then concluded that my old SR/LT kar98 should be the same,
I would find someone else to give my business to.

Even testing a series of the same seemingly identical type action i.e. several 1909 argentines,
can show up variations in what each individual action will tolerate, since the standards of 1909 manufacturing batches from way back then
are not all the same.

Even much more recent commercial manufacture FN mauser actions have shown large discrepency in heat treatment, and as such have displayed variation
as to what loads they can each individually tolerate without adverse effect.

even with the Grisel action, I recall Mr. Echols had experience with a customers Grisel action rifle that had lug set-back,
He recut the lug seats, set in a new barrel, had the action re-hardened to a higher spec. and it then performed without problem.

quote:

Originally posted by hogfarmer:
Following this thread with interest as I have a 1916 Erfurt small ring 98 with almost all numbers matching. It has no collector value as the stock was "bubba-ed" at some point and the metal re-blued. I'll be curious as to what conclusions the experts come to.

At this point it's been pretty much concluded.

I am by no means an expert, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but I owned a few 1916 Erfurts. Some of them were built into nice sporters.

The most accurate rifle I ever made was on a 1916 Erfurt that my friend still owns and uses. It is a 257 Roberts Ack Imp and is a freak of nature. It one holes nearly anything you feed it. I guess I just lucked into a good barrel, and it was nothing special, a
$75.00 stainless Wilson.

One of the ones that wore out was also a 1916
Erfurt. I think the other one was a Danzig or Amberg, whomever else made the Kar98a's. That particular rifle was a pain in the butt from the start and caused me a lot of grief. It probably had receiver stretch, but it was never returned to me and was the first problem child. It was already built up as a toothpick style, most likely in Germany. The bore was worse than a sewer pipe. The fellow sold me the barreled action minus the double set triggers. I pulled the 8mm barrel and gave it to a friend, as he wanted to remove the full length engraved, soldered on rib, and put it on a new barrel. I drilled and tapped the action, and installed a used 30-06 barrel. The scope base holes never held tight. I epoxied the bases and screws onto the action and eventually sold it back to the guy for $75. Within 6 months he was screaming about the headspace on the gun. I told him he needed to find a gunsmith that knew how to use headspace gauges, because I had built it properly and used it for two years before I sold it back to him. Hindsight tells me this was probably just like the two aforementioned ones.

My advice, opinion, experience, whatever, is if it drills and taps good go for it. If the front ring holes won't take torque to tighten, reject it.

Here is all the info you ever wanted to know about the Kar98 and Polish copies from "The Man", Tom Burgess. This post should be placed in the references section. When you get to the post scroll up to the top and start reading.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...?r=17510394#17510394

Matt

Excellent read.