Looking for some assistance, guys. The question is simple: is an 1891 Argentine Mauser action suitable for building a 30-06 based wildcat, either a 338-06 or a 35 Whelan?

Thanks!

No.

And no.

thoughts but, maybe .. but no

NO!!!
I love the 91 and build a lot of them because they are the smoothest rifle action made. But you need to limit them to 40K psi.
So I make a lot of 450 Bushmaster, and 35 Rems on them. Nothing other than those.
Even the 257 Roberts is now a high pressure round.
Not that they are not very well made; they are made like fine sporting rifles of the period; but they are soft steel. Even the ones made late up into the 1901. V and W blocks.

Build a custom 7.65x53.

Krags are smoother.

Krags are an abomination of one lug, magazine is the worst design ever, and Krags hard to get. Although I am looking at an action now; not sure what to do with it. I think I will sell it. Thanks for reminding me of this piece of crap. Still have 6 91s though.
Smoother? Nope.
But I digress; yes a 7.65 Argentine will work fine on the 91 Argentine. Boring, but a good round.

All Krags have wood stocks,
All Krags stock split,
All split stocks are wood

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
But I digress; yes a 7.65 Argentine will work fine on the 91 Argentine. Boring, but a good round.

Well, no shit Sherlock. It ought to work fine since it's what they were chambered for in the first place.

Thanks, everyone for the help. I really appreciate it.

If it's am original rifle, leave it alone! We used to see 'um , now rarely.........Just because it's a milsurp doesn't mean ya' gotta' chop it up. Just look at what a good '98, in original configuration, will bring these days,,, and there were a lot more of those made than '91s.

What if the action has been heat treated? I have one that I had Pacific Metalurgy heat treat for me. I think it should be OK.

quote:

Originally posted by clowdis:
What if the action has been heat treated? I have one that I had Pacific Metalurgy heat treat for me. I think it should be OK.

Still no.

You will never know until it's too late. The 91 has no safety lug, and no gas safety release features.
Do a blow up test first, and tell us all about it. I am curious.
But I still would not put a 60K psi cartridge on it. Get a real rifle action.
RC; well familiar with the 7.65. I have fired hundreds of 7.62 NATO rounds out of Argentine 09s. Ball and tracer. Work great.
But that is another digression; sorry.

Sure wished there were proof facilities in this country. Certainly would avoid guess work and possible injury.

In the formative years of the ACGG, some of us advocated looking into proof facility..Was soundly voted down "Ah gee whiz, I don't want to see my work possibly damaged"

How's that for "Professionalism"?

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Sure wished there were proof facilities in this country. Certainly would avoid guess work and possible injury.

In the formative years of the ACGG, some of us advocated looking into proof facility..Was soundly voted down "Ah gee whiz, I don't want to see my work possibly damaged"


How's that for "Professionalism"?

I can see your point, but IMO, the last thing the firearms industry needs is more regulation.

Absolutely NOT!
We do NOT need any more government intervention; look at Europe and is that what you want? Even barrels are highly regulated; here they are so much bars of iron.
No government proof testing for me.

Who said anything about government regulation or involvement or intervention? Read the writing!...or read the reading!

First the 1891's. Metallurgically the 1891's are as good as most of the pre-WWI 98's. Heat treatment is better in some cases.

In testing 98's, the action mechanically always held up better than the brass. To Tom's point, the gas handling of the 89-91 is nearly non-existent.

I've got half a dozen or so 1891's that will get pressure tested hopefully this summer if I have time. A couple will be ladder tested and a couple will just get blown up. The Pressure Trace unit gives fairly accurate results and can provide welcome insight to several aspects.

Now, I also enjoy building 1891's, I find them to be darling little actions. As such, I made the Ed LaPour 96 bolt shrouds adaptable to work with the 91's, which also converts the firing pin to a 93 lugged type. I haven't tried, but I suppose you could even leave it COC if that is your preference.

Second, the topic of proof houses. Tom, Duane is offering a novel idea that is nearly dead in the American landscape. The concept of self accountability, and he is not encouraging any form of government involvement. He is advocating what should be, a group of individuals in an industry regulating themselves to hold themselves to a higher standard.

The problem is this form of arrangement typically degenerates into a Cartel organization you see today from the AMA to ACGG to ISO to the Federal Reserve.

Nathaniel...you phrased it much better than I did...I just jump straight to "pissed off"

Oops; I thought you wanted a Government, Mandatory, Proof House. I usually answer before reading the questions; saves time that way.
No need to get pissed off....
As for the 91, I always leave them COC; it ain't broken and works fine. But these Americans are too lazy, to learn to manipulate it.
They all want COO, for reasons I can't fathom.
As for strength of a 91, I will bet that they hold as much as anything else, for a few shots. Until they set back and blow a head.

No harm..thanks