I have 3 Argentinian built 1909 actions, one in the 5000 range and they other two 12-13,000.

The lower number has different receiver rail stampings, just DGFM FMAP, whereas the later ones have the entire Dirección General de Fabricaciones Militares and Fábrica Militar de Armas Portátiles spelled out.

The lower number has much nicer stampings and in general seems to be a better finished action.

Did they get sloppy as time went on or two different manufacturing plants?


thanks,

Rob

Not sure but the Argentinian ones are probably better hardened than the DWM ones.

iirc, the FMAP were made in Argentina, not Germany - back in the day, it was thought to be a (slightly) lower desirability than the made in Germany ones - I never thought so, and got a couple of them cheaper because other people did.

As Tom inferred, i know for certain that the german ones were soft - so I just sent mine off for hardening, worked out fine, but they only became 308 or 358s

I said that because, as everyone knows, the 09s were made at DWM from 1909 to 1912. Early days of heat treating steel.
Later, and I don't know when, they were made in Argentina; the initials on them is this: Fabrica Militar de Armas Portatiles (F.M.A.P.) (Light Weapons Military Factory) Domingo Matheu belonging to the Direccion General de Fabricaciones Militares ( D.G.F.M.) (General Directorship of Military Factories).
I only assume that the later ones made in Argentina were made when they knew more about case hardening steel than they did in the early 1900s.
But adequate for the 7.65 Mauser cartridge.
Hardening was an art, resulting in highly variable hardness; erring on the soft side was much better than too hard. (example is the 1903 Springfield below 800,000;hardened with leather and quenched whenever the worker though it looked right)
I have an RIA receiver that is cracked completely through on both sides. The RIA commander said I couldn't file a claim after 100 years.

FWIW Many years ago I had Tom Burgess surface grind a DGFM - FMAP 1909 receiver. He also tested it for hardness. The following is the comment he wrote on the tag: "Rc-16 Needs hardening - These Argentine house mades used higher carbon steel and require higher draw temp."

I'm sure you probably do not know...bujt did Tom check before or after the surface grinding?

Examples I've seen and worked with, Tom was fairly aggressive in metal removal, so conceivably COULD have removed the case

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
I'm sure you probably do not know...bujt did Tom check before or after the surface grinding?

Examples I've seen and worked with, Tom was fairly aggressive in metal removal, so conceivably COULD have removed the case

Tom may have removed the case but he knew enough to have the hardness tested prior to that metal removal. In my discussions with him, we talked at length about heat treatment, hardness testing, etc. He indicated to me that he had the hardness tested prior to modifications.

The receiver noted above and all of the several others that Tom surface ground and hardness tested for me were tested on the bottom flat of the receiver, an area that is not affected by the grinding.

quote:

Originally posted by GMyers:
The receiver noted above and all of the several others that Tom surface ground and hardness tested for me were tested on the bottom flat of the receiver, an area that is not affected by the grinding.

that is true and something I should have also mentioned.

I wonder if they were doing a Brinell test. It seems like I remember reading in one of my old gunsmithing books, that the Brinell test was prone to inaccuracy as the ball impact could break through the outer case hardening, that was adequate, and give a false soft reading. They specifically mentioned testing on the bottom flat. I am damned if I can remember if that was in Dunlaps book or some other, and I don't have access to my books right now or I would look it up.
I also seem to remember that on the early Springfields, that they were hardening by eye and looking for the right color and found that there was a wide variance of perception between the guys on day shift and the night shift, no big surprise there!
Proper hardening was definately a Black Art in those days.

OP here, this thread has taken an interesting turn, but here are some pics of the two actions I was referring too...

The older one in the 5K range is on top, the lower one with the coarser stamping is 12K range...



5K on right....

The Arg made 1909’s are great actions.
They were proofed at 65,000 PSI, stay under that and you are good to go.
Production ran from 1947 to 1959. The markings changed in 1952 when they made rifles for other services including the Coast Guard.
One thing to check is the firing pin hole, some of the ones I’ve had were quite oversize due to primer erosion.

The only Argentine made 1909 I've dealt with was soft and had lug setback.The DWM actions I have had no lug setback.

Forum discussion on 1909 Mauser =

Metal; that is information I wanted to see about the Argentine made 09s.
Another factor in Rockwell testing Mausers; there is no way to actually test the locking lug seats. Testing anywhere else on the receiver may or may not tell what the hardness is in the important places. Especially when they went to using carburizing paste. It was not like today when they use atmospherically controlled furnaces.

Well I know this subject has been beat to death but I will add a bit anyway. My reading of texts concerning the production of pre-ww1 Mauser actions indicates to me the receivers were selectively case hardened. That is only areas of the receiver that the specifications deemed necessary were hardened to a certain level. This done by selectively packing the receiver with carbonaceous materials, then sealing in an iron retort and heating then quenching.

So you could conceivably have a 1909 Argy or 1908 Brazilian with a soft recoil lug and receiver flat but have a quite hard locking lug recess area simply because that area was packed well with charred bone, leather, and such. Later receivers were hardened by a cyanide soak that produced a more even distribution of hardness.

I own and have shot three 1908's and four 1909's for some years in original calibers. None show any kind of setback. Two of my 1909's had original barrels that were completely shot out indicating many thousands of rounds. When barrels were removed there was no setback evident.

So as previously iterated, results may vary. Obviously there were times when hardening was below standard as evidenced by receivers with setback even in original caliber. Re-barreling to a hotter caliber only makes it worse. But if you are going to check hardness I would recommend the locking lug area for a true read. Or if you have a well used specimen with no setback you are likely good to go.

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by metal:
Forum discussion on 1909 Mauser =

The opinions are all over the place, just like those early Mauser heat treatment results. lol