Is there any way a person can determine whether a FN Commericial mauser action has the H or C configuration in the receiver ring without actually looking at it or handling it? By SN or any other method?

Roughly, any FN Mauser action made after 1948 has the double broach cut. This includes both commercial and military contracts.

And it makes absolutely no difference in performance. I don't differentiate between them.

I have a Firearms International imported commercial FN action, stamped 1950, that is a C ring. I assume that 1950 is the manufacture date, but I cannot guarantee it.

Imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if you machined that C or H ring totally away.
Oh, wait, you would have EVERY other bolt action ever made.
Which is why I never understood all the concern for one or the other.

Oh God thank you! Finally a voice of reason.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if you machined that C or H ring totally away.
Oh, wait, you would have EVERY other bolt action ever made.
Which is why I never understood all the concern for one or the other.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if you machined that C or H ring totally away.
Oh, wait, you would have EVERY other bolt action ever made.
Which is why I never understood all the concern for one or the other.

And eliminate all the difficulty of slotting the blind lugway, machining the lug seats and cams?
That's heresy!!

Is the supposed superiority of the C ring to do with strength or gas handling?

I read a claim that the C ring adds internal reinforcement that might prevent ballooning of the receiver ring (small compared with the Enfield?) in the event of an overload.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Is the supposed superiority of the C ring to do with strength or gas handling?

I read a claim that the C ring adds internal reinforcement that might prevent ballooning of the receiver ring (small compared with the Enfield?) in the event of an overload.

A barrel breech with a single extractor cut accomplishes the same gas handling as a difficult to manufacture C ring.
Plus a longer barrel thread engagement, usually considered a plus.

I suspect the internal C ring offers little increase in strength since it has the deep notch cutout for the extractor, and why Springfield, Enfield, etc, put that exterior patch of metal to strengthen that area.

The breeching collar does make fitting a barrel easier since you don't have to cut the barrel for the extractor and make it index properly.

Mauser was a brilliant design in it's era of crappy brass, cheap skilled labor, primitive metallurgy and hit or miss heat treating.

However all those considerations are no more.

Doug is right; any advantage the internal ring had when it was designed in the 19th century, is irrelevant now, since the advent of Nickel, then chrome moly, steel for receivers. (or even properly heat treated low carbon steel) So, anyone who still thinks a C ring is better than an H ring, I want to talk to you.

Just taking a look with the bolt withdrawn you can easily see whether it's an H or C configuration.

Now, the 98 (C ring) design leaves far less case head protrusion than the Enfield, Springfield or M-70. The C ring makes a pretty good wrap of the case head except for the extractor relief....which in turn is pretty well plugged up with extractor itself.

On the H ring, escaping gas is free to travel down the L raceway...but in all honesty, the bolt stop may act as a pretty good plug. Which brings up the thumb cut! If left as is, that gives gas plenty of room for escape.

To each his own...I do not condemn the H ring, but if left the choice and all things equal, I'll pick the C ring

How about this; a P14 Enfield leaves near zero case head protrusion. We should go with that. And rimmed cartridges.

Well...the fashion these days is to get rid of belts..rimless next?