Where can a guy get the hardness tested on a Turkish Mauser close to my area? I live east of the Mississippi river in the Midwest. I want to use a large ring Turkish 98 with 96 shank threads for a big bore. Concerned about set back in the lug area. The barrel I want to use dictates the 96 major diameter thread size. I have several complete actions on the shelf. Any steering in the right direction would really make me smile and appreciative!

most any machine shop will have testers for hardness, or you can buy yourself a set from any machine shop supplier or brownells

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
most any machine shop will have testers for hardness, or you can buy yourself a set from any machine shop supplier or brownells

I'm going to disagree with butchloc on this one as the hardness tester you need is a "superficial hardness tester" specifically designed to allow use of the 15-N, 30-N and 45-N scales and most hardness testers are equipped for the Rc scale.

One must execise caution that he is using the right equipment and is doing the procedure correctly and that he then relates the readings he gets to the appropriate "C" scale if he's looking for a specific hardness in the (for example)37-39 Rc scale

I've never used the Ra scales but I believe he can also do the testing on the Ra scale and convert back based on tables.

Use of a machine set up for direct Rc readings will totally break through the case depth and yield an inaccurate (very badly too) reading.

Take you action to a company that does case hardening (all major cities have them) and ask for readings on the 15-N scale and then convert that reading using the appropriate tables to Rc

If the action you are using is a K. Kales '98 Mauser the folks are Pac Met told me that these actions already have a case treatement and depth equal to what they do to other Mausers....

I had mine done anyway!

And just where would you test the receiver and what would that tell you about the lug seats?

quote:

Originally posted by rem721:
And just where would you test the receiver and what would that tell you about the lug seats?

It looks like ole Vapo has you on his ignore list. I don't blame him, I think a lot of people do.

quote:

Originally posted by rem721:
And just where would you test the receiver and what would that tell you about the lug seats?

FN commercial actions are tested on the right side of the recoil lug with a Brinell ball dent.

If the rifle is going to be a low pressure big bore I would not bother testing.

While it is true that a rockwell tester will go through a thin skin or no skin i have tested a numebr of receivers in the RC 24 to 30 range.
I have also tested Argentine 98/09s at C zero which is not a reliable reading on the C scale. They test about 80 on the B scale. About as hard as a common nail.

quote:

FN commercial actions are tested on the right side of the recoil lug with a Brinell ball dent. This does strongly suggest that those actions were thru-hardened and not case hardened as I don't think Brinell testing applies to case hardening.

If the rifle is going to be a low pressure big bore I would not bother testing. This seems reasonable as from the evidence presented here on AR the setback problems are typically with 60,000+ PSI cartridges such as .270 Win and .264 Mag etc

While it is true that a rockwell tester will go through a thin skin or no skin i have tested a numebr of receivers in the RC 24 to 30 range. May I ask what scale you was using on these tests.....were you testing direct to the "C" scale?
I have also tested Argentine 98/09s at C zero which is not a reliable reading on the C scale. They test about 80 on the B scale. About as hard as a common nail.

elathe.....do you have access to a superficial hardness tester or can you test to the Ra scale?

Would the 458 AI be considered a low pressure big bore? I have a Turkish large ring with small barrel thread. As I said in my original post, the shank on the barrel dictates the use of a small thread action. The Turkish large ring98 style with small thread 96 style will fit the bill. Do I really need to worry about hardness testing and lug set back on this action and cartridge combo?

quote:

Originally posted by olcrip:
Would the 458 AI be considered a low pressure big bore? Assuming you mean the .458 Winchester.....it's definitely not a low pressure round.....as a matter of fact it's quite high and has the further disadvantage of being a large area magnum to apply even greater force on the locking lugs
I have a Turkish large ring with small barrel thread. As I said in my original post, the shank on the barrel dictates the use of a small thread action. The Turkish large ring98 style with small thread 96 style will fit the bill. Do I really need to worry about hardness testing and lug set back on this action and cartridge combo?

On a previous thread, others here warned against using the small thread actions for magnum cartridges because of the thin barrel section in the chamber area.....It made good sense to me and I have resisted using them for magnums. Possibly someone else here would disagree and if you find that person he just might make you a very fine .458 from that action.

If I wanted a .458 on a '98 Mauser, I'd be watching the classifieds here for a Mark X or a Chas Daly already in magnum configuration.....there have been several of them listed lately.

I wouldn't use a small thread action such as the K. Kales Turkish '98.

quote:

Originally posted by olcrip:
Do I really need to worry about hardness testing and lug set back on this action and cartridge combo?

According to discussions with Pac Met in Washington, you could use this action "as-is" for such cartridges as .30-06, 9.3 X 62, .270 Win etc

("On a previous thread, others here warned against using the small thread actions for magnum cartridges because of the thin barrel section in the chamber area.....It made good sense to me and I have resisted using them for magnums. Possibly someone else here would disagree and if you find that person he just might make you a very fine .458 from that action.")

The barrel I wish to use already has the 96 Mauser size shank. It came off a Montana Rifle Co. action and is presently chambered by MRC as a 458 Ackley Improved. So much for the small barrel shank theory. The action is not a small ring Mauser, it is a large ring Mauser with small ring barrel thread. Turkey has a surplus of small ring 8 MM barrels so these actions were commissioned for the small thread but are the large ring actions.

quote:

Originally posted by olcrip:
The barrel I wish to use already has the 96 Mauser size shank. It came off a Montana Rifle Co. action and is presently chambered by MRC as a 458 Ackley Improved. So much for the small barrel shank theory. The action is not a small ring Mauser, it is a large ring Mauser with small ring barrel thread. Turkey has a surplus of small ring 8 MM barrels so these actions were commissioned for the small thread but are the large ring actions.

To date this thread has 411 views and none of the recognized smiths that frequent this forum have volunteered a single post and I might assume from your question that none have PM'd you on doing the work.

It's not relevant IMO that it's a large ring action....only that it's a small shank barrel. I can only assume that none of the "recognized" smiths that post here are willing to take this work.

Possibly most folks here know what a .458 Ackley Improved is but I sure don't so for the few of us that don't would you please explain what it is?

olcrip,
It doesn't matter that the barrel you have is a small shank that came off a MRC action, it isn't the same thread as a Mauser so you have to cut it off and make a new shank for the Mauser anyway. That also leaves you having to rechamber the barrel. Maybe you can go .458 mag and the chamber will clean up but I haven't done the math so I'm not sure, but you can deffinately do the .458AI again. As for testing the hardness, it's difficult at best to do this on a case hardened action because the steel is softer underneath. The lugs are much easier to test since they will be hidden inside the receiver and the punch mark won't show. Just looking at the bolt, if the lugs have no visible setback or hobbing I wouldn't worry about them. If I took any metal off the front ring (like grinding off the crest) I'd have the action reheatreated just to be sure. The feed rails will need some work to get the thing to feed right too.

I have to set the barrel shank back .210 to clean up damaged chamber. The shank is .010 larger than the small shank Mauser and it is a fine thread. I can turn it to the Mauser major dia. and rethread it for the mauser. It may show what looks like scratches on the shank but it will clean up good. I'm only concerned about the hardness of the Turk Mauser. I will do all the work in my shop. My only concern was and is about hardness of the action to take the A I or a Lott chamber without any lug setting back.

Possibly most folks here know what a .458 Ackley Improved is but I sure don't so for the few of us that don't would you please explain what it is?[/QUOTE]


The 458 Ackley and the 458 Lott are basically the same Cartridge. They originate on the 2.850 belted magnum cartridge. The Ackley has less body taper thus it is improved by Ackley standards.

Evidently Montana Rifle Co. thought that the small shank was fine as long as it was reinforced by the magnum dia. action. I'm going on the same theory. My only corn is doing all the action work and getting lug set back.

quote:

My only concern was and is about hardness of the action to take the A I or a Lott chamber without any lug setting back.

OK....I sent my Turks to Pac Met and had them heat treated.....cost is about $100 shipping included....If you can doo all the work then have at it.....try to make a class-3 thread fit!!!

There's no right or wrong here.....just opinions.....If you want the spec for heat treat PM me and I'll give you the spec I use.....

The issue with taking a hardness test on one of the surfaces of a mauser is that you have no idea what method was employed to impart the case hardening. Without knowing this the test is meaningless. The assumption most will make is that it was gas carburized which is not correct. Thus while it may test hard enough on the outside it tells you nothing of what the lug seats are like. Especially with early models which were pack hardened. It is not uncommon for them to test near dead soft on an exterior surface while being sufficiently hard on the lug seats. Problem is, you have no practical way of knowing.

The Turk Mausers may or may not be hard enough. All depends on the specific example you are working with.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:


There's no right or wrong here.....just opinions.....If you want the spec for heat treat PM me and I'll give you the spec I use.....

That's laugable, especially considering it was Pac Met who most likely imparted this information to you. If you send an action they are well aware of how to carburize it.

quote:

Originally posted by olcrip:
Where can a guy get the hardness tested on a Turkish Mauser close to my area? I live east of the Mississippi river in the Midwest. I want to use a large ring Turkish 98 with 96 shank threads for a big bore. Concerned about set back in the lug area. The barrel I want to use dictates the 96 major diameter thread size. I have several complete actions on the shelf. Any steering in the right direction would really make me smile and appreciative!

I have reworked ~60 Turkish Mausers mostly Oberndorf, but a few Kales.

I have put other take off barrels on them that barely fit. Ones of different pitch with minor diameter smaller than the major diameter of the Turk. I calculate the % of thread contact, and if it is >80%, I can see no problems.

I have even Silver soldered a barrel onto a Turk barrel stub. That rifle is a mongrel, but shoots sub moa. I have not done it yet, but I intend to rebarrel with cylindrical shaped tenon in a cylindrical shaped barrel stub bonded only with Loc-Tite.

I have overloaded many Turks until the primer falls out of the case and not get set back, but all the .470" case heads. The 458 has a larger diameter case and better primer pocket support, and so could make more bolt thrust.

I have already posted this info here a couple months ago.
Someone from this forum has sent me a Mauser to over load, but I have not done it yet [been hunting].

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:

quote:

Originally posted by olcrip:
Where can a guy get the hardness tested on a Turkish Mauser close to my area? I live east of the Mississippi river in the Midwest. I want to use a large ring Turkish 98 with 96 shank threads for a big bore. Concerned about set back in the lug area. The barrel I want to use dictates the 96 major diameter thread size. I have several complete actions on the shelf. Any steering in the right direction would really make me smile and appreciative!

I have reworked ~60 Turkish Mausers mostly Oberndorf, but a few Kales.

I have put other take off barrels on them that barely fit. Ones of different pitch with minor diameter smaller than the major diameter of the Turk. I calculate the % of thread contact, and if it is >80%, I can see no problems.

I have even Silver soldered a barrel onto a Turk barrel stub. That rifle is a mongrel, but shoots sub moa. I have not done it yet, but I intend to rebarrel with cylindrical shaped tenon in a cylindrical shaped barrel stub bonded only with Loc-Tite.

I have overloaded many Turks until the primer falls out of the case and not get set back, but all the .470" case heads. The 458 has a larger diameter case and better primer pocket support, and so could make more bolt thrust.

I have already posted this info here a couple months ago.
Someone from this forum has sent me a Mauser to over load, but I have not done it yet [been hunting].

yes, and your method for testing for setback was flawed. No wonder you've never seen setback.

quote:

Originally posted by rem721:


yes, and your method for testing for setback was flawed. No wonder you've never seen setback.

I have been designing tests for 35 years in the engineering consulting biz.
I can find fault with any test.
Your posts seem to find fault with other posts or posters.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:

quote:

Originally posted by rem721:


yes, and your method for testing for setback was flawed. No wonder you've never seen setback.

I have been designing tests for 35 years in the engineering consulting biz.
I can find fault with any test.
Your posts seem to find fault with other posts or posters.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

Here is the thread where you showed your tools for measuring headspace.

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...=164101539#164101539

Care to explain your method. People get inaccurate readings all the time on mausers. Please, tell us how you do it.

I overload



Picture of brass I fired in a K.Kale Turk Mauser that I rebarreled to .243 in 2000.

The practical:
I fire some more ammo.
If there is enough set back, the bolt will be hard to lift, as the lugs are sitting in a hole.

The anal:
I wipe down the bolt lugs, receiver lug seat, headpace gauge, and shim to get any dust off.
I put the headspace gauge back in the rifle.
The bolt handle should just display the ounce of extra force of compression with a de burred .0015" shim on the back of the gauge that I used when chambering the rifle.
That ounce can be measured at the inside of bolt handle knob, pulled tangentially to the bolt bore.

I'm no expert, but isn't the setback going to be just where the lugs bear when the bolt is fully closed? You could feel the force still because the area of the lug seat leading up to the area where the set back occured was not affected and how do you measure only the area where the lugs seat with a headspace guage?
-Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Markey:
I'm no expert, but isn't the setback going to be just where the lugs bear when the bolt is fully closed? You could feel the force still because the area of the lug seat leading up to the area where the set back occured was not affected and how do you measure only the area where the lugs seat with a headspace guage?
-Don

That would be a problem if they were to bear only at one point of rotation, but they bear over an area with very shallow angle, and so over many degrees of rotation.
A bigger variable is if the sear is pushing up on the cocking piece, canting the bolt body in the receiver bolt bore.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Markey:
I'm no expert, but isn't the setback going to be just where the lugs bear when the bolt is fully closed? You could feel the force still because the area of the lug seat leading up to the area where the set back occured was not affected and how do you measure only the area where the lugs seat with a headspace guage?
-Don

You are correct Don, the set back will occur at the point where the lugs were when the round went off. Hopefully in the fully locked position.

One cannot measure lug setback with a headspace guage. You measure it by pulling the barrel and taking direct readings, using a depth mic, from the face of the receiver to various points along the lugs seat.

Actually you only need the depth mic to take and record the measurement. A pair of eyes is all you need to see it.

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:
You are correct Don, the set back will occur at the point where the lugs were when the round went off. Hopefully in the fully locked position.

One cannot measure lug setback with a headspace guage. You measure it by pulling the barrel and taking direct readings, using a depth mic, from the face of the receiver to various points along the lugs seat.

Actually you only need the depth mic to take and record the measurement. A pair of eyes is all you need to see it.

This has always been my impression....or one can test for it by removing the barrel, standing the action vertical in a mill and measure to various points with an indicator in the quill.

It is my impression that difficult bolt opening (due to setback) is the result of the opening forces trying to push the bolt foreward in the receiver ring and actually then trying to compress the fired case in the chamber.....and that difficult bolt lift is the #1 indicator of setback....if this is true then one might not be able to check excess headspace due to setback with a headspace gauge

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:


One cannot measure lug setback with a headspace guage.

I have done it with a headpace gauge and fine shim stock.
But it measures the total set back in the receiver plus the set forward on the bolt.

It helps if you have a large number of Mausers trued together with tracking data as the set back experiments progress.

Then the amount of set back on the receiver and set forward on the bolt are easy to tease out with a depth micrometer.

By then a case head may have failed destroying the extractor, extractor collar, and pieces of the bolt face, but the data can be collected if the parts fit together.
Sometimes the bolt will no longer fit in the receiver, but will fit in others [The bolt diameter does not get bigger, the receiver bolt bore diameter gets smaller].
Then the depth micrometer is the only way to get the data.

This M98 things keeps on puzzeling me
First everyone tels about this magnificant action, the next thing is they start arguing about what improvments is nescecary to make it last for modern use .

Please tell me, is this an all American thing, the Hardly Ablesons, the Remmingtons and now the M98.
Is it a must that everything should be of poor quality from the beginning, to give you an opportunity to replace most parts and improov the rest to make it work

A little more seriously.
What kind of heattreatment do you use, is it casehardening in the form of recarburating the surface, followed by an thermical hardening process(heat, shockcooling followed by anealing to wanted hardness)
What surface hardness do you go for, and what core hardness, and how can you controle this.

Or are you casehardening by gasnitration. Same questions about hardness as abowe.

The question about lugsetback also makes me wonder,
If the core doesnt increase in hardness, there is only limited benefit from surfacehardening according to large area deformation. Biggest benefit of casehardening, is wear resistance and small area load.

If the casehardening also gives you harder core, the downside might be a more brittle part.


I also read someone advising rather to use a moderat presure magnum, than a high presure standard caliber. Please tell me why?????
According to my math, a standard casehead diameter should have a apx 33% higher presure to produce the same boltthrust, as a magnum dia casehead.

About lugsetback, mutch of the setback, is caused by soft surface, simply wear. If there is real setback, the bolt is wery hard to opne, basicaly because there is no setback in the split of upper left lug. this is easily seen on the lug seat area if there is real setback.


There is no reason for fear according to installing magnums as 300win mag, or 458 win mags on a 1" 12pitch tread, if you use decent barrelsteel. It is done on a lot of modern firearms, and has also ben done for manny years by exc. Husquarna on both there 1600 models and on there 1900 models.

I have even tested high presure 460 wea on a m96 action, where the caseheas expanded about 0.03" No heavy boltlift, and no tread diameter increase

Tnekkcc the right case is about 80.000psi, and you were close to total faliure on that reciever
You barely kept the presure inside the brass, and if it has realy let go there would have been some visuable setbacks, and maby split boltface.

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
A little more seriously.
What kind of heattreatment do you use, is it casehardening in the form of recarburating the surface, followed by an thermical hardening process(heat, shockcooling followed by anealing to wanted hardness)
What surface hardness do you go for, and what core hardness, and how can you controle this.

Gas carburisation. Quenching, which is the most difficult part. Most get this wrong and warp the receivers. To find the right answer think back to Remington and their method of quenching the 1917. Then as you say, drawing to the desired hardness.

How do you control this? Temperature & time in the proper combination. Once the procedure that yields the desired outcome is found, you simply re-apply the process each successive time.

This is a classic example of lug set back. This is a 1909 paper weight I have here in my shop as a reminder to always start a project with a properly heat treated receiver.

Westpac, the funny thing is, Tnekkcc will still claim to have never seen setback.

I laugh when people claim to have "built" 50 or more Muasers and claim to have never seen setback. It makes want to be sure NEVER to shoot next to them at teh range.

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:
This is a classic example of lug set back. This is a 1909 paper weight I have here in my shop as a reminder to always start a project with a properly heat treated receiver.

That receiver probably Rockwells about B80 a little tougher than silly putty.

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
A little more seriously.
What kind of heattreatment do you use, is it casehardening in the form of recarburating the surface, followed by an thermical hardening process(heat, shockcooling followed by anealing to wanted hardness)
What surface hardness do you go for, and what core hardness, and how can you controle this.

Gas carburisation. Quenching, which is the most difficult part. Most get this wrong and warp the receivers. To find the right answer think back to Remington and their method of quenching the 1917. Then as you say, drawing to the desired hardness.

How do you control this? Temperature & time in the proper combination. Once the procedure that yields the desired outcome is found, you simply re-apply the process each successive time.

Doesnt that theory require that the steelquality is known and consisten

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:



Tnekkcc the right case is about 80.000psi, and you were close to total faliure on that reciever
You barely kept the presure inside the brass, and if it has realy let go there would have been some visuable setbacks, and maby split boltface.

I thought that the 98 was the best from ~2000 to 2008.
I never bought into the Keunhausen heat treat option.
A couple months ago I was testing modern and 1903 Turks spit extractors and bolt face pieces at me when case heads fail.

I have bought hundreds of guns for overload testing, and I still think the 98 is great, but I am drifting toward the Ruger #1 right now.

This forum used to have very knowledgeable contributors like Bill Leeper and Jack Belk. A guy could learn things about sporterizing 98s here.

If you do a search, some of their wisdom is still here.

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
A little more seriously.
What kind of heattreatment do you use, is it casehardening in the form of recarburating the surface, followed by an thermical hardening process(heat, shockcooling followed by anealing to wanted hardness)
What surface hardness do you go for, and what core hardness, and how can you controle this.

Gas carburisation. Quenching, which is the most difficult part. Most get this wrong and warp the receivers. To find the right answer think back to Remington and their method of quenching the 1917. Then as you say, drawing to the desired hardness.

How do you control this? Temperature & time in the proper combination. Once the procedure that yields the desired outcome is found, you simply re-apply the process each successive time.

Doesnt that theory require that the steelquality is known and consisten

Yes, it is known, and it is consistent despite what those that have never bothered to perform the required tests say.

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:



Tnekkcc the right case is about 80.000psi, and you were close to total faliure on that reciever
You barely kept the presure inside the brass, and if it has realy let go there would have been some visuable setbacks, and maby split boltface.

I thought that the 98 was the best from ~2000 to 2008.
I never bought into the Keunhausen heat treat option.
A couple months ago I was testing modern and 1903 Turks spit extractors and bolt face pieces at me when case heads fail.

I have bought hundreds of guns for overload testing, and I still think the 98 is great, but I am drifting toward the Ruger #1 right now.

This forum used to have very knowledgeable contributors like Bill Leeper and Jack Belk. A guy could learn things about sporterizing 98s here.

If you do a search, some of their wisdom is still here.

The funny thing is that while you are apparently very good at blowing mausers up, you know very little about what makes them tick.

Yes, the #1 is a very good action for containing high pressures but what is the point of such pursuits?

quote:

This forum used to have very knowledgeable contributors like Bill Leeper and Jack Belk. A guy could learn things about sporterizing 98s here.

I remember them well. Ever wonder why they no longer post here?

quote:

Originally posted by rolltop:

quote:

This forum used to have very knowledgeable contributors like Bill Leeper and Jack Belk. A guy could learn things about sporterizing 98s here.

I remember them well. Ever wonder why they no longer post here?

No not at all, we all know why.
-Don