So...

If you wanted to keep the commercial bolt in one of these actions, what would you need except a military or already converted bolt shroud?

Are the firing pins even compatible with the military shroud(I'm being lazy here, I could go try myself, I suppose)?

Obviously, the side safety trigger would be tossed on Ebay, and a NECG steel(my favorite), would be swinging underneath.

depending upon, you might need an altered cocking piece.

The cocking piece on a Mk X/Chas Daly is slightly different than commercial or military 98s. They engage the trigger differently but will fit the firing pin so you have to be really carefull when you mill it for the swing lever. If you screw that up you'll have to order a new one from Chas Daly.
I think the shrouds will interchange but not positive about that.

Along with the side safety try tossing the action and getting a good one.

fireball168
I just fitted a model 70 style to my mark x.
You can get it from Brownnells are direct from Gentry.

It works great,
JD

Gentlemen

Ya'll know I don't usually do this but...

z1r

quote:

Along with the side safety try tossing the action and getting a good one.

There's been many a fine rifle built on a MK X. So what's your problem? I also know there are Craftsmen that could take the current CD's to the next guild show and people would just gush over it. This is a sure fire case of if you ant got noth'in nice to say then keep your mouth shut.

Shawn

I have no real problem with the Mk. X but in truth they aren't that great either. Certainly a lot better than the CD action which I was talking about, I probably should have made that clear.

One thing for sure, I doubt there would be anyone here foolish enough to take a CD to the next guild show. The uninformed might indeed gush over it if one was there, so what?

Just so you know, I recently had the opportunity to inspect 4 CD actions. Two of which had the scope base holes drilled off center and one had them drilled at an angle. One out of four passed this test.

Next, in taking cursory measurements of the distances from front of receiver ring to inner torque ring there was as much as .004" from one side to the other. Similarly, one had that much runout from one side of the boltface to the other.

So, you are right, I have nothing good to say except that they make nice paperweights.

I suppose that I just got lucky if only 25% of 'em are any good. Whew!!

Wow I must be the luckiest guy in the world. I just check the 4 CDs I have in the safe. Darn if all the holes aren't in the right place. Inly complaint I've ever had was they tend to round the edges a little much when they polish. They strike me as the same as the late MKXs. While they might not be the base of a guild rifle they have been an excellent base for a nice hunting rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:
I have no real problem with the Mk. X but in truth they aren't that great either. Certainly a lot better than the CD action which I was talking about, I probably should have made that clear.

One thing for sure, I doubt there would be anyone here foolish enough to take a CD to the next guild show. The uninformed might indeed gush over it if one was there, so what?

Just so you know, I recently had the opportunity to inspect 4 CD actions. Two of which had the scope base holes drilled off center and one had them drilled at an angle. One out of four passed this test.

Next, in taking cursory measurements of the distances from front of receiver ring to inner torque ring there was as much as .004" from one side to the other. Similarly, one had that much runout from one side of the boltface to the other.

So, you are right, I have nothing good to say except that they make nice paperweights.

I appreciate knowing that there are gunmakers who seek to achieve the absolute highest quality possible. I can only afford that for 1 or 2 guns in my safe. For the common man, most will have to make do with the sad state of affairs in current production rifles.

The least you could do is change that ugly bolt handle. I know, it looks like the old FN's handle, but they were ugly too. Try a new classic style, they are much nicer. The trigger, by the way, can be smoothed up quite a bit but you do have to eliminate the side safety and put a swing type on.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:
I have no real problem with the Mk. X but in truth they aren't that great either. Certainly a lot better than the CD action which I was talking about, I probably should have made that clear.

One thing for sure, I doubt there would be anyone here foolish enough to take a CD to the next guild show. The uninformed might indeed gush over it if one was there, so what?

Just so you know, I recently had the opportunity to inspect 4 CD actions. Two of which had the scope base holes drilled off center and one had them drilled at an angle. One out of four passed this test.

Next, in taking cursory measurements of the distances from front of receiver ring to inner torque ring there was as much as .004" from one side to the other. Similarly, one had that much runout from one side of the boltface to the other.

So, you are right, I have nothing good to say except that they make nice paperweights.

I appreciate knowing that there are gunmakers who seek to achieve the absolute highest quality possible. I can only afford that for 1 or 2 guns in my safe. For the common man, most will have to make do with the sad state of affairs in current production rifles.

Preach on, exactly my thought. Although I will admit that his earlier rants on the quality of the CD actions had made me take pause to inspect closely each and every one I've seen at shops and shows. And, other than the rounded edges that you mention, the scope mounting holes all appear to be square...to the extent that I've set three up on a 1-2-3 block on a surface plate and checked the hole position with a square - if they're off side to side, I can't see it.

As far as the receiver ring/torque ring/bolt face, the one I've got here(disassembled from a field grade complete rifle), is within .0015 across the board - which is comparable to most of the Remchestuger stuff that passes my way.

And most importantly - I wanted one.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Kobe:
The least you could do is change that ugly bolt handle. I know, it looks like the old FN's handle, but they were ugly too. Try a new classic style, they are much nicer. The trigger, by the way, can be smoothed up quite a bit but you do have to eliminate the side safety and put a swing type on.

That's on the list too, they are butt ugly in my opinion - are you interested?

Well,
At least my "Rants" caused you to think. When you factor in the experience I had with the action I bought with those four I inspected it's a pretty dismal showing.

On the one hand, it's like someone said, they may be on par with the Remchesters being produced today. So if you wanted a mause action to use as-is, who am I to agrue. On the other hand, that's still a poor excuse for using one on a custom, even an entry level one in my book. I view customs as an alternative to the factory produced rubbish. To me, it makes no sense to try and duplicate the shoddy factory offerings. Not all customs need cost mega bucks.

As for inspecting the holes with a square, that won't show the ones that are drilled at an angle. Like I said, the one I bought was drilled where it should be however, the holes were either drilled at an angle, tapped at an angle or both and so was one of the ones I inspected. Both would have passewd your square test. I don't know, four out of five is enough to steer me clear.

I will confine my building to using "Good" military and commercial FN actions. I would consider the Mk X too if need be. Although they are pretty handy as-is.

I left out the part where I threaded 1" 6/48 screws into the holes, which most certainly would show if they are at an angle, having both a true horizontal and vertical comparison point.

Ok. You got a good one at least with regards to base screw placement. Congrats.

Let's see now, a Mauser barrel seats up on the diaphram in front of the bolt locking area I believe. There should be a few thousanths clearance between barrel shoulder and front of reciever ring. What difference does parallelism between diaphram and front of reciever make? The front of the reciever ring should not influence the position of the barrel.

There is no excuse for crooked or out of position screw hole though.

Nothing wrong with my Charles Daly LH MAuser action. I am having it turned into a 35 whelen. It is currently with David Gentry having some trigger work done, the 3 position LH safety installed & blued.



Sope mopunt holes were checked and found to be fine. Tolerances were checked and found to be the same as other factory firearms on the market. Better than that of military actions.

There is a lot of pompus hot air on these boards about CD actions. But the reality for me has proved the opposite. They are perefectly fine actions, at least on par with teh MArk Xs if not better finished from my experience. Mine is being turned into a working gun for hunting. Not a safe queen.

quote:

Originally posted by Iron Buck:
Tolerances were checked and found to be the same as other factory firearms on the market. Better than that of military actions.

What were you comparing to, Spanish Mausers or those Chinese copies?

quote:

Originally posted by fireball168:


As far as the receiver ring/torque ring/bolt face, the one I've got here(disassembled from a field grade complete rifle), is within .0015 across the board - which is comparable to most of the Remchestuger stuff that passes my way.

I'm no pro nor an expert but the 60 odd military Mausers I've handled have been better than that. I do believe they may be on par with the bulk of current offerings on the market. Which is why I prefer to custmize old military mausers. They were straight.

quote:

Originally posted by Iron Buck: Tolerances were checked and found to be the same as other factory firearms on the market. Better than that of military actions.

Hmm, see my above remark. I'll admit that I have not inspected a LH CD action. It may well be that they are better than the RH. They would be employing new tooling to make these up. Maybe they built it with better tolerances. Without having inspected one, I'll conceed that the LH may well be as good as the the older Military actions.

However, I doubt seriously that you can say that with a straight face about the RH versions.

quote:

Originally posted by fireball168:
And most importantly - I wanted one.

That's fair enough.

Anyway, I can see I've stepped on some toes so I'll exit this dancefloor now.

z1r:

You are probably doing the right thing by bowing out. For some reason, some people don't like to hear what what actual measurements show and want to argue. i learend that on the "crooked barrel" thread a few days ago (I have put an indicator on many barrels and I know what they look like from all major makers).

My Mark X is pretty much as you describe-functional-yes, accurately made-no. Mine is typical of the others I have seen.

I prefer the military Mausers as well.

what ever happened to the Mauser action from Legacy Sports that supposedly already has the 3 position Model 70 Type safety already on it as comes from the factory.

Anybody own one that they can report on?

The legacy actions are stil available. I just barrelled up two of them. The scope mounts are a different story. The catalog says you can get them by accessing the website.

Mix3006

That is a nice 3 position 'Win Mod 70' type safety / bolt shroud on your Zastava Mauser 98.

What make is it?

I am having a Dakota brand 3 position safety fitted to the left hand Zastava actioned rifle I am having put together.

robthom; that is one of Jim Wisner's PME units.