Impingement you hit it spot on.

I think we are mixing up situations and context here. You have to remember we are talking about a weapon built primarily for war not a commercial product although they did become commercial later the original design is a implement of war.
In 1898 Mauser Corp., co., Inc., or GmbH whatever it was back in the day. They were concerned with one thing and one thing only PRODUCTION and custom fitting a barrel is not conducive to speed.

Now in this day and age with better steels better machines to turn threads on. the C ring has been eliminated on most other rifle designs.
But there is still a large area there for the barrel to engage upon.
More surface area = Less torque to do the same job. Less torque means less work and there for higher production.

What I'm getting at here is we are looking at this through modern eyes and we need to think about thing s in the context of the time.

as stated many many times I am not a gunsmith, but I too thought it had something to do with production. My thinking that they didn't have to cut the threads as precisely in depth to the shoulder, if they were going to face on the c-ring. does that make sense?

but of course you gunsmiths understand and explain it better than me.

Red

quote:

What I'm getting at here is we are looking at this through modern eyes and we need to think about thing s in the context of the time.

I agree, there is a reason we no longer use slide rulers and wing charts to design aircraft. No reason we should have to design rifles to meet the manufacturing capabilities of outdated equipment.

You preach a pretty good sermon to us choir members!

This is a good discussion.

I am not a gunsmith and I have never stayed in a Holiday Inn Express, but I am a longtime tinkerer in guns, who reads, and who has learned from numerous gunsmiths good and bad through the years.

Jeff you are flat wrong(correction, may or may not be wrong) about 48 million or billion military mausers being built with no contact on the front ring. The primary contact surface is the inner collar, "C" ring, torque shoulder or whatever one wants to call it. The barrel ring also contacts the front of the receiver ring, although much lighter. This is why it doesn't help to relieve the barrel like a P-14, US 1917, because the primary torque surface is still engaged. I have removed 100 +/- barrels from 98's and only ever saw turk rebuild/butchers that didn't have a nice shiny ring where the barrel ring had been contacting the front receiver ring.

ETA: I found conflicting info in the same chapter in DeHaas's Bolt Action Rifles. One statement says the barrel need not nor should contact the receiver front and then towards the end of the chapter he says it should contact both with the barrel contacting the receiver much lighter. I need to find the book with the drawings with the zero/zero point, schematic, and other dimensions.

The strength of the M98 mauser was/is it's design, not magical metals or metallurgy. The "C" ring is the heart of this strength. The arsenals and factories had to have a high 90's% (96%?? or 99%???) interchangeability of parts.

I am going by my feeble memory and can't recall where "zero/zero" was on M98 receivers, but the bolt bore and inner collar were to be perpendicular. As I said earlier some gunsmsiths swear by only the inner collar as the contact point, some the front of the receiver ring, some both equal, some tighter here and some tighter there. Some give reasons, some don't. One friend, who is one heck of a good gunsmith says simply if Remington and Winchester only use the front ring that is good enough for him.

If they weren't going to have the barrel ring contact the front of the receiver, why is it there, a decoration?

Airgun,
I am okay with being wrong ..

Two completely different questions here: why did they do it that way back then, and do we still need to do it that way now?

IMO KC and Impingement have answered the first question to my satisfaction even if their explanation implies that Mauser was not very sharp. If Mauser had simply ignored the existence of the C-ring and cut the bbl shank 0.002" short then they would have had only 3 dimensions to worry about, like all the other rifles in the world except Mannlichers, instead of the 5 mentioned.

At any rate that's apparently why they did it and I can accept that.

So, if we accept that Mauser had a mass-production reason for using the C-ring, does that mean that we smiths MUST keep using that system? Of course not; for a typical project it's just a lotta extra work for nothing IMO.

I totally agree with the fellow who said that if it's good enough for Remington then it's good enough for him. A typical 700 action is about twice as strong and twice as accurate as any Mauser.

I haven't kept count of the 1898 bbls I've pulled but it's at least 50 and could be as many as 100. Almost all showed a noticeable contact ring on the front face of the receiver as well as the rear of the barrel thread shank and the rear face of the bbl's abutment ring ahead of the threads.

BTW here's some more food for thought: when truing a Mauser action, do you use a thread mandrel or a receiver mandrel? Be careful now with your answer, there's a LOT of difference in the results!
Regards, Joe

I was still trying to see how cooking ham had anything to do with the thread..now I see you putting up more smoke about mandrels.

I'll bet not a one of us gives a flip how YOU choose to install a barrel...Some of us were just pointing out the right way and the wrong way...If you want to do it some third way...your way...knock yourself out!

It may be your agenda to point this thread into yet another Remington vs Mauser debate. Please try to control yourself, Joe.

The TRUTH is we will never know for sure as Paul Mauser is dead and gone. Although there may be some lost note book, Prints whatever but we will never know.
I wont get into engineering specs but the action assembly as designed is very strong. We all know that. But it was designed to take stress in a certain direction. Buy torquing on the front ring only we change how the action is pre-stressed. This will have an affect on the strength of the rifle. But will it be enough to cause a problem down the road??? I don't know and I don't have High end software on the computer to run a sim and tell me.

The thing is if the action is relying on that C ring for a good portion of it strength then anything we do differently will change the strength of the action.

Comparing a 1898 action in materials and design to a modern built and modern materials action is a waste of time. Apples and oranges as far as materials are concerned.

Butch, I think the reason for the "C" ring is so an ordinary, off the street person, or, an amateur barrel installer doesn't have to try to determine the correct placement and cut for the extractor, the correct length of the tenon and the angle and depth of the cone. The "C" ring makes it a breeze for an unskilled worker to butt the barrel against a pre-machined breech and complete the job. And I don't believe it's any more complicated than that.

While I'm old I sure wasn't around when Paul M designed it. Now the smith that did over half my rifles was just about old enough to have been there. I do remember asking him why he didn't butt my 98 on the face like the other rifle( he had next to it can't even remember what it was now) his answer was he didn't need to. That it was far simpler to just set it up to butt the c-ring and touch or just clear the front. He said yes he could do it the other way or even both with extra effort. But that it wasn't needed.

The original design worked and still does work. Can it been done to butt both or one or the other by less .001 etc. Sure.

As Westpac said using the ring has sure allowed this backyard smith (me) to seat and chamber a number of rifles over the years. I sure didn't have the tools or skill to do many of the methods discribed. Has there ever been an accuracy test on a 98 action comparing a ring vs front contact? Besides if I was looking for a target rifle I wouldn't start with a 98 anyway.

I'll let you guys continue to cuss the merits and I'll do it the easy way and go drink

The attached patent documents don't get into the proper way to screw a barrel onto a Mauser with a 'C-ring' but they do describe the rings purpose. Interesting reading.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
I was still trying to see how cooking ham had anything to do with the thread..now I see you putting up more smoke about mandrels.

I'll bet not a one of us gives a flip how YOU choose to install a barrel...Some of us were just pointing out the right way and the wrong way...If you want to do it some third way...your way...knock yourself out!

It may be your agenda to point this thread into yet another Remington vs Mauser debate. Please try to control yourself, Joe.

Duane, I asked the question because I strongly suspect that some folks will try to use the wrong mandrel when truing the action, and I also suspect that neither you nor many of the others on this forum bother to true their Mauser C-rings at all. Tell the truth now, how often have you EVER trued a Mauser C-ring? If you EVER have, then how come you don't caution about that little ledge in the middle, and the tendency for the flat to NOT be flat?

Otherwise you would have soon found that the various surfaces under discussion here are VERY SELDOM truly aligned with one another. Any competent machinist knows that if the C-ring and the threads are not machined together or at least with reference to one another then the barrel will be misaligned when seated!

And how do these freshly-machined surfaces align with the bolt bore? Which mandrel did you use when setting-up the receiver in the machine? 'Cause if you use a thread mandrel then you'll be off, you must use a receiver mandrel.

Duane, the shoe is on the other foot here. I'M the one who doesn't care how YOU do it, because I've seen enough to know that we'll seldom agree. You're in the business of building your rep & selling your work and I'm in the now-retired pleasure of trying to pass along some hard-earned info to younger folks who may sometimes appreciate a suggestion or example. You have my permission(G) to keep doing it your way but it's time you & others realized that it's NOT the only 'right' way.

BTW I own 8 Mausers, 10 Winchesters and no Remingtons at all; seems like you're the one blowing smoke. And, somehow, I'm not surprised that you refuse to 'get' the ham joke.

Like I've said before, I respect your work and your willingness to share your knowledge. But you really need to open your mind to look past 'The Rules' a little more. If we didn't question the methods & materials then we'd still be living in caves and throwing rocks.
Regards, Joe

Lets not forget the handguard ring issue either, it was held on by the barrel shoulder.

Funny to realise that nobody in this discussion, has realized that on original M98 military rifles, the OD of the barrel is excactly the same as the OD of the tread.
In other words, there is no way that there ever was any chance to torque on the front of the reciever. It was soly torqued on the C-ring.

By torquingon a rather small diameter there is better chance to get a decent accuracy, as there might only be limited conflict between the tread and the torque flance

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
Funny to realise that nobody in this discussion, has realized that on original M98 military rifles, the OD of the barrel is excactly the same as the OD of the tread.
In other words, there is no way that there ever was any chance to torque on the front of the reciever. It was soly torqued on the C-ring.

By torquingon a rather small diameter there is better chance to get a decent accuracy, as there might only be limited conflict between the tread and the torque flance

That point was brought up in the second post in this thread.

Interesting thread.

The patent clearly claims gas-handling as the patentable and patented feature of the C-Ring design.

But that doesn't mean gas-handling was the sole purpose or benefit of that design.

It means only that gas-handling was the novel and useful feature of the design that was the basis for the patent.

Ease of manufacture could have been another motivating factor in the design.

Paul Mauser was a genius.

quote:

Originally posted by impingement:
Lets not forget the handguard ring issue either, it was held on by the barrel shoulder.

Yeah, but was that the real reason for it? I think it was put there to prevent splinters.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
Funny to realise that nobody in this discussion, has realized that on original M98 military rifles, the OD of the barrel is excactly the same as the OD of the tread.
In other words, there is no way that there ever was any chance to torque on the front of the reciever. It was soly torqued on the C-ring.

By torquingon a rather small diameter there is better chance to get a decent accuracy, as there might only be limited conflict between the tread and the torque flance

That point was brought up in the second post in this thread.

Sorry Bobster, i didnt se that, and i guess from all the others comments, that they didnt to.
I better start reading more systematical

I ame glad that 1 out of 30 actualy used logical sence

I am not a gunsmith, but, have owned and used many rifles over 45+ years and have always been, courtesy of JOC, a "fan" of fine custom pieces.

Where gunsmiths are concerned, I have heard of most of the major "stars" in that august assembly and examined a fair amount of their work, from Adolph to Shelhammer to Biesen to Ottmar and so forth. I have known of one of the true masters, Duane Weibe for well over 30 years and two different very fine BC smiths have voluntarily told me of what a gentleman he is and how they admire him and his work.

Yet, until a couple of months ago, I had never heard, even once, of J.D. Steele and that says something that really NEEDS SAYING here.......

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
I am not a gunsmith, but, have owned and used many rifles over 45+ years and have always been, courtesy of JOC, a "fan" of fine custom pieces.

Where gunsmiths are concerned, I have heard of most of the major "stars" in that august assembly and examined a fair amount of their work, from Adolph to Shelhammer to Biesen to Ottmar and so forth. I have known of one of the true masters, Duane Weibe for well over 30 years and two different very fine BC smiths have voluntarily told me of what a gentleman he is and how they admire him and his work.

Yet, until a couple of months ago, I had never heard, even once, of J.D. Steele and that says something that really NEEDS SAYING here.......

So? What's your point?

You're just mad 'cause I disagreed with you. I don't seek publicity and I already told you to ask Dennis about me. He'll tell you the truth.

I, unlike some others on this forum, am NOT trying to sell you anything. If you choose to disregard my opinions then fine, knock yourself out! Like I said before, I consider it to be Evolution In Action, Survival of the Fittest. Those who ignore my contributions will deny themselves the benefit of another viewpoint while others, more broadminded, will benefit from another opinion. Your opportunity or your SNAFU, your choice.
Regards, Joe

Don't mean to be a dick but how many people have heard of you Dewey???

Take it with a grain of salt. All I'm doing is stirring the pot. I'm not trying to defend Joe or insult you. Just saying lighten up a bit man.

And no offense to Duane Wiebe either and I have a deepest respect for him but he's human too ya know.

I really have no idea and am not concerned about my fame, notoriety or lack thereof. My point, which should be obvious, but, I may well be overly optimistic concerning the innate intelligence of some posters here, was simply that guys like Duane have earned a reputation and not by making incorrect or misleading comments concerning issues such as this.

I would point out, that I state that I am not a gunsmith and my comment was simply to wonder why someone whom I have never heard of as being a fine custom rifle smith would presume to make the comments to Duane and others that Steele has. So, my "fame" or lack thereof is not an issue here.

As it happens, I have met the "gunsmith" he chooses to use as some sort of reference and I have a gorgeous Brno ZG-47 original in 9.3x62 which is at Ralf Martini's shop now to be restocked due to this guy's "bedding" it for a previous owner. I have about as much regard for Steele as I do for his buddy and, oddly enough, I have never heard of YOU, either!

Anyway, now we have heard of each other and who knows what I shall learn from that, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Kobe:
.. I can't see that the "C" ring could control escaping gas. The cartridge head on a Mauser is outside and behind the "C" ring so it would have no effect on gas handling...

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
The TRUTH is we will never know for sure as Paul Mauser is dead and gone. Although there may be some lost note book, Prints whatever but we will never know.

ButchLambert,
if one needs sound info on Mausers, probably best to talk to folk like Hartmann & Weiss and other like mauser enthusiasts/manufacturers, who have made the effort to source,study & properly understand mauser patents,function and design.
Unfortunately individuals like Mr.Burgess can no longer share their vast knowledge with us.

No doubt there remain AR garden shed gun experts who claim to know better.

In days of old we mostly risked being uninformed, in todays modern .com mountains of info age & easy general access to a keyboard, we primarily now risk being misinformed.
You know Albert Einstein worked as an ordinary patents office clerk by day, and on his theory of relativity mostly in his off time?

Good post Daniel...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mauser98:


[QUOTE]

I am amazed that mauser could be so wrong as
to why he made the "C" ring. Now people know
so much more.
Good luck!

So, if the H-ring is a manufacturing shortcut, how and why is it easier to produce this way? I don't know that much about broaching raceways, but it seems like it wouldn't be that difficult to stop short on the left side or just use a shorter broach.

quote:

Originally posted by montea6b:
So, if the H-ring is a manufacturing shortcut, how and why is it easier to produce this way? I don't know that much about broaching raceways, but it seems like it wouldn't be that difficult to stop short on the left side or just use a shorter broach.

That's what you would think all right but I'm not a toolmaker, it's what our instructors told us. May have something to do with the unbalanced portion of the cut, I dunno. In any case it was a major circumvention of one of the best gas-handling features of the action and is definitely inferior to the C-ring from that standpoint. You can bet your sweet bippy that they had a cost-saving reason for any change though.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by montea6b:
So, if the H-ring is a manufacturing shortcut, how and why is it easier to produce this way? I don't know that much about broaching raceways, but it seems like it wouldn't be that difficult to stop short on the left side or just use a shorter broach.

The difference is that if you produce a H ring, you can use a long "pull tru" broach, and make both raceways in less than 1 minut.
The C ring has to be "shaped" . The cutting tecnique is a singlepoint cutter that mooves forward and backward manny times gradualy increasing the depth.
It often last closer to 15minutes.

The value of the C ring in the gashandeling debate is IMHO highly overrated. In the blowup test we performed ther was always so mutch gas travelling down the left raceway, that the boltstop was always blown out. This was even on recievers with the famous "thumbcut" witch was supposed to prevent gass from going that far backwards.

There was no significant difference in the damage on the boltstop, when comparing blownup m98 C-ring, H-ring or m96.

There seems to be a tendence to evaluate safety from hersay and tales, instead of 1. hand expierence

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
..The value of the C ring in the gashandelingdebate is IMHO highly overrated. In the blowup test we performed ther was always so mutch gas travelling down the left raceway, that the boltstop was always blown out. This was even on recievers with the famous "thumbcut" witch was supposed to prevent gass from going that far backwards.

There was no significant difference in the damage on the boltstop, when comparing blownup m98 C-ring, H-ring or m96.

There seems to be a tendence to evaluate safety from hersay and tales, instead of 1. hand expierence

What makes your stories true and Mr.Mausers experiences mythical?
Paul Mauser designed his receiver based on real 1st hand experience...lets say a little more extensive than yours?

In the patent application it states that the C-ring was to help protect/reduce dangers from the gases of a failed[normally loaded?] cartridge case, not from intentional radical attempts to blow up the receiver.
C-ring and safety shroud gas flanges arent perfect,...nor are airbags in vehicles.

Well have I learned anything? Yes I think that I have. I'm truly sorry that it went in the direction that it did.
Butch

Jargen you explained the manufacturing to me the same way Tom did once. the great thing about talking to tom was his self-described hobby was "manufacturing processes throughout history", I'm pretty sure that is verbatim. I once got him a book that was on the way artillery had been manufactured or some such thing, he was tickled. He studied this stuff to a point most would think was crazy (to the point of knowing all the countries the mauser manufacturers received their steel from during production and which countries, and regions in those countries, produced the highest quality steel).

I'm not saying he'd know the original intent on the c-ring, but I'd sure love to hear his opinion.

Red

Butch
You asked a valid question, And being that we hold our passion for firearms so dear to our heart it would be the same as asking someone their feelings on what Jesus' intent was on any given topic. You are going to get a lot of opinions a bunch of speculation and maybe some very heated debate.

Every time I see someone get a little miffed at a post but take their time to be direct but at least somewhat cordial in their reply I remind my self that they love this hobby as much as I.

And for those select few that are talented enough to, and have the nerve to go off on their own and perform Smithing as their sole source of income I wish the best of luck to you and I envy you deeply.

I stand by my statement: This is a good discussion.

Everybody except someone totally dense learned something. That patent paperwork is a treat for us all.

People will most likely continue to barrel mausers as they believe/choose. I will not say which way is right/wrong/preferred.

quote:

Originally posted by airgun1:
I stand by my statement: This is a good discussion.

Everybody except someone totally dense learned something. That patent paperwork is a treat for us all.

People will most likely continue to barrel mausers as they believe/choose. I will not say which way is right/wrong/preferred.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:

quote:

Originally posted by airgun1:
I stand by my statement: This is a good discussion.

Everybody except someone totally dense learned something. That patent paperwork is a treat for us all.

People will most likely continue to barrel mausers as they believe/choose. I will not say which way is right/wrong/preferred.

+1

Me too!
Regards, Joe

On the discussion,

Joe, My grandfather used to claim you could make a horse drink, you just had to salt it's oats. This implies that making them drink is a process that has to be pre-planned. I suppose the same is true about making people (myself included) think, it needs to be a process, not bombast.!

Again, good discussion, wish more turned out to be this amicable.

Imp

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
Well have I learned anything? Yes I think that I have. I'm truly sorry that it went in the direction that it did.
Butch

Me too Butch. When you wade through all the posturing we did learn(thanks to Mauser98) you were definitely correct in at least one intended purpose. Obviously a biggy or Mauser wouldn't have submitted a patent application. Your buddy is likely correct in another purpose or function of the original design. We also learned if the barrel shoulder diameter is larger than the greater thread diameter, the barrel can be torqued on the receiver or on both.

Paul Mauser was pretty clever to patent that novel use of the inner ring. I have seen evidence of it in bolt rifles as far back as the French Gras and certainly there was a "H" ring in the GEW88. He may indeed have held a earlier patent on the ring, but apparently not for gas handling. That patent helped Mauser collect royalties from other makers. A form of line extension. It just goes to show us all that just because a device has been invented it doesn't mean all novel uses are known. Any of us could realize that and apply for a novel use patent on an existing product.

quote:

Originally posted by impingement:
On the discussion,

Joe, My grandfather used to claim you could make a horse drink, you just had to salt it's oats. This implies that making them drink is a process that has to be pre-planned. I suppose the same is true about making people (myself included) think, it needs to be a process, not bombast.!

Again, good discussion, wish more turned out to be this amicable.

Imp

Imp, long ago I learned to call it the 5 (or 6) P's: Prior Planning Prevents (Piss-) Poor Performance. 'Feeling' is what you do immediately and it requires few or no resources other than eyes/ears to take in the info; 'thinking' OTOH requires a little time lapse and use of several important resources. Things like comprehension, open-mindedness, logic, experience, intelligence and knowledge among others.

Sorry if my 'bombast' didn't convince you of anything, I'll try to do better next time(G).
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
..The value of the C ring in the gashandelingdebate is IMHO highly overrated. In the blowup test we performed ther was always so mutch gas travelling down the left raceway, that the boltstop was always blown out. This was even on recievers with the famous "thumbcut" witch was supposed to prevent gass from going that far backwards.

There was no significant difference in the damage on the boltstop, when comparing blownup m98 C-ring, H-ring or m96.

There seems to be a tendence to evaluate safety from hersay and tales, instead of 1. hand expierence

What makes your stories true and Mr.Mausers experiences mythical?
Paul Mauser designed his receiver based on real 1st hand experience...lets say a little more extensive than yours?

In the patent application it states that the C-ring was to help protect/reduce dangers from the gases of a failed[normally loaded?] cartridge case, not from intentional radical attempts to blow up the receiver.
C-ring and safety shroud gas flanges arent perfect,...nor are airbags in vehicles.

To evaluate the efect of a certain designfeature, you have to test it deliberatly to and byond the limmit.
The blowup test we have performed , often was gradualy increasing load until the action gave way. We also have tested normaly loaded rounds, with gradualy weakened buttom brass, trying to simulate traditional case failure. In those tests there was as i said no significant difference in gashandeling, if you looked at the way the boltstop was blown out. There was though a reduction on brass splinter reaching the supposed shoter face area, when testing C-ring.
But the protectioneffect didnt come near the effect of specially a Push feed Fat bolt.

If you look statistically on blowup/faliures, my guess is that there would be a rating something like this.
1. Rather mild to medium overloads/failed loads (increased preasure in the range of + 10.000-20.000psi)
2. to often loaded brass, or defective brass, leading to casehead seperation in the streatching area.
3. medium to highly overloaded ammo, or boreobstructions just ahead of the chamber.(increased presure in the range of +30.000-50.000psi)
4. sever overload caused by use of several step wrong powder.(increased presure in the range of + 50.000-100.000psi)

1 + 2 is easily and safely handeled by decent designs. while CRF or PF with long Casehead protution or excessive rounded chamber entrance can start to leak.
3 always leaks in CRF and PF with long protrution, and risk with whide Sakotype extractors.
4 always leak with CRF and sakotype extractors Remmington type and others with similar casehead support starts giving way.

One might conclude that a CRF whit broached raceways is more risky than anything else. Therefor Mauser build in several features to try to limit the problem. But compared to designs where gashandeling and casehead support is build in, those Mauser features is just an attempt to limmit the consequences of a basically unsafe design

Last week i bought back a rifle, with some lug setback. In all other matters the rifle was intact, and the only reason the shooter returned the rifle was that he had sever problems opening the rifle after fiering the last round. He had observed no gasleak or any sighns of problem when fiering.
The casehead was expanded 0.03" untill filling the counterbore in the boltface tightly. The primerpocket was dubble size. The ejection pinn was hammered deep down the hole. When the case was extracted using excessive force, it apears that the entire caseneck was missing. It obviously had ben forced out around and along with the bullet, creating a massive overload.
But because of sucessfully casehead support and succesfuly casleak handeling, there was no drama

quote:

Sorry if my 'bombast' didn't convince you of anything, I'll try to do better next time(G).

Seriously Joe, your bombast needs work 21 years in the Army made me aware of the5P as well as KISS., as well as some world class bombastic speaking.

I always like other opinions, it helps me either refine my own arguments or to change to a better way of looking at things.

quote:

Originally posted by impingement:
I always like other opinions, it helps me either refine my own arguments or to change to a better way of looking at things.

That's a great attitude.