Often I read about Mauser actions being generally unsuited for bench rest type guns. One of the reasons given is slow lock time, but that can be helped by using a speed lock setup. The main reason is lack of rigidity of the action itself, and after recently working over a couple of Enfield M-17 sporters, I got to wondering. Is the comparatively massive Enfield more suitable as far as action rigidity, for a bench type rifle? This is not meant to start arguments, I realize the Enfield like the Mauser, is not the choice for a bench gun, I just want to discuss what advantage the Enfield might bring to the table.

First let me say I have "no idea". I came along later and my time playing with BR was after the Mauser and sleeved 700 eras. Is it so much the action weakness or slop?

So I'm looking forward to "opinions".

A great discussion topic heading into a snowy weekend.

I believe you are talking about the flex factor in a Mauser action. Especially those with the thumb cut. This leaves two relatively thin rails to connect the rear tang/bridge and receiver ring. When you hang a big ole honkin' barrel on it there is the propensity to flex at that point.

My opinion is that it is pointless trying to sleeve or otherwise beef up the receiver. I would opt for the bedding method of the Blaser where the chamber reinforce of the barrel is bedded to the stock with a recoil plate. The receiver is free-floated and merely serves as a scope mount point and bolt raceway. The now defunct Remington 710-715-770 series is another example.

FN produced a LR M98 Mauser solid bottom action (no magazine cut) with a fast lock time (for a Mauser) specifically designed for competition target shooting.

A properly tuned, barreled, and stocked M98 Mauser based rifles, using optimized ammunition, can reliably produce very small groups. That said, it's unlikely that a M98 Mauser based competition target rifle cannot be bettered by a similar rifle setup using an action that is manufactured principally for competitive target shooting.

In engineering mechanics there is a characteristic of a geometric shapes called the section modulus.
This is a value for a given geometric shape that would describe that shape's ability to resist bending.

When you compare the various Mauser type front locking rifles the designs do vary a little in size mass and geometry. But the differences are not huge except that the M98 receiver is nearly cut in two. The right side of the action has the long right rail and the left side is nearly cut in two by the thumb notch. So a Springfield or Enfield receiver has an advantage because they do not have the thumb notch.

When you go looking for advantages of one action over another you probably want a huge difference not just a little bit.
If you get a copy of Stuart Otteson's book on bolt actions you will find that he has analyzed the section modulus of many of the top actions.
So a M700 Rem has a higher section modulus than a M98. But a 40X solid bottom bottom single shot receiver is much more rigid than a M700.
A M700 with a big sleeve might match or exceed a 40X but a 40X with a large sleeve will greatly exceed a M700 of any type.
The 788 Rem receiver is pretty stiff because it is thick walled and it has no locking lug race way slots.
Then you get into the various custom benchrest actions like the Stolle Panda that are huge. Some of these actions might have 10 times the stiffness of a M700.
So what happens is the Enfield has a little advantage over the Mauser but it really is closer to the Mauser than the other actions.
The other more modern actions intended for bench rest are so much stronger that the Enfield has no real place in the sport.

A little of Stuart Otteson's work was published in Rifle Magazine maybe 30 years ago.
It would be easier just to buy his book called Bench Rest Actions and Triggers.

quote:

Originally posted by lee440:
Often I read about Mauser actions being generally unsuited for bench rest type guns. One of the reasons given is slow lock time, but that can be helped by using a speed lock setup. The main reason is lack of rigidity of the action itself, and after recently working over a couple of Enfield M-17 sporters, I got to wondering. Is the comparatively massive Enfield more suitable as far as action rigidity, for a bench type rifle? This is not meant to start arguments, I realize the Enfield like the Mauser, is not the choice for a bench gun, I just want to discuss what advantage the Enfield might bring to the table.

No, a Mauser design action will never be suitable for bench rest shooting. Not even an Enfield. The only reason for all the sleeving in the 1950s is because there was nothing else available. Now, there are plenty of bench rest type actions.
Now,, if you just want to shoot a 22 or 6 PPC, and do not want to ever win, then OK.

The most rigid mauser-type rifle action I have ever seen is the Musgrave match action. This is a single-shot action with a minimal port and is probably as rigid as any action out there. I know of no one who has tried to build a competitive BR rifle using one of these but they have been used to build some very good full bore match rifles. Accuracy requirements are quite different, mind you.
Ionce saw an article by a fellow who showed his methods for turning and sleeving a P14 action. He barreled it in 6PPC and it worked well for him. This was in the early eighties and winning score were not generally quite what they are today. Ultimately, rigidity, while inportant, isn't the primary requirement fo accuracy. I had one Shilen DGA action which was as arigid as any action out there and had a close fitting bolt and quick lock time. I put three different barrel on that action and shot it bedded and glued. It never won a damn thing for me. My much less rigid 40x just raked in the awards and trophies.
I currently have one rifle which I built on a P14 action. This action is somewhat modified with a solid bottom welded in. I fitted it with a modified Remington trigger housing into which I fitted a home-made trigger lever, sear and third lever. The striker travel is .310" and the trigger is set at six ounces.
This rifle is barrelled with a gain twist .30 cal. barrel of heavy varmint contour and chambered for the 303 British with a .3085 diameter throat. The barreled action is bedded into a laminated stock using thee screws forward of the trigger group. Everything behind what used to be the magazine well is floated. The safety still works!
In the end, this would have been a hell of a BR rifle in 1961 and it shoots quite well. It does not, however, shoot as well as any serious BR rifle. 300 meter, ten shot, groups usually run around an inch and a quarter unless the wind catches me (happens all too often). While the choice of a P14 action could be the limiting factor in this rifle's performance, there is enough weird about it that I would be hard pressed to point it out as the culprit. I have some pretty good 308's, built on modern, rigid, actions, which don't shoot any better.
When I first started shooting BR, in the mid-seventies, there were still a few guys shooting single shot FN actions and even then, they were not all that competitive although I think they could have beaten my Shilen DGA! Regards, Bill

I only shoot Mausers and pre 64 Win. for hunting only, some of them shoot bench rest groups and they are sporters, but if I intended to build a BR rifle it would be a Rem 700..When I hunt I wouldn't have a Rem 700..There is a place for everything and everything has its place..I wouldn't however require anyone to agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I only shoot Mausers and pre 64 Win. for hunting only, some of them shoot bench rest groups and they are sporters, but if I intended to build a BR rifle it would be a Rem 700..When I hunt I wouldn't have a Rem 700..There is a place for everything and everything has its place..I wouldn't however require anyone to agree.

Couldn't agree more. Mauser's and M70's can be made to shoot very well but are often the exceptions to the rule. It's very easy to make a Rem 700 or clone shoot bench rest groups. Easy for the average Joe to bed properly and more rigid. However, for hunting the CRF extractor, full proof triggers, and overall elegance of an M70 or Mauser make them far superior than the pipe-like Rem. 700.

If a Mauser is properly bedded there shouldn't be much of any stress that would cause flexing in the rear.

quote:

Originally posted by montea6b:
If a Mauser is properly bedded there shouldn't be much of any stress that would cause flexing in the rear.

The bore (load)is eccentric from the recoil lug (support), creating bending about the axis.
And the Modulus of Elasticity of wood is only about 6% that of steel.

So you aren't going to stiffen up a flexible action like a thumb cut Mauser much with bedding unless you have a very big gunstock.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:

quote:

Originally posted by montea6b:
If a Mauser is properly bedded there shouldn't be much of any stress that would cause flexing in the rear.

The bore (load)is eccentric from the recoil lug (support), creating bending about the axis.
And the Modulus of Elasticity of wood is only about 6% that of steel.

So you aren't going to stiffen up a flexible action like a thumb cut Mauser much with bedding unless you have a very big gunstock.

I get what you are saying, it will flex under recoil. I wasn't really considering that, I was thinking more of stresses incurred cinching down the action screws.

The single shot Musgrave Lyttelton RSA action as it is known is still extremely poular here and can be had fairly cheaply compared to custom actions. It is still a popular choice for FClass builds albeit most would prefer a custom 700 type footprint. Sorry... a little of a thread drift.

I have always admired that action and have worked with them for others but have never built myself a rifle on one. The trigger is the only shortcoming but this is certainly not insurmountable. They are certainly rigid enough and have a quick lock time. I think the c-ring makes for a very rigid barrel seat and adds to the integrity of the piece. This action is the ultimate Mauser-type for a serious target rifle.
BR (especially short range)is quite a different matter, mind you, and it is no longer possible to think too far outside the box and still be competitive. Thirty years ago, a person shooting a solid .2 moa rifle could have a decent shot at a win but it's much less likely now; especially if conditions are good. When we are speaking of rifles which shoot to BR levels, we are speaking of accuracy which is difficult to attain with any rifle and most people would have trouble believing what the requirements are. This is why such questions as "Why won't a Mauser work?" are no longer even debatable. My P14 is possibly capable of a 3/8 moa aggregate on a good day. This would not be embarrassing but it certainly wouldn't win anything. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
I believe you are talking about the flex factor in a Mauser action. Especially those with the thumb cut. This leaves two relatively thin rails to connect the rear tang/bridge and receiver ring. When you hang a big ole honkin' barrel on it there is the propensity to flex at that point.

If that were true, then is fully bedding the barrel something I should be doing to all of my Mausers? I tried it once and saw no difference from free floating..

Masters were never designed to be a platform for the modern sport of bench rest shooting, no matter what you do to one.
As for bedding, I always bed the first two inches of barrel shank.

Rigidity, or actually the NON-rigidity, of Mauser and mauser clones,and just about every other similar receiver that is/was available at one time or another, have been tried and understood for a LONG time in the benchrest regime...run over, stomped on, sh** on, screamed at, and general kicked dirt on for as long as I can remember, going back umpteen years and since I got out of it...mostly gentlemanly.

Those two skinny little rails with and without any cutouts are difficult to make rigid in ANY PLANE, and in ANY easily made way...a TUBE with the least amount of metal removal is the strongest form and as you move away from that form stress risers begin to move around and reduce the strength of the metal...and a tube is the easiest form to make stronger by sleeving...basically another tube glued to and around the first tube, but it ALSO has it's inherent problems...an aluminum sleeve on a steel tube...talk about modulus of elasticity getting a workout.

I don't think wood has been used in any major way for BR stocks in a long time either...and the modulus of elasticity of wood varies quit a bit...besides it isn't necessarily that modulus that counts, arguably, it is the rotation around a point, the Moment of Inertia that can cause the wasp in the compote and which basically only requires some kind of dampener to solute...the stock is just a handle to hang onto or hold the receiver and scope from flopping about and is decorative and it's HIGHLY augmentable as to which is which and really is moot, just look at the myriad BR designs floating around out there and the ones that are consistent winners...not trying to start another hoohaw or diss/flame anyone....I have a pile of tried and rejected pieces and parts, bits of metal and stock of many types and materials trying for that "perfect" combination of strength, rigidity, usefulness and value...a few worked well, but none hit that "sweet spot" for me, or maybe it was my predilection for "mucking about" and looking for something better.

There is no question about the strength of mauser designs for hunting/military applications which have a different application MUCH different than for benchrest or similar competition...besides larger receivers are usually stronger just because there is more metal in the various places.

But you have to take that with a handful of salt because the metallurgy of the steel and WHEN/WHERE it was made comes into play, so blanket statements can cause problems in understanding.

The simple fact is BR shooters are made with the few receivers that have proven winners, discounting the odd man out...the design parameters have been worked out through extensive on target experiments and there really ISN'T much to discus as comparisons between two DIFFERENT USE and built receivers is the old apples and oranges thingy.

Now if you want to get a REAL hoohaw going ask about WHICH BR RECEIVER IS THE BEST...!!!!

If you want GOOD, up to date answers go to a BR forum...that's where the BR experts are and where you'll find the real good hoohaw's...



Luck

From a practical point of view, that is, not a pure bench rest rifle....the main negative of a Mauser is the very small tang area.

On larger calibres they are not helped by the very small recoil lug and also the small amount of stock material behind the little recoil lug.

However, one plus they do have is the front action screw is close to the centre of the flat of the action, similar to Rem 700 and M70, although they are right in the centre and this is what you want for a full floating barrel as compared to say a Howa action.

It must be 40 years since I bedded an M17 but from memory tang is small and the front screw is at the front of the action.

However, if you looking to make a consistently accurate hunting rifle, say 3 shots into .75" to 1" then either action will be fine and it will be the barrel, bedding job and scope/mounts that are the key.

In my opinion the M70 has the best bedding configuration. However, the round action like the Rem 700 (and the custom clones) are better for glue ins.....in terms of getting them apart.

PS

If I was getting a rifle made and action choice was between M17 and M98 and I wanted the rifle to be accurate then I would simply choose the action I preferred.

If there was any difference in accuracy potential between the M17 and M98 you would probably need about 20 barreled actions of each to determine a winner.