I've had a couple of 1908 Brazilian Mauser bolt bodies lying around for awhile and I decided to round up the parts needed to make up complete bolts. I got Turkish 38 extractors and collars, Argy 1909 firing pins and springs, Israeli bolt shrouds and locks, K98 safeties, and Brazilian cocking pieces. The parts went together with no fitting. When the bolts were inserted in an Argentine and a Brazilian rifle they went to battery effortlessly and passed a field gauge. The safties operated with little effort. Unbelievable!

Try doing this with the latest greatest parts produced using CAD and CNC from:
Dakota Arms
Remington
Winchester
Ruger
Savage
etc.....

Not unbelievable at all; to me.
I mix and match Mauser parts all the time. The remarkable thing is that all these parts were made at a dozen different factories in 5 countries, 50 years apart, and they fit like they were made for each other. Which they were.
Only thing is the safeties don't work sometimes, but easy to fix.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Not unbelievable at all; to me.
I mix and match Mauser parts all the time. The remarkable thing is that all these parts were made at a dozen different factories in 5 countries, 50 years apart, and they fit like they were made for each other. Which they were.
Only thing is the safeties don't work sometimes, but easy to fix.

Or.. the bolt shrouds don't fit often

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
Try doing this with the latest greatest parts produced using CAD and CNC from:
Dakota Arms
Remington
Winchester
Ruger
Savage
etc.....

Your post implies that the tolerances in Mauser are so loose that they will readily interchange where as modern maker's tolerances are far too close to allow for free exchange.

Which is also true, but not as extreme as the post implies. Modern rifles are made with mostly interchangeable parts. Very few parts don't fit as is. And I can't give an example because they are actually rare.
And I interchange a lot of them.

Keep in mind that the Mauser was made on manual machines and fixtures.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Macs B:

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
Try doing this with the latest greatest parts produced using CAD and CNC from:
Dakota Arms
Remington
Winchester
Ruger
Savage
etc.....

Your post implies that the tolerances in Mauser are so loose that they will readily interchange where as modern maker's tolerances are far too close to allow for free exchange.

Yep!

They were battle rifles, not precision!

That's why all you mentioned typically make for more accurate rifles.

.

That is indeed precision; no matter what the tolerances are, they still have to be held to, among every factory in every country that made them, and over a span of many years. You can't produce sloppy parts and have those results.
And so will the commercial rifles mentioned; not sure what the writer meant.
Mausers are not selected for match rifles due to the design, not any tolerance issue.

Paul Mauser traveled to US in the late 1880s to learn about serial production of standardised parts.

Tolerance stacking!

That's what one gets when parts from five different factories built over a hundred years all fit.

of those parts, you would likely have had trouble if you had used brazilian firing pins

More like 25 factories. More than 12 in Germany alone. I can name them but not this early in the morning.
The most common mismatch is the cocking piece to firing pin; some won't turn on, and the safeties. Both easy fixes.

Saying that they were made on "manual" machines is a misnomer. They were still primarily made on automated production machinery.

The manual portion was the final fit and finish.

Finally, Mauser parts were not held to tight tolerances. Prior to the mid 1930's, Mauser dimensional drawings had no tolerances. They were a dimensional drawing. Mauser and other manufacturers used an expensive set of gauges, to verify proper manufacture. At the outbreak of WWI there were only 4 of these sets of gauges in Germany.

About all I work on is Mauser's. I can say from experience that they are not as interchangeable as most think. When I buy a pallet of 30-50 rifles and build the good ones, and part out the rest, typically I would say around 70% of parts interchange.

Most common issues include:
Bolt to receiver
cocking piece to firing pin
Bolt shroud to bolt
barrel to receiver (pitch dia)

Going out from the primary parts issues with fitment get worse. Floorplates can be a nightmare.

I will say this, my experience is primarily with Mauser, but Mauser's, even those made around the world, far exceed the fit and finish and interchangeability of their counterparts such as the 1903, 1917, Model 70, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:
Saying that they were made on "manual" machines is a misnomer. They were still primarily made on automated production machinery.

The manual portion was the final fit and finish.

Finally, Mauser parts were not held to tight tolerances. Prior to the mid 1930's, Mauser dimensional drawings had no tolerances. They were a dimensional drawing. Mauser and other manufacturers used an expensive set of gauges, to verify proper manufacture. At the outbreak of WWI there were only 4 of these sets of gauges in Germany.

About all I work on is Mauser's. I can say from experience that they are not as interchangeable as most think. When I buy a pallet of 30-50 rifles and build the good ones, and part out the rest, typically I would say around 70% of parts interchange.

Most common issues include:
Bolt to receiver
cocking piece to firing pin
Bolt shroud to bolt
barrel to receiver (pitch dia)

Going out from the primary parts issues with fitment get worse. Floorplates can be a nightmare.

I will say this, my experience is primarily with Mauser, but Mauser's, even those made around the world, far exceed the fit and finish and interchangeability of their counterparts such as the 1903, 1917, Model 70, etc.

I'm not so sure I would agree with you on exceeding the finish of a 1903. An 03A3 then yes, but the 03's were some of the most well finished military rifles ever made. If you don't believe me, just read Crossman's book of the Springfield and see what he thinks of the German junk.

John

Ok, lets make sure you are comparing apples to apples. German junk? Definitely not, until 1943, maybe you could say that the finish is not as well polished, which it isn't. Neither was ours. German service rifles, and those made for export, are as finely finished rifles as any commercial rifle.
Yes in late WW2 they are more roughly finished but certainly not junk. Come over and I will show you every variation up to and including the Volks Karibiner 98. Then you can see for yourself instead of a book.
And yes, the 03 was finely finished too.

I’ll be the first to admit I have handled far fewer 1903’s than Mausers, but I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that’s a couple hundred 1903’s including a few of the rare variants that live at SPAR.

However, I would disagree with Crossman on a few points, and agree with most of his points. In almost all points, he states that Mauser is a better design, and cheaper/easier to manufacture. I agree with that. In almost all points he states that Mauser is a better war rifle, and again I agree.

However he states that a finely tuned Springfield surpasses a Mauser. I agree, a finely tuned Springfield is typically nicer than a Mauser. But compare a production 1903 to a production Mauser and in my opinion you’ll find the Mauser come out superior.

Now, I’ll throw in one last caveat, one last disclaimer. I have handled new old stock, never issued, brand new Mausers dating as far back as the 1891 Argentine contract and as recent as several WWII K98k’s. Other than the rare variants at SPAR, I have not had the opportunity to handle any new old stock 1903’s from say. . . 1910 or one of the higher production pre war years.

I do have a NRA rifle that is very nice. Unfortunately it was taken apart at some point in its life and I am going to build it into a .35 or 400 Whelen someday.

quote:

Originally posted by gasgunner:

I'm not so sure I would agree with you on exceeding the finish of a 1903. An 03A3 then yes, but the 03's were some of the most well finished military rifles ever made. If you don't believe me, just read Crossman's book of the Springfield and see what he thinks of the German junk.

John

hmm, while i am more than a bit of a fan of the Springfield, pre and early WWII mausers are gorgeous, as well