Henry, if you don't use the proper tools you can crack a receiver.To buy a cracked one is very foolish.A 'good gunsmith' would not bother fixing it.

You guys are making me nervous.

Especially about my military mauser actions made in the mid to late 30s, such as my VZ 24, BRNO, S/27, S/147, S42, and S42G.

I see an old Oberndorf commercial rifle in classified for $4,500 or thereabouts. So, judging by its apperance, it was carried around a lot, and by the notches, it killed a lot of game. One could conclude that it was probably shot a lot. One of the pictures shows the bolt handle in relation to the back of the receiver, and I see no unusual gap there. I know that is not a precise measure of set back, but perhaps for this discussion it will do.

My point is that the factory made this rifle and action with the same technology available, and presumably used to make the S42s of about the same era. I think probably the prior owners of that fine sporter didn't worry about set back, and probably the new owner won't either, so why should I expect my Mauser actions to give a different result if just used without reheat treatment?

Surely no one would take the Orberndorf commercial and reheat treat it just in case it's soft, and hasn't yet set back?

Let me continue, and I'll try not to rant.

About 20+ years ago, I accumulated several 1909 Argentine actions, and had one finished into a sporter - 338-06. Killed a moose and caribou with it. Then one day I noticed the bolt didn't lift right, and there was a gap between the bolt root, and the reciever. The damn thing had set back. I was very disgusted, for lack of a better word. So I pulled the barrel, and used it again on a Mark X action.

Then I sent all the other actions to a place in Salt Lake City for reheat treatment. The price was reasonable as I remember, but they all came back ugly and warped. Disgusted again. I got rid of them all, and vowed off 1909s forever, no going back.

Anyway, it's easy to admire the smooth operation of a VZ 24 for example, especially one that was used a little, but not a lot, but now that I think about it, I've never seen a worn out VZ 24 or BRNO. With my past experience, it goes beyond my reasonable test to take the chance of ruining such actions with some pitiful attempt at heat treating. I wish I could get comfortable with the idea, but the experience with the 1909s still grinds my grits, even after 20+ years. I can not see myself doing that again.

I can see myself getting rid of all my military actions, so I don't have to worry about it, and going with something like the CZ 550.

Anyone want to buy a bunch of excellent military Mauser actions? I've got 1909 bottom metal for most of them, with Wisner floor plates. I'll take the proceeds and buy a CZ 550 in 9.3x62, and maybe a barrel in 8x57 for the other CZ 550 action I have, and not look back. I promise.

Regards,
KB

as regards to fine old guns, most likely much like fine classic hotrods etc. If I bought a running, nice hotrod or classic car that wasn't having problems, would I make a major change to it, no.

But we're talking about when you build it up to start with, just like my current project, it'll go down to the frame before it actually gets painted, why invest 20k in modernizing, reinforcing and customizing it and then try to save 1000-1500 on blasting and powder coating the frame? makes no sense. I see this as the same, if you're having it built, why not do it all the way?

as to the warpage, I'm guessing it is the process that was used, since I had two 09 argentines done by pacific and there was no problem with them. many others here have had theirs treated there without incident.

I'm sure you could sell all your actions off here, these guys are addicted!

Red

Hey Red,

Glad to see you are doing well.

I think much like our friend, Tom Burgess, I have tired of putting forth the case for, in generic terms, heat treating Mausers. Those that get it, do. Those that don't want to, don't.

I've found that empirical evidence means little to those who insist their way is the right way, the only way. So, I will not try to alter their view point.

As to warpage, the facility I use does not return warped receivers to me. It's all in the method.

I'll say this: there are several people on this forum whose opinion I trust, and one of them is Mike's. To me, this is not about taking sides, or making someone wrong, or arguing. It's a learning curve for me. I really like the old Mausers, as many of you apparantly do. I think putting them to good use as sporters, whether truck guns or refined works of art, is a fine thing.

I'm very happy to learn that it is probable to have an action reheatreated and it came out ok. I'm glad that others have had a different experience than I had. I wish I had the resourse of good advice such as available here back 20 years ago, and the ruined 1909s probably wouldn't have happened.

Anyway, I enjoy the discussions, and exchange of ideas.

After considering the variables of it all, I'm still moving toward the notion that a guy who wants certainty in the basic metal work on a custom built rifle should start with a commercial FN or modern somethingerother, and skip the re-heat treating thing altogether.

Also, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of mild loads in 6.5x55, 7x57, 8x57, or 9.3x57 or x62 for the old Mausers. Those calibers with mild loads will do anything I want to do with a hunting rifle, and if not, then there's Rugers, and CZ 550s, etc. for the hot stuff, and magnums. I have one military Mauser converted to a sporter that I have shot a lot, and it was not re-heat treated. It's in 35 Whelen, and I have used max book loads with no problems. I don't even know what action it is, except that it was military, made in the 30s.

After all the years of ignoring the 8x57, now I'm amazed at how slick it feeds in a standard and unaltered '98 Mauser action, any Mauser action like the MK X or FN or VZ24 or BRNO or etc., and how suitable it is for just about any hunting situation from deer to moose. Similar praise could be said of the other cartridges I mentioned too.

I do understand that if a guy has an action that he wants to (must) use on a custom project, and he finds the notion of setback unaceptable, and the action is questionable, he should have it re-heat treated for the added assurance, for whatever it's worth to him. For me though, I would accept the risk of setback as part of the decision to go ahead with the project using a specific action or not. If I was not willing to accept that consequense, or thought the probability of setback was ??? % (whatever percentage = too great), I would simply use a different action that I thought had a better % success probability, of no set back.

That's why I'll never again use a 1909 receiver. I consider the probability of set back on that receiver, not re-heat treated, to be 100%. The last one I had was already set back just from the use it had shooting the 7.65 Argentine military cartridge. Frankly, that's the first and primary clue. If a military mauser shows some use, and it's not set back already, then that tells me something. If it is already set back, well go figure. Since I've already concluded that I will only use the Mauser cartridges in the old actions, and the action has already proven itself before I put another barrel on it, my worries are minimal.

Frankly, I always considered the probability of problems, such as the discussion herein, with a FN action to be as close to zero similarily as compared to any other commercial action. So, for that kind of assurance, I would just use a FN action.

After all, on the projects that I take on using military Mauser actions, if the lugs set back, I'll have a gunsmith pull the barrel, and strip it all down to a bare receiver, and reassemble it all again, barrel stock and all, using a more suitable receiver or action. On the 1909 actions, it appeared to me that the set back was in the receiver, not on the bolt lugs, and that's what usually happens, as I understand it.

KB