Hello Gents,

I have a Mark X rifle in 9.3x64. I am planning to have a new barrel installed. It it worth while having the receiver threads single point trued to greet the Krieger barrel?

Thanks in advance,

LD

I would have the receiver checked first. It may be fine. If the threads are true in the receiver, my preference would be to chase the threads on the barrel to match perfectly. Or better yet, get an unthreaded barrel and thread it precisely for the receiver.

probably not worth the effort

mount to the flange, an it will likely be great

Not worth it IMO.
Regards, Joe

why do people give their opinion without backing it up with the factual data they are relying on to form the opinion? why would it not be worth vs why is it worth it?

thanks, Kevin, that does bear discussion

the threads of a mauser, if the barrel is torqued to the flange, aren't as critical as some, for barrel alignment

"mauser" threads are 55deg vs 60 deg which is "normal".. which is why, sometimes, a prefit won't fit, if cut at 60 deg.

cut at 55 deg, torqued to the flange, its as square as its going to ever be ...

when recutting the threads, which is a accuracy tuning trick for remmies, there is a risk of ruining the action, and a cost to do so, no matter what one does

so, if one takes the cost and risk vs unknown improvement makes it not worth it.

A well installed Krieger barrel on a straight up, stock, Mark X Action, properly bedded, using carefully assembled handloads, in capable hands should be able to consistently produce one minute group. Maybe better.

The amount of work required to set up and spin a Mauser action around it's axis leaving direct access to the threads would be, in my opinion, cost prohibitive based on the small amount of gain in overall performance. There are simpler platforms to build on that are better suited for this type of precision. But if a customer enjoys the sound of a fiddle, and can afford to pay for it, then it can be done.

Any competent 'smith can square up just about ANY receiver using a spider and a mandrel...it is done all the time...nothing more than a proper receiver setup and dial in. And if he didn't know what the TPI or thread angle a Mauser had I would find someone who did....

"Blueprinting", tuning, or by whatever other name it goes by, should be discussed with your 'smith...in the old days it was done as a matter of course, today it is an additional charge. This process also includes squaring the receiver face and bolt face...AND dialing in the BORE of the barrel, at BOTH ends, not just chucking it up in a 3 jaw, then cutting the threads and chamber.

It may or may not be "of value" depending on your idea of accuracy...but I sure the HE** check every receiver I do AND the barrels. 1" accuracy is, in my view, a not so desirable rifle no matter what the caliber.

To me only accurate rifles are interesting. If a "hunting" rifle I build doesn't turn in at a minimum 0.500" for 3-5 shots depending on the caliber and barrel contour...with accurate ammo...it gets checked, pulled down and reworked untill it shoots or "tossed" into the "swappit" barrel.

In my view, "blueprinting" includes the whole shebang as a system, not just screwing on a barrel...bedding, sights, trigger, ammo and shooter are all included in the package.

"Worth", as has been said already, is in the eye of the holder. Putting a high dollar Kreiger barrel on a receiver WITHOUT doing the rest is like putting a V-8 in a motorcycle and only riding it to the store for milk...a total waste of a fine barrel.

Westpack is right tho', putting a Kreiger on a Mauser might be a bit of overkill...there are several good barrels that cost half or less than the Kreiger and will give you the same accuracy on a Mauser action...McGowen, Douglas, ER Shaw, Adams and Bennett to name a few.

This is not saying the Mauser receiver isn't any good, only that there are better receivers for a Kreiger barrel.

BUT it boils down to what YOU want...If I wanted to stub a Kreiger barrel on a NEF Handi rifle I would...&&&& what anyone else thinks.

Luck

Fobar, Have you ever "BLUEPRINTED" a mauser receiver?
Butch

Single-point rethreading and squaring up and blueprinting (regardless of precise definition) and all the other tricks a smith can think of will still not make any Mauser competitive in any accuracy competition. Sure, it'll produce sub-moa groups but the action will also do the same thing without all the extra expense.

As already said, if you're gonna go to all the extra expense then you'd be A LOT better off to start with a better platform.

And besides, even the very best of us can't shoot better than about 1 MOA from any field position, so all of that super-duper accuracy smithing is pretty much wasted on any hunting rifle anyway.
Regards, Joe

I'm beginning to think more people know what a Spider & mandrel are then actually set one up.

In the Gunsmith trade and in tool making set up time is the money maker or breaker.

The faster you can set something up the more money you make.
Setting up a mauser in a spider is a royal pain. It takes time and know how. And it just comes down to what is needed.

And Foobar I guess a double rifle wouldn't be good enough for you since they typically group around 2" at about a hundred feet.

Accuracy is relative to the target and the caliber.
A tight group with a .416 Rigby is no where near a tight group with a .220 swift And both are used to hunt

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Single-point rethreading and squaring up and blueprinting (regardless of precise definition) and all the other tricks a smith can think of will still not make any Mauser competitive in any accuracy competition. Regards, Joe

what data are you using to support this statement?

22wrf,
You are not a gunsmith or a machinest. After following your threads, it would be a waste of his time explaining it to you.
Kevin, do a search and let us know when in the last 30yrs that a mauser won a registered competition. That should satisfy you. You want the answer, look it up.
Butch

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Single-point rethreading and squaring up and blueprinting (regardless of precise definition) and all the other tricks a smith can think of will still not make any Mauser competitive in any accuracy competition. Regards, Joe

what data are you using to support this statement?

Anyone who has read anything about Benchrest competition would already know that in the late '40s when the Pine Trails range held the first Benchrest competition in the US, the Mauser was the preferred platform. However they would also know that by the early '60s the Remingtons had almost completely taken over and by the '70s even the Remingtons were losing ground to the custom actions. No Mauser actions have won Benchrest competitions in the US in over 40 years now.

They just won't shoot with the big dogs and NO ONE has managed to get 'em to do it yet!

Now, Counselor, that's all circumstantial evidence but we're not in court and I'd say it was pretty compelling. If you still aren't convinced then I'd suggest that you make sure that your smith blueprints your next Mauser very extensively; please be sure to spend plenty of money 'cause after all, that ole horse just MIGHT learn to sing!
Regards, Joe

Joe
I think it was more of the broad statement of "in any accuracy competition" that was the thorn in their side.

For the record a 98, M70, M700, M77 is just not precise enough when compared to today's custom benchrest actions.
The Model 700 has just about dominated every other competition.

That said I still believe that any 98, M70, M700, M77 can be built to shoot just as accurately as the rest (Outside of Bench rest) with the only difference being the amount of time devoted to blue printing the action. That said as well the obvious choice is the action that requires the least amount of work and that is by far the Rem 700

This begs a question that maybe all of you are thinking about but not stating. An action such as a mauser is inherantly inaccurate why? Why, even if it is blueprinted is a Mauser action not as good as a Panda?

Simply put, there are variables when "accurizing" an action.

butch, I do not know what a spider is, but I would wager it is probably similar to a cat head? (spider actually makes more sense to me than a cat head, never could get that one)

First of all seeing that most Mauser actions are case hardened, truing the action threads would be difficult with out annealing the action. Then you would have to re heat treat when finished.

Second the bolt and the bolt raceway of a Mauser are designed to have very generous tolerances. To take advantage of truing the action threads you would have to ream the bolt race way and fit bushings on the bolt to reduce excessive tolerances.

Third the Mauser action is very flexible compared to the rigid Remington 700 action. To benefit from the first two modifications you would have to fabricate an action sleeve to complete all the links in this chain.

Fourth the lock time of a Mauser firing pin is extremely slow and the firing pin assembly weighs a ton. When the firing pin finally strikes the primer it hits like truck. So now you got to add a titanium firing pin and a powerful spring.

There is just no end to this can of worms.

Last, study the Mauser design. The torque ring is exactly perpindicular to the axis of the bolt. So it does not matter if the threads are off a tad, if the threads of the barrel shank are fitted properly the face of the barrel shank will mate up with the face of the torque ring and alignment will be assured.

I have fitted many barrels to 98 Mauser actions and all of the ones with quality barrels shot under minute of angle.

Better listen to Butch.

A very good explanation Freddy.
Butch

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:
This begs a question that maybe all of you are thinking about but not stating. An action such as a mauser is inherantly inaccurate why? Why, even if it is blueprinted is a Mauser action not as good as a Panda?

Simply put, there are variables when "accurizing" an action.



butch, I do not know what a spider is, but I would wager it is probably similar to a cat head? (spider actually makes more sense to me than a cat head, never could get that one)

Good to see you on here, FALGrunt. WE left FalFiles and started our own bunch. PM me or email me (owlcreekok at att dot net) if you'd be interested in joining us.

I like Mausers. I am a greenhorn, hobby builder and am having a ball building a mowzer or two that will shoot into an inch or less. Benchrest ain't fun to me, so that don't get into my arithmetic.

FWIW, in the '60s at Trinidad we were taught to take a truing cut across the front exterior face of the Mauser receiver ring and to remove the first thread inside the ring's front face, both operations done while spinning on a receiver or thread mandrel between centers.

And to not worry too much about the internal C-ring and its trueness.

Bill Prator and Harry Johnson, our metalwork instructors, both agreed (rare!) that anything more would be wasted on a Mauser. Wasted not because there would be no gain at all, but rather because the potential gain would be so small that the difference would probably be lost in the action's comparatively erratic performance level.

I ain't defending, just describing(grin).
FWIW, regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:
This begs a question that maybe all of you are thinking about but not stating. An action such as a mauser is inherantly inaccurate why? Why, even if it is blueprinted is a Mauser action not as good as a Panda?

Simply put, there are variables when "accurizing" an action.

butch, I do not know what a spider is, but I would wager it is probably similar to a cat head? (spider actually makes more sense to me than a cat head, never could get that one)

The inherent inaccuracy of a Mauser is based solely on the fact that they are implements of war and on average not built to the strictest tolerances in the world. Yes there are some exceptional actions out there built by craftsmen long since dead. But on average the Mauser requires a good amount of work to put in tip top shape for any type of competition.

I'm not a bench rest shooter so this statement is based only off my experience from reading articles in the gun rags.

But Bench rest has advanced so far in the last few decades that I would be willing to bet that there is no action from the big three ( Rem, Win, Ruger) that could hold a candle to a custom built bench rest action.
The precision is that great and they are purpose built for one thing and one thing only... Tight consistent groups. Groups so small that no conventional action could ever be expected to duplicate them.

Bench rest is the precision of precision shooting the elite of the elite.

Now that is also not to say there aren't prodigal rifles built that can accomplish this, but I'd just as soon expect that to happen as hitting the irish sweep stakes

It is rare, but it does happen. Two of my friends are avid Benchrest and F-Class competitors. Both have won many matches. My one friend just placed second at nationals. Dropped 7 points, the winner, 5.

Both compete with Remington 700's.

One has a Remington 700, faced the receiver, installed a shilen select match barrel, bedded, chambered it in 6.5x47, and shot a 4.9" 5-shot group at 1000yds.

The other has a .284, which he can consistently shoot 7" 20-shot groups, usually with 15+ X's.

Now, could you ever do that with a blueprinted mauser? As you stated, no, there are just too many variables. Maybe someone who was making a modern mauser action from the ground up could make something competitive, but I would be amazed.

So I think our point (collectively?) was that there are more variables to make an action accurate than just blueprinting it.

I shot a buddies 6BR he uses in 600yd benchrest competitions. He had 100 rounds to fireform so he was letting us waste his ammo (generous at about a buck a shot) I shot a 1/4" group at 100yds. I was ESTATIC. He just chuckled and said, yea, I spose that is pretty good.

For him, 1/4 MOA is OK, but it won't win a match. I don't care how accurate the rifle is, I cannot shoot as well as him!

Part of it is the rigidity/stiffness of the action, but it's also surprising just how much importance lies in the action's concentricity and balanced response to the dynamics of firing.

I was surprised to read in Harold Vaughn's Rifle Accuracy Facts that he was able to achieve tighter groups by boring new holes in his Rem 721 receiver. One would tend to think that more holes would make the action more flexible and therefor less accurate, but Vaughn found that balancing the stresses by boring new holes actually caused a more concentric vibration and thus tightened the groups measurably.

The Mauser has that big honkin' gap at one point in the left rail and another big honkin' gap in the internal C-ring and is case-hardened, all 3 causing uneven reactions to stress and not really susceptible to any balancing act with new holes. Yes, the FNs have 2 balanced gaps in the C-ring and no gap in the left rail but even the solid-bottom single shot FNs won't quite shoot with a Remington.
Regards, Joe

Then theoretically speaking,
If one removes all the left sidewall metal forward of the thumbcut[to mirror the right side port] the M98 would become an more balanced for accuracy platform?
and would not an solid left wall FN be less balanced than an thumb cut M98?

On the subject of SPT for a mauser, If it was just a slap together beater rig, I would not care too much for it,
For a high end custom with high dollar precision work allround, id expect my smith to check the thread and correct as required. not much cost in respect to the whole project.

This receiver has been corrected internally, and you will notice it no longer has the orig. soft rounded edges,it has been ground to compliment the modern sharp lines of the bases, bottom metal,safety etc.
With slim .520"@24", this 270win groups hover between 1/2- 3/4".
JFYI, one does not necessarily need a smith with several decades experience to get a super fine job done, this near 15yo rig [and still going strong], was built by a guy in his mid twenties.

military mausers are designed to work in the mud, with crummy ammo, under the wost conditions, dirty, wet, and even rusty .. and under sustained fire...

great, fantastic battlefield rifles

benchrest rifles -- only under near clean room settings... throw a handful of sandy bloody mud into a high end benchaction and work the bolt 5 times ...

what happens? trigge jams, groups go crazy, won't close into battery, won't open.. and it won't shoot the groups it can perfectly clean ..

sledgehammer vs scapel...

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:



Now, could you ever do that with a blueprinted mauser? As you stated, no, there are just too many variables. Maybe someone who was making a modern mauser action from the ground up could make something competitive, but I would be amazed.

And this is where the definition of blueprinting is interpreted differently.

My Definition is of a Blue printed action is to rebuild the action so that all the surfaces we are concerned with are flat, square, and concentric to the axis of the bolt, Tighten all tolerances up i.e. gaps, slop, etc.

When this is done and granted not all of this can be done without some compromises being made, Then and only then would that action be suitable for competition.

And the compromise I mention is the bolt body.
Unless you use bushings and ream the action there is nothing you can do to remove the slop.

I love a CRF rifle but I also know it's place. I hate to admit it but a Rem 700 is no slouch. It's a damn fine action. A lot easier to get to shoot bench rest then a 60 some year old drug behind a truck action.

The 98 design itself is not a bad one, it was just built for a different purpose. Like a fine side by side shotgun and an AK 47. Both do their intended job very well but asking one to fill in for the other is near impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:

And this is where the definition of blueprinting is interpreted differently.

I think we have the same definition of blueprinting an action, I was merely stating the best means to obtain something competitive with a mauser action would be to make a new action.

As you said, the mauser action was made for something different. It was designed as a military arm and adapted to a sporting environment.

I agree that mauser's are not competitive bench guns. However, we are mixing apples and oranges when we lump all mausers together.
Had a friend who, in early high school, built a 22 Varminter on an FN Bench Rest (note the name) action. (His uncle was a part time factory shooter). The Varminter hadn't even been made a factory round by Remington yet. That has been one of the most consistently accurate varmint rifles I have shot. It is still going.

Years later, Interarms made a very small run of Mark X actions in the same configuration. I bought one, had IT&D install an air guaged no. 6 Douglas barrel 27" long in 6x284. I glassed it in a plain Bell&Carlson stock with the barrel channel hogged out. Since I had to make the ammo, I cleaned out the primer pockets and flash holes, and turned the necks for a consistant clearance. Set the trigger at 1-1/4 pounds and had at it. The first group was five in less than 1/4", and it has done this for almost 30 years. I think much of it has to do with the massive solid bottom of the action acting like a girder, and minimizing twist on the bolt and other action components (I bedded it from behind the recoil lug to 4" in front of the ring with everything else floated).

I've often wished that I could find another of these actions to experiment with. They are very easy to run, given the size an position of the ejection port, much easier than the tubular actions, but stiff enough to be accurate. Their only incurable trait is likely their lock time. I have always thought that a properly set up rifle could actually be competitive in the long range matches, where larger cartridges are needed (the single shot action could swallow some pretty good size brass.)

Mauser lock time is easy to cure, up to whatever level you have enough funds to purchase. Reduced striker fall, increased spring tension, titanium striker, bushed striker nose, etc. IMO lock time ain't the Mauser's problem.
Regards, Joe

Trax,

You have a very neat setup there.
Are these bases and rings custome made?

Warrior

Bases are totally custom as is the one off made bolt handle, rings have been remachined/worked over, grub screws in base[4mm] are smaller than typical conetrol grubs,and are quite sufficient for the recoil of std rounds like 270win etc.
The shroud is one of those superbly machined and rare Raybourne/Zoofall units.

Trax

I like the way your ring set up doesn't distract from the lines of the rifle.
A much more pleasing silhouette than the vertical split rings.

Hal

Based upon the above posts, my question is this: why does someone like Echols and that crowd completely remachine a M70? They are, afterall, building hunting rifles not benchrest rifles.

Confused.

quote:

was built by a guy in his mid twenties.

What is his name?


On another note, what would you say, in percentage terms, is the importance of the barrel and the importance of the receiver?

Has any scientific study been done on that subject?

quote:

Originally posted by jsl3170:
Based upon the above posts, my question is this: why does someone like Echols and that crowd completely remachine a M70? They are, afterall, building hunting rifles not benchrest rifles.

Confused.

Partially for looks and partially for preformance. If I were to make someone a $20k-$40k rifle, I would certianly go over the rifle inside and out.

David Miller Co completely redoes an action inside and out. The rifles they build also preform very accurately even at long ranges.

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:

quote:

Originally posted by jsl3170:
Based upon the above posts, my question is this: why does someone like Echols and that crowd completely remachine a M70? They are, afterall, building hunting rifles not benchrest rifles.

Confused.

Partially for looks and partially for preformance. If I were to make someone a $20k-$40k rifle, I would certianly go over the rifle inside and out.

David Miller Co completely redoes an action inside and out. The rifles they build also preform very accurately even at long ranges.

Like George Carlin said about the dog, "Because he CAN!"

Gives the client a warm feeling and allows him braggin' rights to display his financial ability to Conspicuously Consume, while at the same time putting the gunmaker well up into the 'comfortable' income level. These rifles are wonderful but please make no mistake, none will win any blue ribbons at any serious accuracy competition.
Regards, Joe

Well I have to agree and disagree.
Benchrest yes. I believe the Mauser has no place in sub .5 MOA competition And yes I know group are measured a lot smaller then that.

Now long range Palma rifle or Wimbledon cup match is a different story. I see no reason a Mauser properly tuned, barreled, stocked and scoped could not shoot X rings at 1000 yards. Not every time but good enough to place in the top five

quote:

why does someone like Echols and that crowd completely remachine a M70? They are, afterall, building hunting rifles not benchrest rifles.

Pre64s can leave a bit to be desired in the machining and trueness department. Once you true/grind some surface [say for custom bases], its weird to have the remainder of the action surfaces or threads out of true.
We go to all the trouble of accurately chambering,threading,profiling a barrel, IMO the mating receiver deserves the same std.
If someone had a new custom receiver made for a rifle project, id imagine that they would expect it to as precise,true and as well finished as possible both inside and out, why should such standards not also apply to a p64 or surp. M98 build?
Ive seen a number of customs over the years that had fancy wood, gold inlay and engraving, money which IMO would have been better spent on first raising the quality of the metal work.
Precise inletting deserves precise metal to compliment it.

quote:

Precise inletting deserves precise metal to compliment it.

There is nothing worse than a beautiful rifle with poor metal work. My grandfather recently showed me a mauser he purchased years ago. It is a pretty standard FN 98 in .30-06, it has a Buehler mount and rings, a really nice stock, and some of the nicest engraving. Super well done engraving, even the mounts and rings are engraved with the pattern flowing well between everything.

My first though after holding it and digesting it. Meh. I would have passed. I asked him how much he paid but it was too long ago, he could not remember.

Here is the thing. Whoever polished the gun before the engraver went to it used a wheel, they ruined all the markings, rounded all the corners, destroyed it. Had I been the engraver I would have passed on the work.

Had that receiver been ground and polished correctly, it would be a beautiful piece. Instead it is a kinda nice rifle... kinda

Fal

There are those here that feel a M98 or a M70 (regardless of style) aren't worth a plug nickel.
Then there are those that feel a M98 should be left box stock or only very carefully restored to box stock.

And in both those groups are people that feel either rifle is no more suitable to hold a door open then shoot a Sub MOA group.

Are these rifles top of the line Benchrest quality? No way in hell. Will they (with the correct amount and type of work) produce a very accurate and elegant rifle? you bet.

And it all comes down to what you intend to use the rifle for.