That old Model 70 that D'Arcy and I were working on had belonged to my grandfather, a Montana rancher. He died when I was seven and aside from some of his photos and some military stuff from his time in the service in Europe in WWII that rifle is the only link I have to him. It was built in the late 50's, wears the original K-4 Weaver he put on it when he bought it, has killed alot of deer and black bear and is in exceptional condition due to the meticulous maintenance he gave all of his machinery. I grew up shooting this rifle. Naturally it became the epitome of the perfect rifle to me, and everything else I tried be it Rugers or Remingtons seemed to fall short of this Rifleman's Rifle. Then I began my work in D'Arcy's shop and I began to see that "perfection" could actually be improved. The controlled round feeding that I thought was so smooth and flawless felt rougher than a cob compared to the feeding of D'Arcy's Legend rifles (and his are chambered in those rough feeding belted magnums!!). So I decided to fix my "perfect" rifle. First the claw extractor had to be fitted for proper tension, engagement, and contoured to allow the cartridge rims to ride up the bolt face but not fall out during extraction. Then it was on to the rails and feed ramp. D'Arcy lined me out by first giving me a stock 33/40 Mauser and had me measure every part of the feeding mechanism on it and my Model 70 and then make comparisons between the two. Low and behold the Mauser is set up perfectly to feed. The rails are cut in such a way that the cartridges are allowed to flow straight into the chamber instead of being forced in at an angle. In this case "wider is better". The coned breech on the M70 is probably only reason my rifle would even feed. I made the statement that the farther away from the original Mauser 98 design manufacturers go the worse off they are and that progress is not always such a good thing. D'Arcy said something like, "Free your mind and your ass will follow." I drew a scale drawing of my magazine well and rails and then figured out how much and where I wanted to remove metal. So we set the receiver up in the mill in a special fixture (The number of jigs and fixtures required to PROPERLY build custom rifles is mindboggling. Hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars are spent to produce unique precision jigs and fixtures that definitely cannot be bought out of the Brownell's catalog.) and then carefully milled away steel. I then finished up with a file and polishing paper. D'Arcy had left the shop by the time I was ready to run some dummies through the action. I cycled dummie rounds through that rifle slow, fast, sideways, upside down and it fed them perfectly. I could have 3 rounds in the air at one time. There was hardly a difference in the feel between cycling a round and cycling air. It even fed empty cases!! The next morning I was crowing to D'Arcy about my rifle feeding empty cases and he hesitated a bit and then said, "I can't remember the last game animal I shot with an empty case..." I said, "I get your point but it's still cool!". He just shook his head with a half-smile and muttered something about "kids these days".

Brian Bingham

Amazing that a simple looking bolt action receiver is such a complicated little machine,eh?

D'Arcy, in your spare time, why don't you write a book on gunsmithing.. I'm sure it would be treasured by all, well, most anyway !

Pat B.

XL Bar,

Thanks, that was great! I could read stuff like that all day...

Sounds like time spent with D'Arcy is an education and a half. I had the opportunity to speak with him at this past SCI show and I was very impressed to say the least...!

quote:

The coned breech on the M70 is probably only reason my rifle would even feed.

I was rather surprised to read a M70 built in that era(50's) was so far off that the cone breach became the major factor ensuring proper feeding! I had thought it was more of an "insurance policy" rather than the a deciding factor.

Regards,
Dave

Thanks for posting that, envy your experience!

XL Bar

So then would you say that if you were going to design a rifle it would have the G.33/40 mauser feeding system exactly as it is. If so, is there a formula for the width and angle of the rails for each cartridge? I would imagine that the G.33/40 is perfect for the 8mm mauser, and that somewhere therein lies that formula?


One thing that confuses me just a little bit is your language concerning feeding.

You say that the mauser 98 (g.33/40) is better becasue it feeds the cartridges "staight into the chamber instead of being forced in at an angle". Then you say "in this case wider is better". I admit to not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, but somehow those two statements seem contradictory to me. If something is wider then it would seem that whatever was fed from that wider angle would come in at a more steep angle, which is not straight, which you say the mauser is. So, would it not be the case that wider is not better when it comes to feeding?

XL Bar, I've always been amazed at the number of gunsmiths and riflemen who wax-ecstatic over the qualities of the Mauser 98 action, yet don't have a single, solitary clue as to how to get one to really feed properly, especially if the action is converted for use with a different cartridge from which it originally was chambered.

They get wound up over the great Mauser '98, yet they'll keep the original magazine box and follower in place as they convert it from 7.65 Argentine to 7mm Rem. Mag., etc., thereby compromising, via ignorance and improvidence, some of the most fundamental virtues of that action. Cut & paste, cut-try (to heck with formula, measurement, and fundamental design parameters!), and -- by jimminy -- somehow we'll get that sonofagun to feed......sort of!

And I'm amazed at how many of these jig-free, cut & try, guess & by-golly & hope for the best efforts have a big price tag attached to them.

And many of the gunwriters are just as clueless. They'll blame belted cartridges for feeding problems, when the real culprity is poor rifle engineering at the factories, and poor riflesmithing from various cross-roads hawkshaws all across the country...........

You landed in the right place!

AD

Allen,
I'll add to that if you don't change the cartridge a Mauser will feed until hell freezes over...Mauser were built for a specific cartridge and when you change them you have to change about everything on them...I have always been amazed at how milsurp Mausers just keep on ticking..

What an honor it would be to spend just one week learning first hand from a great such as Mr. Echols. You are a blessed individual.

quote:

Originally posted by XL Bar:
I made the statement that the farther away from the original Mauser 98 design manufacturers go the worse off they are and that progress is not always such a good thing. D'Arcy said something like, "Free your mind and your ass will follow."

Still, I cant help but wonder what D'arcys take on the gas handling of a '98 vs a M-70 would sound like??

Ray, you're right, of course.

WH, since Echols builds more custom Model 70s than he does Mauser 98s, it's likely that he's not too worried about gas handling.......

AD

quote:

Originally posted by allen day:
Ray, you're right, of course.

WH, since Echols builds more custom Model 70s than he does Mauser 98s, it's likely that he's not too worried about gas handling.......

AD

Apparently not. Its too bad that Winchester didnt see fit to incorporate the Mauser gas handling and firing pin assembly into their m-70's. I suppose we all just make our choices and learn to live with them, although I personally still feel that a good FN Mauser/J.C. Higgins action is about as good as it gets.

22WRF: I'm sorry if my description was unclear. The rails need to be the proper width in the proper place in order to allow the cartridge to release at the proper time and be captured by the claw extractor. On a Mauser this happens earlier in the bolt throw than on a stock M70. Therefore the cartridge maintains a straighter line into the chamber. It is absolutely vital to cycle many (hundreds) dummy rounds through an action and really study what is going on and this will all make sense. As Ray and Allen point out, the Mauser genius was that each feeding system was cartridge specific. A one size fits all approach just does not work.

D'Arcy was having fun - in rejoinder to X-L bars statement to him about feeding empties- D'Arcy's comment about
The termination power of empty cases is the standard used to see if the student has grasped the fullest point of the excercise.. X-L bar of course passed the test. There is a possible gun mechanics principle involved here. By posting the incident X-L Bar can read the replies for a sampling which would answer the unstated question by virtue of the reply itself. It is interesting in and of itself that X-L Bar would pose this in the aftermath of NASA's shooting expedition involving a comet.
Oh, the question?............ " Exactly what -if anything- can the ability of a barreled action to feed empties tell you aside from being something the people writing ad copy might jump on for sparsity of good things to say about the Rifle they are trying to sell"??

Another I have learned is that proper feeding is a result of a symbiotic relationship between the claw extractor, the bolt face and its parts, the rails, the magazine box, and the follower. If a fellow goes in and changes just one of these he usually ends up with more problems than he had to begin with.

Brian Bingham

XL BAR, Thank you for sharing this great information. I went through the pre 64 feeding thing myself. I have a '57 270 FWT that failed me on a follow up shot. It jammed so bad I could barely undue it with the floor plate dropped. I went about trying to fix the rifle. I studied it, and other pre 64's that feed perfectly (and a US1917). I first had to find out what was going on. Only problem was that it would only jam 1 in 15 times. I made up many dummy rounds and spent many nights after work feeding these through, studying how it works. My hands got sore. I thought I saw what was going on, got brave and started grinding the reciever (just a LITTLE at a time). Clean up the parts, put together, try it, the back apart and more grinding. This went on for weeks; that rifle got tore down maybe 50 times (or more). My hands were red and sore. But, little by little the jamms started getting fewer, and fewer. Several times I said it was perfected, I could feed 100 rounds through it trouble free, only to pick the rifle up idley, and work a mag through and get a jam! Back to work! But I was also having another problem. In all this feeding, It would not extract sometimes. 2 problems to fix.

To make an already long story short, here is what I found:

The main problem was that the left side reciever wall (under the feed rail) was machined to deep. This left the case head too deep in the mag, so the bolt was only contacting a small amout of rim, and when it would dip (the nose lifting into the chamber), the bolt would override it. So I cut the rail (widened it) to what other 70's had. This left the two rails wider than most, but thats no problem. To fix the extraction, I cut a little off the extractor and bolt so that the extractor held the case head more snuggly. I also filed & polished off the ledge on the bottom of the bolt face. Lastly, I fed about 100 dummy rounds coated in fine lapping compound throught it. It it now the most positive, smoothest, feeding rifle I have. Doug

Great thread...!

I love the opportunity to learn something of true value and it's all the better if you have to really think to get there.

Never one to be afraid of looking foolish if the knowledge is worth it or if my blunders might actually motivate someone who really knows what the hells going on to come out with the info <<often because they have been so annoyed by my ignorance that they just have to respond! >>.....I'll have a go.

Mr Burgess said

quote:

Exactly what -if anything- can the ability of a barreled action to feed empties tell you?

It tells you that your either [A.] VERY LUCKY(!)or [B.] understand the "dynamic" magazine feeding, firing, extraction & ejection system and it's interrelation through this 4 step process which was developed and incorporated into what became the Mauser98. It also indicates you know the system well enough that you can see where it has shortcomings and or down right points of failure and are able to correct these issues as in when one tries to use an improperly "modified" M98 or another similar yet not totally true to the M98 design type of CRF action such as the M70 etc. See XLBars statement on this point...

quote:

The rails need to be the proper width in the proper place in order to allow the cartridge to release at the proper time and be captured by the claw extractor. On a Mauser this happens earlier in the bolt throw than on a stock M70. Therefore the cartridge maintains a straighter line into the chamber.

One also must to be able to assess, trouble shoot and modify this sytem to work with the multitude of different cartridge designs ie...300 H&H vs 300 Weatherby as well as function within the known and expected variation(s) found in the sizes of the cases(esp. rims) produced by different brass manufacturers. Then there is different bullet shapes (round nose vs spitzer vs flat nose)...As XL said...it's a symbiotic relationship and a small change can make BIG differences and not for the better. Anything less and I don't think you have a true CRF action.


So, back to answering the original question....Exactly what -if anything- can the ability of a barreled action to feed empties tell you?

Answer #1
You know the system above well enough to execute it dead nuts and the cases are going "straight" and sure enough that without a bullet seated they still flow straight into the chamber. <It's nice not to have to rely on a cone breach to "funnel" your cartridges into battery....> This is espeically impressive because when loading an empty round into the magazine there is a heck of alot of "extra space" in which the case can sit front to back. I'm guessing this extra "play" adds a bit of uncertainty to the system as far as where exactly they are being picked up from the magazine. So, if you can get it to feed with empties along with dummies and regular ammo it is one more test of your system...Your ducks are likely in a row! Marketing might say it's..."So finely tuned it will feed empty cases!"

Answer #2
Doesn't tell you a blessed thing....We don't hunt with empties!

Yeah, I know that second answer was damn cowardly of me!


NASA - How close can you come? A high speed projectile...shooting a high speed projectile...at a high speed projectile. Better have all your ducks in a row in this most DYMANIC of systems.

Hoping like hell I did a sort of fair job of it.....it's fun no matter what! Feel free to throw stones or roses...

Regards,
Dave

Ah, David. Well, you get the bouquet. Matter of fact, the catch words often used are those that you employed-
" Ducks in a row ", and an equivalent of "right down the middle".

I attempted to get back on the thread shortly after your posting to congratulate, but the site loading was too slow and I had to get back to the extended family Pyrotechnic displays. Montana trusts its citizens enough to allow such things assuming they have enough common sense to engage in such activities. First things first!

There are 3 rifles made by Winchester which became my learning primer, The Hotchkiss bolt action, and the 1903 and later Model 63 auto loaders. All 3 tube fed from the butt. To this day, some 62 years after my first opportunity to study the Hotchkiss, I am still fascinated with the way the ctg. is released from the tube throat and arcs its way dead center into the chamber mouth. Back in those days the Win. model 1903 special ammo was no longer available, and the model 63 in .22 LR had a long waiting list at sporting goods stores. Dealers couldn't sell the '03 trade ins for more than $ 7.00. From that to build my own 63 out of a Win. 1903 was a logical jump. The first one led to several dozen conversions. There are enough variables in the machining of the Win. 1903 that a mere exact copying of the all important feed throat not is enough, and that became the teacher, like it or not. That throat is about as close to theory as you can get so that once you get past the ctg. being delivered by a tube from the rear instead of up from below vertically you are on the way. Magazine box geometry came later, at least the sine of 60 degrees part. The receiver feedwell 8 deegree slope of the side walls off the vertical always distorted the numbers until I grasped the fact that the actual angle had nothing to do with the dimensions other than to simply narrow the width at point of contact with the cartridge periphery. With the 63 or the conversions the test of dead center arrival of ctg into barrel chamber
was no shaving of the lead from the bullet. In vertical feed magazines extractor grasp of case xtr. cannelure and spring tension holding ctg in place provide the alignment with the chamber, receiver feed lips distort the entry angle until you get them right, so proceeding forward in the lesson, if you can make it feed empty cases, you have done all of the correct things. Ducks in a row and down the spout.

Congratulations again David!!

Mr Burgess,

Thanks for the reply! It is a real treat to discuss these issues and have you available as a sounding board! It's much appreciated I assure you...more than you know!!!

Despite my attempt I don't however, fool myself into thinking that I really "know" and understand the process. I am sure there is a heck of alot more to proper functioning <<probably many key points which are subtle & difficult to relate via prose>> than what I was able to outline. My response is at best a superficial overview where things fall into place neatly. After all there is a wide stretch of time, effort and energy between being able to have a reasonable discussion on the issue vs. being able to bring the concepts to life in metal!

Two of the most interesting aspects I noticed with regard to bringing the system to life have to do with first getting it right in terms of ones understanding of the concepts and critical dimensions necessary. ie...the how of the M98 or M70s workings. Then there is the execution in metal where one actually gets it all to "work together as designed" in real time! Those two different levels of understanding caught my eye especially when I considered just how much serious and commited testing that rifle builders like yourself and D'Arcy undertake before a rifle goes out the door. It seems to indicate to me that even when you've "got it down cold" with regard to concept & system as well as the execution there is still(!) a level of testing & assessment and possible refinements which need to be undertaken after the rifle has been setup. This last step is no doubt done to ensure that all the individual pieces parts are "in line" perform there repective roles with regard to how they should mesh together and either contribute to or detract from the overal integrity of the systems workings. It is also the step which I think probably require the most true skill and probably a bit of "art" to really make the subtle changes which can wring the absolute most of what a M98 type system has to offer.

I guess the Mauser98 and like actions can fool you. It looks so simple. Just a few moving parts. Nothing to worry about...as long as you understand it's key concepts well enough to execute, adjust test and maintain the overal integrity of the system.

Regards,
Dave

Keep up the good work, XL-. A lot of us who knew you "before" saw this coming. You're going to make a hell of a builder. Jeez, I hope in ten years I'm still fit to spill beer in your shop.

Oh and by the way. Does this mean you can finally fix my feed finicky 6.5x55? I'll trade you a hashed out Ishapore or a twenty-eight dollar pair of Bushnell porro prisms.