quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
I've had several 1909 DWM actions, and at least three showed set-back. I got rid of them all, and if someone gave me one, I would get rid of it too. If I had to re-heat treat any action of any make, I wouldn't go there, but get rid of it. There are too many good actions to be messing with junk.

KB

What you have written is in complete disagreement with D'arcy Echols' statements on the matter. Please stop and ponder that for moment.

It's not Mr. Echols personally that I have a problem with. It's the fact that I listented to that kind of info, and subsequently my experience didn't jive. I have never been able to reconcile it since, and I'm not willing to put any more money where my mouth is.

If folks want to put their money where Mr Echols mouth is, it's their money, and I hope that they don't share the experiences I had with the 1909 actions. BTW, I have never had any experience with Mr Echols. Mr. Echols seems to have a vested interest in working on such actions, or has a bunch of them already out there, and he would hope to remain out there.

I have no vested interest in any 1909, only the best interest of those who will listen.

Anything can be made to work, with enough skill. That's where the saying of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear comes from, and IMO it certainly applies to the 1909 action.

KB

Surprised to see the same thread resurrected, I thought for sure it would be a new thread! I just wanted to update on my post where my 2 argies were sent off, they indeed were sent to my gunsmith, had surface grinding (one was pristine with gorgeous crest and I would have preferred didn't get that treatment, but hey, the 08 brazilian crest is even more gorgeous, I'll get one of those some day, again). but they did not make it to pacific before my smith died so they are in my safe. I will have them carburized before they are done though.

Red

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
http://www.brownells.com/.aspx...roduct/CZ_550_ACTION

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx...ON_700_CUSTOM_ACTION

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx...TION_RECEIVER___BOLT

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx...AKOTA_AFRICAN_ACTION

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx...uct/DAKOTA_76_ACTION

http://www.mcmfamily.com/mcmil...actions-standard.php

http://www.bordenrifles.com/actions.shtml

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewP...productNumber=958451

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewP...productNumber=480700

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewP...productNumber=827553

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewP...productNumber=483257

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx...ONG_ACTION_RECEIVERS

https://www.budsgunshop.com/ca...roducts_id/411540382

http://www.viperactions.com/

http://www.gunbroker.com/Aucti....aspx?Item=216148848

http://www.gunbroker.com/Aucti....aspx?Item=215917603

http://www.gunbroker.com/Aucti....aspx?Item=216148851

http://www.gunbroker.com/Aucti....aspx?Item=216148798

http://www.gunbroker.com/Aucti....aspx?Item=216169109

http://www.gunbroker.com/Aucti....aspx?Item=216212073

Etc, Etc.

I realize the actions shown are expensive, but you get what you pay for. If price is a concern, buy a used Ruger 77 MKII as a donor action, and set it up as you like. Or something similar.

KB

I was asking about "GOOD" actions.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
I was asking about "GOOD" actions.

Oh, excuse me. Apparantly I understand now.

KB

Talked to D'Arcy Echols, at SCI show as he told me new folks at Blanchard don't know how to heat treat warped his action, sent one to Pacific had same problem.....

So, now Mr. Echols and I are on the same page.

I had a similar experience as well. After listening to the talk about what fine actions they were, the solution to the set-back or potential set-back, was to have this magic done, called re-heat treatment or other fancy words, and the place to do that was a business in Salt Lake City, can't remember the name.

So, I sent several actions there, can't rememer if it was three of four. All were warped beyond use, and least beyond what I wanted to use. I'm sure they were straightened by the new owners, and are now out there as some fine custom rifles, wearing super expensive walnut.

So, my unhappy experience not only includes set-back, but the sad results of reheat treatment, which I also paid good money for, and all because I listened to those same type who now continue to hype the virtues of the 1909 action.

To me it approaches a farce. It's very strange to me, that it's known for set-back, and known to warp when re-heated, but some guys simply ignore all this, and go on and build expensive rifle on the actions. Must be some kind of auto-compulsion thing that these actions bring out in human nature, like a bug to light, can't resist.

KB

Not to dispute what Mr. Echols says, but that is not what we told when I was at CST('76-'77). We were given parameters based on cartridge pressure, when to use and not to use '98's and '96's.
I built two rifles on 98 Mausers while there a 7 X 57 and a 25-06, never any problems.
CST may have changed their thought process, I don't know but I have no intention of heat treating the one I have now to build on, another 7 X57.

To perhaps make it clearer, my negative experience was limited to the 1909 action only. I have not had that result with any other Mauser action, and my experience is not extensive. I shoot a few rifles with FN actions, and IMO, that's a different story.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by rodger wright:
Talked to D'Arcy Echols, at SCI show as he told me new folks at Blanchard don't know how to heat treat warped his action, sent one to Pacific had same problem.....

Did he happen to mention an outlet for heat treating other than Blanchard or PacMet?

He is checking on a place back east. I am supposes to e-mail him and he will give more info.

From what Ive read the decision can be a catch 22. For what they had to work with German engineering back in the day was excellent. The case hardening method they used made for very good strength without the brittleness issues of other actions like Springfields, and the softness beneath the hard surface can actualy contribute to its strength!

When so many are made from so many plants all over the world there can be expected some major variation though..

The majority of them have clearly proven to be easily on par for most modern pressures though.

I think there may be something to the argument that you may loose as much as you gain by re-heat treating a M-98. I keep going back to Ackleys testing of military actions in which (as I recall) the Mausers were not the strongest, but far from the weakest and consistantly proved very strong and very worthy of customizing. Been a long time since Ive read that article though.

I think Vapodog sent a number of actions to PACMET and had excellent results from them.

I have an old brochure here from John Westrum
(now deceased). His main business was detailing Mauser actions. His recommendation was to have them hardened. But he recommended using a cyanide salt bath to do so.

My understanding is that you don't want the action rehardened becasue that is impossible due to the lack of carbon in the steel. What you really want is for some carbon to be infused on the exterior steel to provide wear resistence so the lugs don't set back.

Cyanide is a very dangerous chemical, and I don't know if anyone does that type of work anymore.

I know Tom Burgess sent many actions to PACMET.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
I think Vapodog sent a number of actions to PACMET and had excellent results from them.

I have an old brochure here from John Westrum
(now deceased). His main business was detailing Mauser actions. His recommendation was to have them hardened. But he recommended using a cyanide salt bath to do so.

My understanding is that you don't want the action re-hardened because that is impossible due to the lack of carbon in the steel. What you really want is for some carbon to be infused on the exterior steel to provide wear resistence so the lugs don't set back.

Cyanide is a very dangerous chemical, and I don't know if anyone does that type of work anymore.

I know Tom Burgess sent many actions to PACMET.

Mr Burgess actually worked with Pac-Met to develop the process they use.

I've sent actions for "re-hardening" on three occasions (usually send five at a time) and have been 100% satisfied.

I specify the case depth and Rc used by Mr Echols in a post he made here which is almost double the case depth and a couple points harder. Pac-Met almost always emails me to confirm the spec as it's not the norm for them!

It should be noted that I do not send the bolts for re-hardening.....only the stripped actions!

I have never found a shred of evidence to send bolts for re-hardening and can only find negatives for it. Possibly some that have had warpage problems have also sent the bolts.....?????...

Maybe some will reply to that comment...

I don't know if this place is still in business, but here is an east coast source:

Fred Heinzelman and Sons
790 Washington Ave.
Carlstadt NJ 07072
(201) 933-4800

My friend's used to use them in the past for Mausers.

I had two pre 64 Win 70's done by Blanchard's. They were done very nicely, both bolts and receivers, with no warpage. These were both very soft when they were sent in, RC 10 or so if I recall. The one was in a fire and the other had been annealed for engraving and then the engraver died before he got to it. Blanchard's has or has access to a Spectrometer to determine alloys etc. I can't recall the price but it was like $75 for the first part and $15 or $20 for each additional.

I had also contacted PacMet for the job. They were definitely cheaper but seemed to be geared for mausers only. They said they diodn't know what alloy M70's were or what the RC value should be. I didn't have confidence in using them. Their price for mausers was like $100 for one or 20 as I recall. This was a couple of years ago.

looks like carbon nitriding might be the way to go.

http://www.substech.com/dokuwi..._bath_heat_treatment

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The SAAMI maximum average pressure specification for the 375 H&H cartridge is 53,000 CUP or 62,000 PSI. The SAAMI maximum average pressure specification for the 270 Winchester is 52,000 CUP or 65,000 PSI.

The 375 H&H cartridge was born in 1912 and the 270 Winchester in 1925.

The British gunmakers used magnum and standard length 1898 Mauser actions for the 375 H&H, and numerous 1898 Mauser actions were barreled in 270 Winchester.

Does anyone have any information prior to WW-II that these 1898 Mauser actions failed to perform properly?

Does Jack O'Connor's 270 Winchester based upon a Gwer WW-I action that was re-barreled three or four times show any lug set back?

Why do we assume that the Mauser metalurgists, design engineers and production staff got it wrong with their steel assays, hardness and case depth?

I don't make that assumption, and with my limited 1898 Mauser action experience, I've not seen it.

Pete Grisel has seen Mauser action setback, but he's also seen it with Remingtons, Savages, etc. when he ran his shop in South Dakota. He determined that the set-back cause was either excessively overloaded ammunition by sorry handloaders, or a barrel obstruction. His conclusion was that the softer receiver did what it was supposed to do and give a bit, instead of shatter. Another Mauser and other manufaturers' design feature.

He also blew up loads of 1898 Mauser actions in his basement. He told me that if the Mauser action was left alone, it would not blow up, but begin to set back with massively overloaded ammunition over time. If re-heat treated, it blew up like a grenade.

Duane Wiebe really knows what he is talking about, too.

I'll place my bet with the meticulous Germans on this one.

That's not to say there isn't a lemon or two out there.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

With due respect, I post the following:

As I have always seen with these types of threads, the conversation goes generic when discussing "Mausers" and set back / hardness / softness /metalurgy, etc.

In that context, in general, what you have written is true, and it's helpful in saying that in general one shouldn't expect set-back, nor the need to re-heat. It's good info to know, in the big picture.

However, one way those discussing this basically dismiss set-back as not relevant is to throw in the "massively overloaded" notion. Although true, IMO this is a distraction, except one thing to take note of is the notion that generally a Mauser action re-heat treated may be a bomb waiting to happen, because it will shatter rather than set-back, in situations of overload. Re-heat treatment is intentionally defeating one of the basic safety measures originally engineered into the actions, as it left the plant initially.

I assure you that the set-back I witnessed was not from massive overloads. In fact, two of the actions were set back from the shooting done with the original chambering in 7.65x53, which is supposed to be a mild load. One of the 1909 actions that I had barreled, in 280, was in mint condition when barreled, with no set-back, and headspaced properly. In less than 50 rounds, it had set back enough so I noticed.

So, my point is that the potential for set back (with normal pressure loads) varyies on the action, when and where it was made. I had a sample of the 1909 actions that I had tested for hardness, by people who knew what they were doing, and the actions were soft all over.

As I previously said, I have three other mil-surp actions now, VZ24 for example, which I am confident will not give me trouble with normal loads, resembling the std pressures of the 8x57. The basic reason I'm confident about them is because they have all been fired a significant number of times, in 8x57, judging from the condition of them, and how smooth they are, with no evidence of set-back already. I intend to use them as they are, merely using upgraded parts such as trigger and safety shroud.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
I keep going back to Ackleys testing of military actions in which (as I recall) the Mausers were not the strongest, but far from the weakest and consistantly proved very strong and very worthy of customizing. Been a long time since Ive read that article though.

Ackley's tests are very interesting but not conclusive. However they remain THE most definitive study done so far.

He tested 3 1898 Mausers with VERY mixed results; 1 dangerously weak as limp pasta, 1 weak but barely adequate, 1 almost as strong as the best US actions.

I suggest that some here re-read Ackley's tests (along with Hatcher's), The data may give a fresh insight into the Mauser question. I know that IMO and experience ALL Mausers are suspect until proven otherwise but some are more suspect than others.

I also know that 7 of my 9 project bolt rifles are Mausers; by deliberate choice none are 1909s though.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
I also know that 7 of my 9 project bolt rifles are Mausers; by deliberate choice none are 1909s though.
Regards, Joe

Cool !!!

I just counted - quickly from memory - my projects to have rebarreled, etc:

three 98 Mauser mil-surp (none 1909s)
four FN 98, std bolt face
one CZ 550 medium action, magnum bolt face
one mini-mauser, in 6.5 grendel
two Rugers, 77 MKII, std bolt face
two Win mod 70 push feeds, possibly three, std bolt face, one short, one long

Naturally, I'm planning for several years ahead. Gotta pace myself.

KB