98 Mauser question,

I have a 98 Mauser that I'm considering rebarreling to a 9.3x62. I'm considering ordering a Lother-Walther stainless pre-threaded/prechambered barrel that has the chamber slightly long. This is the style that does not require a finish reamer but you set headspace by cutting material off the barrels shoulder and the face of the shank in a lathe.

My mauser has the coned c-breech inner ring. I will probably face the reciever outer ring to ensure it is square but I'm unsure if I should have the barrels shoulder and shank face contact the inner/outer rings equally w/ a crush fit or not. I had heard that some have the barrel shoulder fit squarely against the outer ring but leave the face of the shank slightly short of hitting the inner ring, maybe .006-.008" short. I can see in certain long range rifles that have had the outer ring squared up doing this to increase accuracy, but, I'm concerned this may comprimize the strength of the mauser c-breech inner ring in a 9.3x62 or larger caliber.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,
GVA

I like to cut the tenon .002 shorter than the receiver depth.

In that way the barrel squares on the outside ring of the receiver face and has almost no gap to the inner ring.

I do it this way because the drill and tap fixture I use is threaded and also butts to the front of the receiver face....I have insurance that the scope mounts then are aligned with the barrel.

Original milsurp barrels are often threaded hard against the inner ring...it works!!

Most guys will torque the barrel up against the C-Ring (that’s why its there) and either let the barrel shoulder just touch the receiver or even leave a very slight gap. You’ll find guys doing it both ways and each will have their theories and reasons on the way they choose to do it. I don’t believe there is any hard evidence to favor one way or the other as long as the barrel is seated evenly and square against the C-Ring and that joint is taking the majority of the torque.

It can be argued till the cows come home (and probably will be), but if you‘re using a commercial pre-threaded barrel chances are the threads are 60 degree US standard and not 55 degree Whitworth like those in your receiver.

They will screw together but you will not end up with as good a fit as if the threads were the same angle. You can single point the Receiver threads to 60 degrees or you can use one of the 60 degree Mauser taps that Brownells sells if you want to.

Plenty of Mausers have been barreled without doing this, but just thought you might like to make your own decision on what sort of thread fit you wanted to have on your rifle.

Great barrel choice though. Have never heard a bad word about a Lother-Walther barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by fyj:
Most guys will torque the barrel up against the C-Ring (that’s why its there) and either let the barrel shoulder just touch the receiver or even leave a very slight gap. You’ll find guys doing it both ways and each will have their theories and reasons on the way they choose to do it. I don’t believe there is any hard evidence to favor one way or the other as long as the barrel is seated evenly and square against the C-Ring and that joint is taking the majority of the torque.

It can be argued till the cows come home (and probably will be), but if you‘re using a commercial pre-threaded barrel chances are the threads are 60 degree US standard and not 55 degree Whitworth like those in your receiver.

They will screw together but you will not end up with as good a fit as if the threads were the same angle. You can single point the Receiver threads to 60 degrees or you can use one of the 60 degree Mauser taps that Brownells sells if you want to.

Plenty of Mausers have been barreled without doing this, but just thought you might like to make your own decision on what sort of thread fit you wanted to have on your rifle.

Great barrel choice though. Have never heard a bad word about a Lother-Walther barrel.

LW uses the correct 55 degree whitworth thread. I like mine to butt up against the inner "C" ring. I cut the secondary shoulder .002" long so that when the barrel is installed it just touches the receiver face.

Uncle Enfield,

That’s great to know. I never understood why the manufacturers didn’t offer Mauser barrels with Mauser threads.

If some one were to design a brand new action from scratch today where only 80% of the barrel face was in contact with the action, it was difficult to true up the barrel/action mating surface, and it is very common to measure several thousandths out of squareness on the overwhelming majority of actions made, he would be laughed off the internet in short order. Yet that is eaxactly what you have with a Mauser if you butt up against the C ring.

I square up the front ring and cut the barrel shank about .002 off the highest reading on the C ring after the threads have been seated.

Neither way is stronger or weaker than the other. Plus if I had to guess, the average .270 or belted magnum is loaded hotter than the average 9.3.

BTW-I cut 55° threads.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
If some one were to design a brand new action from scratch today where only 80% of the barrel face was in contact with the action, it was difficult to true up the barrel/action mating surface, and it is very common to measure several thousandths out of squareness on the overwhelming majority of actions made, he would be laughed off the internet in short order. Yet that is eaxactly what you have with a Mauser if you butt up against the C ring.

I square up the front ring and cut the barrel shank about .002 off the highest reading on the C ring after the threads have been seated.

Neither way is stronger or weaker than the other. Plus if I had to guess, the average .270 or belted magnum is loaded hotter than the average 9.3.

BTW-I cut 55° threads.

Marc,

That's pretty much what I had heard, that being no matter how square the outer ring was that if you crush fit the inner ring that it almost guarantees you'll end up not square. My concern was not accuracy but I didn't want to compromise the mauser strength. If that is not the case, then I'll go w/ the .002" shorter length for the inner ring and square off the face of the outer ring.

Thanks everyone for the quick replies!!!
GVA

probably doesn't make a hill of beans difference, though I do mausers off the inner flange, don't care if it's a "c" or an "h" shape. everything else, off the receiver face.. why mausers? 48,000,000 m98s and variants floating around out there, and the mauser brothers thought it was a good idea... i'll go with that one

jeffe

I’ve never found it to be a problem to set up the Mauser action in the lathe and get it indexed off a threaded mandrel, then remove the mandrel and square the face of the C-Ring to the threads so you get a good flush, and square mating surface for the barrel shank when the barrel is threaded in.

As jeffeosso pointed out, that’s how Paul Mauser designed the receiver and barrel to mate together so why not do what was intended?

Also, and probably a very minor consideration but nonetheless a valid one, why place a gap inside an area that can be subject to fouling and gunk and that will be absolutely impossible to clean out without removing the barrel?

quote:

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
If some one were to design a brand new action from scratch today where only 80% of the barrel face was in contact with the action, it was difficult to true up the barrel/action mating surface, and it is very common to measure several thousandths out of squareness on the overwhelming majority of actions made, he would be laughed off the internet in short order. Yet that is eaxactly what you have with a Mauser if you butt up against the C ring....

The only actions where I have found this to be the norm rather than the exception are on the Zastava & Spanish actions.

I seat on the inner ring & leave the thread shank .0015 to .002 long for a crush fit. Been doing it that way for over 30 years. If that way was good enough for Herr Mauser is sure as hell is good enough for me.

sorry I did not understand-which norm are you talking about? If you are referring to the out of square part-I have measuerd a lot of them from a lot of makers and if is very noteworthy to find one that is not out of square. If you are referring to something else, then I missed it-sorry!

THis has been debated forever and will be debated as long as folks rebarrel Mauser actions. I have yet to hear one advantage of barreling off the C ring. Just because it was done 48 million times does not make it right or wrong. It just means it was done 48 million times.

I was serious in my first post. If someone proposed an action and described it like I did, the people on this board would laugh their asses off about how stupid the idea is.

We do a lot of other things to Mausers that the inventor never envisioned. What difference does that make?

“I was serious in my first post. If someone proposed an action and described it like I did, the people on this board would laugh their asses off about how stupid the idea is.“

In my short time here, Mark, I have found just the opposite to be true.

Most people on this forum have expressed the belief that squaring or truing up an action prior to barreling to be a total waste of time except for a BR rifle.

In my opinion, the larger surface area of a C-Ring barrel shank mating is a far more stable surface than is possible with just the receiver ring and a tiny lip of a barrel shoulder alone, and any smith worth his salt has the ability to square those two surfaces where 100% contact is made when the barrel is tightened down.

As you correctly point out there is nothing inherently wrong with changing certain design features on a rifle, but in my opinion there should be a valid and well thought out reason for doing so.

Marc,
i think it winds up being 6 of 1, 1/2 a dozen of the other.

Doubt it makes a frog hair's difference in the grand scheme of things, for sporting rifles.



jeffe

If I had to wager, i would bet that on a hunting rifle in the field the difference between these 2 methods of barreling has exactly same impact of driving a black vs. grey truck to the deer lease.

But I will keep doing it the "right" way with my black truck parked outside the shop.

As has been said in the previous posts, there are lots of ways to do this. On my son's 308 I set up the barrel to equally contact the C ring and receiver face.

Started with a Yugo M48, faced the receiver off, made a C ring lapping tool per Steve Wagner's web site, www.gswagner.com/. Used a depth mic and verified that the distance between the receiver face and C ring was the same all the way around the C ring. Lapped the bolt lugs and bolt face. Was using a Parker Hale 308 barrel (26" length, straight taper about 1' in dia.)from Sarco that was chambered so removing metal from the receiver would have caused too much headspace just screwing the barrel on. Faced off enough of the barrel to get minimum headspace and then cut the barrel tenon to the same length as the distance between the C ring and receiver face.

Bedded the barreled action in a FA Enterprises stock (his choice of stock), welded on a new bolt handle, Timney trigger and he topped it with a Sightron 6.5 x 20 SSII side focus scope. Gun shoots very well, 1/2" groups at 100 yds with Nolser 155 comp bullets. Pop cans at 400 yards (farthest we can shoot at our range) is no problem until the wind is blowing hard and it is his favorite P-dog gun with hits at 500 yds plus. Not bad for $90 action and a $40 barrel.

Not going to say this is the only way to do it, but it worked for this gun.