Okay boys have a question I have a 1909 and had a douglas barrel screwed on it and I went with the 7mm Gibbs. What reading I have done most say to get them re-heat treated??? I know the Gibbs round are very high pressure I heard in the area of 60,000 psi?? Again that is what I heard. I have a buddy who has built 338 Gibbs, 270 Gibbs and 30 Gibbs on turk mauser with no worries. But I read on here if the cartridge is over 51,000 psi get it re-heat treated. So did I screw up or don't worry about it. I'm finally moving foward with this project and going to get the gun finally finished. I would really hate to have to buy another barrel for it LOL...

"all" 1909's are soft. have it heat treated or load it under 50K .. and that may not help, as some actions setback under factory conditions... its not much money to have it treated, but you may also have to have it refinshed, if its already blued/coated/etc

Not blued yet, thing is have to yank the barrel off and get my wife to send it off blah blah I know excuses. In the end might just end up pulling the barrel and finding another action and toss this one into the trash can. I got caught up in the " how glorious and great the 1909 is" in the end I should of just bought me a 59.99 turk or 119.99 vz24 and did this project oh well. Or just use the 1909 and build me 338-284 sounds like a good idea!

For chrisake, just have the blasted action heat treated and be done with it. It'll cost much more to have the barrel fitted to another action. Once all is said and done you'll be happy you used the 1909.

FYI, you'd have had to have the $59 Turk heat treated too.

quote:

toss this one into the trash can.

I will send you my trash can.

LOL yes dad... Don't know what I'm going to do...

Remember Ronald Reagan vs Jimmie? "There he goes again" Yet AGAIN the 1909 "soft" action has taken center stage...Jeez...when will this end? Some stumbler takes a reading on the underside of the action and proclaims "IT'S SOFT"

Where said strumbler CANNOT measure is the actual locking recess. 1909's were carburized in the locking recess. The old boys in Germany have forgotten more about carburizing that we in the "colonies" will ever know.

Yeah...yeah..yeah...some of you are going to give anecdotal proof of 1909 set back... I see it coming!

The bottom line is that if you feel better having a 1909 re-heat treated...go ahead. If I actually ever see a 1909 set back I'll do the same.
.

Thank you Duane!

anyone who doesn't HT a 1909 deserves it.. 75 bucks and 2 weeks turnaround? in a GIBBS caliber ..

we disagree, Duane, and you are more than welcome to your opinion. I wouldn't tie a 7mm gibbs at 65K psi to a tire and hide behind a string unless it was HT .. but that's just me, chickenlittle

Many instances of setback or lug imprinting can be traced to loose headspace, either in the rifle or the brass. This allows the bolt lugs to get a running start at their seats, often resulting in lug setback. Also I have actually tried to center-punch a military 1898 only to find that the skin was quite hard and it (the skin) actually indented down into the softer interior instead of cratering. I can see how this indenting could be described as lug setback even though the skin is hard. Food for thought.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Some stumbler takes a reading on the underside of the action and proclaims "IT'S SOFT"

Sounds like you might talking about the writer whose last name starts with a W. Met that person several years ago in his now home town. Ended up buying a Model 10 from him. Sorry different story. Anyway I had built a 280PDK Gibbs kind of a Gibbs + on a 1909 action. I know for a fact during my testing and the loads used by the current owner ran the pressure in the high range. It groups best just before head expansion. I metioned it to the writer and he made a comment about the 1909 being soft. Cause me concern. Anyway we pulled the barrel to check. After over at least 2000 hot rounds the action showed no sign of setback.

One action, one cartridge one set of data. If you have a doubt and it will make you feel better by all means HT.

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Many instances of setback or lug imprinting can be traced to loose headspace, either in the rifle or the brass. This allows the bolt lugs to get a running start at their seats, often resulting in lug setback. Also I have actually tried to center-punch a military 1898 only to find that the skin was quite hard and it (the skin) actually indented down into the softer interior instead of cratering. I can see how this indenting could be described as lug setback even though the skin is hard. Food for thought.
Regards, Joe

I am not a gunsmith. But I don't get this one.
Looking at a mauser action, it appears to me that when the gun is in battery (ready to fire) the lugs are pulled tight againt their seats by the spring and plunger that are in the bolt shroud. If headspace were too large (as I understand headspace) that would not change the fact that the lugs are still pulled against their seats by the plunger and spring. If the lugs were still pulled back against their seats I don't see how they could get a "running start" regardless of excess headspace.

The lugs aren't pulled tight any longer once the sear is released; there's (necessarily) a certain amount of back-&-forth movement that's possible. The force of the striker will drive the bolt forward to the max, overcoming the slight resistance of the bolt shroud spring, then the pressure of the firing cartridge will drive it back against the lug seats. If the headspace is a little loose for whatever reason then the battering is more likely to take place.

Same principle as the floating chamber in the Rem 550 and the Colt 22/45 conversio unit for the GM, the added weight of the bolt gives a much stronger force due to momentum. The increased momentum, when allowed to operate with a running start, will frequently result in lug setback in a questionable receiver. This lug setback is most commonly seen in the top lug seat, the ejector split in the bolt lug usually leaves a clear imprint. Sometimes this imprinting is so deep that it can even cause a distinct 'click' as the bolt is cycled into and out of battery.

I have felt this 'click' in an otherwise-very-nice rifle, and my old heart just sank.....
Regards, Joe

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Remember Ronald Reagan vs Jimmie? "There he goes again" Yet AGAIN the 1909 "soft" action has taken center stage...Jeez...when will this end? Some stumbler takes a reading on the underside of the action and proclaims "IT'S SOFT"

Where said strumbler CANNOT measure is the actual locking recess. 1909's were carburized in the locking recess. The old boys in Germany have forgotten more about carburizing that we in the "colonies" will ever know.

Yeah...yeah..yeah...some of you are going to give anecdotal proof of 1909 set back... I see it coming!

The bottom line is that if you feel better having a 1909 re-heat treated...go ahead. If I actually ever see a 1909 set back I'll do the same.
.[/QUOT

The late Frank DeHaas said that the strength of a mauser action comes from its design, not heat treating. And yes, he thought some were made from inferior steels which made them less than desireable.

I've been shooting 1909 actions with full strength loads for over 50 years and have had absolutely no problems.

And just how much additinal "strength" does re-heat treating provide anyway? Anyone actually meassure that? Now surface wear would be a whole nuther matter! That's why the things were heat treated to begin with, wasn't it?

As for the jumbo big boomers everyone is so fond of discussing. I'd just as soon have a modern mauser action anyway without the loading notch and stripper clip slot. These weaknesses consern me more than set back from a soft action?

If the so-called "experts" did some real research, I bet they could find the real reasons some actions set back. And I'm willing to bet it has nothig to do with the action being "soft"!

The bottom line is that if you feel better having a 1909 re-heat treated...go ahead. If I actually ever see a 1909 set back I'll do the same.

X-2

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
If I actually ever see a 1909 set back I'll do the same.
.

Here are the lug seats of an otherwise mint 1909.

quote:

If the so-called "experts" did some real research, I bet they could find the real reasons some actions set back. And I'm willing to bet it has nothig to do with the action being "soft"!

The main contributing factor is always a 'headspace' problem, as this provides the opportunity for the backthrust to gain momentum to slam the cartridge case backwards, rather than just pushing the whole system back in harmony. A hot-load would naturally exacerbate this situation. If the metal is soft, then that would come into the 3 rd slot. This means that if an action is considered 'soft', but with a perfect headspace and a normal load, there would not be a serious problem if ever. Big Bores are more prone to lug setback due to the greater power of the cartridge and the greater area of a bigger caliber that is affected.

Warrior

Just an FYI for those that feel Heat treating is for surface wear.
The real issue is that we don't know for sure what some of these actions are made of.
So a case hardening process is the best one to use. Now as far as case hardening goes it adds a tremendous amount of strength in terms of yield and tensile.
Yield strength can be increased up to 300% and tensile can be increased up to 200% from an as rolled piece from the foundry. Now these properties will not give you the strongest rifle action. They may in fact yield a very brittle action. So it's best to leave the selection of properties to the heat treater.
Either way a properly heat treated action will have added strength the question is was that extra strength even needed in the first place?

I have often wondered whether one could weld up the area of seat setback and recut it, or even better yet, cut down the lug seats and weld in a piece of very wear resistant hard steel. The same sort of theory as bushed firing pins?



( Posted 20 October 2009 16:58 Hide Post
The lugs aren't pulled tight any longer once the sear is released; there's (necessarily) a certain amount of back-&-forth movement that's possible. The force of the striker will drive the bolt forward to the max, overcoming the slight resistance of the bolt shroud spring, then the pressure of the firing cartridge will drive it back against the lug seats. If the headspace is a little loose for whatever reason then the battering is more likely to take place.)

Could one say then that this is the one great weakness of the mauser action system?

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
I have often wondered whether one could weld up the area of seat setback and recut it, or even better yet, cut down the lug seats and weld in a piece of very wear resistant hard steel. The same sort of theory as bushed firing pins?

Then the weak point becomes the bolt lugs. It's the law of diminishing returns. The more you dump in the less you get out.
You could build an action so strong that the primers would vaporize on every shot and have zero damage to you or the gun but it would be so heavy that you couldn't hunt with it. And the throat would be shot in about five rounds. kinda like rapid firing a 220 swift.

Westpac
A prime example, brilliant pic to post!!!!!! I have had the lugs seats set back on a couple early projects (1980-83). I corrected the seats and lugs and had those actions Re-heat-treated, set back the barrels, etc (non had Iron sights) and have never had them move again. This would include two 1909's, one Radome. I have familiar with two other FN's and two VZ-24's that set back dramatically and were shot with factory loads only. I have seen a half dozen commercial Oberndorf's one set back so far it required .025 of metal removed form the lugs and seats to true it up again. Three of these were chambered for older British cartridges.
I can not think of one client of mine that loads ammo for himself that does not try to milk every last bit of velocity they can out of the cartridge that the 98 is chambers for, well except the guys getting the Gibbs.

quote:

Originally posted by DArcy_Echols_Co:
I can not think of one client of mine that loads ammo for himself that does not try to milk every last bit of velocity they can out of the cartridge that the 98 is chambers for, well except the guys getting the Gibbs.

I can't think of one client of anyone's who doesn't try that.

The last 1909A I had was set back, and it had the original military barrel still on it when I got it. I've had others with set-back too. All great looking on the outside, and all gone now. There are too many other good choices out there for me to mess with one ever again.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
Could one say then that this is the one great weakness of the mauser action system?

Well, 'great weakness' is perhaps a little extreme IMO. All, repeat ALL, actions with which I'm familiar are subject to this phenomenon to one degree or another unless precautions are taken. The usual remedy is to set up the barrel-to-bolt dimension such that the bolt has only a short forward travel possible when locked. I've seen recommendations of clearance dimensions from 0.005" to 0.010" for bolt guns and this seems a little loose but barely reasonable to me, more reasonable for DGRs.

OTOH I usually build my single-shots to a much tighter clearance dimension, usually try for less than 0.001" clearance on target or varmint rifles and 0.005" on sporters. Main reason is that I usually build on older SS actions from the late 19th century and they are weaker inside the steel, even when re-cased on the outside skin.

Gotta make it clear that I'm NOT talking about the actual cartridge headspace dimension here, my reference is to the breechbolt forward-&-backward movement that's possible when unloaded.
Regards, Joe

Were these 1909 actions with problems DWM or AFGA or whatever that is in S.A? Everyone I know considers the DWM M1909 Argentine the Cadillac, right up there with Standard Modells.

I've built rifles using both the DWM and the FMAP actions. From a quality standpoint I saw no difference between the 2. Some guys just gotta have the German markings on their custom. Nice, but I can live without them.

I consider the heat treat to be inexpensive insurance, it's worth it.

Everyone I've ever heard of having trouble was a DWM. I've owned several but never had any trouble with mine. I'm a pretty conservative re-loader though.

Terry

Here is where I wish Pete Grisel could wade in. It seems when he "blew up" 98's with original heat treating...there was no damage to a plywood barrier directly behind the action.


Different story with re heat treated actions. Came apart like a bomb!...damage to barrier mentioned above.

For my part, I usually leave them alone...but I told you...someone would come up with anecdotal "evidence" of 1909 set back. I was not disappointed.

Look at some of Ackley's experiments and you'll see just about every acion style ever made "fail" under the right circumstances. Of peculiar note,...the Jap Arisaka kinda of put others into "second" place

IMO it all depends upon the heat-treater. Ackley himself recommended having actions re-heat-treated, but many actions require different treatments because they're made of different materials. Not all heat-treaters know everything they need to know about this...

You can call the 1909 evidence anecdotal if you like but I prefer the term empirical (empiric: having to do with or derived from actual fact or experience. from Webster's). 98s are not particularly strong actions to begin with and some in particular need all the help they can get, instead of pushing the handloading and recoil support envelopes. JMOFWIW.
Regards, Joe

I have seen a few 1909 actions with set back. You can find set back in several different M98's if you check.

I am with Duane on this think people make too much on the ReHT of actions.

My question is has anyone seen a MK 10 action with set back? I believe that they are made of a very good alloy and very tuff. They are about like the Jap actions if you study the steel used in these action.

I know of a rifle I made and set back in 1961 in 243 win. that has set back, but is not passed the no go gage. I check the action often to see if it has changed. No change can be found using factory loads since 1961.

Duane
Trust me I am not trying to sling any mud around here. Lord knows you have been at this longer than I have. However I have seen all to often a case of set back in many Mausers. I know of one commercial sqaure bridge magnum Oberndorf that was over-loaded with 4064 instead of 7828 and it blew the action to bits, sent the barrel down range, turned the scope into a satellite and drove the bolt through the driver side door of a new Ford pick up. The client was OK however the action did not bend and "protect" the shooter from certain doom. To this I will add that I once stocked a pair of Grisel Small ring Mausers as well. Both actions were chambered before I got them, Hell my job was to stock them. Out of curiosity I had them Rockwell as they were very easy to file. If I remembered correctly they registered between 29-30 RW-C, which I thought was pretty soft. I even called Pete to inquire if this was a standard RW hardness and he responded "yes". Both were made from C/M. Both were chambered for 270 Winchesters. The pair was split up and one of the pair went all over the world hunting. I got the traveler back years later to clean and service and it had set back so much the no go gage rattled into battery, I called Pete and told him and he felt the owner was shooting hot loads but very well might be helped by increasing the RW hardness. I had it re-hardened to 40 RW C, I cleaned up the lugs and seats and re-barreled it. To date it hasn't moved a bit. I only believe what I can see, and I'm still skeptical for what its worth.

LesBrooks: You are so right! In about 1970, I visited the Morgen UT facility of Browning...Sorta had an "in" since my Father in Law (contractor) built the office complex.

At any rate, one of the engineers didn't have much regard for two cartridges...the 243 Win and the 264 Win Mag. Claimed pressures were "off the map"

While he swore me to secrecy on this conversation, I'm sure he's long retired and I can feel free to break the code of silence.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:

Yeah...yeah..yeah...some of you are going to give anecdotal proof of 1909 set back... I see it coming!.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
..but I told you...someone would come up with anecdotal "evidence" of 1909 set back. I was not disappointed.

Jesus, Duane, PICTURES aren't anecdotal ...
"based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation:"

Pictures of broken actions are PROOF.. imperical, not subjective, but your mind is made up .. Pictures mean "oh, heck, i was wrong" .. not "i still don't agree and I was right"

You argue like my wife

I need a vacation

quote:

Pictures of broken actions are PROOF.. imperical, not subjective, but your mind is made up .. Pictures mean "oh, heck, i was wrong" .. not "i still don't agree and I was right"

Yep Westpac posted a picture of an action with setback. I know I overloaded one often and saw no setback. Both are one piece of data. Some can have setback some don't. Others have posted they have seen setback in other 98s as well. So should all 98s be HT? Sorry one or two pieces of dat out of the 1000s of actions in use doesn't prove it either way to me.

But heck what do I know.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
I need a vacation

Bon voyage!

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:
Here are the lug seats of an otherwise mint 1909.

Westpac, what's the story on that action?

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
I need a vacation

Bon voyage!

Thanks Duane.. i knew i could count on your support.. seriously.. we can disagree, but it don't mean much, does it?

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

If the so-called "experts" did some real research, I bet they could find the real reasons some actions set back. And I'm willing to bet it has nothig to do with the action being "soft"!

The main contributing factor is always a 'headspace' problem, as this provides the opportunity for the backthrust to gain momentum to slam the cartridge case backwards, rather than just pushing the whole system back in harmony. A hot-load would naturally exacerbate this situation. If the metal is soft, then that would come into the 3 rd slot. This means that if an action is considered 'soft', but with a perfect headspace and a normal load, there would not be a serious problem if ever. Big Bores are more prone to lug setback due to the greater power of the cartridge and the greater area of a bigger caliber that is affected.

Warrior

wrong on so many levels
headspace in military rounds, is ALWAYS positive.. which mean EVERY round has a running start.. if that matters.

next, you are talking about BOLT THRUST not headspace issues... bolt thrust is easy .. surface area in inch* PSI of round .. ((473/2*.473/2)*pi)*psi is bolt thrust for a .473 round .. ALL .473 rounds, at say 62K psi, have the same bolt thrust.. as well as ALL .532 casehead rounds, at 62000 PSI, have the same bolt thrust.. 264 to 470capstick, 138xx psi of bolt thrust

so BULLOCKS that big bores have more bolt thrust .. its MATH.. only larger casehead have larger thrust..

if one takes a 7STW, at 65Kspi and compares to a 470 capstick, and 62,500, the capstick has LESS bolt thrust..

a 7stw at 65 vs a 708 at 65, the 7stw has MORE bolt thrust.. can't escape math.

Further, its POSSIBLE that a mauser could have a loose bolt.. possible.. but since all headpsace is +.00x, then "all" rounds have a running start, and all milsurp actions are "beat up" from it.. or, in otherwords BULLOCKS .. only custom guns have nill headspace.... and all the custom guns ever made don't count for 1% of the milsurp guns, enfields, mausers, aks, and m16s ... in other words, statistically insignificant.

oh, yeah, you'll trot a picture out, but some of our master craftsmen say the odd picture is not really proof (sorry for the dig)

quote:

Originally posted by ForrestB:

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:
Here are the lug seats of an otherwise mint 1909.

Westpac, what's the story on that action?

A fellow brought it in saying he could no longer open the bolt. Say's the bolt got harder to open with each shot. Duh!

If I didn't know better, or, was a staunch worshiper of Paul Mauser, I would almost believe he designed that action to do just that. Allow the bolt to seat itself just deep enough into the receiver to lock some idiot out thereby preventing him from hurting himself. Ol' Paul, he sure was clever!