The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Lug Set Back on 1898 Mauser ActionsGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Lug Set Back on 1898 Mauser Actions | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
Tell you what...all you guys that are scared to death of your ORIGINAL Mausers...please send them to me,,I'll take these worthless relics off your hands and pay postage . No "gunsmithed" actions please | |||
|
| One of Us |
Clemson Greetings from another Clemson.We are so few we must be kin. dave | |||
|
| one of us |
Could it be possible that one lug is carrying most of the load, therefore subjecting it to stresses beyond it's designed limits? Dave | |||
|
| One of Us |
'I am curious, how many of you have a military and/or original commercial 1898 Mauser action based rifle either showing bolt lug setback or no bolt lug setback? I am only interested in 1898 Mauser actions made before 1946' 'Tell you what...all you guys that are scared to death of your ORIGINAL Mauser's...please send them to me' Before the Internet the ORIGINAL MAUSER was a small ring/small shank type rifle, The STANDARD MAUSER was described as a large ring/large shank rifle. Today if I wanted a bolt that reduced head space I would be out of luck, today the bolt owner would ship it to me and expect me to 'try it out' or the owner would ship me a bucket of bolts in hopes one of the bolts in the bucket would off set head space as in + or -, I do not need another bolt, I need one that fits, in an attempt to help someone to correct head space on a rifle that had a receiver from there with a barrel that came from somewhere else and a bolt that came from a bucket of bolts I offered to check head space on his new creation by comparing the effect each bolt had on head space, the owner/builder of the new creation had 80 plus bolts, the problem? his period correct Rock Island 03 for the year 1911 had a straight handle, he had one straight handle, I have one straight handle plus 40 bent handles, he needed a bolt that would correct .0035 head space (his rifle had .0085 thousands head space), again I offered and then assured him we would not find a bolt that would correct (reduce) the head space. F. Guffey | |||
|
| One of Us |
Just to take the other side of the argument, wouldn't it be better to buy an action that already had a bit of setback. That way its over and done with and you don't have to worry about it much anymore. Of course, this might only be true if you are rebarreling as opposed to keeping the old barrel. I knew a gunsmith (now deceased) who rebarreled many mausers with a little lug setback. He always said that they were "good and wore in". | |||
|
| One of Us |
"Just to take the other side of the argument" I did not know this was an argument, in an argument there is no exchange of ideals and nothing is learned. Five magnificent Remington 03A3 were purchased and built into 5 magnificent 7mm 06 Ackley Improved type chambers (before the 280 Remington/Express), the man that built the rifles, with a little help made the reamer, when finished he went to the range and proceeded to fire form cases, of the first 10 cases fired 4 split or separated and he informed me I was me I was wrong because etc., etc.. I then responded with something like, had I been there before you left for the range I could have told you which rifle was likely to have head case separation and or had I met you at the range I could have corrected the problem after the first case head separation, in the real world that exchange of ideals is possible between two people that are not so vain they think they know it all, on the Internet? Yes, an argument would break out. And when someone quotes J. Hatcher I am not allowed to disagree so I claim I never read his books. To build with 'set back" is to not know hpw to build a rifle with .005 head space when the length of the case from the head of the case to it's shoulder is .000 or minimum length new store bought factory ammo or full length sized in a press. F. Guffey | |||
|
| One of Us |
You didn't already know that?  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Forgive, should have read something like "he informed me I was wrong...." F. Guffey | |||
|
| one of us |
Well, he was misinformed. In a case hardened action, like an original Mauser, setback means the case (hardened outer layer of steel) was not deep enough and was unable to withstand the pounding from the bolt lugs with the chambering being fired. If it is already set back, then there are pockets behind the lugs and the action will never be fit. Eventually, it will be extremely difficult to open the bolt, as the brass case will expand to fill the chamber and gap created by the setback (read excessive headspace). When the lugs set back the steel in the receiver, they have to ride over the pocket formed to get out of battery. Set back is never a good thing! | |||
|
| One of Us |
only if it gets more setback than it already was. | |||
|
| one of us |
Any degree of set back is bad and unacceptable. It means the lug seats have failed and will lead to balky functioning if not case head failure. It is impossible to determine safe headspace with setback. Once detected it needs to be corrected by lapping and re-hardening, or the receiver needs to be scrapped. Sure, you can keep shooting the rifle until you have to beat the bolt open with a hammer (or the receiver grenades from a case head separation), but that doesn't make it right. | |||
|
| One of Us |
With continued use (firing) do you really think the amount of setback will remain the same and not get worse? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Bobster; When did you see ir hear of a Mauser 98 "grenading" from a case head seperation. | |||
|
| one of us |
I have heard of it happening over the years. Even read an article years ago in a gun magazine. Quite rare, but it can happen. The problem is that if the rupture occurs on the right side of the bolt head, the gasses are constrained and don't have an easy way out. The extractor cut in the ring is a weak spot and the ring can fail there. Below are two pics of '93 and a '96 failure which demonstrate this. These are not my pics, but the authors claimed they were the result of case head separations. The remaining case body is clearly seen in the '93, plus atomized brass on the bolt head and inner receiver. Same kind of steel as the '98, although the '98 is a tad thicker. Drilling a gas vent hole in the right side of the ring would help relieve this pressure. In any event, you'd get gas and brass at the very least and possible action damage. It is just not worth the risk to shoot a gun with known setback IMHO.   | |||
|
| One of Us |
No argument on the 93/95's. The metal over the right bolt locking lug can look sometimes like a razor blade. The subject was 98 Mausers. The gas pushes out the largest thinest surface. point of interest the bolt stayed in with both lugs loose. Good luck! | |||
|
| One of Us |
I think it's time you quit; your intelligence is starting to shine through Jim Kobe 10841 Oxborough Ave So Bloomington MN 55437 952.884.6031 Professional member American Custom Gunmakers Guild | |||
|
| One of Us |
One more time, Original Mauser, Standard Mauser? The two terms are not interchangeable, the blown up receiver is an ORIGINAL Mauser, no gas escape system unless one is added and no third safety lug unless it is the only 'ORIGINAL MAUSER' that had a third safety lug feature, the receiver pictured with the top missing is a design feature of the rifle, the next generation Mauser, the Standard Mauser corrected the problem of the gas blowing back through the bolt and and past the cocking piece/bolt shroud and the Standard Mauser has the third safety locking lug Springfield had Hatcher with the Hatcher hole, Mauser had Mauser and there are those that think it is cute to chamber an ORIGINAL MAUSER to 308 W without the ability to measure set back of the bolt and or receiver because they use SAMMIE'S specification, meaning the case fits anywhere it touches the camber. F. Guffey | |||
|
| One of Us |
And the 03 Springfield receiver ring is the same diameter as the small ring 'ORIGINAL MAUSER" receiver, then when consideration is given to the diameter of the barrel shank, the receiver ring on the 03 is thinner than the receiver ring on the small ring Mauser, Browning/Winchester found nickel steel in 1894, Springfield could not fine Browning, Winchester or the patent office, it took them 20 plus years and browning/Winchester was just a short buggy ride down the pike in Conneticut F. Guffey | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
An intelligent person, such as most of the other posters on this thread, would say I disagree with your statement and here is why. A dickhead would say "I think its time you quit: your intelligence is starting to shine through." | |||
|
| One of Us |
dancing:   Jim Kobe 10841 Oxborough Ave So Bloomington MN 55437 952.884.6031 Professional member American Custom Gunmakers Guild | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Duane,If you find yourself with to many of them actions I will help you out and take the overruns.  I have done 30 or so and only seen this on a 95-96 and the owners told me they had noticed a problem after a reloading problem. I have 6 98s of my own from 22-250 to 35 Whelen and have not seen this happen.the 35 was made in Spandau 1918 i think. | |||
|
| One of Us |
F guffery; The Springfiel 03 had metal added over the right hand bolt lugs. Probably to avoid the problem with the 93 Mausers, While we are on the subject; the 98 Mauser is not a knockoff of the 98 Mauser. It is a combination of a Krag and a 93 Mauser. If you look for the differences between a 93 and a 98 none are present in the Springfield 03. Yes I know that gun writers alwayssay diferent but they all copy some early writer that had it wrong. Good luck! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Knew about the law suit and the award of some 100,000.00, but also read that we actually did not fork over any funds, in other words we did not pay the judgement?? | |||
|
| One of Us |
I believe the WWI declaration nullified/voided the settlement/payment terms of the lawsuit. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The stripper clip and guide is what we paid royalties on. The M1903 Springfield descended from the 93 Mauser and US Krag. PA Bear Hunter, NRA Benefactor | |||
|
| One of Us |
I hope no one misunderstood me, I do not make excuses for Springfield's bad behavior, they went through Germany and passed on the Mauser and returned with a pos called the Krag with one locking lug then they turned it into a rifle with no safety lug system. Then they built the 03, 800.000+ of them and even today we do not know if the next round fired through one of them will be our last.. Then after 26 years of Springfield building military rifles we went to war with the British designed M1917 on their equipment they set up with Winchester, Remington and Eddysttone, and all three found nickel 10 years before Springfield, I do not find it difficult to make excuses for Springfield I find it impossible. And I do not believe there is a more sillier augment than the one made by those that think Springfield did it all by themselves, again, they could not find the road to New Haven, they could not find nickel and they could not find the patent office. http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nica.html f, guffey | |||
|
| One of Us |
But their lugs don't set back!(VBG) Regards, Joe __________________________ You can lead a human to logic but you can't make him think. NRA Life since 1976. God bless America! | |||
|
| one of us |
The US Army rifle trials that resulted in the selection of the Krag occured in 1892. The Only Mausers submitted in the trial were based on the M1889. The M89 charger clips were balky and the action didn't handle the rimmed .30-40 as well as the Krag. Single loading was a key consideration at which the Krag excelled. The Mauser had trouble equaling the Krag rate of fire. Had the 1893 Mauser been available at the time and had the US gone with a rimless cartridge, things may have turned out differently. But that wasn't the case. The US Krag has a safety lug on the bolt body and the bolt handle engages a notch in the receiver. By my count that is two safety lugs. The US went to war with Springfields and M1917 Enfields because it was easier to convert existing Enfield production to .30-06 at three facilities than to convert them to Springfields. The Brits were about to cancel their contracts and it just made good sense. It was a wartime expediency. Springfield Armory produced weapons based on government orders. If we didn't have enough rifles for a war nobody foresaw, it certainly wasn't their fault. Besides, it gave us plenty of gunsmithing fodder when they were later suplused. Remington, Eddystone, and Winchester used nickle steel because that was what the Brits specified. At that time, there was no reason to suspect carbon steel couldn't get the job done. As has been discussed, properly hardened, it performs well. I guess the Germans were stupid too. They hung on to carbon steel until the close of WW2. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ladies and Gentlemen: And here we are again after four years. There is one myth that keeps being propounded as fact: "Mausers are made of low carbon steel." My research leads me to another conclusion: Mausers are made of a high strength low alloy, using Krupp forgings since 1898, and the barrels, receivers and bolts all have slightly different steel assays and hardness. Sincerely, Chris Bemis | |||
|
| One of Us |
http://thefiringline.com/forum...wthread.php?t=341348 J. D. Steele, the 03 may not of had bolt lug set back but they could have had a clue if when they fired up the receivers they would have included 1" square billets in the furnace made of the same metal they used in the 03 receiver,after cooling they could have hit the billets with a big hammer or crushed them in a press to determine yield pressure. Springfield was not accountable and they did not have a standard, again they manufactured 800.000 thousands + rifles that had the potential to fail, and they did not have a clue what temperature, day or batch was suspect or who was in control, if there was someone at the controls. The rifle that swarmed in the link above fired a steady diet of reduced loads, I am not a fan of reduced loads, I believe reduced loads are cute, I do not believe the rifle failed because of a double load of anything, I believe it failed because of sudden shock. and it was not the last round fired that destroyed the rifle but all the rounds fired before the last one. F. Guffey | |||
|
| One of Us |
F.Guffery; Please explain what "crushing" has to do with tensile strength?. Chance to learn somthing. | |||
|
| one of us |
There was a interesting piece written for Sporting Rifle Magazine in the Dec 2001 issue by Chris Bekker.It's in a column called "The view from the veld" on the 98 Mauser, Cartridge diameter, over all cartridge length and pressure. It is worth finding as it is a compelling read. Not trying to support any one side, I'm only adding fuel to the fire. | |||
|
| one of us |
There was a interesting piece written for Sporting Rifle Magazine in the Dec 2001 issue by Chris Bekker.It's in a column called "The view from the veld" on the 98 Mauser, Cartridge diameter, over all cartridge length and pressure. It is worth finding as it is a compelling read. Not trying to support any one side, I'm only adding fuel to the fire. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Lug Set Back on 1898 Mauser Actions
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia