Answer; the 1891. Smoothest operating and smoothest feeding of any Mauser. Here is an Argentine 91, in 450 Bushmaster with factory Ruger barrel, and Boyds stock. I did this one for a friend for pigs.
Making it feed with the fat rounds is done by altering the magazine IAW my secret proprietary process, which I will sell for $8000. Or I will post a picture in case anyone is interested. It is not just opening up the box.
Anyway, this is my friend John holding it; his pig rifle has a Zombie green stock and blood red metal.

Mainly smooth because it feeds from a single column magazine. Nice rifle, neglected caliber. I have an 1891 Engineers Mannlicher carbine in original caliber of 7.65, really neat little rifles. All matching too. I had one also in the Cavalry model, but sold it and sorry I did.

Absolutely slick. The only rifle I have that compares to it is my 7x57 Portuguese Vergueiro. It’s like butter smooth!

Don't forget the Mauser 66 for slick and the Krag if you think its close enough to a Mauser!

I've seen some mighty smooth Mannlichers.

None of those are Mausers. I said, Smoothest Mauser. I knew someone would mention Verguerio... And Mauser 66; somewhat of a price differential from a cut down 91, which people often just give me.
Try to make a Krag feed a 450 BM and let me know how that went.
Actually a great round for the 91 is the 35 Remington. Feeds as is.
Nothing wrong with the 7.65, except, boring...

Everybody should have a rifle with an $8000 magazine.

The Mauser-type action consists of a turning bolt with locking lugs at the front. How about Infanterie-Gewehr 71/84, that's a Mauser action, although a Mannlicher type. You know the 91 Argentine action quite different from the Mausar 98. No claw extractor and not third safety lug. Also the bolt release is different. LOL

The single shot 1871 Mauser is/was by far, smoother than the 1891.

71s are more Mannlicher than Mauser. Did I know that the 91 is different from a 98? No, I know nothing about them. I use the 91 for everything. Here is another 450 BM I did; No idea what kind of action this is. It was a mint Army rifle that I busted down.

dpcd I wasn't saying you didn't know anything about the 91, sorry you took that wrong. Isn't the Mauser "most" defined by the front two locking lugs on the bolt? Mauser did design that 71/84 even though it's a Mannlicher type. He designed it before his 90 series Mausers. Maybe if you would have stated "the 91 Mauser is one of the smoothess rifles of the 90 series of Mauser rifles" I wouldn't have said a thing.

91s are pretty cool .. i was a teen and my dad gave me a 91 in 308 -- it killed a bunch of things

Jeff basically the original round for the 1891 the 7.65x53or54 is the equivalent of the 308. So is the 7.5 French and the 7.62x54R Russian.

I have seen a couple 91's in .308.
Barrel set back and rechambered?
As the .308 is higher pressure than the original round, is the 91 stronger than people think? Or the larger bore reduces the pressure of the .308?

The 7.65 Argentine was loaded to about max 45k PSI. And while the Mausers of the period were made like fine sporting rifles, the steel and heat treatment is made for that pressure. Is the 91 stronger than we think? It is not weak, it is soft. Sure, some guys have chambered them for 308, either with a new barrel, or set the ole one back, and have fired them 3 times a year to kill a deer, but they are risking setting the lugs back. As with some 1909 Argentine, the receivers are soft. Bolts are hard.
They were made at Lowe, Berlin, because Mauser was in an exclusive contract with the Turks.
Yes, the current CIP spec for 7.65 ammo is like 56K psi, but do not use that in a 91.
Now, I have fired hundreds of 7.62 NATO and 308 rounds through 7.65 Mausers, but only on a 1909. You get two shoulders. This was on the M60 range where we had ammmo by the truck load.
Anyway, don't shoot 308 in those 91s; you will ruin the receivers sooner or later. I limit the 91 to below 45K psi things.

Tom you're not correct on what manufacturer made 1891's. Rather than post from different sites you may want to read this:

https://www.gunboards.com/thre...uction-dates.272571/

I've been dealing with 1891's since 1975. I'm also going to tell you that the ammo made by Argentina for their 1909 7.65 caliber is much hotter then the ammo made for the 1891 rifles/carbines.

I am happy and admire you the 1891's are soft and it's not a good idea to chamber for modern high pressure rounds such as the 308. Also I'd like to mention that there is a difference between commercial 308 Winchester and the 7.62x51 NATO..................So can you shoot 7.62×51 in the same rifles as .308 Winchester? And vice-versa?
Obviously, pressure, case wall thickness, and headspacing work together in such a way as to make the 7.62×51 NATO and the .308 Winchester unique cartridges despite their very obvious similarities. So, the natural question is this: can you shoot 7.62 ammo through a .308-chambered firearm? Is the reverse possible? The short answers to these questions are “yes” and “maybe”.

The vast majority of rifles, carbines, and pistols chambered in .308 Winchester can safely sling 7.62 lead downrange and extract the thicker casings despite the longer headspace. That said, we wouldn’t make a habit of it. Doing the opposite is a bit more complicated.

7.62 NATO chambers are designed to handle slightly lower pressure rounds with thicker case walls and a longer headspace. This means that when you pull the trigger, 7.62×51 brass expands less outwardly but farther toward the chamber. When you switch this out with a .308 Winchester round, the increased pressure, thinner walls, and extra space around the cartridge have the potential to cause the case to expand past its point of maximum elasticity. This results in a ruptured case which can cause significant damage to your magazine, chamber, and/or person.

While most modern 7.62×51-chambered firearms are specced to safely handle .308 cartridges, older NATO-chambered guns are not. This means throwing .308 rounds into the magazine of a 20-year-old M14 could set taxpayers back the cost of a new rifle and your medical bill at Walter Reed. If you have a newer 7.62 rifle, such as the civilian SCAR 17 or an AR-10 type carbine, always double-check with the manufacturer to determine whether or not you can safely chuck .308 rounds downrange. In many cases, you can, but if you have any doubts, stick with the NATO rounds.

quote:

Originally posted by shootermetal:
Jeff basically the original round for the 1891 the 7.65x53or54 is the equivalent of the 308. So is the 7.5 French and the 7.62x54R Russian.

I think I have had them all.. just discovered a 440rd tin of ,54r in the shop yesterday.. it's been hiding for st least 20 years

I was a kid,no one knew any better, and had no meaningful issues with it... didn't reload 308 back then, as it was basically free

Killed everything from pigs to possums

Jell all the ones I mentioned I have or had at one time. My first 7.65 Argentine Mauser was the Cavalry carbine. That one was made by Lowe. Friend at work said he had a rifle for sale for something like $25 dollars. I said bring it in someday. He did and went out to parking lot to look at it. He said it was a 7x57 Mauser and had a box of shells some fired. He said something was funny with it. Pull a 7x57 fired shell that he had fired in it. You know what that 7mm case fired out of a 7.65 Argentine mauser rifle would look at. I told him the rifle wasn't a 7x57 Mauser that hell I would even give him $15 for it. He said I'll take it!!! That's how I got it. Done research and found out it was a 7.65 Argentie carbine. Very desirable today. I had told that carbine and years later bought another carbine, but this time it was the Engineer's carbine. There were three carbines: Police, Cavalry, Engineers. The different is the Engineer carbine has bayonet bands on the forend, not good looking in my opinion. The Cavalry has not bayonet attachment. To be honest I don't know what the Polic carbine is or how it differents. I would say it doesn't have a bayonet attachment, but what makes it different than the other two? Perhaps that it was issued to the Police? I shot the prunes out of that Cavalry carbine. Even hunted groundhogs with it. The engineer carbine I presently have is pretty mint.

I have 6 1891 actions here; 5 are marked Loewe, 1 is DWM.
I think that guy in the link got his wires crossed. Loewe owned a majority stake in Mauser Werke since 1887. And in 1896, Loewe Founded DWM. They also owned a large interest in FN.
So, how could DWM make rifles for Loewe before they existed?

i duno but th3e ones made in say 1936 or so are awfully nice

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I have 6 1891 actions here; 5 are marked Loewe, 1 is DWM.
I think that guy in the link got his wires crossed. Loewe owned a majority stake in Mauser Werke since 1887. And in 1896, Loewe Founded DWM. They also owned a large interest in FN.
So, how could DWM make rifles for Loewe before they existed?

I don't care if you own 100 of them. You can't always be right Tom, face. I'm trying not to fight or argue with you so here's the proof in a picture okay? This is my 1891 Engineers Carbine There you see the proof that DWM made right after the Lowe plant stopped making them. You have an FFL. Any firearm made before 1898 is considered an antique. The 1891's that are stamped on the receivers LOWE are antiques. The DWM ones, such as in my pic here, are not antiques,but Curio & Relics. We good now Tom?

Yes, DWM did not make the 91 until 1899. I have one in the S block, which was 1899.
Still not sure what your point was when you said I was wrong on what manufacturer made them.... I forgot DWM even though I have one.
I was just trying to show guys what I make from the 91 actions.

quote:

Originally posted by Uncle Grinch:
Absolutely slick. The only rifle I have that compares to it is my 7x57 Portuguese Vergueiro. It’s like butter smooth!

That's nice.

I always wondered what Tom looked like. Thought this was him, only to realize it was not....it was his friend instead! ugh! I got my hopes up too soon!

I have an Orbendorf Mauser chambered to a 30-06. It may not be the "smoothest", but it sure does sound cool when it is cycled

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Yes, DWM did not make the 91 until 1899. I have one in the S block, which was 1899.
Still not sure what your point was when you said I was wrong on what manufacturer made them.... I forgot DWM even though I have one.
I was just trying to show guys what I make from the 91 actions.

Not important Tom, we're still friends. I love the little carbines, they kick hard too with those steel buttplates.

Smooth? Reeally analyze the feeding sequence of a genuine 98. Note the extractor for starts...See the "step" Well, the front part already has a grip on the case as soon as the round moves forward...The ring. measured across the lug recess is close enough so the extractor cannot move out of the extractor groove.

As the round moves further forward, the "step " built onto the extractor no lopngr is in close proximity to the R. side of the ring...the extractor now had an almost complete grip of the case, since the groove in the case has now risen into and behind the exractor hook.

About the time the nose of the cartridge is safely in the chamber mouth, further forward movement, the round is completely chambered.

You will note that the there is abut 1MM clearance for the extractor at the ring...In other words, the receiver has been brached "two step" to allow a single feed to be chambered The process is 100% contolled round feeding


I have not seen a single "modern" so called 98 that has this "two step" broaching, Some...such as Brevex actions will produce a hopeless jam with a single round feed...Some other modeern 98's go with the wider broach....a safer and more logical alternative...just not 100% 98

OK...I am fully aware that not ALL 98's will single feed "off the shelf" Tom Burgess advised that in the olden days, the cartridge itself was beveled to easily allow single feed.

Since we have to live with "progress, a very simple change to the leading edge of th angle of the extractor hook puts you back in business

Point is that with the CRF engineered in the original 98 design, it will never feed as "smoothly" as a mannlicher with their split bridge and almost full length guide rib and small extractor...It's like comparing apples to oranges

Not a hi-jack but a slight side question....I have a Vergueiro with a '09 Argy barrel in 7.65x53 Improved ( didn't have a 7.65 reamer so cleaned up the chamber with a 308 reamer ).....my question is, How strong are these Portuguese actions ??



..an old in progress shot, BRNO stock modified to fit...

Roger

You know the Japanese even made a slight improvement on the the Mauser action. The Type 38 and Type 99 are not copied after the 98 Mauser, they are more compied off the 93 Mauser. What's the improved you ask? Well on the Mausers that started using the "claw" extractor, the left (or 9 o'clock) lug is split to allow the ejector to slide through. This weakens the lug. What the Japanese did is they put another lug directly behind that lug and if you look at it closely it and a little slot in it that looks like a champaqe glass. That is to "funnel" the ejector through it and the lugs purpose is to raise the ejector some to be able to go through the reduced slot in the left locking lug. In other works the Japanese didn't cut the ejector slot in the left lug as deep as Mauser did. If any of you ever wondered what the little notch out of the stock on the right hand side up along side the front receiver ring is, that you can kind of see down under the action a little, that's a "mud groove" to drain water and mud out that gets under the barreled action like going through a swamp. The root of their bolt handle was their third safety backup lug.

PO Ackley did some interesting tests and indeed the Jap action came out with high marks on gas handling.

The bolt handle root is interesting... note that Satterlee actions, for instance, incopporates the root that now acts as an additonal safety lug,

Many metalsmsiths do the same when modifying a 98 bolt handles

quote:

Originally posted by shootermetal:
You know the Japanese even made a slight improvement on the the Mauser action. The Type 38 and Type 99 are not copied after the 98 Mauser, they are more compied off the 93 Mauser. What's the improved you ask? Well on the Mausers that started using the "claw" extractor, the left (or 9 o'clock) lug is split to allow the ejector to slide through. This weakens the lug. What the Japanese did is they put another lug directly behind that lug and if you look at it closely it and a little slot in it that looks like a champaqe glass. That is to "funnel" the ejector through it and the lugs purpose is to raise the ejector some to be able to go through the reduced slot in the left locking lug. In other works the Japanese didn't cut the ejector slot in the left lug as deep as Mauser did. If any of you ever wondered what the little notch out of the stock on the right hand side up along side the front receiver ring is, that you can kind of see down under the action a little, that's a "mud groove" to drain water and mud out that gets under the barreled action like going through a swamp. The root of their bolt handle was their third safety backup lug.

I'll tell you another interesting thing, I know on the type 38, but not sure on the Type 99, and that's some of the bolt handles are hollow. I found that out from my friends at E.R. Shaw. I'm sure you've heard Ackley tried to blow up a 6.5 Japanese and couldn't, well there's another one he tried to blow up and believe it or not that is the Italian Carcano.

Ackley tried to blow up a 6.5 Arisaka that had been rechambered to 30-06; the guy was killing deer with it; the 30 caliber bullets just squeezed down to 6.5mm. Ackley loaded some hot loads only succeeded in stripping the barrel threads; action was intact.
In 1968 a friend of mine found a Type 99 in the trash dump. I hand loaded some rounds stuffed full of the fastest powder I had; no issues noted.
Another one that is practically impossible to blow up is the Mosin. Not sure what all this has to do with the 91 Argentine though.
Here is a Mosin I altered; done several of these.
500 S&W. Move bolt handle, top mount scope.

Tom not to knock your Mosin, which is very nice, but this is the slickest sporter I've ever seen made from a Mosin

Speaking about blowing Japanese rifles up the American Riflman tried to blow up a Type 99 in 7.7 caliber buy soldering a bullet to the case mouth and loading a full case of Bullseye through the primer flash hole and putting a primer in it. It blew the barrel out of the rifle and blew the extractor off the bolt. One of the guys testing it, put a new extractor on the bolt and built the action into a benchrest rifle. I had a friend that tried blowing up a Polish round receiver M44 Mosing with bulleyes and couldn't do it, but he was using steel cases. A gun club wanting to teach member's kids aobut the safety or reloading hired a gun writer to blow an Italian Carcano up. Couldn't do it with bullesyes so they had the police bomb squad blow it with C4.

.....and the Vergueiro ??

Roger

In my opinion it's not the type of action, but the locking lugs on the bolt and the front receiver ring that are the important strenght componants of a rifle. Lug size and material, ring size and material.

With the first hand experience I have had blowing up several different types of guns with Bullseye, I have a hard time believing that anything withstood a full case load.

Guess that's another spring project to add to the list.

quote:

Originally posted by yumastepside:
.....and the Vergueiro ??

Roger

From the testing I have done using Quickloads and PressureTrace pretty much every action tested (so far) has held up to pressures high enough to start liquifying brass. There might be damage or noticeable effects, but the action held.

When we blew up the Gewehr 88 (a chinese mfg one) which the 1904 Mauser Vergueiro has many similar design aspects, we couldn't seem to damage it. A full case of 32 grains of Bullseye, approximately 110,000 psi (from memory), removed the entire top receiver ring and completely evaporated the first approximately 5" of barrel.

A big bang.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1_0lbJxo3k