Im looking at a DWM mauser that has been ground to small ring dimensions, unknown who did the work. I have never owned one, anything to look out for?

Somebody on AR was doing this. I think it was Nathaniel Myers (FAL Grunt). He may have not exactly been doing large ring to small ring, but he was contouring them down significantly IIRC. Might do a search. I think his contact info is on his profile and he might give you some pointers. HTH.

I am far from expert. I am not a metallurgist. I have owned many Kar98A WWI carbines that were factory small ring 98's with large ring threads. There is not a whole lot of meat left between the inner "C" ring and the locking lugs. Too thin in my opinion except for very mild cartridges, VERY Mild!

I knew a few guys who turned down Turk 38 mausers to small ring dimensions and even welded square bridges on them and did not have them heat treated afterward. Turk mausers were large 98's with small ring barrel threads. This is a far better choice for making a small ring 98, but I would have it heat treated after grinding.

I would pass on the M1909 ground to a small ring.

ETA: I am assuming the DWM was an m1909. I realize it could also have come off a Gew 98 among others.

I have a picture somewhere of a Dressel Mauser that now looks like an A-Bolt Browning.

I have opinions .. and those are meaningless -

but, nah, for me.. hard pass, unless it's cheap and in 7x64

I have Oberndorf receivers ground to small ring, but leaving the pad on top original. For sale. Banner on bridge. PM me if you want one. $200.

I think we all would like to see a pic of that dpcd. Sounds interesting.

How does changing a large-ring to small-ring affect strength and design integrity? I've heard that the German Mausers' steel was reasonably soft inside but hard outside, causing them to balloon up if loaded to destruction, rather than flying to pieces.

Who knows? Plenty around here that got built into rifles, without issue, back in the 70s and 80s. No magnums.
They didn't make the thread undercut like on some Kar98s. (small ring German WW1).
How strong are they? Please, no one answer that; it just leads to 17 pages of guesses and unproven theories. Not going to be the cause of that.

OK- they exist. But..
Why?

If you have a LR, why would you want it smaller? Weight reduction can't be much, at 0.289 lb/cubic inch.

quote:

Originally posted by Dulltool17:
OK- they exist. But..
Why?

If you have a LR, why would you want it smaller? Weight reduction can't be much, at 0.289 lb/cubic inch.

It allows for a slimmer stock.

Not for me, I would just buy a Brno mod. 21 or other existing small ring..I agree with Sambarman in that a Large ring Mauser has a case hardened skin and soft underneath and hardened locking lugs..A smaller stock?, well yes, but only by a silly milimeter and the same thing can be accomplished by a cabinet rasp to the wood.

I would think that if one softened the action cut it to small ring specs then re-hardened it to specs it would work, but wouldn't swear to it..If all this was fine and dandy I would think it would become a common practice, would it not?

I know some Large rings have been softened and trimmed or perhaps surface ground and re-hardened to correct temp.???? Just food for thought..

Never done it, but occurs to me that one could leave re enforcement at the extractor slot as in Springfield and Enfield???

Small ring configuration with that might look kind of neat.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Never done it, but occurs to me that one could leave re enforcement at the extractor slot as in Springfield and Enfield???

Small ring configuration with that might look kind of neat.

Yeah. If I was to do it, I think I would try that. I have an old Turkish mauser rolling around here some where. I give it a try. Regards, Bill.

You don't have to do it on a Turk; it would be more beneficial on a large thread one.
Unless just for looks.

The one I was looking at looks very similar to the one dpcd posted. Thanks for all the input but I think I will look for something else, not knowing who did the work and exactly what was done makes me a little nervous-

I will use the ones I have as trot line sinkers.

OTOH there are at least 20 of them around here that have been shooting since the 1980s. The guy who did these bought a ton of the Oberndorf 1935 Chilean carbines when they came in back then. And ground them all.

There is a groove cut internally on a military mauser entirely around the inside circumference of the ring to allow the lug shaving tool's cutter to start or end it's cut in the right lugway.

The barrel threads are forward of that groove, the lug seat aft of that groove.
That section would be awful thin with the ring reduced to small ring dimensions.

On FN commercials rather than cut that groove around the entire circumference, FN used a dovetail end mill to cut the clearance only where needed at the right lugway for the lugway shaving cutter.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
You don't have to do it on a Turk; it would be more beneficial on a large thread one.
Unless just for looks.

Why? The turk is a large ring with a small thread but has the same race way profile as a large thread. The thing is, I have a spare turk but don't have a spare standard 98 I want to mess with. Regards, Bill

Of course it would look cool to do it on a Turk.
The internal thread relief groove on the Oberndorf ones is not as deep as some Kar98s, is my only point. So, I figure they are stronger than a Kar98, however strong anyone thinks they are. I never saw one fail in 8mm, but that means nothing here.
As I said, many of these were done in the 1990s and none has failed yet.
Of course, NO one here would ever consider building a rifle on a receiver ground like this. All AR members instinctively know they are not suitable for any cartridge.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
There is a groove cut internally on a military mauser entirely around the inside circumference of the ring to allow the lug shaving tool's cutter to start or end it's cut in the right lugway.

The barrel threads are forward of that groove, the lug seat aft of that groove.
That section would be awful thin with the ring reduced to small ring dimensions.

On FN commercials rather than cut that groove around the entire circumference, FN used a dovetail end mill to cut the clearance only where needed at the right lugway for the lugway shaving cutter.

Wwll...that is a point...Wny not just extend the re enforcement past that point...?

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
There is a groove cut internally on a military mauser entirely around the inside circumference of the ring to allow the lug shaving tool's cutter to start or end it's cut in the right lugway.

The barrel threads are forward of that groove, the lug seat aft of that groove.
That section would be awful thin with the ring reduced to small ring dimensions.

On FN commercials rather than cut that groove around the entire circumference, FN used a dovetail end mill to cut the clearance only where needed at the right lugway for the lugway shaving cutter.

Those in the know on Mausers understand this cut is different on various versions of 98 actions.

1)All large thread clearance cuts were not cut the same.
2)All small thread clearance cuts were not cut the same. Some small thread actions had clearance cuts for large threads and the action was a small ring.

However, The bolt raceway dimensions are the same for a small ring as they are for a large ring.

IN the pics below notice the clearance cut is the same diameter as the threads. Every single Mauser 98 (large or small ring) has the right lug raceway shaved deeper than the left to provide clearance for the extractor + a little extra to facilitate single loading.

Here's a great set of pics from Rich showing this cut.

quote:

Originally posted by richj:
just for fun. I think there's a rockwell spot on there somewhere but I have no idea of the hardness.

Anyone that would do that to a 1935 Chilean action should be gilflurted and stringhaultered!!

When one reduces the diameter to small ring dimensions, he is remove approx .050' of material. On the right side, the thickness is reduced to less than .100. The Springfield, with the extra material over top, is about .160 thick. Same with the P14. Now, Winchester didn't think this was all that critical since the Model 54 and model 70 are only about .080 thick and the small ring mausers are thinner yet. Mind you, I've seen them split with an inside wrench too. I dug out the Turk and I'll do it when I get the chance. Regards, Bill

Ray he did it to at least 25 of them, and he is dead. Too late for you to punish him. As I said, many rifles built on them, survive, unscathed.
Appears that not everyone thought it was a bad idea.

Just took a closer look at the Turk and the relief cut does not go all the way around; just at the terminus of the right hand raceway. The rest of the relief is just at the major diameter of the thread. Regards, Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

I don't know about all mausers, but that is exactly what I am referring to and why it is the weak spot in tension from barrel thrust and opposing bolt thrust.

Reducing the OD would make it weaker.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe

Wwll...that is a point...Wny not just extend the re enforcement past that point...?

Because as Rich's pics show, it isn't just a weak spot at the left lugway but around the entire circumference.

Putting that Springfield patch of metal directly over where gas would escape with head separation/vaporization is a good idea.

Not trying to play "smoke and mirrors" here, but I've seen photos and personally seen a few catastrophic examples of destroyed Mausers.

The commonality is that the "failure" is the top of the action becoming airborne. Pete Grisel finally destroyed one of his small ring actions, only by a case full of bullseye.

Sure enough, the top half of the ring separated. He verified what I long believed..this is the most common situation you're likely to see.

I'm not convinced the relief cut Doug mentions is the "weak" spot. To me, it stands to reason the metal removed by the extractor relief offers about the only place possible for violently escaping gas. Is the relief cut a contributing factor? Beats me!

Better the top blows than the gas come straight back.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Not trying to play "smoke and mirrors" here, but I've seen photos and personally seen a few catastrophic examples of destroyed Mausers.

The commonality is that the "failure" is the top of the action becoming airborne. Pete Grisel finally destroyed one of his small ring actions, only by a case full of bullseye.

Sure enough, the top half of the ring separated. He verified what I long believed..this is the most common situation you're likely to see.

I'm not convinced the relief cut Doug mentions is the "weak" spot. To me, it stands to reason the metal removed by the extractor relief offers about the only place possible for violently escaping gas. Is the relief cut a contributing factor? Beats me!

Better the top blows than the gas come straight back.

It is the weak spot in a barrel-lug seat tension failure, which doesn't occur because the large ring is thick enough.
Grinding it down, that may no longer be the case.
Many actions 'fail' by the steel yielding and headspace constantly increasing or still in the elastic zone but stretching under load.
It doesn't have to be a catastrophic failure.

I have a rear lugged Winchester model 41 218 Bee that fails in this manner. No matter how light the load, the receiver stretches, bolt flexs/compresses.
Bolt is hard to open and the case has stretched with a soon to fail swell around the base, if you reload the case.
Yet if you check the headspace it is OK and on the tight side. Tight on the shoulder too. Just like the day I chambered it.

The typical mauser or similar with the mauser type extractor failure is a hoop stress failure, where the receiver ring peels open due to escaping gas forces exiting the unsupported case.

Different failure modes.
Why take the risk in creating a 2nd one?

As I mentioned, on this 1935 Turk, the relief cut does NOT go all the way around. This receiver is semi-decent but the bolt is a bit ugly. I guess the pits will help to carry lube! In my mind, this thing will turn out great. In fact, it shoots like a hot damn, looks fine, and I've already killed a damn fine bighorn ram with it. In my dreams, it's always sunny too. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
I don't know about all mausers,.......

But you post proclaiming to be smarter than the Mauser brothers.

The relief cut is very close to the same major diameter of the threads. According to hoop stress, it is NOT possible for that cut to be weaker than the thread if they are the same max diameter.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Pete Grisel finally destroyed one of his small ring actions, only by a case full of bullseye.

Not picking on you here Duane.
How is that possible Pete made his actions out of a hyper alloy compound?
Any thoughts master Doug???

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

But you post proclaiming to be smarter than the Mauser brothers.

The relief cut is very close to the same major diameter of the threads. According to hoop stress, it is NOT possible for that cut to be weaker than the thread if they are the same max diameter.

Oh James, here you go with your emotionally driven embellishments.

The containment vessel is the brass case, the barrel, the receiver threads surrounding the barrel, the bolt face and portion of the bolt head rim supporting the case.
That relief cut is not subject to direct hoop stresses, only what little would be transferred by deflection after being resisted by the case, barrel, and receiver ring.

As a thought experiment what if you cut the receiver in 2 at that relief cut and then bolted or clamped the 2 halves together.
What would be the hoop stress on the clamp or bolts?
Zero, there are no hoop stresses only axial.

I don't know about all mausers, but that is exactly what I am referring to and why it is the weak spot in tension from barrel thrust and opposing bolt thrust.
^Axial force James. The same axial force that pushes the bolt lugs against the receiver lug seats. There is an equal and opposite force at the barrel.
And what is resisting the tension load between those 2 opposing forces?
On a ground down receiver a thin ribbon of steel at the relief cut.

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
How is that possible Pete made his actions out of a hyper alloy compound?
Any thoughts master Doug???

No mystery James, the yield strength of the 4142 steel he used was exceeded.

Now here is a real puzzler, if it took a full case of bullseye to destroy his receiver made from 4142, do you think it would it take more or less bullseye to destroy it had he made it from steel with probably 1/3 the yield strength?

No cheating now.

At TSJC we took a chinese Mauser and tried to blow it up using bullseye.
I think it was an 09 Arg barrel.
1)30-06 chamber full of rifle powder
2)30-06 bullseye
3)30-06 bullseye with a 24" x 1/4" brass rod in the barrel
4)barrel drilled for pilot & chambered for 338 Win Mag full of bullseye
5)Last approx 4" of barrel heated red hot and forged flat 338 full of bullseye
6)Barrel heated about 12" from muzzle and bent at 90 degrees 338 full of bullseye
7)barrel filled with lead 338 full of bullseye
a little 1/2" X 3/4" chunk of steel blew off on the right side of the receiver ring just over the extractor.
The white piece of paper taped behind the action in the test fire chamber remained relatively unscathed for all these tests.

During these tests the headspace had to be re qualified a few times. NOT every time.

The kid that paid for the parts for this test was sure as YOU are the Mauser would not hold up.

At the end of the experiment he had changed his mind.

YOU need to do a little empirical engineering.

I have.

It was a German bolt in the tests performed above.

And a large ring action.

There was brass flowing every shot. Just not generally in the "shooter's" face.

Only we aren't talking about a unaltered mauser, we are talking about altering a mauser by significantly reducing the receiver ring.

So unless some kid at TSJC did so, tested and measured the results, it has no bearing on the topic which is, Large ring ground to small ring mauser.

you're a special kind of ......

hey doug
what do YOU do for a living???