The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Large ring ground to small ring mauserGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Large ring ground to small ring mauser | Login/Join |
One of Us |
M98 actions that I have manufactured in both chromoly steel and titanium have been used in rifles built by a high end Austrian firm over the years. Requirements for acceptance has been passing of proof at the proof house at Ferlach. Proof loads loaded to 86k are used. Each barreled action must fire (3) without damage to the action or barrel. 86k produces a well blown out primer pocket every time. This is not turning the case head fully to liquid. Will a modified Turk pass proof? As outlined by Ferlach. My gut feeling is it probably would, but that's just a guess on the subject. Test a few and find out. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hmmm... I have a model 1903 Turk, stamped 1935, large ring, small barrel shank, notch in the ring where it was later modified and it is relief cut to full depth all the way around. | |||
|
| one of us |
And I have three and none of them are. the relief cut is to full depth at the raceway and about 1/10 inch either way and is to the major diameter of the threads, or very slightly over, the rest of the way. When I contour the receiver ring, leaving the material over the race way, it should match the internal relief cut. I was kind of surprised to see this because I thought the groove was probably cut to full depth all around as this was what I had been told. Regards, Bill. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Maybe I will have to look closer at mine. I just stuck a bent probe in the groove and noted the depth. Appeared to be the same all around. | |||
|
| One of Us |
That would be prudent, rather than just grind and hope. Are proof cartridges even available anymore in the US? | |||
|
One of Us |
Stu knows what he's talking about on this issue. He builds guns for a living. | |||
|
| One of Us |
So who is going to be the guy that buys, grinds a few and sends them off to be tested so we know for sure?  | |||
|
| One of Us |
What we don't know for sure Doug is what you do for a living? | |||
|
| One of Us |
And you are not going to.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
You da man... | |||
|
One of Us |
Write me a test protocol. Staff it with all AR members so there will be no arguments after the results are published. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Count me out. There are probably sound design reasons why the Mauser bros moved from small ring to large and put that extra steel there. Doubtful it was to give guys 120 years later something to use their surface grinders to grind them back to small.  But it is funny how there is almost a religious reverence for all things Mauser, yet a willingness to significantly change (weaken) his best and most famous achievement. | |||
|
One of Us |
Yes, We're really ringing this on out. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Isn't it funny how every other rifle designer on the planet reverted back from the 1.4 inch receiver ring to the 1.3, and deleted the inner reinforcement shoulder? Ok, the barrel threads weren't 1.1 but still....Enfields were 1.125 with the 1.3 ring. As I said before, everyone is an expert here, on both sides of the discussion. With ZERO factual data, which always makes it interesting. Or not. It's wringing. sorry. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Only Enfields were made from nickel steel, significantly higher strength than the Mauser's 1020/1025/1027.5/1029/1030/1030 (your choice) with a dash of manganese tossed in which lowered the strength. But there is a rational method for determining such things, it is called the science of Engineering. Where forces, stresses, strains, load paths, and strength of materials, etc are calculated with accepted equations backed by proven theories. But rather than doing any of that messy stuff, we would rather compare different actions, constructed differently, with different dimensions, different steel and heat treatment to form conclusions. Or better yet is the equivalent of, 'I node a guy that did it and he ain't been blowed up yet." | |||
|
| One of Us |
It's more fun; using science takes all the personal preferences out of it. If that were the only factor to be considered, we all should be using Rem 700s and would never get near a 100 year old action. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Tom burgess posted about the small ring large thread 98 years ago. He said the AZ Kars made 1917 and later and Polish small ring Radom typically had a good amount of metal left in the relief cut between the threads and the C-ring, but certainly needed to checked out re-hardened. Not for magnum pressure, but based on his word, I would build up to an ‘06 or or 9.3x62 and keep the pressure at SAMMI. I saw a Gene Simmilion 270 on an Erfurt Az for sale at the gun shop in Lamar Colorado about 20 years ago. The 270 works at magnum pressure, and it would make me a little nervous. One can still look up Tom’s treatise on the subject here on AR. I don’t have time right now to do it. Matt FISH!! Heed the words of Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984: "Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." | |||
|
| One of Us |
I will add a bit of real world experiences with the WWI Kar 98a made in Erfurt, Danzig, and I believe one more arsenal. I have first hand knowledge, not passing on hearsay. I built a lot of guns on the old Kar 98a's back in the day. They were my action of choice. They are VERY thin between the "C" ring and locking lugs. You are lucky to have 2 threads of 6-48 when drilling and tapping. Many of these were also very soft there. You could not bevel / chamfer that hole at all; they are that thin / soft. No they are not a bomb like a low number Springfield, but many will increase in headspace over time, and continue to increase in headspace. Many folks believe it is stretching in that very thin area between the "C" ring and locking lugs. I am in that camp, but am not qualified to measure that area for stretch. One of the most accurate guns I ever made was on a 1916 Erfurt Kar 98a with a Wilson barrel in 257 Ack Imp. That gun is a freak! I also left a lot as 8mm because the Kar 98a has a nicely tapered thin barrel as issued. One of those developed .055" excess headspace in one year, that consisted of maybe 30 shots of 49 grains of IMR 4064 and 180 grain Nosler Ballistic Tips. That barrel actually loosened up and I mean loose! A few more shots and it would have fallen off. I know apples and oranges because many have said each maker cut the internals differently on the military large ring 98's, but if it is anywhere near as thin as the WWI Kar98a I would avoid it. Also you have removed the hardened shell when you reduce the diameter. PA Bear Hunter, NRA Benefactor | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hmmm...guess we need to start using Schultz and Larson actions??? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Good memory. A snippet from Tom's post... "The thing to keep in mind is that the bottom lug seats in the same ammount of metal support as does the large ring. The small ring is thinner in wall thickness all the way around. That infamous cut I described results in a wall thiskness of somewhere near 3/32 " and as the critics say, Hell, a water pipe coupling is thicker than that! This section of your F.B. more than likely is about 5/32" in cross section, though less than that at the bottom of the thread grooves. This is nearly the same thickness as the G33 types inside the receiver where the lugs seat to the exterior surface. The Europeans did not seem to get much bent out of shape about this inasmuch as the lug which turned in at the top during firing was slotted for the ejector and did not provide (in practice) as much support as the bottom lug did anyway. What usually happened to the militaries was, at first the barrels got loose because the thread "collar" section had stretched, increasing the headspace, Then when there was sufficient case head protruding from end of barrel during firing this let go allowing lots of gas into the bolt head area. This tended to distort and undo a lot of careful machining of the receiver. The stretching was first noticed in military training school weapons, and once a theory was developed and firing to prove the theory advanced the changes were mandated. Firing a rifle with excess headspace did two things. It pounded lug seat sockets in the receiver and also further stretched an already stressed area just ahead of the "C" ring face. Repeated headspace gaging caught many of the probem receivers but not all." http://forums.accuratereloadin...?r=17510394#17510394 Hmmm... concerns about the clearance cut, the thin x section, receiver stretching and increasing headspace. Where have I heard all that in this thread? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Looking through that entire post, it looks like the properly machined Kars were from 1918, not 1917 as I falsely recalled earlier, and I assume that this would include the lovely Danzig and R.W.E. small ring sporters made just after the war. However, checking that infamous relief cut and re-hardening would seem prudent for all such actions intended for a custom. I have an unscrubbed Radom small ring action (someone over way polished it on a wheel) that I would like to make into 257 Roberts at some point. So many Radom and Warszawa Polish action were scrubbed when put in service for the Spanish civil war, or so I’ve read. This thins the action even more, obviously. Years ago, on separate occasions, I sold a couple of sporterized G33/40 and one VZ33 barreled action (250 Savage). I have since come to realize how magnificent they were and regret ever selling them. They may not be best thing since sliced bread, but close! Matt FISH!! Heed the words of Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984: "Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." | |||
|
| one of us |
To clarify, I am going to do this to a Turk which is a small thread. I would not reduce a large ring large thread Mauser. I like the idea of the extra metal over the raceway so I'm going to do it. One of the other receivers is badly pitted and I may section it to show the relief cut. I bought a dozen of these back in the '80's for 13 bucks apiece. Four were clunkers but the rest were decent. Regards, Bill | |||
|
| One of Us |
RWE Erfurt  | |||
|
one of us |
There's a reason most makers switched to the SR small thread pattern and abandoned the SR Large thread pattern.  Aut vincere aut mori | |||
|
| One of Us |
Right; and I have a Danzig sporter just like that one. And I have owned the factory Erfurt sporters. I have never heard of Tom Burgess, nor read anything he wrote. But, I have to ask. where are all the small ring 98s that have problems? I have never heard of one. More theory based on no data? Just asking. Also, comparing a small ring, small thread, Like a 33-40 is not the same animal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hmmmmmm....... | |||
|
| One of Us |
The examples I cited were first hand examples, not hearsay. I imagine I had between 10 or 15 that I built up from 257 Roberts to 30-06. Of those I had two that developed excess headspace plus the severe example that I described in detail earlier, and that was the original barreled action in 8mm. I had quite a few that were probably both too thin and soft to drill and tap effectively. You drilled, tapped, epoxied the base and threads or it was going to shoot loose. A few went to scrap, the one 257 Roberts Ack Imp was a gift to a friend and it not only has no issues but is a very accurate non finicky gun. A friend has one that is an 8mm with original barrel as well and it has survived 20 years of a steady diet of 49 grains IMR 4064 and 180 grain Nosler Ballistic Tips. I too have never heard of Tom Burgess or his studies. As I said earlier these were my action of choice for building hunting rifles. Many were 1916 Erfurt, there were some 1917, not many and a few 1918 1920 double date (Post Office Guns), one or two Danzig, can't remember the dates. ETA: I want to add that all of the above cite examples that developed excess headspace did not have battered, or indented locking lugs or locking lug seats. PA Bear Hunter, NRA Benefactor | |||
|
| One of Us |
You guys need to get out more. Tom Burgess was the pre-eminent mauser metalsmith for decades, building guns with Jerry Fisher, Al Biesen and the like and for Jack O'Conner to royalty. D'Arcy Echols did some mentoring under Burgess. He developed the "Burgess method" for recasing with Pacmet that everyone was sending their mauser to till they stopping doing it. We was a member here until his passing in 2008 under the username systeme98. There is a trove of information here on AR that he posted. | |||
|
| One of Us |
And he thought the Mauser 98 was something special. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Don't know if this is one of those occasions, but DPCD will pull your leg(re:Tom Burgess). | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have a Danzig in 256 Newton that DPCD barreled for me. It is the smoothest, tightest fitting mauser I own. I doubt any commercial mauser type could be any nicer. I'll let everyone know when it blows up on me! | |||
|
| One of Us |
And he also was aware of, acknowledged and investigated the shortcomings in design, metallurgy, heat treatment and production details in Mauser's long history. No pretending they didn't exist for him. | |||
|
| One of Us |
That's just silly. Everybody knows Mausers don't have any shortcomings. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I've noted that one thing has not been pointed out in this thread. ANY action stressed beyond it's point of elasticity will suffer damage. Remember bending paper clips back and forth as a kid? Failed only when stressed beyond the elasticity mentioned above | |||
|
| One of Us |
That is true, but the OP and resulting discussion was about significantly reducing the cross section on a Mauser. For some reason no one seems to want to do these kinds of radical material removal operations in critical areas on Win/Rem/Sav/Springfield/Enfield/etc. Nope only Mausers, the one with the lowest strength steel of the whole bunch. LOL | |||
|
| One of Us |
Jeez...this is never going to end..My point is: You can reduce dimensions all you want as long as you don't go beyond elasticity limits..The two are connected. One would have to be brain dead to reduce the extractor area on a Springfield or Enfield..don't remember seeing an extractor ring slot on a 700....over and out! | |||
|
| One of Us |
I did this, you are quite correct: http://castboolits.gunloads.co...user-blow-up-project | |||
|
| one of us |
I have not gotten through the whole thread yet but it's an enjoyable read. I mean, who doesn't like blowing stuff up! By the way, I tortured the hell out of a Carcano when I was 18. I loaded a case full of 3031 and the factory bullet and pushed an 87 grain speer bullet up ahead of the cartridge. The extractor was wrecked and I had to pound the case out with a rod. The headspace was obvious and I didn't fire it again. They are pretty strong. A friend re-barreled one to 35 Remington and he loaded it HOT (200 grain at 2450) and had no issues. Regards, Bill | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yup. You picked on a Carcano just because it was UGLY. I knew kids like you! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Bill, if you finish the thread I go there. I haven't had any junk '98's to 'play' with but I would bet that a late manufacture Carcano is stronger than a 98. I believe the biggest reason for that is the receiver thickness is uniform; there is no thinning extractor cut. Somewhere I have an article by Dave Emory I'll try to find about his attempt that took C-4 to accomplish. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Large ring ground to small ring mauser
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia