View Full Version : Mauser barrel installation, no locktite?
December 5, 2009, 06:38 AM
I have a mauser action that I will rebarrel soon. The new barrel (308) is already headspaced and ready to go. Have receiver wrench but don't have a barrel vise. I use a 2x4 wood block and drill a 1" hole and cut into 2 halves to use as barrel block and seems to work but will not give much clamping power. When I built FALs, it take almost 100 ft-lb to index the barrel and I use anti-seize compound on the threads. The wood block will not give me that much torque, but I wonder how much torque is needed for bolt action rifles like mausers? Can I use locktite on the threads? Locktite is good to 400F and bolt guns will not shoot fast to get this much temperature. I know anti-seize compound is the better way to go, but why not (blue) locktite?
December 5, 2009, 02:05 PM
If you have threaded the action properly, the barel will seat against the receiover at the same time it seats against the flange in the receiver. A good hard snugging will seat the barrel well. Put rosin on the blocks and tighten it as far as you can, it should be OK.
December 5, 2009, 07:34 PM
Not only don't use loctite, but you want to use an anti-seize on those threads. You may need to remove and replace the barrel several times in getting the headspace right or you may even want to replace the barrel later on. If you use loctite, you won't be able to do any of that.
December 6, 2009, 06:16 PM
This is a topic that I consider difficult to discuss on the Internet, you say you are going to install a barrel that has been head spaced and you do not have a barrel wrench, meaning you did not installed the barrel, tighten it and then ream the chamber.
I will short chamber a Mauser barrel .002 then install, check the head space and finish ream, all of this based on measurements from the face of the receiver down to the (c-ring) barrel seating surface and from the barrel seating surface to the face of the bolt and then compared with the distance from the barrel face (seating surface) to the shoulder at the end of the threads on the barrel, meaning the face of the barrel must seat against the 'C-ring' before the shoulder at the end of the threads contact the face of the receiver, last but not least I measure the distance from the head of the case to the face of the barrel (case protrusions) The difference between case protrusions and the distance from the seating surface (C-ring) to the bolt face is HEAD SPACE, once the barrel contacts the seating surface of the receiver the amount of crush/torque applied removes stack between the threads, this brings us to lock tite for holding and anti seize for ease of removal, lube would reduce resistance meaning dry threads require one torque reading and lubed threads require another torque.
Lock tight, I would not use it on the threads of a barrel, I do not struggle when removing a barrel, I use a hydraulic press, I find the wood blocks close to useless, forget rosin.
The ability to resist collapse (crush) in my opinion makes wood a poor choice, most people I know destroyed the wood block removing barrels then they took what was left and substituted other material, a material that was adequate in removing and installing barrels.
With 4 receivers and 5 barrels I found .002 thousands difference between combinations of all 5 barrels and 4 receivers when measuring the effect each combination had on head space and the gage, case protrusion on all 5 barrels was .110 + or - .001.
It is possible to have a chamber reamed with a known case protrusion, the gage mentioned above is my gage not a go-gage, my gage is .000= to a full length sized case or -.005 shorter than a go-gage, again to reduce head space, I add to the length of the case from the head of the case to it's shoulder to increase the effect the case has on head space, OR
December 8, 2009, 08:30 PM
I always wonder why 98 mausers have the design that barrel face seat against the insider shoulder while most modern rifles have barrel shoulder seat on receiver face. Not all mausers have the inside shoulders either. Any reasons?
December 8, 2009, 10:11 PM
the mausers have a crush fit of 2 thou so you don't use loctite. also you do need to square up the front face on the receiver, once that is done they you need to use a depth mic to make sure the inside face is the same across. if it is off on one side it means that some gunsmith crush fit the barrel too much and you now have a paperweight.
make sure to chase and clean the threads and also lap the lugs and bolt face while you have the barrel off. (my website has a good must do for accurizing/blueprinting an action). also midway has a good set of videos on accurizing mausers.
December 8, 2009, 10:41 PM
I will try to be fair and objective, most of this started 110 + year ago , Mauser designed a rifle that was a basic pipe joint, the small ring/small shank Mauser (original), then he designed the modern large ring/large shank Model 98 (standard), the 98 had two seating surfaces, one for the barrel face, the other for the shoulder at the end of the threads at the end of the shank, other designers continued using the pipe joint design, the 03 receiver front ring was the same outside diameter as the small ring Mauser with a larger barrel shank meaning the receiver on the 03 was thinner than the front receiver ring on the small ring Mauser, the small ring Mauser was chambered in 7mm57 and 7.65mm53, the 03 was chambered in 30/06. The Model 98 'C' Ring seating surface added strength to the receiver, after WW11 the 98 type receiver was made with a cut down both sides and through the 'C' ring, I suppose that made the seating surface a 'parentheses' seating surface. The Japanese 6.5X50 was said to the strongest in the world, on the Internet, in the rear world with three receivers in my hand I ask HOW? Show me, it is always "someone said". The Japanese Model 98 was different from the 98 and 03, the Japanese did say it was a Mauser copy, I do believe if Mauser was standing there while the rifles was being made he would have something like "This is Scary".
December 8, 2009, 10:58 PM
December 10, 2009, 12:26 AM
The major reason for the '98's internal collar is that it avoids making the extractor cut in the barrel, and thus elminates the need for witness marks. That meant the barrel could be fitted easily and then the sights mounted using the receiver as a reference point. The disadvantage was that spare barrels were issued without sights and field shops had to install them.
With a setup like the M1903 Springfield, the extractor cut had to be made before the barrel was installed. In order to make sure it was in the right place, a gauge was screwed onto the barrel threads and a witness mark (draw line) made on the barrel shoulder. Then that mark was used as a reference point for machining the extractor cut and installing the sights. A similar mark was made on the receiver, and when the barrel was screwed in and the marks lined up, the extractor cut was on the right and the sights were on top. Since that system allowed barrels to have sight bases installed in manufacture, spare barrels could be issued short chambered but with sights installed.
December 11, 2009, 12:08 PM
Speaking of chasing threads, I was going to build a 22-250 rifle on a Mauser 98 receiver/action and a gunsmith I've known since the early 1960's told me the 98 Mauser threads were cut using a 55 degree included angle instead of 60 degrees. He said if barrel threads are cut at 60 degrees, it will go together but it won't be right.
I would always use never-sieze when assembling and get it as tight as I could.
December 11, 2009, 12:19 PM
These are all things that I have ran into when in the gun business.
Customers would bring in there grandpapys Mauser and learn that the rife that saved a life, is now a good door stopper.
do a mauser right and you will have a shooter.
December 13, 2009, 01:32 PM
One other small tidbit: A military mauser bbl,the bbl is smaller than the threads.There is no shoulder to butt against the face of the receiver.
We turn aluminum bushings to match the barrel and the barrel vise,then saw them in half,It works great.Mark them as a pair and save them.
Did you say 100 ft lbs torqueThats a bit much.I don't know a torque figure,but I would guess I get 30 or 40 ft lbs with never-sieze.
While I won't recomend the use of lock-tite,as it is a rebarreling problem,I have reasoned it may be possible to achieve better accuracy by bonding the bbl and receiver together.
But then,I don't think the bench rest guys are locktiting,and they get pretty accurate.
December 19, 2009, 08:55 AM
I was building FALs 15 years ago too.
For the past 10 years I have been building Mausers too.
I started making Mauser action wrenches from the MacFarland gunsmithing book. Then I figured out that the 1) bolts, 2) upper V contact with large ring, and 3) flat bottom contact with bottom of receiver.... all should be in the same plane. Otherwise, there is a bind on the bolts, and a scuff mark on the large ring.
To do that, the bottom half must be relieved for the Mauser recoil lug, so the receiver can be accepted deeper into the wrench.
My calculations show that Rem700 actions may need locktite, but Mausers do not.
December 27, 2009, 03:37 PM
I'm a new comer to the forum and this is my first post. Happy New Year to all.:)
I don't know if the Japanese 6.5 action was reputed to be the strongest in the world but in blowup tests done on military bolt actions by P.O. Ackley (Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders, Volume II), the Japanese action held up the best. Analysis by Ackley showed that the Japanese action, although made of inferior material as compared to the 1903 Springfield, was selectively heat treated in the critical areas which is responsible for it's strength. Later WWII Japanese actions were poorly made with some being cast and were accidents waiting to happen.
December 27, 2009, 08:40 PM
FWIW, I have seen no evidence that late war Japanese rifle actions were cast. They were poorly finished, heat treatment was often done poorly, and forging marks are sometimes visible, but they were not cast. That story seems to have started with Japanese training rifles, which had cast receivers and bolts, but which were never intended to be fired with any live ammunition, only blanks.
Even so, few would be dangerous, since they were made for 6.5 blanks and the barrels are way oversize for 6.5 bullets. I have, however seen at least two training rifles pictured on web sites, with questions about what ammunition should be fired in them (NONE!), and will again issue the old warning: if you have a Japanese rifle that does not have the standard markings or that appears suspicious, make sure what it is before just throwing in some ammo you heard about on the net.
You wrote, "A military mauser bbl,the bbl is smaller than the threads.There is no shoulder to butt against the face of the receiver."
Not much larger than the major thread diameter, yes, and not much shoulder, yes. But smaller than the threads, and no shoulder? That has not been my experience.
December 28, 2009, 09:08 PM
Update. Made a new barrel vise out of 1-1/4" aluminum square bar stock. A lot of drilling to step up to 1" dia and file to open up the hole to 1-1/8" dia! The aluminum block hold tight, great gripping power and torque the barrel well with no slipping. Head space is at the tight side and go gage need a bit effort to close. Take 308 commercial ammo and 7.62NATO well. I think I am good now. Thanks for all the help.
December 29, 2009, 02:34 AM
For a barrel vise, I use wooden blocks that I lined with rubber from a truck bedmat. Sounds ghetto-fabulous but works like a charm, as long as you have some good hickory or ash to make the wood blocks from ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.