My model 93 Mauser bit me!

[briandg]

Right thumb on right side?nonsense. You surrender some stability to the shooting hand. You surrender all stabilization that a solid grip on stock and action provides.

Without a wraparound grip your rifle is held in place by nothing but friction and a pinch on the forearm.

[jimbob86]

Without a wraparound grip your rifle is held in place by nothing but friction and a pinch on the forearm.

Hasn't jumped out of my hands yet ..... Hundreds of thousands of Enfields didn't jump out of the hands of bolt flicking Brits using their middle fingers to pull the triggers during their Mad Minute Drills .... the Norwegians do it too....

... I suppose the rest of the right hand pressing the rifle rearward against the shoulder has nothing to do with it....... and the cheek weld? As for stability, the taught sling and a position that relies upon bones and ligaments as opposed to the strength on one's thumb are a better bet, I think...... but even offhand, I've never had that Mauser get away from me....

[briandg]

do whatever you choose to do.

[Jim Watson]

A wraparound grip on some of these old rifles will stuff your thumb up your nose.

[rickyrick]

There was one old rifle, I think it was my old MN, couldn't do a wrap around grip for the same reason Jim Watson wrote.

[jimbob86]

A wraparound grip on some of these old rifles will stuff your thumb up your nose.

Thick, straight stocks designed to beat people with .... the 93 in the OP is such a rifle.

[Slamfire]

Some years ago, When Harry McGowen was still building rifles, He built a few for me out of Mauser actions, Small and large ring. Strangely enough he was one of the most respected gunsmiths in the world when he was active in the field, before he retired. As many rifles as he has built out of small ring actions, He has never had one fail or was he sued for such a thing happening. It is good to hear all of these opinions just to see what they actually are. Truth be told, these opinions are all over the spectrum. Will a gun ever blow up? Sure it will. I remember when we first had the Beretta M9 issued to us and the slides flying off. Yes it happened once or twice but not as often as was implied. Remington now has a lawsuit against them because of there triggers going off etc etc. We all know that this can go on for ever. When dealing with firearms caution and precautions must be practiced at all times. There have been many of these Spaniards sold in the last few years and so many people, not knowing the difference, shoot 308Win through them. Has one blown up? Maybe but it is not like the www is loaded with this disaster. Yes I will practice caution. But I will not loose sleep over it. Wen all is said and done, the Remington 700 action was never intended to shoot the RUM cartridges ether, but it is being done, with no failures, (so far). Can or will it happen? Maybe.

GunnyK: You seem like a nice guy., don't want to beat on you too hard.

To quote: "Predicting is hard to do, especially of the future".

Harry McGowen is out of business, correct? What Spain did, well who cares? If Spain wants to kill its citizens or Soldiers with defective products, that is their problem. You will find that the misdeeds of others is not a good defense. Nothing Harry did or said, nothing the country of Spain did, is going to help you one bit if, and this is the big unknown, one of your actions blows.

Strict liability is the rule in the United States, you ought to read about product liability and understand its implications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_liability

Strict liability

Rather than focus on the behavior of the manufacturer (as in negligence), strict liability claims focus on the product itself. Under strict liability, the manufacturer is liable if the product is defective, even if the manufacturer was not negligent in making that product defective.

The ignorance argument is not going to reduce your liability one bit if one of your conversions blows and you go to court. Saying things, like "I don't know", "I never heard of", "No one told me", is only going to prove the case for the plaintiff that you are so incompetent that you are beyond negligence. Why didn't you know?, why didn't you hear of?, why did you expect anyone to tell you anything?. Building a defense around ignorance will just help the plaintiff make a very convincing case that you are a menace to society and win even a larger settlement. Pretty much the burden of proof is on you to prove that you did everything, such as metallurgical testing, you knew the ultimate and yield of the receiver that blew, you knew the material composition, you knew the grain structure, that you knew everything. And even then, they will make you look stupid. Because a rifle you built blew up.

Of course you are doing nothing of the kind and know nothing about these cheap old receivers. Which is going to do nothing for you, in the past tense, if one blows and you get sued.

You are using these old receivers because they are cheap. Which is OK, as long as you understand the risks to your self, and those to whom you are building and selling rifles with these actions.

[tangolima]

The Spaniard fed the converted rifles with 7.62x51 cetme, which is the loaded down version of the nato round.

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Gunny K]

Well, I started cleaning and working on all the actions I have just to assess them. I used the Vz-24 actions I worked on as a baseline and also the Turks which were German made. After cleaning them up by removing all the rust pitting and unwanted markings which is done with diamond grit and is quite easy, I did the assessment by drilling scope mount holes. This is a good way to rate the steel. Drilling was first attempted with a Cobalt steel drill bit. After wiping out the first bit before I even reached the end of the taper, I drilled the rest with Carbide. Than came the test by attempting to tap the 6-48. Well, all be told, it was impossible without spot annealing the holes first. I could not even get the tap started. This is the exact same issue I had with the Vz-24 actions and also the large ring M-98 Turks. The small ring Turks were actually tapable but with a lot of effort and painstaking care. At this point I have absolutely NO RESERVATIONS about using the Spaniards for my .243Win and have actually decided to do a second Spaniard with a 7mm-08Rem. Just have to decide on the third. Now i will at least have two "Slow" small caliber rifles. The 7mm-08 will compliment my 7mm-STW and the 243Win will compliment my 6mm-284 and 6mm-264Win.

[Gunny K]

Originally Posted by Slamfire

GunnyK: You seem like a nice guy., don't want to beat on you too hard.

To quote: "Predicting is hard to do, especially of the future".

Harry McGowen is out of business, correct? What Spain did, well who cares? If Spain wants to kill its citizens or Soldiers with defective products, that is their problem. You will find that the misdeeds of others is not a good defense. Nothing Harry did or said, nothing the country of Spain did, is going to help you one bit if, and this is the big unknown, one of your actions blows.

Strict liability is the rule in the United States, you ought to read about product liability and understand its implications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_liability


The ignorance argument is not going to reduce your liability one bit if one of your conversions blows and you go to court. Saying things, like "I don't know", "I never heard of", "No one told me", is only going to prove the case for the plaintiff that you are so incompetent that you are beyond negligence. Why didn't you know?, why didn't you hear of?, why did you expect anyone to tell you anything?. Building a defense around ignorance will just help the plaintiff make a very convincing case that you are a menace to society and win even a larger settlement. Pretty much the burden of proof is on you to prove that you did everything, such as metallurgical testing, you knew the ultimate and yield of the receiver that blew, you knew the material composition, you knew the grain structure, that you knew everything. And even then, they will make you look stupid. Because a rifle you built blew up.

Of course you are doing nothing of the kind and know nothing about these cheap old receivers. Which is going to do nothing for you, in the past tense, if one blows and you get sued.

You are using these old receivers because they are cheap. Which is OK, as long as you understand the risks to your self, and those to whom you are building and selling rifles with these actions.

I fully understand. First of all, I don't think I will sue myself since I am building these for myself. I am using these because of the size and stile. I do not want to use the full size or even the short 98 action.
Harry is out of business because he passed away from us July of 2014, being in business since the mid Sixties and was very trusted and revered. I remember how busy he was with all the orders from Africa and Europe. I miss him very much as a friend and trusted gunsmith. Since he passed, I have not been able to find anyone who can do an equal bluing job like he did. I have not had the opportunity to deal with the company that bought him out but that is because there would be no point. Good gunsmiths that are capable of impeccable work like he did are next to impossible to find this day and age. I am only a hobbyist and build my own. So far I have built myself about 12 rifles and the only issues I have experienced so far are burned out barrels because of hot rounds in untreated barrels and split stocks because of the lack of recoil bolts in them. I have since than remedied both issues by Nitriding the barrels and now installing recoil bolts in every rifle I build. One thing that we must take into consideration with all of these x-Military actions is that they were intended to withstand tens-of-thousands of rounds through them in deplorable and filthy conditions. We normally put a few hundred or at best a couple thousand through them in normally perfect conditions and inspect them after almost every use. I myself inspect my rifles every time I use it. I understand everything that is being said here but. Also most of the individuals here are playing Devils-Advocate, The other few, well that i don't know. I myself am not worried at this point. But thank you for all the good input. This is what I am looking fore. I still want as much as I can get.
Mike Hudson did a good article.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/small_ring_mausers.htm

[Slamfire]

One thing that we must take into consideration with all of these x-Military actions is that they were intended to withstand tens-of-thousands of rounds through them in deplorable and filthy conditions.

I don't know when the US Army established a 6000 round endurance limit. The earliest reference I have found is with the tests of the M1911. The M1911 was tested to 6000 rounds and all failures recorded. This 6000 round endurance limit is more or less still standard in US Army procurement, for small arms, based on the Mil Specs that I have reviewed. It is always subject to change.

Now to pass a 6000 round endurance test without major component failure, the weapon has be designed to last a little longer. But they can't over do it as no one wants to carry a 20 pound rifle.


Test philosophy is different between Nation states. The US Ordnance Corp tests to "specifications". That is, does the object pass the specs. I have heard from those who worked on European Countries that they test to endurance. That is, when does it break. I don't know what Mauser did, or what his rifles were tested against. American practice has been once the weapon is worn out in the field, it returns to depot, where any worn out parts, or the whole weapon, is discarded. Weapon lifetime has changed after experience with two World Wars. Mauser rifles were expected to be rebarreled, that is obvious. The military expected to rebuild these weapons and return them to the battlefield. But the receiver became an expensive item. And, this is the most important, all those rebuild facilities and people were expensive. Post WW2 designs, with receivers of all sorts of weapons made of stamped sheet metal, it is apparent that Armies decided that building cheap weapons faster was more economic, more strategic, and took less effort than a huge logistical rebuild of expensive weapons.

But, even so, did anyone expect a receiver to last three barrels, four? I have never seen any endurance test data on these old receivers. And, they have been through several lifetimes use so they are much more of a risk than a modern receiver made out of modern alloy steels.

We normally put a few hundred or at best a couple thousand through them in normally perfect conditions and inspect them after almost every use.

The Gunsmithing trade convinced Romantics to buy old military weapons and convert them into expensive sporters. I have read lots of articles from the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, from Gunsmiths and parts companies shilling in print. They feed on the Romantic desires of owners, pull them in to an expensive sporter project bit by bit through "Sporterizing" articles. And, because the proud owners never fire more than 100 rounds through the things, the newly converted rifles seldom blow up. This more than anything else is why we don't read of or hear of more old surplus rifles coming apart. Even though the rounds they were chambered in are absolutely inappropriate for the action.

I have been competing in Highpower Competition for decades now. In the very small competitive shooting society word travels fast about things breaking, and they do. No one I ever saw shot with a M1903 or vintage Mauser action when the bolt gun ruled the Match rifle category. Shooters used M70 or M700 actions, and, in time stores would surface about minor part breakage, such as extractors and magazine lips. I had a pre 64 M70 firing pin break. Bolt and receivers would go through barrel after barrel. I did hear of and see M1a bolts crack, and M1a receivers crack, M1a extractors and firing pins breaking. One GI operating rod broke and was off the range before I finished standing slow fire. I wanted to take a picture, too bad. These occurred somewhere around 5000 to 10000 rounds. I also heard of AR15 bolt lug cracking. There are other stories, minor stuff. Competitive shooters put many more rounds down range than the guy who wants a beautiful hunting made out of a vintage receiver.

I do believe that if these vintage receivers were subjected to thousands of rounds, if not tens of thousands of rounds of use, we would read many more stories of "my gun blew up". Because these things are old, made of inferior materials, made in factories with primitive process controls. All that stuff.

And I don't want any of it. Lots of damn fools drive fast in the rain on bald tires. I want to get home alive.

[Jimro]

I may not have definitive proof that the pressures of a century ago were not equal to the pressures of today, but I do have some nice ballistic evidence to support what follows.

Copper units of crush is a great way to measure "something" although it is not a great way to measure "max chamber pressure" by any stretch of the imagination. It is important to remember that the phrase "piezo electric resistor" were never uttered with the Mauser brothers were marketing their rifles.

The ballistics of the 8x57 cartridge, despite not having very good pressure data, do have very good ballistic data. The Wehrmacht could expect the ballistic path of a 196gr FMJBT projectile at 2,500 fps to perform very well. The performance of that load was enough to inspire the US Army to adopt the M1 projectile for the 30-06, a 173gr FMJBT pill which later morphed into the M72 match bullet.

It stands to reason that the pressure needed to launch a 196gr FMJBT projectile in 1939 at 2,500 fps is quite similar to the pressure needed to launch a 196gr FMJBT projectile in 2017 (and considering the advances in powder burn regulation it is likely modern powders can get to that velocity with a measurably lower max pressure than the older powder formulas). It also stands to reason that unless we are using the original pressure measuring equipment of the Mauser brothers era, we should ignore it as it has no bearing on what a "piezo electric" system of today would tell us in terms of pressure. Just like "Everyone knows Napoleon was short as he was only 5'2"" is untrue because of the difference between French and English inches, it is actually much easier to compare the difference between French and English inches than it is to compare crush units to PSI.

Lastly, the Norwegian military to this day still uses K98 receivers for some of their sniper rifles. The CIP pressures for NATO standard ammunition are well known, and despite changing from Copper Units of Pressure to PSI through the piezo electric method, seem to be holding up just fine. Yes they have been rebuilt by gunsmiths, however I doubt that the Norwegian arsenals have a monopoly on competent gunsmithing. Suffice to say that it is entirely possible for a Gew98 to be redone into a K98, used in the occupation of Norway, left after the surrender of Germany, and rebarreled first into 30-06 and then into 308 as Norway updated the old bird (unlikely, but possible).

So, we live in a world where K98 actions are still in use all around the world in original form, modified military form, and in sporterized rifles. We also have people who shoot horribly old ammo and have rifles blow up, even modern rifles like the M1A, Savage 10 or Rem 700. But, things do wear out, and if you aren't confident in your rifle, don't shoot it and don't let other people shoot it.

Jimro

[emcon5]

Originally Posted by Jimro

Lots of stuff about the Mauser 98 action

I don't disagree with any of this, but we are not talking about a Mauser98, we are talking about a Spanish 1916, which is a M93 Mauser action.

Gunny just mentioned a VZ-24, which is also a K98 type, large ring Mauser action. I doubt anyone would have concerns building one of those into a .243 or 7mm-08.

[Jimro]

emcon5,

No disagreement, my post was a counterpoint to Slamfires. He is correct that there are a lot of soft, worn out, or otherwise unsuitable Mauser actions out there. However that doesn't mean you can't build on a Mauser action if you find a decent one.

As I wrote a few years back in this thread... all the old small rings should be held to low pressure ammo not because they aren't strong, but because they don't have the safety features to handle a brass failure causing gas leakage. Even the "Swede Steel" m96s should be pampered with low pressure ammo no matter what Kimber thought they were doing rebarreling some to 308.

Maybe I should change my signature line to "There is no rifle safe enough to shoot unsafe ammo."

Jimro

[Slamfire]

No disagreement, my post was a counterpoint to Slamfires. He is correct that there are a lot of soft, worn out, or otherwise unsuitable Mauser actions out there. However that doesn't mean you can't build on a Mauser action if you find a decent one.

You can build a decent sporter rifle on a Mauser but I consider that there are several factors that must be considered. The first is the age of the action. I have zero confidence of the materials from the WW1 era and before. This is the “pre vacuum tube” era. Technology did not spread as fast as an email. Technology was advancing faster after WW1 than before, especially metallurgical technology and understanding, but, that does not mean money was being spent in Military Arsenals. Military budgets had been slashed after WW1 and if the American example is similar to other Western Nations, hardly any funding went into Arsenals after WW1 for improvements. In the US, rifle production was shut down at Eddystone Arsenal, Eddystone was used as a storage depot. The Rock Island production line shut down and unfinished parts shipped to Springfield Armory. Springfield Armory had around 5129 employees in 1918, then 2,408 in June 1919, a low of 232 in 1935. After the Depression of 1929, you were lucky to have a job, 25% of the population did not. Employee numbers rebounded somewhat in 1938 to 1285 in anticipation of America entering WW2. The Defense Budget when up by a factor of five times between 1938 and 1939! Europe was already at war in 1939, but prior to Hitler, military budgets were equally as small in Western Europe.

As a rule, the older the rifle, the less certain the metallurgy. It is worth looking at the CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF CODES AND STANDARDS FOR STANDARDIZATION & TESTING DEPARTMENT https://cstools.asme.org/csconnect/F...w=yes&ID=32642 for an idea of how immature metal technology was in the pre vacuum tube era. Defining technological advancement is basically a guess, there is not a list of which industries, which factories incorporated advancing technologies. You can make a general assessment based on “everything”, an assessment which is not going to be very accurate or precise. Basically I consider the “pre vacuum tube era” to be up to the early part of the 1920’s. The closer you get to WW2 the better the manufacturing technology, assuming factories adopted improvements, such as electricity and vacuum tube based process control equipment. And that is not a given. I would say based on the technology of the era and the funding of the age, that rifles made in the 1930’s should have cleaner steels and should be made with more advanced manufacturing technology than previous decades. All of this is theoretical sophistry, someone would have to go out and test individual receivers for materials and grain structure to see if Quality Control had improved as you would expect as technology improved. Advancements in the Government sector are not linear, they are quantum. The big funding for Government Arsenals did not occur until Hitler started occupied countries in the late 1930’s.

So I consider when the receiver was made to be important for assessing risk. I also consider the cartridge to be used very important. I consider conversions to cartridges that provide bolt thrust loads above that of the standard 8mm cartridge to be risky, if not dangerous. Some cartridge conversions are dangerous in my estimation, particularly those in 60,000 + psi belted magnums.

I provided this simple analysis in a previous thread:
From Cartridges of the World

8 mm case head diameter 0.470” Area 0.1735 square inches
300 Win Mag case head diameter 0.515” Area 0.2083 square inches

Bolt face loads

8mm (Mauser design loads) 0.1735 in ² X 43, 371 lbs/ in ² = 7, 525 lbs

300 Win Mag = 0.2083 in ² X 65,000 lbs/ in ² = 13, 539 lbs

The 300 Win Mag provides an 80% increase in bolt thrust over standard military loads.

I have seen nothing to indicate that Mauser, or Yugoslavia, or FN, or anyone else building 8mm military Mauser actions built these military actions to a higher pressure standard. The average pressure did rise by a couple of thousands in WW2, that may have been because the Military was willing to accept a reduced service life, or that they thought improved production processes produced a cleaner steel. We do know from historical records lugs cracked on new service rifles. Rifle & Carbine 98: M98 Firearms of the German Army from 1898 to 1918 Dieter writes that the bolt lugs broke on 1:1000 of GEW98 service rifles used by the Bavarian Army Corp! This was when the cartridge pressure was 43,000 psia.

Based on the poor quality of Spanish Mausers, it is probable that not every Nation had the cash to spend improving their arsenals.

There is evidence of what happens to old WW1 Mauser made receivers when chambered for inappropriate cartridges as can be seen in the lug set back in this Argentine 1909 action.

Advice for re-heat treating Zastava Mausers.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...pics/4142510/1
][/URL]

I don’t want to spend time discussing the “re heat treatment” idea. I consider it fallacious that the 8mm Mauser pressure drop is faster than other cartridges. I believe this is a fantasy these Gunwriters created to explain something they did not understand: the problem was structural and metallurgical. The actions they used were neither designed nor built for 60,000 psia cartridges. What is important is the fact that the infallible and all knowing Authorities of our sport, had lug set back with their new Mauser military actions.

Want to build a 6.5x55 swede.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.ph...-swede.740414/

JayPee

I would strongly recommend using a very strong commercial action if you intend to exceed military pressures in your loads. Military M98 Mausers can have their own set of disappointments. First among them is the fact that their original cartridge, the 8mm Mauser cartridge, dissipates pressure faster than any known cartridge, and once manufacturers discovered this they decided to reduce costs by reducing the degree of heat treatment of the action - thus you can get the exact same fatal setback problem in an M98 as you get in the Swede actions. Outdoor Life's shooting editor, Jim Carmichael, once wrote in one of his books that he and a friend had purchased a number of brand new military Mauser M98 actions, and upon barreling them for cartridges such as the .270 Winchester, they all developed a catastrophic degree of excessive headspace because the actions had only been heat treated to withstand 8mm Mauser pressures - all were ruined. Thus, back in the heyday of military conversions, the 50's, 60's, and 70's, the experts always advised that before using a military M98 action as the basis for an expensive sporting rifle, the shooter should first have the action tested for Rockwell hardness. That is still awfully good advice in my book if you insist on using a military M98 action. Hope this helps.

So, if you use a late model M98 receiver, and only use cartridges that produce a bolt thrust less than or equal to the original military cartridge, the action should be able to fire a number of rounds equal to its original intended service life. Bolt thrust higher than what the designers and manufacturers built into the actions will result in a shorter service. The type of shorter service life that could result in an action blowup.

What has not been said within this thread is that Jimro has been building sporter rifles on old Mauser actions. And in calibers that are entirely inappropriate for the action.

BRNO Mauser in 300 Win Mag value?

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=580390

Ok, well I guess if I've been called to the carpet...

The one that comes most to mind is the 7mm Rem Mag with a McGowan barrel, really the first project I ever worked on with my father. Although I have a 416 Taylor in the works built around a Czech receiver (from a VZ24 with completely shot out barrel). I honestly don't know how many rounds have been through that 7mm Rem Mag, but it was up to several hundred a few years ago when I gave it to a friend, a 175gr SGK over IMR7828 in Win Brass with CCI 250 primers. No signs of lug setback, and I do check when I visit my buddy.

The other fun project I did was a Turk M38 into a 9.3x62, but that is because the Turk is a small shank so I didn't want to open it up to 375 H&H for a safari rifle. Not a belted magnum of course, but I include it to illustrate that I'm not a complete idiot about the strength and safety of an M98 pattern action.

I'm not as experienced as Clark when it comes to building hunting/target rifles on a Mauser action, but it isn't something I shy away from. My experience with the 98/22 and VZ24 actions is that they are some of the best to build on because they were manufactured in peacetime with darn good steel. The Turks have the softest steel, unless you keep them in a sedate 6.5x55 or 7x57 they will develop lug setback at 308 Win pressures because many of them weren't case hardened properly (I had the 9.3x62 receiver gas carbeurized to give it a proper heat treat so it wouldn't suffer from lug setback). Even milspec 8x57 will give you excessive lug setback in most Turks.

The Gew98 actions that I have worked on are almost as good as the Czech receivers, but a little rougher because WWI happened. The K98s I have are staying in milsurp form, or I did find one with a really nice barrel that is getting modified into a reproduction SSR sniper (1942 config with reproduction 2nd gen SSR and ZF39).

I've been itching to build another 300 Win Mag target rifle, since I sold the last Savage I had (at the time I only had a 200 yard range available to me, then I PCS'd to a post that had a 1k range open on weekends). And I have no problems building on a milsurp Mauser 98 action, although they aren't as cheap as they used to be (quite the shame).

So there you have it, feel free to tell me about how much more awesome you are.

Jimro

Jimro’s safety analysis is unsophisticated. One Rem 7mm action, has 200 rounds through it and has not blown up yet. Some may find that particularly reassuring but I do not. What if it blows up at 201 rounds, or 300 rounds? What has Jimro done to determine the lifetime of any of his conversions? Jimro is exposing a “if she dies then she dies” safety philosophy. I think this is a very poor approach and not one that anyone should have any confidence. Jimro has not conducted even the most basic of analyses , and as I will point out, is instead providing fallacious arguments to “hand wave” away troublesome issues.

The buyer of any of these inappropriate conversions needs to consider the risk to themselves. Some of you are aware that you have an 8 to 12 thousand dollar deductible every year under Obamacare. That money has to come out of your pocket before your medical insurance pays for anything, and that is every year. If the rifle built around an old military action blows up and hurts you, how much of your deductible is your gunsmith going to pay? You think he believes that he is building unsafe rifles? You think you are going to get any money out of the guy without a lawsuit? How much are you going to get out of a lawsuit, after your lawyer takes his bite? Anyone hurt by a defective product from an incompetent gunsmith ought to sue. This is how society gets these guys out of the business, by taking away their assets. These guys will never admit to being at fault, never admit being wrong. You however will remain throughout your life, the injured party, And you will be paying the medical consequences and the financial consequences all your life.

I may not have definitive proof that the pressures of a century ago were not equal to the pressures of today, but I do have some nice ballistic evidence to support what follows.

Copper units of crush is a great way to measure "something" although it is not a great way to measure "max chamber pressure" by any stretch of the imagination. It is important to remember that the phrase "piezo electric resistor" were never uttered with the Mauser brothers were marketing their rifles.

The ballistics of the 8x57 cartridge, despite not having very good pressure data, do have very good ballistic data. The Wehrmacht could expect the ballistic path of a 196gr FMJBT projectile at 2,500 fps to perform very well. The performance of that load was enough to inspire the US Army to adopt the M1 projectile for the 30-06, a 173gr FMJBT pill which later morphed into the M72 match bullet.

It stands to reason that the pressure needed to launch a 196gr FMJBT projectile in 1939 at 2,500 fps is quite similar to the pressure needed to launch a 196gr FMJBT projectile in 2017 (and considering the advances in powder burn regulation it is likely modern powders can get to that velocity with a measurably lower max pressure than the older powder formulas). It also stands to reason that unless we are using the original pressure measuring equipment of the Mauser brothers era, we should ignore it as it has no bearing on what a "piezo electric" system of today would tell us in terms of pressure. Just like "Everyone knows Napoleon was short as he was only 5'2"" is untrue because of the difference between French and English inches, it is actually much easier to compare the difference between French and English inches than it is to compare crush units to PSI.

Reminds me of the story of the fat man who when told by his Doctor to drop weight, went home and changed the bathroom scale to read in kilograms. He then claimed he had dropped his weight by half. On the next visit, the Doctor told the fat man that what he had done was nonsense, he had not lost any weight, and he had to eliminate the fatty food, chips, and soft drinks. The man went home, re set his bathroom scale, missed bad foods for a while and bought a gym membership. One day he noticed that the bathroom scale, the scale in the Doctor’s Office, and the gym, all differed, so he decided that scales lie, dropped his gym membership and went back to a high calorie fatty diet. Since this is a fairy tale, you can supply whatever ending you want.

My Lyman 46th edition has an excellent section on the CUP versus Piezo electric measuring system. Copper units of pressure was based on a very logical assumption, that the deformation of a copper cylinder could be used to measure pressures.


This is a neat page, on the instrumentation available in 1937, and this is in the “vacuum tube” era. http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAV...XV-PAGE-1.html

Unfortunately the material response of the copper to a sudden impact load is different from that of an even load distributed slowly. This was not obvious or even measureable until faster measurement systems were developed. As with all technologies, piezoelectricity http://www.piezo.com/tech4history.html was a plausible theory well before technology made it practical. It is my recollection that I first starting seeing piezoelectric data on cartridge pressures in the literature of the mid 1960’s. What piezo electric devices showed, was that copper pressure testing equipment was in fact reading lower pressures than what the piezo devices. Ignition events are over and done in a couple of milliseconds and copper was not deforming “fast” enough to give a true measurement of peak pressure. Based on the Lyman 46th edition, CUP gave very consistent values for the 30-06 they tested, but, pressures as determined by the amount of copper crushed, was lower than the values given by the piezoelectric devices for the same loads.

The particular pressure measurement system has no effect on calculations for simple shear, which is how Mauser would have calculated the shear thickness of his lugs and receiver seats. As designers would do today, Mauser would have designed his action around a load, and a service life. If the cartridge was in fact producing higher pressures than the ammunition manufacturer or the design knew, than those higher pressures are reducing the service life of the weapon. Mauser would have included margin into his design. These are often referred to as “safety factors”. These are customary values, changed as technology changes, but are there to allow for the uncertainty between book values and what actually happens before the end of a production line. But, whatever receivers were built, they are what they are. And there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that Mauser, or any other military Mauser manufacturer reduced their profit margins by building their actions to a higher pressure standard than what was called for in their military contract.

The fundamental issue I see for those who claim you can ignore original design limits, because the units of measurement have changed, or that the system of measurement has changed, is not a technical issue, but an issue of fantasy and imagination. What Jimro has written is nonsense. As in the fairy tale above, above, he is seeing numbers he does not like, and has come to the astonishing conclusion that design limits don’t matter. As long as he was only building rifles for himself, this is a non issue that may correct itself. However he has branched out to selling his rifles to others and that is a risk they don’t understand.

Lastly, the Norwegian military to this day still uses K98 receivers for some of their sniper rifles. The CIP pressures for NATO standard ammunition are well known, and despite changing from Copper Units of Pressure to PSI through the piezo electric method, seem to be holding up just fine. Yes they have been rebuilt by gunsmiths, however I doubt that the Norwegian arsenals have a monopoly on competent gunsmithing. Suffice to say that it is entirely possible for a Gew98 to be redone into a K98, used in the occupation of Norway, left after the surrender of Germany, and rebarreled first into 30-06 and then into 308 as Norway updated the old bird (unlikely, but possible).

So, we live in a world where K98 actions are still in use all around the world in original form, modified military form, and in sporterized rifles. We also have people who shoot horribly old ammo and have rifles blow up, even modern rifles like the M1A, Savage 10 or Rem 700. But, things do wear out, and if you aren't confident in your rifle, don't shoot it and don't let other people shoot it.

Wiki claims the Våpensmia NM149 to have been in service from 1988 to 2012. While I am a fan of the Mauser M98 action, particularly those made of modern materials, you really have to wonder what the Norweigians were up to.

Lets say the Norweigians built 500 308 Win Våpensmia NM149 for 500 snipers. I have pulled targets with sniper dudes, USMC Marine Team, and AMU types. The amount of ammunition these guys fire is amazing. So, lets say conservatively you have 500 rifles firing 3000 rounds a month. If a rifle goes down, a sniper dude gets a paid holiday until he has his weapon operational.

So why build heavy use sniper rifles around actions that were last made seventy two years ago? You can understand how this is not an issue to a home gunsmith who fires maybe 200 rounds total through one of his rifles. This guy will have a box of parts, he selects and hand fits what he has, and the combination of bastard parts is never used enough to wear out. But, for something that is consistently used, where do you get enough parts to keep 500 rifles up and running? I have found this issue with vintage vehicles. At some point, new old stock parts are unavailable, and then you are scouring junkyards looking for useable parts. But, as I found, vintage parts in junkyards are also worn out. And, if the unit deploys, do you deploy the junkyard with it?

Keeping vintage mechanical items running requires a higher mechanical skill than simply changing batteries in a flashlight. Was Norway going to imprison enough gunsmiths to keep their sniper rifles going? Be a good reason not to work on that contract, if the bubble goes up, you get drafted. You think those skilled machinists are going to work at Army rates if given an alternative? Any skilled machinist with brains is going to find a nice, high paying job, well away from artillery, mortars, machine guns, cold food, and mud.

Why did not the nation of Norway buy their sniper dudes new rifles? Nice, new, advanced rifles with new factory parts. Parts that could be installed by low skilled workers with 15 minutes of training. There are lots of factory new rifles, with factory new gages, with factory new repair manuals, and ISO shelters of factory new parts. Just what were they thinking?

We do know that these old Mauser actioned sniper rifles were put to pasture. I would be curious why they used them in the first place and why they went out of service.

The bottom line, Norway can do whatever they want. I do not consider their behavior a blanket recommendation for conversions of old military actions, especially those that develop higher pressures and more bolt thrust than the original military cartridge.

[LEGION27]

sorry for the highjack
but i have or had lol sporterized m96 carl gustav
23.5 barrel
shot about 100 rounds from it no issues
reloaded to speer military spec starting load and coal
140 accubond
then kaboom after one weekend the reciever exploded and im lucky to be here
i checked firing protrusion and its within spec
39 grains rl 22 win larg r primer
once fired nosler brass
no probs before prob a flaw in reciever from being so old?
any help appreciated now to commercial actions

[Jim Watson]

I have a very simplified approach to the crusher vs piezoelectric debate.

If I load a .30-06 with 52.79 grains of XYZ powder and put samples in a crusher gun and get a reading of 50,000, it is a maximum load, right? So if I put it in a piezo gun and get a reading of 60,000, it is still a maximum load. I don't have to convert units, I am maxed out or I am not.

[rickyrick]

The thread that keeps on giving.