You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A Mauser dilemma
- Thread starter darwins
- Start date
I took it to the smith ,after it would not fire the 30-06 round.
He determined that it was chambered for a belted magnum,and did a chamber cast to determine the chambering,and it was fired twice with that ammo,308 Norma Magnum,and the action stretched with those two firings,and then was destroyed.
He determined that it was chambered for a belted magnum,and did a chamber cast to determine the chambering,and it was fired twice with that ammo,308 Norma Magnum,and the action stretched with those two firings,and then was destroyed.
That is the way I read it but the 03A3 was not a receiver that was suspect and if head space was a problem the smith should have checked. When test firing the ammo should be new only unfired cases. As I have said I am not a fan of Hatcher but I do understand Unclenick's statement "wrote at length" he was talking to Springfield, Springfield built the 30/40 Krag with one locking lug because they could not build it with two locking lugs, THEN went on to build 800,000 ++ 03s that were suspect, Winchester /Browning found nickel steel in 1894 for the 30/30 M94, Springfield could not find Winchester or Browning just a few miles down the Interstate.
F. Guffey
F. Guffey
Jim,
Lug setback was a serious omission from my post. I've seen (had) a number of rifles that changed headspace rather more in their early round life than they did later, so it seems they settled in. I suspect imperfect and sometimes slightly uneven lug contact when they were new had a fair amount to do with that, as none of these had lapped lugs in the beginning that I recall. I'm sort of watching my Steyr Scout's fired cases to see how well its chamber holds length. I'm curious if the precision grinding method used to fit the lugs does any better than average.
Lug setback was a serious omission from my post. I've seen (had) a number of rifles that changed headspace rather more in their early round life than they did later, so it seems they settled in. I suspect imperfect and sometimes slightly uneven lug contact when they were new had a fair amount to do with that, as none of these had lapped lugs in the beginning that I recall. I'm sort of watching my Steyr Scout's fired cases to see how well its chamber holds length. I'm curious if the precision grinding method used to fit the lugs does any better than average.
Lugs do settle in. When Remington started with multi-lug bolts, there was a lot of gunzine gabble about problems if the lugs didn't bear evenly. A Remington engineer responded that "...of course they don't bear evenly as they come off the line. But we feed them a blue pill* and THEN the lugs bear evenly."
*A high pressure (75k psi in .30-'06) proof load, so-called because the cases are zinc plated for identification and have a bluish cast.
Jim
P.S. I can't imagine an '03 receiver stretching from firing two shots; the PSI pressure of the .308 Norma Magnum is no greater than that of the .30-'06, although there is a greater base area so the absolute pressure on the lugs is greater. Still, if an '03 receiver stretched like that, it was bad to begin with, possibly having been burned in a fire.
Jim
*A high pressure (75k psi in .30-'06) proof load, so-called because the cases are zinc plated for identification and have a bluish cast.
Jim
P.S. I can't imagine an '03 receiver stretching from firing two shots; the PSI pressure of the .308 Norma Magnum is no greater than that of the .30-'06, although there is a greater base area so the absolute pressure on the lugs is greater. Still, if an '03 receiver stretched like that, it was bad to begin with, possibly having been burned in a fire.
Jim
I must be dumb but for the life of me, it seems to me that in gunsmith school we used two gauges when we where learning to chamber Mauser actions.
A go and nogo, that is all.
And I have continued to use those two gauges up till now.
Close on go and not close on nogo.
An stripped a bolt down completely.
CEW
A go and nogo, that is all.
And I have continued to use those two gauges up till now.
Close on go and not close on nogo.
An stripped a bolt down completely.
CEW
"The last 03a3 I had would not fire a 30-06 round"
The low number Springfield or Rock Island would just let go, nothing before and then all of a sudden the rifle would swarm, when loading for a low number I call it meets and or exceeds BUT that only makes sense to me, the ones that failed I attribute to sudden shock, if the receivers were able to stretch the failure would have been progressive and there is no way to add your low number to the list of known failures.
F. Guffey
The low number Springfield or Rock Island would just let go, nothing before and then all of a sudden the rifle would swarm, when loading for a low number I call it meets and or exceeds BUT that only makes sense to me, the ones that failed I attribute to sudden shock, if the receivers were able to stretch the failure would have been progressive and there is no way to add your low number to the list of known failures.
F. Guffey
Guncrank,
You are remembering correctly. If you are cutting a new chamber, those two are all you need. But if you are looking at a gun with some wear, the Field NO-GO is what you need to see if it's still in spec.
Mr. Guffey,
An excellent point about the low number failures. Hatcher's investigation dealt with a relatively small total number of failures; about 1 in 15,000. But there is no central record system for reporting subsequent failures to know what the number has come up to. A few collectors have succeeded in shattering some with a hammer. There's an example of your shock. But how many failed in actual use with normal ammunition at the pressure they were designed for originally? Nobody knows if it is significant or trivial.
It's one of those questions that, if a giant pile of money magically fell in my lap, I'd be tempted to investigate. The only method I can think of, since many of the old guns and past owners have gone, would be to buy up a large random sample and proof them all and to see if they all survived.
You are remembering correctly. If you are cutting a new chamber, those two are all you need. But if you are looking at a gun with some wear, the Field NO-GO is what you need to see if it's still in spec.
Mr. Guffey,
An excellent point about the low number failures. Hatcher's investigation dealt with a relatively small total number of failures; about 1 in 15,000. But there is no central record system for reporting subsequent failures to know what the number has come up to. A few collectors have succeeded in shattering some with a hammer. There's an example of your shock. But how many failed in actual use with normal ammunition at the pressure they were designed for originally? Nobody knows if it is significant or trivial.
It's one of those questions that, if a giant pile of money magically fell in my lap, I'd be tempted to investigate. The only method I can think of, since many of the old guns and past owners have gone, would be to buy up a large random sample and proof them all and to see if they all survived.