wpsdlrg,
It’s OK, I doubt your are hard on yourself, but, just in case you are, don’t be. The OP said this is his first build, I tried to prepare him for his first build ‘IF IT WAS A CHILEAN MAUSER’ so? Someone needs to ask him what receiver he is trying to build.
Then the link, the one you knew Clark knew did not apply to this thread. Going straight to the 700 foot pounds of torque. The shank of the barrel is to short to apply those kind of numbers, even if it was solid. Then there was your editorial on “CRUSH” and “DON’T' YOU BELIEVE IT”. I will not give you the benefit of knowing, the Masuser barrel face bottoms out on the C-ring torque surface in the receiver. After making contact the two surfaces do get closer, the surfaces can gall, slack between the threads can be removed but the two mating surfaces do not get closer. That brings up the shoulder at the end of the threads, I secure the barrel then measure the gap between the front of the receiver and shoulder at the end of the shank, I want the shoulder on the barrel to make contact with the front receiver ring after the barrel face makes contact with the C-ring.
After the barrel face makes contact with the C-ring I want .003” gap between the front of the receiver and shoulder at the end of the threads. I use the most humble and modest of all tools, I use the feeler gage, also know as the thickness gage. Same for the M1917 and the Springfield 03 type rifles.
The Mauser (98 type) barrel bottoms out, back to the link that has little to nothing to do this thread is about. A bolt being torqued was never designed to be torqued when bottomed out, the best way to shear a bolt with torque is to bottom it out then mindlessly continue to torque.
Then there are the other barrels like the Springfield and the Enfield M1917, the barrel seats against the front receiver ring and shoulder at the end of the threads. Difference? Yes, the big difference is square threads, when it comes to thread design there is nothing stronger than square threads, after square there is acme, then there is that story about Eddystone using steam at the rail yards to secure barrels, again, once the two mating surfaces makes contact there is not much chance the two surfaces are going to get closer, that leaves pulling threads and creating stress on the receiver. I have Eddystone receivers, I have one that is cracked/split. Back to two surfaces getting closer, if the Eddystone was indexed and the builder knew how to deterring the distance the barrel had to be torqued to align, the amount of barrel rotation to torque would not have required steam power. When they built the M1917 no consideration was given to removing the barrels, we needed the rifles, we knew the slack was not going to be taken up by Springfield.
F. Guffey