Hello everybody:
Are the Mausers produced in late 1944 and early 1945 safe to fire? I have a sporterized (more like butchered stocked) 1945 Mauser 98K that I used to shoot occasionaly. I have doubts about its metallurgy (after all it was made in a time when Germany was losing the war rapidly) and stopped shooting it years ago. I got myself a 98K manufactured in 1939 as a shooter, instead.
The reason for my doubt over the rifle's metallurgy is because when I was in school, I took a metallurgical specimen (from the rifle's chamber)out of another late production Mauser (1944) that was really worn out. Upon the micrographs' examinations, it was noticed that the microstructure of the rifle's steel was non uniformed, to say at the least. Instead of a microstructure consisting of 100% tempered martensite, a few large areas ("spots")of fine pearlite was observed. What caused these areas of such extreme microstructural discontinuities to exist? How can the rifle's steel had so many "spots" with such distinct different hardenability? Was it possible for a very severe elemental microsegregation to occur during the forging of the barrel, thus giving the metal areas/spots with extremely diferent hardenability?
Now folks, I am not talking about trying to make a full martensite out of 1" diameter steel, here. A Mauser's chamber wall is much less than 1" thick. Even with a steel with rather low alloying elements (such as Cr, Mn, and V), I should be able to expect the rifle's chamber wall to consist of 100% martensite after quenching (thus 100% tempered martensite after the tempering process). So what's up, here? I remember taking the hardenability test (in Rockwell C scale), but I do not remember the exact value (somewhere in the middle 30). I remember, however, when using a chamber pressure of 75,000 psi (max for 8mm, isn't it?)and utilizing the thick walled cylinder formula, my calculation showed that the rifle's chamber ought to comfortably withstand the stress it is subjected to. I am, however, worried that the steel's microstructural discontinuities would have a detrimental effect on the steel's fatigue endurance. And after being shot for more than 50 years, there may be a good chance for the rifle to blow up on my face. Remember, fatigue failures always occur without warning and always catastrophic in nature.
So what do you all think? Any advice/opinion would be appreciated.
Johannes
P.S.
I was too stupid to perform chemical analysis on the steel, so I can't even guess what type of steel it was (in US equivalence).
Are the Mausers produced in late 1944 and early 1945 safe to fire? I have a sporterized (more like butchered stocked) 1945 Mauser 98K that I used to shoot occasionaly. I have doubts about its metallurgy (after all it was made in a time when Germany was losing the war rapidly) and stopped shooting it years ago. I got myself a 98K manufactured in 1939 as a shooter, instead.
The reason for my doubt over the rifle's metallurgy is because when I was in school, I took a metallurgical specimen (from the rifle's chamber)out of another late production Mauser (1944) that was really worn out. Upon the micrographs' examinations, it was noticed that the microstructure of the rifle's steel was non uniformed, to say at the least. Instead of a microstructure consisting of 100% tempered martensite, a few large areas ("spots")of fine pearlite was observed. What caused these areas of such extreme microstructural discontinuities to exist? How can the rifle's steel had so many "spots" with such distinct different hardenability? Was it possible for a very severe elemental microsegregation to occur during the forging of the barrel, thus giving the metal areas/spots with extremely diferent hardenability?
Now folks, I am not talking about trying to make a full martensite out of 1" diameter steel, here. A Mauser's chamber wall is much less than 1" thick. Even with a steel with rather low alloying elements (such as Cr, Mn, and V), I should be able to expect the rifle's chamber wall to consist of 100% martensite after quenching (thus 100% tempered martensite after the tempering process). So what's up, here? I remember taking the hardenability test (in Rockwell C scale), but I do not remember the exact value (somewhere in the middle 30). I remember, however, when using a chamber pressure of 75,000 psi (max for 8mm, isn't it?)and utilizing the thick walled cylinder formula, my calculation showed that the rifle's chamber ought to comfortably withstand the stress it is subjected to. I am, however, worried that the steel's microstructural discontinuities would have a detrimental effect on the steel's fatigue endurance. And after being shot for more than 50 years, there may be a good chance for the rifle to blow up on my face. Remember, fatigue failures always occur without warning and always catastrophic in nature.
So what do you all think? Any advice/opinion would be appreciated.
Johannes
P.S.
I was too stupid to perform chemical analysis on the steel, so I can't even guess what type of steel it was (in US equivalence).