Jump to content
Military Firearm Restoration Corner

bcp477

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

bcp477's Achievements

0

Reputation

  1. When you are testing the closing of the bolt, how much force are you using ? Mausers, because of the high camming force they generate, can be misleading when testing headspace. You should only use your thumb when closing the bolt handle for this test - and do NOT put full force on the bolt handle, only very moderate force (almost gentle). As for whether you have reamed too deeply, the answer is yes, with a qualification. You certainly have reamed too deeply for best accuracy, because for that, the bolt should have just closed on the GO gauge. However, the fact that your bolt now closes on the NO GO does not mean that the rifle is unsafe to fire. The NO GO gauge represents the outer limit of headspace recommended for a re-barrel. If the bolt closed on a FIELD gauge, that would indicate dangerously excessive headspace. So, you tested with a piece of tape on the NO GO....and the bolt only closes half-way ? It sounds as if you mean that the bolt really won't close on the (taped) NO GO (again, only moderate force used). Assuming the tape is not too thick, this would indicate that you are right on or just past the outer recommended limit, as represented by the NO GO gauge. So, the rifle is not unsafe to fire - but does have a bit too much headspace for best accuracy. If you handload for this rifle, you can fireform a supply of cases for it, then neck-size them ONLY...and get around most of the negatives to accuracy, as long as you are not using max. loads. If you do use max. loads in this rifle, then again, it should not be unsafe, but brass life will be shorter than in a rifle with more correct headspace. If using factory ammo for this rifle, then again, it should not be unsafe, but I doubt that you'll get accuracy as good as you would with tighter headspace. Brass life would not then be an issue, as you can imagine. Of course, whatever accuracy you get (as is) may be perfectly acceptable...that is a matter for testing. I hope that this helps you. What you choose to do now is, of course, your call. Good luck. ** By the way, Bubbamauser, I concur with you.....I have no problems with what you did, myself. In fact, I do NOT use a lathe to re-barrel Mausers anyway - it really isn't necessary. I always get perfectly acceptable results by the means you used - careful file work. I'm glad that you brought this up. So, Mr. Fixit, the point is, if you DO wish to tighten the headspace on this rifle, it can be done easily. Simply remove the barrel and file back the breech face a couple of thousands....then do the same to the barrel shoulder. This will have the effect of shortening the chamber. To save having to remove and re-mount the barrel several times, you can even deliberately cut back the breech face more than needed - then re-ream to the correct headspace. Just be CAREFUL to be sure that you DO file the breech face SQUARE (a good machinist's square can be used for checking this). Also, be aware that it is NOT necessary to torque the barrel into the action with more than about 50 to 60 ft-lbs of force. The old method of leaving the shank a bit long, then over-torquing to get a "crush fit" (and thus bringing the barrel into perfect headspace) causes more problems than it is worth. Really, it is a completely discredited idea - though some stick to it. As for accuracy of a barrel, using the "file it" method..... the last Mauser I did this way, my trusty, favorite ole' non-matching mutt of an M48 sporter, re-barreled with a pristine military "take off" barrel ( I lucked out and found a 24/47 barrel that had never been mounted on a rifle), shoots as well as ANY rifle I've ever owned. With my handloads, it will produce groups as tight as I can shoot (best so far, about 1/2", for five rounds).
  2. Thanks, AzRed and Larry for the additional info. Of course, I was speaking in general terms in my posts, but thanks for the corrections and more precise information. I must say that I've always been intrigued with the 7.65 x 53....and I've had a mild interest in having a rifle (in that chambering) at some point. It is a pity, in my opinion, that this cartridge is not more popular today.
  3. No, the 7.65 x 53 is not "superior" to the 8 x 57. Today, properly handloaded and used in a "modern" rifle, it can approximately equal the .308 Win. However, in it's ORIGINAL form and loading, it was somewhat inferior to the 8 x 57. Further, the rifles originally designed around this cartridge are NOT up to a modern handloaded version (I am speaking of the Belgian M1889, the Argentine M1891, etc.) - with the EXCEPTION of the Mauser 98 - pattern rifles, such as the 24/47 and M48. The 7.65 x 53 was certainly adequate as a military cartridge, for it's day. However, most of Europe by that time was under the influence, from a military arms and tactics point of view, of the Germans and their superior Mauser-pattern arms. The Yugoslavs had already adopted the 8 x 57 before this, as their standard service round. So, as the M1924 (as the rifle was designated) design certainly could handle this cartridge, they saw no need to adopt a somewhat inferior one. Cost containment certainly played a role - the Yugoslavs were relatively poor, as European nations went. Taken all together, there was no intelligent reason to switch to the Belgian round - so they didn't. Incidently, as I alluded above, there certainly is nothing wrong with the 7.65 x 53. It, in fact, was innovative for it's time - really, the first short-length rifle cartridge designed to mimic (most of) the capability of full-length rifle rounds. That trend became SOP after WWII - hence, the .308 Win. (7.62 x 51), etc. However, since it was simply not adopted by most nations....and thus, was a commercial failure, on the whole, it was never developed to it's potential. Today, except in some old milsurp rifles and those who collect them (pricipally, the Argentine M1891....and a few Belgian M1889's that are still around)....it is almost completely overlooked by all...and not widely available.
  4. The choice of intermediate action length plus large-ring size was not a CHOICE made by the Yugoslavs, only one that they accepted. FN, as you know, designed the rifle, as well as the tooling for it. The rifle was originally designed for the Belgian (FN designed) 7.65 x 53 cartridge, which FN tried to get all of their clients to adopt. In the end, only Belgium and a couple of South American countries adopted the round. The Yugoslavs chose the 8 x 57 cartridge (which they already used as their standard), which the intermediate-length action would accept without difficulty. So, the design was not changed. As for the "safety-breech", that was an option, which the Yugoslavs did choose. They did this over concerns about poor-quality brass, since their ammunition facilities were not yet up to the same level as those of the other European nations. That was probably a wise decision, at the time. However, within 10 years, the issue was moot.
  5. bcp477

    Forend Keys

    They ARE crossbolts. On Mausers, they serve as the recoil lug for the action, mating to a small shoulder on the bottom of the receiver, to transmit the recoil forces to the side webs of the stock.
  6. The Remington bullets will work fine in the load you have described. In fact, that load would work well for Elk, at moderate distances. It should be quite effective on Black Bear. As it happens, most Black Bears are taken at fairly short distances, especially in the Eastern US, often less than 100 yards. So, how comfortable are you with iron sights ? If not with the issue ones, then you could put a set of aftermarket sights on one of your Mausers...such as the Mojo aperture sights. These make fine short to moderate range hunting sights...and are great in the brush. That is, IF your eyes will still work with irons. Or, you could install a receiver sight, such as a Lyman 57 SME. That would also make for a very good brush gun setup. My eyes won't cooperate with irons anymore - so I recently changed to a long-eye relief 4x scope. That would be my other suggestion. If you NEED a scope...you definitely will NOT need high magnification....4x should be all you'll ever need for Black Bear. So, you could install an S&K "Insta-Mount" on one of your Mausers.....with a suitable LER scope. Makes for a terrific short to medium-distance setup...with no permanent alterations to your rifle. Lots of people have negative things to say about mounting a scope forward, such as "small field of view" complaints. The answer to that is : DON'T get crazy with the magnification. 9x is ridiculous on MOST rifles anyway....and certainly it is unnecessary on any rifle to be used mostly at distances of 250 yards or less. A 4x or lower LER scope will do nicely, for your purposes. If you keep the magnification at or below 4x, as well, it is usually possible to train yourself to shoot with BOTH eyes open...thus getting the largest field of view POSSIBLE. Anyway, the choice is yours. Those are my thoughts on the subject.
  7. Very nice ! I have always been interested in Krags. I always have LIKED the magazine design....I can't really understand why it was poo-pooed by the military establishment(s) of the time, in favor of the Mauser stripper clip design. I can't see an advantage, really...in a practical, field use sense. Perhaps the Mauser design IS quicker in use...but not much. The Krag magazine is simpler in operation and so much more elegant in concept. If only the Krag bolt design was up to the higher-pressure loads needed to make it competitive with the Mauser-pattern arms, perhaps it would have been more successful and longer-lived as a standard-issue weapon. Anyway, I have always wanted a Krag....but probably will never have one. Congratulations on a great find !
  8. You are welcome. I'm glad that it is working out for you. As to rubbing it out, I just buff each coat with a soft cloth....then dull the shine with a coarse cloth - like a piece of cheesecloth. Oh and thanks for the compliment - but I am hardly a genius - just always experimenting. Sometimes, I get lucky.
  9. I have always used this technique to fine tune the barrels on all of my sporter rifles - it works with almost all types of rifles, not just Enfields. Sportered military Mausers tend to respond very well to this technique. As for this not working with a Yugo M48....in my experience, it works just as well as with any other rifle. I suggest that the gentlemen that could not get the M48 to respond to this technique has a poorly- bedded action. If the action is not absolutely solidly bedded in the stock, then NO amount of "barrel tuning" will do any good - this is true for ALL rifles. The receiver bedding is always the FIRST item to deal with, when accurizing any rifle.
  10. Good point. But, I was referring to ALL of their over-priced bullet production....preferably, at the same time. That, I expect, they would notice
  11. No doubt, gentlemen. I've run into the same issue, with the result that I've decided to shoot ONLY cast bullets, from now on. I have been experimenting with paper-patching and I am starting to get some good results. As for me, Hornady, Barnes, Sierra, Speer, Remington, etc., etc., etc can all stick their over-priced products "where the sun don't shine".
  12. A rather tired BLO finish was already on the stock, which definitely needed refreshing. I suppose, after having thought about it, that this wax finish would not really be suitable for a stock which is unfinished (bare wood). It probably would be better to only apply this stuff over an existing oil finish. If not, then I'd say revert to the good old 1/3 -1/3 - 1/3 mixture...so that there would be BLO in the mix, to soak into the wood surface.
  13. I have been experimenting with stock finishes lately. No particularly profound purpose, other than to (possibly) come up with a finish that will be as easy to apply as possible...dry or cure as quickly as possible....and to be as weatherproof as possible. Also, ease of refinishing would be a great plus. I have tried and like very much, the old standby of 1/3 turpentine, 1/3 beeswax and 1/3 boiled linseed oil. However, even this requires a bit of time for each coat to dry... and can be a problem in extemely humid or cold weather. I often use a product by Minwax, a paste wax product called "finishing wax" (made for fine furniture)....for a variety of purposes. This stuff is very rich in carnauba and easy to use. It seems to have good protective qualities, as well. However, in it's standard form, (the finished coat) is easily smeared and dulled by hand contact. I wondered if thinning the mixture might help. So, I mixed about 1/3 (or so) of turpentine to 2/3 of the Minwax.... and cooked the mixture on an electric burner (to melt the wax and facillitate mixing). Thorough mixing was accomplished by stirring the pot constantly. After cooling, the resulting mixture is much softer than the original paste wax....and even better - it forms a MUCH better finish. I have applied six coats now to my favorite gun stock, hand rubbing in the wax mixture. Drying time is short, no more than 10 minutes or so. Then, I buff it out with a soft cloth. The result is a nice, soft, glossy finish which for some reason is much more durable than the original wax - it is actually difficult to smear the coating (and destroy the shine) by handling. The surface (of the finish) is almost as hard as a regular oil finish. Further, the finsh is as waterproof as any I have ever tried (I actually placed the stock in the shower, under a stiff spray of warm water, for ten minutes...with absolutely no indication of any water soaking into the wood, at any point). The remaining water simply beaded up on the surface, as one might expect. Naturally, when applying the finish, I have been sure to coat all areas of the stock, inside and out. A period of extended firing of the rifle at the range produced no apparent melting of the finish, as well. The standard Minwax product has, of course, petroleum-based solvents in it. Somehow, the combination of the Minwax stuff and ordinary turpentine has proved to be much better than the sum of it's parts. Perhaps the turpentine has reacted with the other solvents in some way, causing the stuff to form a harder surface. I do not know. I can say though that this mixture is about the easiest stuff to apply I've ever used...and adding a coat takes no time. So, it seems to fulfill my purposes very nicely. In case anyone else is looking for the easiest possible gunstock finish....I would recommend this stuff highly. The Minwax product can be found at your local Home Depot....or probably anyplace that sells the Minwax product line.
  14. For rifles with sporter-weight barrels, my experience has been a mixed bag, as regards free-floating. Many sporter-weight barrels actually prefer some uplift at the forend (and shoot better for it). With a heavy-weight target barrel, free-floating usually works better. I can say, without fear of contradiction, that, unless the action area of the rifle is FIRMLY bedded, a free-floating barrel will actually SPOIL accuracy. This is the reason many commercial sporter rifle manufacturers provide pressure points for the barrel in the forend of the standard stocks. As for military-stocked rifles.....one should always ensure that the inside of the handguard does NOT bear against the barrel (lots of them DO in untouched condition)... and since it is nearly impossible to truly free-float the barrels on many of these weapons (such as the Mausers)....they tend to perform better with a pressure point or "cradle" in the barrel channel, at approximately the half-way point of the barrel. I have never encountered a military-stocked rifle that performed better with handguard contact than without - so this is almost an absolute, in my experience. Every rifle is different, though.....
  15. I reworked an old, but very nice, 24/47 military stock into a sporter recently. I prefer a schnabel forend on my sporter stocks, so I used a portion of the handguard (no longer needed) to build up the tip of the forend, prior to shaping. I used JB Weld to glue the piece to the existing stock wood, as well as to fill and reinforce the cleaning rod cavity (in addition to a hardwood dowel). It all worked out quite nicely. The only minor negative is a small glue-line which remains visible, where the wood was added. However, after finishing, this is not very obvious, unless one looks for it. Of course, before using any part(s) of the original stock wood, I was very sure to remove ALL of the existing surface finish and as much of the oil IN the wood as possible.
×
×
  • Create New...