Jump to content


Photo

1893 Turkish Mauser Project


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Jon Todaro

Jon Todaro
  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 03 November 2011 - 02:52 PM

Ok, so I have a 1893 Turkish Mauser (re-chambered in 1935 for 8mm) that the furniture is in very poor shape but the action, barrel, bolt, and floorplate are very nice (the floorplate has a few dings/pitting but nothing to complain about for it's age). No rust at all on anything, and the bore is very clean with no pitting.

Looking to do a sporterize on it just to the point of replacing the stock (for now, but who knows how far this sickness will take me once I get the stock done). I know I'm working with probably the worst starting platform, but would still like to tackle it.

What stocks are out there that will fit (the mag cut-off switch was removed, but the metal block was not ground down)?

Going slightly further (if the sickness takes me there), what aftermarket trigger, and/or other popular sporterize accessories would work (without too much work)?

#2 rdm1962

rdm1962
  • Members
  • 284 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Charles MO
  • Interests:If it goes bang I'm interested in it.

Posted 03 November 2011 - 06:03 PM

Welcome Jon
Be careful that kind of how I got started. As far as stocks go take a look at Richards microfit. Brownells and Midway are good source for parts. If you go to Mauser Central site there is a list (on the left side ) of different venders for different part. Your in for lots of fun. Feel free to ask question someone will have the answer.
Ralph

#3 Dr.Hess

Dr.Hess
  • Admin
  • 1,151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arkansas

Posted 04 November 2011 - 07:51 PM

I have one of those, but in pretty good shape. As in "looks new to me." I've shot it with mil-surp turk ammo. I'll have to say that the action works really fast. I'm not a real bolt gun guy, but I think that one is about the fastest working bolt I've shot.

I thing the stock makers can make you one pretty reasonable. I had one made for a 98 Turk that I rebarreled to 30-06 and made a high power prone rifle out of. It wasn't that much. I called up one of the stock makers that advertise in SGN.

#4 gitano

gitano
  • Members
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alaska
  • Interests:Truth, Justice, and the American Way

Posted 05 November 2011 - 09:15 AM

I know I'm working with probably the worst starting platform,




Says who? I'm getting tired of hearing all the BS about Turk '38 Mausers. I've built several rifles from them and they all shoot small groups. The biggest pile of crap is that they are "weaker" that other Mausers. The mythology that gets spewed around the firearms community is really getting old. People hear something from some stupid "gunwriter" (ptooey) that knows absolutely nothing about the subject, then they repeat that baloney and in no time it's "gospel". If after replacing the barrel you can't get a Turk Mauser action to shoot straight it isn't the action's fault.


Paul

#5 ken98k

ken98k
  • Members
  • 2,411 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alaska
  • Interests:Hunting, Shooting, Camping, Boating, Jeeps, and MAUSER rifles

Posted 05 November 2011 - 01:50 PM

Paul,
The 1938 Turkish Mauser is more of a redesign of other models than an actual model itself,
As Turkey had been one of Mauser's biggest customers from very early on, they had quite a hodge podge of different rifles by 1938.
So that year they sent everything to be re-arsenaled so that their rifle all shot the same cartridge and all looked the same. That is why we find GEW 98's with the front of the ring recessed or 1893's that have been threaded on the outside of the ring. In both cases it was so a hand guard could be attached to the ring. There are many of these out there and they are known as Mausers that have been "Turked."
Around the same time, Turkey Started producing their own receivers. The most common of these are marked k-kale.
The last group of mauser rifles to be "turked was in the 1950's, these are usually stamped ATF 54.

The rifle Jon Todaro mentioned is one of 201,100 1893 spanish type rifles ordered from Germany with a magazine cut-off. The magazine cut-off was deleted as part of the 1938 remodel.


As this is a pre-98 design it is lacking the improvements that made the mod 98 "The Standard" by which bolt action rifles are judged. That is not to say it is no good but should be kept to low pressure rounds when rechambering.

#6 gitano

gitano
  • Members
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alaska
  • Interests:Truth, Justice, and the American Way

Posted 05 November 2011 - 04:12 PM

Please don't be offended by the following as it is not offered in offence.

The explanation while appearing thorough, is not complete. The analysis fails to take into consideration the reality of the use of "Turk '38s" for the last 50 years. Can ONE instance of ONE receiver "failing" because of too much pressure be cited? Even too much pressure that would have been too much of a modern Winchester, Ruger, or Remington? I certainly know of NONE. This "Turk '38" matter is akin to the boogey man of "low serial numbered" Springfields. Not a single one of the failures observed (in that case at least there WERE failures), being unequivocally assigned to "brittleness". Instead, the "failures" with actual objective data associated with them showed that the actions were "abused" by overloads or incorrect CALIBER bullets.

I was in the furniture-making business for a while and it sickened me to see the sleeze-bags that don't know which end of a hammer to hold telling people that the "value" of a piece of furniture was "ruined" by refinishing. The exact same elitism pervades the milsurp firearms community. ONE of the forms that elitism takes is "careful" "analysis" of particular firearms or actions with the pseudo-scientific conclusion being drawn that "rifle X must be constrained to these pressures", or "rifle Y is unsafe at any pressure". I've been down this path with damascus-barreled shotguns that all too many - completely ignorant of the REALITY of damascus-barreled shotguns - spew to all that will listen that damascus-barreled shotguns SHOULD NEVER BE SHOT! This in the face of the REALITY that there are professional shotgun competitions conducted throughout the nation every year for damascus-barreld shotguns ONLY. Some of them over 150-years old! All of the "arm-chair quarterbacking" is infuriating!

Of course it is reasonable to analyse what one wants to "play with". Unfortunately, this analysis tries to take on the "airs" of "scientific" or "engineering" study. IN FACT it is antithetical to "scientific" or "engineering" analysis because IT IGNORES THE ACTUAL FACTS!

Again, my comments are not intended to offend, but to point out that one considering using one of these "old" actions should review ALL of the information on the subject before they decide what they want to do, and to put voice to my frustration at what is presented as "considered analysis" when in fact it ignores the single most important piece of information: ACTUAL USE.

This matter is by no means confined to "Turk '38s". Martini-Henry actions are so much stronger than what the "experts" report that they should be embarrassed to even rear their heads.

It is important for me to make this final point, but it will be COMPLETELY IGNORED anyway:

I AM NOT ADVOCATING DRIVING OLD ACTIONS TO PRESSURES ABOVE THOSE OF WWII BATTLEFIELD FIREARMS.

Off course that comment will be completely ignored by those that want to be an "expert" and fight about it.

I have, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TESTING THE EDGES OF THE ENVELOPE, "pushed" just about every old military action I have WAY beyond WWI military ammunition pressures. None of them even "bent" let alone "broke". However, I am "nobody". Read Ackley about military actions. He ain't exactly "nobody". I HATE "pushing" old actions around. There is NO GOOD REASON FOR IT. NONETHELESS I'm not going to LIE about it just because I think it is the "wrong" thing to do. It's the "wrong" thing to do because there is no NEED, NOT because IN ANY WAY is it ANY more "dangerous" than it is to push a "modern" Winchester or Remington action around.

The TRUTH is what is important.

And I AM NOT calling ken98k a liar, so don't say I have!

I'm 60-years old. I spent at least half of my life listening to firearms "experts" only to find out that with precious few exceptions - P.O. Ackley being one of them - they were liars or idiots. I'm sick of it. I wish there had been some "forum" when I was a young man for someone like P.O. Ackley to call "baloney" on the mythology that I spent decades finding out for myself. It is for "some young man" that I voice my opinions and experience, and offer this unsolicited advice:

There is no better reason to believe what I have written above than what anyone else has written.


You MUST find your own truth.


"Lots of" of people saying something DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.


"Published" in some magazine DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. Sadly, there are people lining up to convince you of their "expertness".


Listen to your "elders", and find the truth out for yourself.


With all due respect
Paul

#7 mauserman69

mauserman69
  • Members
  • 173 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern NC

Posted 05 November 2011 - 07:37 PM

Please don't be offended by the following as it is not offered in offence.

The explanation while appearing thorough, is not complete. The analysis fails to take into consideration the reality of the use of "Turk '38s" for the last 50 years. Can ONE instance of ONE receiver "failing" because of too much pressure be cited? Even too much pressure that would have been too much of a modern Winchester, Ruger, or Remington? I certainly know of NONE. This "Turk '38" matter is akin to the boogey man of "low serial numbered" Springfields. Not a single one of the failures observed (in that case at least there WERE failures), being unequivocally assigned to "brittleness". Instead, the "failures" with actual objective data associated with them showed that the actions were "abused" by overloads or incorrect CALIBER bullets.

I was in the furniture-making business for a while and it sickened me to see the sleeze-bags that don't know which end of a hammer to hold telling people that the "value" of a piece of furniture was "ruined" by refinishing. The exact same elitism pervades the milsurp firearms community. ONE of the forms that elitism takes is "careful" "analysis" of particular firearms or actions with the pseudo-scientific conclusion being drawn that "rifle X must be constrained to these pressures", or "rifle Y is unsafe at any pressure". I've been down this path with damascus-barreled shotguns that all too many - completely ignorant of the REALITY of damascus-barreled shotguns - spew to all that will listen that damascus-barreled shotguns SHOULD NEVER BE SHOT! This in the face of the REALITY that there are professional shotgun competitions conducted throughout the nation every year for damascus-barreld shotguns ONLY. Some of them over 150-years old! All of the "arm-chair quarterbacking" is infuriating!

Of course it is reasonable to analyse what one wants to "play with". Unfortunately, this analysis tries to take on the "airs" of "scientific" or "engineering" study. IN FACT it is antithetical to "scientific" or "engineering" analysis because IT IGNORES THE ACTUAL FACTS!

Again, my comments are not intended to offend, but to point out that one considering using one of these "old" actions should review ALL of the information on the subject before they decide what they want to do, and to put voice to my frustration at what is presented as "considered analysis" when in fact it ignores the single most important piece of information: ACTUAL USE.

This matter is by no means confined to "Turk '38s". Martini-Henry actions are so much stronger than what the "experts" report that they should be embarrassed to even rear their heads.

It is important for me to make this final point, but it will be COMPLETELY IGNORED anyway:

I AM NOT ADVOCATING DRIVING OLD ACTIONS TO PRESSURES ABOVE THOSE OF WWII BATTLEFIELD FIREARMS.

Off course that comment will be completely ignored by those that want to be an "expert" and fight about it.

I have, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TESTING THE EDGES OF THE ENVELOPE, "pushed" just about every old military action I have WAY beyond WWI military ammunition pressures. None of them even "bent" let alone "broke". However, I am "nobody". Read Ackley about military actions. He ain't exactly "nobody". I HATE "pushing" old actions around. There is NO GOOD REASON FOR IT. NONETHELESS I'm not going to LIE about it just because I think it is the "wrong" thing to do. It's the "wrong" thing to do because there is no NEED, NOT because IN ANY WAY is it ANY more "dangerous" than it is to push a "modern" Winchester or Remington action around.

The TRUTH is what is important.

And I AM NOT calling ken98k a liar, so don't say I have!

I'm 60-years old. I spent at least half of my life listening to firearms "experts" only to find out that with precious few exceptions - P.O. Ackley being one of them - they were liars or idiots. I'm sick of it. I wish there had been some "forum" when I was a young man for someone like P.O. Ackley to call "baloney" on the mythology that I spent decades finding out for myself. It is for "some young man" that I voice my opinions and experience, and offer this unsolicited advice:

There is no better reason to believe what I have written above than what anyone else has written.


You MUST find your own truth.


"Lots of" of people saying something DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.


"Published" in some magazine DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. Sadly, there are people lining up to convince you of their "expertness".


Listen to your "elders", and find the truth out for yourself.


With all due respect
Paul




gitano, I`m with you on this. You are right on.

#8 ken98k

ken98k
  • Members
  • 2,411 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alaska
  • Interests:Hunting, Shooting, Camping, Boating, Jeeps, and MAUSER rifles

Posted 06 November 2011 - 12:31 AM

Jon
I haven't sporterized a 93 so far but I did this 1895 in (very similar to a 93)7X57 several years ago. I got the stock from Brownells and used the original trigger. I also turned down the barrel slightly to remove one of the steps.
Attached File  Old Bones 001.JPG   200.08K   61 downloads
I believe one of our regular members built a nice deer rifle in 7.62X39 on a 93 mauser.

#9 mauserman69

mauserman69
  • Members
  • 173 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern NC

Posted 06 November 2011 - 09:34 AM

Here is a pic of my 03/38 Turk, which is a fine shooter, that I sportized into a Mannlicher style. I installed a screw on bolt handle only because I haven`t found anyone were I live that I trust welding on it with the #`s matching the receiver & barrel. Will be replacing the trigger assy in the near future. The other one is my Interarms Mark X in 270W.

Posted Image

#10 Rojelio

Rojelio
  • Members
  • 243 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Texas

Posted 06 November 2011 - 11:42 AM

That turk has a beautiful stock. :)

#11 ken98k

ken98k
  • Members
  • 2,411 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alaska
  • Interests:Hunting, Shooting, Camping, Boating, Jeeps, and MAUSER rifles

Posted 06 November 2011 - 01:52 PM

Very nice :)

#12 gitano

gitano
  • Members
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alaska
  • Interests:Truth, Justice, and the American Way

Posted 06 November 2011 - 02:06 PM

ALL of those are beautiful pieces to my eye! I LOVE Mannlicher stocks!

Looks like moose antler for buttplate and gripcap on Ken's 7x57. I have considered that, even having picked out the pieces, but haven't done it yet as I've been focused on developing my metal-working skills. Here's a Martini-Enfield chambered in .50 Alaskan that I built from scratch, (on which I keep chamber pressures under 40,000 PSI even though it was tested at pressures greater than those for even the biggest modern magnums). It's a dall sheep horn forend cap. I 'like' animal parts on personal firearms IF they are done 'tastefully'. Fully acknowledging that "tastefully" is in the eye of the beholder.

Posted Image

Posted Image


In an attempt to stay on topic, the point is: If you want to make it, then do the research, and then do what YOU believe is right FOR YOU.


Paul

#13 olgeorge

olgeorge
  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 05:32 PM

A few observations and comments on Gitano's post from someone who doesn't purport to be an "expert" in anything. Ackley, DeHaas and some others did tests on actions which were very helpful and informative to us' especially those of us who don't have the facilities or knowledge to run our own tests(not to mention the cost). I don't think ALL those who urged caution did so out of ignorance, but from the standpoint of prefering to err on the side of safety, kmowing that some people will push things too far. Now if we look at the pre-98 mausers and some others, the locking area of the bolt and receiver are the same size as a 98. The Husqvarna actions were made with a M98 type of bolt at the back end, but the front end was about like the M94/96 Swedish military actions and the receiver was the "small ring" size. Some of them were chambered for belted magnum cartridges. I think the question is not so much about the yeild point of the receiver/bolt as it is the case, in the event of a case weakened by stretching during resizing or a chamber with excess headspace. The M98 will handle escaping gas better, at least in theory. Another aspect is the heat treating of the receiver/bolt. If they are too soft they might stand an overload well, but gradually develop excess headspace due to the lugs seating into the receiver while using loads well within the safety margin. I have worked on a pair of 1909 Argentine actions which were about Rc 15. This is about the same as a piece of 1018 cold roll. One I lapped the bolt lugs in and had re-heat treated. The other was so soft that the bolt sleeve lock had worn a notch into the rear face of the rear receiver ring where it made contact, the rear of the extractor had worn a groove in the bolt and the ejector had worn a groove along the bolt where it rubbed as the bolt was opened and closed. Both were original military barreled actions. Both had set the bolt back into the locking shoulders to the point that metal had extruded out against the bolt body. I doubt that either had ever been fired with anything but military issue ammo.
Some of the Spanish receivers were very soft, as well, and the quality of the machining left something to be desired. My feeling is do your research, proceed with caution, but remember you won't shoot as many rounds in a lifetime of hunting as target shooters and prarie dog hunters will in a season. If it does what you expect of it then don't worry about what others think of it. By the way, I like that Martini-Enfield. Always wanted to build one myself, but never got around to it. L. O. G.

#14 pacrat

pacrat
  • Members
  • 555 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Socialist Republic of Commyfornia

Posted 04 August 2012 - 12:05 AM

gitano said,

I AM NOT ADVOCATING DRIVING OLD ACTIONS TO PRESSURES ABOVE THOSE OF WWII BATTLEFIELD FIREARMS.


Nor would I. Nor do I consider myself an egg-spurt by any means. I'm 63 yr old and built my first sporter in 1967. A m1917 Eddystone, {one bear of an action}.

That said, I also have opinions. One of which is that I know I'm not as smart as Parker Ackley, Townsen Whelen, or any number of other firearms reworking predecessors who pushed the limits back in the day. I most assuredly don't think I'm as smart as Paul Mauser was. And it was him that designed the 1893 a long time before WWII and WWI both, actually it was put into production 5 yr before the Spanish American War. It was he that realized that as good as the 93, 94, 95, 96's were they still needed improving and designed the 98 to address all the pre-98's shortcomings. Which was primarily [gas handling] capabilities.

Because I know how dumb I am compared to Paul I never advise exceeding the 46,000cup pressure level of the 7x57 that he designed the 93 to handle. And realistically why should I. After all there is nothing I wouldn't consider hunting on the N American continent with a 7x57 exception for the Brown bear and only then out of respect for the Bear.

There are 98 actions aplenty for building hot rods on.

So in summary not because I'm an egg-spurt or think I'm so smart but because I know how dumb I am. That is the truth I've discovered for myself after 45 yrs of sporterizing mil-surps.

JM2c

#15 Spiris

Spiris
  • Members
  • 607 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 04 August 2012 - 07:25 PM

I offer no pretense as an expert, only as a hobby amateur at gun fabrication. Being around this site, as well as others, I have learned that pre-98 small ring Mausers should not be subjected to pressures and cartridges that exceed their design limits, and the metallurgy for the time. In their original calibers, they often have a small pad of design safety to work with, but most still suffer with the pre-98 issues of bolt design that was addressed with the M98.
The only SR Mauser that I own is a M38 Swedish Mauser produced in 1941, and in spite of the superior(IMO)Swedish steel, I would not consider using a higher pressure round in it. There are many good M98's available, that lend themselves to stepping up to modern rounds. This is my hard and fast rule, and I use K.Kale Turk M98 actions for conversion, with confidence. IMO, the best action for the money is the full length VZ-24.


Spiris

#16 ken98k

ken98k
  • Members
  • 2,411 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alaska
  • Interests:Hunting, Shooting, Camping, Boating, Jeeps, and MAUSER rifles

Posted 04 August 2012 - 11:11 PM

There are 98 actions aplenty for building hot rods on.



I use K.Kale Turk M98 actions for conversion, with confidence. IMO, the best action for the money is the full length VZ-24.


So what is your opinion of building a 300 win on a k-kale? Yes or No?

#17 pacrat

pacrat
  • Members
  • 555 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Socialist Republic of Commyfornia

Posted 05 August 2012 - 12:56 AM

So what is your opinion of building a 300 win on a k-kale? Yes or No?



I have no personal experience with a K-Kale. If I was going to the time and expense to build a sporter around a magnum cartridge, I would go with a LRLS reciever such as a FN or as Spiris said a VZ24.

#18 donmarkey

donmarkey
  • Members
  • 1,554 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Detroit MI

Posted 05 August 2012 - 07:36 AM

So what is your opinion of building a 300 win on a k-kale? Yes or No?


I will vote on that one. It's not an action strength issue, it is chamber wall thickness. Think about it, look at how much material you remove from a rem700 barrel to rethread for a turk.
Don

#19 pacrat

pacrat
  • Members
  • 555 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Socialist Republic of Commyfornia

Posted 05 August 2012 - 03:02 PM

I will vote on that one. It's not an action strength issue, it is chamber wall thickness. Think about it, look at how much material you remove from a rem700 barrel to rethread for a turk.
Don


Amen,


Do the math.
With a major thread dia [minor spec not at hand at moment] of .980 and a 300 WinMag case being .513 just ahead of the belt. Leaves .467 / 2 = less than .233 chamber wall because of minor thread dia.

I'd pass and find a LRLS action to build on.

#20 Spiris

Spiris
  • Members
  • 607 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 05 August 2012 - 03:14 PM

It's not an action strength issue, it is chamber wall thickness.


That's my take on Turk small ring barrels, although I know of some who have done the magnum conversion on Turk K.Kales without incident, I would not do it myself. I would rather have the extra 1/8" of overall chamber thickness of a large ring barrel to work with, when using anything over the '06 size case.


Spiris




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users