Guys:

I've been trying to find the answer to this question but haven't had much luck. For those of you who are Mauser and Winchester 'smiths, what's the difference between these two bolts that makes the M1909 bolt handle, vs. the M70, extremely difficult to lift when the cocking piece is in the "fired" position? Here's the background.

I have a few M70s, one Zastava M98, and a couple of rifles built on M1909 Mauser actions. In the fired position, with the rifle still at my shoulder, I can easily cycle the bolts on the Winchesters and Zastava, but on both M1909s I almost have to take the rifle off my shoulder to raise the bolt handle. Once the handle is raised the bolt cycles normally (i.e., easily and smoothly). Neither of the Argentines show any evidence of lug setback (both have been examined), and it doesn't happen only on fired rounds: the very same thing happens when practicing with snap-caps. Any idea why the bolts on the Argentines are far more difficult to raise after having "fired" them than the M70s? I'm thinking it may have something to do with the firing pin springs, but I'm not gunsmith.

Any help in figuring it out is appreciated.

Thanks

RM

Don't know beans about the Zastava (wish I had one) but the 1909, a '98 for practical purposes, has a hell of a lot more striker travel than the M70...with the same degrees of bolt rotation, steeper cam angle, hence you have to compress more spring (do more work) with the same bolt rotation. Dang physics, foulin' stuff up again.

That would be my take too. Also, what level of smoothness are the cocking cam surfaces (receiver bridge and bolt handle root) and were they inadvertently softened in a customization process?

I knew I came to the right place.


Good question, and I don't know the answer. I do know that both actions were "hardened" but other than that I can't say.


I've noticed that when the striker falls it falls with a lot more force (on both M1909s) than on the M70s. So, what can be done to lighten the bolt handle lift? Lighter firing pin spring?

If you don't mind a lock time measured in minutes.

As shaky as I am already, that ain't gonna work.

I do wonder, though, why the Zastava isn't hard to cycle but the Argentines are.

Not having a Zastava in front of me, I'll hazard a couple guesses. Different cam angles? Harder cam surfaces? Less mass in in the "sprung weight" of its striker allowing for a lighter spring? Slightly longer bolt handle, equaling more leverage?

Rev, Although the Zastava is supposed to be a '98...I kinda suspect they improved it a little here and there. Maybe shorter striker fall. Just measure it yourself, cocked and fired, and compare it to the same measurements on the 1909's. I'd like to hear your results to know if I'm full of it or not. I have built quite a number of bubba '98's for the local guys over the years, and have lightened the firing pin/striker by milling or grinding quite a bit of weight in longitudinal cuts on the flat non bearing surfaces, then you can take a loop or three off the striker spring making bolt lift noticeably easier without sacrificing anything in reliability. I am not of the school of bubbasmiths who believes in trying to shorten the fall it self...that in my experience is tweaking Murphy's nose with predictable results. The Brownells speedlock/aluminum striker kit is a dandy, but they have priced themselves out of the market IMO. Last I looked they were a hundred bucks, pre covid.

There are many things that can contribute to hard bolt lift, especially in a mauser. First, there is the mainspring. All too often folks wanting to improve lock time replace the factory spring with something much stiffer.

I assume the bolt handles on the Argentines were replaced? That can often lead to galling of the cocking cam. If the cam was annealed during the handle welding, it will lead to hard cocking and often galling.

Lastly, many cases of hard Mauser cocking can be traced to them being parts guns. The cocking pieces often not original to the bolt thus being poorly fitted.

I can cock the bolts on my Mausers with my pinky.

It is the cam surface which was softened when the handle was welded. It's an easy fix which entails hardening and polishing the cam. GD

What about the bolt handles, are they all inserted into the bolt body and, moreover, of the same length?

I think that could make for a big difference.

First, thanks for all the comments. They are all very much appreciated.

As for the rifles, one is a custom rifle that was built in 1983 by Larry Forster, who was a member of the ACGC. He had the action hardened, trued it, etc. No doubt the bolt handle was replaced when he was doing the work. It's a beautiful rifle that I picked up about four years ago, and even though I haven't shot it I have cycled the action with snap caps.

The second rifle is one that I picked up a couple of years ago to use in the field when our summer rains start. Jim Kobe worked on the bolt handle (to allow clearance for low rings), and Tom Jackson did some barrel work.

Other than that, I don't know any more details about the assembly of either rifle, or any details about what action/bolt work was done. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, the bolts of both are certainly harder to lift than the one on my Zastava, and I certainly won't be lifting them with my pinky.

When I get some time I'm going to take the measurements y'all suggest, in particular the travel of the striker of the 1909 vs. Zastava. I'm now curious about that myself.

Once again, thanks for all the suggestions.

Mike

The reason they are harder to lift than your Zastava is, the cocking cam on the zastava is not too soft. This is an issue which is so commonplace as to be considered SOP for sporterized Mausers.
Jim Kobe may have altered the handle somewhat to clear the scope but I doubt that he welded it on. He knows enough to re-harden the cam if it gets too hot.
Nowadays, with TIG welding in common use, the issue is not as endemic as it was when most handles were welded using oxy-acetylene. With TIG and a heat sink, the cam doesn't get hot enough to soften. GD

Gents:

I was finally able to get the measurements some of you asked for. The bolt on the Zastava is about 1/4 inch longer than the one on the Argentine. It doesn't sound like much but that bit of leverage probably makes a difference. The firing pins fall the exact same distance, right at 1/2 inch, so that probably doesn't make any difference. Springs, though, might. In any event, there it is.

Again, thanks for all the comments.