The thread title says it all.

I'm interested in hearing any insights on re-heat treating the Zastava Mauser 98 models. These could be the Interarms Mark X, Remington 798, Charles Daly, and the current incarnation - the USSG/EAA Z98. I have read in numerous sources that these modern Mausers were manufactured using completely different steel alloys than the rifles made for the military or the early commercial sporters. Because of this, I am under the impression that the re-heat treating process will need to be different when dealing with older Mauser variants. Is this the case? What would be sound recommendations (numbers) for the receiver, bolt body, cocking piece, and bolt shroud?

I am looking at working on some projects for myself (CST grad) and have located a local heat-treating company who has some familiarity with Mausers. However, they have mainly dealt with older components and suggested I try and find out what would work best for the more modern M98 actions. Some of the things I'd be doing would be lapping lugs, facing the front ring, trueing the bolt-face, and possibly some rail work. Nothing overly invasive or complicated but enough for me to want to play it safe by getting the actions re-heat treated.

Thanks for any thoughts.

Why treat it at all-no need for it.

My feelings exactly.

Sort of Hijack, what if you welded two halves togeather. Actually two 2/4ths.........

That type of work is done ALL the time. Re-heat treating that particular action isn't necessary. That action is made of modern alloy steel and is heat treated in the modern conventional way. Other than looks and features, metallurgically, it is not anything like the old military Mausers.

I have built some of these actions to house and feed some pretty big cases and never needed to play with the heat treating. About the only way I would ever consider having one re-heat treated is if it were the centerpiece of a house fire. Then I would probably replace it.

After welding it seems SOME form of HT would be in order.

It would seem that way wouldn't it. You would need a working knowledge of firearms and know enough to stay away from the critical areas and how to protect them during the welding process, then you would be fine.

Malm; so since the weld is in a no wear zone, and nowhere near the yeild point, if it is straight it is good to go.

Not Malm but if you take steps to prevent heat migration to the locking lug abutments and the primary extraction ramp you should be fine.
Heat sinks, heat sink paste, etc.

I have an old book around here some where that a person did just that.

I think what he did was shorten the action about a half or 1/4 of an inch, by cutting a section out and welding it back togather.

If you are interested, I will try to find the book.

I didn't pay a lot of attention to the article, because I thought that was going to a lot of trouble just to shorten an action 1/4 of an inch or so.

1234567;

I think that was Roy Dunlap......

Is that the one who was making a short action Winchester M70? The Gun Digest Book of Riflesmithing.

I thought it was in one of his books, but I could be wrong.

Jack Mitchell did the M70 in the Gun Digest Book of Riflesmithing.

I recently sold my copy of that book.

You're correct. Chapter 10 - Shorter Can Be Better

The trouble is in the hand work. It is easy to cut and weld. You need a proper jig and heat sink. The bolt is cut and a sleeve is soldered into the 2 shortened bolt pieces and the firing pin is shortened. The original extractor will work.
Butch

pinotguy didn't mention one word about welding that I saw.

So junior do you want us to delete our posts.
Butch

Junior 1942;

I posted the hijack about welding.
I needed a different length action, as I couldn't find a Mauser 4000.

Butch;

Thank you for the reading from the Book of Lambert, I'll go on with the project now.

Again, many thanks for all your information, saves a lot of research.

Dunlap's book happened to be sitting nearby, where it shouldn't have been. If you really want to do it, Dunlap's book has seven really concise pages with pictures on shortening an action. Mausers, Springfields and gas welding of course. Just has to be too much work to be practical these days, even with TIG.

Roy Dunlap's book, "Gunsmithing" covers action shortening extensively. He did it with an acetylene torch and had no problems with nmaintaining the original heat treatment. As long as the receiver ring and the bolt head are kept below 500� or so, nothing bad happens to the action. He used wet rags and asbestos fiber to protect those parts and there are plenty of modern alternatives. Any smith doing it today would use a TIG rig and the HAZ would be much smaller, anyway.

RAN

All of this talk about shortening actions is nearly pointless these days.

Dunlap and the others did things like that when short actions were rare to non-existent and labor costs were low.

Doing that type of work these days would be silly considering how many commercial short actions there are on the market.

Can you imagine trying to sell a shortened LA?

I started the asking about welding an action but I never said anything about SHORTENING an action now did I......

Ummm, yes you did.



And then you expounded on it here.



And then several others contributed their knowledge about both Jack Mitchell and Roy Dunlap shortening actions.

When someone says something about welding two halves or 2/4ths togeather I figure most people could figure humor was involved........

Guess I'm wrong again............

You see a half is the same as 2/4ths and why would you weld 2 halves to make the same length action?

And then I said DIFFERENT length.

I'll stop at this point so you can check your math.

And I just said that I thought it was Roy that shortened the actions. How is that me saying I want to shorten an action?

So your saying you hijacked pinotguys thread just to show how clever you are?

Where did that come from????

How is my totally transparent and silly humor trying to be clever?

I try to keep it light when I ask a question sometimes.

Someone posted about modern alloys and HT. I wondered about the HT after welding as that would effect the "modern alloys and HT" in the welded areas.

Those questions were answered and then posts started about me saying something about shortening actions.

So what's up?

Where did THAT come from?????

I never figured my totally transparent and silly posts were clever.
I try to keep it light when posting.
Sorry about reposting.

If the action hasn't been Rockwell tested, don't even contemplate re-heat treating it. Every one of the Mark X actions, even old Siamese Mauser actions made in Japan, I had tested passed the hardness test. Those folks in Zastava have been manufacturing Mauser actions for a long time, they know their stuff. When I attempted to smooth a magnum Mark X feed ramp, I discovered just how hard and tough that steel is. Many barrel installers will Rockwell test actions before barreling as standard practice, i.e. Pac-Nor, if there is any question.

Sorry for the hijack, but at least it's Mauser related. Should I be concerned about building a sporter on my Argentine 1909's without testing hardness or re heat treating? Any issue with drilling and tapping for scope bases? I understand that under the thin case hardening these actions are very soft.

I don't know. I have been following the back-and-forth on re-heat treating older Mauser actions for years. Some people that really should know say always, some say not necessarily as you would expect lug setback rarely and mostly with late war rushed production. I'm about to build on an Argie action and plan on having it re-heat treated. With all the time and money I'll be putting into the project I figure it's cheap insurance. Think I'd just sit there screaming if I finished it to perfection and found it needed to be redone.

It is cheap insurance, providing it's done properly.

I've done them with & w/o & have not had a problem either way, but the safe way is to have it done.

With any rifle built on a military Mauser, I check headspace regularly & note bolt handle position on the NG gauge.

Never had one change, either HT's or not.

FWIW worth, Ludwig Olsen, who is a renown Mauser guru advised that they all be HT'd. I corresponded with him several times on the subject.

There's also a section in one of PO Ackley's books discussing deliberately blowing up a Mauser..........took a lot of Unique to accomplish the feat.

MM

FWIW, this a 1909 action with approximately .040 setback.

Ouch! Is there a story behind that?

I'm planning on .270 WCF so with higher pressure than 7.65x53 I have another reason to have the action cooked.

BTW, I recall that Kuhnhausen too said to always re-heat treat. His book is aimed at the professional gunsmith so I imagine the "insurance" aspect plays more than a little to his advice.

Is there a universal case depth used for all Mausers or does it go by make or size?

Case depth varies quite a bit by manufacturer, vintage and manufacturing conditions. In his book Kuhnhausen wrote, "Case hardening thickness in Mauser receivers I have sectioned has varied from a few thousandths to beyond .035" in one excessively reheat treated receiver. Case thickness, in most cases, ranged from .002" to .008"."

Kuhnhausen recommends a case thickness of .010 to .015 as ideal. I happened across a post I printed out by DArcy Echols from 2004, stuck in Kuhnhausen's book actually. He wrote, "While attending the School of trades in Denver, We were told that any 98 rebarreled to a modern caliber should be re-carborized .030 to .040 deep so the surface hardness was around 36-40 RW C." I take it to be an endorsement. So there is still some art in the trade regarding case depth.

Echols continues, mentioning that he built two rifles in .270 without reheat treating when he first opened his shop that he had back in his shop years later. Both had enough setback that they needed repair. He goes on to mention that he's had a good number of Mausers in his shop with setback troubles. Further along he wrote that he reheat treats every 98 he uses. "Some 98 actions are probably OK to use as is the 1935 being one of them. But why take the chance and why waste all those end mills on an action that is glass hard on the surface or have to eat the repair when it shows up back in your hands."

Thanks for the photo, Guy. I'll be taking a look at my two actions soon. I hope they aren't set back. Any remedy if they are, or are actions with set back junk? I bought these 20 years ago and have never looked at the lug recesses.

Just got off the phone with Blanchards. They will do both my actions for cheap, and I will be doing that after I finish preparing them.

Nighthawk:

Thanks for the info. Only one thing.

35 to 40 Rc doesn't seem very hard. Or is that the reading going thru the case?

257x50,
That is plenty hard. Most modern receivers are 35-40RC.
Butch

What I don't know about hardness testing could fill volumes. That's about the range of hardness you would expect for heat treated medium carbon steel like 1035. I don't have a solid value for yield strength but it should be on the order of 78,000 psi which is enough.

Rockwell C testing involves applying a cone shaped diamond point with a 150kg (~331 pound) load and measuring the depth of penetration. So if you test over the case you can get close to the core hardness if the case is thin, something more if the case is thick. Kuhnhausen mentions this as a way to test for "overly hard" actions by which he means the case depth is greater than what he considers ideal.

In the post after yours Butch my question is answered.

I understand the receiver hardness. It was the term "case hardening"

When using a conventional Rockwell tester, if the case isn't too thick, you blow right thru it. I donn't know where they draw the line. As in the correction factors for round pieces, factoring in diameter and hardness range.

Thanks Butch and Blackhawk for clearing that up.

In the microhardness world you would take a measurement every .010", on the receiver you just cut in half to check the hardness..............:-)

I have seen 98 actions that have had the marks ground off of the receiver. To do this, you would have to grind through the case hardened layer.

Of course, the inside of the action and the lugs would still be case hardened, if they ever were, but still, it looks like grinding the crest off, and the resultant case layer, would severly weaken the action.

I sent one that had the crest ground off to Douglas and they tested it. They said it tested 0 RC, and sent it back. They would not put a barrel on it.

With the thousands of hardness and micro hardness tests I've done I've never tested THRU a case hardened part so this has been an education.

Thanks to all of you.