Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

1895 Mauser Actions / Pressure

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by hotajax, Nov 9, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hotajax

    hotajax member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    177
    Location:
    Eastern PA
    Have a question about how hot I can load this action with 7x57. I remember reading a few years ago that the '95's were not as capable as the 98's. And I have already had the gun headspaced. Where can I get literature on what my max CUP's are using the 140 grain bullet? Not trying to keep up with the varminters, but just want some options... Thanks in advance.
     
  2. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,519
    Location:
    Alabama
  3. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    20,450
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    I killed my first deer with a Chilean '95 Mauser in 7x57, and spent a lot of time learning about the rifle's design and about how to push the loadings that I used.

    The 95 Chileans (as with all small ring Mausers) were made to the highest quality of the period, and are dimensionally no smaller in front receiver ring diameter (where the barrel screws in) than most modern centerfire rifles. Having said that, it HAS to be noted that the alloy consistency and heat treatment accuracy of the period was simply not well regulated by todays standards. For that reason, they are not considered equal to modern actions in terms of safety and strength.

    The small ring action was redesigned into a large ring format in the late 1890s, to include several safety features and to increase the dimensions of the action to better accommodate variations in metallurgy and manufacturing. For that reason, it is generally felt that the large ring Mausers (post-1898) are capable of being hotrodded in ways that are simply inappropriate for the earlier small ring design.

    I managed to shoot some steamin' velocities out of my Chilean Mauser, and it never did anything to indicate that it was unhappy with my behavior. But there is also no doubt that I was testing my luck with 100+ year old metallurgy, and that's probably not always a great idea...
     
  4. ReloaderEd

    ReloaderEd Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    186
    Location:
    washington state
    Mause Actions Pressure Danger

    I worked in a Metallurgical Lab for a Steel Company for about ten years.
    We had one gunssmith bring actions in to be rockwell hardness tested for overall proof of heat treatement and detection of any hard spots in the action, especially were scope mounts to be mounted (drilled and taped).
    There were a lot of good actions and I don't remember many that were rejects, maybe ten total. But I remember several actions that were over 50 Rockwell C hardess with is just to hard. He had one crack when he installed a barrel in it too.
    I would stay within the bounds of pressure for the 7mm mauser cartridge. Lighter bullets can be used to speed up things without over pressurizing the action. Even if your action is within the hardness specification, that doesn't mean it can be used for hot loads.
     
  5. browningguy

    browningguy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,524
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Keep your loads down to US pressure specs (think Remington factory a40 gr.) and I don't think you will have any problem. I shoot my 1891 Mauser in 7.65x53 quite a lot and it seems to handle my light handloads with no problem. I'm loading a 180 gr. bullet at around 2400 FPS. Works fine on deer up to 150 yards or so.

    Go to the alliant or hodgdon site and they give plenty of loads, just keep down toward the starting load and it should work.
     
  6. Mr_Pale_Horse

    Mr_Pale_Horse Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    751
    Location:
    IndianaKy
  7. brian923

    brian923 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    676
    The 7x57 will do all you need it to do out to 300-400 yards without being hot-rodded. If you want faster, buy a new magnum action in 7mm rem mag, 7mm stw or 7mm rem ultra mag. No need to hurt yourself trying to get a couple extra feet per second. At 100-200 yards , a whitetale deer aint gonna fell the fps. My 330 fps arrow will go clean through a deer and down it know problem. And with bullets, you have extrem shock to help aid in anchoring an animal. Remmember, the 6.5 sweed was used to harvest moose and other large game. Have fun, be safe and good shooting.
     
  8. mgmorden

    mgmorden Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,564
    Location:
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Keep in mind though that pre-1900 designs aren't necessarily of pre-1900 manufacture. My Swedish 96 action that I used to have was made in 1938 for example. While a small ring action, by that time they a lot better in the metallurgy department.
     
  9. Mr_Pale_Horse

    Mr_Pale_Horse Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    751
    Location:
    IndianaKy
    By what objective measure?
     
  10. JNewell

    JNewell Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,714
    Location:
    Land of the Bean & the Cod
    I don't know about the Argies, but the Swede Mausers are supposed to be capable of shooting loads at pressures well above the original 6.5x55 load, and are reported to be commonly rechambered for higher pressure loads in northern Europe. Whether that is true or not, it is clearly true that the small ring Mausers handle issues like case head failure or case ruptures much less safely than the large ring Mausers. I'd shoot it as it was issued.
     
  11. kaferhaus

    kaferhaus Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Messages:
    739
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama
    It all depends on the date of mfg. Anything made post about 1908 had the alloying process down.

    many 10s of thousands of Model 95 mausers have been re-barreled to high pressure cartridges without issue.

    The blanket statements about them being "weak" was to keep morons from re-barreling the very early models to high pressure standards. And verified reports of those failing are very scarce.

    I wouldn't do it because of the gas issues. Not because I'd be afraid of the action but I'm a reloader.... mistakes happen and I don't want all that gas coming back down the raceways into my face.
     
  12. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,519
    Location:
    Alabama
    Whenever I have read a metals analysis of the irons and carbon steels of that era, they are all “slag, impurities, low grade”.

    All of these old actions were made of plain carbon steels, that today, are used as rebar.

    Maybe someone here can provide a timeline of what alloy steels were discovered and when. That would be instructive.

    Today, no one uses plain carbon steels to make receivers. From the descriptions I have read, most are built from 4140.

    Go over to Mat Web and compare ultimate and tensile of 4140 and 1020 carbon steel heat treated billets.

    This was more than state of the art in 1911, it was cutting edge.

    [​IMG]

    This is a free country, as a free man go forth and stick your heads behind the highest pressure charge you can put in one of these antiques.

    Just please post the pictures afterward.

    Something like this would be neat. And this is a later receiver than a 1895.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Mr_Pale_Horse

    Mr_Pale_Horse Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    751
    Location:
    IndianaKy
    Issues with low serial number Springfield receiver processing is well documented.
     
  14. JNewell

    JNewell Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,714
    Location:
    Land of the Bean & the Cod
    But that ^^^ is a heat treat issue, not a steel issue per se.

    IIRC, there was no change in the Carl Gustaf receiver or bolt metallurgy between the earliest production (1894) and the final production in the WW2 years.

    Here's a reliable suggestion: anyone thinking about rechambering a Mauser, especially a small-ring, should pick up and read Kuhnhausen's book on these rifles.
     
  15. browningguy

    browningguy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,524
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    By any objective measure you would like to use. UTS, Yield Strength, elongation, % impurities, do I need to go on?

    Look, I own and shoot rifles from the 1870's to 1890's and like them a lot. But please don't fool yourself into thinking that 19th C. metallurgy is up to modern standards. That's worse than wrong, it's dangerous.
     
  16. Mr_Pale_Horse

    Mr_Pale_Horse Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    751
    Location:
    IndianaKy
    I am not saying that it is.

    German mild steel receivers with case hardened exteriors were made about as well as you can make them, then or now.

    No sign of "slag, impurities, low grade" or any ill odor.

    They are not modern alloys or investment cast stainless but are perfectly suited for the cartridges and pressures for which they were designed.

    My point is simple: They are as strong as they need be by a considerable margin for the 7x57, 6.5x55, etc.

    Lastly, just because Uncle Sam's first attempt to copy the 98 Mauser blew up in his face (legally and literally) should not color what Paul Mauser accomplished over the previous decade. There is no comparable legacy of failures of pre-98 Mausers from Oberndorf, Loewe Berlin/DWM Berlin. Hatchers notebook clearly and repeatedly points to human failure in Springfield heat treatment, with receiver failures as late as 1929; and secondly, to initially poor, but over time, improved brass case metallurgy.

    The worst that can be said about pre-98 mausers is that when a cartridge case failed, all the gas went straight aft.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2010
  17. JNewell

    JNewell Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,714
    Location:
    Land of the Bean & the Cod
    Some are good, some are not, but what you wrote ^^^ is true of all of the small-rings. I'd put a Swedish Mauser, from any maker, up against anything made today for the quality of the steel (and workmanship, but that's not the question here), but I wouldn't want to be at the trigger when a case let go.
     
  18. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,519
    Location:
    Alabama
    There is nothing in print. If it was not for Hatcher documenting the process control problems with the single heat treat receivers you would know nothing about them either.

    Darn, and I thought there had been progress in the last 112 years. CAD/CAM, Lean manufacturing, scanning electron microscope and the semi conductor revolution just did not happen. Maybe it was in a dream.

    I for one would be interested in reading any metallurgical report you have documenting this.

    They are more likely to frag when they blow.
     
  19. JNewell

    JNewell Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,714
    Location:
    Land of the Bean & the Cod
    You didn't address his point at all. Nothing you listed has anything to do with what you quoted. But, in fairness, maybe there has been change in firearms metallurgy over the last 100 years. Things like sintered metal, MIM, use of aluminum and polymer. But as far as quality steel used in quality firearms, there hasn't been much change. All of the change has been focused on substitute technologies and materials. :(
     
  20. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,519
    Location:
    Alabama
    Is process control divorced from technological advancement? Sensor technology, analysis, inspection and control, production process planning, scientific knowledge the same as it was 112 years ago?

    The M1895 and M1898 actions were designed and built before the discovery of the electron. Decades before it was shown that the atom had structure.

    When did we stop using the Bessemer process, and why? And exactly when did the Basic Oxygen process, vacuum smelting, aerospace metals start appearing?

    Even within my lifetime I have seen advancements in manufacturing, manufacturing technology, inspection and process control technology, that 60's manufacturing technology looks Paleolithic in comparison.

    Sweeping statements of the “quality of steel” being the same now as it was then are simply based on ignorance of the history of technology.

    We still have libraries, they still have books.

    Too bad the manufacturing has gone to China. :eek:
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2010
  21. USSR

    USSR Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,390
    Location:
    Finger Lakes Region of NY
    The problem with the '93, '95, and '96 Mausers is not the metullurgy, it is that they don't have the third safety lug that was designed in the 1898 action. For this reason, I would restrict the pressure to that which is currently found in U.S. commercial 7x57 and 6.5x55 ammo: about 46k CUP.

    Don
     
  22. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,519
    Location:
    Alabama
    According to an article written by John Haviland, in the June-July 2007 issue of Rifle magazine, a custom rifle maker built a custom rifle on a M1896 action only to find that the receiver metal was so soft that lugs set back into the receiver first time he fired it.

    I assume one shot increased the headspace so much that further shootings were deemed undesirable.

    Rifle Magazine , “6.5 X 55 Swedish Mauser, June-July 2007, author John Haviland. Pg 69.

    http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/hl247partial.pdf

    The warnings to keep the pressures down on those older actions is probably due to the variblity of the things. Some here consider the Low Number Springfield issues not to be “steel” issues, or to be a “heat treat” issue. The true problem was a process control problem, forging temperatures were too high. In the 20’s the Army looked at reheating all of the low number Springfields, to avoid the cost of scrapping, and found that due to the variability of the steels used, they could not come up with a way to do that.

    Old guns can let go in ways that are terminal to the shooter.


    Mr. Glen de Ruiter was fireforming brass in his 6mm lee-navy straight pull 1895. Apparently he worked at SARCO and liked these antique rifles.

    Bethlehem Township, PA 1 July 2002

    http://www.falfiles.com/forums/printthread.php?threadid=43726

    I consider the M1898 Mauser to be as safe an action as ever designed. In fact built of modern materials I consider it the best action ever designed. But I do not consider WW1 and earlier M1898 actions to be all that strong due to the materials.

    And when you get to pre 1900, that is the beginning of metallurgical science. The metallurgy of the period is primitive.

    The closer you get to WWII the better the technology. I would have no problems building a custom rifle around a 1930’s action, maybe some hesitancy about a 20’s action. I don’t have any metallurgical data to back this up, but it comes from a general feel for the technology of the day expressed in technical literature that I have reviewed.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2010
  23. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    20,450
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    Folk have to remember that, back in the last nineteenth/early twentieth century, forging temps and heat treatment temps were judged by color of the steel. It took a very practiced eye and very consistent conditions and alloying to get it repeatable.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page