Mauser headspace question

Status
Not open for further replies.

Elkins45

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
6,870
Location
Northern KY
I have an Erfurt 1920 stamped Mauser action that has been sporterized and fitted with a prechambered heavy barrel in 243. How I ended up with is a long and uninteresting story.

The problem with it is that the bolt closes on a FIELD gauge. I made myself an action wrench and turned off the barrel. After a bit of research and measuring I have come to the conclusion that the chamber was originally cut too deep. I say that because the extractor contacts the breech face before the FIELD gauge bottoms out. Shouldn't a too long gauge like the FIELD protrude enough so that there actually is some excessive headspace when the parts are held together outside the action? That's my big question.

I'm thinking I need to shorten the chamber by facing off the barrel a bit. My other question is how much should a FIELD gauge (or a Go gauge) protrude from the barrel? What is the 'correct' specification for case head protrusion?

TIA for any help/advice.
 
If you have a depth micrometer, here's how you set headspace with the go gauge. You don't want to use the field gauge to set headspace.


http://www272.pair.com/stevewag/bob/bob5.html

http://www272.pair.com/stevewag/bob/bob6.html

Also, is there a possibility that it's a 243/6mm based wildcat or a different chamber? The field gauge should probably protrude some from the unattached barrel. If it doesn't protrude at all, it's probably something like a 6mm-06 or 6mm rem AI.

Matt
 
+1

It seems unlikely it would be cut that deep by accident.

I'd do a chamber cast and figure out what you got for sure before doing any cutting.

rc
 
it might have been rechamberded to 6mmAI.
the link to checking go-guage protrusion on steve wagners site is good but i prefer to make a short sleeve that fits over the barrel threads and butts up aganst the shoulder to place my depth mic on when getting the measurements, it adds a little more math but is a lot more stable than putting the mic on the guage and then measuring to the shoulder
 
Also, is there a possibility that it's a 243/6mm based wildcat or a different chamber? The field gauge should probably protrude some from the unattached barrel. If it doesn't protrude at all, it's probably something like a 6mm-06 or 6mm rem AI.

Matt

It does protrude, just not very much. I can clip the field gauge into the extractor and the extractor face will clank against the breech face before the shoulder of the gauge bottoms out.
 
I can clip the field gauge into the extractor and the extractor face will clank against the breech face before the shoulder of the gauge bottoms out.

The proper procedure when checking headspace with gauges is to remove the extractor prior to checking, to prevent interference by the extractor.

You need to check your inner lug faces to assure that you have not experienced lug set back, while you have the barrel off. That will create excess headspace too. Usually that determination is terminal.

As noted, you may need to face off the breech to fix the headspace problem, if the lugs are good, and you are sure of the chambering. You may need to compensate if it has iron sights.
I work my chamber reamers and gauges with the barrel in place to the receiver, so I have no dimensions to share. The info is likely available online.

It's possible to check the gauge with the barrel in place by using shims of different thickness on the bolt face, to measure how far you need to go to bring it into spec.


NCsmitty
 
Last edited:
and the extractor face will clank against the breech face before the shoulder
So, in other words, the bolt won't shut at all with nothing in it either?

If the extractor is hitting the barrel shank with a gage, it would be hitting the barrel shank without one too.

rc
 
No, I guess I didn't explain it well. I'm talking about holding the detached barrel in hand and "chambering" the field gauge with it being held by the extractor. My point is that the field gauge doesn't protrude enough to cause the extractor to clear the breech face. The bolt face can't ever get any closer to the chamber that the thickness of the extractor or the gun wouldn't cycle. So in essence the field gauge will chamber even when I artificially create a zero headspace condition.

The lugs don't appear to be set back at all.
 
Ah! I got it now.

I still think the first thing to do is get some Cerrosafe and do a chamber cast.

Right now, you are shooting in the dark until you find out what the actual chamber is for, and what it actually measures.

rc
 
I have an Erfurt 1920 stamped Mauser action that has been sporterized and fitted with a prechambered heavy barrel in 243. How I ended up with is a long and uninteresting story.

The problem with it is that the bolt closes on a FIELD gage. I made myself an action wrench and turned off the barrel. After a bit of research and measuring I have come to the conclusion that the chamber was originally cut too deep. I say that because the extractor contacts the breech face before the FIELD gage bottoms out. Shouldn't a too long gage like the FIELD protrude enough so that there actually is some excessive head space when the parts are held together outside the action? That's my big question.

I'm thinking I need to shorten the chamber by facing off the barrel a bit. My other question is how much should a FIELD gage (or a Go gage) protrude from the barrel? What is the 'correct' specification for case head protrusion?

TIA for any help/advice.
Elkins45 is offline" src="http://www.thehighroad.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif">

These things do not lock me up, you say you have a 1920 Mauser that has been sporterised to 243 (something? you do not know what) so you used a field (reject) gage and discovered the bolt will/would close and you do not know by how much, then! you removed the barrel.



NOW! before you fall for some more bad advise like, when you correct the head space you will need a go-gage and a no go-gage to go with the other gage you do not/did not need, 'back to the stuff that does not lock me up' I check head space with a go-gage, no go-gage and the beyond gage, to put it another way I check chamber length, in thousands, with a field (field) reject gage, that includes go-gage length and no go-gage length and all the little length between, and I make head space gages that are -.012 shorter in length that a minimum length/full length sized case for short chambers and gages that are .024 thousands longer than a go-gage length chamber, that is 36 different length gages.



Back to removing the barrel, if the barrel is removed or measured before installing head space can be determined before the barrel is screwed in to the receiver, on occasions I miss the dimensions by .001 thousands.



What would I do? Where would I start? The Mauser barrel seats/faces on a 'C'/torque ring 'THEN' seats on the front receiver ring against the shoulder at the end of the barrel threaded shank. Both distances can be measured, but, the measurements are not easy to keep up so remember, the bolt face must seat first against the 'C' ring in the receiver, as to what I do to make sure, I screw the barrel into the receiver until it contacts the 'C' ring, then use a feeler gage to determine the gap between the front of the receiver ring and shoulder at the end of the shank on the barrel, .0025 is a nice number, a smith that thinks he is going to crush metal when torquing the barrel to the receiver is silly, at bets the smith is going to remove the slack between the threads and marr metal. Point being, you did not check to make sure the barrel contacted the 'C' ring before the shoulder on the barrel contacted the receiver ring.



You have a field reject gage, If I had a filed reject gage and I had the barrel off, I would drop the gage into the chamber THEN measure the gage protrusion (case head protrusion), in the perfect world with a go-gage the case head protrusion on a Mauser is .110 + or - very few, with a no-go gage the protrusion would be .114 and with a field gage the case head protrusion would be .119, back to a pre-chambered barrel, the chamber could be correct but the shank could be short meaning the short shank could be holding the barrel off of the 'C' ring.



Again, I am the one that determines the length of the chamber first from the face of the bolt to the shoulder of the chamber. Again, I have a M1917 Eddystone that has .016 thousands head space, again, this stuff does not lock me up, I form cases that have an additional .014 thousands length added between the head of the case and shoulder of the case.



And, NO! I am not a fire former, I chamber a round, pull the trigger and eject once fired cases. When I fire form? the weak pass out and the strong get dizzy.



F. Guffey
 
i've bought several takeoff barrels on gunbroker that had been re chambered to a different caliber but the original chamber markings were intact, it sounds like thats what you have.
 
I would take the barrel off and examine the receiver seats.

That 1920 Erfurt action was made from plain carbon materials in a time when process controls were barely above the primitive stage. These actions have a thin case over a soft steel. There is a long section, starting page 69, in Kunhausen's "Mauser Bolt Action rifles" about receiver set back and the thin case on these old actions.

The 243 is a high pressure round, someone could check but I will bet it is a 62,000 psia cartridge, and someone has been firing it in an old action.

There is the very real posibility that the receiver seats have set back. If this is true the receiver should be scrapped as this cannot be corrected cheaply. Machining will remove whatever case is left and the receiver would have to be re heat treated. And the steels may still end up soft.

Excessive headspace is dangerous especially on old weak actions. If the cartridge ruptures, things will go bad in a hurry.
 
Elkins,

“The problem with it is that the bolt closes on a FIELD gage. I made myself an action wrench and turned off the barrel. After a bit of research and measuring I have come to the conclusion that the chamber was originally cut too deep. I say that because the extractor contacts the breech face before the FIELD gage bottoms out. Shouldn't a too long gage like the FIELD protrude enough so that there actually is some excessive head space when the parts are held together outside the action? That's my big question”

There are some that claim, when checking head space, the extractor should be removed, I say if the extractor is not removed feed the head space gage under the extractor and against the breach face (bolt face) first, THEN! close the bolt, the Mauser is a controlled feed type rifle.

After you removed the barrel you should have dropped? the field gage in to the chamber (without the receiver installed), again, there should be gage protrusion, as in unsupported case head, the Mauser has .110 unsupported case head (or case head protrusion), the 8mm57 has .110 + or – very little, add no go-gage to that measurement and the protrusion would be .114, add field reject and the protrusion becomes .118, always with the + or-??? What does all of this mean?? I believe you tried to force the field gage in the chamber by forcing the extractor over the extractor groove, on Mausers there is just not enough room to force the extractor into a wad and over the case head extractor groove.


http://www.huntnetwork.net/modules/wfsection/html/Ahit'S All in the Claw.pdf

F. Guffey
 
Last edited:
I believe you tried to force the field gage in the chamber by forcing the extractor over the extractor groove, on Mausers there is just not enough room to force the extractor into a wad and over the case head extractor groove.

No, I slipped it under the claw by hand and fed it into the chamber that way.

Protrusion of a field gauge dropped into the chamber measures 0.110, so it seems this chamber is cut too deep for a properly seated barrel. Careful measurement has revealed the rifle seemingly has two separate issues: the chamber is cut oversize and the barrel wasn't contacting the inner shoulder because it was bottoming on the receiver shoulder first. Both problems just need a tiny bit of lathe work to correct.

There is no visible problem with the lugs setting back into the action, nor with them shearing on the bolt. My suspicion is that the gun was just incorrectly assembled from the start.
 
So I woke this thread back up to post the solution. In an act of financial inefficiency that could only be rivaled by the federal government, I bought myself a metal lathe (1936 South Bend 9") and faced .010 off the barrel and screwed it down tight. The bolt no longer closes on the field gauge but closes with just a subtle bit of resistance on factory loaded ammo.

So now for the minor sum of $500 I have a functional rifle...and I have a lathe left over for all sorts of crazy projects!
 
I'm glad that you resolved the problem, and gained some knowledge in the process. The lathe can always be turned back into cash at some point, and may come in handy for doing other projects down the road.
I commend you for grabbing the bull by the horns and getting it done.


NCsmitty
 
Elkins45, this thread was interesting and I have a question. By shortening the barrel by .010 this moves the rear of the barrel closer to the extractor. If you can cycle the bolt with the safety on you can tell if the extractor is hitting the barrel and that could account for the slightly hard bolt closing. With the safety on the bolt would probably close without any resistance. You may have to remove a little metal from the front of the extractor claw to gain the needed clearance. BW
 
By shortening the barrel by .010 this moves the rear of the barrel closer to the extractor.

That's not really true, as a Mauser action has an inner torque ring that the barrel sets against at an established distance. Basically all that was done was to shorten the inner dimension of the chamber.


NCsmitty
 
NCsmitty, I didn't know that. I am not a gunsmith but I do my own tinkering. I installed a new extractor in a pre 64 model 70 the other day when I first placed it on the bolt body and cycled the bolt with the safety on I could tell it was slightly tapping the barrel shank. It was made with extra metal so it had to be adjusted. BW
 
Unlike the 98 Mauser, the pre-64 Winchester has a coned breech barrel shank.

It also has an extractor slot in the coned breech that would need to be deepened if you cut off the rear of the barrel one thread to set the barrel back.

rc
 
That's not really true, as a Mauser action has an inner torque ring that the barrel sets against at an established distance. Basically all that was done was to shorten the inner dimension of the chamber.


NCsmitty
Yes. The distance to the extractor didn't change because the new barrel face surface is still butting up against the inner shoulder at the same spot as it was before. Facing off the back of the barrel just had the functional effect of moving the chamber shoulder closer to the bolt face.
 
rcmodel, thanks for that information. The main reason I read highroad is to get information from others who have a lot more experience and knowledge Not a day goes by that I don't pick up something of interest. BW
 
Here's my second gun-related lathe project

Interesting thread, and it shows that all kinds of projects can be formulated, once you have equipment available, and the time to put those ideas in motion. Learn all you can, as there are some very knowledgeable guys at the different sites, who will be happy to help.


NCsmitty
 
Learn all you can, as there are some very knowledgeable guys at the different sites, who will be happy to help.

NCsmitty

That is the absolute truth. I am constantly amazed at how much collective knowledge there is in the firearms community and how freely almost everyone makes it available. I've posted questions to the various gun and knife forums I read and I have never failed to have some helpful soul steer me in the right direction.

In an odd sort of way the internet makes me feel good about human nature....at least the corner of the internet I frequent.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top