Channeling P. O., Mauser blow up project

[copperlake]

This is something I’ve wanted to do for many years; blow up a couple of ’93 and ’96 Mauser's to see which fails first and how they fail. By first I mean which one swallows X and survives, the other doesn’t. I've been collecting junk for years, usually to get parts. Before anyone has a cow about desecration of sacred objects, I’ll point out that these parts are only worth what I’m going to do to them – destruction. And, they are mine. The subjects are two ’93 Oviedo’s that have been scrubbed of dates. One as been drilled and tapped for scope, has had about .004 removed from the receiver ring in process of being ‘sporterized’ to prettiness. This action shows no set-back and the locking areas can not be cut with a mill bastard. In fact, the overall hardness of this action is quite good. The receiver threads are buggered for about the length of ¾ of a thread that is missing in a interrupted fashion. The other is stock, has .004” set-back, and the lug support areas can easily be filed. The whole action is soft and possibly never had any case. Too bad they aren’t dated.

The ‘96’s are 1913 and 1911. One is as soft as the Spaniard and shows set-back but I can’t measure it. The other shows no set-back and a file can just touch the lug support area. It has a botched scope installation – a total of 4 holes in the ring. I’m thinking I’ll tig those up for the test. Both of them have been hammered. Both receiver rings were crushed during barrel removal. There is a guy that has been selling the last inventory of the Kimber failure on GunBroker FOR YEARS, of which, I was a sucker for. Here is a little fun tidbit; not wanting to destroy a perfectly good Swedish bolt I modified the actions to accept a (modified) ’93 bolt, of which, I have a surfeit. Was easy to do and for my purpose, works just fine. I have some scummy 8MM Turk barrels that I shortened for convenience and took about .007” off the tenon to make the bolts fit. I do not have a headspace gauge so I did the verboten masking tape thing.

I have a ways to go until I actually touch one of these guys off. I’m in process of building a mount and containment apparatus as I don’t want to destroy the lighting in the shop. I am interested in some input as to how to tailor the test. I don’t want to just blow them up, that would be too easy. I want to torture them. Help me out. I’m not in the least interested in arguing about what I’m doing. The internet is a cruel world. On another board I showed a ’96 that I easily bent the tang 90 degrees with an 8” Crescent wrench. Holy hell broke loose. I was called about everything you can imagine, and, banned. Fact is, Swedish Mauser's can be pretty soft and this is one of the reasons I’m doing this. I don’t think that the Swedish Mauser's are much better than their Spanish cousins.

Mark

[leadman]

Did you ever read what Ackley wrote about his testing? I found it pretty interesting. My friend has my Ackley books right now but IIRC he had to go to a fast powder like 2400 to blow up some of the guns. With the Jap rifle he finally put a steel rod in the bore and then it blew the barrel out of the receiver but the action survived.
I can't recommend trying this, especially in a building.

[Dutchman]

Swedish Mauser's can be pretty soft and this is one of the reasons I’m doing this. I don’t think that the Swedish Mauser's are much better than their Spanish cousins.

"Hard" equates to brittle and we know what "brittle" got the early 1903 Springfields.

1893 and 1896 Mausers are low carbon steel that are case hardened. Hard surface but soft core. Soft core Mausers bend before they break. This is not a bad thing. It is, in fact, by design.

I'll be curious to see your results. Photo document everything.

Dutch
http://dutchman.rebooty.com

[Multigunner]

Did you ever read what Ackley wrote about his testing? I found it pretty interesting. My friend has my Ackley books right now but IIRC he had to go to a fast powder like 2400 to blow up some of the guns. With the Jap rifle he finally put a steel rod in the bore and then it blew the barrel out of the receiver but the action survived.
I can't recommend trying this, especially in a building.

In one test they welded a rod in the muzzle of a Arisaka and the barrel strecthed several inches then snapped off, the action survived intact.
The Arisaka is not completely idiot proof, Hatcher wrote of two boys firing .35 Remington rounds in a 7.7 and on the third shot the receiver shattered sending shards of steel into the brain of the shooter. The boy survived after delicate brain surgery.

Frpm the sound of the OP test actions, I don't think these butchered rejects are suitable for any scientific tests to determine which action is strongest.
Each action is strong enough for the round they were chambered for, and both have held up to .308 chamberings, though I don't consider rebarreling either to .308 to be an improvement over the original chamberings.

There are plenty of classic sporting cartridges that would be suited to these actions. If I wanted something more powerful I'd choose a stronger action.

[nhrifle]

There are a couple of ingenious psychopaths from Gunns and Ammo who torture test very, VERY nice guns in the name of finding out what each would take. I cringed when I watched them drag a brand new M1A around the desert. One of their test pitted a T/C Encore against a full case of Bullseye to see if the shooter would survive a disasterously overloaded case. The receiver survived mostly, the chamber of the barrel did not. The shooter would have lived.

Bullseye has been used for numerous reduced charges in rifle cases. You could start with a normal reduced load and progress to higher and higher charges, fired from a REMOTE location by string. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near one of those when they fail. I've seen a gun blow up, two stations down from me while shooting Highpower and it is scary to say the least.

[copperlake]

I respectfully disagree, to a point. Ackley's tests were not 'scientific' by any means. Nor will mine be. The test subjects are not pristine. Do I want to take my absolutely gorgeous M94 and put it to this test? Of course not. Outside of holes in the receiver rings, nothing is really that suspect. Like Ackley, I have no knowledge of pedigree. Remember, he was shocked at the performance of some actions. I always thought it a pity that he did not test other actions, even though he intimated he would. That Volume II, Handbook For Shooters & Reloaders, did not include the 'lesser' Mauser's has always bugged me.

[copperlake]

Thanks for the input. Believe me, this is a caged animal. The action will be enclosed in a 6" X 6" X 1/4" steel square tube. Stuff can go fore and aft only, I think.

[copperlake]

Dutchman, I really am impressed with your website. What a labor of love you have there. I spent an hour and will bookmark and pass it on, bravo to you!

I am aware of the meaning of your comments regarding hardness. I think will can all agree that it is 'good' that these actions were case hardended because of their low carbon content. I think we all know that that method of improvement can be suspect given the vagaries of the craft. Here I present four actions being close to the same in ways, admittedly, tested by what bozo me can test with what I have at hand; a file and a micrometer. Two and two of them are different species, but share the same characteristics; surface hardness and the lack of it. How to test them?

[Larry Gibson]

Where are you located? PM with answer if you'd like. It would be interesting to measure the psi which I can do during the destruction tests is why I ask.

Larry Gibson

[nekshot]

That info on psi would sure be interesting, not to try hotter loading but to really know what and how these old actions react.

[gnoahhh]

Sounds fun. Not scientific, and really won't prove anything either way, but fun. Wish I could be there to kibitz with you while you do it.

[376Steyr]

Hang a .45 ACP off the extractor and see what 230 grains of hardball does when it is abruptly stopped by the shoulder? My guess is massive case rupture, gas shooting back into the action, but bolt stays in place.

[copperlake]

leadman, as a matter of fact I reread P.O. last night for the umpteenth time. I love the read but it is really unsatisfying in the way he went about it, especially with some of the loads he used. And, I'm not going to anything crazy like stuffing a cleaning rod down the bore. I am in quandary as what powder to use. I'm thinking 3031 for starters.

[copperlake]

376Steyr, excuse me but I'm not quite following you here. As a note, I'm not going to waste an extractor, fired rounds will be rodded out from the muzzle.

[copperlake]

Attachment 59632Here is an overall picture view of the subjects. If anyone has the interest of any other pics for whatever reason I will be glad to add them.

Another test that Ackley did and reported on is firing rounds that were intentionally larger than the bore. On page 76 of the handbook II, he pressure tests a .30 cal barrel that an 8mm is fired through with surprising, counter intuitive results. He was so enthused that he wanted to up the ante to .35 caliber. I would like to add to this experiment. I have a shot-out 7x57mm barrel that I want to rechamber to 8x57mm leaving the bore the same. If anyone would like to (preferably) loan or rent me a reamer to accomplish this.....

[Reg]

Do keep adding pics.
Nothing wrong with the project but I think I would carry things just a bit further by trying to run a through Rockwell Hardness test before commencing. This will tell one much more than a file test. If you were close, I do have such a hardness testing machine and you would be welcome to the use of it.
Do not think I would TIG any holes shut. This will effect the ring hardness and give you false results. Yes, the holes will effect things as well but the TIG so much more.
I would try to make up a recovery box out of at least 1/4" thick steel. It could be open in the front as if you blow the barrel out of the action, it will be a big enough piece you should be able to find it.
Smaller action parts, perhaps not so and you want those small parts to show such things as the chrystal structure make up of the base metal. Also these small parts will show yield points and progression of yield. Finding them 200 yards out there might be tough, hence, the box.

A lot of controversy about putting a 308 or 243 on one of these actions. Yes, PO did in his later years and I wonder why he thought it was a good idea because it went in the way of all his earlyer teachings. Most people accept these actions as 45,000 lb. max and in actual use I do not think the 7 m/m cartridge they were chambered for ever exceeded 42,000, some even say less ( 38,000).
The 308 and 243 both are steamed up there from 52,000 and in a few cases 55,00 lb.
Yes it has been proven they handle those cartridges but it is generally recommended ( now days ) that they be re-heat treated. The one thing they do lack is better gas protection such as in the 98 series of actions. One has to ask, at what point is one more likely to experience a primer failure or perhaps even a case failure and what is to be the expected result. Should the higher pressures be kept to a action that could handle them better, I.E. keeping the 308 etc in 98 type actions ?
You must keep in mind, it only takes once.

One other thing you might do and perhaps you have already thought of it and that is to put a piece of heavy bond paper over the top of the action with each shot. Yup, when it lets go there might not be much left but if one sneaks up on this you may be showing gas escape as well as failure and it should show up on those sheets of paper.
Gas escape without total failure might be interesting. Perhaps even more so.

Also, if you had a way to measure headspace (even roughly) with each shot, might show a lot about stretching.
Good project, keep us informed.
Reg

[copperlake]

Attachment 59638Attachment 59639Reg, further up the line I mentioned that the 'cage' is going to be made of an 18" chunk of 8"x8"x1/4" A-36 mild steel rectangular tube. I'm in process of building a mount made of 6061 aluminum rec.bars, milled and drilled to make a 'sled' (see pics) that will ride under rails within the tube and be cushioned by a rubber slug to absorb some of the recoil. Pretty much this whole project is made up from SLA - s__t laying around. I have very little $$ in it.

Being a welder for over 40 years, I respectfully disagree about the tigging. I know, with the barrels in, and wet wrapped, that I an get the front holes with 309L without damage. Maybe not the ones in front of the lug recesses. Just to do a little to eliminate the 'zipper' effect.

Your idea about the bond is great, will do! Your's is exactly the feedback I was hoping for.

BTW, the action in the pics is a nice '95, not a candidate!

Mark

[Reg]

It might be a toss up.
The action is weakened by the holes and yes there will be a "zipper" effect going on but you are still dealing with a base material that has some heat treatment to it, most likely a case hardened condition but from past experience it will be thin.
No matter how careful with the TIG welding there will still be spot annealing going on, it has to.
You will gain from filling the holes but will lose from the annealing.
I think we are talking of a ying and a yang going on here.

I like the sled, wondered how you were going to hold on to things.

Offer for the Rockwell machine still stands.

More pics. This is a neat project.

As a PS

Quite a few years ago another fellow and I bought 60 of those Sweedes when they could still be had quite cheap. We decided we were going to do a quick "sporterising" on them and make a fortune. Took the whole pile and bent the bolts, drilled and tapped, cut down stocks, installed Weaver mounts, the whole banana.
Learned a lot on that one, 60 bolts to low forge and polish is one heck of a lot of work for one, not all Sweedes are heat treated the same for another.
Noticed a lot of variation when we started to drill and tap. Some seemed like butter, some hard as glass. Started to put them on the Rockwell machine and it proved out so. Some receivers would not hardly register, some were as high as 42. Bolts also were all over the place.
It didn't seem to make any difference as to year of manufacture, they just varied. Most seemed to follow the standard Mauser heat treat with a case hardening but a few came along that seemed to be hard all through.
Interesting project. I think in the long run if we would have stopped to figure our time we lost our butts. Made no difference, in our minds eye we made one heck of a killing.

[MtGun44]

If you can take Larry up on his generous offer, it would add a LOT of science
to this project.

Also, since case faillure is usually the/a key failure mode, I strongly recommend
best quality new, unfired commercial cases.

Bill

[copperlake]

Bill, I have some east-bloc milsurp that I was going to warm things up and about 60 rnds. of 170 grn. under-loaded Rem. stuff to work with. I'll pull the bullets and use the primed cases to do the deed.

I have PM'd Larry, unfortunately, I live in Homer, Alaska. Now, if Larry wanted to come up in the spring and do some King Salmon fishing.......