Truths and Theories

[nanuk]

Why is it some will say with conviction that "X" is so

yet when you study another similar situation, it seems to contradict?

example: LR Mauser barrel Shall abut the front of the receiver ring, AND abut the inner torque shoulder with, say, three thou crush.

if you don't do it this way, and maintain said relationship, it is not only done wrong, but Dangerous.

yet, when you look at the Savage system with a nut, the barrel has no shoulder, and the face abuts NOTHING. the barrel is NOT torqued, the NUT is torqued and pulls the barrel into the threads.

Savage are known to have very good accuracy potential with minimal effort.

So, why can a LR Mauser not seat against only one shoulder, in lieu of the nut, to torque the threads into a tight fit?

Why does the barrel need a shoulder at all? can one not screw in a barrel to abut the inner torque shoulder and leave the front ring untouched, or the opposite, torque into the front ring, and not touch the inner shoulder?

Please help me understand any problems.

[S.R.Custom]

My take on the Military Mausers is that seating against the inner shoulder solves a couple of problems-- (1) You really don't have to care about the O.D. of your barrel and whether it's big enough to adequately seat the outer shoulder, and (2) seating against the inner shoulder insures that your dipsh*t company armorer cuts the barrel shank long enough.

But that's me. To get the real story, you'd have to ask Paul Mauser, and he ain't talking.

As for the Savages, seating the barrel against the shoulder is no different than seating against the nut-- both put the threads in shear, and that's what holds your barrel in. Indeed, we built a Long-range Savage in 7mm that used a huge bull barrel that was too big in diameter to fit inside the nut, so we seated it directly against the shoulder. Either way works.

[Faret]

So let me ask a ? if you were going to install a 700 barrel on a small ring turk would you crush on both shoulders or just one and which one?

[S.R.Custom]

Personally, I seat them against both, with the barrel shank cut just a whisker 'longer' than the outer shoulder by about a big .001". That way the inner shoulder is loaded the most, and the outside is nice and tight --at least visually-- thus preventing an un-initiated customer from saying "OMG, that barrel's not screwed on tight!"

[rtracy2001]

My most recent project is a rebarrel of an old Turkish Mauser (LR action with SR threads) and sure enough on the original military barrel, only the inner shoulder was in contact. I have heard of others where only the outer shoulder was in contact. These two conditions are not supprising, as all of these firearms were mass produced in preparation for, or durring a tremendous conflict, and mass production on the scale required to fuel a war machine required volume above all except safety of the final product (an arms plant that produced rifles that kill or injure their own troops would not be well received)

I think (and take this for what it is worth) that people often confuse the ideal with the rule. Mauser designed the model 98 with two torque shoulders, and sure enough, having both shoulders sharing the load is as good as it gets, but so long as the barrel stays tight, and the headspace is correct, the action will funtion safely. Savage designed a single torque sholder into the model 110 actions, and the barrel is normally torqued against this shoulder by using a nut, but as S.R.Custom pointed out using a barrel with an integrated nut on the Savage action works just fine.

Not everything has to be done exactly like it always has been done, and that is a good thing as inovation comes from questioning the norm and experimenting with new ideas and methods.

Now that you mention it, maybe I will cut off my old 8mm turk barrel and rethread it without an outter shoulder. I can then install it into another 98 action and secure it with a Savage style nut. This sounds like fun!

[nanuk]

thanks for the replys

it seems I am not alone in my understanding

the reason I asked was I have read it (Hear?) where someone condemned and ridiculed another for NOT seating against both shoulders.

I just couldn't see where it would matter if well done, and tight.

[S.R.Custom]

...Now that you mention it, maybe I will cut off my old 8mm turk barrel and rethread it without an outter shoulder. I can then install it into another 98 action and secure it with a Savage style nut. This sounds like fun!

That would get the kids howling down at the range. Pics when you're done?

[nanuk]

Now that you mention it, maybe I will cut off my old 8mm turk barrel and rethread it without an outter shoulder. I can then install it into another 98 action and secure it with a Savage style nut. This sounds like fun!



come to think of it, I have read about someone doing exactly that to make a switch barrel.

but why the nut? could you just relieve 0.250 of the ring, and turn a barrel to that -.001, to make it trim, and torque it to the inner shoulder.

then file two flats at 3 and 9 for a wrench. Quick change indeed.

would look neater than that step shoulder I have on a PH barrel.

[S.R.Custom]

You'd still have to do the reamer/headspacing thing for the initial installation...

And that's the joy of the Savage system-- your pre-chambered barrel is good to go right out of the box.

But yeah, nothing's keeping you from grinding a couple of flats on a shoulder torqued barrel. Just don't cut the flats too deep over the chamber...

[deltaenterprizes]

Most people do it that way because that is the way it was designed by Mauser, I do it because that is how I was taught.
I see nothing wrong with a nut like a Savage.

[nanuk]

or a nut like a nanuk!

heh.

[Willbird]

You'd still have to do the reamer/headspacing thing for the initial installation...

And that's the joy of the Savage system-- your pre-chambered barrel is good to go right out of the box.

But yeah, nothing's keeping you from grinding a couple of flats on a shoulder torqued barrel. Just don't cut the flats too deep over the chamber...


Well one thing about the Savage system, it only works if you have NO barrel features you want to "clock" properly. Not sure on the mausers if they machined for sights AFTER then put the barrels on or not, would not suprise me that the Germans made em clock and headspace BOTH, IE sight machining was done BEFORE installation.

[Larry Gibson]

SR Mauser barrels (M91 - M96) are butted against the front of the reciever only. I also but M98 barrels against the inner collar and just match up the barrel abutment agains the front of the reciever to avoid any questions about the barrel being loose. With the SR actions one must make sure the face of the reciever is square or the barrel will tighten in cattywompus.

Neither method is "dangerous", just different as is the Savage method. This sport is full of contradictional beliefs, old wife's tales and witchcraft.

Larry Gibson

[Cap'n Morgan]

The large ring Mausers (M98) were never meant to tighten on the outside shoulder - for the simple reason that there is no shoulder! The max outside barrel diameter and the top of the threads are exactly the same. If you tried to torque on the "shoulder" alone, the utmost thread in the action would be crushed.

[David2011]

If you want to butt against the outer ring and the inner shoulder then the front of the action should be trued. The front ring of the action is usually a few thousandths from being square to the centerline. Sometimes a HSS cobalt tool will cut the action but other times a carbide tool is required. A mandrel is easy to make or can be purchased from Brownell's. I would prefer to make the shank .002" longer than the depth of the action but anything from no crush to .003" should work without problems. The switch barrel Mauser in Shotgun News by Coffield used a Savage style nut.

David