Channeling P. O., Mauser blow up project [Archive]

copperlake

01-27-2013, 12:36 AM

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

01-27-2013, 12:55 AM

Dutchman

01-27-2013, 01:31 AM

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

01-27-2013, 02:08 AM

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

01-27-2013, 02:59 AM

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

01-27-2013, 03:10 AM

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

01-27-2013, 03:25 AM

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

01-27-2013, 03:44 AM

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

01-27-2013, 07:09 AM

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

01-27-2013, 09:23 AM

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

01-27-2013, 11:52 AM

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

01-27-2013, 02:26 PM

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

01-27-2013, 03:07 PM

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

01-27-2013, 03:14 PM

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

01-27-2013, 03:40 PM

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

01-27-2013, 04:12 PM

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

01-27-2013, 04:44 PM

5963859639Reg, 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

01-27-2013, 05:28 PM

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

01-27-2013, 06:19 PM

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

01-27-2013, 06:49 PM

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.......

copperlake

01-27-2013, 07:14 PM

Reg, that one story about the 'killing' you made was worth the price of admission alone! I will definitely cut and paste59657 that into my collection of info, thanks.

Here is a pic of the remod on the '96, making a '93 bolt fit. First you take a 100 grit flapper wheel in a 4-1/2" angle grinder and carefully remove the square from under the bolt face. The flapper is perfect because it never runs hot like a stone. The '96 bolt is .075" longer than the '93 and with the exception to the guide rib and internals, is identical in other measurements. That amount I removed from the rear of the bridge so the the lug recesses could be engaged. I did it with a cut-off disc in a die grinder, then dressed with a stone. It only took about 15 mins. to do. Then the bolt shroud channel had to be opened up forward by the same amount. Fortunately, I had a small stone that was the exact size needed. the cocking and firing work like it was designed to do. Interestingly, the bolt does not bind as I thought it would as there is no guide other than the lugs and bolt body.

Mark

DCM

01-27-2013, 11:41 PM

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.

I would recommend either securely closing the rear or not using the tube at all.
I have seen a few guns blow up in person, the parts generally do not go to the rear.
I believe this is intentional by design, as the operator is usually behind the firearm.
If you insist on an open tube please do not get behind it or allow others to do so.

copperlake

01-28-2013, 12:21 AM

Dcm, I'm going to do this in my shop, 20'x40'. The tube is for general containment, I can control what goes fore or aft with baffles but I don't want to remove lighting or endanger other equipment, hence the major axis control. Also, the opening to rear is necessary to arm the gun to off safe. I don't want to do that from the business end. I've got a good set up that I've used to 'proof' assemblies. I actuate from an off room removed from the action, so to speak and not to the rear. No one else is ever near unless they are a crank. One of my set-ups uses a wireless actuator, but not this one. Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. I wish you all could be around when it happens, that would be fun

jonk

01-28-2013, 10:44 AM

I think that you are going to be surprised at how much it takes to take one of these apart. Having posted a lengthy discussion about a major handloading oops (case full of 2400 capped by a 200 gr bullet) fired out of a portuguese verguiero- which uses 2 lugs on a mannlicher style bolt, not a solid bolt like you are using here- I can testify that while there was massive lug setback and some cracking of the lug recesses, and estimates of north of 125,000 psi, the thing held together- albeit barely. That with 3 times the original service load pressure for the gun.

I'd wager that you'll have to hit OVER that pressure level to let things come apart, given the solid mauser bolt and gas venting. In point of fact I'm going to further guess that you weld the case to the bolt before you blow up the recievers.

Keep us posted.

copperlake

01-28-2013, 03:07 PM

jonk, would you have the link to that 'oops' post? Love to read it. I have no wager in what they will take to let go. I do know that all of the '98's went in the Ackley test. I do have a bias in that I don't think the '96's, on average, are stronger than the '93's. For years I've searched in vain for a picture of a blown up '93. I do have pictures of 2 different '96's blown and almost bought a blown '96 off GunBroker. The owner backed out of the deal and no amount of persuasion would change his mind. He thought there was a liability issue.

I wish I had a 8mm imp. reamer. I want to remove an entire lug and have a go.

Alan in Vermont

01-28-2013, 04:53 PM

376Steyr

01-28-2013, 06:14 PM

Extractor just used to hold the 45 ACP long enough for the firing pin to whack it. I suppose you could wrap some tape around the cartridge to hold it in place.
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.

jonk

01-28-2013, 06:38 PM

izzyjoe

01-29-2013, 11:15 PM

this is very a interesting thread, i'll stay tuned in to see what happens. i wish Larry could be involved in this, cause i'm curious too of the pressures those actions will take.

copperlake

01-29-2013, 11:38 PM

One of the problems I'm having is coming up with some loads. I've done some research into the Powely Computer and even went to an on-line version of it but can't make it do what I want. If I understand correctly, the on-line calculator 'guides' you to safe loads. Hardly what I'm trying to do. Does anyone that's tuned in have the original computer? Not knowing, perhaps it too, would not be useful.

johnnybar

01-31-2013, 03:51 AM

I would add that if pieces of brass or steel do depart from their origins, it would be nice to have them intact in as much of the same condition as they departed from the "whammy". In addition to the craft paper, I suggest that you add Celotex or fiber sheathing to the inside of the steel tube for an impact buffer. This will preserve blown pieces much better than having them impact the 1/4" steel and is relatively cheap. I would also add a square piece to the rear with a notch in the edge or a small hole drilled for the actuator or string. This will catch any possible rearward small pieces. The sheathing could easily be removed each shot and gone over with a metal detector, then replaced. As a final suggestion, sandbag the whole thing, 1 or 2 bags thick on all four long sides, 2 or 3 on the rear, and 1 to 2 feet from the front of the tube with a good 2 to 3 feet thick barricade of sand bags. Sand will not cause ricochets and is excellent at buffering high velocity impact. The only reason not to sandbag would be to measure your record javeline, I mean barrel, throw.

copperlake

02-17-2013, 12:30 AM

Well it's awhile since anything has been added, I've been distracted with other things but there is some progress. As a matter of fact, I'm about ready to do some preliminary tests. Here are some pics of the nearly completed test tube, so to speak. All I have to do is cut a slot in the backstop for the triggering mechanism. As I've stated before I'm paranoid about closing the bolt on a hand grenade so I'm working on a pneumatic actuator that does away with all of the cocking mechanism other than the firing pin, bolt shroud and cocking piece. Unless there is another stray asteroid in the wings, it will be fool proof. Realizing, full well, there is no such thing. The first rounds are going to be tame just to test the system and this I'll do with the regulation parts, and, a Kevlar glove. 61479614806148161482614836148461478

WILCO

02-17-2013, 12:50 AM

What's the need for this?

WILCO

02-17-2013, 12:53 AM

What's the need for this?

Disregard above post. I read the O.P. and understand.

357maximum

02-17-2013, 04:34 AM

I love small ring mausers and I want to see where this goes........attaboy.

I have a sported 1916 spanish 308 and while I am not afraid of it...I also respect it's vintage...they make great "hot 30/30" cast boolit guns in my book. Have several others too, so although I cannot really offer anything to this thread...I will just show my support from the cheerleader area.......go forth...i am waiting and wish I could be there.

Frank46

02-18-2013, 12:48 AM

copperlake

02-18-2013, 05:59 PM

In the interest of your safety please consider using a string or even a camera remote cable type device in firing. Kevlar glove may be good for preventing getting cut by a knife but would not want you to get hurt during your tests. Frank

Frank, I wasn't clear. The glove is just to close the action. A sting will actuate, I'll be in a separate room with a 6" wall (1-1/8" OSB covering). When I do really hot loads they will be set off by a pneumatically powered ball-bearing that strikes the cocking piece so there is nothing 'cocked' before firing, in other words it's all inert until ready. I still have to build that device.

copperlake

02-18-2013, 06:06 PM

I love small ring mausers and I want to see where this goes........attaboy.

357, thanks for the support. I love 'em too.

BTW, as a general note if any reader has a junk '89-'96 action they would like to sell, please let me know. Most of the junk I've picked up has been on GunBroker., some I paid too much for especially the three Swede's.

missionary5155

02-18-2013, 06:23 PM

Greetings
I will sure stay tuned more often again. Have one of the 96's Israel rebarreled to .308. Actually bought 4 at once and two are still in the family. Never did any research to see if the Israeli forces ever had any problems. I do know I never have. I use more 180 gr gc boolits than anything else but numrerous rounds of ex military have been fired.
Mike in Peru

EDG

02-18-2013, 08:15 PM

Rather than just an outright blow up of the actions a torture test would be more educational.
Given that you are going to use the 8X57 it will be easy to reload the test rounds.

To just over load an action is easy to do. Blowing it up with some idiotic load is more like a 4th of July firecracker experiment - that is totally out side the realm of what might really happen in real life.

My suggestion is to use military ball bullets and 3031 powder.
Load until you just blow a primer. A blown primer is the first indisputable evidence of an overload.
Once you get blown primers duplicate that load and see how many blown primer rounds the action will take.
If it takes 30 or 40 loads and does not set back you know it was safe for any reasonable use.

After torture testing you can boost loads however you wish to destroy it.

Reg

02-18-2013, 10:07 PM

I don't think I would worry too much about trying to pack insulation or anything like that around the action to "slow things down a bit".
You get enough steam built up to blow the forward ring and I seriously doubt if anything short of a stack of two or three oak 2x6's will do it.

izzyjoe

02-18-2013, 10:52 PM

to be honest i think the action will take alot of abuse, but when you start using large amounts of fast burning powder, that's when you'll have a problem. you could also try reduced charges of real slow rifle powder, which we all know i a no no. i too would like to be there to be part of the fun!

copperlake

02-21-2013, 01:44 AM

My suggestion is to use military ball bullets and 3031 powder.
Load until you just blow a primer. A blown primer is the first indisputable evidence of an overload.

EDG, I thank you for the input and coincidentally, I've been thinking the same. I do have some 3031 and it looks like I can maybe cram 50-52 grn. in a case without trying to set a bullet to see for certain. What I have on hand is some down-loaded REM 170grn. and some eastern bloc stuff of unknown pedigree. I'm willing to remove barrels to check set-back, my plan all along has been torture, not whoopee-boom. Tonight, I nearly finished the firing mechanism, so soon there will be a low-power test of the system. Thanks again for the input, much appreciated.

Off topic, far and away of the boards I've posted on this one has been the most receptive and helpful - thanks to all.

copperlake

02-21-2013, 10:59 PM

Here are some pics of the firing mechanism. I gave up for the time being with a pneumatic set up and went with a gravity powered Rube Goldberg affair. It has a long cross pin that acts as sear. I made a little boat out of UHMW that is dadoed on the bottom to ride on the sled, and on the top to guide a 1/2" dia. aluminum pin that strikes the cocking piece by the fall of the hammer. I clamped her down to 10' long scaffold plank on saw horses and gave the road test. The hammer did not have enough energy to set off a primer so I welded an 1-1/2" coupling that I can fill with lead and cap, but the weight was sufficient to do the job. I fired several rounds of what I have loaded, some 170 grn. Rem. and some east-bloc stuff. All was easily digested and the device works flawlessly. The UHMW boat and AL pin toss themselves to the side, which is what I was hoping for. I'm shooting into a 10" X 10" X 24" fir block with a piece of steel plate at a 45 degree angle aft of that then another piece of plate at the end of the plank. Nothing made it through the first block. When I get to the heavy duty loads I'll put a large garbage bag of rags where a shoulder would be in the real world, to catch any shrapnel.

6204362044620456204662042

BTW, I'm in another room, kneeling behind my lathe stand (10 ga. X 2) and a wall that is 1-1'8" OSB. Pull lanyard with two 90 degree's. Stuff happens but I'm protected.

Dutchman

02-22-2013, 05:31 PM

I'd like to remind forum readers that 'copperlake' is resident of Homer, Alaska and it is wintertime and all....

I'm content to see where this leads :coffee:

Carry on! I'm confident that something of value will emerge from this journey.

Dutch

izzyjoe

02-25-2013, 09:57 PM

now that's a cool set up!

copperlake

02-26-2013, 10:09 PM

Well, I did a ‘real’ test today. I got impatient trying to locate a kinetic puller from my friends and made one out of some stuff lying around. I know, I know it uses a metal shell holder and that’s supposed to be a no-no but I designed it properly and it works great. The old 8mm Rem. is all that I have to work with without spending money and the 170 gn. Bullets help with upping the pressure. I have an old Lyman 45th edition reloading manual that gives 47 gn. of 3031 as max., Steve’s gives 47.2 as max. So I started with 48 g. and shot twice. Nothing exciting, the primers backed out a very little and both rounds just fell out of the chamber. There is a little more rearward activity of some kind, as the firing mechanism now ejects out the rear where it didn't with all the mild loads. Next, I put about as much as I can get of 3031 in these cases; 50.6 gn,. a slightly compressed load. Touched that one of and nothing happened other than the primer stayed put, didn’t back out. Absolutely no signs of over pressure other than all the primers conformed to the dodgy bolt face a bit. It took a slight rap of the sled on the table to jar the case out but that’s all. You never know of course, but it looks like this ’96 could take it forever.

Any suggestions? I can probably jamb another ½ gn. in and let the bullet hang out a bit but I don’t think that would do much. The show is dead in the water until I can get some hotter propellant.

For future reference, I sectioned a case; it looked funny because there is an annulus around the primer hole.
625186251762516

izzyjoe

02-26-2013, 10:23 PM

that's a pretty crafty bullet puller. i don't think another half grain is gona make a difference. now it time for Unique, or Reddot. keep up the good work!

fouronesix

02-26-2013, 10:57 PM

copperlake,
Interesting and probably worthwhile endeavor! You will probably have to up the pressure much farther to get a complete failure. At some point higher pressures will render the action unusable for further testing but at that point you will have determined at least a general "level-of-failure" of function. Problem being that the repeated effects of higher and higher pressures can be cumulative masking the real level of failure.

In a previous life I had the job of attempting to blow up a 7X57 Mexican Mauser for training purposes and making a film (video). I didn't have access to several rifles- just the one. So I tried very hard to set it up to blow on the first attempt. A partial failure blow would have prevented any further testing of the one bolt gun and would not have met the project objectives. I had access to a very large open area with restricted access and several berms. Loaded a full case of Bullseye under a 175 gr Jbullet. Added 1 OZ of #8 lead shot down the bore. Used a tissue wad to hold the shot against the bullet. Touched it off with a cord. The lead shot did not exit the muzzle but was fused together in a mass that stopped right at the muzzle. The sound from behind the berm was not very loud to the ear but a very high frequency "bang". The bolt was set back, IIRC, about 3/8". Brass wash covered the rear part of the action and front half of the bolt. The receiver ring and chamber areas, while very slightly bulged (can't remember but .010-.020" comes to mind for the ring), did not burst. The magazine box and bottom metal were blown downward and the stock splintered but the rifle remained in one piece. The video showed a fast oscillation or vibration of the rifle at ignition and a gas plasma ball approx. 2ft in diameter surrounded the breech for an instant at ignition. Again IIRC, the only large metal fragment that exited rearward was the extractor that went to the right-rear at about a 30 degree angle. The bolt release lever I think went more or less 90 degrees to the left.

While not part of the test objective, it did show me how strong at least some of the bolt actions really are. Even today, I scratch my head about how some seemingly lesser load mistakes either burst receiver rings and/or chambers or otherwise cause even more dramatic failures??

Added: Forgot to mention but the rifle I used was a Modelo 1936 short rifle in as-issued configuration. Can't remember receiver date but it was an earlier DOM.

blastit37

02-28-2013, 02:25 PM

copperlake

02-28-2013, 10:01 PM

Here's what 60g AA5744 will do to a 03A3 receiver. It came to the bottom of the neck in the 30.06 case (accidental double charge). The AA people estimated it would probably have produced around 165kpsi. This would be a good powder to try if you want it to fail. Amazingly, the shooter was not seriously hurt.

What's truly amazing is that no one was hurt. Thanks for pics, do you have any more? I'm collecting. I have a question about what I'm looking at. In the first I think I see the aft part of the action more or less intact. Did the bolt shroud rotate on firing or was that done after? In the second picture it looks like some demo has been done or was I not seeing that the receiver was in that many pieces?

Thanks for the tip on the powder, I will look into it. I've been researching IMR 4198 and 4227. I'm dead in the water until I get some other propellant for there is none available in my little Burg. I have to travel 78mi to Sporstman's Warehouse. A quick search found a comparison between the IMR and AA.

copperlake

02-28-2013, 10:20 PM

DCM

02-28-2013, 11:34 PM

4227 will likely do it, I could run some #s on Quickload.
PM me if interested.

fouronesix

02-28-2013, 11:39 PM

fouronesix, that's a great story and I really appreciate you conveying it. What was the purpose of the video? Do you have any stills of what happened? I'm collecting blow-up pictures. I would like to hear more about the background. I have two 1910 Mexican actions that are too nice to mistreat. Are any of the parts still around?

Many moons ago. Yep, hated blowing it up, but legal constraints at the time wouldn't allow it to go to public auction as some things were. So, better that fate for some use than in a pile laced with C4. The camera was a high speed type, again IIRC (long time ago!) set at 2000 frames per second. I do remember the field of view was about 10 feet centered on the action and when looking at the recording, the extractor was visible in only 1 frame so it was moving right along. No stills that I know of. Unknown fate of the video. The rifle, since it was still hanging together, except for a few missing parts, likely is sitting in storage somewhere? The filming was not done for military purposes but was conducted on a military res. because of the testing facilities available.

I know it was an M1936 Mexican short rifle and almost 100% sure it had a 1939 receiver date.

You're right about being cautious with the cocking and firing. I used the simplest method possible for both- the KISS principle. One cord to drop the bolt into firing battery and one to pull the trigger. The LAST thing you want to have happen is to load a round in a possibly already compromised action and have the pin fall as the bolt is dropped into battery :(

Anyway keep us posted on your progress.

blastit37

03-01-2013, 02:30 PM

No more pictures at this time. I had a chance to examine the parts and took the Pic which shows the failed parts of the receiver laid out. The back part of the receiver was bent down and just hanging on by a thread. It broke off while trying to straighten it to remove the bolt. The top of the receiver went through the roof of the range shelter and was not found. The bolt showed no damage except that the shroud on the face was gone about 1/4 the way around. The barrel was not damaged and it will screw into a bare receiver by hand. The receiver was a "drill rifle" receiver but there was no indication that the weld on the receiver face had anything to do with the failure. The "heat effected zone" of the weld was centered on the recoil lug and did not extend to the edges where the failure occurred. The recoil lug acted to reinforce the weld zone. I verified this with a "file hardness test" of the receiver face. Because the front of the receiver broke into 5 pieces (all fracture faces showing no fatigue) indicates the failure was a "hoop stress overload failure" caused by the expansion of the barrel shank inside the receiver. My rough hoop stress calculation produced a growth of approximately .005" in diameter (of the barrel shank) which consequently ruptured the receiver. There was no cracking of the weld at the cutoff lever. Not trying to hijack your thread but thought this might be of some interest and this was a good place to introduce it while talking about overload failures. I am a retired Mechanical Engineer and this type of analysis was what I did when I worked for the USAF. I guess what struck me most about this failure examination was how thin the 03a3 receiver is in the barrel shank area, .125" (1/8") in the barrel threads and that this failure would have occurred whether the receiver was a drill rifle or not.

fouronesix

03-01-2013, 07:12 PM

No hijack off the original subject at all. Your thoughts on the "hoop failure" support what I have thought about many receiver failures given the steel of the barrel is usually much different from the steel of the receiver. It will be interesting to see how copperlake's testing turns out with those specific barreled actions.

EDG

03-02-2013, 08:07 PM

I believe the rifle in question blew apart because the case head failed filling the receiver with high pressure gas.
The failed case head is what broke the flange off of the bolt face. High pressure gas is what blew the firing pin back and jammed it back.

No more pictures at this time. I had a chance to examine the parts and took the Pic which shows the failed parts of the receiver laid out. The back part of the receiver was bent down and just hanging on by a thread. It broke off while trying to straighten it to remove the bolt. The top of the receiver went through the roof of the range shelter and was not found. The bolt showed no damage except that the shroud on the face was gone about 1/4 the way around. The barrel was not damaged and it will screw into a bare receiver by hand. The receiver was a "drill rifle" receiver but there was no indication that the weld on the receiver face had anything to do with the failure. The "heat effected zone" of the weld was centered on the recoil lug and did not extend to the edges where the failure occurred. The recoil lug acted to reinforce the weld zone. I verified this with a "file hardness test" of the receiver face. Because the front of the receiver broke into 5 pieces (all fracture faces showing no fatigue) indicates the failure was a "hoop stress overload failure" caused by the expansion of the barrel shank inside the receiver. My rough hoop stress calculation produced a growth of approximately .005" in diameter (of the barrel shank) which consequently ruptured the receiver. There was no cracking of the weld at the cutoff lever. Not trying to hijack your thread but thought this might be of some interest and this was a good place to introduce it while talking about overload failures. I am a retired Mechanical Engineer and this type of analysis was what I did when I worked for the USAF. I guess what struck me most about this failure examination was how thin the 03a3 receiver is in the barrel shank area, .125" (1/8") in the barrel threads and that this failure would have occurred whether the receiver was a drill rifle or not.

WineMan

03-03-2013, 03:15 PM

These tests are cool. I am always reminded though of the ACE 22 caliber adapter for the Colt 1911 45. I believe it was developed by David "Carbine" Williams. His principal was to use the expanding gas in a larger chamber to exert more pressure and move the action. I think if you could seal the action like a muzzle loader, you could really put some pressure and not see a failure. The weak brass case fails and then pressures get into areas that are not designed to handle it. Maybe you could thin the case head area down and make it more failure prone. The other suggestion would be a steel case which might be stronger and contain the pressure better? Just noodling on a slow day here.

Dave

copperlake

03-04-2013, 03:07 AM

I want to thank DCM, who has generously offered to help with theoretical load data using QuickLoad software. This will make the effort much more worthwhile. I'm very grateful.

EDG

03-05-2013, 01:44 PM

copperlake

03-06-2013, 02:55 PM

You might slowly work up with a predictable powder like 4198 to find the point where the primer pockets fail and see how that corresponds to the Quickload calculated pressures. Once you start exceeding the strength of the primer pockets it may not take much more to totally destroy a case head and the receiver.

I've been mulling over two powders: 4227 and 4198. I know nothing about them other than 4227 is faster burning than the latter. I'm working at getting some 200 gr bullets used with a 3031 50.6 gr load. According to DCM's software, it will theoretically produce around 66,000 psi. That of course, is seriously above what would be considered a safe load for a '93-'96 action. Let's call it a good proof load. I'll shoot X loads, unscrew barrels and check for set back. That is, if they still are together! Then will proceed with some hotter loads to the end-o. As a matter of fact, according to DMC, the loads I've already tried (showing no signs of over pressure) are 'unsafe'.

The system works really well and the only thing wrong is just an annoyance; when firing, the bang makes a crazy penetrating sympathetic resonance in the various oxygen and argon tanks that shoots right through ear protection. Interesting.

Thanks for the input.

paul h

03-08-2013, 03:08 PM

The thing to remember is you have two possible failure modes. One is a massive overload that will cause the steel to yield, the other is repeated overloads that cause fatique failure.

With a case hardened mild steel reciever I would expect a single massive overload to cause the action to yield somewhat like a baloon, i.e. just swelling up. With a fatigue failure or modern harder steels I'd expect more of a fragmentation type failure.

Chicken Thief

03-08-2013, 03:42 PM

The system works really well and the only thing wrong is just an annoyance; when firing, the bang makes a crazy penetrating sympathetic resonance in the various oxygen and argon tanks that shoots right through ear protection. Interesting.

The old miners would open their mouths when blasting so the shockwave would hit both sides of the eardrum at the same time. No split eardrums.
Next time firing try holding your nose with one hand and have your mouth closed. The sound just might get in there the "back" way?

copperlake

03-11-2013, 06:28 PM

Bummer. Well, I can't find a grain of 4227 or 4198 powder in driving distance. I haven't called anywhere in Anchorage but I'm not going to drive 225 mi. just for kicks. I can't even find 8mm 200 gr. bullets, so I'll get some off GunBroker to continue with the 3031 experiment. I've heard that ammo is tight these days but I had no idea.....Everyone I talked to in Kenai/Soldotna just laughed when I asked when they might be re-supplied!

izzyjoe

03-11-2013, 06:51 PM

[QUOTE=copperlake; I've heard that ammo is tight these days but I had no idea.....Everyone I talked to in Kenai/Soldotna just laughed when I asked when they might be re-supplied![/QUOTE]

i know what you mean!

EDG

03-11-2013, 09:49 PM

If you have any pistol powder and you cannot proceed otherwise you can duplex your load by adding one grain of pistol powder and subtracting one grain of 3031. Just put the pistol powder next to the primer and top off to a compressed load of 3031.

Bummer. Well, I can't find a grain of 4227 or 4189 powder in driving distance. I haven't called anywhere in Anchorage but I'm not going to drive 225 mi. just for kicks. I can't even find 8mm 200 gr. bullets, so I'll get some off GunBroker to continue with the 3031 experiment. I've heard that ammo is tight these days but I had no idea.....Everyone I talked to in Kenai/Soldotna just laughed when I asked when they might be re-supplied!

copperlake

03-11-2013, 11:51 PM

If you have any pistol powder and you cannot proceed otherwise you can duplex your load by adding one grain of pistol powder and subtracting one grain of 3031. Just put the pistol powder next to the primer and top off to a compressed load of 3031.

ED, Ackley used duplex loads (see Ackley, Vol II Handbook for Shooters & Reloaders, pges 3-9) to great effect. As a matter of fact, I think he may have done so in order to wreck Jap actions! However, my sincere hope is to get as much data as we can from what we have. Alas I don't think there is a way to even hypothetically predict what pressures are produced from duplex loads. As has been stated by others here, I's not possible to have it all - a nice, work up to it, failure - but, I'd like to do the best we can to get the most bang for the buck. I do so much appreciate ll the input. This alone has made it worthwhile. Cast Boolits is an outstanding community.

It looks like I may be able to get some 220 gr. bullets from Anchorage. I haven't communicated with DCM yet on what we can cook up with 3130.

copperlake

03-12-2013, 12:02 AM

The old miners would open their mouths when blasting so the shockwave would hit both sides of the eardrum at the same time. No split eardrums.
Next time firing try holding your nose with one hand and have your mouth closed. The sound just might get in there the "back" way?

I am going to try that! Thanks for the tip, it makes sense.

EDG

03-12-2013, 01:44 PM

Glad to see you want to get the data. I don't think it is possible to ship haz mat but it is possible to ship loaded ammo. I wish I had a few 50 BMG cases. I could load them with the powder you need and a cast 50-70 bullet.....

DCM

03-19-2013, 08:44 PM

Update on shipping ammo.
Fed-Ex won't do it anymore, USPS never has.
I spent a ton of time sifting through the UPS website and ended up calling them.
UPS will BUT it Must be Ground only, they will not let you do it between Alaska and the lower 48 as it can't go through Canada and can only be shipped ground.
The package can have a maximum weight of 66 Lbs., Ammo must be 50cal. or smaller, Must be tightly packed in an inner package(double boxed, not loosely packed) and it must be labeled cartridges small arms Orm-D (approximately 3"X5" label) on front.

Terrorists and obamites make things complicated!

copperlake

03-19-2013, 10:37 PM

DCM, you've gone way beyond the call! Today I got some 220gr. Sierra Game King SBT bullets from Sportsman's Warehouse. I was able to cram, and I mean cram, 51.5 grs. of 3031 into a case. I'll PM you the COL and bullet particulars tonight.

Multigunner

03-21-2013, 02:06 AM

The system works really well and the only thing wrong is just an annoyance; when firing, the bang makes a crazy penetrating sympathetic resonance in the various oxygen and argon tanks that shoots right through ear protection. Interesting.

I noticed the same effect when firing a silenced .22 pistol not far from a half full heating oil tank, pointed away from the tank of course.
There was no decernable report from the pistol but a sound came from the tank as if it had been struck by a iron rod.
Near as I could figure whatever sound did escape the silencer was in a frequency above or below human hearing, but the echo was stepped up or down the frequency scale by reflecting from the tank.
I never noticed that sort of effect with an empty or full steel tank of any kind, only the large half full oil tank.

waksupi

03-21-2013, 12:32 PM

I experienced something like this some years ago, hunting antelope over on the east side. I was in a large bowl valley, with a huge corrugated metal barn in the bottom. I shot across the bowl at an antelope, and you would have though that whole barn had fallen down. Kind of scared me, as I had never experienced anything like that before, or since.

copperlake

03-21-2013, 02:05 PM

waksupi and Multigunner, thanks for those comebacks, very much similar to what I experienced. It's all out of proportion to what one would expect and thus shocking. When this happens with what I'm doing it is most unpleasant; it almost has a neurological component.

On the blow-up front, DCM reported that said load would produce 101 KPSI, a little more than I want and could easily (?) total the actions so asked if he could come up with something shy of 85 KPSI, which is where brass begins to flow. Soon, somethin' be happenin'!

EDG

03-21-2013, 06:34 PM

>>>On the blow-up front, DCM reported that said load would produce 101 KPSI, a little more than I want and could easily (?) total the actions so asked if he could come up with something shy of 85 KPSI, which is where brass begins to flow. Soon, somethin' be happenin'! <<<<

sounds like an opportunity to "work up" a load lol

Regardless of what the software says, the brass will only take XX 1000 psi before it leaks. Anything above that may blow the case head and destroy your action.
The software has no idea what the limit on your brass is but you can find it by working up to it. If you start too high you will only get a one shot test.

Multigunner

03-21-2013, 09:05 PM

Some cartridge brass is a bit tougher than others. The 65K CUP-85K PSI figure is for common commercial cartridge brass, and may not apply equally to every type of cartride case according to casehead design.
I think it was in reference to Mauser/DWM design type case heads, which includes many rimmless full power cartridges such as the .30-06.
I'm fairly sure that DWM did not invent the rimmless casehead, but they did develop it to a high degree.

Proof test cartridge cases used by governments are often of a more durable brass, but some privately owned testing facilities use standard commercial Winchester/Olin cases for most testing. At least some reproductions of records from HP White seemed to indicate this.
Most proof test cartridges are in the 75,000 PSI or less category. The U S Army HTP cartridge for the 7.62 NATO generates aprox 64,000 CUP.

In attempts to break a Garand receiver the Army used special heavy duty cases and loads of 125,000 CUP.

Some long range target shooters have tried two piece cases with a brass case body threaded into a steel case head.

copperlake

03-22-2013, 07:04 PM

Huston, we have ignition.

DCM got back to me and I went out and set a few off. Here are the results:

FIREARM:1896 Swedish action 1919, 8mmTurk barrel
BULLET: 8mm Sierra 220 gr. Game King spitzer boat tail at 3.075" COL
CARTRIDGE: Remington
PRIMER: Remington
Stock cartridge head diameter - .468

LOAD DATA by DCM:

52g 3031 will be ~104,716 PSI
51.5 - 101,179
50.5 - 94,484
49.0 - 85,305 ALL COMPRESSED LOADS
47.1 - 74,983
46.0 - 69,592

ROUND

1) 48 grs. 3031 No sign of excessive pressure, easy extracion
head dia. .468

2) 49 grs. 3031 No sign of excessive pressure, easy extracion
slight polishing on cartridge head face from bolt. Head dia. .467

3) 50 grs. 3031 Flatened primer, slight bolt stiffness, slightly harder
extration. More pronounced polishing. Head dia. .470-.474, shaping
itself to bolt head.

4) 51.5 grs. 3031 Primer blown away, not a trace of it found, more
polishing. Head dia. .481, Primer pocket .224 (.205 normal).

Here is a pic of the cases:
65040

Extraction was very easy until last round. A 1/4" wood dowel just pushed by hand for the first three, then a tap with a hammer on the third, then a metal rod and hammer tap on the last. Seeing as I was behind a wall, I did not see anything or hear any shrapnel from the disappearing primer. On the last two rounds there was a very strong odor of ammonia after ignition, something I've never experienced before. These hot loads did not produce the strange resonance from the first try. For all the world the first three rounds behaved as one would expect, absolutely nothing untoward. One would think that this gun was absolutely designed for the 8mm Mauser.Of course, my kisser wasn't in proximity but honestly I expected more bad. The bolt I used has been modified to handle gas better with three holes along the outboard right side above the extractor. The adiosed primer left nothing detectable, which is amazing. I mean I can't find a speck. No damage was done to any of the parts. The firing pin is pristine.

So there you have it; round one. All of these loads no sane person would want to be using for any reason. The highest official published load I could find was a 225 gr. bullet and 45 grs. of 3031. I wish I had a chronograph. The last three loads one could here the grains crunching when I mashed the bullet down! Maybe I could fit 52 gr. in a case but that would be moot at this pint. So now What to do? I think I'm going to fire X more rounds at 49 gr. and unscrew the barrel to check for set back. Then I'm going to feed the same regimen to the '93 Spaniard. Then I'm gonna need some other powder to make things get even more interesting.

Here's a pic of Betsy:

65045

fouronesix

03-22-2013, 08:04 PM

shredder

03-22-2013, 10:10 PM

copperlake

03-22-2013, 10:52 PM

I'm still following this thread and so far- very interesting! Actually what you are seeing is what I would have expected with these actions. They are fairly forgiving of out and out burst failure but tend to give a little at a time. While at some point, as you may find with measuring set back, they do "fail" in matters of degree. It is something I noticed with the one absolute torture test I did on the Modelo 1936.
Would be interesting to run the 7x57 load I used through QL (which I don't have). The load was 37 gr Bulleye under 625 gr "projectile".

One thing I see in the latest test with the 3031, maybe?, is that the pressures as predicted by QL may be slightly overstating what is happening in your tests. Seems like loads 1 and 2 should have shown more head expansion and primer flattening at the predicted pressures of 75-85Kpsi. ??? don't know really- what is your take on it?

I know nothing about ballistics and even less about Quick Load. I'll leave it to someone else to answer your question more intelligently than me. Just look at what happened between 50 gr. and 51.5 gr. So it may not be too out of whack to not see too much deformation at 49 gr. This is virgin brass. My guess is that running them through dies 5-6 times and we'd have a different story. I have to say I'm impressed by two things; until the primer blew things seemed completely normal and what happened to the primer? Did it vaporize? Away's back a poster suggested to wrap the inside of the torture chamber with cellotex to capture particles, maybe a good idea. As for your test with the Mexican '36 and what QL says, I'd PM DCM, who I profusely thank for his generous donation, and ask him. He'd need to know bullet specifics and COL to figure.

One other thing I noticed after looking at everything more closely is that the bolt face got a nice hot gas torch job during primer removal. Here's a pic, that ring was not as pronounced before. About 90% of the used bolts you find from this era show some erosion.

Oh, yeah, one other detail for those of you that like detail; absolutely dry chamber and bore before testing, swabbed with acetone.

65077

Sadly, this rodeo is going to slow down some because >GASP< I have to go back to work. I build aluminum boats and was between, and now have to get in the front, for the next three months or so. Not that I'm going to stop, just slow down. I talked to the local supply, Kachemak Gear Shed, and have to put in an order for some hotter powder in order to finish the project. In the meantime, I've twisted up some rounds @ 49 gr. that I'm going to fire five in the Swede and unscrew the barrel. Then, fire five in the Spaniard and unscrew the barrel. I'm also intrigued with this blown primer deal. On another thread here I 'modernized' a '95 to handle gas better. I want to intentionally make that happen (blow primers) and see if some of these simple things make them safer.

ALSO, pretty please, if anyone would be so kind as to loan me, or nominally rent me, a 8X57mm reamer to do the next thing, which is to put 8mm bullets through a 7mm barrel so as to continue my channeling P. O., that would be most excellent, or 'awesome,' as my too (and two) grown daughters would say.

I have really enjoyed this project and thank you all so much for being part of it. Remember, if you have something you want to throw in the hat, no matter how wacky,
I'll consider it. In the end these puppies are goin' to heaven

copperlake

03-22-2013, 11:17 PM

Been following this as well. Nice work.

Have you measured headspace after firing those loads? I for one would love to know your "before and after" headspace measurements. Looking for lug setback after de-barrelling the action is a good idea as well.

shredder, I don't have any headspace gauges, I used the tape method. I know you can read all you want about how horrible that method is but in this situation, with the control I have, I believe it's as valid enough. When I put the components together I had to remove some off the barrel face and a little off the left locking lug to get the bolt to close with very slight resistance on three different batches of REM 8mm ammo. All of these loads I fired today chambered the same way, a little resistance. I Took a dental tool and ran it against the locking lug buttresses and cannot feel a ridge. We'll see, some more high end torture and I'll unscrew the barrel. Also, when you look at these fired cases one would say that it has a tight chamber; there is no undo bulging towards the head of the case. You look at them and say, "that looks perfect". The action had no set back when it started out.

I do wish I had more tools to make this a more fruitful effort. ANYONE OUT THERE WANT TO LOAN SOME HEADSPACE GAUGES ? I'll pay shipping.

fouronesix

03-22-2013, 11:29 PM

copperlake

03-23-2013, 12:14 AM

The reason I ask about the QL pressure predictions is that almost all if not all primers will show obvious flattening (assuming more or less correct headspace) at somewhere around 60Kpsi. The QL pressure prediction for test #1 is somewhere around 80Kpsi and that primer does not look like it was subjected to anywhere near that pressure. And it wasn't until #3 that "high" pressure becomes obvious but that is QL predicted at somewhere around 92-3Kpsi.

fouronesix, I'd bet on the headspace being correct. I cannot account for your observations. I do know that the Powley computations are theoretical and subject to vast variation caused by seemingly small differences. Again, I hope someone more knowledgeable chimes in.

DCM

03-24-2013, 12:44 PM

QL pressures and primers.

QL is a computer simulation model and cannot be used to determine actual pressures Period, From my experience with QL it has been very accurate in predicting other things I can actually measure like velocity and less scientifically weather a powder is completely burnt before the boolit leaves the barrel. The latter promotes less needed cleaning and less muzzle flash.
There is a strain gage tool available for determining pressures that is on my Wish list, but from what I understand it will only give relative pressure not actual. The cost is ~$500 so it won't happen any time soon.

Primers: There are a number of cartridges that are designed to operate over 60,000 PSI.
IME Federal primers have Very soft cups and will flow and pierce much easier than others.
I have pierced a number of federal primers over the years especially pistol primers in warm to hot loads.
I was on the firing line with a friend during a rifle match in which he did something we had done for years with M1As/M14s, we were firing the offhand stage of the match, he had the muzzle of his rifle on his shooting stool pointed toward the ground, he dropped a round in to the chamber and closed the bolt BOOM! the combination of inertia, the floating firing pin and the soft primer cup set off the round!
He was Extremely lucky that he did not shoot himself in the foot, blow up the can of adhesive in his shooting stool and the there were not large rocks below to blow up or for the bullet to ricochet off of!
We are also very prudent about keeping the muzzle pointed down range for all of the above now.
Some fellow reliable and honest shooters from the flatland (ILL.) did a test with small rifle primers and found Rem. primers to be much less susceptible to this type of problem leading us to believe the have much harder cups.
So how does all this relate?
If your primer has a soft cup it will flow before a harder one.
The CCI 250 magnum rifle primers I have used on Heavily loaded J words for long range ammo show no signs of flowing or overpressure yet they are running at about 61,500 PSI according to multiple sources.
I have heard a number of actual industry professionals state that primers are not a good indicator of pressure and my experience has shown me why. The hot pistol loads with Fed. primers that were easily pierced were just fine with other primers.

This test has been both comforting and somewhat disturbing.
Comforting in knowing the Mauser won't likely blow up for small infraction, but disturbing in that it won't start giving easily noted signs until things are way bad.

YMMV!
Best regards!

fouronesix

03-24-2013, 02:16 PM

QL pressures and primers.

This teat has been both comforting and somewhat disturbing.
Comforting in knowing the Mauser won't likely blow up for small infraction, but disturbing in that it won't start giving easily noted signs until things are way bad.

YMMV!
Best regards!

Seems that way to me also. With these older type actions that are Mauser in design and from forged stock that has not been over heat treated so as to become brittle- they tend to huff and puff and yield a little at a time where usually the case head or primer lets go before the action lets go. Then from a safety or practical perspective, the gas control design becomes most important.

As to the primer flattening? I've noticed almost without exception, that factory loaded ammo from all the major companies when fired in factory built new magnum rifles will show some primer flattening. I do not believe they are exceeding the SAAMI limits of around 65Kpsi.

couple of examples

john hayslip

03-24-2013, 02:51 PM

Seems like I remember once I read about someone who fired a 45acp in an 06 and the action held without difficulty but the bullet came out quite a bit lengthened (Hatcher's Notebook maybe???).

copperlake

03-24-2013, 03:30 PM

QL pressures and primers.

Some fellow reliable and honest shooters from the flatland (ILL.) did a test with small rifle primers and found Rem. primers to be much less susceptible to this type of problem leading us to believe the have much harder cups.

DCM, and it's interesting that this test used REM primers and brass. The last batch of rounds loaded for the stress test (49 gr.3031) have a few with CCI LR primers. I full length re-sized some of the cases from the very first test using the 170 gr. bullets. I do not plan on re-using brass for these maximum loads going forward but only have so many. With four actions, I'm going to need more. It would be great to have some different brands, which I will try to do.

Thanks for the better explanation of Quick Load, and again, for the help.

copperlake

03-25-2013, 08:09 PM

The latest

I fired five rounds of 49 gr. 3031, 2 REM. primers 3 CCI large rifle, the CCI cases resized full length. Same results: easy extraction, no pierced primers. The only notable thing is one head expanded by .005", the rest were normal and the felt pen markings disappeared on one. A walk in the park. Discolorations were on the brass already. Close examination of the action and parts shows nothing obvious. I'm kicking myself for not measuring the receiver diameter before testing but it now shows 1.304" at the widest.

6539165392

I'm going to stop with this action and mount a '93 in the torture chamber. This particular action has had, in places, as much as .036" in diameter removed from the receiver ring and probably everywhere else. It is nicely blued but way overworked. The lug buttresses's are very hard, much harder than the Swede. Fortunately, the same bolt fits this action. I'm going to fire five of the same loads plus the 51.5 gr. that blew the primer last time.

65394

DCM

03-25-2013, 09:40 PM

Thanks for the better explanation of Quick Load, and again, for the help.

You are quite welcome!
My part was much easier than yours, I actually wish I could be of more help and I am more than willing to help in the future too!

This is an area of great interest to me after witnessing a rifle come apart directly in front of me years ago.
A different rifle under very different circumstances and thankfully no one was seriously hurt, but it got me thinkin.

copperlake

03-25-2013, 10:50 PM

Well, so much for those weak Spanish actions. This '93 Spaniard behaved exactly like her bastard cousin; 6 maximo rounds that acted and look EXACTLY like the ones from Sweden. The only difference, and a small one, is the 'blue pill' round affected the bolt actuation more. I had to put the sled in a vice and use leverage to open the action. And no wonder as the head expanded to .490 at the widest. It molded more to the bolt face. Also, I believe the first 'blue pill' did not vaporize the primer and that it was mishandled by me. This time I looked in the action before rodding the case out and could see the primer. I was more careful and retrieved it. It no longer had a friction fit and easily fell out. It is pierced, crumpled and the face absolutely flat. One other thing to mention is that with these hottest loads the stamps on the cartridge head are weak from being mashed into the bolt face, they are but a little bit from setting loose and completely flowing. I just can't mash anymore propellant (3031) into those cases! If it was an improved chamber we could do it!

I have never believed that the Spaniards were 'weaker' than the Swedes. This is not proof of that but it does say something. Of course, the main course is yet to come so we shall see. I'm a betting man, though and I bet in the end, there isn't spit difference between the two. No smith that was worth the name would EVER take a Spanish mauser that had .035" ground off the receiver and make something of it. That's why it is ONLY a blow-up candidate. Now, having said all this, I suppose I should also put the original 48, 49, and 50 gr. rounds through it too in order to be same-o same-o.

So here we are, I'm going to unscrew the barrels and check for set back but no more. I need some more umph to blow them up, and I think, that says a hell of a lot. Frankly, I'm impressed.

6541965418

EDG

03-26-2013, 12:53 AM

If you have electric clippers, electric razor or other source of small amplitude vibration you might get another couple of grains of powder in those cases. Another trick would be to neck size only. The 3rd and last trick would waste your earlier data. That would be to try WW brass which will be a good bit thinner and lighter. It is sometimes a good bit harder so the load to failure might a lot different.
The maximum effort would be to combine all 3 techniques.

I do not have a good digital camera or I would share one of my adventures in case demolition.
I blew two primers with a starting level load in a M91 Mauser many years ago and kept the brass as proof of the goat roping. The bullet was the Hornady 174 grain RN and the powder was AA2495.
The brass was USGI S L 54 which is very well made and tough. I bought 1000 of them and have been forming them into 7.65 and 8X57 brass for decades since they have no caliber nomencalture. The two rounds that popped ironed the headstamp lettering almost flat. There was a tiny puff of smoke from the action but nothing else.

fouronesix

03-26-2013, 01:14 AM

Well done!
Says a lot about the "old stories" of how the basic Mauser with the right steel is one tough action (albeit maybe "softer" than current standards). Yield a little, until the brass lets go. As opposed to some other actions that may be of more modern steel or harder or more brittle steel that will not show set back or expansion with increasing increments of overpressure ......... until either the brass goes or the steel fails/bursts or both.

shredder

03-26-2013, 09:05 AM

shredder, I don't have any headspace gauges, I used the tape method. I know you can read all you want about how horrible that method is but in this situation, with the control I have, I believe it's as valid enough. When I put the components together I had to remove some off the barrel face and a little off the left locking lug to get the bolt to close with very slight resistance on three different batches of REM 8mm ammo. All of these loads I fired today chambered the same way, a little resistance. I Took a dental tool and ran it against the locking lug buttresses and cannot feel a ridge. We'll see, some more high end torture and I'll unscrew the barrel. Also, when you look at these fired cases one would say that it has a tight chamber; there is no undo bulging towards the head of the case. You look at them and say, "that looks perfect". The action had no set back when it started out.

I do wish I had more tools to make this a more fruitful effort. ANYONE OUT THERE WANT TO LOAN SOME HEADSPACE GAUGES ? I'll pay shipping.

From what you are describing it sounds like the headspace is likely unchanged or at least very slightly enlarged. If your rounds still chamber with a bit of feel, not much has changed. My headspace gauges are in 30/06 or I would send them to you! Keep up the good work.

An old gunsmith taught me to use a go gaugeto measure headspace. It starts with stripping the bolt and removing the estractor. He used a tiny dab of grease on the bolt face and stuck a little cutting of solder on there. Put the gauge in the chamber and close the bolt. When you open it up, retrieve the tiny piece of solder from the bolt face which will now be a little flat pancake and measure it. That thickness is the amount of headspace the rifle has over "go" measurement. It will give you a precise indication of any change or setback.
I am following your experiments with interest.

copperlake

03-26-2013, 06:25 PM

END OF THIS RUN

Well, I put more rounds through the Spaniard to make the regimen exactly the same for both actions, I then unscrewed both barrels. No visible set back on either under the magnifier. My camera just doesn't do well with closeups when there is a disparity in dept with things to auto-focus on. I did remember to measure the diameter of the receiver and it did not change.

So, until I get some more powder, I'm going to stop. I could do the same with the other actions but I'd rather wait and be able to do a complete cycle from beginning to destruction. It's been a lot of fun and for me, some surprising results. I must say that I'm beginning to develop some theory's about the actions themselves and their derivative urban legends. Certainly these subjects, under the conditions as set out, behaved remarkably the same. It will be interesting to see which one fails first. I have a bet on the Swede, but I'm biased. Overall, I'm quite pleased with set up and what's been accomplished so far. Far and away the best part has been the conversation.

I did start another thread about a '95 Chilean that I'm thinking about intentionally making it so the primers are pierced. I would video the results and not do it in a cage. I'm wondering what would be the best substrate to catch whatever leaves the action, so to speak?

Stay tuned.

Regards and thanks to all,
Mark

fouronesix

03-26-2013, 06:56 PM

For camera protection, I used a thick plexiglas shield in front of an already "hardened" special purpose camera.

As as far as small parts capture it depends on how massive they might be and at what velocity. I know materials like rigid foam or celotex are not good ballistic capture media. It could get expensive? I'd think something like a 3/4" plywood surround (quonset or igloo shaped) with a top layer of thin sandbags would capture most.

EDG

03-26-2013, 11:45 PM

Styrofoam backed up by heavy corrogated paper backed up by plywood should catch and stop splinters.
You might be able to use a large beer cooler surrounded by a large carton surrounded by a plywood box or some similar confifuration.

copperlake

03-30-2013, 05:39 PM

I've been captivated by thinking about what other things I can do with paperweight actions, I decided to do some variations on more of Ackley's explorations; that being bolt head pressure. I ground off the left locking lug and head support off a bolt I have that had some of the head support already broken off. I'm going to use the second of the Oviedo mausers I have dedicated to the tests, one that is very soft and has .004" set-back on the top lug recess. This action is entirely soft and can be easily filed anywhere. I will fire several rounds below the primer failure point of 51.5 gr. of 3031 say, 49 or 50 gr. Then, I will remove the other lug and build up the action in the same fashion as a '95 Chilean with the third safety lug behind the bolt. After that test I'll remove the lug; it will be without anything to prevent rearward motion of the bolt. I'll have to figure out a way to fire it other than the drop hammer as the bolt flying back would probably destroy it. I'm thinking a block of wet potters clay to perform the function of a human head to 'catch' the bolt, so to speak.

Headspaced the same as the previous tests.

6591465915

copperlake

03-30-2013, 09:46 PM

Well, I intended to wrap up the first phase tonight but my backstop blew apart so I'll find some lumber tomorrow to continue. It appears that the 'hot' loads made it 12" into the timber from point blank. Some hung together, some not. An interesting one is at the bottom of the pic. The boattail bulged and for all the world looks like the front end of a FMJ.

First, I fired one of the factory REM. 170 gr. just to test - no problems. To conserve brass and because I don't care what happens in this test, I full length sized that first round and two that were fired previously with 49 gr. 3031, then reloaded them with the 220 gr Sierra boattail and 49 gr. 3031. I noticed that pushing the primers into the second cases was too easy. The first round fired was the reloaded first round; nothing untoward except two vertical splits in the case shoulder. The second round did not fire and the third round blew apart the backstop. No hard extraction, nothing that would alarm anyone but the heads of the twice-fired cases are looking a little tired, as in smushed. They are expanding. The bolt looks exactly like it did to start.

Tomorrow I'm going to go all the way with a 51.5 gr. primer destruction load. If nothing happens I will forevermore smile when I read about those Spanish mausers and how dangerous they are. Hell, I'm already there!

659386594065939

copperlake

03-31-2013, 11:19 PM

Well, I found a log that wasn't covered with snow out back and brought it in to the shop. I fired two more rounds of 49 gr with nothing unusual to report, these and subsequent were once-fired with either 48 or 49 gr. 3031. This was getting to be boring so I loaded 51 gr. and got a nice pierced primer for the effort. I noticed that the powder was not filling the case as full as with virgin brass, which makes sense considering the customization they were experiencing. As a matter of fact, one firing @ 49 gr. stretched the cases .010-.012". Getting kind of tired of repeating myself, I crammed 52.5 gr. into a once-fired case. I will leave it to our friend, DCM, to tell us what that pressure is. The result was exciting! Finally! The report was considerably louder and mysteriously, I watched from the door to my bunker a fluorescent bulb over the bench at the back of the shop suddenly shatter. Walking there first, I couldn't see the reason for it. Pulling the action from the torture chamber I didn't see anything unusual until I tried to open it - it was frozen solid. Cool! I put the sled in a vise and realized I'd break the bolt handle if I went for it, so I unscrewed the barrel and this is what was revealed:

66047

Other pieces of brass fell out during autopsy and there was a good deal of black residue at the business end of things. I determined that the light bulb shattering was caused by brass exiting the rear of the torture chamber. Even after I removed the piece of brass that was doing it's best to go out the vent hole, I couldn't open the action. Further examination revealed that the set-back was so much that I had to knock the bolt forward to release it. I must say that I thought for sure that this one-legged '93 spanish mauser would give up the ghost. NOT! When I cleared everything the action opened like it was new. And here is what I found:

66051

The set-back measured .085". As you can see, the impression of the bolt lug is like it's been pushed into bubblegum. The receiver ring did not grow in diameter. After all of these extreme rounds, from the beginning, all the other bolt parts show absolutely no outward signs of abuse. Here is a picture of the brass. The separation occurred right where the case did not expand fully against the chamber. The edge is extremely sharp. I used a 1/8" pipe tap to remove it from the chamber and unfortunately, had to pinch the neck in a vise to remove it. The primer, that has some head material attached to it, is flattened to .025".

66061

All in all quit remarkable. Being a betting man, I would have bet heavily against this outcome. It makes me wonder about all the stories about actions coming undone. I've got to get something to eat but there is more to come. I did remove the remaining lug and did build a 'fake' '95 mauser.........Stay tuned.

nhrifle

03-31-2013, 11:32 PM

If you are up for some more testing after these actions have expired, might be kind neat to repeat the tests on a low numbered 1903 Springfield. It would, of course, be preferable to find one that Bubba had his way with and no longer had any collector value. I have such a specimen here that I use only for light loads with cast boolits. Many moons ago someone cut down an original C stock rifle into their rendition of a sporter, and I still cringe when I think what that stock in original condition is worth today. The chamber is very generous (bolt drops on the no-go gauge as if the gauge wasn't even there) and it is in the 200,000 serial # range, and I'm pretty sure it was built sometime around 1917.

dmarfell

03-31-2013, 11:44 PM

fouronesix

03-31-2013, 11:57 PM

copperlake

04-01-2013, 12:04 AM

So I TIG welded a bunch of goober on this poor mistreated Spaniard and ground a bit and with a carbide equipped die grinder did a semblance of the famous '1895 Mauser Chileano third safety lug', that of much mystery and controversy. Plane old mild steel rod. I removed the remaining bolt lug. For some odd reason that made me feel strange, like I had done something fundamentally wrong. Here we have the 'fake' '95 along side the real deal:

6606666065

I made the tolerance between the lug and the bolt handle closer than it would have been in the original design. This was to maintain some control over headspace, seeing as how there was nothing forward to do that. Now, what is wrong with this picture?

66067

After screwing everything back together, we had a very uneventful test using the default 170 gr REM mamby-pamby. Seriously, nothing happened. I cannot see any impact. I will fire several more of the REM loads and check, the only thing I can check, growing space between the funky lug and the bolt handle. Then it will be MAXIMO time again. Remember, only cleaning is with acetone, no lubricant anywhere. Lubricant leads me to other thought tests.

copperlake

04-01-2013, 01:38 AM

I have Ackley's books and IIRC, the Jap finally blew out the barrel with 1.) an oversized bullet, 2.) a triplex load of unspecified fast powders, and 3.) the aforementioned steel rod. I have a junk 6.5 Jap I could be talked out of if anyone wants to try for themselves...strictly on your own, of course. :grin:

dmarfell, I think you are mixing parts of Ackley's Vol. II Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders together. In the blow-up tests he did not do anything other than use powders to attempt to cause destruction. In another chapter titled 'A few causes of Blowups' he does show a .270 Ackley blown with a 1/4" rod inserted in the barrel. He states that only the barrel blew and the action was fine. Of course, I stand to be corrected.

copperlake

04-01-2013, 01:57 AM

copperlake,
Yep, still as I expected. Although I wouldn't subject any action to such abuse, like you, I have to wonder where all the stories come from about some of the older Mausers. That .085 setback does show some "softness" in the steel but at the same time that is exactly what makes it forgiving. I think an earlier post mentioned a receiver burst/fracture without barrel burst due to what was called "hoop failure" and if not mistaken it was a Springfield. So the idea about working up to a failure with a possibly brittle, low serial 03 receiver that has no value would certainly shed some first hand light on that. Hatcher compiled quite a few records of those.

fouronesix, the set-back is a little more than 'some softness', it is damn softness! This action, I believe, never had any heat treatment or was in a fire that removed it. You could stretch this action like taffy. It has the same characteristics as plain old A-36 mild steel.

I am not and engineer. I do not know what 'hoop failure' is. All I know is that this very soft action absorbed some serious shock and even with one lug, did not fail. Likely, the outcome would have been different had I used the 'harder' Oviedo but I wouldn't begin to divine what that would be. If I had 20 actions, I could spend the next year going down many avenues. Still, I'm a bit perplexed that something more dramatic didn't happen with only one lug. And, that one lug looked like it could go forever. Side note: when I ground off the lugs they were not hard all the way though. As most '93 bolts, they resisted the file test.

EDG

04-01-2013, 02:21 AM

Heat treatment of the old Mausers was only a surface hardening to provide a wear surface.
The core of the receiver was still soft. Even if you had a properly hardened receiver it would still be like the analogy of a thin concrete side walk on quick sand.
Mausers that I have tested with a Rockwell machine do not provide impressive results.
98/09 Argentines run about Rockwell C zero which is out of range for accurate results. When tested on the B scale they were about B 80. A VZ 24 will test about Rockwell C 32. For comparison a Rem 700 is in the low 40s and is that hard all the way through. (A file will be about RC 62 to 64, Rex 95 HSS is RC 62 and MoMax is about 64.)
All of these receivers can be easily cut with a file thought the Argentine 98/09 are about as soft as a common nail.
I do have one Mauser receiver that is an anomaly. I have never Rockwell tested it but a file will not touch it anywhere. It is a Belgian made 89 Mauser reciever that appears to have been refurbished at some time during its life.

fouronesix

04-01-2013, 04:46 PM

fouronesix, the set-back is a little more than 'some softness', it is damn softness! This action, I believe, never had any heat treatment or was in a fire that removed it. You could stretch this action like taffy. It has the same characteristics as plain old A-36 mild steel.

I am not and engineer. I do not know what 'hoop failure' is. All I know is that this very soft action absorbed some serious shock and even with one lug, did not fail. Likely, the outcome would have been different had I used the 'harder' Oviedo but I wouldn't begin to divine what that would be. If I had 20 actions, I could spend the next year going down many avenues. Still, I'm a bit perplexed that something more dramatic didn't happen with only one lug. And, that one lug looked like it could go forever. Side note: when I ground off the lugs they were not hard all the way though. As most '93 bolts, they resisted the file test.

copperlake,
This is what I was referring to about the "hoop failure" terminology where a steel barrel is surrounded by a different, harder and possibly more brittle steel receiver ring. The barrel doesn't burst or fragment but the surrounding ring or "hoop" does.

As posted by blastit37-
"No more pictures at this time. I had a chance to examine the parts and took the Pic which shows the failed parts of the receiver laid out. The back part of the receiver was bent down and just hanging on by a thread. It broke off while trying to straighten it to remove the bolt. The top of the receiver went through the roof of the range shelter and was not found. The bolt showed no damage except that the shroud on the face was gone about 1/4 the way around. The barrel was not damaged and it will screw into a bare receiver by hand. The receiver was a "drill rifle" receiver but there was no indication that the weld on the receiver face had anything to do with the failure. The "heat effected zone" of the weld was centered on the recoil lug and did not extend to the edges where the failure occurred. The recoil lug acted to reinforce the weld zone. I verified this with a "file hardness test" of the receiver face. Because the front of the receiver broke into 5 pieces (all fracture faces showing no fatigue) indicates the failure was a "hoop stress overload failure" caused by the expansion of the barrel shank inside the receiver. My rough hoop stress calculation produced a growth of approximately .005" in diameter (of the barrel shank) which consequently ruptured the receiver. There was no cracking of the weld at the cutoff lever. Not trying to hijack your thread but thought this might be of some interest and this was a good place to introduce it while talking about overload failures. I am a retired Mechanical Engineer and this type of analysis was what I did when I worked for the USAF. I guess what struck me most about this failure examination was how thin the 03a3 receiver is in the barrel shank area, .125" (1/8") in the barrel threads and that this failure would have occurred whether the receiver was a drill rifle or not."

In any case the definition of "receiver failure" is on a sliding scale. When the bolt is set back, the case lets go and a bunch of gas and small particles are discharged outward/rearward would be one level of failure. Another would be were the chamber and/or receiver burst and a bunch of gas along with large bolt/receiver fragment shards are discharged outward/rearward would be another lever of failure. In both instances the receiver is ruined but the second type would seem to me to have the greatest potential for serious harm to the shooter.

copperlake

04-01-2013, 10:33 PM

Heat treatment of the old Mausers was only a surface hardening to provide a wear surface.

Ackley: page 65, HARDNESS TEST AS APPLIED TO GUNS "The importance of the Rockwell test has been greatly overemphasized and almost completely misunderstood by many people connected with the gun business, especially in connection with the Mauser actions on which the Rockwell test is not worth the paper it is written on." He goes on quite a bit about why he states this and the upshot is - the method of heat treatment (case, pack or induction) usually was applied to wear surfaces, not receiver rings etc.

EDG, I obviously did not state myself well in regards to the last action and it's softness. I do understand about the method of heat treatment of early Mausers. What I wanted to convey is that this action is EXCEPTIONALLY soft. Jerry Kuhnhausen in his magnificent Mauser book mentions dealing with actions that he felt had no treatment whatsoever. I found one for sure. His cure was "Off to Blanchard's!" to be re-cased. I don't know why it wasn't cased but it is the first I've encountered and wanted to remark on that.

66144

Here is a picture of the unmounted actions I have in the shop. I have about an equal amount that are mounted. I have tested, with the only means I have, the mill file, all of the bolts and lug buttresses. These actions are my play toys, aquired over the years to make something of. Of all, that last Oviedo was far and away the softest. I could quite go on about the others and what I've learned, but that is not what I'm hear to do. I agree, every one in that pile you can bite the ring with a file but, though you may, when you move to the lug recesses it's (usually) not the case. I have 4 '94 FN Brazilians in that pile that are HARD. The whole action is as hard as locking lugs. A file skates over the surface anywhere you try. All four of them have cracks in the receiver bridges.

Soo, having said all this what I find absolutely remarkable is that this hunk of doorstop preformed so well. What perplexes me is that of all the pictures of blown up guns I've seen, nothing, for the most part has taken as much as this Oviedo with one lug. Then, jury rig a makeshift '95 third locking lug and IT STILL WON"T QUIT!

Finally, though I'm not a 100% there yet, I'm ready to call bunk on the weak small ring legend. Too, I see why Ackley and others built serious guns on small ring actions.

Thank you for your repeated input, much appreciated.

Mark

EDG

04-02-2013, 08:52 PM

Hi Mark,
I hope you don't think I was intending to be critical with my heat treatment remarks. I have found this thread very entertaining. Small ring Mausers and especially M91s are criticized for lacking strength yet the metallurgy cannot be that much different from the later models. Some serial numbers of M91s were made after 1898 (as lates as 1901) so it is not reasonable that Mauser would have used different materials for different Mauser designs. While Mauser records are not available Argentina kept records on the rifles they received. 1891 Mauser production dates >>> http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?4383-1891-Mauser-serial-numbers.

copperlake

04-03-2013, 10:47 PM

Tonight I got a reply from DCM who I PM'd about what Quick Load said about the last Maximo load and here are the results:

Dave, so the latest is that because I used some once fired cases I could get more powder in them for another admittedly crazy test. I was able to get 52.5 gr. in a case with all the same parameters. If you could, what says QL?

Mark[/QUOTE]

No problem!
52.5g ~108315 PSI
I am truly enjoying this Mythbusters thread, so many wives tales we have all heard through the years!
Dave Emary of Hornady once tried unsuccessfully to intentionally blow up one of those "weak Carcanos" only to find how strong his is.

Dave

So there you have it, maybe I could cram another 1/2 grain in a case but the results would be the same. To recap, we took a '93 Spanish mauser, an unknown origin bolt that was hard by the file test and had the upper locking lug and all cartidge head support removed, fitted with a unknown manufacture 8mm Turkish mauser barrel and subjected it to enormous chamber pressure and it did not fail. The action is ruined because of the resulting setback. No bolt through the head, no hand grenade no nothing, really.

Tip 'o the hat to Dave for making this worthwhile.

Then, I went out in the shop and fired 3 more rounds of the factory REM 170's with the lug-less wonder. The space between the bolt handle and the third lug has remained .011" after five rounds. If I had mounted this action I could have shot that moose that was at the end of my driveway yesterday morning. As I've explained, this has been a dead dry bore/chamber affair since shot one. I'm going to lube some of the factory rounds with the slipperiest stuff I've got, Tri-Flow, and see what happens. Then I'll move on to more serious loads after I come up with an ignition device that's out of the way.

In terms of the coup de grace tests, I have an order in for powder but I haven't heard back if can be filled.

copperlake

04-04-2013, 10:38 PM

After work tonight I lubed up three rounds of the steel cased eastbloc stuff I have thinking the steel would be more slippery than the brass. I used Tri-Flow, a lubricant that has Teflon in it. I also ran a patch soaked with it trough the chamber and bore. With the first round I knew something 'unusual' happened by the sound and smell. The bolt and the case flew out the rear. The bolt first sheared, then broke the third 'safety' lug. The picture of that isn't very good but it's easy to see the start of the shearing action. The bolt pushed all that was behind it on it's way, the aluminum shaft and the drop hammer. As you can see, it bent the arm of the drop hammer (supposed to be parallel to the tube) upwards by its rearward motion. I had a garbage bag of rags as a backstop and the bolt made an impression but did not break the plastic bag.

To me, the most interesting thing is the case. As you can see, the case was expanding as it was leaving the chamber. Its .028" shorter than the unfired case. I regret using the steel case because I introduced a variable that can't be accounted for unless I start over. Maybe I'll weld another lug on and...

What did we learn? Run an acetone patch through those old dogs and seriously cut down on bolt thrust! It makes me want to start the whole test over with greased bores. Perhaps old 'One Lug' may have had a different fate? For sure.

I still want to do the completely lugless shot but it easy to see that I have to come up with a striking system that a) does not impede the rearward motion of the bolt and b) doesn't destroy the torture machine. The original plan called for a pneumatically launched ball bearing at an oblique angle to the cocking piece. That's what I'm going to do.

664226642366424

EDG

04-04-2013, 11:40 PM

I don't know if you have an interest in the results of FEA (finite element analysis) but Varmit Al has a good discussion of the effects of chamber finish and friction on bolt thrust.

http://www.varmintal.com/a243z.htm

In regard to the steel case and the case forming itself as it backed out you might be interested in this type of discussion with shooters of Lee-Enfields. Many Lee-Enfield shooters will argue that you should always use a dry chamber in a LE to reduce the load on the action. The insist that you should use the case as a thrust bearing component. Using a dry chamber in a LE increases the rate at which case head separations occur. Those that are in favor fire forming .303 brass with some oil or other lubricant have observed that the cases last longer because the initial fire forming does not damage the brass as much.

nekshot

04-05-2013, 12:32 PM

copperlake

04-05-2013, 10:11 PM

Awsome thread, it is way over my simple head for sure but this how guys like me learn. Does this expierement up to now say most actions if all looks well are at least safe for cast loads in correct low preassure and cartridges such as 35 rem and 30-30 ?
nekshot

nek, I can't answer your question but I have many thoughts about all this. I've tried to present the method and means as clearly as I can so we can all draw our own conclusions. For myself, me, only, I have no fear of using actions that are 'supposed' to be only so good to beyond that supposition. Especially since I am the one that will be checking them out. Especially what this little experiment has taught me. Having said that, it's wise to never get cocky. Also, I will ALWAYS modify them to handle gas better if say, I'm going to build a 6mm on a '95 action. I will never again shoot the high end (this includes my magnums) with an oiled chamber. Yes, even before going hunting in rainy Alaska. Imagine an oiled chamber AND some clay in the tube?

One important thing I want to relay is about headspace; every one of these shots has been fired with (my method of testing) proper headspace, including, the last ones with no lugs. The .011" play I mentioned was unloaded and was the measured 'slop' between the bolt handle and the bridge and then the 3rd lug. During the tests the bolt usually closed with slight resistance on a round.

Today I went to the hydraulics shop and the machine shop (of course, this was coincidental to the job I'm on) and picked up scrap of stainless seamless tubing and a ball bearing that fits perfectly therein. At first, I'm going to try a lung powered device to drive the cocking piece/firing pin. If that doesn't work I'll try compressed air. I'm guessing my lungs can do it, though. I'm really looking forward to launching the bolt into a block of clay. My inner child @ 65.

DCM

04-06-2013, 10:12 AM

357maximum

04-06-2013, 02:04 PM

Awesome reading...THANK YOU VERY MUCH :mrgreen:

copperlake

04-07-2013, 12:21 AM

I made the pneumatic device to drive the firing pin and tested it out. I've located some clay but went ahead with a prelim test. Rube Goldberg aside, it does work but not as well as I envisioned. a) the ball bearing, being harder than the cocking piece, is peening it. b) without any thing to hold the bolt in it absorbs impact and bounces back, interfering with ignition; this happens too many times. c) the ball bearing has a mind of its own and is hard to find after each launch.

I thoroughly cleaned the chamber and bore with acetone. The air delivery tube is a 50' garden hose. My lungs couldn't do it so I used compressed air (110psi) and a blow gun. I used the low-watt 170 gr REM ammo. The backstop was a garbage bag full of rags set 28" behind the action. The picture of the bolt against the bag is representative and more dramatic if anything because it looks like it stuck. It didn't really, it just hit a fold. after this first shot I elevated the torture chamber to hit the bag more squarely. With all the shots the bolt just bounced off the bag. None of them pierced the plastic. They did not knock the bag over or move it. The bag weighs 12 lbs.

With every shot these same things happened: Bolt flew out, primers disappeared, cases flew but not always in the same direction. One time, somehow, a case came out the front. All of them are marked like they struck something but not seriously damaged.

Lead balls would work much better. One thing for sure, this method is an extremely safe way to go about this business.

66628666296663066631

This is interesting and all but it would be good, I think, to come up with a way to measure what kind of energy we are talking about here. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I do not know if this would represent a 'death blow' that would 'explode ones' head' if you were so unfortunate experience it. I doubt it but I wouldn't wager. A bag of rags is not a human head. With the clay there will be some indentation. If nothing else, it will be revealing to compare the depth of indentation between dry chamber and wet chamber.

This has been a side track from the original intent but I find it very interesting. I've read of Ackley's tests with his improved chambers and how 'sticky' they are. I think that this test shows that a normal chamber is pretty sticky too, if dry, anyway.

357maximum

04-07-2013, 11:13 AM

A piece of heavy cardboard with a sheet of notebook paper attatched to the face all directly aft of the safety cage would tell us more than a bag o rags several feet away. I would suggest a cantoloupe/watermelon but I am not sure they are available or cheap in Alaska in April.

What is really interesting to me is how well the bolt is taking blown primers, a modern REM 700 needed a new bolt from a single blown primer and alot of "stuff" hit my face when it happened. Most of the bolt recess/cutout (3 rings of steel my ****) and the primer itself were turned into high pressure dust/particles I probably still carry some of the debris in my left cheek as it looked like someone hit me with a sandblaster for a few days after the event.

EDG

04-07-2013, 04:10 PM

If you can set the barreled action up exactly level you can measure the drop of the bolt over a known distance and you can calculate its velocity. The calculations are made using equations based on Newtons law and are very simple algebra. Gravity is a known force and causes the bolt to drop at a known rate. So if your bolt drops 12" you can calculate how long (how much time) it took to fall that far.
If the bolt also flew 6 feet back out of the receiver then you know how long it took to cover the 6 ft.

The equation is X = Xo + Vo t + 1/2at2

X equals distance the bolt drops
Xo = height of the bolt at time = zero
Vo t= velocity at time = zero
a = acceleration due to gravity
t = time in seconds

I made the pneumatic device to drive the firing pin and tested it out. I've located some clay but went ahead with a prelim test. Rube Goldberg aside, it does work but not as well as I envisioned. a) the ball bearing, being harder than the cocking piece, is peening it. b) without any thing to hold the bolt in it absorbs impact and bounces back, interfering with ignition; this happens too many times. c) the ball bearing has a mind of its own and is hard to find after each launch.

I thoroughly cleaned the chamber and bore with acetone. The air delivery tube is a 50' garden hose. My lungs couldn't do it so I used compressed air (110psi) and a blow gun. I used the low-watt 170 gr REM ammo. The backstop was a garbage bag full of rags set 28" behind the action. The picture of the bolt against the bag is representative and more dramatic if anything because it looks like it stuck. It didn't really, it just hit a fold. after this first shot I elevated the torture chamber to hit the bag more squarely. With all the shots the bolt just bounced off the bag. None of them pierced the plastic. They did not knock the bag over or move it. The bag weighs 12 lbs.

With every shot these same things happened: Bolt flew out, primers disappeared, cases flew but not always in the same direction. One time, somehow, a case came out the front. All of them are marked like they struck something but not seriously damaged.

Lead balls would work much better. One thing for sure, this method is an extremely safe way to go about this business.

66628666296663066631

This is interesting and all but it would be good, I think, to come up with a way to measure what kind of energy we are talking about here. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I do not know if this would represent a 'death blow' that would 'explode ones' head' if you were so unfortunate experience it. I doubt it but I wouldn't wager. A bag of rags is not a human head. With the clay there will be some indentation. If nothing else, it will be revealing to compare the depth of indentation between dry chamber and wet chamber.

This has been a side track from the original intent but I find it very interesting. I've read of Ackley's tests with his improved chambers and how 'sticky' they are. I think that this test shows that a normal chamber is pretty sticky too, if dry, anyway.

copperlake

04-07-2013, 10:57 PM

If you can set the barreled action up exactly level you can measure the drop of the bolt over a known distance and you can calculate its velocity. The calculations are made using equations based on Newtons law and are very simple algebra. Gravity is a known force and causes the bolt to drop at a known rate. So if your bolt drops 12" you can calculate how long (how much time) it took to fall that far.
If the bolt also flew 6 feet back out of the receiver then you know how long it took to cover the 6 ft.

The equation is X = Xo + Vo t + 1/2at2

X equals distance the bolt drops
Xo = height of the bolt at time = zero
Vo t= velocity at time = zero
a = acceleration due to gravity
t = time in seconds

EDG, great idea, thanks again. I will try and use your idea when I have more space and can set up a landing pad that would mark the point of bolt impact. I really believe that I could be standing next to the 'thing' in order to observe up close and be in no danger but I've been wrong about things too many times in my life to push. I think you could roll paper out and it would be sufficient to see some markings.

I had a frustrating time with the work today. I got some clay from a friend and set up and using the tame REM. stuff had a nice 'first impression', so to speak. Then things went to heck because I wanted to try a MAXIMO load but could not get ignition. I'm reloading because I'm low on the factory REM rounds and only have WIN, CCI LR and CCI MAG primers. I have a fantasy that perhaps a maximum load my actually have less bolt thrust because of expansion against the chamber. I futzed with the geometry of the launch tube, wired the action shut to prevent rebound but could not get the sucker to shoot. Then, I lost my one and only ball bearing! The loss of the ball prevented lubing the chamber to compare the depth of impression with another REM round. Dang it all.

In a former very much younger day I was a potter. I can tell you that the force it took to that it took to make that impression was relatively small. I took the bolt and with a rubber mallet gave it a whap that pushed it down to the handle. If hit my head that hard it would smart but hardly be damaging. I know, this is WAY too subjective and therefore more or less useless. I need heavier ball and more force of air, I think. I'm going to get rid of the garden hose and use a regular air hose. I also think the obliqueness of the launch angle generates too much side forces as the bearing is beating the snot (boy, I've never posted on a site that wouldn't allow the tame word I used originally) out of the cocking piece. I'll figure it out, or I won't and figure another way. BTW, those round dimples are from the rebounding ball bearing.

66758667596676066757

So the pics show the only successful shot, that being the mild 170gr RN REM and how it struck the clay block. It looks like it was impeded by part of the ball launching mechanism but it was not, that's just a foreshortening picture phenomena. Then you see the impression sans bolt, then my very unscientific former potter's attempt at being scientific. Artists, you know, cheat a lot.

Final note: a friend is going to 'loan' me some Alliant 2400, which I know nothing about but a quick look at the specs tells me it may do the job. I will confer with DCM on how it may work. Would one use some 'stocking stuffer' if the amount of powder was on the low side of filling the case?

fouronesix

04-08-2013, 10:33 PM

Final note: a friend is going to 'loan' me some Alliant 2400, which I know nothing about but a quick look at the specs tells me it may do the job. I will confer with DCM on how it may work. Would one use some 'stocking stuffer' if the amount of powder was on the low side of filling the case?

copperlake,
I'm not sure what you want to use 2400 for but it is dense, very energetic and pretty fast. It has been a popular 30-06 cast bullet powder for medium loads for a long time with many using about 16-18 gr under 180 gr bullets. I do know for a fact that an overcharge of it may disassemble a 30-06 bolt gun as has happened to various shooters in the past. Is that the "job" you are referring to?

The 30-06 will easily hold about 60 gr. of 2400. The 7x57 and 8x57 each will hold about 50 gr.

copperlake

04-09-2013, 12:34 AM

After work, I turned a 1.25" X .60" solid brass 'boolit' to launch at my frustrating target. I chose the steel-cased eastbloc rounds because they have been the most reliable; maybe Berdan was on to something? Anyway, the results were spectacular. As you can see, this would have caused a serious cranial injury not to mention the harm that this extraordinary gas and particle spray would cause. The brass boolit didn't make it out of harms way, as you an see it was impacted by (something, as yet unknown as this is the rear end) in its rearward travel. Whatever caused that aside, it was rather deeply embedded in the clay too. What you see of what's left of the case was lodged in the receiver ring. I think the balance of it is embedded in the clay. This was shot from a dry chamber.

What to make of this?

Does anyone recognize the origin of the headstamp?

Does anyone have some .58 cal balls or Minnies' they would like to donate? I don't know how many shots I'll get out of the brass boolit. I want to continue this line of experiment. The beauty of it is that I can use any action because it's not going to blow up.

66855668566685466853

fouronesix, thanks for the input on the powder. And yes, I'm talking about the final act of attempting destruction. My first choice was 4198 or 4227 but I can't get any.

Mark

EDG

04-09-2013, 01:25 AM

You can search headstamp codes for a huge list that looks like more than you would ever want to know.
22 is Plant 22, Romania

copperlake

04-09-2013, 01:35 AM

You can search headstamp codes for a huge list that looks like more than you would ever want to know.
22 is Plant 22, Romania

Me, not knowing, is this considered hot or not?

copperlake

04-09-2013, 11:44 AM

50 gr 3031, 220 gr SBT. Bolt went straight through block of clay. Bolt handle broke off before bolt entered clay embedding only slightly. Cartridge head blown to pieces, most of case left in chamber. Bolt tore large hole in bag of rags and knocked it completely off the table. Brass projectile m.i.a.

6688866887

EDG

04-09-2013, 06:50 PM

The ammo hot? I don't know. The guys at the milsurp collecting sights talk about the Romanian, Yugo and Truk ammo but I have no idea. I only have stuff from 8x57 from Egypt.
I think it is only 150 grn ball but Berdan priming seems to be more efficient in the cold.

Me, not knowing, is this considered hot or not?

copperlake

04-09-2013, 11:32 PM

DCM comes back on using Alliant 2400.

Dave, I've come across some Alliant 2400. What do you think? I know nothing about it other than it's fast, small cal. rifle and magnum pistol.

Mark

I think you will like this/these.
With the 220s @ 3.075" OAL QL says
42g ~134,168 PSI
43g ~142,141
44g ~150,545
45g ~159,413
46g ~168,779
47g ~178,683
48g ~189,167
49g ~200,281 !!!!!!!!!!!!!

One would think that one of these should do the deed well enough. I will ask him for some of the lower charges, 39, 40, 41.

Some thoughts on last nights test: examining the bolt under 20X stereo microscope showed a crack starting at the bottom of the cocking notch, with some polished surfaces indicating that it had been working. It extended about .5" forward. The case is very uniform - about .012". I'm at a loss as to how the bolt handle came off as it shows no marking whatsoever. Is it possible that inertia alone could cause this?

One theory of actions coming undone is that the sudden release of gasses from a burst cartridge head expands beyond the capability of the forward part of the receiver to contain it and survive. Here we have this happening twice to the same action and maybe even a third time if you count the last steel case. the receiver ring has not expanded. This bolt is a Spanish bolt so it has the venting. Also, I removed any head support so perhaps that allows more gas to escape more evenly. Even though there were no locking lugs to hold the bolt in the action, the head appears to have separated in the same place. The case head was mostly in two pieces.

I'm going to do a couple more things before we leave this page: fire a higher pressure loading that, hopefully, doesn't burst and compare that to the low-ball REM load. I have a hunch that there won't be much difference in bolt thrust. Then, I'll do the same with a lubricated chamber but this time with nothing exotic, just plain old Hoppe's gun oil.

The pictures don't do it justice but one thing is for certain, the amount of rearward moving gas and particles is extraordinary. The last two shots put HUNDREDS of indents in the clay. Visible steel and brass particles 2-5mm deep and a sponge texture from gas. Understandable given that it's all happening in a cage but still very impressive. And interestingly, the other parts, firing pin cocking piece and plug all have been having a walk in the park except for being smacked from behind with a ball bearing.

I had no idea that this sidetrack would be so much fun.

EDG

04-10-2013, 10:27 AM

With the extractor in place the gas has more surface to push against and the right lug race way in the receiver is partially blocked from being a totally open vent. In another forum, over loading of 96 and 98 Mausers was discussed with a number of people. One of the participants was a gunmaker (employee of S&L) from Denmark that had ran destructive tests on these actions. He said that when the case head failed it some times would be expanded out over the head of the bolt, extractor and locking lugs giving the gas a much larger area to push against. He said this caused a lot of the overload on the bolt leading to the locking surface set back in the receiver.
You might include include a test with a totally annealed case at standard pressure to see what happens. That would probably lead to a badly expanded and cold flowed case. Of course you may get the same effect with your high pressure test loads with 2400. But the presence of an extractor may change the results some. However I can understand your reluctance to sacrifice an extractor.

blastit37

04-10-2013, 12:55 PM

EDG: Can you post directions to that discussion?

EDG

04-10-2013, 06:24 PM

copperlake

04-10-2013, 10:46 PM

The Danish guy is jÃ¸rgen in this thread.

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/2171041181?r=7111054181#7111054181

And this one

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/6531089131/p/2

EDG, your last 2 posts are really meaningful, thank you. Slap hand aside head, of course what you say about the extractor is now obvious. I will make a 'dummy' one out of turned down pipe. No need to duplicate but just provide the same relative obstruction.

The links you provided alone made it worth doing this whole project. Boy, would I love to sit and have coffee with that man. It was interesting to listen to the various posters chest-bumping then along comes a guy that has actually done what they were conjecturing over! Hard, first hand real experience. Thanks again

I'm going to quote one of his posts because it's so good:

"To evaluate the efect of a certain designfeature, you have to test it deliberatly to and byond the limmit.
The blowup test we have performed , often was gradualy increasing load until the action gave way. We also have tested normaly loaded rounds, with gradualy weakened buttom brass, trying to simulate traditional case failure. In those tests there was as i said no significant difference in gashandeling, if you looked at the way the boltstop was blown out. There was though a reduction on brass splinter reaching the supposed shoter face area, when testing C-ring.
But the protectioneffect didnt come near the effect of specially a Push feed Fat bolt.

If you look statistically on blowup/faliures, my guess is that there would be a rating something like this.
1. Rather mild to medium overloads/failed loads (increased preasure in the range of + 10.000-20.000psi)
2. to often loaded brass, or defective brass, leading to casehead seperation in the streatching area.
3. medium to highly overloaded ammo, or boreobstructions just ahead of the chamber.(increased presure in the range of +30.000-50.000psi)
4. sever overload caused by use of several step wrong powder.(increased presure in the range of + 50.000-100.000psi)

1 + 2 is easily and safely handeled by decent designs. while CRF or PF with long Casehead protution or excessive rounded chamber entrance can start to leak.
3 always leaks in CRF and PF with long protrution, and risk with whide Sakotype extractors.
4 always leak with CRF and sakotype extractors Remmington type and others with similar casehead support starts giving way.

One might conclude that a CRF whit broached raceways is more risky than anything else. Therefor Mauser build in several features to try to limit the problem. But compared to designs where gashandeling and casehead support is build in, those Mauser features is just an attempt to limmit the consequences of a basically unsafe design

Last week i bought back a rifle, with some lug setback. In all other matters the rifle was intact, and the only reason the shooter returned the rifle was that he had sever problems opening the rifle after fiering the last round. He had observed no gasleak or any sighns of problem when fiering.
The casehead was expanded 0.03" untill filling the counterbore in the boltface tightly. The primerpocket was dubble size. The ejection pinn was hammered deep down the hole. When the case was extracted using excessive force, it apears that the entire caseneck was missing. It obviously had ben forced out around and along with the bullet, creating a massive overload.
But because of sucessfully casehead support and succesfuly casleak handeling, there was no drama"

copperlake

04-14-2013, 10:38 PM

I've been sidetracked by sole-proprietor tax headaches but have been thinking about what EDG has presented about the extractor (lack thereof) issue. Absolutely, not having it in place makes the test less valid. The inclusive radius of the extractor is about 1.010". I will get some 1" steel stock and attempt to make an approximation of an extractor. I just can't bring myself to use a real one and I have none that are buggered. No need to make them full length, just long enough to fill the slot and stay in relative position. Too, they need the rotation guide to hold them in place.

DMC has given me a nice range of Alliant 2400 loads to choose from for lift-off. I'm also going to put some cloth screens over the ends of the torture chamber to slow down any projectiles. I still haven't found the brass boolit. A friend is going to supply some lead balls to do the ignition duty.

Other issue is I'm down to one throw-away bolt. I'm negotiating with a GunBroker seller over four '93 bolts of suspicious character.

On a sad note, drowning in schedules and forms this weekend, I missed a '94 Brazilian action, dang!

EDG

04-15-2013, 12:21 AM

copperlake

04-17-2013, 12:25 AM

The simulated extractor can just be a piece of key stock that is locked in place with something wedged against the front of the receiver bridge. Close the bolt and slide it into place.
Or if it is a long piece of key stock run the bolt home and slide the "extractor" down the right lug slot and close the bolt using the handle to hold it in place.
If your keystock does not fit well braze a piece of steel to the front end so you can file to fit. This will keep the machining and filing to a minimum.

EDG, I stopped after work and picked up a rem of 1" cold-rolled. I may be wrong but I think it's important to duplicate the original as best as possible. When you think about it, the guide and the extractor claw prevent rearward motion. That resistance may be insignificant and unimportant but I've come this far, soooo. I've roughed the cylinder out and cut the claw, now have to cut the guide. I can get three 'fake' extractors out of a cylinder, four if I wanted to fudge width. If anything, these will be more substantial because they will not be relieved to pass over the lugs. The bore you see is the same diameter as the bolt body.

67742

EDG

04-17-2013, 02:05 AM

I guess it is not relevant but the test without the extractor might resemble what would happen with an 1891 Mauser...

copperlake

04-21-2013, 05:20 PM

Been very busy with work so it's weekends and after hours for this little project. Today I finished the fake extractor which, in retrospect, I could have made them lot easier to make; shorter but would do the same thing in terms of plugging the slot.

So now I have to get the powder from my friend and go for it.

6809068089

EDG

04-21-2013, 06:02 PM

Nice job on the extractor. I hope you do not lose it on the first shot.

IridiumRed

04-24-2013, 10:08 AM

Copperlake -

I dont know if I have much to add to this project / thread, but I do want to give you a big thumbs up for doing it, and sharing your results. Fascinating stuff!! Thanks!

Oh yeah - I think I remember mention of using a camera to capture the results - but of course, you dont want to lose a camera due to a blow up. If that was a possibility, one thing that would be possible would be using a cheap mirror to reflect the image to the camera. Mirrors can be cheap (like dollar store / good will stuff), and could be in the "line of fire" so to speak, and the camera could be off to the side in a protected place. Just a thought for anyone looking to do a project that has shrapnel potential and is worrying about losing a camera over it....

But anyways, cool project. If I was in the area, I'd TOTALLY be willing to donate some supplies, like powder, etc....

Speaking of which (dang, I came on here to post a quick "attaboy" comment, and now this is becoming a full on post, haha!) -

Are you taking donations? I'd be willing to paypal $20 in furtherance of this research... just PM me :)

Not sure if anyone else is doing that already (and dont feel like reading back through the thread just to find that), but I'd be happy to! I think this sorta project adds to our overall gun knowledge quite a bit & is a worthy cause

copperlake

04-25-2013, 12:20 AM

Copperlake -

I dont know if I have much to add to this project / thread, but I do want to give you a big thumbs up for doing it, and sharing your results. Fascinating stuff!! Thanks!

Red, thank you very much for your kind comments and generous offers. It means a lot to me. I wanted this to be worthwhile, and once again the worthwhile was created by the attitude of the denizens of Cast Boolits. Believe me, my reception elsewhere ranged from 'so what' to down right hostile. All your feedback and ideas have been exactly what I hoped for. As a matter of fact, my expectations have been exceeded!

I've given up the camera idea because in this last phase I'm going to heavily 'bag' the ends of the chamber in order to catch (hopefully) things that are trying to escape. Therefore there won't be much to see other than rags flying. However, in another post re: a '95 mauser that I've modified to be, what I think is more safe, I'm thinking of sharpening a firing pin to cause pierced primers every shot. That I would do in the open and photograph. I would also set up some substrate like clay to catch debris in what would be critical areas if you were the shooter.

Tonight I picked up the 2400 from my friend Roger, pistol nut supreme. Soon to happen, but I have a little quandary on whether to go for it all or still incrementally bump up. I may first start with the last load of 3031 with the fake extractor in place. Then again, maybe just fill 'er up and endo.

Getting near the end here, I have to say that one of the things that pleases me the most is how little this has cost money-wise. With the exception of purchasing the 220 gr bullets, nothing has flown out of my pocket, most everything has been stuff laying around. I live to make things, that's been my whole life. This little 'creative destruction' has truly been fun. Of course the cost of 'time', when your having fun, is nothing.

EDG

04-25-2013, 10:45 PM

A fairly astounding result of a blow up test. However it does show the one shot limitation of a colassal over load. Yeah it is blown up but you do not get to see the boundry condition just short of a blow up and what happens with a minimal failure where the design features are of some advantage. Anyway enjoy the video and then scroll down to see the really broken parts...

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/6561023881

copperlake

04-25-2013, 11:19 PM

I came home tonight and went over DCM's numbers and picked 41 gr Alliant 2400 to try. I draped the openings of the chamber with rags. The brass was virgin, the same REM softball stuff with bullet pulled, 220 gr Sierra as the former top end tests. When I touched it off nothing from inside of the bunker seemed much different but when I opened the door I was greeted with smoldering rags. I will post more pictures later for forensic purposes but here are some tantalizing prelims.

This is the action extant, as I took from the torture chamber:

68471

These are the rags:

68476

Here's a shot of the chamber area:

68477

Notice the nice brass plating of the parts near the rupture. The bolt had only moved about 1/4" rearward. The rags did a pretty good job of containing the parts. though I did find the fake extractor 6' behind; it's still usable with some tweaking (hooray!). I have not un-done everything yet. The bolt won't come out of the action but appears to have had just another day at the office.

I will post more pictures but unfortunately, I have to turn out some work tonight in order to turn out more tomorrow.

Oh, important edit; DCM's numbers gave this load 126,598 for pressure.

fouronesix

04-25-2013, 11:28 PM

I looked at the thread over at the accuratereloading forum. Dang, I'm jealous. Have always dreamed of having a tunnel range :)

I tend to agree with the OP's analysis. It is kind of hard to blow up a well made "modern" rifle. The robust nature of most good firearms probably saves many a careless reloader/shooter without them even knowing it!

The one bolt gun I tried to "blow up" with one shot, the M36 Mexican Mauser mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm certain withstood pressures similar to the OP's tests but it did not do what I expected in that nothing fractured or burst. I expected a result as was seen in the P-H 243. Very interesting!

Pertaining to this thread--- As to the overload of the 2400 and 126K psi- yep, goterdid! Got the receiver ring burst (but not exactly a two layer "hoop failure" as described with the Springfield action in earlier post in this thread). Still amazes me these things hang together as well as they do.

I'll echo the other poster's KUDOS and thanks to copperlake for pursuing and sharing this project. Well worth the info and perspectives.

copperlake

04-26-2013, 11:23 AM

Got the receiver ring burst (but not exactly a two layer "hoop failure" as described with the Springfield action in earlier post in this thread)

four, I respectfully disagree that this is a hoop failure, that is, if I understand the term correctly. Notice that the receiver ring surrounding the barrel is [I]entirely intact.[I] To me this means it withstood the expansion of the chamber.

I will post many more pictures. At first I was kinda disappointed with the results, as spectacular as they are, but after closer examination I'm actually thrilled. The atomized brass particles 'painted' a very revealing picture along their travels!.

fouronesix

04-26-2013, 12:36 PM

four, I respectfully disagree that this is a hoop failure, that is, if I understand the term correctly. Notice that the receiver ring surrounding the barrel is [I]entirely intact.[I] To me this means it withstood the expansion of the chamber.

I will post many more pictures. At first I was kinda disappointed with the results, as spectacular as they are, but after closer examination I'm actually thrilled. The atomized brass particles 'painted' a very revealing picture along their travels!.

copperlake, please re-read what I posted- "but not exactly a two layer hoop failure as described with the Springfield action in earlier post in this thread".

One other thing you have to realize is that this overload fracture failure of the rear/lug raceway portion of the receiver may be a result of previous cumulative stresses placed on the action. So it cannot be called a threshold event. The only way to ascertain a "threshold" event with any certainty would require several repetitions, several actions of same condition, same design, same manufacture date and not previously "over-stressed". Obviously, practicality will dictate some interpretation of results.

blastit37

04-26-2013, 12:55 PM

copperlake: When you do your detailed exam, recommend you check for looseness in the receiver/barrel threads.

copperlake

04-26-2013, 10:58 PM

Here are some more pictures. First is one of the major parts that were contained in the chamber, notice the fake extractor made it through mostly intact:

68583

Here is one of the top of the receiver. The fracture did include one of the mount holes, no surprise but seeing as there are four, I thought perhaps they would act as a zipper. Not so:

68584

Now, here is a most interesting one. You can see by the brass glazing that the receiver began becoming undone at the most forward part of the extractor slot and then progressed counterclockwise. One can put the pieces together and confirmed that's how they 'peeled'. As you go from (looking at the chamber) right to left, the glazing gradually grades into obvious to naught. I have to say, it's quite beautiful in its own way.

68585

A couple of things stand out to me; this bolt has had its brains beat out and it's still serviceable. It did lose part of the cartridge head support ring, still, it's going to head into round two soon!

Also on balance, had this happened to person it could have been devastating but probably not fatal. The bolt only moved 1/4" rearward. I'm coming to believe that the 'bolt through your head' is in the urban legend realm. Of course, the direction of shrapnel would be the chance.

I have some more pics and thoughts to post before the next round which will be the same load in the Spaniard that now has unequal locking lug buttresses. The quandary is how to treat the remaining actions? Is it possible that this one bolt will survive the entire gauntlet? Too, I'm thinking I'll make a fake bolt stop to be more in line with originality. I welcome input on how to tailor the tests.

I have to find it but somewhere, but I have a peeing contest from another forum about the purpose, or one of them anyway, of the 'thumb notch'. I believe we have some real incontrovertible evidence about that.

EDG

04-27-2013, 01:18 AM

Copperlake,
I don't know if you have had a chance to look at the Parker Hale 98 blown up at the other site but it was an even worse over load. In that video the bolt got blown out of the receiver but it would have missed the shooter.

copperlake

04-27-2013, 01:51 AM

I particularly like this picture.

68599

EDG

04-27-2013, 10:13 AM

>>>I particularly like this picture.<<<
Yes that would have really made a cool million frames per second video.

I have seen photos or maybe 15 or 20 actions with the top of the reciever ring blown off.
That is the only one in which the threads around the barrel shank remained while the rest of the ring peeled off.

>>>You can see by the brass glazing that the receiver began becoming undone at the most forward part of the extractor slot and then progressed counterclockwise. One can put the pieces together and confirmed that's how they 'peeled'. As you go from (looking at the chamber) right to left, the glazing gradually grades into obvious to naught. I have to say, it's quite beautiful in its own way.<<<

You can understand why the 1903 Springfield and 1917 Enfield have the reinforcing boss over the extractor/lug race way on the right side of the reciever.

I just noticed from your last photo and the photo that shows the ruptured case head in the barrel. You can tell that the case head swelled until it contacted the flange on the bolt face. Where the flange supported it the case head remained, where the bolt had no flange the case continured to flow and eventually blew out and flowed toward the left side of the receiver ring and headed down the left lug race way.
All that makes me wonder how well an 1891 would stand up to this since it had a large flange around the bolt face and a smaller extractor.

Multigunner

04-27-2013, 10:45 AM

I had my doubts about this project, but its produced some good information, and the discussions have produced information as well.
Good work, keep it going.

Green Lizzard

04-27-2013, 08:55 PM

i know 60 grains of wc-820 will not take apart a rem 700 30-06. dont ask how i know

copperlake

04-27-2013, 11:55 PM

There was barely enough to hang on to removing what was left of the receiver ring:

68675

Here is the cartridge:

68676

Second action, same load, same bolt, same barrel same-o, same-o. Remember now, this action has received WAY more punishment than the first after going through the same initial regimen exactly, round for round. AND THE WINNER IS!!!

68677

As you can see, the fake extractor remained in place. It's difficult to see but a crack is forming at the top of the extractor. The whole action is bulged outward amidships. As a side note, the bolt is one I experimented on using a tig torch to anneal for drilling (it doesn't work well, small tip on an aircraft OA torch much better, oxidizing flame) that's why all the holes. No unusual report upon firing.

I don't know why the bolt handle broke. It's made of tool steel, a #1 Morse taper from a drill that I annealed and welded on. Another experiment/practice thing.

The forward rag catchers caught several brass pieces and all of the rags were blown away but no discoloration.

I can't open the bolt even with a hammer so that's to be revealed. I'll post more pics after I unscrew the barrel.

BTW, this action has no crest, a rather shallow thumb notch and the serial number is Q 5079. Obviously, one would have preferred to be behind this action over the other. Two more to go. I'm thinking maybe this is not a bad load to continue with. Or perhaps a bit under. Me oh my, choices.

copperlake

04-28-2013, 12:07 AM

copperlake: When you do your detailed exam, recommend you check for looseness in the receiver/barrel threads.

37, what was left of the ring took the same to undo as what it was to put it on. The diameter stayed the same, 1.30"

copperlake

04-28-2013, 12:16 AM

All that makes me wonder how well an 1891 would stand up to this since it had a large flange around the bolt face and a smaller extractor.

Yep, been looking for a blow-upable '91 for a looong time, I just always seem to miss. It's much easier to find junk '93's and I lucked out with the Swedes because of the guy on GunBroker selling what he bought from Kimber's demise. And most of those were completely unserviceable even though he touted that if 'you were a real gunsmith' you could un-squash them.

IridiumRed

04-28-2013, 09:54 AM

Whats amazing to me is how that brass just.... vaporized like that, and coated everything around it. Well, on second thought, its not amazing that it did that, mentally it makes total sense that the brass would just melt like that under the pressure. Its just amazing to LOOK at! Stuff like that is a REAL good lesson for people who think that you can't really get hurt by poor reloading practices.... but people like that dont really learn anyways, so its just a good example for the rest of us.... a good reminder to always be 100% sure what powder we're using! :)

Again, cool project! :)

copperlake

04-28-2013, 12:33 PM

Here is the largest part of the cartridge head that was left inside the action. Notice that it extruded into the top locking lug extractor slot. The failure was a complete separation. The extractor has brass jammed into the claw slot. I had to drive the bolt out of the action with a drift. The receiver has an annular bulge .015" all the way around at the barrel/bolt gap. The threaded part did not change in diameter.

68689

Alas the bolt had a career ending injury: the right half of the upper locking lug is fractured at the base and beginning to slough off. Not hard to imagine owing to the large setback the lower lug had from a previous one-lug test. It is now missing ALL of the cartridge head support ring.

6869068691

The rags caught three fairly large pieces of brass that were of size that could have only come through the gas escape hole.

DCM

04-28-2013, 12:45 PM

I do not think we can speak for other actions/types but this does speak volumes about the ones tested here.

Interesting proof of my earlier statement in this latest round of tests.
Same "type" of actions (but different) with different results!

Very interesting indeed, Thank you Copperlake!

copperlake

04-28-2013, 10:41 PM

A few more pics and some thoughts to go along with them. Both of the actions showed this same exact spray pattern even though the first action came undone which proves the particles reached there before it came apart. It also shows an immediate 90 degree deflection of the particles.

68750

One can see in this picture the annular bulge in the middle of the receiver and the crack forming where the top of the extractor would be. One cannot see it clearly, but the greatest bulging is exactly where The Swedish mauser started to undo.

68751

This picture shows the springing of the receiver rails. I plan to hot-glue the Swede back together and we will see that the springing before rupture is much the same in direction.

68752

The upper lug buttress looks to have equalized with the already setback lower one, I haven't measured them but the lower is polished meaning that it probably set deeper. By contrast, the Swede shows setback too but very little by comparison.

68753

Looking at all the pieces I can see that the progression of the effects of pressure in both actions is close to identical, the outcome obviously different.

It's obvious that continuing this regimen with the two remaining actions will lead to the bolt(s) losing their cartridge head ring. I am down to one bolt that I'm willing to sacrifice. The person I'm negotiating with to by five bolts of suspicious character has not responded to my last query. Anyone have a junk bolt or two?

copperlake

04-29-2013, 10:58 PM

Interesting parallel, here is a picture of a Swedish mauser bolt for sale on FleaBay right now: http://www.ebay.com/itm/230970431159?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

68836

Bad picture, but you can see it went through a similar catastrophic episode. The same half of the lug cut loose and all the cartridge head support ring is gone. This baby can be yours to 'repair' for only $49.95! Right now, for some reason bolts are going for ridiculously high bids on the Bay right now.

Good news, the person I was negotiating with over four stripped '93 bolts came back and agreed to sell me them for $7 apiece. Sent the $$ today, soon to be back on the road.

EDG

04-30-2013, 08:45 AM

I am glad to hear you are getting some more sacrificial universal test bolts.
Just looking around I have a GEW 88 Receiver but no bolt and a M91 bolt but no receiver.
I have several Carcano bolts that could be sacrificed so now to find a suitable receiver and barrel combo.

copperlake

05-02-2013, 12:04 AM

I took the pieces of the Swedish mauser and with Super Glue and clay to prop in them in place, assembled them with the best fit piece-to piece. Turned out pretty good, I think. Kind of a slow-mo view. Many thanks to EDG for pointing out the obvious re: the extractor. I believe that serious damage would have happened with the original loads of 3031 had it been in place.

Here are some pics, they are not great and will reshoot them in better light:

6905669060690596905869057

When you look at these it shows that the right extractor slot cuts loose first, then the left wall of the receiver blows out rather dramatically. I don't know how this figures in but the aluminum sled that the action mounts on in this testing is much more rigid that a wood stock. The recoil lug buts into something that gives very little. I wonder if that has something to do with the complete breaking of the lower receiver ring (which you can't see well in this reconstruction) from the bolt guide rails.

Multigunner

05-02-2013, 01:52 AM

Just ran across an article on the "Gran Chaco War", between Paraguay and Brazil.
They mentioned 1895 Mausers blowing up due to being fed cartridges too hot for that action.
Near as I can figure that would have been the pre WW1 DWM 7X57 cartridge designed for 98 action rifles. This cartridge was listed as propelling a 150 gr bullets to 2900 FPS, 150 FPS faster than the .30-06.
The 95 might have handled a few of these rounds if both rifle and ammo were in new condition, but the ammo may have been sweltering in the jungle heat for decades, and the old rifles probably had sewer pipe bores.
Even the newer imported FN 98 action rifles apparently had a problem with that extra hot ammo, though no blowups of these were mentioned.

That DWM ammo may be responsible for many of the small ring actions that show significant set back.

copperlake

05-02-2013, 02:15 AM

Here is a graphic of the two actions side by side:

69073

I look forward to how the remaining two actions behave.

Multigunner

05-02-2013, 07:01 AM

nekshot

05-03-2013, 02:56 PM

After you are finished getting all the information you can out of this action you might try selling the pieces on ebay with a story behind it and need a starting bid of 300.00. Encourage the buyers to keep a piece of this in front of them every time they reload as a reminder...to be careful We might be shocked at what this would generate on ebay! Very very rare item indeed..

Frank46

05-03-2013, 10:37 PM

And don't forget to use the word "Vintage" should get you an extra $100. Frank

copperlake

05-04-2013, 12:34 AM

The only cracked Mauser bolt I've personally seen was from an early Carl Gustave.
The crack was at the apex of the firing pin retractor cam cut. It was a hairline crack and not in a load bearing area, but the owner choose to part the rifle out rather than replace the bolt.
I suspect the crack was dry firing related, can't see any other probable cause, the steel had to be brittle though. Probably over heated in hardening the cam surface.

Multi, in the best of worlds the the only part of the cocking piece that should contact anything is with the bolt shroud, sleeve or plug or whatever you want to call it. Likewise, the firing pin should not contact the bolt. However, for one reason or another that isn't always the case. I suspect that that mistiming can cause several problems, such as you describe. Many '93 bolts are so hard they can't be cut with a file. The two bolts I used in these tests were that way, very hard. Most of the '96 bolts I've tested with a file can be marred. These kind of issues are so much more prevalent with, for examle, Spanish mausers, because of their disparate uses and care in contrast to Swedish mausers that have lived in the lap of luxury.

copperlake

05-04-2013, 12:48 AM

nek and Frank, I'm an inveterate fleaBayer and Frank, your comment made me laugh, how true. nek, I would have never thought of selling it on the bay. It came out so good I'm going to TIG weld it together. It looks better in person than in pictures.

So, help me out here. Two more actions to go. What is the best way to to learn the most from it?

EDG

05-04-2013, 11:46 AM

You know it might seem ridiculous but eBay and the BATF might object to selling a receiver on eBay.
After all it is more than 80% finished and you can still screw a barrel into it. With the help of some duct tape and a 2X4 you might coax one more round out of the Swede.
While what I suggest might seem unreal, it is no more unreal than the behavior of those two entities on a bad day.

After you are finished getting all the information you can out of this action you might try selling the pieces on ebay with a story behind it and need a starting bid of 300.00. Encourage the buyers to keep a piece of this in front of them every time they reload as a reminder...to be careful We might be shocked at what this would generate on ebay! Very very rare item indeed..

copperlake

05-04-2013, 11:48 PM

This is what I've decided I'm going to do when the bolts get here: It's obvious how to do the 'endo' scenario now, so I'm going to crank back to the original maximum 3031 load with unfired brass. However, I want to correct something that I said that is wrong: the '93 did not go through the exact regimen as the '96, my apologies. I jumped the shark by using that action to do the crazy bolt tests, and seeing as the barrel was already in place.... So what I'm going to do is work with the remaining '96 to 'catch up' to the 1st '93 load for load, without the fake extractor so everything will be equal. Then I'll put the EDG extractors in BOTH THE ORIGINAL '93 and the now caught-up '96 (confused?) and fire some maximum 3031 loads. If they survive, Ill unscrew the barrels, check for setback and then, proceed to endo. I have a sneaking hunch that the outcomes may different with extractors in place.

Here's a cool thing; forever I've wanted the White Labs test that they did for SAMCO for the 1916 .308 conversions they were selling in the 80's. Over at GunBoards, a fellow posted them and remarked that he did not have a larger (more readable) JPG to offer. Anyway, here they are.

69529695326953169530

copperlake

05-05-2013, 11:09 PM

This weekend I got a '93 Turk delivered, was a 'buy it now' on GunBroker. Disappointed, it looked much better in the pics. Someone savaged it with a belt sander and took way too much off the sides. It came with a crappy '93 Spanish bolt with a broken firing pin wedged inside it. No need to wait for bolts now! Maybe even have a contender with the action.

So here is the next '96, a 1913 that took a lot of massaging to get a bolt to fit. The receiver ring was squashed a bit from a 'V' type action wrench and the rails were bent. The locking lug recesses do have hardening, unlike the previous Oviedo. It has slight setback that I can see but can't measure well enough.

69670

So to get after it, I twisted up some of the kick-off rounds and set them off:

FIREARM:1896 Swedish action 1913, 8mmTurk barrel (same barrel used with the last '96)
BULLET: 8mm Sierra 220 gr. Game King spitzer boat tail at 3.075" COL
CARTRIDGE: Remington, FL fized, 2nd firing
PRIMER: CCI LARGE RIFLE

LOAD DATA by DCM:

52g 3031 will be ~104,716 PSI
51.5 - 101,179
50.5 - 94,484
49.0 - 85,305 ALL COMPRESSED LOADS
47.1 - 74,983
46.0 - 69,592

ROUND

1) 48 grs. 3031 No sign of excessive pressure, easy extracion, primer dimpled.

2) 49 grs. 3031 No sign of excessive pressure, easy extracion
primer extruded into firing pin hole.

3) 50 grs. 3031 Flattened primer, slight bolt stiffness, slightly harder
extration. Primer extruding into firing pin hole.

4) 51.5 grs. 3031, easy extraction, Primer extruding into firing pin hole more severe.

Last time we had primers blowing at the 4) load level, this time everything stayed together.

When I put the barrel on this action, it was obvious that it had expanded. I've not done a good job of recording that data, which I regret. Here is visual confIrmation showing that expansion - two rounds at the 49 gr level with the recent one showing that the chamber has grown in diameter. This is hokie, but measuring at about the same distance from the cartridge head down to the expansion ring shows about .007" growth.

69676

SciFiJim

05-07-2013, 01:46 AM

copperlake

05-07-2013, 11:05 PM

Another possible pressure test occurred to me today. Like the way you were verbally abused on other forums when you suggested the current blow up tests you are running, this one might get the same reaction here.

I am talking about duplex loads. Quite a bit of the 860 series surplus powders have been sold and while they are useful in the large capacity cartridges, the utility is somewhat limited is cases like the 8mm Mauser. It would be interesting to run a series of test duplexing that surplus powder with various other faster powders. I envision the test chamber and barrel mounted to a weighted sled that could show recoil by the amounted of measured push each round generates. We could also study the brass and primers as in the current tests for signs of over pressure. I have a goodly supply of WC867 and Hercules 2400 and would be willing to supply all the powder needed for the tests if I could find a way to get them to you. One series of tests would be to find out which burn rate class of powders would be best suited for the kicker charge (ie, anything from something fast like Bullseye to slower pistol magnum powders, fast rifle powders, or medium rifle powders).

Now that you have opened my mind to the possibility of testing to destruction of firearms, the interesting possibilities keep popping up.

I know that the test to destruction is done by deep pocket manufacturers and the government, but the thought of an individual testing to gain knowledge in stead of just blowing up a gun for the fun of it just never occurred to me.

Jim, thanks for the offer of the powder but alas, it's an expensive proposition to get that kind of material to AK.

My knowledge of duplex loads is nominal to say the least. I've lived under the impression that their unpredictability can cause problems. P. O. Ackley used some duplex loads in his tests. He never (at least in his handbook) states why he chose to. I always kind of wondered why he did when it seemed that 2400 did the job. In the first action he describes in his tests, an Arisaka M38 6.5, the 20th round was 10 gr of 2400 and 60 gr of 3031. This action was rebarreled in .270 Ackley magnum and the results were: "Barrel blown off just ahead of receiver. Action still intact. Some set back in locking recesses indicated"! Yes, one would think that would blow ANYTHING up.

Reading Ackley when I was kid is the whole reason I'm doing this. Every month I eagerly awaited for the issue of The American Rifleman, hoping he would have his column in it.

Honestly, I can't quite wrap my head around your ideas. If you wish, please PM to continue conversation. I do much appreciate your input and it's obvious this exercise has piqued your interest.

I'm lagging here in continuing the tests but I don't know if I should just 'blow them up', or sneak up to that with lower 2400 loads?

I'm thinking I'll type up the eight pages of the record of Ackley's tests. Most people that have visited these pages probably have never read or had access to his material.

I leave with the tantalizing end quotation from Ackley's tests: "These action tests are being continued. More Jap actions will be tested. The Russian will be added to our list. It is planned to continue the test until no doubt as to the strength and suitability of the various actions remains."

Dutchman

05-08-2013, 02:32 AM

I'm thinking I'll type up the eight pages of the record of Ackley's tests. Most people that have visited these pages probably have never read or had access to his material.

Please do. I'd like a copy. Suggest PDF format if you can.

Dutch

EDG

05-08-2013, 03:48 AM

>>>I'm thinking I'll type up the eight pages of the record of Ackley's tests. Most people that have visited these pages probably have never read or had access to his material.<<<
I have a copy of Ackley's pocket handbook with 8 pages of action discusssion and a couple about blowups.
I guess it could be scanned.- into a PDF.

Multigunner

05-10-2013, 02:33 AM

One thing I've noticed about apocryphal tales of action strength is when a barrel is plugged and the barrel breaks off while the action remains intact.
Usually someone then guesstimates the pressure at 100,000 PSI and leaves the impression that the action could handle any load of less than that figure.

It doesn't work that way, as many tests by the military of barrel obstructions and defective rod grenades proved.
The breaking point of a rifle barrel is usually lower than that of an action or bolt. Also according to what I've read the overload is localized at the point of obstruction, the column of gas behind the bullet acting to cushion the effect on the action just long enough for the barrel to break off or split releasing the pressure.
A well made barrel of high quality steel usually breaking off as cleanly as if sawn or chopped off.
Barrels with burnt steel or stress lines generally split lengthwise.

If the obstruction is close to the chamber mouth then the action will give before the barrel.
If the steel is burnt and stressed by bumping up, a split near the chamber can travel back and split the receiver ring.

copperlake

05-11-2013, 09:01 PM

Here is the results of the latest test on the Swedish mauser. I used 38 gr of 2400 (previous load of that powder was 41 gr) in virgin brass, CCI LR primer, 220 gr Sierra BT. Acording to DCM's numbers that load produces 106,056 PSI. I cranked it back hoping that the results would not be destructive - WRONG. I forgot to put the fake extractor in but it did not matter for the receiver let go. It suffered a complete head failure like the others. Here is a reenactment of the way it came undone, None of the pieces were attached, they are glued on or propped with clay:

701367013770138

You can see that basically the progression was the same from right to left. There were only two pieces this time, and it's rather dramatic seeing that last little tab holding the top of the receiver from flying off until it did.

The bolt lost its head support ring and this time the bottom lug cracked at the base. The bolt did not come out of the receiver; it backed out about 3/4". The largest piece blew out the rags aft and hit the shop wall about 15' away:

7013970140

This time something new happened in that the rails 'humped up' about amidships:

70141

I'm disappointed that a) I didn't put the extractor in and b) that it let go. I really hoped that it would have hung together. Now I have no choice but to treat the last Oviedo the same. But first, I want to take this one apart. The other action is already mounted with a barrel.

greenwart

05-12-2013, 10:39 AM

What a page turner! I came home last night beat tired and came across this thread. I read until I could not stay awake and had to pick it up this morning. Who will win the Swedish princess or the Senorita. Everyone who reloads should read this and understand what a double charge could do. I was reviewing a non-linear Finite Element class a few months ago and realized how nice and elastic steel is up to a point. When that point is reached The stress strain relationship goes from nearly vertical to somewhat horizontal. I hope that no rifle that I shoot ever comes remotely near these pressure levels. I am currently working on a cast load in a 303 that uses 14g redot. I always visual inspect the cases for a double charge, though previously it was sometimes a casual perusal. From now on I will take the led flashlight in inspect each case thoroughly before seating. It is remarkable how well all the actions have preformed. You deserve a standing ovation for all your work.

Bob

copperlake

05-12-2013, 01:12 PM

This morning over coffee I looked at the latest subject more carefully. I won't be able to remove the bolt and thus salvage the firing pin, cocking piece and bolt sleeve without cutting it open. It took on a decided 'S' shape instead of breaking open like her sister:

70330

The bolt handle is cracked at the base:

70333

Now here's an interesting comparison. We now have two bolt handles that were damaged, one that has cracked and the other that completely flew off. What's interesting is the crack propagation is opposite one another. Using the bolt knob as a reference, in the first case it was moved aft relative to the bolt body, and in the later case forward:

70334

Mulling over the results so far I think perhaps it was a mistake to use 2400 as the powder of choice. I know nothing about the internal physics of what we are dealing with, but my simple mind thinks that the 2400 develops it's pressure 'faster' and thus 'overruns' the ability of the metals to expand without failing. I say mistake in the sense that it's obviously too easy to destroy these actions using it. Had I shot the softball REM first and then necksized, I maybe could have gotten another 1 - 2 gr more 3031 in them. Its been shown that at these pressures full length resizing the brass ups the chance of failure many times over but the REM is so mellow that I don't think that would be the case. It appears to me, using DCM's data, that that load would have come close to or exeeded, pressure-wise, the 38 gr of 2400. If anyone wants to straighten out my thinking, please do

EDG

05-12-2013, 02:48 PM

I agree with your thoughts on the 2400. The consequences of using 2400 is the rapid termination of your testing. Two shots - no more receivers to test. However you have proved the failure mode with catastrophic overloads. It is easy to see why 1917 Enfields and 1903 Springfields have the large receiver reinforcement over the extractor.
Your max 3031 loads were right at the failure point of the brass. Maybe another grain or two would have worked. Another trick would have been to use vibrations of some sort to settle the powder. It might have squeezed more 3031 into the cases. Looking at the burn rate chart one of the extruded powders between IMR4198 and Accurate 2015 might have done the trick. Accurate 2015 appears to be about the same speed but it is finer grained and more will fit in a case. Certainly IMR 4198 would have been fast enough had it been used. Loads could have been slowly worked up to a suitable level of drama without blowing the receivers apart with one shot.

In regard to the twisted, bulged and bent receiver rails it appears that gas is venting under the bolt into the magazine cavity. Your test block is bolted to the bottom and does not appear to be vented. If the test block was open or vent with a very large vent says at least 1 square inch the gases might not bend up the receiver rails.
Under firing pressure the locking lugs so not transmit any force to the rails. The distorion must be from the venting gases.

copperlake

05-13-2013, 12:07 AM

I couldn't pass it up - a recycle, good (almost) as new

70412:

It was easy to free the bolt with a couple of cuts, then I had to do some surgery to get the barrel out because I wanted to use them both with the 'soft' Spanish mauser that has already endured so much. One last blast, so to speak. I took that Oviedo action and with a little Dremel and brass hammer work, got it to accept the freed bolt from the '96. I had to make some freeing cuts on the receiver ring (not too deep) and used a cold chisel to break it to unscrew the barrel; the action wrench did not have enough to grab hold of in order to turn it out. After releasing it, it unscrewed by hand:

70403

After all the obscene abuse the set-back and everything else accumulated to .108" of excessive headspace! In order to compensate for that I put a little ring of clay around the neck so the cartridge head would contact the bolt face. The round I chose was 49 gr of 2400. According to DCM's data that produces 200KPSI +. I did not use the fake extractor as I figured this would basically melt everything. It was a substantially compressed load:

70404

And here we see that after firing we have a predictable catastrophic failure though not nearly the magnitude that I expected. the bolt moved rearward more than any other shot: 2-3/16" but still did not achieve the mythical 'bolt through the head' status. The bolt lost the lower lug which is no surprise given that it was cracked. The top lug cracked and showed that 'splayed' look we've seen before:

70408704067040570407

By following those beautiful brass pathway paintings (follow the yellow brick road) it appears the receiver came apart with the usual extractor cut first, BUT, almost (I conjecture) simultaneously, the gas port bulges dramatically outward, then (I think) the top of the ring comes off. Notice that the large piece of receiver top is flattened by striking the inside of the containment:

7041070409

Here we have a primer that was not pierced but turned into a pancake:

70411

So, I've decided to not ruin the remaining Oviedo right off, but to find some 4198 as EDG suggests. This is not what I wanted to happen. it turns out it's too easy to ruin these actions with a certain powder. I'm happy that greenwart and perhaps others have seen and appreciate what to me is an unintended consequence of these tests. The problem with this whole thing is that at every turn, some other thing or avenue suggests itself. Re: my stated intention, finding out which action would fail first, with what load, I've failed. I'm kinda bummed about that, I just didn't think it through enough. But, I'm going to continue.

copperlake

05-13-2013, 11:27 PM

Miraculously, today I was given some 4198 by a friend that I took some aluminum to to get broken for this boat I'm building. Just kibitzing, I told him about my after hours doings and the problem I'm up against. He produced a mostly used can of 4198 that had a price tag of $8.44 on it. I've PM'd DCM to have him work up some loads.

Soon to be continued.......

Now that I'm bitten by this bug, I've decided to donate a Carcano barreled action to the cause. I'd like to rechamber it to 30-06. I've found a cheap chucking reamer .308 dia. to get the lead for the throat. Now I just need a reamer.

copperlake

05-16-2013, 02:19 AM

OK, I got some data back from our steady friend DCM and here is a list of possible loads:

All things the same but with IMR4198
30G ~35067 PSI
31g ~37666
32g ~40420
33g ~43337
34g ~46425
35g ~49694
36g ~53153
37g ~56813
38g ~60688
39g ~64791
40g ~69136
41g ~73739
42g ~78618
43g ~83794
44g ~89287
45g ~95122
46g ~101325
47g ~107928
48g ~114962
49g ~122465
50g ~130480
51g ~139053
52g ~148238
53g ~158096
54g ~168696

So, if anyone wants the weigh in I'd appreciate it.

EDG

05-16-2013, 04:47 PM

What loads do you plan to run through the next one with the 4198?

copperlake

05-17-2013, 11:04 PM

I'm going to start with a load that is about 10KPSI less than the max calculated 3031 load that I could stuff in a case. I do not know how 4198 behaves compared to 4200. I just hope it to be less 'quick'. If nothing untoward presents itself, I'll move up to the same calculated pressure levels then slowly increase. Obviously, I can get enough 4198 powder in a case to have a satisfactory conclusion. I haven't proceeded because I was hoping for input from the gallery.

EDG

05-18-2013, 02:03 AM

IMR 4198 will behave like a faster version of 3031.
It will not ramp up like 2400. It should be well suited for your purpose.

rustyguns2

05-20-2013, 11:47 PM

This has been a great thread, and has came along just at the right time. I have a Spanish 93 Oviedo I was worried about building on, but now for a 7x57 I am not worried a bit...High pressure no, just because of the gas handling features or I should say" lack of". This has been most interesting!

koehlerrk

05-21-2013, 09:56 PM

Wow.... this has been an adventure! Thank you for sharing it with us all.

copperlake

05-22-2013, 03:02 AM

I have been buried with work and springtime in Alaska is a rush in of itself with all the things that have to get done. I've fallen behind on the project. Tonight I loaded 40 gr of 4198 which DCM's calcs put at 69+KPSI. This is right at 46 gr of 3031. Resized brass (2nd) and Win primer. Nothing of note other than: the head expanded by .002" and because of an over-sized firing pin hole, the primer was extruded into it quite far. I'm at the bottom of the barrel on bolts that I'm willing to sacrifice. This test was with the fake extractor in. I'm going up one grain at a time on this last action test. It's obvious that this powder is more frisky than 3031 but a lot less than 2400. 46 gr of 3031, even though considered out of bounds for this action, would show completely normal signs of pressure.

I did obtain a headspace 'go' gauge on the cheap at FleaBay, not that it makes me feel any better relative to how I was doing that measurement before.

71207

rustyguns2

05-22-2013, 09:00 PM

Hey, I've got a 8x57 field Gage I will donate if you want it. let me know.

copperlake

05-23-2013, 10:55 PM

Here is a picture of the last four shots including the one above to start the 4198 regimen and some numbers to go with:

1) Once loaded brass, first with 49 gr 3031, , 2nd loaded with 40 gr 4198, same bullet and COL of all the high-pressure tests in the past, CCI primer. Nothing unusual other than primer flattened and extruding into firing pin hole. Case length 2.271" (baseline 2.230") head diameter .469 (.467 baseline) Pressure calc 69,136.

2) Same as above, loaded with 41 gr 4198, WIN primer 2.245" case length, .472 head diameter. Leaking primer, cartridge head beginning to flatten, nothing else remarkable. Pressure calc 73,739.

3) Virgin REM brass/primer loaded with 42 gr 4198. 2.235" case length, .471 head diameter. A little more head flattening. Pressure calc 78,618.

4) Same as above loaded with 43 gr 4198. 2.243" case length, .473 head diameter. More flattening and leaking primer that was so loose it fell out. Pressure calc 83,794.

71391

Action wise, nothing remarkable happened. All shots had the false extractor in place.

It's very obvious that these extreme loads do a number on brass. It appears the the last load is on the verge of 'going to extremes' and I wouldn't be surprised if the brass didn't come undone with another grain or two. I'm continually amazed at how well this action takes what's thrown at it. Most impressive to me are the bolts that have taken a real beating.

EDG

05-24-2013, 06:13 PM

nwhunter

05-26-2013, 11:21 AM

Thanks for the continuing test and the quality of your protocol and photographs.
This is a very interesting and educational test series which has exceeded anything similar I have read in magazine articles.

This has been an excellent series of tests and certainly makes me see small ring mausers in a new perspective.
Keith

izzyjoe

05-26-2013, 01:46 PM

i too am amazed at the beating those action will take, now i'm not to worried about my '93 6.5x55 build. but i'm still keeping the pressure's low.

copperlake

05-26-2013, 11:36 PM

Happy Memorial Day to all.

44 gr 4198, virgin brass, COA 2.40", primer pocket expanded to .232". Severe head distortion, primer loose but in place, primer anvil MIA. Obvious gas leakage but not enough to blow the rags out much from torture chamber. Bolt difficult to open, had to use a mallet because of the cartridge head deformation. Cartridge needed a rap with a hammer to rod out. DCM's pressure calc 89,287psi:

71678

Fake extractor has smoky residue but completely intact. Here is the bolt face; the brass coloration is from the rotation of the bolt, not atomization. Notice large area of gas blow-by around primer:

71679

I so wish that I had chosen this powder first. I think what I'm going to do is go into the 100kpsi zone and then stop. If it blows, so be it but I'm going to find another '96 action to test in this way. I've been looking literally for about two years and haven't found one that was worthless but worthwhile for this. I had a bet on this particular (now last) action and I blew it by using 2400 on the others. Hmm, no pun intended.

copperlake

05-28-2013, 01:00 AM

Here are the results of the last two loads -

45 gr 4198, virgin REM brass, fired COA 2.234", press calc 95,122

46 gr 4198, virgin REM brass, fired COA 2.235", press calc 101,325

Bullet and loaded COA the same as since the begining.

By now the heads and primer pockets are so deformed that measurements are useless. Both primers stayed in place and the bolt had to be hammered open. Nothing happened to the fake extractor or anything else. Both roded out of the chamber with the same resistance:

71784

As one can see, as with the 3031, there is not much space left using virgin brass. All the loads since 42 gr have been compressed:

71785

And here's the Spanish beauty that has suffered all this with nary a sniffle:

71786

This it as far as I'm going with any more testing with this action. I will unscrew the barrel and report on the receiver condition.

If anyone reading this thread has or knows of a '96 action that is marginal, please contact me direct via my email <meco@xyz.net> as I would consider any reasonable price to pay for one in order to continue the comparison testing.

One might cautiously assume that these last tests more or less verify what White Labs found out when testing Samco's mausers. Of course, these were not real verifiable pressure tests. Nonetheless, no sane person would have used virtually any of these loads in a small-ring mauser.

I will be moving on to a Carcano next, rechambered to .308 in the stock 7.35 barrel. This will (may) accomplish two things; to continue Ackleys' intriguing tests with undersized bores and the bottom line, what can a Carcano take anyway?

I have many more thoughts which I will parse, but want to enjoy the last moments of holiday.....

copperlake

05-28-2013, 11:59 AM

I got up this morning to a wonderful sight; two moose calves foaled last night, still on shaky legs. We have a dense copse of spruce that has been a foaling place about every other year on average for the 25 years we've lived in the place. One year it was the nativity ward for two mothers. After I took this picture they bedded down, the youngsters curled alongside mom. The're pretty tuckered!

71812

copperlake

05-29-2013, 12:34 AM

I unscrewed the barrel after checking headspace which was OK. I could not get a good picture of the lower locking lug recess but as you can see in this pic of the upper recess there is no set back. As a matter of fact, the bolt(s) was not in full contact. The lower one had more contact area shown by more of the bluing being removed. One thing of note about this action is that the same barrel was used in all the tests, with the other actions, another barrel. This barrel has much tighter chamber than the other one which can be seen by examining the brass. This barrel showed no bulging after extraction toward the cartridge head, the other did and became more pronounced as the charges increased in intensity.

71877

The action has not changed from the start; the receiver ring is the same dimensionally.
I believe that this action would have out-survived them all with the exception of the 'soft' Oviedo which just kept expanding. With a seriously savaged undersized ring (Jerry K. would discard), threads that are not all there and that it took this amount of abuse is quite remarkable to me. I wouldn't hesitate to screw a 7X57 barrel in it and shoot away. A thought: it's possible that this action was re-heat treated. I can't imagine someone going to the expense for such a shabby job of customizing, the scope mount holes don't align and too much soft buffing wheel was applied rounding everything. But, you never know.

Anyway, this has been a very satisfying and entertaining thing.

EDG

05-29-2013, 09:00 PM

Several years ago I blew 2 primers in a M91 Mauser. I was intitally confused at the cause. However I was also very concerned that I might have caused the receiver to set back. Now I don't have much concern after seeing the 93s and 96s take a ticking and keep on licking ;).

Green Lizzard

05-29-2013, 09:07 PM

after keeping up with this thread i think i will keep shooting my 308 spanish and my fr8

copperlake

05-31-2013, 12:26 AM

Tonight, adding my two penny's to a current thread here about a FR-7, I had an idea; I'm going to push a boolit into an empty case, chuck it in the lathe to a center in the primer hole and deepen the head groove further forward, thus insuring a case head failure at normal pressures? Or maybe rebate it so there is no rim at all? My old Lyman ED. #45 says 47 gr of 3031 is MAX with 170 gr pill (I now have lots of those), I'll ring up DCM and see what his QL says for fun. My gut tells me that nothing will happen other than a bunch of shrapnel everywhere.

copperlake

06-01-2013, 02:58 AM

I kinda bozo'd out on my first attempt with this new test avenue as one can see with the cartridge on the far right. I went with 47 gr 3031 and when I tried to compress the flat-base 170 gr, it collapsed the case. Next to the left is a sectioned case I did way back in the beginning; I'm now glad that I did. I decided to to the rebate as you can see in the third round from the right. I loaded it with 47 gr of 3031 and carefully pushed the 170 gr boolit to resistance. You see it as fired; nothing happened, it behaved as if it were whole. This rather surprised me, so I went for a bigger hammer. This time, I more aggressively rebated the case and used the same load, 47 gr 3031, but this time with the 220 gr boolit. This is the case on the far left, you can barely see it in felt pen but the last time it was fired was with 50 gr 3031 and resized. The primer I pushed in with my finger. It's possible that it was used before but probably only once. This is a long way of saying this is its third go-round.

72179

Big difference! The rags were blown about 15' fore and aft from the test chamber. The bolt opened with moderate resistance and then froze; there were brass fragments lodged around it. When I cleared them there were numerous small brass shards in the magazine well:

72178

Now, here is the most interesting part; the boolit only made it about 3/4 of the way out the barrel. That means that almost the entire energy of the load was released around the breech. Looking into the breech, one can see the primer still in place (fell out when I upset from horizontal) and some scrambled brass. I'm working on pounding it all out but don't want to destroy anything too much if possible. The boolit resists more as it goes backwards so I think I'll squirt some Triflon down the primer hole to perhaps aid the recovery.

I find this all very interesting and it sets me thinking more.

copperlake

06-02-2013, 11:07 PM

After soaking since Friday night, the boolit and case roded out rather easily. One can see that the cartridge uniformly blew where it was turned at the most forward point. Interestingly, this is the same place, relatively, as the others that happened with the 2400 loads:

72425

That which you see that looks like a rim part isn't of course, as there wasn't one, but is wall material forced into the bolt head. The part surrounding the primer is severely flattened and the nomenclature is obscured:

72426

Assuming we can rightly call this a 'cartridge head failure', I wonder why it didn't cause any damage? Especially seeing as how nearly all the energy was expended in the breech. It think it can be concluded that an overload of 3031 isn't enough to destroy this particular action. I will PM DCM with the over-all loaded case length to see what his calcs tell us. If anyone has another interpretation, please express it. Certainly this would have been catastrophic to the shooter; a massive amount of gas was released and the small brass shards were everywhere.

Here is a pic of the breech where can be seen numerous brass particles:

72431

The action and bolt aren't 'painted' with atomized brass as before but here is brass that struck the bolt shroud; under magnification it is much more coarse and granular than that with the 2400 loads:

72432

EDG

06-02-2013, 11:42 PM

I think your turned down case head failed before pressure got very high. It may have acted like a pressure relief valve.

copperlake

06-03-2013, 12:18 AM

I think your turned down case head failed before pressure got very high. It may have acted like a pressure relief valve.

EDG, I thought about that but the rags, inside of the torture chamber and the action don't suggest any unburned powder which means that it all burned up and released its energy in the breech area because the bullet didn't leave the barrel. So did it release SLOWLY, or more slowly?

Multigunner

06-03-2013, 12:57 AM

Well they tested early smokeless gunpowders in sealed pressure vessels, because Propellants that are not also explosives don't explode in open containers.
The casing of a pipe bomb has to be fairly substantial to allow the pressure to build up enough that the gunpowder acts as an explosive.
A opposite effect is seen in the cartridge casing of the 40mm Grenade. Inside the grenade is a propellant chamber with gas vents. The relatively small but high pressure charge bleeds off into the much larger case providing a somewhat slow steady acceleration of the heavy and sensitive payload.
During the Spanish American war they achieved the same steady acceleration with the pneumatic Dynamite Gun by using a captive piston cylinder with piston propelled by a blank shotgun shell. The piston was driven back down the cylinder and compressed air bled into the breech through a valve.

Basically I'm saying that an early rupture would prevent gas from building to full heat and pressure.

PS
While I'm honestly impressed by the strength of these actions I'd still suggest that one use only fresh ammo from a reliable known source, most especially the military surplus 7.62 and 7.92. Theres some milspec 7mm still floating around but relatively rare compared to the larger calibers.
Remember also that some pre WW1 (1912?) DWM 7X57 ammo (154gr bullet at well over 2900fps) took apart some of these rifles when they were fairly new.

copperlake

06-04-2013, 02:39 AM

As a side note I will have, with the generous help of a friend that knows the Word and PDF world, the promised Ackley transcription ready soon. Does anyone know how to go about making that available here? I think the attachment venue is for pictures only, but I don't know that for certain. It's 12 pages, PDF, 55KB. Also, she is working on the White Labs report but the image is so bad to transrcibe from that some of the nomenclature is dicey. I'd like to publish that too and perhaps people could help clarify it.

Multigunner

06-04-2013, 07:13 AM

A hosting site that stores files online may be the answer.
I had a site years ago but let it lapse, now I can't access the files though they are still there.
Worked very well for awhile.
Some sites like this allow a lengthy free trial period.

Dutchman

06-05-2013, 07:11 PM

It's 12 pages, PDF, 55KB.

I can host it on my website. Its a privately owned server: http://dutchman.rebooty.com/

I have other gun related pdf files there:

1903 Springfield
http://dutchman.rebooty.com/temp/1903_Springfield_1911_Manual.pdf

Martin Retting 1968 catalog:
http://dutchman.rebooty.com/temp/r001.pdf

1891 Argentine Mauser NRA disassembly
http://dutchman.rebooty.com/temp/Argentine_Model_1891_Mauser_Rifle.pdf

Belding & Mull catalog
http://dutchman.rebooty.com/temp/B&M2.pdf

Ideal Molds 1942
http://dutchman.rebooty.com/temp/Ideal-Molds-1942.pdf

You can even listen to music while you read gunstuff :lol:

http://dutchman.rebooty.com/temp/Peter_Gunn3.ogg
http://dutchman.rebooty.com/temp/BadCompany-Seagull.mp3
http://dutchman.rebooty.com/temp/co_ten_vtacik_poveda.mp3

copperlake

06-06-2013, 11:47 PM

I have emailed Dutchman to figure out how to take him up on his generous offer to host the Ackley paper.

On another matter dealing with Ackley, I found an old thread about Carcano's (next project) from which I will quote:

"doughboy1953
Posted - 05/22/2005 : 02:13:12 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The famous gunsmith PO Ackley ran "blow up" tests on a number of military actions. (The strongest action of the military bolt rifles per Ackley was the Type 38 Japanese followed by the Type 99 Japanese.) Ackley fitted an improved .30-06 barrel to 4 6.5mm Carcano actions. When the action finally failed, the top of the receiver blew off but the bolt held and the test load also caused 03s, Enfield, Mausers and their ilk to fail. The brass failed and as somebody else observed, the Carcano is not the best action for handling ruptured cartridges. This was also a serious weakness of a lot of the pre-1898 Mauser actions, the Commission Gewehr, etc. (I believe the British Lee Enfield action actually handled ruptured cases better than the pre-98 Mausers.) The safety sleeve also held in Ackley's test. I read this in a column "Ask Ackley" published in Gun Journal magazine March 1981, pg 26 and 27. According to Ackley, he didn't have the Carcanos tested so apparently he didn't report these blowup tests in his book "Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders Volume II" where he reported those actions he had tested when he was writing the book."

Try as I may I cannot find any reference to this Ackley article and or 'Gun Journal Magazine' via Google. The name of the magazine doesn't even come up once. Anyone know anything? This would be a great addition to the paper.

It seems unbelievable that he did not test small-ring mausers and this gives hope (if true) that he may have.

Multigunner

06-07-2013, 02:26 AM

Here's a free download of a few articles either by or about P O Ackley.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gundigest.com%2Fackleydownloa d&ei=t3mxUbvDNePl4AOu7IDwDg&usg=AFQjCNEFPhC82or9Gjd5tUp9VvPyqd3EPw&bvm=bv.47534661,d.dmg

He writes of his experiments in rechambering several 6.5 Arisaka rifles to 7X57 mauser.
According to him only one of the 6.5 rifles showed any pressure signs when firing full power 7mm loads, and that was traced to an undersized neck portion of the reamer.

I have a No.4 rifle that showed pressure signs with known and tested safe loads, and it turned out to be due to the chamber neck being thickly coated with hard baked fouling.
I made a brass tube scraper and got all that old carbon and atomized lead out of the neck and had no more problems of pressure signs with those cartridges.
A too tight neck generally causes more pressure increase than an oversized bullet.

EDG

06-07-2013, 03:52 PM

I am not sure why someone would think the Carcano is any better or worse at handling gas than most other actions. Gas blown out the right lug race way will eventually be blocked by the bolt handle, bolt stop and safety flange. The firing pin bore has a gas vent hole. The left locking lug race way will send gas back toward the shooter much like most other bolt guns. Yes a M98 Mauser has a bit of a flange on the bolt sleeve. But the Rem 700, M70 Win, 1903 Springfield and many others do not. If gas containment was really king, the Savage 110 would win that and no one ever brags on the Savage 110 just because it has superior gas handling features.

Multigunner

06-07-2013, 09:24 PM

I've always heard good things about the Savage 110, including its gas handling features. Only reason I never bought one is that I think its a just plain butt ugly action, and the definition of generic. Great rifles though from all I've heard.

copperlake

06-07-2013, 10:16 PM

Multi, thanks for the link, I already have it but I encourage others to read the collection.

Soon, the P. O. paper will up at Dutchman's site.

To add a little to EDG's post, here are some pictures I took a while ago when I was helping an old friend at the end of his life liquidate his collection so his wife wouldn't be burdened with that detail. I was disassembling a beautiful 03-A3 Remington with a four groove barrel in order to assess it for sale; on the bench was the constant pile of small ring mausers and struck by the similarities between the two actions, I took some pictures of them alongside one another:

72936729377293572934

Looking at the pictures it's not hard to understand why the Mauser's sued the US Gov. over patent infringement. Perhaps the Springfield's magazine cut-off offers more protection, but it's obvious the bolt shroud doesn't. Of course, the original designs didn't have Mr. Hatchers holes. The 'bump' over the extractor cut has to be an improvement, strength wise, over the mauser design. I don't know if the breeching of the Springfield with its cone shape is any better than the flat breech of the mauser.

What's most interesting to me is that the Springfield is 'legendary' even though it had it's troubles with uneven heat treatments at a stage in its development. When I was a kid getting an 03-A3 from the CMP, there was a cult of the Springfield. One can find a Springfield chambered in just about ANY caliber. It is little, if any, superior to a '93 Spanish mauser in terms of the way it protects the shooter from a primer/case failure.

And then we have another 'legend' about small ring mausers.

Since the Carcano is next, I will have some picture comparisons between actions soon.

EDG

06-08-2013, 12:36 AM

I am not sure if it possible to make high pressure smoke or just use water.
I was thinking of how you could thread an adapter for pipe or tubing and install a line for colored gas or smoke.
Then turn on the flow and photograph the smoke blowing out of the action.
As it is there are myths and legends about gas handling but no real way to identify or quantify that characteristic.

Multigunner

06-08-2013, 12:48 AM

Looking at the pictures it's not hard to understand why the Mauser's sued the US Gov. over patent infringement.
The only legitimate beef Mauser had with the U S Ordnance department was a dispute between the Chief of Ordnance and the Comptroller of the U S Treasury about the payment made to Mauser for use of the Mauser designed stripper clips, the extractor, and and the construction of magazine well and floorplate.
Other features of the Mauser design used in common by the Springfield had either outlived their patent protection or were themselves copied from previous firearms designs.
All communication on these matters were carried out with Mausers U S agents rather than with Mauser himself.
Heres a list of patents that royalties were to be paid on.
467180 , Shell Extractor 20 cents per arm

477671, Shell Extractor & Collar 5cents per each arm.

482376, Clips, (called cartridge holder for magazine guns) 50 cents per thousand clips

527869, Oct, 1894 , Magazine 25 Cents per each arm.

547932, Clip (called cartridge pack) 50 cents per thousand clips.

547933, Safety, covered by 590271

590271, Sept, 1897 25 cents per each arm

The front placement of dual opposed locking lugs was lifted by Spandau from a stolen 1886 Lebel rifle.
The French military had not allowed the officer who designed the Lebel to patent his designs. Spandau couldn't patent it either, so I doubt that Mausers adaptation of this feature was actually patentable.

U S Ordnance also had a dispute with DWM over use of the Spitzer bullet, though British cartridge designer Captain Hardcastle pointed out that similar bullets had been used by U S marksmen in matches in Britain as early as the 1870's.
The U S Government rather than disputing DWM's claims simply seized the patents as war booty. They had overstepped the bounds in doing so and a judgement was rendered against the Ordnance dept in favor of DWM.

What's most interesting to me is that the Springfield is 'legendary' even though it had it's troubles with uneven heat treatments at a stage in its development.
The Springfield earned its reputation as the most accurate rifle of WW1 and continued to hold that title well into the 1970's.
The Double Heat Treated receivers are known for great strength and the Nickel Steel receivers are considered to be even stronger.

copperlake

06-11-2013, 02:11 AM

Good news. I think I'll get my hands on a funky '96 that may be tweaked back into shape in order to do a proper bake-off between the north and the south.

I got a .308 WIN reamer on fleabay before I realized that I misread the specifications between the 7.35 Carcano and the .308. I originally thought the .308 would clean up the Carcano chamber - not. So I went crazy and got a '06 reamer from the same. I was shooting for not have to do any big barrel set back, re-thread, re-do of the breeching. The Carcano has a recess which the bolt/extractor fits into. Now I will send off for the .299 chucking reamer to open the throat as I don't want to destroy the reamer by grinding the pilot down. I don't have a way of making a gradual leade to the rifling, but what the heck? It will have to have a bit of freebore to accommodate this lash-up. This differential in bore diameter will not be as dramatic as the Ackley article that Multi (thanks) provided but I like the idea of the much increased powder capacity of the 30-06 over the 308, room for lots of 3031 or 4198. And, I do have '06 cartridges but no 308.

I've been doing some measurements of the interior/ exterior of the '93 and the Carcano actions which I will relay with pics. I haven't taken the barrel off the subject Carcano yet and I've been using a Type I as I have three of them without barrels for the measurements, hence no pics until I get the subject apart. They are generally the same with the exception of the bolt, magazine and placement of the ejector.

Multigunner

06-11-2013, 03:13 AM

Only stuff I've heard about Carcano manufacture is the use of "Poldi" steel, which is known for its elasticity.
I have read of a severe overload in a Carcano causing the barrel to jump forwards by two threads with no damage to either barrel or receiver ring. The ring expanded momentarily then snapped back on the shank. The barrel was then turned back into place and torqued down and the rifle used normally with no further problems.

There have been factory re-barreled Carcanos in .308 sold in the UK and I believe in Australia. Some were target rifles.

EDG

06-11-2013, 01:00 PM

Copperlake,
I have both Carcano and Type I barrels that have been pulled from a receiver. The barrel's threaded shanks are identical. I have a stripped Type I receiver but no stripped Carcano receiver. The only differences in the bolts are the placement of the bolt handle, the bolt face and the location of the ejector slot. The extractors are slightly different unless you have the early style Carcano with the extractor that went through the locking lug.

copperlake

06-12-2013, 12:56 AM

EDG is correct, tonight after work I turned out the barrel of the subject Carcano, it is the same as the Type I. Here are some pictures of a '95 Chileno alongside the Carcano starting at the breech; the first thing you see is the obvious ring around the Carcano breech face:

73284

This ring fits into a smaller version of the '98 receiver collar except that it is not broached for the extractor because the Carcano has a fixed extractor the rotates with the bolt:

73285

Also obvious is the thickness of the receiver is greater in the '95 than the Carcano. The interior receiver dimensions are: 1.003" for the Mauser and 1.033" for the Carcano. These are tough measurements to get with an expanding gauge but three tries on each gave close results. Importantly the right lug race in the Mauser is considerably thinner than the Carcano: .090" vs. .130", right off an advantage to the Carcano with overloads.

Here are the bolts face to face:

73290

The Carcano has a much deeper bolt face recess than the '95, .110" vs. .054" and thus surrounds the cartridge head more. It also has no ejector slot in the left lug. Of the two Carcano barrels that I have apart, both are polished in a way that indicates the tolerance between the bolt and the barrel recess is very close; they meet. I'm going to do more measurements to compare the locking lug surface area.

Now here is a remarkable thing that I really admire in the Carcano, that being, the trigger group that is quite a group! It performs three functions with one spring: the trigger and sear that releases the firing pin, a bolt stop that retracts as the trigger is pulled for easy bolt removal and an ejector that floats along with it all!

73294

copperlake

06-14-2013, 11:47 PM

Here are some pictures showing dimensional relationships between the Carcano and the '95 Mauser. First we see the differences between bolt body diameter and the overall width of the of the locking lug circle: (Note: I didn't proof my picture enhancement and the Mauser bolt dia. is .698", not .689")

73603

And here we have a visual showing the difference between the lugs:

73604

Then another visual showing when you lay one alongside the other the difference:

73605

The width or depth difference of the lugs between the two actions is negligible. It's easy to see that the advantage goes to the Carcano in terms of locking lug surface area. Also, the left lug on the Carcano is not slotted, this is a plus. The forward most part of the extractor on the Carcano nestles inside of that shallow collar inside the receiver along with the cartridge head support. I think this is an advantage too, as during a cartridge head failure the extractor would push against that collar and thus would impede it from further outward movement. Also, the extractor fits in a dado in the bolt preventing rearward movement. I think it's obvious from what we know that the thin extractor cut in the Mauser is probably its greatest weakness if we look at its ultimate yield strength only.

A note on the barrel: I do not know if this is universal with Carcano's but after the barrel breaks loose (less than 1/4 turn) it's very loosey-goosey. I'm wondering if the collar is used the same way as with a large ring mauser? This barrel is shot out bad in the throat, dark with ground down rifling.

EDG

06-15-2013, 12:06 AM

I am not sure the inner shoulder has any purpose in a Carcano since the barrel has an adequate shoulder to stop against the front of the receiver. The Type I barrel that I pulled took more torque than my home made tools could deliver so I turned the shoulder off. Once the shoulder was turned off there was no great resistance though I could not turn it by hand. It did not get loose enough for hand turning until it had been backed out about 3 or 4 turns.

The nose of the bolt rests inside the shallow ring in the breech face and the ring mugh help support the extractor. If a case head blows I think you are guaranteed to ruin the extractor and a broken extractor takes a bit of trickery to remove.

If you would like to save your extractor you can remove it using a cartridge case.
Put the case head in the bolt face and push the extractor out about .125 and then using the case as a lever pry the extractor forward about 3/8".

Before you start blowing up carcanos I was going to ask you how clean your bolt is and if you would be interested in a swap?

I have two that are only fit for testing. Both are kind of beat up. One is the original design with the extractor through the locking lug. Apparently some genius thought he would adjust the head space by peening the top rear edge of the lugs.
The other is the normal design with a chunk missing at the rear of the bolt. This is a common failure in Carcano bolts. They still function but it is nothing your would want on a shooter.

copperlake

06-16-2013, 11:04 PM

I am not sure the inner shoulder has any purpose in a Carcano since the barrel has an adequate shoulder to stop against the front of the receiver.

The nose of the bolt rests inside the shallow ring in the breech face and the ring might help support the extractor. If a case head blows I think you are guaranteed to ruin the extractor

EDG, you may be right about the collar not being part of the barrel seating but I believe it does 'something' in that it provides support for both the barrel and the extractor. It may be in the category of the unnecessary 'flat' on the bottom of the bolt of a '93 but someone thought a purpose for it. I don't think it's there for the heck of it, especially considering the amount of machining that goes into it. The front of the extractor claw is rabbited to fit inside the collar when it's holding a cartridge. I'm pretty sure that stopping the extractor from moving outboard during a head failure would be a 'good' thing in comparison to the Mauser in which the exctractor can freely blow out against the receiver wall.

It is not my intention this time to just 'blow it up'. There is a nice juvenile thrill about KA-BOOM! but I really regret wasting (sorta') the other actions in that way. I have four Carcano's and only the 7.35 is going to be mistreated. The three Type 'I's are for other fantasy's.

I just got the '06 reamer and going through all my chucking reamers miraculously, I found one that's .299" which is the pilot diameter of the chamber reamer. The capacity of the '06 case will be plenty to test the action strength without blowing it up I think. However, if it does go, so be it. The extractor or a dummy stand-in must be part of the test, I feel, in order to be as valid as can be.

As far as the trade goes, PM me. The bolt I have using the modern system of classification is 'pristine' which means it's good/used using the NRA system of 40 years ago.

Nickle

06-19-2013, 12:05 AM

FWIW and Apples to Oranges but I saw the bolt out of a modern sporter rifle chambered in 7mm Mag. The owner had used 4831 data but got his numbers mixed up and loaded the rounds with 3031. It took several shots, which he noted as kicking a lot more than normal. The denouemont was that the last round fired had pressure enough to lock the bolt.

It took a gunsmith with action wrench and barrel vise to get the bolt open, he unscrewed the barrel off the swollen case. The case head had flowed into any irregularity in the bolt face and was virtually fused there. The gun did not blow up and, as far as I know, the shooter was not injured. I don't remember whether it was a Remington or Savage but it certainly had a fair measure of reserve built in.

Whenever the early "modern" Rem. bolt guns came out (721 ?) the NRA tested one to see how much hot supper it could digest. They started with a proof cartridge with no results. Then they began driving additional bullets into the barrel. The gun fired, and the bolt opened, until they got either 3 or 4 220 gr. bullets lodged in the bore ahead of the proof cartridge. I'm 99% sure it was four in the bore plus the one in the round. 1100 grains ahead of a proof load and all it did was freeze the bolt. I used to have the American Rifleman that had the article about the test but loaned it to a friend several years ago and it never came home.

Happened up here (I'm in the same area) again, back in the late 60's, IIRC I was 15 at the time, so this could've been as late as 1970. I used to work in my father's gunshop back in the 60's (thru 1972), when I was a teenager. Now, Alan and I know each other, so he's knows where I'm talking about and who my father and I are.

2 guys walk into the shop, one carrying a Rem 700 in 7mm Rem Mag, the other with a big bandage on the left side of his face. The Remington owner said he knocked his bolt handle off trying to open it. They're only silver soldered on. The other guy had a Savage 110 Left Hand in 7mm Rem Mag. Both were shooting handloads they made together. The Savage blew into 26 pieces (was in the local GE newsletter later), and the striker assembly cross pin broke the bolt housing and the guy caught the striker assembly in the face, messing him up fairly bad.

I asked them if they had some of the ammo, they did, and brought it in. I pulled the bullet to check the charge, and first thing was, it was overloaded considerably (IIRC, something like 5 grains, could be less, but WAS over) from what would be a max load. That's IF the powder was the IMR 4831 they thought it was. They bought the powder from a guy that got it out of a bulk keg of the stuff. I looked it over, and first thing I saw, it was Alcan shotgun powder. Now, I used some Alcan to reload my shotgun shells, so pretty well knew the stuff. Checking the color of the flakes, turned out it was AL-5. Pretty much the same speed as either Red Dot or Green Dot, and I'm thinking GD on this. Well, the Rem 700 went back to Remington, and they replaced the bolt, receiver and barrel free. (Bet they wouldn't now)

Remington estimated the pressure that took at something like 175,000 psi (that's NOT a misprint).

They even sent the old parts back, and they're still over at the shop to this day. That one is going on the wall in the new upcoming shop (or a friend's retail shop) with a written lecture on safety and reloading. I think Alan may have seen or heard about this one, as he did work part time some for my father after I went in the Army and overseas.

Nickle

06-19-2013, 01:12 AM

A very interesting read, I may say.

Copperlake, I'm pretty impressed with your doing all this. It's sure changed what I think of Oviedo guns in general, and especially of the '93. I no longer think the Swede's are all they're cracked up to be either, now. Now, I knew the '98s were fairly strong, and I knew some of them had smaller receiver rings, not hurting them much.

Well, I'll be watching this thread.

copperlake

06-20-2013, 02:27 AM

Here is the barrel ready to be put back into the receiver and finish reamed. Nothing fancy here, reamed the throat out and ran it in. Went quick. It will be some days until I test it; I've got my last big job I must finish real soon. Fisherman and salmon are linked timewise. Also, I have to modify the sled to accommodate the Carcano. The barrel is dated 1939.

74058

Multigunner

06-20-2013, 03:57 AM

I am not sure the inner shoulder has any purpose in a Carcano since the barrel has an adequate shoulder to stop against the front of the receiver.
Some actions torque against the inner ring only.
The SMLE has an inner ring, and while this action torques against the inner ring its best if the barrel shoulder also makes contact. The inner ring of these actions is not complete, its more like c than an o .You'll find some of these rifles with a visible gap at the barrel shoulder, though so far none that I've worked on showed any such gap.
The No.4 has the same type receiver ring but it torques at the barrel shoulder. Those specimens I've found with a visible gap between barrel breech and inner ring usually have very loose to excessive headspace not repairable by simply using a longer bolt head.

From this I expect that the manufacturers of the Carcano would much prefer that the barrel seated firmly against the inner ring, otherwise proper fitting of bolts would be problematic, unless they planned to short chamber and carefully finish ream for proper headspace.

Some 98 style Mausers have the inner ring while most do not

1500FPS

06-20-2013, 11:41 AM

EDG

06-20-2013, 12:02 PM

My 1939 dated Carcano Type I receiver showed pretty much full contact on the face of the receiver as evidenced by the shoulder area shielded from the bluing. The inner ring has no contact shielding or marks.
I examined my receiver carefully. The inner collar is not like that of a 98 Mauser. It is a full 360 degrees but it is only about .060 tall. The thickness is only about .035 which is way to thin to provide a solid stop.
Based on my 40 plus years of machined parts tooling, manufacturing and planning the ring just appears to be an artifact left in the receiver because there was no good reason to remove it. If I had planned the manufacturing of the Carcano receiver I would have machined it away to improve the view of the interior of the receiver and to insure that chips and cutting oil could move easily.

copperlake

06-20-2013, 11:52 PM

EDG, I respectfully disagree that the collar is an 'artifact'. Otherwise, why would there be a commensurate ring around the barrel that fits snuggly into said collar? I am not a materials engineer nor am I machinist by any stretch but I believe they have purpose, otherwise, I don't think they'd be there. I don't think anyone would have left an incomplete machine process and then accommodated it by another machine process. The way I see it is that the close fitting bolt head (in the barrel recess) and thus cartridge head support too, is strengthened by this ring. So now, in that admittedly narrow area, we have a more or less continuous ring of metal that includes the ring on the barrel, the collar and the receiver wall. Add them all up: approx .290" a large ring mauser is approx .352". When you consider how thin the SR Mauser is at the same place I would call it a plus. Admitting I'm not any kind of authority, I have done a lot of welding and experience has taught me that a surprisingly small gusset in the right place can make the difference between an assembly failure and hanging together, especially over time.

With the project, I have to open the bolt face a little as the Carcano 7.53 has a head dia. of .448, about .025" under the '06. The '06 force fits but the extractor hangs out too much.

copperlake

06-21-2013, 12:01 AM

The Carcano has gotten much bad press in the past. Sure some think of them as ugly, but in truth they are a lot stronger then they appear. I have read in their early production the finest steels were used. The barrels supposedly the same steel that SAKO used for years.

There's a story floating around on the internet about a notable gun writer was asked to come to a gun club to help make a reloading safety film.

From the Firing Line Forum:

Quote:
The action is quite strong

From what I have read this statement seems to be in error.

Well, the result of a peirced primer on some surplus ammunition in my M1891 Calvary Carbine would dictate that it is indeed quite strong. The rifle suffered no damage at all other than a sticky bolt.

Also, here's an article by Dave Emary of Hornady.

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html

In particular, notice this passage

The materials used in the Carcano are excellent. These rifles were made from special steels perfected by the Czechs, for which the Italians paid royalties. If you have ever tried doing any work on a Carcano receiver you will find out just how hard and tough the steel is. The Carcano has also received a reputation as being a “weak” design. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Italians made a small run of Carcanos early in WW II chambered for 8 X 57 JS. The Germans rechambered some Carcanos to 8 X 57 JS late in WW II. These rifles were also proofed for this cartridge. The CIP minimum suggested proof pressure for the 8 x 57 JS cartridge is 73,500 psi. I hardly call this a weak action.

The best case I can make for the strength of the Carcano was a personal experience attempting to blow one up for a hunter safety course video. I was asked by the Department of Game and Fish of New Mexico about 12 years ago to help them with this. At the time I was one of the ones ignorant about the Carcano, believing it to be a weak action and easy to take apart. Well, the morale to this story was a full case of Bullseye failed to do anything significant to the action or barrel. We finally had to fill a cartridge case with C4 explosive and detonate it to get anything that looked like what we wanted. One other incident I have experienced with the Carcano further convinces me of the great strength of these actions. In my early experiments with .268” bullets, and loading data for them, I had several incidents of extreme pressure. The bolt had to be opened with a hammer and the cartridge case appeared to be a belted magnum. The headspace of the gun had grown slightly but otherwise was fine and has been fired many times since. I know from my experience as a ballistician that pressures in excess of 90,000 psi are required to do this type of damage to a cartridge case. A good condition Carcano rifle is as safe and strong as any other military bolt-action rifle you will encounter. This incident will be discussed later, as it was caused by propellants that should not be used in the 6.5 X 52 because of their ignition characteristics.

1500FPS

06-21-2013, 12:20 AM

From the Firing Line Forum:

Quote:
The action is quite strong

From what I have read this statement seems to be in error.

Well, the result of a peirced primer on some surplus ammunition in my M1891 Calvary Carbine would dictate that it is indeed quite strong. The rifle suffered no damage at all other than a sticky bolt.

Also, here's an article by Dave Emary of Hornady.

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html

In particular, notice this passage

The materials used in the Carcano are excellent. These rifles were made from special steels perfected by the Czechs, for which the Italians paid royalties. If you have ever tried doing any work on a Carcano receiver you will find out just how hard and tough the steel is. The Carcano has also received a reputation as being a “weak” design. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Italians made a small run of Carcanos early in WW II chambered for 8 X 57 JS. The Germans rechambered some Carcanos to 8 X 57 JS late in WW II. These rifles were also proofed for this cartridge. The CIP minimum suggested proof pressure for the 8 x 57 JS cartridge is 73,500 psi. I hardly call this a weak action.

The best case I can make for the strength of the Carcano was a personal experience attempting to blow one up for a hunter safety course video. I was asked by the Department of Game and Fish of New Mexico about 12 years ago to help them with this. At the time I was one of the ones ignorant about the Carcano, believing it to be a weak action and easy to take apart. Well, the morale to this story was a full case of Bullseye failed to do anything significant to the action or barrel. We finally had to fill a cartridge case with C4 explosive and detonate it to get anything that looked like what we wanted. One other incident I have experienced with the Carcano further convinces me of the great strength of these actions. In my early experiments with .268” bullets, and loading data for them, I had several incidents of extreme pressure. The bolt had to be opened with a hammer and the cartridge case appeared to be a belted magnum. The headspace of the gun had grown slightly but otherwise was fine and has been fired many times since. I know from my experience as a ballistician that pressures in excess of 90,000 psi are required to do this type of damage to a cartridge case. A good condition Carcano rifle is as safe and strong as any other military bolt-action rifle you will encounter. This incident will be discussed later, as it was caused by propellants that should not be used in the 6.5 X 52 because of their ignition characteristics.

I agree. I had forgotten the steel used in the early barrels. It was Bofors which is among the best.

EDG

06-21-2013, 07:04 PM

Copperlake,
You make some interesting points however I do not find the added machine features to be of any significance. What you interpret to be a ring around the barrel is nothing more than a clearance cut on the outside diameter. It results in less material in the barrel shank (not more) than if the little receiver collar was cut away. If the cut is not there the barrel would more closely resemble a Mauser barrel.
The ring inside the recevier is barely more than a fin around the inside. I would hate to believe that it means anything to the strength of the receiver. If there is anything needed in the way of strength it would have been easier to just make the receiver ring larger. If more strength was needed from a collar why did they not make it substantial by lengthening the receiver ring.
There is a ring on the breech face of the barrel. It appears this ring supports the bolt nose a little. I sure would not bother to put the feature on a new barrel. In the case of my bolt and barrel it does not support the extractor. The bolt nose is supported over about 150 degrees. I cannot say what the ring accomplishes.

EDG, I respectfully disagree that the collar is an 'artifact'. Otherwise, why would there be a commensurate ring around the barrel that fits snuggly into said collar? I am not a materials engineer nor am I machinist by any stretch but I believe they have purpose, otherwise, I don't think they'd be there. I don't think anyone would have left an incomplete machine process and then accommodated it by another machine process. The way I see it is that the close fitting bolt head (in the barrel recess) and thus cartridge head support too, is strengthened by this ring. So now, in that admittedly narrow area, we have a more or less continuous ring of metal that includes the ring on the barrel, the collar and the receiver wall. Add them all up: approx .290" a large ring mauser is approx .352". When you consider how thin the SR Mauser is at the same place I would call it a plus. Admitting I'm not any kind of authority, I have done a lot of welding and experience has taught me that a surprisingly small gusset in the right place can make the difference between an assembly failure and hanging together, especially over time.

With the project, I have to open the bolt face a little as the Carcano 7.53 has a head dia. of .448, about .025" under the '06. The '06 force fits but the extractor hangs out too much.

izzyjoe

06-21-2013, 09:43 PM

I would like to see how a Mosin would hold up to some stout load's. those are some strong actions as well.

copperlake

06-21-2013, 11:26 PM

I would like to see how a Mosin would hold up to some stout load's. those are some strong actions as well.

izzyjoe, if you go back a few pages you will get your wish. There is a URL posted that is a vid of exactly what you are after: some backyard boys try their best to blow a Mosin after abusing it with some silly drag-it-behind-a-truck stuff but in the end a full case of 2400 didn't do it in. As we have seen, much less 2400 than that have leveled the '93-'96's. I was thinking of using a Mosin too, but this video nixed that. What more can you do than a full case of 2400? I could see a nice bake-off between the Arisaka and the Mosin, though. One would have to rechamber to something with more capacity. Maybe 300 WIN or such on both?

In the same vein, here is a remarkable video of some actual gunsmith's that incrementally increase the headspace in a 30-06 LR Mauser to over .050". They were demonstrating that headspace can be more or less dangerous. Now, the remarkable thing is that they did this live, as in shouldering the arm BUT! holding a piece of cardboard to shield the shooter and catch any brass shards! They were actually trying to get a head separation. In the end, because of the lack of firing pin protrusion, they would smack the pin with a punch and hammer. Must watch:

http://www.americangunsmith.com/vidlesson/?id=37d

However, watching this I had a little light bulb go on; I screwed the barrel back on the Carcano and intentionally increased the headspace + .018". Now we have a Carcano 7.35mm chambered to 7.62mm a difference of .27mm or .01063" and has out-of-the-park excessive headspace. One would surmise that these are two rather bad combinations. It's going to take some work to modify the sled in order to hot-rod but not being able to help myself, I'm going to put the Carcano in a stock and fire it with a commercial REM 180 gr round as a prelim.

copperlake

06-22-2013, 02:50 AM

After rummaging around I found three flavors of '06, REM, WIN and FED. Here is the setup; my ordinary proof testing 'horse' with the Carcano in a Type 'I' stock shooting into a spruce log. This is after firing the test rounds:

74198

Here is the REM and WIN side by side. The WIN suffered a head separation a little over 1/2 way 'round. The REM is intact. It doesn't show too well but the chamber being deep really is prevalent by swelling near the head:

74199

The REM shows a backed out primer that is pancaked. The WIN is flat but spread too:

74200

Extraction was more difficult than usual but done by hand. Nothing unusual with the action or bolt but I'm not about to turn out the barrel after a couple of shots. The cartridges have to be fed individually into the bolt as the extractor will not climb over the rim. I thought I'd need to open the bolt face but that's not the case. Both cartridges were 180 gr, the WIN round nosed soft point and the REM pointed soft point. I have no idea what these loads amount to pressure-wise. They are about this vintage:

74201

Nickle

06-22-2013, 05:07 PM

I wouldn't bet on either side of a Mosin-Arisaka contest. Both are incredibly strong. The "weak" Arisakas were likely 7.7 drill rifles that had no locking lugs and were only intended to shoot wood nosed blanks.

I've heard a lot of stuff on the Carcano, but I've seen a lot of things tell me their "weakness" is likely a myth.

Of course, a lot depends on when it was made (as in what the conditions were).

copperlake

06-22-2013, 11:02 PM

I can't quite figure out where to go from here with the Carcano. I only have 180 gr loads which I can pull and use a different powder. I'm not sure that I did the right thing with making the chamber so deep; my thinking was that that would insure case head failure which it obviously does but I wish I had not pushed it.

I think I will do something with a max 3031 load then depending on what happens some 4198. The benchmark will be the 4200 which undid the Mausers. The problem is that using a different baseline cartridge means that it can't be apples to apples. I have been hunting for a junk Carcano in 8mm but haven't scored. Then throw in a barrel that is .010" undersized and everything goes out the window. I think I will consult with our friend DCM for a load that might be equal between the 8mm and '06 pressure-wise. I don't know if that's possible with the 180 gr restriction.

Steve's pages gives 46.2 gr 3031 as max. He has 4198 @ 36 gr max. I will try 49 gr of 3031 (if it fits) and give it a go. At this stage I feel fairly safe not having everything contained but much more and in the cage it goes. I'm firing by string fairlead into my bunker.

One thing I meant to note last night; the report from these rounds is different. They are sharper and shorter if that makes any sense. Quite a crack, even more than when the actions came undone.

copperlake

06-23-2013, 04:04 AM

Here is the REM brass loaded with 49 gr 3031 alongside WIN brass loaded with 55 gr 3013:

74343

As you can see, the REM looks much like the factory load did. The primer backed out is about all with some head flattening. the action was difficult to open. The WIN suffered a near complete case head separation as did the factory load only more so. The action had to be opened with a mallet. Here is what the heads look like:

74344

The WIN had to be rodded out. The head expanded approx. .010". You can see that it is forced into the annular groove that is in a Carcano bolt face. it also has extruded into the extractor claw.

60 gr of 3031 completely fills a virgin case. I was able to get 58 compressed into the next test cartridge. The action and bolt/extractor has not suffered.

EDG

06-23-2013, 01:50 PM

If you wanted to mess with it you could try half-soling a bushing onto your old 8mm barrel.
You would turn the barrel down to a standard OD, thread it for a fine thread and screw a threaded bushing on.
Then thread the OD of the bushing to fit your receiver. This would permit you to use the same loads in the same barrel. Granted the shank will not be as strong but if you stick to just primer blowing loads it should not make much difference. The 2400 loads would likely expand the shank.

copperlake

06-24-2013, 01:28 AM

The 58 gr 3031 REM round shows the beginnings of separation and moulding to the bolt face. Extraction was stiff but by hand. The second round WIN, 59 gr 3031 and things got rather interesting. I could barely mash the boolit to the cannelure:

(note: the bad rings 'round the cartridges are from the 'good condition' reamer I bought off fleabay)

74427

It cracked the stock (gag) and I could not open the action. I had to unscrew the barrel and this is what was revealed; first, we see the classic blown head with the balance of the cartridge stuck in the barrel. Notice the 'painting' of atomized brass:

74428

The receiver was a mess; the cartridge head had rather mangled itself around everything on its way rearwards:

74429

I still couldn't open the action, so I sprayed it with TriFlon and picked some pieces out and after awhile got it to open with effort. Here is what I found:

74430

The bolt had lost a part just above the extractor mortise. There is no way that I can take a picture but both of the lugs, under magnification, show tiny cracks at their bases. The lug recesses in the receiver show setback; it had none before. This, of course, could be cumulative. Here is a pic of all the pieces:

74431

The only part I couldn't find was the extractor claw. Interestingly, there isn't any 'painting' with atomized brass past the chamber area as there was was with the Mausers.

I find this quite remarkable considering that no one would think of chambering a Carcano for 30'06 with the original 7.35 caliber barrel then go 14 grs over what is considered a max load and not have a complete catastrophic failure. Had one shouldered this, I'm sure they would have had a face full of gas and some brass dings but no bolt through the head or lost fingers. I'm fairly certain that the '96's would have come undone. Almost certainly the extractor would have done an Elvis and left the building. Maybe the taffy '93 would have survived. I think the Carcano breeching is far superior to the '93-96 mausers in that it seems to contain untoward things better.

At this point there is really only one thing left to do and that is to load 'er up with enough 2400 to try for the receiver failure. I'm sure the lugs will come off but it will be interesting.

This little test does something else for me with my Ackley Jones; he has in his Handbook For Shooters and Reloaders II, some tests regarding this very same shooting through undersized bores. His conjecture was that it wasn't as big a deal as surmised.

EDG

06-25-2013, 09:05 AM

copperlake

06-25-2013, 12:56 PM

Apparently that little extension ring on the barrel breech face extends back far enough to help seal off part of the gas escape path. So maybe this helps explain the 700 Rem's and the Arisaka's resistance to a blown case head disaster. I wonder what the mostly encircled bolt face of a M91 Mauser does. And then there are the safety breeched Yugo Mausers that have the extension on the Mauser barrels. A few things to ponder I guess.

Here is an intriguing quote from Ackley's Vol. II, pages 41-42 A few Causes of Blowups:

"This was a hot wildcat cartridge on a Belgian Mauser action. Incidentally, it is a real testimonial for the strength of this old model action that while the very badly overloaded cartridge blew out the whole head of the case, resulting in fused brass all through the action, making the parts appear to be brass plated, the shooter suffered some only some minor powder burns, and the action was put back into usable condition, and as far as known, is still performing perfectly. The stock of course had to be replaced since it was completely shattered. The cartridge which caused all the damage had about an 8 grain over maximum powder charge."

I will eventually find a '91 that's junk enough to test.

Some day, if I decide to cash in my retirement, I may find one of these and be able to afford it:

http://candrsenal.com/rifle-belgian-mauser-model-188936/

There is no doubt in my mind that the Carcano breeching is better and affords more safety margin than the '93-'96 Mauser actions do. When you examine the cartridge parts, especially under magnification, it's quite clear that they are held in by the ring. This something that pictures can not do, but when you lay all the parts out of each of the actions and examine them one gets an appreciation of what happened much better. Far and away, despite the lack of rear bolt shielding, I'd rather be behind the Carcano during a failure.

Also, I believe that the Type 'I' bolt would be much stronger due to the face not being grooved and the extractor slot being on the very bottom of the bolt. When you look at Carcano bolt that broke, one can see that the cartridge head support is undermined by that groove. The extractor slot, being to the left, undermines the left locking lug.

EDG

06-25-2013, 04:14 PM

I have the receiver of one of the 1889 Belgian rifles. It apparently was case re-hardened since a file will not touch it. I bought it to build a beater but I found that the bolt handle of an 1891 Mauser will not clear the receiver bridge. I suspect I would never find an 89 bolt body and I am hesitant to cut about .050 off of the back face of the receiver bridge.
My receiver appears to have been modified to permit the use of the 98 Mauser bolt sleeve.
A poster on another site clued me into the use of the M93 and M95 firing pin, bolt sleeve and cocking piece on the M91. The longer firing pin nose of the M93-M95 types have to be cut back and repointed to work in an M91.(it may be possible to avoid modification of the firing pin by adding a spacer) I would add that there are some differences that make the M96 Swede parts difficult to use. However use of the M93-M95 parts permits use of the after market safeties for the M93-M95. I think you can also modify some after market triggers so they can be used on the M91.
I have not fully explored the conversion to the M98 style bolt sleeve because I do not have access to a Bridgeport to do the mill work. It appears the two lugs on the firing pin flange would have to be cut off and a spacer added or the firing pin would have to be cut back the amount to the material removed from the flange.
The M98 bolt sleeve will screw right into the M91 bolt body and will index properly.

1500FPS

06-25-2013, 04:21 PM

copperlake

06-26-2013, 03:48 PM

Rather than just going 'endo', I've decided to set the barrel back to headspace and try to some more heavy loads to see what that does. The lug buttresses setback is .004" cummulative after these last loads. Maybe a little 4198 next time

copperlake

06-28-2013, 11:20 PM

I built a new sled piece for the Carcano:

74785

And I set the barrel back so that it closes with slight resistance to the 3 flavors of '06 I have on hand:

74787

I pulled the boolit on the last REM case I had and loaded 59 gr of 3031. I don't have an '06 die so I've been using a 300 WBY to seat them. The case actually deformed a bit from trying to get the bullet to the cannelure but it chambered. I removed the spring and bolt guide/sear platform from the bolt. Because its summer and there is no snow to deaden sound I've been piling rags over the all of it to cut down on noise. Though we live on 2 acres, we are in the city limits and it is against the law to shoot so I'm a little careful. Anyway, on ignition not a rag moved. The bolt was only slightly stiff:

74788

Nothing striking happened. The case grew about .008", the head a couple of K's and the primer pocket expanded so the primer was loose. The groove in the bolt face set into the head but not nearly as much as the last loads. Now that the headspace is correct, it looks more or less ordinary but with signs of high pressure. I'm going to PM DCM and ask what that load looks like in QL. The cracks in the bolt lugs do not appear to have grown but it is foolish to put too much into that observation.

Fooling around some, I took the fired cartridge and ran the expander, by hand and other persuasions, from an 8mm die through the mouth and got a nice snug fit for a 170 gr 8mm boolit. Then, I was able to load 61 grs of 3031 and tapped the boolit in with a plastic hammer. Of course, it didn't chamber but it got me thinking a little. I don't see much point in using up what 3031 I have remaining to see if the Carcano can eventually beat itself to death which, I'm certain, it would. I can move to 4198 and advance the pressure curve, or, maybe ream the neck and push some 8mm balls through it. In deference to P. O., I kinda' like that idea because he is the reason I'm doing all this to begin with.