Pre 64 Model 70 vs. Mauser 98

[hhunter318]

I'm curious as to if you can make a mauser 98 cycle as smoothly as the pre 64 model 70. Is is all in the firing pin spring tension that makes the 98 so stiff comparatively? I've polished raceways and every critical surface possible with a buffing wheel, making sure not to remove material, but it's still not as smooth as a pre 64. Any knowledge you can hand over?

 

[Mobuck]

While it's possible to make a Mauser 98 the equal of a M70, the effort and cost MAY be more than just starting with a M70 initially. The Mauser is/was a battle rifle designed to go bang every time. The M70 is a commercial built rifle with amenities and cosmetics.

 

[MJFlores]

Mauser made an action that worked most if the time, and then Winchester took a similar action and made it great. No, no Mauser will ever be as smooth as a Model 70 but almost. However, when is almost good enough?

 

[Bart B.]

Only the commercial Mausers made by FN and a couple others have bolts that operate as smoothly as the modern rifles such as the Win. 70. The M98's were made with sloppy parts fit so 100% intercangability in the combat environment was possible. Same for M1903 Springfields and M1917 Enfields.

One might hard metal plate an M98 bolt then grind it down for a better fit in the receiver, but it would hurt ones billfold to loose that much weight in an instant.

It's the detail design differences the M70 took form their Model 54 which in a commercial improvement over the M1903 Springfield action. And the M1903 used several patented features of the M98 Mauser that Paul Mauser's company got paid for.

Use a thicker lube on the M98 and it'll operate smoother; Plastilube, for example.

 

[Jim Watson]

Winchester is closer fitted with a bolt guide.

Mauser is a military weapon made for reliability in the trenches shooting at Frenchmen, Britishers, and Americans. The bolt locks up solidly but has a bit of slop in movement. It can be smooth slop, but there is more movement with the bolt open.

 

[Slamfire]

There is more effort to bolt lift in the M98 because the firing pin fall is longer. The M98 has more firing pin energy than a M70 and misfires in M98 are rare, but I have had misfires in M70's.

At the time, middle 30's, smooth bolt operation was the rage in the gun magazines of the era. The M1903 was particularly smooth and patriotic Americans were “finding” reasons to support their 03 over the M98. The Mauser design is the more reliable , safer, stronger action, but those considerations were thrown over the taff rail , because the 03 had less bolt wobble and was smoother in operation. Because this was an important characteristic to the group think of the time and something promoted in the press as a superior attribute, you can bet the M70 designers paid attention to making their action very slick and smooth.

And so it is, and they adopted the same cone breech as the 03 and basically ignored gas venting. In this regard, the M70 is as bad as the 03, and inferior to the M98. While a pre 64 action is a very reliable action, from a parts breakage viewpoint, it is still inferior to the M98.

Still, I like my M70's and still shoot them in competition.

Back in the day when bolt rifles ruled the firing line, a pre 64 M70 action was widely used to build target rifles. A stiff action, the ease of bolt lift, smooth and slick action, fast locktime, made an excellent basis for an across the course rifle.



Rarely do I shoot my target M98. There is nothing you can really do to make it as slick and smooth as a M70.

 

[Jimro]

Order the lightest firing pin spring available, then lube the heck out of the camming surfaces of the cocking pieces while the bolt is apart.

If that doesn't give you an acceptable bolt throw, you will need to recut the helical camming surface on the bolt body to a shallower angle and then a flat surface to hold the sear portion, which is an operation for a skilled machinist or gunsmith. You could probably use a heavier firing pin spring if you recut the camming surface.

Jimro

 

[Slamfire]

Order the lightest firing pin spring available, then lube the heck out of the camming surfaces of the cocking pieces while the bolt is apart.

If that doesn't give you an acceptable bolt throw, you will need to recut the helical camming surface on the bolt body to a shallower angle and then a flat surface to hold the sear portion, which is an operation for a skilled machinist or gunsmith. You could probably use a heavier firing pin spring if you recut the camming surface.

Let me offer a cautionary viewpoint on this. I had read in manuals about putting grinding compound in the firing pin cam slot (back of the bolt) and opening the bolt until the sear and cam polished out. I never did that.

However I fired my Mauser enough times that the case hardening in the firing pin cam slot wore out. I had to find and pay to have the bolt replaced, which I did on the second rebarreling of the action. The case is not that deep and any abrasives may wear out very quickly.

 

[Kleab]

However, when is almost good enough?

Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

[44 AMP]

And the M1903 used several patented features of the M98 Mauser that Paul Mauser's company got paid for.

Actually, I don't think Mauser ever saw a single penny. The case dragged on for a some time, and when it was finally settled, we did pay royalties for the patent infringements. However, Mauser never got the money.

A very similar thing happened with the British and Krupp. British artillery shells used a fuze designed by Krupp, and paid a fee for each one. (1/2 penney each, I have heard). Even though they were shooting them at Germans, the British paid.

BUT, like the money from the Springfield patent infringement, the German companies never got a penny of it. We paid, the Brits paid, and due to WW I, the money went into escrow accounts. After the war, those accounts were seized by the victors, as war reparations payments, and Neither Mauser, nor Krupp got a penny.

or so I heard...

 

[Jim Watson]

I think many of those Mauser patents we licensed covered things like stripper clips and rimless case design rather than the rifle itself. I thought we made payment until the War.

All these debunking jobs on the 1903 make me wonder if we should not have just bought the whole package and issued 7.62x57 Mauser 1898s.

 

[Slamfire]

I think many of those Mauser patents we licensed covered things like stripper clips and rimless case design rather than the rifle itself. I thought we made payment until the War.

All these debunking jobs on the 1903 make me wonder if we should not have just bought the whole package and issued 7.62x57 Mauser 1898s.

“Not invented here” is very hard to overcome. In the long run, we would have been better off with a M98 actioned service rifle with either the 6.5 X 55 Swede or the 7.5 Swiss cartridge. The Swede is better ballistically than the 30-06 and does not kick as much. The Swiss cartridge is the equal of the 308 in power, shorter and with a thick rim, which is why we went to the 308: the 30-06 was too long and the rim was too easy to pull off.

And not invented here saddled our Armed forces with M16’s instead of copies of AK47’s. The AK47 is the best automatic battle rifle that came out in the second half of the 20th century. Reliable, easy to maintain, simple to operate, probably cheaper to make, cartridge appropriate for the purpose, but national pride and distaste of all things Communist prevented it, or any versions of it, from being considered for use in Western Armies.

 

[Jim Watson]

Yeah, we learned a lot about NIH with the Norwegian Wonder, didn't we?
Expensive to make, slow to load.

 

[Jimro]

“Not invented here” is very hard to overcome. In the long run, we would have been better off with a M98 actioned service rifle with either the 6.5 X 55 Swede or the 7.5 Swiss cartridge. The Swede is better ballistically than the 30-06 and does not kick as much. The Swiss cartridge is the equal of the 308 in power, shorter and with a thick rim, which is why we went to the 308: the 30-06 was too long and the rim was too easy to pull off.

The 308 and 30-06 share the same rim strength. I don't know why we didn't adopt the 6.5x55 when we adopted the Krag rifle, after all, the Norwegian Krags were 6.5x55. The real reason for the 7.62x51 was making a round that was easier for machine guns to feed.

And not invented here saddled our Armed forces with M16’s instead of copies of AK47’s. The AK47 is the best automatic battle rifle that came out in the second half of the 20th century. Reliable, easy to maintain, simple to operate, probably cheaper to make, cartridge appropriate for the purpose, but national pride and distaste of all things Communist prevented it, or any versions of it, from being considered for use in Western Armies.

Huh, normally people complain about the FAL being passed over in favor of the M14 as "NIH." Personally having shot the M16A2 and M4 as well as various AK's, I'll take the ARs hands down every time.

Jimro

 

[44 AMP]

At a guess, I'd say the main reason we didn't adopt the 6.5mm Swede when we took the Krag rifle was that while we were going to a "smallbore" caliber, .30 was as small as we could convince people to go.

The Krag is a good rifle. It has several very good features. However it turned out not to be as good a combat rifle as the Mauser.

As to comparing a model 70 to a 98 Mauser, its a rather unfair comparison, as the Mauser is a military rifle and the model 70 isn't. The only really fair comparison would be between the M70 and commercial Mauser sporting rifles.

And, even there, its not apples to apples exactly as European design philosophies are not the same as US ones.

 

[James K]

One reason we didn't adopt the 6.5x55 in 1892 was that it didn't exist, and the Norwegian Krag was not adopted until after the U.S. Krag. The first Krag rifle submitted to the U.S. Army was the Danish Krag, but in the 1892 tests there were six, with varying designs. No. 5 was chosen and adopted by the U.S. as the Model 1892, although the first ones were not produced until January, 1894.

According to the major (I now forget his name) who chose .30 caliber for the new service rifle cartridge, it was picked because "it seemed like a nice round number." So much for the scientific approach.

Jim

 

[Jimro]

James K, that's a good reason but the 6.5x55 was developed in 1891 so it isn't as if it wasn't an option for evaluation. Although the ballistics of the 160gr round nose ammunition wasn't anything spectacular IMO.

Why everyone else was going to rimmless ammunition, save for the Brits with their 303 round, and we went with the 30-40 Krag I'll never know.

But then again, the butter smooth action of the Krag rifle might have had something to do with that.

Jimro

 

[Hawg]

I have an FN military Mauser and a G33/40 that are pretty dang smooth. They do have a little side to side play when open but not a lot.