Thank you for an always pleasurable read
Kawshik Rahman.
I tend to agree with
Red Leg that the Mauser extractor vs. Remington extractor debate is one of these endless debates that is getting a little more confusing with every passing year. Not because it is obsolete, mind you, but mainly because people gradually forget the three benefits of the Mauser extractor system and generally over-simplify the debate by reducing it to a single issue of extraction power.
In a way, your article itself illustrates this trend. It thoroughly discusses two characteristics: the issue of extraction and double feed, but it is silent on the issue of unintentional loading...
Three characteristics of the CRF (controlled round feed) Mauser action
When the German military commissioned the development of what became the Mauser 98, some of their specifications were:
- better extraction (a classic problem with earlier soft copper metallic cartridge casings and dirty black powder);
- no possibility of double feeding (a classic problem when not fully cycling the bolt under duress);
- no possibility of unintentionally loading the rifle (a classic issue when closing a push-feed action unknowingly on a loaded chamber).
These were rational requests indeed, since #2 and #3 continue to happen with boring regularity with push-feed rifles to this day, and occasionally #1 continues to happen from time to time with dirty rifles or hand-loads over pressure.
The famed Mauser "claw" extractor accomplished all three objectives:
- By riding outside of the bolt and capturing the cartridge out of the magazine under the extractor and literally carrying it into the chamber, the bolt cannot unknowingly leave a cartridge in the chamber if it is retracted before it is closed. A push feed bolt will leave a cartridge in the chamber unless the bolt is actually closed on the cartridge and the extractor is snapped over the cartridge head to capture it. The external claw extractor captures the cartridge as it comes out of the magazine, before the bolt is closed. The claw extractor therefore makes it virtually impossible to double feed a second round behind the one already in the chamber because it cannot leave a round anywhere in the raceway or chamber after taking it out of the magazine.
- To strengthen the extraction AND to prevent closing the bolt unknowingly on a loaded chamber Mauser designed a massive extractor that COULD NOT SNAP over a cartridge head. Repeat COULD NOT. The design was a very wide extractor, outside the bolt head, that was tightly maintained against the bolt head and the cartridge head by the internal wall of the front bridge of the action, without the mechanical possibility of snapping over the head either when extracting a stuck case, or closing the bolt over an unseen round in the chamber.
Original Mauser military rifles have a non-beveled extractor that cannot, by design, snap over a cartridge head. They must be loaded from the magazine, hence the cartridges must be engaged under the extractor before they get to the chamber. NO possibility of double feed. NO possibility to close the rifle on an unseen cartridge already in the chamber. NO possibility of failed extraction, unless about a third of the cartridge head at a minimum is ripped out, which is uncommon.
Misguided "modernization"
Just like Browning misguidedly "modernized" (read: destroyed) the wonderful Mauser fixed blade ejector and bolt stop, as discussed by
Red Leg, sadly, when Mauser actions reached the commercial market and became widely distributed to not-so-proficient and not-so-knowledgeable mass hunters, darn few sales people took the time to explain this to customers, or likely even knew it themselves, and darn few customers read the user's manual, or listen to 'manual of arm' explanations anyway. As a consequence, a number of folks started to complain that their bolt could not close...
Manufacturers started to "fix" the "problem" and modernize (?) the design by beveling the extractor so that it could snap over a cartridge head and the bolt could always close. This creates stress on the extractor that was not designed to do this, and sooner or later the extractor will break. This also negates a wonderful safety feature of the original Mauser action (the impossibility to close the bolt on a loaded chamber and to unknowingly load the rifle). This also negates most of the fail-proof extraction capability of the action, although this is rarely a problem with modern ammo...
And when butchering (sorry! I should have said beveling) the Mauser extractor made it incidentally possible to load one more cartridge in the chamber on top of a full magazine, another misguided practice took on a life of its own...
The reason why it is a bad idea to snap the extractor over a cartridge head in the chamber, even those extractors machined from spring metal (never mind those cast from pot metal), is that the stress is applied to lift the extractor head away from the bolt head, which the entire design of the extractor was intended to prevent to begin with. Notice that the extractor's entire body is rounded to ride the round bolt. To snap over a cartridge head, the metal is asked to flex to the outside of the rounding radius. Never a good idea...
That darned "one more round" syndrome...
IvW and I, each in our own words, have explained several times how those who absolutely want one more round in the chamber should load it: load the magazine to capacity; control feed one round from the magazine into the chamber; engage the mechanical safety and point the rifle in a safe direction; flip the rifle upside down; open the floor plate; drop one more cartridge in the magazine well; close the floor plate. That is the ONLY way it can be done without damaging the extractor.
How important is one more round to each one of us, each one will judge for themselves.
People who owns a rifle with a 3 round magazine capacity likely have a better case to make than people who own a rifle with 6 round magazine capacity, but in any case, it is a mistake to load that one more round by snapping an external claw extractor over it in the chamber.
So, how relevant is the Mauser action today?
- Extraction: The large "Mauser" extractor offers more surface contact on a cartridge case head that any other type of extractor. It is a fact. And I will hasten to add that - to me - this is likely the least important characteristic as extraction failures are relatively rare with modern rifles and modern cartridges. In a worst case scenario a Mauser extractor can fail to extract by ripping the rim or the entire head out of a stuck cartridge. People who let their chamber rust and who overload their hand-loads can make something like that happen with a Mauser extractor. There is a limit to what clever engineering can do to overcome human stupidity... How real is the Mauser extraction advantage to each one of us, each one will judge for themselves.
- Double feed: Any push feed action, including the most modern ones, among which stands the beloved R8, can produce a double feed jam. A true controlled round feed action such as the Mauser and derivative (Winchester 70, ZKK 602/CZ 550), but also the Steyr Mannlicher Luxus (circa 1980's) or the Sako 85, etc. can essentially not produce a double feed jam. How important is this feature to each one of us, each one will judge for themselves, but this is a fact.
- Unintentional loading: Any push feed action, including the most modern ones, among which stands the beloved R8, can produce an unintentional loading if the action is closed on an unseen cartridge in the chamber. A true controlled round feed action will not leave a cartridge it carried into the chamber when the bolt is pulled back, and a true Mauser action with beveled extractor cannot close the bolt on a round in the chamber. Misguidedly beveled extractors will at least resist closing as they snap over the cartridge head... How important is this feature to each one of us, each one will judge for themselves, but this is a fact.
What I can tell you is that as already related in another discussion on CRF (
https://www.africahunting.com/threa...ag-vs-cz550-458-lott.51054/page-4#post-555947) four years ago in the Eastern Cape one person inadvertently loaded a gun in a discussion about cartridge length by pushing into the chamber the one cartridge that was in the magazine; forgot about it in the flow of the discussion; and handed the rifle, bolt open, to someone else who, seeing no cartridge in the magazine or the raceway, believed the rifle was empty, but in fact closed the bolt on the loaded chamber and put the rifle on the back seat of the truck. The next person who grabbed the gun from the back seat depressed the trigger while doing so, and the gun fired. One woman died. I personally know the people involved, this is a true story. Of course there was a long list of gun safety violations along the way, but a CRF action would likely have prevented them from resulting in a death. A CRF bolt would have been carrying that cartridge back out of the chamber even if the bolt had not been closed during gun manipulation. THAT is the primary benefit of a CRF on a hunting gun.
My own view point...
So in conclusion, and to answer your question
Kawshik Rahman.
- I am personally not overly concerned about the extraction discussion.
- I do believe that the double feed jam prevention is a nice feature, for beginners as well as pros.
- Having had the sad privilege of witnessing in my past military life, and shooting competitor life, a few accidental discharges (thankfully no one was hurt, but it was deeply shocking!) I personally like a lot this almost forgotten characteristic of the true Mauser action: it is very difficult to load one unintentionally. The extractor will not leave a cartridge in the raceway or the chamber; a non-beveled Mauser extractor cannot close on a cartridge in the chamber; and even a misguidedly beveled extractor will resist somewhat closing the bolt .
For CRF owners out there who see value on the point I am making, if the extractor was beveled on your CRF action (Win 70, Montana, Mauser 98, Santa Barbara, Zastava, etc. clones, ZKK 602, CZ 550, etc.) and if it can snap over a cartridge head, therefore negating most of its extraction power, and negating the safety feature of not being able to close on a cartridge inadvertently left in the chamber, you can fix this easily by purchasing a non-beveled extractor and replacing it. True gunsmith legends to this day do not bevel their extractors, an I am curious to ask
Red Leg, if in your modern Stalker, Rigby/Mauser sacrificed to the market fashion and beveled the extractor or maintained the true Mauser functionality with an unbeveled extractor that cannot close over a round in the chamber?
Much apology for such a long post. Those uninterested likely did not read it. Those interested hopefully found value in it
