Large caliber's on a standard length action

[GuttormG]

Because you can?
I have a left handed Win M70 and a 404 barrel Vektor barrel underway for my 404

 

[Witold Krzyżanowski]

I think the same as Pondoro.
Witold

 

[DB404]

One Norwegian writer (Svein Solli) built and documented through a series of detailed articles a 404Jeffery on a standard M98 where all removal of steel was done in the correct end. I will try to find the articles and make some scans of the photos. Lots of work involved.

One quite nifty idea is the short 404Jeffery; trim the cases down by 5 mm and it will fit in a standard action.

I've thought off and on that shortening the neck a bit on the .404 Jeff would make life easier when wanting a .423 cal to fit in a standard M98. I'm guessing that the .404 Dakota might have a cartridge overall length similar to what your proposing. My .404 was lengthened by removing metal at the rear of the action. I'd like to see the Solli article you reference.

 

[Shawn.54]

Shawn - your .404 feeding from that standard action is amazing. The .404 I had built on an FN standard length action pales in comparison. Well done! If you don't mind, I'd like to pm you re your magazine modifications.
Dave

Yes pm me I will answer any questions I can and try to walk you through all I’ve done.
Shawn

 

[DB404]

Thanks, Shawn. I'm a newb here - how do I pm you?

 

[Pheroze]

Thanks, Shawn. I'm a newb here - how do I pm you?

Up in the top right next to "Alert" is the "inbox". If you click that there is "start conversation". For recipient type 'Shawn.54' and go from there

 

[GuttormG]

Pictures from an article written in 1992 by Svein Solli.
He built this 404 on a standard m98-action for a 1 month long elephant hunt in Camerun. As you (hopefully) can see all extra length was gained by removing steel in the aft end.
For magazine he used a Wiesener where he reduced its length by moving the front wall 2mm aft.
A Brno 602 extractor and FN trigger was fitted.

 

[CTDolan]

I know there is a little lengthening of the magazine well and the action needs a bit taken out of the rear, but it is doable with absolute minimum of fuss.
I suppose what I am also saying is why go to the extra cost of a magnum action when a standard length action is more than suitable. And why and or if, is the magnum length action the go to action length for these to calibre's?

I’m sure, in all the responses, this has been fully addressed but it’s not a “minimum of fuss”. It takes a fair bit of work (and knowledge) to do it right and even then the end result is a compromise.

The magnum length action is the go-to because it is sized for the big cartridges. And by the way, this has to do with more than length alone. Other factors come into play, also.

 

[Gert Odendaal]

I’m sure, in all the responses, this has been fully addressed but it’s not a “minimum of fuss”. It takes a fair bit of work (and knowledge) to do it right and even then the end result is a compromise.

The magnum length action is the go-to because it is sized for the big cartridges. And by the way, this has to do with more than length alone. Other factors come into play, also.

I agree, CT Dolan, "The magnum length action is the go-to because it is sized for the big cartridges." The magnum length actions are stronger than a standard action opened -up to fit a magnum cartridge . You and me will not notice it , but it is definitely stronger since more steel around all the services that has been taken away from a standard action.
There are definitely excellent magnum actions available today , the only reason gunsmiths used the standard action previously was the unavailability of magnum actions .
All this being said, a lot of 404 Jeffery rifles has been converted /build on a standard action . Mine is one example , and the gunsmith who did this build was top of his game.
If you can , go for a magnum action when building magnum caliber rifles...

 

[GuttormG]

I am pretty sure more 404s have been built using standard actions then magnum actions.

But offcourse, today it makes much more sense to uselarge/magnum action.

 

[CTDolan]

If a 404 on a standard action came my way, provided it was done up by a competent firm and with a price in keeping with what it is, I'd not hesitate. Today, though, with a plethora of good actions from which to choose, of the magnum persuasion, it's become academic.

 

[DB404]

GuttormG, thanks for the pictures. That is the way my FN action was opened up for the .404 by Larry Brace. According to Jerry Kuhnhausen's book "The Mauser Bolt Action - A Shop Manual" the front receiver ring of Oberndorf's magnum actions are the same diameter (1.410") as the front ring on the standard large ring 98; which would mean to me that they're not any "beefier" or stronger than the standard K98 length action, just longer. So a properly opened up standard length 98 action for the .404 Jeffery, of similar metallurgy will basically be as strong as the Oberndorf magnum action.

Although I do agree that it is easier these days cost wise to start with a modern BRNO, Model 70, etc.

 

[GuttormG]

The magnum actions is just longer, not stronger☺

 

[rookhawk]

@IvW had all the right answers on this thread, in my opinion. (and I enjoyed the read)

I have had "proper vintage magnums" (loaded term!) built on standard mauser actions in 416 Rigby, for example.

As was pointed out, the question leads to a warning: The sheer amount of work to make a 416 Rigby work on a non-magnum action is daunting and it costs A LOT of MONEY if Time=Money. So if you see a modern piece done in this way you are certain you had a hobbiest made gun (not good if you're the buyer) or you had an eccentric gunsmith that likes doing unnecessary work (raises judgment questions about the smith) or you had a gunsmith that was so broke they couldn't afford proper materials for the job. (raises huge concerns as to where else they saved a buck on parts, even if it caused more labor)

Now I have no problem at all with a vintage rifle built on a non-magnum mauser action IF the story makes sense. Cogswell & Harrison? Jeffery? Lyon & Lyon? Francotte? We know all those firms knew how to make proper feeding magnum magazine rifles so there should be no objection to the quality of their work. But why, why did they make these guns on non-magnum mauser actions? The answer must check out and pass the smell test. They weren't being cheap, they were dealing with exclusivity issues or importation issues that forced their hands into using an action that required lots more labor because they could not procure a premanufactured magnum mauser action.

IF the story checks out on a vintage gun, no harm at all in owning a magnum gun on a standard but modified action. IF its a modern gun, plenty of reasons to be very concerned about the judgment of the maker and their reputation. (***Does not apply if you're making your own gun for your own use)

 

[DB404]

This has been a most enjoyable thread to learn from. Thanks all!

The old "bell shaped curve" being what it is, some responses were more passionate than others, while some were more knowledgeable than others. Without intending to gore anybody's ox here, I'd like to add that unless a pre 1946 Mauser has been custom re heat treated, irrespective of its length (Kurz, Standard, or Magnum) it was originally differentially heat treated, which resulted in variable C and B scale readings all over the action. An example: harder bolt lugs than bolt lug recesses. This variability, however, is not a flaw - it's a design element. With differential heat treating, the action was meant to stretch, rather than shatter, when pressure exceeded a certain point. So the classic long Oberndorf Magnum action truly was not one whit stronger than a Standard Modell K98. Just longer. Should you re heat treat your carefully selected surplus action if you're intent on stuffing a .404 Jeffery into it? That's between you and your smith, but because of the original heat treat design, its my understanding (from an engineering buddy in the business) that its damn hard to even measure the hardness in the right spots to see if you should. All in all, if you're using a DWM, Oberndorf, Mexican 1910 for your critter gitter (talking in general here, not .404) I do think its a good idea. For this and other reasons though, I've stopped using Oberndorf and DWM M98s for any of my builds, instead shifting to their Czechoslovakian M98 cousin, manufactured up through 1946. If you have two equally well made original actions, one Oberndorf or DWM and one CZ, you'll immediately note the greater slipperiness (lubricity?) of the CZ over the "hitch and git along" feel you'll get when cycling the others. I prefer not to use M70s pre dating the more modern ones due to poor gas handling if things go sour. Yes, I have a prewar in 300 H&H (four down!) and it is smooth, but I like my right eye a lot. The esthetics of some of the other possible action choices aren't, to that right eye, very classic looking and many other perfectly good choices are simply too danged expensive for this fixed income viejo.

So summing up, it's been demonstrated over and over that you can house the .404 Jeffery in perfect safety in a standard length M98 when opened up by a careful workman. Most of the metal removed should, to me, come out of the rear of the action rather than the front, though Ken Waters once wrote in Rifle magazine that the notch in the rear of the receiver ring of Browning .375 and .300 H&Hs, along with reduced size of the bottom locking lug recess really bugged him, but added that he'd never heard of it resulting in a problem. Beyond that, reasons of ease of conversion or cost of build are just one man's way of exercising his ability to choose, and to bring his own ideas to fruition (or not). It's my money and my rifle, and I'll do as I see fit; it'll be safe when I'm done with it, thank you much. And I'm behind you doing the same with your money and your rifle, too.

I think I hear a .500 Jeffery calling me. I've got this VZ 24 in fine shape that hid out down in Brazil for years; it shows little wear and needs to do something besides take up space in the back of the safe....

 

[Shawn.54]

The Ok this thread has been sitting long enough after hearing many people speak of the weakening of the lower locking lug when fitting a magnum length cartridges in standard 98 actions I decided to do a little digging for facts.
What I found was that the material that is removed to make action long enough to accommodate 404 Jeffery has very little effect on strength of locking lug. The lugs on the bolt are .125” high the thickness of feed ramp/ lug in the action is .300” that leaves.175” below the lug interface.
It is true that the lower lug is weaker than the top due to the feed ramp but this is true for all 98s magnum included we also know that Mr Mauser was a stickler for strength and that he would have accounted for this weakness.
I have made a crude drawing of cross section of the action lugs #1 is standard action no metal removed #2 is after I removed material to accept 404J.
The metal taken off to fit the 404 is well below the line of direct pressure and also well behind it the metal is actually taken from material that was forged to be the feed ramp not locking lug.
In shaping the ramp I only polished the ramp taking a .001-.002 off of it to smooth it out. I did not change the angle. So if this weakens the lug it would only be minute amount and well within Mauser’s safety factor.
Shawn

 

[Doc25]

This has been interesting. Just a question here. I just bought a zastava in 375 h&h that’s on its way back to me. As I understand it this is a regular length action that has been opened up at the factory.

As I understand it the 404 Jeffrey has the same max COL as the 375 h&h. Would these make a good donor action for a 404 Jeffrey conversion? I assume that the rails would? Need to be opened up and a barrel swap but other than that it would be good to go? Or is there something else I’m missing?

 

[Ray B]

As I understand it the 404 Jeffrey has the same max COL as the 375 h&h. I assume that the rails would? Need to be opened up and a barrel swap but other than that it would be good to go?

A few years back I had a Win 70 338 Win Mag rebarrelled to 375 RUM; so it's a similar change for at least regarding the case head diameters. the rails were fine as is, but the follower needed to be changed. So it is possible for a 375 to 404 change that the only change would be a different follower. Good luck with your project and let us know how it goes.

 

[Shawn.54]

This has been interesting. Just a question here. I just bought a zastava in 375 h&h that’s on its way back to me. As I understand it this is a regular length action that has been opened up at the factory.

As I understand it the 404 Jeffrey has the same max COL as the 375 h&h. Would these make a good donor action for a 404 Jeffrey conversion? I assume that the rails would? Need to be opened up and a barrel swap but other than that it would be good to go? Or is there something else I’m missing?

The 375 H&H is about .06” longer than 404 Jeffery so it would fit rim diameter is little bigger on 404 but that could be fixed easily may need to do a little rail work.
My action was opened for standard mag cartridge when I got it but my bolt was a standard face so I had to open the face quite a bit. I’m doing all the work myself but I do consult a buddy at work that grew up working in his grandfather’s shop working on Mausers with his grandfather and dad so I have an advantage there he at one time cut two 98s in half and welded them back together to make a action long enough to handle a 8mm Rem mag that rifle came out a tack driver.
Shawn

 

[Shootist43]

Shawn.54, when are you going to get back to work on your 404 conversion project? As I recall, you didn't lack much to finish it. Re. the slight modifications you made as shown and described, I totally agree with your assessment that the overall strength of the action has not been compromised in any meaningful way. Just out of curiosity, what does your "buddy" think of the work you've done so far? It looks fantastic to me, but I'm an Engineer not a Gunsmith.