Five Things Mauser Is Credited For He Did Do First

[starmetal]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ent=2017-04-15&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter

Rimless ammunition
General Julian Hatcher, and others, credit Paul Mauser with the invention of rimless ammunition, where the rim for the extraction of the cartridge does not extend outwards beyond the case body. Edouard Rubin of Schmidt-Rubin fame was also playing around with very modern-looking rimless cartridges in Switzerland at least as early as 1885, probably in parallel with Mauser in Germany, and rimless 7.92mm ammunition was introduced into German military service with the 1888 Commission Rifle.

However, a much earlier patent to George Dupee of the Winchester company (US123622), granted in 1872, shows that the rimless concept was in fact invented in the USA much earlier, in connection with Winchester’s unsuccessful prototype lever-action rifle developments in 1872 and 1873. This project was scrapped in favor of starting again on the basis of the successful 1886 rifle, and as a result, these cartridges did not see the light of day.

An even earlier 1864 patent to John Howe of Worcester, MA (US43851) shows a primitive form of rimless cartridge, although this is clearly less well developed than that of Dupee. The patent states that the groove is used to crimp a case body onto a separate base and to position the cartridge in the firearm, and does not mention its use for extraction. Nevertheless, to modern eyes, it looks very much like a rimless cartridge.

Charger loading
Mauser is almost universally accepted as having been the first to patent the metal strip-type clip that holds on to the rims of the cartridges so that they can be positioned in the rifle and speed-loaded rapidly from the charger directly into the magazine. His US patent on this was filed in 1888 (US402605), and he is often credited with having invented the entire concept of charger loading.Mauser’s stripper clip that we all know and love.

However, a certain Mr. De Witt Farrington beat him to the punch by about a decade. Farrington was a merchant, inventor, and for a time was treasurer of the US Cartridge Company, based in Lowell, MA. In 1877 he filed a patent (US205180) for a “holder or receptacle for cartridges… from which the cartridges can be readily transferred in a body to the magazine or hopper of a machine or magazine-gun…”, which, aside from a pair of suspending rings on the back, looks very much like a modern stripper clip.
Farrington was not the only one to invent a form of charger though. A patent from 1886 to Louis Diss of the Remington company (US356276) shows that Diss also got to the concept before Mauser did. Diss was a prodigious inventor and designer at Remington, and contributed several improvements to the magazine and feed of the Remington-Lee series of rifles, along with many other of the company’s products at the time.

Controlled feed
It seems to be common knowledge that Mauser invented controlled feeding, which ensures that as the cartridge is pushed up out of the magazine by the bolt, its rim hooks itself under the extractor without having to wait until the bolt is fully closed. This prevents accidentally feeding two rounds at once, since a round can already be extracted and ejected before the bolt is fully closed.

Mauser applied for a patent on this feature in 1889 (DE51241, or US476290 in English), and introduced it in the 1893 model, adopted by Spain. Interestingly, this patent still shows a simple, rotating extractor fixed on the bolt head and pre-dates the long, massive claw alongside the bolt body that many people are familiar with today.However, controld feed also features in Lee’s 1879 model, patented the same year (US221328), and which features a non-rotating extractor on the right-side of the bolt under which the cartridge rim slips upon feeding. The Lee extractor looks somewhat like a rather smaller version of Mauser’s later large non-rotating claw extractor that appeared from about 1893 onwards. This feature was carried over not only in the rest of the Remington-Lee series, but also into the Lee-Metford adopted by the British military in 1888 and whose action was used with very few changes in the famous Lee-Enfield SMLE, and indeed still lives on in Indian police service today.

Gas venting / gas management
Whilst it is true that the later Mauser actions are rightly famous for their excellent gas-handling and gas venting in the event of a burst case, which serves to direct escaping gas as safely as possible so as to avoid injury to the shooter and to prevent damage to the rifle, Mauser was not the first deal with the dangers of unwanted gas escape. In fact, the first patent I have found on this topic from him (US579994) was filed as late as 1895.


Again we find that James Paris Lee beat Mauser to the punch. The Remington-Lee 1879 features a convenient gas escape hole on the left-side of the receiver, in front of where the bolt face lies when locked. This allows at least some of the escaping gas to vent out to the left of the receiver, away from the user’s face, in the event of a case rupturing upon firing, and also preventing it from generating a dangerous pressure in the receiver. The later 1882 and 1885 Remington-Lees also feature a further, extra refinement, namely a gas shield fixed on the bolt head and designed to deflect gas upwards. This ensures that even gas escaping from a case failure that doesn’t make it through the gas escape hole also gets directed away from the shooter.

Double opposed forward locking lugs
Mauser first introduced a pair of front locking lugs on the Belgian 1889 model of his rifle, and it is one of the features most commonly associated with him, to the point where people often refer to any form of double front locking lugs as being a “Mauser” type bolt. However, by 1889 we have this already in both the M1886 Lebel, and the non-Mauser German 1888 Commission Rifle, from which he was entirely excluded during the design process. In fact, as late as 1888, Mauser was still working on rear-lockers, such as that featured in the patent US398063 (amongst others), filed that same year.

Conclusion

While not wishing to downplay the very important contributions made by Paul Mauser to bolt-action rifle design, it does not do credit his memory to wrongly attribute to him developments that were not originally his, or which were invented independently by others first. The genius of invention is more often the synthesis and improvement of what has gone before, so as to create something better than the sum of its individual contributions, than it is stamping an entirely original idea out of whole cloth. Of course, it is always possible to define a “first” so narrowly that Mauser can win the crown on any given point of design, or for having been the first to bring it to market, but this devalues the work and talent of other inventors at the time.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

I always liked how the Russians claimed they didn't steal Mauser's 1888 design and use it for their 1891 Mosin-Nagant design.

Theft. Through and through.

 

[Doco Overboard]

The only 1888 designated rifle made by mauser was was an experimental 7.65 rimmed cartridge model which was never mass produced. Considering that a number of design features were borrowed from earlier Peter and Paul Mauser designs the mislabeling of the commission rifle is understandable because of the 7.9 commission cartridge that has been associated with the Mauser's name. It is the parent cartridge of/basis for 57 mm tapered cartridges that allowed for staggered box feeding, easier extraction at higher pressures. It is the basis for the 8x51, 7.65x53, 6.5x57, 6.5x 55, 6.5x54, 6x57 and many other cartridges with the 06 possibly being one of them. The m91 Spanish contract was the first to specify a stop plunger and screw through the bottom bolt lug to stop double feeding. The shell head recess was undercut for the same reason. I think the Mauser's were just the first to put a lot of things together in the way of manufacturing and combining the ideas to formulate a rifle that was actually worth a dam and be successfully marketed and delivered promptly to the worlds armies.

 

[Bertfish]

I always liked how the Russians claimed they didn't steal Mauser's 1888 design and use it for their 1891 Mosin-Nagant design.

Theft. Through and through.

AK was derived from the STG 44. SKS was partially stolen from the FN 49. Seems to be a pattern...

 

[iH8DemLibz]

AK maybe, but the SKS hit the scene first.

1945.

 

[Furious George]

Designers "borrow" from each other all the time.

The original concept "assault rifle" (intermediate power cartridge, large magazine, full auto capability) was the 6.5mm Federov developed by the Russians before the revolution.

If you look at the external layout, it is natural to say the AK is just a copy of the StG44 but when you field strip them it is a totally different story.

If you compare the internal mechanisms, it is the FN FAL that is the true rip off of the StG. Hinged upper and lower receiver, tilting block, piston driven, select fire. In fact the FAL was designed for the smaller 8mm StG round before the U.S. forced the 7.62 NATO round on everyone and sent infantry rifle design wandering in the desert on a dead end journey that lasted 25 years. This gives the FAL an external profile that hides its origins.

The U.S. M1903 Springfield is nothing but a Mauser rip off with some features that can be debated as improvements. The British P14 that became the U.S. M1917 is an even more direct copy of the Mauser. So was the Japanese Arisaka series.

Happens with pistols too. The Beretta 92 is basiclally a long slide double stack Walther P38. The CZ75 "borrowed" the inside the frame slide rails from the Swiss SiG 210 and both use locking system from the Browing Hi Power as do many other handguns.

 

[starmetal]

The Arisaka, as such models used in WWII, were copied from the 93 Mauser. Some think the 98 Mauser, but the firing pin interrupter tells the story. The 98 Mauser firing pin block is built into the bolt. The front of the firing pin has a chisel like shape that mates with the female counterpart in the bolt body, only when the bolt is in complete battery. The 93 Mauser firing pin block is a pin activated by the trigger housing which protrudes up through a hole in the receiver and mates with a flattened spot on the bolt body only when the bolt is in complete battery. That's the way the Arisaka's are. The Japanese when one step further by not splitting the left bolt lug entirely through, like the Mausers, for the ejector to slide through. They put what appears to be a second left bolt lug behind the first one to guide the ejector pass the back side of the first one. Perhaps they done so to make the lug stronger. The Arisaka doesn't have a third bolt lug for a back up safetly as does the 98 Mauser. You could consider the bolt handle root as one. The groove in the stock (most on the type 38) located along side of the front receiver ring right side is a water and mud drain hole should any get under the action inside the stock. The Arisaka's are undoubtedly one of the strongest actions made at that time and I believe the actions are much lighter then Mausers.

 

[starmetal]

AK was derived from the STG 44. SKS was partially stolen from the FN 49. Seems to be a pattern...

They claim the SKS was a scaled down artillery piece. The SKS, in my opinion, is one hell of a rifle. I'd rather have an SKS then a M1 carbine. They did have magazine fed select fire SKS, but the AK 47 came along and phased the SKS out.


Mikhail Kalashnikov later admitted, after Eugen Stoner has passed away, that he didn't design the AK 47, that it was inspired by the STg44. In my opinion he was a nobody. The first AK 47's had milled receivers because the Russians at that time didn't have metal stamping technology as did the Germans.

 

[Doco Overboard]

I don't know what features of the M1903 are improvements over the m98 except the sights or the trigger or maybe weight outside of external ballistics. The 17 and 03 were both subject to design flaws after they went into production. Some wartime 98's are found to be subject to metallurgical problems but no where near the extent of the infamous 03.

 

[Pinecone]

03 metallurgical problems were not design flaws, but production mistakes.

 

[Doco Overboard]

The RB rifle needed a pin installed in front of the trigger slot to prevent the sear from being released when the trigger was pushed forward. The pin was added later after the rifle was manufactured.

 

[starmetal]

I imagine the early heat treating fiasco is part of what is being talked about. I really like the 1903, but like Teddy Roosevelt said it was a better sporting rifle then a battle rifle. To me the front sight is too fragile, it should have had wing protectors or been more robust. The rear sight, although a very good one, was also fragile. The coned breech was superb for feeding, but we know the issue there. They should not had put the magazine cut-off switch on it. They should have designed a less obtrusive bolt safety lug that didn't require the big hump on the rear receiver ring to clear it......so we could scoped them easier

 

[Pinecone]

The magazine cutout was an Army requirement. It was based on the way that riflemen were taught to fight. And the prevailing thought that if the individual soldier did not have a mag cut out, and was single loading, they would waste ammo. I wonder what those would think of today's spray and pray techniques.

 

[Doco Overboard]

I don't know why you couldn't eliminate the coned breech on a Springfield barrel so it breeches up like a p14 or a 98 ( minus the inner web of the 98 of course. the 03 still crushes on the barrel shoulder and not the web Mauser style. I don't worry to much about the extractor cut anyway with modern ammunition. i think ill mess around with some junk parts to see what sort of clearance remains in an 03 extractor cut minus .100 for a full thread of set back to the index mark. The first thread on a 03 or a3 barrel doesn't have the same height as the m17 so there is not much lost there anyhow. Im getting ready to set back a Avis barrel to get some throat back soon anyhow on a MK1 action that has been faced off on something else I was working on before I set it down for a while. great conversation.

 

[Furious George]

I wonder what those would think of today's spray and pray techniques.

They would probably retrofit select fire weapons with something like a lock out switch that would save ammo but leave our soldiers completely outgunned when confronted with select fire Kalashnikov’s in a jungle combat environment.

After 20 years, once they forgot this hard lesson, they’d probably design more modern weapons with some stupid half a$$ed solution like a 3 round burst system.

No, wait….

 

[Doco Overboard]

They would probably retrofit select fire weapons with something like a lock out switch that would save ammo but leave our soldiers completely outgunned when confronted with select fire Kalashnikov’s in a jungle combat environment.

After 20 years, once they forgot this hard lesson, they’d probably design more modern weapons with some stupid half a$$ed solution like a 3 round burst system.

No, wait….

Or a pederson device.

 

[starmetal]

The correct way for 98 Mauser barrel to index up is both the breech face and the barrel shoulder contact that inner collar ring and front receiver ring at the same time.

They didn't have as good cases and ammo back when the 1903 was designed so mentioning today's ammo is mute.

I think the 1903 should have had V threads on the barrel instead of Acme.

I still love the old boy, though I don't push loads in it.

Most other countries phased out magazine cutoffs.

 

[Doco Overboard]

The internal reinforcing web on a Mauser 98 is the inner one and the primary torque shoulder. That is also the one that gets trued to the center-line of the reciever. If it is galled or rough it can be difficult to get good draw without bumping. This is sometimes easier with 60 deg. US thread replacement barrel vs the 55 deg whitworth threads on original equipment. Alot of time you need to run a die over us barrel threads to get them to run smooth or at the least flour them to avoid galling. The second barrel stub shoulder at the ring juncture doesn't even have to touch for the rifle to be safe or accurate. Although with that being said a well fit barrel will contact both surfaces at the same time. That is why sometimes even when the stub shoulder is parted on a lathe or crudely done with a hacksaw they can sometimes even still be difficult to remove. The case hardening on a well heat treated bolt can withstand static pressure up to 100.000 pounds which is well outside the capability of any brass case ever made so I think I would only worry about old ammo or anything with Cupro nickle jacket/guiding material that can cold weld itself to brass over a period of time. Like in a low number 03 I think that was part of Hatchers discussion or disseminated later on by others if I remember right. Square barrel threads are a left over from proprietary manufactures that were not entirely standardized for a number of reasons. They are claimed to be subject to hydraulic lock but to do have an advantage that I cant recall right now,it may be resistance to galling and I think the tops of the threads do not support anything just the sides. I would have to ask my son who is a machinist. He told me once that there are additional steps to cutting them and possibly hand work depending on what tooling is used and are no longer very common.

 

[starmetal]

The internal reinforcing web on a Mauser 98 is the inner one and the primary torque shoulder. That is also the one that gets trued to the center-line of the reciever. If it is galled or rough it can be difficult to get good draw without bumping. This is sometimes easier with 60 deg. US thread replacement barrel vs the 55 deg whitworth threads on original equipment. Alot of time you need to run a die over us barrel threads to get them to run smooth or at the least flour them to avoid galling. The second barrel stub shoulder at the ring juncture doesn't even have to touch for the rifle to be safe or accurate. Although with that being said a well fit barrel will contact both surfaces at the same time. That is why sometimes even when the stub shoulder is parted on a lathe or crudely done with a hacksaw they can sometimes even still be difficult to remove. The case hardening on a well heat treated bolt can withstand static pressure up to 100.000 pounds which is well outside the capability of any brass case ever made so I think I would only worry about old ammo or anything with Cupro nickle jacket/guiding material that can cold weld itself to brass over a period of time. Like in a low number 03 I think that was part of Hatchers discussion or disseminated later on by others if I remember right. Square barrel threads are a left over from proprietary manufactures that were not entirely standardized for a number of reasons. They are claimed to be subject to hydraulic lock but to do have an advantage that I cant recall right now,it may be resistance to galling and I think the tops of the threads do not support anything just the sides. I would have to ask my son who is a machinist. He told me once that there are additional steps to cutting them and possibly hand work depending on what tooling is used and are no longer very common.

Doco not to argue with you, but more to compare notes. I was under the impression that both the collar and receiver ring shoulder just about divided the torque. Wouldn't you have to machined the front receiver face if you machined the inner collar too? I say this about sharing the torque because sometimes when a gunsmith has a real stubborn barrel to remove, and he's going to scrap the barrel, he'll take a cut on the lathe just fractions of an inch in front of the receiver ring to relieve the stress and then the barrel screws out much easier that if what you're saying the inner collar shares most of the torque.

Marlin's 1895 lever action in 45-70 caliber had it's Acme thread changed to V thread not too long ago. This was do too, from what I understood, to put a little more metal meat between the receiver barrel hole and the magazine tube hole. All of this probably in result of too many people pumping up the pressures on hot 45-70 loads.

What's your take on all this?

 

[Doco Overboard]

Not always because if you were making a barrel from a blank you could adjust the stub easier on a lathe. When the thread extension is long you just shorten the barrel face. It may be true that difference of more than .001 may not stabilize or offset when put together and if to much can create uneven bolt lug engagement in the worst case. So if the breech face is a little long during the crush and there is a little less contact at the shoulder it could could be beneficial. Sometimes a receiver ring is slightly oval-ed due to heat treating or the threads are slightly tapered and can stretch with proof firing. Some even have nonstandard receiver ring lengths and thread extension requirements that were left to the end user to fit. Alot of military and replacement barrel makers even have slightly larger thread diameters to get around the problem. You can check for the correct thread extension depth with a depth micrometer. Check at three places and then average. A well fit barrel will have the primary torque shoulder cleaned and trued and then measured to the secondary torque shoulder at the front of the receiver ring and then the correct thread extension determined from the difference. There is a tool that has a diamond cutting disk that is used as a spot facing tool that will thread into the ring and will remove high spots and any roughness that cuts through the case hardening. I don't have the tool but made a poor mans lap out of an old stub. ( bubba style) If you go to far the case will be entirely removed and then in a perfect world re-heat treating would be in order. That doesn't happen with my rig because it doesn't work that well as the manufactured version. I don't want to get into all that anyway unless some engraving would be on the menu and I don't think ill be doing any of that to soon. Midway I think still has a reasonably priced receiver tap and an adjustable die for chasing barrel threads that are to tight. Sometimes if you look closely at some rifles you can see a slight gap by eye at the front of the ring. Thats because if you shorten the barrel face to much you have to do the same to the secondary torque shoulder which means that the breech has not met the inner primary torque shoulder first. It has been recommended that the distance from the primary torque shoulder inside the receiver be no less than .600" from the front of the ring and not more than .025 be removed from the front face to leave no less than seven full threads. I think the reinforced area of the receiver web even though it has a slot for the extractor cut through it(90 deg. from locking lugs) was due to the problem of earlier actions warping at the ring when being re barreled because of a higher thread count on some like the 91 and the methods used for heat treating at the time which needed bone meal and packing around the critical lug areas to get them hardened while allowing the core to stay soft and stretchable. That inner shoulder just beefs the whole ring up versus the earlier designs by keeping the breech off the front of the bolt lugs and bolt face itself by making the threaded portion shorter and stiffer. Picture a peanut can and trying to twist it by hand vs a pringles can that is longer and more subject to distortion with the same amount of force. ( I don't know if that is the best analogy)The earlier actions were not supported in any way but at the receiver rails and the thickness of the ring itself which is pretty trim even on the 96. This is only conjecture on my part because I haven't studied it in any form of text just by observing the differences in design/types. Its like a ring in a ring and only part of my fascination of the design. The bottom line is that the secondary torque shoulder is cleared 1 to 1.5 thousandths less than the stub at the primary torque surface inside the ring. When the fitting is correct, the two halves will feel solid with no wiggle when only hand tight with a barrel with 55 deg. US threads. They will wiggle all the way until the timing starts to come together. It is entirely possible to observe rifles with the correct whitworth barrel threads that do not meet at the front of the ring and are sometimes visible to the naked eye because they are just not fit as well as they should be. Long winded so hope it makes sense.