Updated factory Mauser commercial K98

[jbmauser]

I yield to the vast expertise shown here, and now believe without question that Mauser preferred to blow up a completed rifle rather than test barrels. As to barrel failure never damaging a receiver, that is nice to know, as a little bird told me that the usual result is a split receiver ring.

Jim

Page 222 in Karabiner 98k has an excellent section on proof testing. Barreled actions were proof tested before being assembled in to complete rifles.

You are correct that barrel failure could damage the receiver though. I have personal experience with this from intentionally blowing up a fire damaged M98 sporter.

 

[mrfarb]

I yield to the vast expertise shown here, and now believe without question that Mauser preferred to blow up a completed rifle rather than test barrels. As to barrel failure never damaging a receiver, that is nice to know, as a little bird told me that the usual result is a split receiver ring.

Jim

I can easily see your sarcasm in this post. I'm sorry that factory documentation doesn't convince you. FYI, barrel failure in the proof test stage was probably rare, as materials are tested constantly. German rifle production is completely different than US production, which is what you seem to base your opinion on. The German's numbered every component, the US numbered none. A barrel replacement in Germany requires new pressure test proofing of all components of the locking mechanism, not so in the US, and imported rifles require new pressure test proofing (again, not in the US). The laws are totally different and the procedure is as well. In the end, you are entitled to your own opinion- perhaps you can spend some time collecting documents that show the Germans pressure tested barrels in a fixture, that would be your best bet to convince folks.

 

[RyanE]

You are correct that barrel failure could damage the receiver though. I have personal experience with this from intentionally blowing up a fire damaged M98 sporter.

I suspect the receiver failing in your sporter had more to do with the fire, which ruins steel, than the barrel failure when fired.

James, the sarcasm is really unnecessary. Your opinion simply is at odds with factory documentation and even modern European proof house procedures, but criticism and robust discussion is always healthy for the hobby.

 

[jbmauser]

I suspect the receiver failing in your sporter had more to do with the fire, which ruins steel, than the barrel failure when fired.

James, the sarcasm is really unnecessary. Your opinion simply is at odds with factory documentation and even modern European proof house procedures, but criticism and robust discussion is always healthy for the hobby.

Oh, I totally agree. The fire damaged the heat treat for sure. Couple that with a 8x57 round filled to the brim with Bullseye fired through a .30-06 barrel and well......

It was just to point out that a catastrophic barrel failure could damage a receiver. As mentioned before though, a failure of that sort would have been extremely rare.

I have pics if anyone is interested.

 

[bruce98k]

"Expertise"

James I would be the first guy to agree with you if your assumption was correct. I went back and checked with Jon to see if there was any evidence of
pressure testing barrels before assembly and we found none. Besides, if that procedure was in place, it would have been documented in the assembly protocol.

I for one do not consider myself an "expert" with "expertise"..more a student of the hobby that happened to co-write a book, of which without the help of Jon,
Lockhoven, Paul and other scholars, couldn't have pulled it off.

This argument has been useful, forcing me to go back to the well and double check aspects of production at Mauser and for that I thank you!

 

[Dave Roberts]

I yield to the vast expertise shown here, and now believe without question that Mauser preferred to blow up a completed rifle rather than test barrels. As to barrel failure never damaging a receiver, that is nice to know, as a little bird told me that the usual result is a split receiver ring.

Jim

In most instances if there was a barrel failure the barrel failed , not both Barrel & Receiver. I don`t see anyone mentioning that the Rifle was completed . To say Mauser preferred to destroy a completed rifle is not justified . I have seen many documented barrel failure pics and the vast majority are showing just barrel failure and most times the Receiver is not even damaged because the failure is beyond the Receiver . For myself , I believe Factory Documentation over a Personal opinion or an opinion based on what the USA manufacturers did . Without Documentation Proving James opinion and explanation of Procedure this can not be proven to be the method used without Documentation . Best Regards

 

[bruce98k]

Reasoning

The reasons for this rifle in its current updated condition will and likely remain unknown. Speculators that we are though, there could be any number of reasons. A strong possibility is that either a private sale or gift rifle for party or POI (person of importance).

We know from the records in Walter Roll's log book that K98ks were routing through the commercial department in 1944 but at a very low rate, likely no more than a handful or so in a years time frame. At least that's what was gleaned from the records that Jon sent me.

Back to the assumption or private sale or gift. We know that commercial Gew98s existed in 8x57 so the precedent was set at Mauser for
released limited numbers of service rifles albeit with commercial proofing and not military accepted.

 

[mrfarb]

I think it's obvious, this was a gift to Himmler.

Sorry, couldn't resist falling into the pool.

 

[bruce98k]

Cant resist

You just go off in your little paddle boat...unfortunately I removed the rudder...sorry.

 

[Turbo Archie]

FYI, barrel failure in the proof test stage was probably rare, as materials are tested constantly. .

Farb's next trip to the range...

..