Question about older military bolt-actions.
l recently had a job done on one of my old military rifles by a local gunsmith. When l went to pick it up, he explained to me that jamming by bolt action rifles is more common when you are slow to open/close the chamber. He said that they were meant to be 'slammed' open and closed (being war-time rifles), and that would make cycling smoother.
Of course, l've always been careful with my rifles, and avoid slamming of any sort to prevent damage.
ls what he's saying true? Also, is it harmful to be rough on the bolt?
Of course, l've always been careful with my rifles, and avoid slamming of any sort to prevent damage.
ls what he's saying true? Also, is it harmful to be rough on the bolt?
0
-
I personally think your local gunsmith is a bit ignorant, or is trying deparately to frum up new business[xx(].
A bolt that is properly fitted to its receiver should never jam under normal operating circumstances, and it most certainly should not ever be "slammed" open or closed! "Firmly" closing the bolt is the correct answer.0 -
Most Wartime bolt actions, with the exception of the Enfield, are Mauser types and they are controlled feed. It doesn't matter either way with them as long as you don't stop at the critical point and have the cartridge pop out of the magazine ahead of the claw. As the cartridge goes into the chamber the claw has to go over the rim. Not always doable with some claws and usually a lot stiffer to do with most.
The Enfield is a push feed with a spring type extractor. Push forward and it will feed right up the rail feed tray.
Where most people jam a bolt type rifle is stopping mid push. the round wants to pop up out of the mag and lay in the tray. As long as the push is continuous, fast or slow, it will feed correctly.
BTW, the worst one I ever dealt with was my dad's old Savage 340. Fed from a mag it did fine. But for a push feed the dimensions were all wrong to just lay it in the feed tray and push. not to mention it seemed the breech of the chamber stuck out and when it caught the tip of the bullet pushed the tip down and the case head up off the bolt.0 -
Thanks for the help. The rifle l'm referring to is a Mosin-Nagant. l was under the impression that it used neither a Mauser or Enfield bolt system.
Please correct me if l'm wrong. l just want to make sure l avoid mistakes on the range, but also to not damage my rifle in the process.0 -
" l was under the impression that it used neither a Mauser or Enfield bolt system."..........true, as to your 'problem'; s.w. has it. you shouldn't have to 'slam it' but you should move the bolt 'smartly' forward and aft, with no stopping 1/2 way there. 0 -
It should not hurt a military bolt gun to slam the bolt in and pull it out hard.
The faster one worked the bolt the better chance of survival in some cases.
You can not work a 98 action too hard and fast.
Now, if there is something wrong with it that is a different story and while Nagant is no Mauser it is still a very strong piece of weaponry as is an Enfield, Springfield, Arisaka etc etc etc and used as a club can be as effective as a nine iron on an Escalade window.
Wulfmann0 -
Thanks for the help guys. l got my answer. 
While we're still on the subject, and l don't waste space by creating another topic, how does the Mosin-Nagant bolt differ from a Mauser?
l know they are both cock-on-opening, unlike the Enfield, so what separates them?0 -
First, the Mosin is a push feed system and so far as it goes, you can slap it hit it or baby it and it won't care. Most rimmed cartridges are this way, which is why the Enfield was mentioned.
What's different from a Mauser? Everything! Assuming a Mauser 98, the Mauser has a solid bolt body, the Mosin a 3 piece affair. The Mauser has a nominal cock on opening action, yes; but in actuality it is like 70%/30% with some cocking done on closing. Mag is different, extractor and ejector different, etc. etc. It's like asking what's different between a Ford and a Chevy. They're both cars but that's about it.
I prefer Mausers myself but both are well engineered (read, over engineered) time proven weapons.
For more info go to surplusrifle.com, scroll down the left side of the page, and click on the links that interest you. When you go to the mauser page for instance, look at the 'assembly/disassembly' link. It has a lot of pictures.0 -
Well Jonk, if you wouldn't mind the trouble of a deeper explanation, or a link to somewhere that has in-depth information, l would love to further my knowledge of these systems that you see knowledgeable about.
l almost like the systems of guns more than shooting them.0 -
DracoOccisor,
Here's a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser
The most conspicuous feature of the Mauser rifles M1892-M98 is the claw extractor. This rides the side of the bolt and the tip is bent inward and beveled to catch the rim of the case. It catches the rim while feeding and doesn't come off it until the case is ejected. The M91 or 91/30 is kind of a copy of an earlier Mauser design but doesn't have the claw. It's a push feed with locking lugs up front and the safety is the bolt going through the split at the top back of the receiver and locking in front of the back ring. These are sturdy and have been made to be very accurate. For normal production attention was paid to quantity not fine quality and therefore finding one that shoots superb is not common. The design handles functionality well. Again they are very sturdy and have a lot of metal to work with and can be made to shoot well.
The Springfield and Arisaka are both pretty much Mauser 1982/98 design but with features the U.S. and Japan felt their troops needed. Mauser even sued the U.S. for patent infringement and won prior to WWI.
Enfield on the other hand is a design unto it's own. It's a progressive work of designs James Paris Lee improved beginning in about 1865 when he developed a repeating version of the Springfield trapdoor. Post Civil War he moved to Paris and worked in firearms there, as it was really the hotbed of the arms race. He also developed the 1895 Winchester Lee Rifle in 6mm Lee navy. A rifle/round (especially round) concept about 50 years ahead of it's time. you can read all about these on various sites like Wikipedia, here: http://www.spanamwar.com/lee.htm (go to firearms page and read about the 7mm 1982 as well), here: http://www.surplusrifle.com/ (this guy is awsome, has all kinds of stuff), and just keep researching.
A lot of times you can get on these forums and get a quick answer. But to really understand why something got done the way it did you need to get out there and read about it. Once you handle them a bunch you'll really see how much the differences make.0 -
quote:Originally posted by DracoOccisor
Thanks for the help. The rifle l'm referring to is a Mosin-Nagant. l was under the impression that it used neither a Mauser or Enfield bolt system.
Please correct me if l'm wrong. l just want to make sure l avoid mistakes on the range, but also to not damage my rifle in the process.
You're right that Mosin Nagants are designed differently than the other two.
People "slam" them for the following reasons:
a- The short bolt length leads to poor mechanical advantage (ie bad leverage), so you HAVE to push the thing harder than many other designs just to get it to move.
b- Hard spring tension and cock-on-open design don't help.
c- Usual Mosin ammo is steel cased surplus, which can be sticky in the chamber. . .again, doesn't help.
I really wouldn't worry too much about hurting your Mosin by working the action hard; apart from the extremely low cost of most of these, the things are (over)built like tanks. Your hand will probably wear out before the bolt does.
The place to be careful is to make sure you're cleaning it after firing corrosive ammo.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments