Mauser cocking?
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Mauser cocking?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    81

    Default Mauser cocking?

    Its been bugging me for years. The Mauser M71 and the Mauser M98 both cock on opening the bolt. So why did all the Mauser between the M71 and M98 cock on closing? I don't understand why that happened. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

  2. #2
    geladen's Avatar
    geladen is online now Platinum Bullet Member and Curmudgeon-in-Training
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    11,293

    Default

    Good question. It looks like someone thought cock-on-closing was an improvement, then later changed their mind. Perhaps the market did not feel it was an improvement.
    Every post I make is made with a request for corrections. I'm here to learn.

    Regards,
    Bill


    III, GOA Life





  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,080

    Default

    Trying different things at different times. Let's face it, for all that people get worked up & very intense about the subject, it really isn't a very significant thing. They both work just fine.
    Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum.
    (To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.)


    -M. Tullius Cicero

  4. Remove Advertisements
    GunBoards.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    geladen's Avatar
    geladen is online now Platinum Bullet Member and Curmudgeon-in-Training
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    11,293

    Default

    What's to get worked up about? All you have to do with a cock-on-closing is use a bit more force in closing the bolt. If you do it rapidly, it is as slick as can be. Maybe I feel that way because my first Mauser rifle was a M1895 Chilean. My second was a K98k but I first learned to work the bolt on the M1895. Those people used to model 98 bolts push on a cock-on-closing bolt and it doesn't close. Then they push harder, awkwardly. They say they don't like it but all they need is a tiny bit of practice.
    Every post I make is made with a request for corrections. I'm here to learn.

    Regards,
    Bill


    III, GOA Life





  6. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    4,553

    Default

    I prefer the cock-on-opening system, simply because it's easier to single load, and with the cock-on-closing system, you can't immediately tell if you have a feeding problem or you're just fighting the firing pin spring. It's definitely no biggie either way. I know Enfield fans get quite worked up about the "superiority" of their cock-on-closing, but what can you expect from Enfield fans? (That's a JOKE, OK?)

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    6,992

    Default

    Honestly ... I never cared or asked me the question myself. In both instances there is only one question that should be answered: Will my gun fire?
    May I leave the 'nitpicking' to someone else?

  8. #7
    geladen's Avatar
    geladen is online now Platinum Bullet Member and Curmudgeon-in-Training
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    11,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Regis Rex View Post
    I prefer the cock-on-opening system, simply because it's easier to single load, and with the cock-on-closing system, you can't immediately tell if you have a feeding problem or you're just fighting the firing pin spring. It's definitely no biggie either way. I know Enfield fans get quite worked up about the "superiority" of their cock-on-closing, but what can you expect from Enfield fans? (That's a JOKE, OK?)
    It seems to me that closing the bolt with authority would help to avoid feeding problems. But, anyway, as Shakespeare wrote "Much ado about nothing".
    Every post I make is made with a request for corrections. I'm here to learn.

    Regards,
    Bill


    III, GOA Life





  9. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Ohio, about five miles from Lake Erie
    Posts
    8,410

    Default

    The first of the three main advantages to the cock on closing bolt design is that all the mechanical leverage exerted when opening the bolt goes 100% to extracting the case and none goes to compressing the firing pin spring. This can be an advantage when dealing with sticky or hard to extract cases.

    The second advantage is that the bolt can be manipulated slightly faster by a practiced user. This would translate militarily to a slight firepower advantage.

    The third is mechanical simplicity. You don't need to have a cocking cam built into the bolt, which is additional machine time and cost in making the bolts.

    Personally I am happy with either type.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Central MI
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronbo6 View Post
    The first of the three main advantages to the cock on closing bolt design is that all the mechanical leverage exerted when opening the bolt goes 100% to extracting the case and none goes to compressing the firing pin spring. This can be an advantage when dealing with sticky or hard to extract cases.

    The second advantage is that the bolt can be manipulated slightly faster by a practiced user. This would translate militarily to a slight firepower advantage.

    The third is mechanical simplicity. You don't need to have a cocking cam built into the bolt, which is additional machine time and cost in making the bolts.

    Personally I am happy with either type.
    Good response...Well thought out!!

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Good responses, however not the info I am looking for. I wonder why the mauser brothers dropped the cock on opening and went to cock on closing. What was their reasoning?

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    21

    Default

    I've got both and both work fine for me. As for the reason, we'll probably never know !!

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Oldsmar, FL (Tampa Bay)
    Posts
    29,535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronbo6 View Post
    The first of the three main advantages to the cock on closing bolt design is that all the mechanical leverage exerted when opening the bolt goes 100% to extracting the case and none goes to compressing the firing pin spring. This can be an advantage when dealing with sticky or hard to extract cases.

    The second advantage is that the bolt can be manipulated slightly faster by a practiced user. This would translate militarily to a slight firepower advantage.

    The third is mechanical simplicity. You don't need to have a cocking cam built into the bolt, which is additional machine time and cost in making the bolts.

    Personally I am happy with either type.
    +1 It's a simpler system. Mauser's first rifle design, an improved needle gun, had cock on opening and I guess they just kept that on the M71. The 1889, 93, etc. went to the simpler cock on closing. But the M88 Commission Rifle had a Mauser design bolt with the same 2/3 cock on opening, 1/3 on closing as the M98!
    211 BC: I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus Maximus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a denarius in any one day.

    2016 AD: To enhance our community's aggregate through multi-platform metrics of media synergy catalyzing integrated outcomes of macro-disciplines toward inclusive methodology paradigms generating positive algorithms of unwavering commitment to our children, the flag, and God.

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jwrauch View Post
    I've got both and both work fine for me. As for the reason, we'll probably never know !!
    Hey Buddy! I have both also I agree with "We'll probably never know" I am sure if there was any information about what Mauser brothers did and why have probably been lost to the ages.

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Durand, MI
    Posts
    1,696

    Default

    But we do know!
    Cock on opening has the advantage of primary extraction on opening the bolt. In the 98 action there is also some closing resistance. Cock on closing, I think, makes for faster operation, which the British regulars, as long as they lasted, were famous for in WW1. The Brits also positioned the trigger directly below the bolt knob for faster operation, thus the dogleg bolt on the 1914-1917.
    I doubt the Mauser's invented either system.

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Both systems have advantages, but I doubt that speed of operation is a design consideration. After the claw extractor, most of the evolutionary changes to the Mauser system relate to safety (extra locking lugs, flanged firing pin, gas venting, gas shield, etc.). Picture a sear failure with a cock-on-opening system. The striker falls on a spent primer. Now, the same failure on a cock-on-closing, with a live round in the chamber. Bang. It is also telling that designs accepted by the German government were cock-on-closing. Could it be that there was a difference of opinion between Herr Mauser and the Commission, with Mauser having to acquiesce in order to receive acceptance?

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Ohio, about five miles from Lake Erie
    Posts
    8,410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lornedavis View Post
    But we do know!
    Cock on opening has the advantage of primary extraction on opening the bolt. In the 98 action there is also some closing resistance. Cock on closing, I think, makes for faster operation, which the British regulars, as long as they lasted, were famous for in WW1. The Brits also positioned the trigger directly below the bolt knob for faster operation, thus the dogleg bolt on the 1914-1917.
    I doubt the Mauser's invented either system.
    In actual fact, primary extraction has nothing at all to do with what is happening with the firing pin's movement in either scheme.

    Primary extraction has everything to do with how far the angles on the mating surfaces for the locking lugs on the bolt and receiver allow for rearward bolt (and fired cartridge) travel as the bolt handle is lifted.

    On a cock on closing action, there is usually just a very small amount of rearward travel of the firing pin while opening the bolt. This is to get the firing pin clear of the cartridge case during extraction and to keep the tip from sticking out of the boltface and catching the rear of the next cartridge as the bolt is run home.

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Durand, MI
    Posts
    1,696

    Default

    Yes, ConO bolt moves back as bolt handle is lifted, but not pulled to the rear, to put it simply. That is primary extraction, very helpful with a sticking case or sticky case.

    I never mentioned the fireing pin position. You 'cock' the pin, you 'extract' the case.
    Last edited by lornedavis; 03-23-2017 at 01:57 PM.

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Ohio, about five miles from Lake Erie
    Posts
    8,410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lornedavis View Post
    Yes, ConO bolt moves back as bolt handle is lifted, but not pulled to the rear, to put it simply. That is primary extraction, very helpful with a sticking case or sticky case.

    I never mentioned the fireing pin position. You 'cock' the pin, you 'extract' the case.
    I don't want to pick a fight over this, but how ELSE can you interpret your comment "Cock on opening has the advantage of primary extraction on opening the bolt."

    In fact, both action types perform primary extraction, and is mechanically performed in exactly the same way for either scheme.

    If anything, cock on opening somewhat limits the amount of force available to perform primary extraction more than a cock on closing action does, as a portion of the force being exerted lifting the bolt handle with the fired case in the chamber is being diverted to compress the firing pin a significant distance. Not really an advantage.

    I believe a lot of confusion could have been avoided if I left out the last paragraph in my previous post, which was pretty much non-sequitur to the question at hand. I was just trying to make the point that by comparison virtually no force is used to compress the FP spring when lifting the bolt handle on a Cock on Closing action.

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    4,553

    Default

    As already stated, both types have primary extraction, when the bolt handle is lifted. The difference is when the firing pin spring is compressed. I'm sure we all know this, and are mainly just stating our preference. I remain in the cock-on-opening faction, mainly that's how the 98 Mauser and 03 Springfield work.

  21. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    1,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geladen View Post
    It seems to me that closing the bolt with authority would help to avoid feeding problems. But, anyway, as Shakespeare wrote "Much ado about nothing".
    Yes...

    "Cock on close" vs: "Cock on opening" is like the "Ford Vs: Chevy" argument...

    I have Swedes, '91 Argys, '95 Chileans, 1908 Brazilians, 1909 Argys and they all work fine as long as you don't "nurse" the bolt and close it with "authority", as suggested by geladen.
    THOMAS SOWELL: "freedom is seldom lost all at once. It is usually eroded away, bit by bit, until it is all gone. You may not notice a gradual erosion while it is going on, but you may eventually be shocked to discover one day that it is all gone, that we have been reduced from citizens to subjects, and the Constitution has become just a meaningless bunch of paper."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •