Zastava M70/R798/Mauser X inner (primary) torque shoulder type?
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Zastava M70/R798/Mauser X inner (primary) torque shoulder type?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    7

    Talking Zastava M70/R798/Mauser X inner (primary) torque shoulder type?

    Hello all,

    What type of inner torque shoulder do the newest production Zastava m70 actions (or recent iterations of this action) have, C-type (I hope) or the H type like the Dumoulin and late FNs have? If someone could provide pictures as a reference I'd certainly appreciate it.

    I am wanting to build a "fantasy" k98. That is one that has the approximate external appearance of the k98 but will utilize as many modern/new production components as possible such as Lothar Walther military contour barrel, new walnut stock set from Brownells, unissued or takeoff parts like the sight bases, bayonet mount, handguard hardware, etc. I am trying to decide between a Zastava or Dumoulin receiver for the project. I'm leaning towards the zastava m70,798,mark x one because they do not have the square receiver bridge and can readily accept a m1913 rail section should I decide to add it. I do thank you all for your time and attention!

    -nsm
    Last edited by nsm; 04-18-2017 at 11:20 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Manitoba,Canada
    Posts
    393

    Default

    hi. just read your post and will make a comment 4 u 2 consider. i have collected and owned a bunch of K98k design rifles over many years; used and shot them as well.over the last 4 to 6 years i have purchased,new rifles of Zastava mfg (3 or 4) and the truth is that their products don't even come close in quality to the 98k type stuff made by FN,Brno,or early war examples by any of the German mfg facilities. the exterior surfaces of the Zastava stuff made now is well polished and blued,but the interior of the receivers do not get much of this. the result is that the rifles do not feed cartridges very well and the bolts operation is rough and difficult compared to the stuff made in the pre-war period. if you use a Zastava mfg receiver,you may have something that looks good on the outside,but the internal function will be sorely lacking if you plan to shoot the piece much. not trying to spoil your plan;just offering some info that you may want to consider. sounds like you are planning on spending some money to make an above average example for your own use.the Zastava receiver,imo, would be a poor receiver to use as the main base part of your project. you would be wise to thoroughly examine a new Zastava product and then find a couple decent pre-war rifles that you could also do the same. you would immediately notice the difference in quality as i have described. good luck with your project and cheers,FRosty.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Thank you for responding Frosty! I have considered the effort required to polish and true the interior surfaces. Pre war and early ww2 or post war TGFs are fantastic options I just desire a receiver utilizing more modern metallurgy and I wouldn't want to take apart an otherwise good rifle.

    Unfortunately I have not found a Zastava rifle to examine in person which is why I was asking for anyone who had one to comment on whether they are of the H-type or more preferably C-type. I do gather that the difference between the two manufacturing processes is largely academic but all things being equal I would prefer an action without the extra cut from the inner torque shoulder. That is to say, I want a receiver, made from more modern steel alloys, that has dimensional and functional similarity to my VZ-24, and late war production K98k yugo rework but not my FN Israeli Mauser. I do appreciate your input and will certainly take it into consideration.
    ~nsm

  4. Remove Advertisements
    GunBoards.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In my WVA mind!
    Posts
    27,506

    Default

    Frosty is correct. I had a whitworth American field loved the looks, accuracy ....
    My first new sporter
    Bolt got more sloppy, dragged too much...
    Too much play at extreme of ejection.
    Trigger great after moly. And adj.
    Should have kept it....
    traded for husky with exceptional wood....I collect them.
    Find a military CZ, fn. take off. As suggested.><> Dan

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Thanks! I'll likely do that but I am still left wondering about my original question. What type of torque shoulder do they possess? I haven't been able to find an image of the receiver lug face for the Zastava M70. So no one is confused as to what I am asking, here is an image I found on another site(slamfire of the firing line forum) of the Dumoulin inner collar/torque shoulder posted below. I am wondering if the M70 action looks like this or is the more traditional yet more expensive to produce c-type(only cut on the receiver right side). Though I may not go this route I hope this will at least serve as a reference for those who want to know.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In my WVA mind!
    Posts
    27,506

    Default

    Your talking about C only one broch cut.
    I,don't know on the mark X..
    .it was supposed to cut cost I think I read?
    Some said it weakened the action ....
    Others said it didn't weakened the acton?
    Read many things haven't seen any 98 blow up!
    I'm thinking two cuts on Mark X .

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Yes, I suspect that as well. hopefully someone with one can look at the breech face of their own rifle and let us know. I'm sure the extra broach cut or whatever its called doesn't appreciably effect the action strength especially in actions with modern alloys. My FN commerical sporter was proof fired so if its good for FN then I'm sure its an acceptable design compromise otherwise they wouldn't have done it. but I don't want to derail my own thread but to say that I agree with you DK.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Both of the lug raceways are machined through (late FN style) on the Mark X.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Oldsmar, FL (Tampa Bay)
    Posts
    30,409

    Default

    "Bolt Action Rifles" says the Yugo Mark X is a close copy of the K98, modernized, but has the 2 cuts like an FN for manufacturing ease.
    My Mark X in 375 H&H Magnum has the 2 cuts. I do not believe it weakens the action as it'll have the same hoop strength as one with 1 cut.
    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.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Bolivia or North
    Posts
    2,040

    Default

    You're operating under illusion if you think that the Zastava has better metallurgy than the late '30's through 1950's FN military, VZ24, 1908 Peruvian or 1909 Argentine actions.
    a) Don't know who told you that Zastava has better modern steel than FN, but they don't and it doesn't matter anyway.
    b) they're heat treated the same
    c) it's the design with the soft elastic core/hard carburized working surfaces that gives it it's strength.
    d) where's the 98k without a thumbcut on the left rail?
    How many psi in a CUP?

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Oldsmar, FL (Tampa Bay)
    Posts
    30,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ordtech View Post
    You're operating under illusion if you think that the Zastava has better metallurgy than the late '30's through 1950's FN military, VZ24, 1908 Peruvian or 1909 Argentine actions.
    a) Don't know who told you that Zastava has better modern steel than FN, but they don't and it doesn't matter anyway.
    b) they're heat treated the same
    c) it's the design with the soft elastic core/hard carburized working surfaces that gives it it's strength.
    There's a huge amount of firearms mythology about metallurgy.

    By far the biggest advance has been in quality control, using modern instrumentation instead of eyeballing temperatures for forging and heat treating. Otherwise its a trade off between heat treat to harden the surface while keeping the core more ductile, or carburizing - surface hardening, or a combination. Alloys are selected as a trade off of wear versus ease of machining, with a 4140 molybdenum steel common today.

    Manual processes that were adequate under the long European apprenticeship system were found lacking in the USA in the low number Springfield case. The infamous "Low Number" Springfield used a Carbon-Managnese-Silicon steel in the receivers and the problem wasn't the alloy strength, but manufacturing defects, mostly in heat treating but also in some "burnt" steel and in ammunition quality. Failure rates were 4.14/100,000 for Springfield manufactured receivers, 7.17/100,000 for Rock Island, indicating a worse problem with inexperienced/poorly trained workers at Rock Island. Alloys and heat treat methods were changed to cure the problem by eliminating the quality control problem, not to increase strength, as the original 1903s met strength requirements IF PROPERLY MADE. In fact the problem wasn't recognized until WWI, when ammunition quality went down as production increased for foreign sales and receivers started blowing up.

    I had a bolt lug break on a 1920 Swedish 1896 Mauser, a new condition rifle. Apparently "Fine Swedish Steel" couldn't survive some apprentice heating the bolt too much or cooling it too fast.
    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.

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Thank you Fusil and jjk! This is the information I was looking for and I consider the question answered. Lastly, thank you all for your input.

    -nsm

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oceanside, California
    Posts
    1,981

    Default

    Perhaps offering a postscript.

    In context of my interpretation of your project... First, your idea of recreating a ‘modernized K98 or some such military style mauser seems interesting. My presumption you’re considering a commercial solid left sidewall mauser pattern receiver as the basis. I’m also with you on the greater desirability of single broach cut inner receiver ring. Yet the bottom line, that as amply noted by contributors here, the matter more ‘angels dancing on pinheads’. In other words; insignificant and probably should not guide you. That against other more relevant considerations.
    I also agree that the Zavasta actions ‘generally’ aren’t of the quality as the referenced FN or Oberndorf actions and if you are considering a solid left sidewall, the prewar Obies did also feature such a model although rare and normally cost prohibitive. Yet the Zavasta makers in the same manufacturing situation as many firms around the world. Virtually any quality product capable of being made. The determining issue, the market driven specs balancing quality, competition and a public that little discerns beneath the superficial.
    My experience with the “Z” rifles, as others here. From ‘a bit rough’ and over-polished blued exterior, to pretty nice quality. My couple of Whitworth rifles in mannlicher and classic British heavy chambering, really quite nice all round. I also have FN models from later forties; sporters under the FN brand. Such, to Husqvarna Models 640, to Musketeers, to the likes of JC Higgins models. All very nice quality though the earlier FNs, the best.
    But also perhaps to consider some worthy Military rifles and particularly Bubba affected mauser sporters which could well be adapted to your purposes. Of course those with the thumb cut. But also with the clip loading feature which would seem desirable.
    Frankly, a lot of ‘worthy fodder’, in terms of interesting actions. Were it me, I would definitely stick with the Mauser military type action. Otherwise, if purely a purpose-designed sporting style action, a resulting hybrid seeking the answer to… What’s the point!
    In closing, just to mention that there were certain FN/Husqvarna early postwar transition mausers. Solid left receiver wall and low swept bolts, yet also with the full “C” receiver. More, a vestigial bridge hump from which a clip loading feature could be milled. Perhaps those offering the ultimate in terms of what I interpret you seeking.
    I do wish you luck and particularly hope you’ll share whatever progress toward your goal.
    Just my take

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    1,119

    Default

    Both the closed left slot and the" thumb cut" were intended to control escaping gas when a case failed. Not nearly as common today.

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In my WVA mind!
    Posts
    27,506

    Default

    To make the type K 98 gun you suggested...
    it maybe best to have the "C" cut receiver, not military....
    so years later after your demise or sale/Ing off of your estate ect.
    some one could unsuspecting not pass it off as org. To unsuspecting buyers!
    You for one would have your shooter now.
    Just my thoughts with Mitchell already polluting the next 50 to 100 years of collectors stuck. ><> Daniel
    Last edited by DK PHILLIPS; 04-25-2017 at 05:40 PM.

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Considering that used K98k actions fetch a premium these days, starting with a commercial action like a Zastava is not at all a bad idea.

    Whoever said that the metallurgy of the Zastava is inferior, well, he's wrong. Comparing a pre-war 98 to the Zastava is apples to oranges. The pre-war is made from a low carbon steel carburised to have a hard skin on all critical operating parts. Soft on the inside, hard outside. Sorta like an M&M. The Zastava is a High Carbon steel. Thus, it is through hardened. http://www.tiropratico.com/manuali-p...BoltAction.pdf

    The Interarms Mk X and all subsequent Zastava standard length 98 products had the so called "H" ring.

    FWIW, I have converted more than a few Commerical actions to include the thumbcut in the left sidewall. Not too hard and makes the action look a little more correct.

    While, like many, I tend to prefer actions with the "C" ring, my .416 Ruger and 9,3x64 among others, are built on "H" ring actions; both Zastava and FN.

    It is true that the fit and finish may not be up to Oberndorf standards but careful selection of the donor action and some judicious polishing on the right parts can yield and exceptionally smooth and functional rifle.
    Last edited by z1r; 04-25-2017 at 05:04 PM.

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oceanside, California
    Posts
    1,981

    Default

    Interesting contribution z1r and in principal to largely agree with your conclusions. Yet... Zastava over decades has made a large number of mauser pattern commercial actions. Not necessarily to assume all to exactly the same specs, metallurgy or details. Fortunes subject to the viccitudes of materials, skilled labor and market prices for their products. The firm, producing what larger purchasers demanded. Herters one marketer of early commercial Zastava actions in traditional (non-Supreme) format. Not particularly to assume those metallurgy specs uniform with Whitworth rifles of some decades later. I do believe that the Whitworth name among the best of the Zastava products and nothing shabby whatsoever.
    All said, comparing them particularly to my early postwar FN mauser actions, simply not as smooth functioning nor qualitatively, of finish. I do believe that these Zastavas capable of being honed/polished/blued to equal standard.

    In mitigtion... My prewar Winchester Model 70 rifles also inherently of better fit/finish than the 'last gasp' 1963 Model 70 iterations. A 'natural progression' of such quality yielding to the realities of automation, production schedules and what the public is willing to pay/accept.
    As far as strength is concerned... Properly made and heat treated, most any of the modern commercial bolt rifle actions likely to be amply strong for their intended chamberings.
    My take

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In my WVA mind!
    Posts
    27,506

    Default

    Extracter rubbing acton and bolt rubbing in these areas
    not as good as old stock FN, military mausers or As smooth compared...owned many..
    Love the mark X ....sloppy bolt to reciever travel,
    Is why I sold my early mark X American field....accuracy not a problem.

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    7

    Default

    I appreciate all the input! Definitely some good info posted here.

Posting Permissions

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