Rigby mauser

[rookhawk]

Just one more diagnostic question, apologies if it comes off as condescending.

Is it possible the springs were reinstalled 180 degrees wrong, or upside down? That can effect things too and often they will go together that way (if the leaf is filed to dimensions that can allow reversal)

 

[john corry]

You can restore collapsed springs by stretching them apart. However, that can be too much of a good thing. If the follower spring has too much tension, it can cause cartridges to jump the rails prematurely. For a push feed or quality CRF with snap over capability that may not be disastrous ... unless more than one cartridge jumps the rails when bolt is opened ... while you are smelling a buffalo's bad breath.

Fix the box, then worry about the spring. I seriously doubt that is the issue. Even a weak spring should not produce the clattering you are describing. Symptom of a weak follower spring is typically unreliable feeding due to bolt face skipping over the cartridge rim and/or cartridge shoulder jumping the rail too late ( = rough cycling). You said your gun cycles fine.

Thanks - yes, cycling is absolutely fine. I have a mint 350no2 that has had extremely little use. I will ask my gunsmith to look at both, but as I said, Paul Roberts (who has just a little bit of experience with these rifles) states that it’s due to the magnum action and is easily sorted. He has built a few on a standard length and has noted that there was no movement in the magazine.

 

[john corry]

Just one more diagnostic question, apologies if it comes off as condescending.

Is it possible the springs were reinstalled 180 degrees wrong, or upside down? That can effect things too and often they will go together that way (if the leaf is filed to dimensions that can allow reversal)

Not condescending at all. But I doubt it on 3 different Rigby’s. Will take a look anyway. Cheers

 

[roverandbrew]

So, after a phone call with Paul Roberts he explained to me it’s actually a common issue - the Rigby 350s were built on Magnum actions which were really designed for the 416. A very desirable action but quite annoying to hear that it’s a known prob. I have no feed probs just the noise. Will be rectified by fitting a small spacer.

I had this exact problem on a CZ 550 in 375 H&H. The box came from the factory for a CZ 416 Rigby. Once measured it was confirmed. Two small plates were welded on the box walls and all was sorted.

 

[Albert Penselldiche]

For whatever reason, standard action Mauser follower springs have the top end that clips into the follower trimmed to slughtly narrower width. My NECG magnum follower had a spring receiver pocket the same width as the receiver pocket in the floorplate, i.e. the magnum follower spring would be the same width end to end. The standard action spring would not work in the magnum follower because it slipped out of the pocket, allowing the follower to turn lopsided and bind in the box. I tried flipping the spring over and that didn't work for same reason: the trimmed end came out of the floorplate pocket allowing the follower to tip and bind in the box. Since no magnum springs were to be had (short of ordering one from Mauser = $$$ and waiting months for delivery), I modified the magnum follower to accept my military follower spring. Didn't take much modification. You would have to look very carefully to notice any changes. Much more noticable modification of follower was required to make the final round in the magazine feed properly.

 

[Huvius]

The Magnum Mauser was originally designed for the 350, NOT the 416.
Step Ring magnum Rigbys I believe were all made to use the original 310gr RN bullets, the No.2 used a 270gr spitzer.
What are your cartridges loaded with?
Maybe the OAL is just too short and in combination with a weak spring allows some jostling around.
I had an original Mauser 9.3X62 Magnum that had a rubber like material in the front of the magazine to prevent this very thing.

 

[john corry]

The Magnum Mauser was originally designed for the 350, NOT the 416.
Step Ring magnum Rigbys I believe were all made to use the original 310gr RN bullets, the No.2 used a 270gr spitzer.
What are your cartridges loaded with?
Maybe the OAL is just too short and in combination with a weak spring allows some jostling around.
I had an original Mauser 9.3X62 Magnum that had a rubber like material in the front of the magazine to prevent this very thing.

loaded with Bertram brass and 225grn Nosler partitions

 

[john corry]

loaded with Bertram brass and 225grn Nosler partitions

The No2 is a step ring and my 350s are the regular magnum actions

 

[Albert Penselldiche]

I had this exact problem on a CZ 550 in 375 H&H. The box came from the factory for a CZ 416 Rigby. Once measured it was confirmed. Two small plates were welded on the box walls and all was sorted.

Interesting. The difference in overall length between 375 and 416 Rigby is ~1/8". If the gunsmith added spacers fore and aft inside the box, that would seem to indicate the cartridge shoulder was not coming over the rails properly? If it was feeding okay, I would think only one spacer in the front of the box would be needed. In any event, I suspect it would be difficult to properly tune the feeding rails if the bolt face wasn't consistently picking up the cartridges in the same place. An eighth of an inch is a fair amount of slop.

So why was OP not having cycling issues if cartridges were moving around in the box? Good question. Presumably the shape of the cartridge is more forgiving?

 

[Huvius]

The No2 is a step ring and my 350s are the regular magnum actions

Correct on the bullet weight of the No.2 - 225gr which was also used in the 350 Rigby Magnum (rimless).
I had a 350 Magnum for a while and do think that the magnum length action was a bit long for the cartridge but the fact remains that the 400/350 and the 350 Magnum both predated the 416 so I have no idea why someone as experienced as Paul Robert’s would say such a thing.

 

[john corry]

Correct on the bullet weight of the No.2 - 225gr which was also used in the 350 Rigby Magnum (rimless).
I had a 350 Magnum for a while and do think that the magnum length action was a bit long for the cartridge but the fact remains that the 400/350 and the 350 Magnum both predated the 416 so I have no idea why someone as experienced as Paul Robert’s would say such a thing.

Now I’m completely confused. I just tried an original box of 350 Mag from 1930s and same prob in both rifles.

 

[Albert Penselldiche]

The Magnum Mauser was originally designed for the 350, NOT the 416.
Step Ring magnum Rigbys I believe were all made to use the original 310gr RN bullets, the No.2 used a 270gr spitzer.
What are your cartridges loaded with?
Maybe the OAL is just too short and in combination with a weak spring allows some jostling around.
I had an original Mauser 9.3X62 Magnum that had a rubber like material in the front of the magazine to prevent this very thing.

Not sure why Rigby would be building the 350 in 1908 on magnum actions (IF they were even available then). The 350 Rigby has an overall length of just 3.44" and should fit in a standard length action. 404 Jeffery has cartridge OAL of 3.53" and it fits in a standard length action without cutting into locking ring or modifying the ejector.

Every source I have been able to find points to magnum action first appearing in 1911.

Edit: 400/350 was introduced in 1899 with a magnum length action but it was a rimmed cartridge requiring an angled magazine. I really do not think the 350 Rigby would work well if at all in that early designed "magnum" action. Besides being sloped magazine which just doesn't feed rimless cases, the box would be enormously long (3.65" for 400/350 vs 3.44" for 350 Rigby). The 350 cartridges would have little hope of feeding properly in that action. Bolt face pickup would be wildly inconsistent. I strongly suspect the first 350 were built on standard Mauser actions.

 

[baxterb]

Don;t take this as an insult - but are you aware of 'Mauser's RUle' and how the case determines the geometry of the magazine box, etc? The cartridge is from where all blessings flow when it comes to Mausers. If the rounds are not held securely, something is out. Could it be the spring ? sure. Test that by taking it out and standing it up right then gently push the follower down - does it dip/collapse at the front or rear at any point in its travel? or does it maintain its integrity throughout?

If you have three rifles that do the same thing - it looks more systemic. I have gone through a similar issue with a Mauser 9.3 and we found the issue by starting at the cartridge and checking the required magazine, etc dimensions from there. Once those were corrected, good to go. See mag dims below.

It;s quite possible your issue is not solvable with a simple fix that doesn't alter the rifle and you might have to live with it. But that doesn;t mean Rigby made a trash or unreliable rifle - it is what it is. And yes, there is a bit of tolerance with the dims where a rifle will work 'fine' when not built exactly as intended. But the exception doesn't disprove a rule. As a rather decent builder once told me, "I've never seen a Mauser that was built as intended that did not work as intended."

 

[john corry]

Not sure why Rigby would be building the 350 in 1908 on magnum actions (IF they were even available then). The 350 Rigby has an overall length of just 3.44" and should fit in a standard length action. 404 Jeffery has cartridge OAL of 3.53" and it fits in a standard length action without cutting into locking ring or modifying the ejector.

Every source I have been able to find points to magnum action first appearing in 1911

One of my 350s -

Action 2265
Mauser Sporting 'take-down’ Best
For E.G.H. Power
August 10th 1909
Weight 8lbs
.350 cal.
26” barrel
14 9/16” stock
Ivory bead etc
Special peep sight
Trap butt

 

[john corry]

Don;t take this as an insult - but are you aware of 'Mauser's RUle' and how the case determines the geometry of the magazine box, etc? The cartridge is from where all blessings flow when it comes to Mausers. If the rounds are not held securely, something is out. Could it be the spring ? sure. Test that by taking it out and standing it up right then gently push the follower down - does it dip/collapse at the front or rear at any point in its travel? or does it maintain its integrity throughout?

If you have three rifles that do the same thing - it looks more systemic. I have gone through a similar issue with a Mauser 9.3 and we found the issue by starting at the cartridge and checking the required magazine, etc dimensions from there. Once those were corrected, good to go. See mag dims below.

It;s quite possible your issue is not solvable with a simple fix that doesn't alter the rifle and you might have to live with it. But that doesn;t mean Rigby made a trash or unreliable rifle - it is what it is. And yes, there is a bit of tolerance with the dims where a rifle will work 'fine' when not built exactly as intended. But the exception doesn't disprove a rule. As a rather decent builder once told me, "I've never seen a Mauser that was built as intended that did not work as intended."


View attachment 665158

Thanks - I’ll give it a go.

 

[Albert Penselldiche]

Don;t take this as an insult - but are you aware of 'Mauser's RUle' and how the case determines the geometry of the magazine box, etc? The cartridge is from where all blessings flow when it comes to Mausers. If the rounds are not held securely, something is out. Could it be the spring ? sure. Test that by taking it out and standing it up right then gently push the follower down - does it dip/collapse at the front or rear at any point in its travel? or does it maintain its integrity throughout?

If you have three rifles that do the same thing - it looks more systemic. I have gone through a similar issue with a Mauser 9.3 and we found the issue by starting at the cartridge and checking the required magazine, etc dimensions from there. Once those were corrected, good to go. See mag dims below.

It;s quite possible your issue is not solvable with a simple fix that doesn't alter the rifle and you might have to live with it. But that doesn;t mean Rigby made a trash or unreliable rifle - it is what it is. And yes, there is a bit of tolerance with the dims where a rifle will work 'fine' when not built exactly as intended. But the exception doesn't disprove a rule. As a rather decent builder once told me, "I've never seen a Mauser that was built as intended that did not work as intended."


View attachment 665158

Paul Mauser's cosine 30 rule is for determining magazine width necessary for proper stacking and feeding. I really do not see how that relates to the OP's problems (i.e. noisy cartridges moving about in the magazine). If the box is too wide, the bolt face won't pick up the cartridge rim and/or the cartridge won't jump over the rail in time with bullet running into loading ramp. If the box is too narrow, the cartridges jump the rails to early, either before bolt face pickup or before bullet can get started into the ramp/chamber. The OP says his guns cycle fine. No problems with magazine width. However, I am surprised with that much slop in magazine length that he's not at least having issues with rough feeding. Any marks on the lip of brass indicating it's catching on edge of chamber?

 

[john corry]

Paul Mauser's cosine 30 rule is for determining magazine width necessary for proper stacking and feeding. I really do not see how that relates to the OP's problems (i.e. noisy cartridges moving about in the magazine). If the box is too wide, the bolt face won't pick up the cartridge rim and/or the cartridge won't jump over the rail in time with bullet running into loading ramp. If the box is too narrow, the cartridges jump the rails to early, either before bolt face pickup or before bullet can get started into the ramp/chamber. The OP says his guns cycle fine. No problems with magazine width. However, I am surprised with that much slop in magazine length that he's not at least having issues with rough feeding. Any marks on the lip of brass indicating it's catching on edge of chamber?

The only noticeable things I can see with my 350, that I fired today, due to the rounds moving in the magazine, sometimes I can see some impact damage on the lead tips of the Nosler Partitions - presumably caused by recoil and the rounds move.
Secondly, some of the brass shows signs of a pinched/squashed neck after firing. Not sure why that is.

 

[Huvius]

Not sure why Rigby would be building the 350 in 1908 on magnum actions (IF they were even available then). The 350 Rigby has an overall length of just 3.44" and should fit in a standard length action. 404 Jeffery has cartridge OAL of 3.53" and it fits in a standard length action without cutting into locking ring or modifying the ejector.

Every source I have been able to find points to magnum action first appearing in 1911.

The step ring magnums are from very early on. 1898-1900 or thereabouts.
Rigby had Mauser make them expressly for their use. In fact, Mauser pretty much built the entire rifle in Oberndorf for Rigby.

 

[baxterb]

Paul Mauser's cosine 30 rule is for determining magazine width necessary for proper stacking and feeding. I really do not see how that relates to the OP's problems (i.e. noisy cartridges moving about in the magazine). If the box is too wide, the bolt face won't pick up the cartridge rim and/or the cartridge won't jump over the rail in time with bullet running into loading ramp. If the box is too narrow, the cartridges jump the rails to early, either before bolt face pickup or before bullet can get started into the ramp/chamber. The OP says his guns cycle fine. No problems with magazine width. However, I am surprised with that much slop in magazine length that he's not at least having issues with rough feeding. Any marks on the lip of brass indicating it's catching on edge of chamber?

The magazine walls should follow the taper of the cartridges. If the box is too wide ONLY at the front, the front of the cartridges will have room to move and jingle around. Even though the rear is in spec. I have seen this myself.

Note above the 404 and 350 have the same dim at the rear, not at the front. A loose front end will allow cartridges to move.

It just needs to be inspected from the ground up.

 

[Albert Penselldiche]

One of my 350s -

Action 2265
Mauser Sporting 'take-down’ Best
For E.G.H. Power
August 10th 1909
Weight 8lbs
.350 cal.
26” barrel
14 9/16” stock
Ivory bead etc
Special peep sight
Trap butt

So this rifle was made the year after the cartridge was introduced in 1908. Hmmm. Is the magazine sloped rearward or straight drop? If the former, then the mag box, if unmodified and built to same specs for 400/350, would be at least 1/4" longer than needed for 350 Rigby. That's a lot of slop. Especially problematic I would think for sloped design and rimless cartridge.