Snapping Mauser style claw extractor over the rim

[Milan]

I have a request to the gunsmiths or those with actual experience with this...my question stemming from another discussion but not related to original topic (related to BRNO ZKK but applying to any Mauser style extractor), so transported here:

Snapping claw extractor over the rim on hand chambered round......some do so easily, some are harder to do it with, some cannot do it at all. All depending on the amount of bevel surface of the claw. Should it snap over the rim? I like the feature and never had an issue, but I rarely do it. Is it good for the extractor? Probably not. Can you break it this way? Most likely. Does beveling it make it weaker? I would think so. Does it weaken it to a point of making it susceptible to stripping and not extracting a stuck case? Depends.

What I would like to see is some broken extractors and some stripped ones where the damage was due to these conditions...they must exist but I have not seen them. And those that happened, was it due to metal fatigue of 1 too many snaps over the rim? Or the bevel not being deep or angled enough in the first place and thus over stressing the extractor? Those that were beveled too much and stripped... was it just that (not enough material left on the edge) or will any beveled claw eventually fail to extract?

When I look at amount of metal grabbing the case vs extractor actually designed to snap over the rim (like the good old Sako one for example), is the beveled Mauser one really weaker?

Thank you!

 

[IvW]

I have one I will have to dig out from a 1948 twin trigger spoon handle Brno 7x57 mm

 

[Wyatt Smith]

I don’t do it to any of mine or say it’s a good idea, but the Ruger m77 was a push feed with a claw extractor. They were this way until the m77 mk2.

 

[bruce moulds]

one of the strengths of the mauser, and certainly the brno 600 series is that the extractor CANNOT snap over a rim.
the reason is that it cannot do this when extracting a tight case, a part of the reliability of the design.
bruce.

 

[Milan]

Well my question stems not only from the discussions elsewhere but also from handling more Mausers and CZs that can snap over the extractor than those that can not. I have so far only had 1 Brno, 2 Mauser 98 and 1 Ruger that could not do this. Tens of other rifles - Mauser 98s, Brnos, CZs and some Rugers - could always do it rather easily. Only couple were tighter than most. But since I have now encountered more than 1 Mauser like that and have read that by design they should not snap over the extractor (still have not seen where that "by design" comes from other than what I have read on the Internet), I now question myself. Mainly if it were by design not to snap over, how come even the WW2 Mausers could? When was this design feature lost? Early 20th century? If so, how many failures are we seeing? I bet not many as people feed rounds from the magazine anyway.

The Ruger that could not do it was a Scout in .308. The kicker was that mine could do it, my buddy's could not. He sent it back, Ruger approved service fiddled with it, eventually making it to snap over the rim but it was never as easy to do as on mine. So here, by design, Ruger actually wanted it to be able to do that, yet messed up on at least that one rifle.

 

[leslie hetrick]

on my custom 98 mauser in 35 whelen I replaced the extractor to one that was like the original that would not snap over the rim and repaced the follower to the original that would hold the bolt open when the magazine was empty. the rifle is to be used on bear.

 

[Newboomer]

I seem to recall reading somewhere about a sort of relief cut in the side of the chamber to let the claw slide over the rim without binding. Or was that a figment of my imagination asking why couldn't it be done? Seems like a fairly easy fix to gain a round.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

I like a bolt hold open follower

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hello,

The M 1898 Mauser action extractor system was designed to charge the cartridge from the magazine mainly to assure an extraction without question as sure as possible. To achieve this is the machined of the guide of the claw and it groove in the bolt body at an angle: The more force is applied at the primary extraction movement, the more secure is the position of the claw! It is almost impossible for the claw to jump over the rim of the case! It is more easy for the claw to cut a half moon piece of the rim than jump over it. Period. That is because the 1898 Mauser system should be more correctly called as Controlled Extraction than Controlled Feed...
Having said this, the original design also foresaw that a bolt could be worked and close with a cartridge in the camber: By pressing the extractor blade in the middle to "open" the claw to go over the rim. That is the reason for the little space between the outer side of the extractor and their guide machined in the inside right side of the front bridge.
The ONLY bolt action systems to have this design feature is the Mauser 98, military and sporting variations and its TRUE derivatives like the BRNO ZG 47 (really a sporting M98 action) and the ZKK 600 series and the CZ 500 series. The pre-98 Mauser actions: M93-94-95-96, DO NOT HAVE THIS FEATURE, no matter being Controlled Feeding actions, as well as ALL others "mauser like" actions: Springfield, M14 and M17, Winchester 54 and 70, Ruger M77 MK II and Hawkeye, etc.

Best!

CF

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

I will upload some pictures of my rifles with the details of this: a 1898 Mauser, ZKK 600 and Winchester 70 pre-64.

CF

 

[adzhoo]

By pressing the extractor blade in the middle to "open" the claw to go over the rim. That is the reason for the little space between the outer side of the extractor and their guide machined in the inside right side of the front bridge.

CF

What is “pressing” on the middle of the extractor? Not sure I got it.

On my M70 CRFs, I tried and managed without issue to close the bolt on a chambered round. You feel that there is an effort doing so, but it doesn’t make any sound (I expected it would, as the extractor has to snap on the brass at some point).

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hello adzhoo,

To press the extractor by the middle is just that! Press with the thumb in the middle and most flexible part between the retaining ring and the back end of the blade.
All the other controlled feed actions, other than the true M98 and derivatives, are able to close the bolt over a chambered cartridge without the issues of the M98 actions. Anyway, the normal and best way to chamber the cartridge in all controlled feed action is from the magazine. The other way is exceptional.

Best

CF

 

[adzhoo]

To press the extractor by the middle is just that! Press with the thumb in the middle and most flexible part between the retaining ring and the back end of the blade.

CF

Thanks!

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

You welcome!

 

[5shot]

I seem to recall reading somewhere about a sort of relief cut in the side of the chamber to let the claw slide over the rim without binding. Or was that a figment of my imagination asking why couldn't it be done? Seems like a fairly easy fix to gain a round.

You are correct. If the extractor cut in the receiver doesn't have some extra room, the extractor can't move out and around the rim of the case.

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hi,

As 5shot says, that extra room in the extractor cut permits the claw to move radially to jump over the rim.
Here are the pictures (the best I could do..) of the extractor claws of the BRNO ZKK 600 and the Winchester 70 pre 64. You can see clearly the angle in the BRNO's (a la Mauser 98) and the 90 degree machined in the Winchester.

CF

 

[CoElkHunter]

After reading this thread today, I tried this with my rifles. Both of my Interarms Whitworths in .375 and a custom in .416 Taylor, will load a single cartridge from on top of the magazine into the chamber and the bolt will close. When removing the cartridge from the chamber, the cartridge is held secure by the extractor. My CZ 550 .458WM won’t load a cartridge into the chamber unless it’s taken from the magazine. What does it all mean in the real world of hunting and action functionality? Don’t have a clue? Until a little over a year ago, I’ve only owned push feed style actions. But, I really do like the CRF actions.

 

[fourfive8]

As to whether or not it's a good idea to modify a claw extractor... I think that debate has been going on since the beginning of the basic design. Most all Mauser type flat faced extractors, no matter the manufacturer, can be modified to snap over. A long time ago I modified a couple and never had a problem. HOWEVER, looking at the modification of some of them, it has to, even if ever so slightly, weaken the claw. I will no longer do it. So IMO, unless you are a purely bench rest target shooter and not a hunter, I think it best to form the habit of loading into and cycling from the magazine for all types, even push feeds.

As to which is best from a shooter's/hunter's stand point?? I think it is a matter of habit. Under stress, if you have a history of only reloading push types while in a hurry during a hunt, there is the possibility of trying it with a Mauser type CRF that has a "flat faced" extractor that won't snap over. If done really hard, it can ram a case hard enough into the chamber and cause at least a temporary jam situation. I have used all three types for a long time, push feed, CRF that will snap over and CRF that won't. I have tried to form the habit of loading all from the magazine no matter the type - even for shooting off the bench. I still have to tell myself, "self, reload directly into the magazine and cycle out of the magazine". I have been doing it that way for a some years now, but still old habits are hard to break.... "SELF, dummy, load out of the magazine!"

 

[CoElkHunter]

As to whether or not it's a good idea to modify a claw extractor... I think that debate has been going on since the beginning of the basic design. Most all Mauser type flat faced extractors, no matter the manufacturer, can be modified to snap over. A long time ago I modified a couple and never had a problem. HOWEVER, looking at the modification of some of them, it has to, even if ever so slightly, weaken the claw. I will no longer do it. So IMO, unless you are a purely bench rest target shooter and not a hunter, I think it best to form the habit of loading into and cycling from the magazine for all types, even push feeds.

As to which is best from a shooter's/hunter's stand point?? I think it is a matter of habit. Under stress, if you have a history of only reloading push types while in a hurry during a hunt, there is the possibility of trying it with a Mauser type CRF that has a "flat faced" extractor that won't snap over. If done really hard, it can ram a case hard enough into the chamber and cause at least a temporary jam situation. I have used all three types for a long time, push feed, CRF that will snap over and CRF that won't. I have tried to form the habit of loading all from the magazine no matter the type - even for shooting off the bench. I still have to tell myself, "self, reload directly into the magazine and cycle out of the magazine". I have been doing it that way for a some years now, but still old habits are hard to break.... "SELF, dummy, load out of the magazine!"

Great points! I ALWAYS chamber rounds from the magazine, even with my Browning A Bolt .338. I was just playing around with the CRF rifles after reading this thread, and I found the differences interesting. There really isn't any reason for loading a rifle singly from the top of the magazine, unless the magazine is empty are you're charged by a duiker or cassowary! Ha! Ha! Ha!

 

[baxterb]

Hi,

As 5shot says, that extra room in the extractor cut permits the claw to move radially to jump over the rim.
Here are the pictures (the best I could do..) of the extractor claws of the BRNO ZKK 600 and the Winchester 70 pre 64. You can see clearly the angle in the BRNO's (a la Mauser 98) and the 90 degree machined in the Winchester.

CF

This is a very good picture showing something most people don't understand (or even know of) about a Mauser action. That cut in the front of the Mauser bolt has a corresponding angle in it (cut with a dovetail cutter) that mates with the angle on the front side of the 'foot' on the Mauser extractor. The extractor, when mounted, will have a very slight forward and backward motion. When pushing the bolt forward, if the extractor blade feels resistance, it will be pushed rearward which disengages the two angles and allow (if necessary) the extractor blade to ever-so-slightly move away from the centerline of the bolt. After the rifle has been fired, upon extraction, the opposite happens, and if (say a case were tight in the chamber) upon moving the bolt rearward, the extractor blade feel resistance on the case rim, those two angles will be forced together, which moves the extractor blade toward the centerline of the bolt, effectively clamping the rim in the bolt head so that the extractor cannot jump over the rim and leave the case in the chamber. Some people call this 'controlled round extraction,' although I think that's a recent term. Winchesters do not have this angle either on the bolt or the extractor, it is just a square foot in a square groove. Most likely because they felt it was unnecessary and complex to do - although somehow Mauser made an awful lot of actions quickly that worked just fine.

You can test this feature by removing the bolt, pushing the extractor rearward and then pushing the extractor blade away from the bolt, noting the gap you can create between the extractor blade and right side lug. Then push the extractor hard forward, hold it there, and try to do the same. If it's working correctly, you won't be able to move it much (if any) at all.

Mausers are fascinating actions.