installing cross bolt in new stock

A

AMMASHOOTA

Gary Gruber
I am locating a cross bolt to install into a custom stock for a Mauser. i am unsure whether to install the bolt so it makes direct contact with the action's recoil lug, or to move it back 1/4 inch or so and steel fill glass bed the distance between the cross bolt and the recoil lug.

it's going to be a 9.3 X 62, so it will be a moderate kicker.
 
My preference would be to install an internal cross bolt in the middle of the wood behind the recoil lug and glass bed a tightly fitted lug area.
 
Try the 320 Woodleigh soft and solids for buff. They really make the 9.3s perform. We killed 2 buff a month ago in Zim with 9.3X74s and the 320s. Incredible penetration and very dead buffalo.
 
Just curious. I know the purpose of a cross-bolt. But IMHO, bedding blocks and glass and other synthetic bedding systems have pretty much made them obsolete. So, what purpose do they now serve?:confused:

Just curious.

Ray
 
answered it yourself

Ray, actually you did when you said "synthetic." there are a select few, including myself that get frosted over fiberglass and stainless for anything other than benchrest rifles. for hunting we are old school, rust bluing, color case hardening, figured wood, ebony tips and gripcaps, crossbolts hidden with ebony plugs, and hand cut engraving makes us mistyeyed and sigh. Fred
 
Fred

That's kinda what I figured. I resisted the plastic stocks for Benchrest shooting until I realized I'd have to give in if I wanted to win anything in competition. Some of the newer wood BR stocks are mighty purty but there will never be anything that beats what you described.:)

Ray
 
Cheechako said:
Just curious. I know the purpose of a cross-bolt. But IMHO, bedding blocks and glass and other synthetic bedding systems have pretty much made them obsolete. So, what purpose do they now serve?:confused:

Just curious.

Ray
Click to expand...

Mauser actions don't have traditional recoil lugs. the cross bolt sits right behind the front action screw (its a flat bottom action with a sligthly extended portion that serves as a pseudo recoil lug).

the cross bolt prevents the action from moving rearward from the action of recoil. without it, the stock would crack quickly on a DG rifle. many heavier calibers (from around .416 Rigby up) have two cross bolts to anchor the action.

mine is only going to be a 9.3 X 62. Only one is required.
 
AMMA

I'll admit I'm confused. Your initial post asked about installing a cross bolt to "make direct contact with the action's recoil lug" and then your last post says that Mauser actions do not have traditional recoil lugs. I'm curious as to what kind of Mauser action you have. All that I'm aware of have a recoil lug. The original military Mausers had a cross bolt to take the recoil and the commercial versions did too. Most custom rifles built from surplus or commercial actions retained the cross bolt until glass bedding became popular in the 1960s and 1970s. After that time the recoil lug area was routed out and the wood replaced with epoxy creating an interior "cross bolt" that handled the recoil better than a cross bolt could. One reason being that it was darn near impossible to achieve 100% contact between a steel cross bolt and the recoil lug. It sounds like you did exactly that but you added a steel interior bolt behind the epoxy. I'm not sure that really strengthened anything. IMHO you'd have been just as well off to simply route out more wood and make the epoxy bedding that much larger.

Ray
 
Cheechako said:
AMMA

I'll admit I'm confused. Your initial post asked about installing a cross bolt to "make direct contact with the action's recoil lug" and then your last post says that Mauser actions do not have traditional recoil lugs. I'm curious as to what kind of Mauser action you have. All that I'm aware of have a recoil lug. The original military Mausers had a cross bolt to take the recoil and the commercial versions did too. Most custom rifles built from surplus or commercial actions retained the cross bolt until glass bedding became popular in the 1960s and 1970s. After that time the recoil lug area was routed out and the wood replaced with epoxy creating an interior "cross bolt" that handled the recoil better than a cross bolt could. One reason being that it was darn near impossible to achieve 100% contact between a steel cross bolt and the recoil lug. It sounds like you did exactly that but you added a steel interior bolt behind the epoxy. I'm not sure that really strengthened anything. IMHO you'd have been just as well off to simply route out more wood and make the epoxy bedding that much larger.

Ray
Click to expand...

glass bedding alone is insufficient to handle the recoil of large calibers with a military mauser action.

yes i do have full contact between the cross bolt and the action -- it takes some very careful measurement -- and bit of grinding to achieve.

the action itself will be bedded closely, and i am installing a bedded steel post under the rear action screw also. the original mauser has a steel sleeve there, but i am bedding it for additional rigidity.

take a look at any DG rifle built on either commercial or military actions and you will find at least one or perhaps two cross bolts. Unless you are using a commercial stock with a CNC'd aluminum bedding block, you need the crossbolts.

you will eventually crack the stock at the wrist without them. while it may be possible to use steel reinforced epoxy to replace the cross bolt, to infer that it is stronger than a hardened steel bolt is a bit more than the laws of physics would permit.

and, i certainly would not want to bet my life on whether or not the epoxy is sufficient when i face down the cape buff i plan to hunt with this rifle.

a traditional recoil lug would be any lug that sits between the barrel and the action -- as is currently in use on most rifles today. it is a separate piece.

the pseudo recoil lug of a mauser is and extension of the front of the action below the flat bottom of the action, hence my use of the phrase non-tradional.
 
Last edited:
Not trying to nit-pick but I think that the Remington style recoil lugs (seperate piece) was a way of adding a recoil lug to a round tube action that came long after the traditional way of machining in the lugs to the action themselves, such as those of the mauser and springfied rifles. The roughly 0.225" lug plus the machined in screw hole projecting down 0.390" is more surface area than a remington, I believe. I don't have Remington action here to measure. In a heavy rifle I think the machined lugs are stronger than the washer that is used in the newer actions. I agree that the new methods are strong enough for any rifle today so it really doesn't matter.

Good luck with your project. I am sure is will be a great rifle.

Lowell
 
This is my 458 Lott with 2 crossbolts.
DSC01617_edited-1-1.jpg

I think my mauser intregal recoil lugs are more sufficient than a Remington.
Butch
 
AMMA

I agree with Lowell that the Mauser recoil lugs are traditional and the washer type used in the Remington's are the more non-traditional. But, I'm not here to argue over semantics.

I won't argue the esthetics of traditional cross bolts. And they do serve their intended purpose if correctly installed. But I can't agree that modern epoxies are weaker or less effective, if done properly.

It's the 21st Century and modern materials and methods are used to build everything from a tennis racquet to a space shuttle. And yet, there are many who still believe that steel is better than plastic and welding is better than glueing. Old ways die hard.

JMHO

Ray
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eagle_view said:
Not trying to nit-pick but I think that the Remington style recoil lugs (seperate piece) was a way of adding a recoil lug to a round tube action that came long after the traditional way of machining in the lugs to the action themselves, such as those of the mauser and springfied rifles. The roughly 0.225" lug plus the machined in screw hole projecting down 0.390" is more surface area than a remington, I believe. I don't have Remington action here to measure. In a heavy rifle I think the machined lugs are stronger than the washer that is used in the newer actions. I agree that the new methods are strong enough for any rifle today so it really doesn't matter.

Good luck with your project. I am sure is will be a great rifle.

Lowell
Click to expand...

perhaps 'traditional' was a poor choice of words. 'Common' might preclude the semantic debate.
 
Add on lugs

AMMASHOOTA said:
perhaps 'traditional' was a poor choice of words. 'Common' might preclude the semantic debate.
Click to expand...

Cheaper ,comes to mind?stronger is still better and steel cuts fiber glass and washers.its really not Semantics when you attempt to change firearms history by calling washers traditional,am I nitpicking here if a kid in 20 years picks up on your statement and says "see,those Savages were the original way of putting a rifle barrel in."historical confusion is created.fiberglas is good in many bedding ways but if you continue the strongest old methods with it you get even stronger ,besides ,steel cross bolts just look really cool on Mausers ,I just ordered one for my 30/06 !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top