Browning FN Safari

leojlafrog

leojlafrog

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
41   0   0
Location
Winnipeg
I was looking at having a rifle built off a Browning Highpower/ FN made action.

I was wanting to use a magnum action and being aware that they used two different types of actions throughout the productions years (non-sako actions), I was wondering if the CRF claw extractor or the short extractor version would be better to build off of for a belted magnum cartridge?


Thanks, J
 
Last edited:
As sharp shooter indicated, Browning used the controlled round feed actions for their long action and magnum rifles from 1959 to around 1967-68. From 1968 and on, the standard long action remained as a crf action, but the magnum rifles were changed to what they called a FN supreme action, which was a push feed “short extractor” type action, similar to a Remington.

I was looking at getting a barrelled magnum std length action and re-barrelling with a 26” barrel in the 264-7mm range with a fast twist for heavy for caliber high BC bullets.

I was just wondering if there is any actual real world difference in terms of accuracy potential between the very similar, but different actions.
 
For hunting purposes, might want to consider the single feed aspect. Without work to it, a CRF Mauser is not meant to single round feed, nor will it. I do not know about those mauser FN actions. Sometimes being able to drop in a last round and close the bolt is pretty important.
 
Potashminer said:
For hunting purposes, might want to consider the single feed aspect. Without work to it, a CRF Mauser is not meant to single round feed, nor will it. I do not know about those mauser FN actions. Sometimes being able to drop in a last round and close the bolt is pretty important.
Click to expand...

The FN 98 Mauser CRF Actions for standard Caliber Shells I have seen where all Factory build that one could drop a Shell in the Chamber and close the Bolt over it. These same Actions where used by FN to build the Browning Rifles. Probably one of the most reliable Actions ever made.

Cheers
 
OP, you mention that you want to use a "magnum" action. I am not certain that FN made that length, but stand to be corrected about that. I believe Brevex and Doumolin (spelling?) made those longer actions - just not certain about FN. Unless you meant a standard 98 modified for a Magnum cartridge?

Looking at a couple P14 and M1917 which were designed for single round feeding, I note the much larger nose on the extractor and the space that is cut out inside the receiver ring for that extractor to move outward as it rides over the case rim. If you are looking for a magnum size cartridge, that becomes a bit more of an issue, since the diameter of the rim is usually larger than "standard" cartridges, hence more clearance needed for the extractor to get over that rim - I believe this is why the P14 was so desirable for converting to really big "boomer" cartridges.

So starting from a standard mauser 98, the lip of the extractor needs to be beveled - so material removed. I have several done that way by others, some might be by factories, but I have not seen mauser receivers with that corresponding cut to allow that extractor to move sideways. The above is most of the reason I have thought a P14 / M1917 had some advantages over the standard 98 mauser regarding single loading.

Also, if it was a "magnum" cartridge that you were looking at, I think often times the area behind the lower bolt recoil lug seat has to be shortened - to accommodate the longer magazine. I am sure with proper heat treating that area will have sufficient strength, but I do not see much about "re-heat treating" as a necessary part of converting a 98 Mauser to "magnum" cartridge - referring to the 2.8" + length of cases. I have an M1917 that was rechambered to 300 Weatherby, and the lower lug area on it is not touched.

I had read in Roy Dunlap's gunsmithing book about taking two standard 98 receivers - cutting them across at the magazine area, in an off set manner, and re-welding to create a shorter than normal and a longer than normal "98" mauser - requires similar to be done with the bolts, firing pins, extractors, springs, magazines, floor plate etc. Has been a thread on CGN about doing that - would likely be considered an "advanced" gunsmithing project, but would result in a "mini" length mauser action and a "magnum" length mauser action.
 
Last edited:
Browning used one size of FN receiver for their long action and magnum rifles. There was the standard cartridge receiver (30-06,270) the “short” magnum receiver (7mm Rem, 308 Norma, 300 Win) and the magnum receiver (H&H).

All three receivers used the same length of receiver, but had differences is in the mag box length. The H&H receivers had material removed from the front of the mag box and receiver. The H&H length also a small grove at the rear of the front ring at the 12 o’clock position. Standard cartridges and “short” magnums had the same mag box length but feed rails and followers were shaped different.

So, in saying that, the H&H and the “short” magnums both started in the Browning production contract as a crf action and somewhere around 1968, there was a change to all magnum receivers to a push feed “short extractor” version. I believe they called the action an FN supreme.

My original question was whether the push feed version was supposed to be better with belted cartridges as I have previously read that a belted case and crf actions sometimes do not feed well or does it just boil down to personal preference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom