Just a curiosity: over the long haul, the 98 Mauser is still the overwheming favorite of actions used for top-end custom bolt rifles with a rare M70 now and again. I know the stuff those folks like: controlled feed, M70 type safeties, etc. But other actions have those as well: Dakotas, Kimbers, Ruger Hawkeye, etc. So is it primarily nostalgia, holding value better, or is it the thought that the 98 is a better LOOKING and slicker FUNCTIONING (more reliable) action? Would like to hear from both the builders and owners of those customs: something to enjoy hearing about during the cold winter evenings. thanks guys.

Oh Wow...this is a perfectly appropriate question to ask. However, the answer(s) you may get could cause some drama.

You asked about a "Top-end custom bolt rifle". Once upon a time that was interpreted to mean a finely crafted, and made to order blued steel & walnut stocked hunting rifle. Going foreword I will assume that's what you're interested in.

Yes, all of the actions you mentioned have been used as the basis for custom rifles. Dakota, Kimber, Winchester, Remington, ect. The Mauser has always been and remains the premier action for many reasons.

You mentioned Nostalgia. The Mauser arrived decades before the other actions mentioned, and has real history behind it. Famous hunters of the past used them and there stories became immortalized in books. Most of the great cartridges (6.5x55, 7x57, 9.3x62, 375 H&H, 416 Rigby ect.) were all designed for and introduced to the world in the Mauser action. The Oberndorf Sporting rifles along with the Mausers crafted by British gunmakers set the standard for premiere bolt action sporting rifles the world over. Long before the other bolt actions you mentioned even existed the Mauser was already building a wonderful reputation. So yes, the Mauser has Nostalgia. That's certainly what hooked me in the beginning.

Paul Mauser designed multiple bolt action models. Each was a bit better than the one that preceded it. When he finalized the 1898 action he could go no further. From a mechanical standpoint, the 1898 Mauser action can hardly be improved upon. Almost every bolt action designed after the Mauser has certain design features eliminated to lower costs or to simplify manufacturing. Those few actions that do retain and copy all the Mauser features...well, doesn't that just make them a Mauser with another name ??? Others such as Nathaniel Myers/FAL Grunt can add more here.

You didn't ask about controlled round feed vs push feed. That's a whole different discussion and hopefully the thread doesn't get derailed into that debate. Simply stated the Mauser has controlled round feed and its a nice feature to have. Other actions may also have Controlled Round Feed based off the Mauser design, but Mauser is the original.

From a style or aesthetic standpoint things begin to become very subjective. The Mauser action rear tang works well to accommodate a nice long open shaped stock wrist. The attractive Oberndorf Mauser bolt handle design is often copied. The Oberndorf Mauser trigger guard bow shape, and floorplate design is the favorite style for bottom metal manufactures to reproduce. The style & aesthetic department is where gunmakers such as Duane Wiebe & Steven Hughes can contribute to the discussion.

The Mauser was produced in Military versions and commercial versions, either will make a fine custom rifle. The actions were also produced in various lengths such as short, intermediate, standard, and magnum. So through careful action selection you can match you Mauser action size to the cartridge you will chamber it for. These variations along with other features such as ring size, barrel shank diameter ect. make them interesting to read about.

To research the subject further I want to recommend a few books to you:

Bolt Action Rifles by Frank de Haas - Great for comparisons of various bolt action designs.

Modern Custom Guns 1st & 2nd editions by Tom Turpin - A real showcase of quality custom guns.

Custom Rifles in Black & White by Steven Dodd Hughes - One of my favorites, not sure if it's still in print, maybe SDH has copies left, excellent photography and descriptions!

Original Oberndorf Sporting Rifles by Jon Speed - Wonderful resource on Mauser hunting rifles, out of print & unfortunately expensive, I think it supposed to be reprinted at some point maybe?

Mauser Bolt Rifles by Ludwig Olson - Essential reference to the wide variety of Military & commercial Mauser actions.

Long reply, not sure if it fully answers your question, but hopefully it helps. There are others on the forum FAR more knowledgeable than me that can provide better insight.

Best of luck.

An excellent reference library for an education on Mauser 98 actions for custom rifles. (Thanks for the inclusion.) All books that make up my read education.

Edited my post for some grammar corrections.

Sorry

To me there is also an element of what cartridge you are planning to chamber for. In my personal aesthetic certain rounds just "feel" better in certain actions. To me, for example classic German and British rounds just seem to belong in an M98 Mauser, I prefer the a .XX-06 and Whelen family in a 1903 action, the .270 WCF and Winchester magnums belong in a Model 70. That isn't to say those are the only choices, rather a consideration.

Loud-n-boomer has a point. I can't explain it, but if you're starting off with a particular cartridge in mind, you naturally will start thinking something like this :

7mm-08 = Remington short action of course
270 win. = Winchester model 70 for sure
404 Jeffrey = Mauser 98 !

For what it's worth.

*

quote:

Originally posted by K W Johnston:

From a style or aesthetic standpoint things begin to become very subjective. The Mauser action rear tang works well to accommodate a nice long open shaped stock wrist. The attractive Oberndorf Mauser bolt handle design is often copied. The Oberndorf Mauser trigger guard bow shape, and floorplate design is the favorite style for bottom metal manufactures to reproduce. The style & aesthetic department is where gunmakers such as Duane Wiebe & Steven Hughes can contribute to the discussion.

This is my reason for having most of my rifles built on 98s.

To me there are really only two.

The Mauser Model 1898 and the Winchester Model 70.

But I could easily be talked into stretching that to four by adding the Mannlicher-Schoenauer Model 1903 and also the Springfield Model 1903. Almost no one chooses those two nowadays, but I like them very much.

It’s a combination of classic design, function, beauty and also nostalgia that does it for me.

Glad you asked; Many of my personal rifles are built on the 98; most FNs with no thumb cut; just look better. Extractors modified to close on a round in the chamber since original Military 98s are NOT designed to do so.
Also a couple on claw Model 70s. Couple on Mauser 91; by far the smoothest feeding of anything, single stack mag.
However, I do have several built on 1965 Win Model 70s; they are smoother than the claws, and trust me, the rounds are still controlled. Got my first one new in 1968 for $125. And they are true Magnum length, whereas pre 64s are all 30-06 length.
Just remember why the "crf" was invented; for poorly trained soldiers, because if you try to chamber a round and do not close the bolt, and then try to chamber another one, it will jam. Germany did not think their Army needed it and did not adopt it for several years after its introduction. The Ottoman Empire, and others, did.
So, if you just train with your equipment, you will not have a jam, no matter what kind of extractor you have.
CRF? Highly over rated.
And the US Army does not use it.
Not talking about the top end customs; working customs. Less than $6K.

Great question and great replies. In my opinion part of it comes from the fact custom rifle building (with bolt guns) started after ww2 and actions were limited in availability somewhat. The cheapest were mauser surplus actions and many gunsmiths learned their trade with those actions. When people bought those custom guns, they passed them on. Their children then had custom rifles built and wanted it like their parents and so on.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
To me there are really only two.

The Mauser Model 1898 and the Winchester Model 70.

But I could easily be talked into stretching that to four by adding the Mannlicher-Schoenauer Model 1903 and also the Springfield Model 1903. Almost no one chooses those two nowadays, but I like them very much.

It’s a combination of classic design, function, beauty and also nostalgia that does it for me.

Agree fully. May through in the Dakota 76/Parkwest but it is a modified Model 70

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Glad you asked; Many of my personal rifles are built on the 98; most FNs with no thumb cut; just look better. Extractors modified to close on a round in the chamber since original Military 98s are NOT designed to do so.
Also a couple on claw Model 70s. Couple on Mauser 91; by far the smoothest feeding of anything, single stack mag.
However, I do have several built on 1965 Win Model 70s; they are smoother than the claws, and trust me, the rounds are still controlled. Got my first one new in 1968 for $125. And they are true Magnum length, whereas pre 64s are all 30-06 length.
Just remember why the "crf" was invented; for poorly trained soldiers, because if you try to chamber a round and do not close the bolt, and then try to chamber another one, it will jam. Germany did not think their Army needed it and did not adopt it for several years after its introduction. The Ottoman Empire, and others, did.
So, if you just train with your equipment, you will not have a jam, no matter what kind of extractor you have.
CRF? Highly over rated.
And the US Army does not use it.
Not talking about the top end customs; working customs. Less than $6K.

Agree here as well.
Know your equipment and practice.
CRF is not the end all be all. I really like the Sako action but have just not used it with dangerous game rifles.

Quite apart from the fact that they can look good, the Mauser 98 has a long history as the basis for sporting rifles. For at least three generations, all gunsmiths and gunmakers worked with Mauser actions. Let's face it, there is just so much good about them. The only issues arise when someone botches an alteration.
Every action which was purported to be an improvement, was really just a modification. The Springfield is a worse rifle in almost every respect. The Enfield screwed up the Mauser boltstop and ejector. The Winchester Model 54 used a poor breeching system (easier to make though) but did eliminate the slotted lug (I have not seen where the slotted lug was a real issue any, but some saw it as so).
I have built rifles on Mausers, Winchesters, Enfields, Springfields, and a whole bunch of commercial and custom actions. If I had to choose an action on which to build a serious hunting rifle, I would choose an unaltered Mauser, second choice would be a commercial Mauser (FN). If I was building a classic sporting/target rifle, I would use a Winchester. If I was building a serious target rifle, I would use a Remington clone.
My primary hunting rifle is a Mauser. It has a Wisner three position safety and the magazine has been lengthened for the 35 Whelen. Re-stocked, of course. Apart from that, it is unaltered. Original trigger, original bottom metal. It is perfect. It shoots better than it has to and I can't imagine how it could malfunction. I have a pre-war Model 70 which is similar in concept, but it seems almost delicate in comparison. I built myself a 256 Newton, on a Kimber Montana. Very nice rifle to carry, but not as confidence inspiring as the Mauser. OK, but with compromises. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
.....the Mauser 98 has a long history as the basis for sporting rifles......The only issues arise when someone botches an alteration......
Regards,
Bill

Words from the wise.
Unfortunately due to the fact that they were plentiful and inexpensive, the majority of "custom" Mausers fall into that category.

I did not mention the CZ 550 and 550 Magnum actions, but they can be made into superb custom rifles as well and are favorites of mine.

They are Mauser 98 derivatives, of course, but unlike a lot of Mauser derivatives, the CZs incorporate some true improvements to the design.

I have to ask you to enumerate the improvements; I have barreled a few of them and only see steps backwards. Changes, yes. Improvements, no. To me.

The only actual improvement, and there is some question, might be the elimination of the slotted lug. Apart from that, most of the changes just added complexity. Regards, Bill

The true beauty of the slotted lug is the empty case doesn't bounce off a scope like all the other "improvements". The Mini Sako actions that have this split lug and can work for a 17 fireball as it doesn't try and eject the instant the bolt moves back. Mini MarkX has this same feature. I'm a fan. Not a fan of extractors above the lug though. Mauser got it right the first time.

The CZ 550 and 550 Magnum actions have many key features in common with the Mauser:

1. Mauser type bolt, including two, opposed front locking lugs and non-rotating claw extractor, with an undercut extractor groove to aid extraction.
2. C-ring internal collar in the front receiver ring.
3. A third locking lug on the bottom of the bolt.
4. Action cocks on opening.

But the action is different from the Mauser in a number of respects, and IMHO most of these differences make it better, but a few do make it worse, than the Mauser.

IMHO, the pros outweigh the cons, especially when starting a custom. But opinions vary.

PRO - The 550 Magnum can handle any cartridge suitable for a bolt action rifle, up to and including the .600 Overkill. In the Mauser, the normal action is too small, and a magnum action is needed for the larger rounds. Those are rare, and invariably expensive, even if one chooses a modern-made derivative.

PRO - Extractor claw is beveled and relieved to snap over the cartridge rim when loading a single round fed directly into the chamber ahead of the bolt. It’s a relatively easy fix to make a Mauser extractor do this, but it is a fix that IMHO must be done.

CON - Bolt shroud is not flanged for gas deflection. Why every bolt shroud on every Mauser-derived bolt action rifle is not flanged I will never understand. PITA to fix. Some say the fix is not needed, and I see their point. I have many Mauser-derived bolt action rifles with non-flanged bolt shrouds and don’t lose any sleep over it.

PRO - Safety is mounted on the side of the action and does not interfere with a low-mounted scope. I see the Mauser flag safety as a definite CON, since it prevents proper low scope mounting. Winchester got it right with the Model 70 three-position wing safety mounted on the bolt shroud. I prefer to have both my CZs and Mausers modified to include this feature.

CON - Bolt has one, small gas relief port, on the bottom, rather than the two, larger ports of the Mauser. Not a huge deal, but why not go with two large ports, which is clearly a better and safer design? Another port could be added, but only a nit-picker would venture into such PITA territory. So, not much of a CON after all, but included here for the sake of completeness.

PRO/CON - The CZ action has a Winchester Model 70 type, spring-loaded ejector blade located in the bottom of the action on the inside. The outside, side-mounted Mauser ejector/bolt stop lever is theoretically more reliable, so the CZ ejector might be seen as a CON. But as long as the CZ ejector is kept clean and lightly lubricated, it will function just fine. I have never had one fail. Now, having said that, as some have noted, there is also a PRO associated with the CZ ejector, in that it enables placement of the slot for the ejector on the bolt body, rather than through the left locking lug. This makes the lug somewhat stronger. So, overall, I see the CZ ejector and solid left bolt lug as a PRO, but perhaps not a huge one.

PRO – The CZ action has a Model 70 type, small, rear-levered bolt stop that is pushed to operate, like the one on the Winchester Model 70. Much less obtrusive and easier to operate than the pull operated Mauser, and just as effective.

PRO - One piece bottom metal, with a hinged floor plate, with Winchester Model 70 type button latch. The only thing comparably convenient on the Mauser is the 1909 Argentine bottom metal, but that is a fix required for all others.

PRO - No thumb slot on the left side of the action. Makes for a stronger, more rigid action. Some commercial Mausers do have this feature.

PRO - Action has integral scope “bases” in the form of milled grooves on the square topped bridge and receiver ring. This is a fantastic and underrated arrangement and a huge PRO. Coupled with the milled notch in the bridge, this set up makes for trouble free and rock solid scope mounting. This system can, of course, be duplicated on the Mauser action, but only with a lot of work and expense.

I may have left something out, but that's my take, and why I think so highly of the CZ 550.

The only pros I see are not design features; like the solid left receiver wall; all modern Mausers have those.
All cons, and one BIG one; the 550 has metric threads; a pain to make. Why not just keep the 1.1x12 English threads? No good reason.
Safety is a military feature; sporters do not use that. All commercial bottom metal is hinged on Mausers. Maybe the bolt stop is better on the CZ.
BL said it all; no improvements; and definitely added complexity. Integral scope bases; ok.
I have barreled a lot of them; they are fine, but have many unnecessary features.

Then Ruger came out with the 77MKII.

Double bridge, 3 position safety, control feed.

Very strong no need for a lot of expensive work.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Then Ruger came out with the 77MKII.

Double bridge, 3 position safety, control feed.

Very strong no need for a lot of expensive work.

Not sure where the Ruger 77MKII ranks among the actions for top end custom rifles. I suspect it is on nobody's list. Solid action though. Bill

Of the BIG 3 US Custom makers, and you know who they are, they would not be caught dead with a Ruger; those are for the unwashed masses. You don't spend 10K on a custom rifle and have a Ruger 77 as a platform.
Besides, what is there to improve about them?
I do like the 77; I have had many of them since the original dog leg 77; you young guys do not know what that is.
Fired at least a thousand 7.62 Nato rounds out of it; ball and tracer. Another story. Zero failures to feed, BTW.
At least I no longer hear about how weak they are, being made from cast iron and all.....
But for a high end custom; no.

For an off the shelf and "gp hunting:" the Ruger seems to fit the bill pretty well.

I resockted two of them..which means I'm a slow learner. Both receivers were more paralellogram than square. Life is too short to try and do much with them.

quote:

Besides, what is there to improve about them?

Nothing that will cost you big dollars.

you don't want your buddies to think you ran out of money when you had your "custom" rifle built.
(lightly modified RK quote)

I do have a couple of semi-custom Rugers, but they are far from being high level customs. One is a hunting rifle, the other is a target rifle. Both work well but lack class.

I realized that I left bolt handles and triggers off my list.

PRO - CZ's bolt handle is good as is, while the Mauser's, that is, all versions thereof except the commercial models that come with bent or even better, straight-down Oberndorf handles, all require replacement in order to accommodate a properly low-mounted scope. I prefer to replace even the CZ handle with a straight, Oberndorf patterned handle, but that is personal preference, not necessity.

CON - The strange, single set trigger on the CZ is not to most peolples' liking. Most will want to replace it with a crisp, sngle stage trigger.
Mauser military two-stage triggers are better, although again, most people prefer to replace them with a crisp single-stage trigger. So I give the Mauser a CON, too. It's a wash.

American Hunting Rifles and AR member Bitterroot, and Ed Plummer before him, used to do box office business customizing CZ 550s, and CZ 550 Magnums especially. Their modifications to the safety, the bolt handle and the trigger, and also their stockwork, were all just about perfect.

But for all the reasons noted above, the box-stock CZ 550 and 550 Magnum models did just fine as sporting rifles without those modifications. AHR designed them to achieve an even higher degree of fit, finish and function.

It is truly a shame that CZ retired the 550 and 550 Magnum models. Prices are already going through the roof.

As for other rifle models, I would not build a custom rifle on a Ruger Model 77, although I would on a Ruger No. 1.

Nor would I ever, except in dire desperation, build one on any kind of Remington.

But as I say, opinions vary.

The 550's drawback is the peculiar and, one of a kind parts used...Just proves that any so called improvement to he 98 system is a step backwards

Your arguments are strewn with gaping defects in logic. (Not my words).
Comparing strictly military features which aren't inherent design parameters, to sporter rifle action design, is not fair, nor germane. Like bolt handles.
And triggers. I know, What do the Germans have to do with it?
As for the SST on the CZ; I have thrown many of those away for guys becaeu they are a mass/mess of tiny parts; designed by a watchmaker, not a rifle shooter.
Don't get me wrong, the CZs are fine rifles; just the design is/was overly complicated.
But like we did with the 03 Springfield, everything they changed on the basic design was a step backwards. Please no more hate mail; I know the facts make some guys angry!
I agree; Rugers and Remingtons are not for the high end customs; they are for the masses to just go out and kill stuff. Custom rifles are status symbols for the wealthy, not for the average hunter.

As I said, opinions vary.

The last Mauser custom I had built was on a 1909 Argentine.

Military Mauser actions are still commonly used as the basis of customs.

But for anything big, like my .416 and .450 Rigbys and my .500 A-Square, I will use the CZ 550 Magnum.

quote:

. Custom rifles are status symbols for the wealthy,

I can and have appreciated high end rifles.

I have held many and shot a few.

They are fantastic works of art and a credit to the builder.

But I am more of a tool kind of guy.

Give me a good tool that gets the job done. I am all for it.

Nothing wrong with a good, woprking "shovel" Some folks are Ok with a knock off store brand scope...others want the likes of S&B, Swarovski. they will nuy B&L sunglasses and glady pass on Wal Mart.

A custom rifle, suits,,. boots. etc embody features and tastes the are not possibly available off the shelf...I'm not certain that it's all about symbol, status or otherwise

I hunt with my customs.

They are tools, to be sure, but beautiful and functionally enhanced tools.

There is a real and undeniable joy in owning, and being able to use, precisely the tool you want to use for any given job.