Can somebody please tell me the "standard" spacing for the scope base holes on a Mauser. (I assume FN set the standard?)
Thanks,

I am not sure what the spacing is between the rear front hole and the rear hole, but to make it easy on the next guy here is what I do. I use a standard FN or 98 one piece base and use it for a drill jig to get the correct spacing. When I have the rear hole located I use a rear base (2-piece) located off the new rear hole and drill and tap the last hole in the rear bridge. Make sure you line up the one piece "jig" so the new two piece rear base does not extend beyond the rear bridge and contact the bolt handle. What all this does, is allow the next guy to use the action, to use either the one or two piece base of his choice. Too many times I have run into Mausers with hole spacing way off to utilize one or the other types of bases.

Jim

Don,

I use the B-Square jig and between the rear front hole and the front rear hole measures 4.375. The spacing between the front holes is .860 and the spacing between the rear holes is .504 Jim

I can set it up on the mill and do what Jim just described, but for a more idiot proof adventure with a drill press, Wheeler Engineering makes a jig:

http://www.midwayusa.com/rewriteaproduct/603260



Another thing that jig does, is space the front holes the right distance from the rear holes so Ken Farrell's one piece will fit:

http://www.kenfarrell.com/cgi-bin/kenfarrell.cgi/index.html



With a one piece, the mount just glass beds, and screws to the receiver. With a two piece, I must jump through hoops to align the mounts when the glass bedding is soft, so I will not have to lapp the scope rings. [Unless Burris Signature rings are used that self align]

picture of 9 Mausers I just drilled and tapped

picture of 9 more Mausers I just drilled and tapped, and yes, I used the Wheeler fixture on all of them



--

A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.

Thanks, all,for your help.

Clark, how high is the Farrell scope mount on the Mauser? I've been looking for a mount like his, but I want the front section as thin as possible to enable a low scope mount.

Thanks again,

Clark,
The Wheeler jig looks to be pretty much the same as the B-Square that I use. They both appear to index on roll pins that protrude through the plate. I milled an aluminum block and mounted the bottom plate to it. It sits on the drill press table perfectly and I don't even need to put it in a vise as holding it with the hand is sufficient. It also is pretty much "idiot proof" Jim

The Farrell mount I have here is .421" high in the front and .578" in the rear.
The difference between those numbers is .157".
I have been compiling the height difference between the rear mounting surface and the large ring in different Mausers:
mystery 7mm .067"
Spanish '93 .081"
1903 Turk .123"
K98 .151"
VZ24 .165"
1938 Turk .171"

The distance between holes is 4.287 +/- .010"
With that as a sight radius, then each .001" of height error should give .8 moa.
If one could live with a 10 moa error, then the mount should be good for rifles from .145" to .169" with out shims.
That puts my K98 and VZ24 in the set of rifles usable without shims.
The 1903 Turk would need a .034" shim in the front and the 1938 Turk would need a .014" shim in the rear.


The Farrell mount weighs between 6 and 6.5 ounces.
It slows down feeding of the magazine.
It has two screws in the front and one in the rear.

--
A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.

Thanks, Clark,

My 1909 Argentines average tight at .150 difference.

My 1917 Oberndorf GEW98 is .165 after grinding off the hump, and polishing all.

Is that .421 thick in the front the distance from the ring to the top flat on the Weaver-style base, or is it to the reference line or point of the VEE section that establishes the the sight plane? Can you give me the other dimension?

Thanks,

Don,
I WISH I were giving measurements in terms of the Weaver ear points, but that is not easy to measure.

I am giving them in terms of the flat top of the Weaver rail.
That is not good for comparing different brands or steel vs Alluminum bases, but should be consistant over the length of the Farrell, and at least parrallel to the sight plane.

The rear base holes on my Conetrol bases are closer then the Wheeler Eng. jig is set up for. I just realized this when I was going to sell a mauser and didn't want the expensive Conetrol mounts to go with it. The rear one would not interchange with redfield/weaver standard spacing. Had to let the mounts go too.