I know, someone was perfectly within his rights, but I sure hate to see this kind of thing:
OberndorfTypeA

To me it has little to do with Rights. It has more to do with respect to the firearm and the style it was presented in.
Some nicer bases and rings would have made a huge difference.

I don't understand.

Well, actually I was thinking he should not have D&Td such a rifle at all, let alone butcher the bolt handle, safety and buttplate.

I really don't see the safety as a big problem as it would be simple to replace it with an original.

The cutting the stock for a recoil pad was really a bad choice. I guess they couldn't take the pounding of the 30-06?

The bolt handle would be an easy fix as an original style could be welded on and the repair would be unnoticeable. The sad thing was that they had to inlet the stock for the bolt handle.

And drilling and tapping the action is a travisty regardless of the mounts used. But we should thank God that they did not use a "period correct" sidemount that would have required four horrible holes in the side of the action and taking an ax to the stock for clearance.....

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:
Well, actually I was thinking he should not have D&Td such a rifle at all, let alone butcher the bolt handle, safety and buttplate.

Despite the costs of the changes the value of the rifle was diminished by at least half.

Sad.

Idiots abound.

You don't know when it was done. There was a time when the best hunting rifles were sporterized military weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by Abob:
You don't know when it was done. There was a time when the best hunting rifles were sporterized military weapons.

True maybe, but the rifle being discussed is not a sporterized milsurp.

Yes drilling an taping should not have been done. But since it is already done why not use a decent set of mounts. The safety can be replaced, no permenant damage there. The bolt handle would defiantly have to be replaced. The porosity is horrible

You guys are the experts and I respect and admire your interest in historic firearms. And I'm certainly don't want to turn this into one of those name calling threads. But as you know, not everyone is into collecting guns. Certainly you agree there are lots of "Bubba's & idiots" who like to shoot guns at things like deers in the back 40. My guess is the guy who made the modifications had no idea he was altering a piece of art. First, I recognize the term Bubba is not always derogatory. But if I were to use it in a negative way, my definition of "Bubba" would be the guy who watches a hunting show on TV and decides to go hunting on Saturday. So on Friday he heads to Walmart and buys a hunting license (or maybe not), a $300 rifle, 1 box of shells, and a 6 pack of beer. The next day he drives the roads hoping to see something to shoot.

Either way, thank God we live in a Country where you can be a Collector or a Bubba.

just look at it this way

All those Oberndorf's sitting in private collections protected from mis guided gunsmithing. They will only increase in value every time some one bubba's one.

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:
Despite the costs of the changes the value of the rifle was diminished by at least half.

I notice that often with custom mausers.

Smiths have been giving the M70 treatment to M98 customs for decades and continue to do so....ie; M70 swept back bolt style.

Dave Norin,Jerry Fisher,James Anderson and D'Arcy Echols, are four that come immediately to mind.
...and now that I've got a few more moments to think about it , add Mark Stratton,Steven Heilmann,Herman Waldron,Maurice Ottmar,Vic Olson,Garry Stiles,Don Klien,Roger Green, Don Allen,Billeb.

And to think that I felt bad when I chopped a couple of number matched 98Ks!

I would think the $1595 price minimum will only be met if a fresh head of cabbage falls from a nearby truck. At least replace the shotgun pad with a solid pad and put some nice QD bases and rings- no collector but a really nice rifle to take hunting and enjoying its use instead of gathering dust in the cabinet.

Bubba strikes again!

quote:

Trax: Smiths have been giving the M70 treatment to M98 customs for decades and continue to do so....ie; M70 swept back bolt style.

Dave Norin,Jerry Fisher,James Anderson and D'Arcy Echols, are four that come immediately to mind.
...and now that I've got a few more moments to think about it , add Mark Stratton,Steven Heilmann,Herman Waldron,Maurice Ottmar,Vic Olson,Garry Stiles,Don Klien,Roger Green, Don Allen,Billeb.

Few if any of these smiths would have butchered the rifle in question. Perhaps you. Best thing to do at this point is to put it back as closely as original, albeit with high grade scope bases/mounts.

The bolt handle job and the buttpad were obviously done by a "hacksmith. The changes would not be so objectionable if they had been done in keeping with the period look rather than an attempt to "modernize" it. Can't think of a single rifle by any of the artists that Trax mentioned that would put their name on this level of work.

I have to agree that I would like to have the gun in original condition. However, as mentioned, it may have been done in the 50's when the gun was considered a clunker. I bought a mint grade 1-1/2 NID 16 ga in new condition in 1972 for $70 because you coudn't give them away. I also wish my 257 Roberts G33/40 from the 50's was still original and I owned it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, except we don't have it ahead of time. Sometimes, you just have to forget things like my G33/40 and enjoy it for what it is, a piece of the history of shooting in this country. When I shoot this rifle, I picture a returned vet, who is really proud of the custom he had built.

I do think it odd that there are so many comments about the Weaver. At one time, probably when this gun was built, they were the go to mount and ring source. Writers like Jack O'Conner wrote about them because they were the lighest strong rings you could buy for a mountain rifle. The scope itself, if it is an old steel tube K4, is collectible in it's own right. Nothing about drilling it for Weaver mounts precludes use any of the later mounts. Given the age I suspect for the work, I would be surprised to see anything else on the rifle and find nothing at all odd about the choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Austin Hunter:
Bubba strikes again!

So this means an antique rifle was modified, which reduced its collector's value?

I go to car shows with friends sometimes, and some guys are all about the original paint and matching serial numbers and stuff like that, and other's take an old car and put nice paint on it and a modern engine in it. Still others go crazy with the paint and modifications to make it completely impractical as a form of transportation. I guess it's just a matter of taste.

quote:

Originally posted by jpl:

quote:

Originally posted by Austin Hunter:
Bubba strikes again!

So this means an antique rifle was modified, which reduced its collector's value?

I go to car shows with friends sometimes, and some guys are all about the original paint and matching serial numbers and stuff like that, and other's take an old car and put nice paint on it and a modern engine in it. Still others go crazy with the paint and modifications to make it completely impractical as a form of transportation. I guess it's just a matter of taste.

As with anything collectible, originallity is the most important thing followed by condition.

Cars that are original to begin with are worth keeping that way. A street rodded '68 Hemi will be worth far less that its all original & matching counterpart. Same goes for guns.

I suppose the point here is that, while it is the individual gun owner's perogative to alter their rifle anyway they see fit, doing so has consequences.

I don't automaticaly condemn someone for altering an all original rifle. It's theirs to do with as they please. If they have hunted with it all their life and find themselves at a point in their life where to continue to do so requires modifications like adding optical sights then that is their choice to make. I would hope that they would of course opt for tasteful modifications. But then again, what they find tasteful I may not. Unfortunately, many owners have no idea whatsover what the value of an object is. To many it is simply a rifle that is old as can be and just a tool to be used and if it cannot be used then it has no value to them. Hence, the modifications to bring it back into usable condition. To them it is asimple choice, to many of us, a travesty.

What I always get a chuckle out of is sellers who ask three times the value of an adulterated collectible.

Now, with some nice claw mounts....

I love the a and b mausers, damn gorgeous, and that barrel, octagon to round with full length rib, that's just tits delicious. I'd love to have a barrel like that on something in my safe. It is too bad what was done, but it could be mostly taken care of, if a good deal were made it would be worth making it right.

Red

quote:

Originally posted by jpl:

quote:

Originally posted by Austin Hunter:
Bubba strikes again!

So this means an antique rifle was modified, which reduced its collector's value?

I go to car shows with friends sometimes, and some guys are all about the original paint and matching serial numbers and stuff like that, and other's take an old car and put nice paint on it and a modern engine in it. Still others go crazy with the paint and modifications to make it completely impractical as a form of transportation. I guess it's just a matter of taste.

I guarantee there were plenty of other Mausers around that could have been sacrificed for the project versus an original Type A

quote:

Originally posted by Dago Red:
Now, with some nice claw mounts....

I love the a and b mausers, damn gorgeous, and that barrel, octagon to round with full length rib, that's just tits delicious. I'd love to have a barrel like that on something in my safe. It is too bad what was done, but it could be mostly taken care of, if a good deal were made it would be worth making it right.

Red

You are right, you could probably rescue this rifle with some german claw mounts and have the bolt handle reworked to the factory original. Not sure if the stock was cut or the recoil pad just added on. I would probably restock it in an original pattern.

mauser action $200
integral ribbed barrel in 30-06 with sights $800+
stock finished and checkered ???

quote:

Originally posted by richj:
mauser action $200
integral ribbed barrel in 30-06 with sights $800+
stock finished and checkered ???

Not quite.

It seems that the consensus here is that this was done recently, when someone should have known the value of the rifle in original configuration. This conversion could have been done the day it was purchased or several years later.
I picked up a Win pre 64 Super Grade 300 H&H that someone had rechambered to 300 Wthby. I got it for the grand total of 275 out the door. Bought a as new original barrel and now have a real nice 300 H&H! The conversion was done by the original owner, in the late 60's, when the original super grades were not that rare.
A last thought, if you put a set of claw mounts on it, wouldn't that also hurt the value as you would have to drill and tap, or solder, or mill parts of the reciever/barrel rib to accomplish that.
It is a shame that that was done to that rifle, but if I would have bought it, I would have had the bolt returned to as original as possible, an original "flag" safety added, the holes filled and shot it as it was meant to be shot when it left the factory...using the open sights.

If this was a Brazilian or Chilean or 09 or VZ24 or any pre-ww2 sporter what would it be worth?

I see guild or cigarette type rifles going for +900. if you see them for less please take me shopping with you.

Well, it didn't draw $1600 so what do you guy's think it's worth? I was thinking maybe $1200-$1300 on a good day.

Terry

Horrors!! Sometime in the past some guy actually bought a Mauser and modified it to work for HIM!!!

HEAVEN FORBID!

Can you imagine a buffoon so crass as to take a rifle which was built to work, and adjusting it so that it performed to meet HIS needs? How thoughtless!!

I'll bet NONE of YOU guys has ever done that with your Remington, Winchester, Savage, Sako, Tikka, Shilen DGA, or whatever, have you? Ever made a bean field rifle, a mountain rifle, a bear-in-the-alders rifle? I thought not.....

quote:

Originally posted by congomike:
It seems that the consensus here is that this was done recently, when someone should have known the value of the rifle in original configuration. This conversion could have been done the day it was purchased or several years later.

Doubtful, the SN places production of this rifle as well prior to WWII. Not having my handy dandy reference in hand I would guess this rifle to have been made in the 1920's. Scope base scpacing was not standardized on Mausers until much later when FN started offering factory drill & tapped rifles.

Worth is a relative term. Given I paid only $1500 for a very nice square bridge type "S" there is no way I would pay anywhere near that for this rifle. Then again, that is just me and my idiosyncrasies at work. Another buyer might be happy to pay twice that. Worth, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

The rifle was made in 1912, imported by Hans Tauscher, New York. It is actually a Type B Deluxe, not a Type A. See page 109, Jon Speed's book. I have an identical rifle(w/o the alterations), serial number 5 digits apart.

I would say this was done in the 50's. The safety appears to be a Beuhler and the Weaver scope and mount would be the more or less standard economy combination of the time. When I was in gunsmith school we saw many rifles such as this come thru the school for just such modifications and it was done without a squeak by anyone. It was accepeted as making the rifle a more practical hunting tool. It appears to have been neatly and professionally done. Typical bolt handle replacement of the day. Not being a colector and more than that not being so enamored by the Mauser/English religion, I personally don't see anythhing wrong with the modifications at all. I would probably do them myself today although I would probably use a different scope mount. I was particularly partial to Beuhlers myself and would have probably used their one piece mount as it also only required 1 hole be drilled and tapped in the rear bridge (less work). I have absolutely nothing against Weaver scopes as they were always within my price range and quality level. Heaven forbid I have even milled the top strap of a Colt SAA and installed a S&W rear sight on them with out turning a hair. Horror of horrors I even milled the rib and made bases for Leupold rings and installed on a fine double rifle. You know I don't even feel ashamed of myself. I don't like a lot of the accepted examples people ooh and ahh at on this forum. You spend your money as you see fit and I will spend mine on those things I like. I even had the integral quarter rib on a David Miller 375 barrel milled to accept Ruger rings so I could put on a scout scope. David Miller had even taken great care to differential blue the barrel giving it a great look. I did it to mount a scope and not have to modify the bolt handle which was typical Mauser with the knob tastefully engraved on the single square bridge Westley richards action. I have since desecrated the cocking piece by installing a Rusty Marlin peep. I like it much better this way. It's in a crummy old piece of American black walnut that David Miller didn't want. I think people on here get way too upset about inconsequential items. Somehow I thought these columns were devoted to shooting and hunting.

This forum is devoted to gunsmithing, this thread to good quality gunsmithing and when gunsmithing is appropriate. Poor quality gunsmithing, like this, is never appropriate. Good quality gunsmithing isn't either if it is unecessary and significantly devalues an investment grade collector piece, like this. Butcher a military Mauser if you must, or sell your commercial Mauser, buy a Remington 700 and save the difference.

This has been covered in a few of the above posts. I have to agree that this is not comparable to customizing or restoring a classic car.

In those cases the value of the car is known and it is understood what is happening with the customization/ restoration.

We are not taking an all original, garaged late 60's Judge and and rebuilding it so our teenage daughter can drive it.
Thats basically what happened here. Guy didn't like the bolt handle didn't like the safety, didn't like the open sights. so he took the rifle to someone who was more then happy to take his money drill and tap the receiver, half arse weld the bolt handle on, and ok the safety is not that big of a deal but can be fixed.

My feeling is collectible or not the quality of work is not there. Period mounts would be nice but even a custom set of Talley's would be befitting of this. The bolt handle is just straight poor craftsmanship no excuse.
Personally I would not have added a scope to this but if I were I at least would have tried to keep everything in the same realm of style

The bigger issue is that none of this is known to the general public. At what point do you not restore a firearm? At what point is it more valuable to leave it alone then to have it properly restored? And that is all based on the collector and is very subjective in all but the most obvious cases.
This guy most likely knew what he had and didn't care or had no idea and still didn't care.

I don't understand the references to "poor quality' work done on this gun. The holes appear to be in line and I would assume tapped properly. As far as the Weaver mounts, I don't really remember Talleys from the 50's when I believe this work to have been performed. The recoil pad is a standard of the era, Decellerators had not come into existance and I don't remember silvers being available in any of the sources I had,MAYBE Flaigs. I can't, from the pictures I see, comment on the weld as to quality since I see no closeups of the bolt root. The handle looks like one of the many forged blanks sold at the time. At the time I believe the work to have been performed there was not the collectors market there is today and it probably made a usable hunting arm for whoever had it done. I suppose I'm just one of the common herd and fail to understand the outrage being heaped on something that was at one time commonplace -- creating a usable firearm for someone who probably did just that --- use it to hunt.

Look at the bolt handle for starters (11th picture). You really think that is acceptable quality work?

I see some age and rust spots on a polished bolt handle that would be appropiate for it's age. You cannot see the root of the handle where any welding would have been done. I cannot see anything on the bolt handle to indicate poor workmanship in any fashion. Unless you have a better closeup than I see the only thing I could possible remark on would be the polish of the handle maybe could be better.

Zim
If you can see the quality issues. don't worry about it you'll never see them or ever care.
Talley's didn't exist in the 50's but other quality mounts did. Weavers are Wall Mart Junk. They reek of cheapness. They will do the job and do it just fine but have no place being on a firearm of this quality.
If you owned a Dakota for instance. or even one of Duane's works of art. Would you go to the local gun shop and pick up the most dirt cheep scope and mounts to put on that rifle??

Now as for the bolt handle I'm not so concerned with the weld as I am the shape. The stem is not properly contoured and is just plain ugly.
As for the holes in the receiver well that is just blatant disrespect for a quality collectible action. There were better mounts available back then. Expensive yes but still available.
I would put that on par with someone owning a first generation Colt signal action army and installing a scope on it. You just don't do stuff like that. I don't care when it was done.

The more I look at this rifle I think this thing was a fathers gun passed down to his kid that didn't know any better nor cared either.