The issues with this rifle are the most common ones I have to deal with regarding pre-war custom rifles.

Everything save the recoil pad if the stock has been cut can be reversed. The scope holes can be filled, the bolt reshaped or replaced, the hole for the bolt filled.

I don't know how disarable the Mauser is but I can tell you from first hand experience it's expensive to have it done right.

The second biggest killer of classic rifles is folks who don't know (or care) how to pack a rifle for shipment.

Jesus guys...its just a damn rifle

Well Mike some people take things a little personal you know.

quote:

Michael Petrov: Don't know how disarable the Mauser is but I can tell you from first hand experience it's expensive to have it done right.

Not as rare/desirable as your Springfields but one of the Holy Grails of Mausers, when UNALTERED.


Mike, these boards are all about obsessive compulsive behavior, please bear with us.

Mike_Detorre -- Just exactly the point I was trying to make,probably in my usual poor way. I know I was beating an equine cadaver but it gets old reading page after page of repititous comments on the absolute superiority of The Mauser Rifle or the English design stock or the total superiority of English double rifles. This appears to be a decently done modification of what was quite probably a WWII souvenir rifle that the person wanted to modernize for their use.I don't see a single poorly done item. The holes appear to be in line and the pad seems to be straight and ground to shape. The bolt handle appears to be the standard period shape (when I left for gunsmith school in 1952 I carried a Mauser barreled action with a Phieffer (sp) barrel and that exact same bolt handle) which is sold today by Brownells under the Lenard Brownell model . That is an aesthetic point not a quality point in any case. As far as mounts there were not a wealth of aesthetically pleasing ones around that I knew of. Weaver,Buehler,Redfield,B&L,G&H.and the Pachmeyer Lo-Swing were the common available of the period. Do I use Weavers, not particularly as most of mine are Warne,Talley,Customs and Leupolds. But I have a Siamese Mauser Mannlicher that has an FN safety installed and a set of Weaver bases with someone elses rings from my odds and ends box. The scope is a Leupold. The rifle is as perfectly done as any I have ever seen. But the barrel is a Douglas match M14 barrel that was incorrectly threaded and used on this action. Steps are still in the barrel. Rear sight and front ramp are Remington take-offs. Caliber is 30-40 because it was a 30 cal barrel. Stock is a nice piece of english walnut. Metal work and the stock are absolutely without flaw in workmanship from the surface ground action to the new straight bolt handle. Since I have been taken to task for not being able to see the quality of the workmanship By kcstott I went to his web site and was totally unimpressed with the quality I saw there which undoubtly means nothing since I am obviously unable to determine quality. Would I modify such a rifle for my own use --- Probably as I am 77 years of age ,wear trifocals and see very poorly. Would I use that bolt handle probably not as I prefer straight handles. My last custom is on a Mdl 70 Classic action which has had the handle replaced with straight checkered one. Would I drill the reciver --- I would probably put a G&H side mount on it. I like G&H mounts. Would I install a pad,absolutely as I don't like any degree of recoil when I can reduce it. It would probably be a Decellerator as are on most of my rifles. Would I care what others thought about what I did ---- not one iota. I don't think in any of the few comments I have made on this and other forums have I ever critized anyones presentation unless they have asked for specific comments. I am happy you are proud of your firearm,picture,car or what ever you present. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and aesthetic values.

Cost of alterations to original Type B Deluxe Mauser (today's dollars):

Install recoil pad: $75
Install safety lever: $60
Install bolt handle: $150
Tap receiver (4 holes): $80
Depreciation: $1500

Zim -

I understand exactly what you are saying. Many of your debators apparently aren't old enough to understand.

Let me tell a story here to try to put some perspective into this thread.

In 1959 I met a car salesman Named Jim Judd. We became "sorta" friends. I bought an Austin Healey from him (a 100-4) and later an Austin Healey Sebring.

He also had a bring-back Krieghoff Luger, in mint condition, in its original holster, with the original straw bluing on the parts where it was right, mint bore and finish, etc. He took it in on a trade. I bought it from him for $15.

After a few months, I wanted a Stevens #44 in .25-20 SS, so I sold the Luger for $15...same as I paid Jim for it. A few months later, I had some extra bucks, so I bought the Luger back again for $15.

Then I spotted a Mauser rebarreled with a Pfeiffer barrel in a wildcat chambering (.22-250), and sold the Luger to another guy for $15, again. That Mauser was an original Type A which had been rebarreled, and fitted with Sisk Mounts. Of course to do that, it had been drilled and tapped, and the bolt altered for its scope.

Time passed, and I bought the Luger back again, still for $15. Then I wanted a nice little M62-A Winchester, so I traded straight across for it. In those days you could buy used 62-As, 1906s, etc., from $5 up with a little looking, but they were dead easy to find for $10-$12. I gave the Luger for mine because it had a Lyman Jr. Targetspot on it.

Well, I never saw the Luger again, but I did see a nice Single Action Colt .45, SN 7345, which I thought was neat because it ws a Model of '73, calibre .45 Colt. So, I traded the 62-A for it, and carried it as an off-duty gun when I was on the Menlo PD. And life went on and on like that as I descended still further into the warped world of a bona fide gun looney.

My point (FINALLY)...

Most folks didn't tie their personal status to some imagined mystic collectors' value of their possessions in those days, except for genuinely wealthy folks who were collectors of gemstones, oil paintings, fancy horses, and mansions. They bought guns because they liked to use them.

Like today, they had different tastes and often bought different guns than their shooting buddies, but (and this is important to the future of guns today) they bought them to use.

That being the case, they modified them with their primary thoughts being "Can I afford to have this done?" and "Will it actually work for me?" And there weren't a lot of good scope mounts available by today's standards...Weaver being widely acknowledged at the time as one of the very best because it was light, strong, and no expensive. (Aluminum was MORE ewxpensive than steel back then.)

That last (the inexspensive part) was important to guys trying to build a life after the second Great War and a searing 10 years of the Great Depression....which had only really ended with the coming of the war which increased the demand for totally expendable products (like bombs and shells) and decreased the work force 'til every man and woman was truly needed.

Anyone who lived through those days and had their eyes open had a different vision of guns, particularly rifles, than many of the folks today. They saw them and treated them as tools, not as Mona Lisas. As such, they did what they had to do, with the means they had, to make them work for them.

So was that a crime against humanity? Some would say "Hardly, considering the day". Other's like me and maybe you, would say "Not only no, but "HELL NO".

Times change, and with the phoniness and hype we see so abundantly today, I'd have to add, "And not in all ways for the better".

If you are ever down Cave Creek way, give me a yell. I'd be proud to meet you for a cup and maybe show you some of my "working" trinkets if you're interested.

This rifle was drilled and tapped for a scope, the bolt was bent (badly) the stock and the receiver were notched out for the bent bolt.

Alberta Canuck, Thank you for understanding and if I get up that way I would definitely like to see your 'trinkets'. The same applies if you are ever in Green Valley or vicinity. We must be somewhat of like mind as in 1959 I ordered a new 60 Healey 3000 which I drove to California when I was transferred there. Decided it was too small so traded it for a Jaguar 2.4 sedan which started a long love affair with Jaguar. The three prime loves of my life apart from my family have been Guns,cameras,and cars. It's a terrible affliction. I have ALMOST survived it.

quote:

fla3006: Best thing to do at this point is to put it back as closely as original, albeit with high grade scope bases/mounts.

Recovery of $1500 in lost depreciation, and countless more dollars in personal satisfaction, would probably more than cover the cost. Maybe I'll contact the seller since it didn't sell. Nice job by your smith Michael.

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:

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.

As has been pointed out, those mods were probably done some decades ago, when such rifles were more common/less valued than they are today. Perceptions and markets do change.
If the person wanted to hunt with his favourite A/B type98 way back then,[and preferred a scope], why should he have opted for a Remington rifle instead?



AC puts puts it across well....

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

my point (FINALLY)...

Most folks didn't tie their personal status to some imagined mystic collectors' value of their possessions in those days, except for genuinely wealthy folks who were collectors of gemstones, oil paintings, fancy horses, and mansions. They bought guns because they liked to use them.

Like today, they had different tastes and often bought different guns than their shooting buddies, but (and this is important to the future of guns today) they bought them to use.

That being the case, they modified them with their primary thoughts being "Can I afford to have this done?" and "Will it actually work for me?" And there weren't a lot of good scope mounts available by today's standards...Weaver being widely acknowledged at the time as one of the very best because it was light, strong, and no expensive. (Aluminum was MORE ewxpensive than steel back then.)

That last (the inexspensive part) was important to guys trying to build a life after the second Great War and a searing 10 years of the Great Depression....which had only really ended with the coming of the war which increased the demand for totally expendable products (like bombs and shells) and decreased the work force 'til every man and woman was truly needed.

Anyone who lived through those days and had their eyes open had a different vision of guns, particularly rifles, than many of the folks today. They saw them and treated them as tools, not as Mona Lisas. As such, they did what they had to do, with the means they had, to make them work for them.

So was that a crime against humanity? Some would say "Hardly, considering the day". Other's like me and maybe you, would say "Not only no, but "HELL NO".

Times change, and with the phoniness and hype we see so abundantly today, I'd have to add, "And not in all ways for the better".

Most of those RifleSmiths I mention, have infact "butchered"[i prefer to say modified for modern sporting use] mauser actions that would be today deemed by some as fine and collectable before modification.

Jerry Fisher-Kurz [6mm Remington].


Herman Waldron -Kurz[.250 A.I.]


Maurice Ottmar G33/40.

"Trax: Most of those RifleSmiths I mention, have infact "butchered"[i prefer to say modified for modern sporting use] mauser actions that are today deemed by some as fine and collectable."

Those smiths do not butcher rifles. The rifle in question was butchered, particularly the bolt handle, even by 1950 standards.

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:
"Trax: Most of those RifleSmiths I mention, have infact "butchered"[i prefer to say modified for modern sporting use] mauser actions that are today deemed by some as fine and collectable."

Those smiths do not butcher rifles. The rifle in question was butchered, particularly the bolt handle, even by 1950 standards.

So your fine with the procedure to drill & tap an orig. Kurz receiver for a Leupold base and put a non orig. style BH on?
Some people would view Leupold rings on a Kurz, as not much better than weavers on an model A/B mauser.

Wouldn't something like this be more tasteful & appropriate for a Kurz?

If it were an original unaltered Kurz in good or better condition I would never alter it. If I needed a Kurz length action I would use a Mexican 1910 or maybe a Sako L57.

Griffin & Howe had a Kurz at the last DSC show with a custom stock, G&H sidemount, period Weaver target scope, 22/250 heavy barrel, for $2200. Don's Guns in Victoria, TX has an unaltered Kurz Type A, $8500. Get my drift?

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:
If it were an original unaltered Kurz in good or better condition I would never alter it.

and anyone who would alter such an orig. receiver [or rifle], you would consider a "butcher", correct?

or are you more relaxed on the issue of modifying a lone orig. receiver compared to an orig. rifle?

Trax, you and anyone else can do whatever you want with your guns & money.

Trax is just being himself

Same BS nit picking apart peoples posts, different subject.
I really wonder what rubbed him the wrong way as I don't really remember him every being like this before.

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:
Trax, you and anyone else can do whatever you want with your guns & money.

We are already well aware of that.

Just for clarification:
If a US smith had a lone mostly orig. Kurz receiver like pictured below, then drilled & tapped for Leupolds and added the "M70 treatment",...is he a "butcher" in your mind?

..or are you more relaxed on the issue of modifying a lone orig. Kurz receiver compared to an orig. Kurz rifle?

From this:


to end up looking something like this:


or would these efforts be more appropriate for a Kurz?

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
Trax is just being himself

Same BS nit picking apart peoples posts, different subject.
I really wonder what rubbed him the wrong way as I don't really remember him every being like this before.

If ever the day comes that you find yourself completely building or owning truly Top-Grade customs, you may eventually come to understand why some rifle smiths[and owners who commission such rifles], "nitpick" and scrutinize. [and not just rifle styles,workmanship or peoples posts about them, but also many other things in the world around us]. Just part of ones individual nature to be that way.
Annoying to some, but appreciated by others,...can't please everybody.

I guess thats why some of us end up with rifles of this quality in build while others choose to settle for less.
...each to his own.

A 250-3000 on a pre 64 M-70 is definitely tacky.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
A 250-3000 on a pre 64 M-70 is definitely tacky.

Obviously Winchester had a different view when they produced them.

Regardless of how you feel about modifying a classic or how you want to spin this thead the fact remains, the rifle in question isn't worth half it's unmodified value. The auction results clearly show this.

Terry

TC1 ---- So???????????

It should be obvious.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Petrov:
This rifle was drilled and tapped for a scope, the bolt was bent (badly) the stock and the receiver were notched out for the bent bolt.

Somebody did a wonderful job restoring it!

Terry

Trax
You could not possibly fathom how picky i am about the things I build or the rifles I own.
Try stepping into my world of the quality and precision of parts I make.
But I digress, that was not the point I was getting at.

You pick apart every little detail of someones post like you are some political commentator. To the point of pissing people off.
You try to find the slightest of contradiction and exploit it. It's getting old.
Can't you just get the drift of what someone is saying and quit taking everything as black and white.
People are entitled to have an opinion and they are also entitled to have an opinion that varies. They are also perfectly able to change their mind at anytime. That notion you just don't get.
The nit picking I'm referring to is just that. You are trying to call people out on statements they made and say "No!!! You said this!! but then you said that!! Which is it???"
Like a bloody teenager.
Wipe the water from behind your ears Put down the game controller and act your age.

If I had the time to follow everyone's post on here and question every little detail I'd get nothing done.
I'm not faulting you on your attention to detail of firearms. It's your attention to detail on the posts that is annoying

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
A 250-3000 on a pre 64 M-70 is definitely tacky.

Obviously Winchester had a different view when they produced them.

Winchester is no longer the standard here or we would be buying factory rifles.
This is about the rarefied atmosphere at the top of the Mt Everest of custom gun making.
Everyone knows you do not use an action long enough for a .375 HH for a mere .250-3000 Savage. And you used such an inept example for one of your cute cut and paste episodes.

TC1 ---- It's only obvious if value is the only criteria. I never at any time said that the mods did not diminish the collector value ,of course they did. The only point I was trying to make in my very obviously inept way was EVRYONE is not a collector and the workmanship was in no way poor quality from the pictures presented. I realize many on this forum are collectors or wannabe collectors. I am not one of those. You have some very beautiful rifles as displayed on these forums. You undoubtly know what you like and commission it to be executed. I do not wish to spend my limited resources in that manner. You make your choces I'll make mine. Mr Petrov has a particular section of American gunkmaking he is avid about. His books readily atest to this. They are superb as are the rifles he has had restored. Would I go to this limit,not in a New York minute. Do I begrudge him this prediliction -- not in any way ---- I admire him for expending the effort and dollars to preserve these examples of American gunmaking art. I am sorry if I have offended anyones sensibilities but I in no way back off from a single one of my comments.

Here is a photo of the bolt handle that was most likely used on this rifle. It was popular when this rifle was modified and is still being sold today(JD probably still uses them ):


Judging by the aged look of the recoil pad(notice the "white" line that has turned ivory) and the bluing under the mounts compared to the bluing on the rest of the receiver, it is pretty clear that these modifications were done long, long ago.

These modifications obviously kill the rifle's value as a collector's item. There is no question about that.

On the other hand, the lower value and the fact that all these "improvements" have been done puts this rifle within reach of someone who wants to have a Mauser sporter to hunt with. You could put on some quality mounts and a scope and replace the pad and bolt handle and have a really nice hunting rifle. And you will not have done anything to further lower its value.

I think that it is ironic that we are decrying the owner's decision to modify this rifle to keep it in the hunting fields(back when it was modified in the 50's, 60's or 70's) when most of us today would keep it in the back of the safe.

Keep in mind, these rifles were built as hunting rifles.

Terry,

Thanks, it's a wonderful job and the last two gunmakers who visited me would agree with you ;-).

Zimbabwe,

I agree we all have to make our own choices. Many rifles are just too expensive to have properly resorted. For me it has to have some historical past, owner or from a maker I just can't find a perfect example of.

This is the 1903 above. Will I ever recover the money spent on this rifle? Most likley not.

quote:

Originally posted by zimbabwe:
TC1 ---- It's only obvious if value is the only criteria. I never at any time said that the mods did not diminish the collector value ,of course they did. The only point I was trying to make in my very obviously inept way was EVRYONE is not a collector and the workmanship was in no way poor quality from the pictures presented. I realize many on this forum are collectors or wannabe collectors. I am not one of those. You have some very beautiful rifles as displayed on these forums. You undoubtly know what you like and commission it to be executed. I do not wish to spend my limited resources in that manner. You make your choces I'll make mine. Mr Petrov has a particular section of American gunkmaking he is avid about. His books readily atest to this. They are superb as are the rifles he has had restored. Would I go to this limit,not in a New York minute. Do I begrudge him this prediliction -- not in any way ---- I admire him for expending the effort and dollars to preserve these examples of American gunmaking art. I am sorry if I have offended anyones sensibilities but I in no way back off from a single one of my comments.

You are not a collector and niether am I. Yes, I own a few custom rifles but none of them will achieve collector status in my lifetime. They are just rifles I own and use.

The post I made that you questioned only addressed value and nothing else. You say you have limited resources but yet you question my post from a collector point of view? My post only dealt with monetary depreciation of the investment (the rifle.)

Choices? If it's your's you have every right to cut it up and do anything you want to it. You also have every right to feel the pain of loosing more than half the value of the rifle from making bad choices concerning it.

quote:

You make your choces I'll make mine.

Truth is, you haven't made a choice, only stated an opinion.

As far as the quality of the workmanship is concerned, it's extremely poor on the above mentioned rifle and it's obvious. The materials are just as bad. ER Shaw installs a nicer looking bolt handle. If I didn't know the 1st thing about an Obendorf mauser I think I could pick out the mods easily simply by the quality of the work and materials. It stands out.

Terry

TC1 -- Last word from me on the subject since you as most of the others on here do not seem to even understand what I am trying to so poorly say. I did not imply (or at least did not MEAN to imply) that you are a collector only that you like what you like and spend your capital for it as you wish. You say your post only addressed value so I misunderstood you. That is precisely the question --- Value. The only thing I know of that has a value in and of itself is Gold. A rifle,car,house,article of clothing has only that real value placed on it by the buyer. If you don't like firearms,and/or are not a collector, the rifle has only the value of it's parts as materials, ie;steel,wood,etc. You may ,of course argue this point if you wish but the value you place on it is the market value of the collectors market. The question of workmanship is not determined by the CHOICE of the STYLE of the bolt handle but the attachment and finish of it. I see no poor choice of materials in any case they appear to me to be commonly used parts of the period of when I believe the work to be done. By choices you make yours by spending your dollars on those rifles you have built and I spend mine by building my own. I have no experience with ER Shaw but to understand they primarily make barrels. My last barrel purchased was a Lilja which statement in and of itself signifies absolutely nothing except comparing one barrel maker to another. I have ,personally, never seen any of ER Shaws work so choose not to comment on it. I believe after over 55 years building,handling and just generally being interested in firearms I can definitely tell quality workmanship when I see it and just judging from the pictures presented I see absolutely no evidence of poor workmanship. You saying your post only dealt with the depreciation of the rifle is rather imaginary ,don't you think, since I don't believe either one of us know the original cost which is the only way depreciation can be determined. If you mean lack of 'appreciation in value' that is still in question until the rifle eventually sells.
Mr. Petrov -- I am quite happy with the way you spend your money as you have restored some fine pieces of Americana. It is yours to spend as you so choose unless you stole it from me ,which of course ,you did not. That repair which I think was detailed some time back is probably the most skillfull piece of restorative work I have ever seen. We have a common gunsmith friend who lives in Colorado and he has told me of your magnificent collection. I have enjoyed your book very much.
I should have learned by now to keep my opinions to my self, but sadly I weakened in this instance. I shall try to control them in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by zimbabwe:
TC1 -- Last word from me on the subject since you as most of the others on here do not seem to even understand what I am trying to so poorly say. I did not imply (or at least did not MEAN to imply) that you are a collector only that you like what you like and spend your capital for it as you wish. You say your post only addressed value so I misunderstood you. That is precisely the question --- Value. The only thing I know of that has a value in and of itself is Gold. A rifle,car,house,article of clothing has only that real value placed on it by the buyer. If you don't like firearms,and/or are not a collector, the rifle has only the value of it's parts as materials, ie;steel,wood,etc. You may ,of course argue this point if you wish but the value you place on it is the market value of the collectors market. The question of workmanship is not determined by the CHOICE of the STYLE of the bolt handle but the attachment and finish of it. I see no poor choice of materials in any case they appear to me to be commonly used parts of the period of when I believe the work to be done. By choices you make yours by spending your dollars on those rifles you have built and I spend mine by building my own. I have no experience with ER Shaw but to understand they primarily make barrels. My last barrel purchased was a Lilja which statement in and of itself signifies absolutely nothing except comparing one barrel maker to another. I have ,personally, never seen any of ER Shaws work so choose not to comment on it. I believe after over 55 years building,handling and just generally being interested in firearms I can definitely tell quality workmanship when I see it and just judging from the pictures presented I see absolutely no evidence of poor workmanship. You saying your post only dealt with the depreciation of the rifle is rather imaginary ,don't you think, since I don't believe either one of us know the original cost which is the only way depreciation can be determined. If you mean lack of 'appreciation in value' that is still in question until the rifle eventually sells.
Mr. Petrov -- I am quite happy with the way you spend your money as you have restored some fine pieces of Americana. It is yours to spend as you so choose unless you stole it from me ,which of course ,you did not. That repair which I think was detailed some time back is probably the most skillfull piece of restorative work I have ever seen. We have a common gunsmith friend who lives in Colorado and he has told me of your magnificent collection. I have enjoyed your book very much.
I should have learned by now to keep my opinions to my self, but sadly I weakened in this instance. I shall try to control them in the future.

How in the world could you think this post addressed anything but value? Read it again:

quote:

Regardless of how you feel about modifying a classic or how you want to spin this thead the fact remains, the rifle in question isn't worth half it's unmodified value. The auction results clearly show this.

There are many more things that hold value in this world other than gold. I sincerely hope you learn that for yourself one day.

Appreciation, depreciation. Twist the words any way you want. It still equates to lost money and it's not imaginary. The rifle is/was for sale so yes it's a valid point. The choice, style and execusion of modifications were/are piss poor, it's obvious that's why the rifle wouldn't draw the low sum of $1600.

How many years you've looked at rifles or what barrel you bought last are of no concern to me. You took it upon yourself to question my post and all you got was my reply.

Have a good one,
Terry

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
Here is a photo of the bolt handle that was most likely used on this rifle. It was popular when this rifle was modified and is still being sold today(JD probably still uses them ):

Excuse you, your Trax is showing.
Regards, Joe

I don't know how to say this other than in my own foolish way, but I am really wondering....

What rifle afficianado gives a Tinker's Damn how much the crass dollar value of a rifle has been diminished by making it more useable for the owner?

Who could even suspect they might have the ability to put a valid dollar value on the enjoyment the owner who had the changes made, might have got from the use of the rifle after (and at least partly because of) those changes. God might be able to, but he doesn't post here, to my knowledge.

To even try to value such things in mere dollars really surprises me and causes me to have pangs of pity for those who do.

Let's say the unaltered rifle is worth $6,000 to some collector if it wasn't altered. I doubt very much it would be, but let's asume it is.

Let's also say that converting it cheaply made it financially possible for whoever commissioned the mods to do his own self-guided hunts in the Yukon and Alaska, back when that was legal. Lets's also hypothesize that he got two moose, a Stone sheep, a Dall sheep, a nice caribou, a grizzly, and a couple or three other game animals, all on a shoestring.

Today, the rifle may bring $1,200, who knows. That is a dollar loss of $4,800 compared to the hypothetical unaltered collector's value of $6,000 we have put on it.

So, what value today (when we are valuing the rifle) would we put on those hunts the rifle may hav made possible?

I'm not at all sure he lost anything whatsoever.

Are you?

J.D. Steele
Don't you think it's kinda incriminating that you assume that I was referring to you even though I did not use a last name?


I hope you know that I was just giving you heck. You have more skill than I ever will.

Historical artifacts have nothing to do with a dollar value, their value lies in the fact it, the rifle in this case, is a genuine part of history.

Mausers (and others) have finite numbers, there is a first and there is a last, and dependent on the actual number made some in-between, there is attrition of numbers over time

If every one is altered by the most competent of gun builders or butchered by some back yard hack, soon there will be no original examples left and history will be lost.

In that lies the wrong doing !

It's wrong on so many levels, I only brought up one. But as usual, ignorance is blissful and some folks seem to have bliss on tap.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
A 250-3000 on a pre 64 M-70 is definitely tacky.

Obviously Winchester had a different view when they produced them.

Winchester is no longer the standard here or we would be buying factory rifles.
This is about the rarefied atmosphere at the top of the Mt Everest of custom gun making.
Everyone knows you do not use an action long enough for a .375 HH for a mere .250-3000 Savage. And you used such an inept example for one of your cute cut and paste episodes.

..and at the opposite end of the spectrum, If Win. had created a version of a pre64 type receiver to properly accommodate the .375H&H, the factory would not have had to remove metal from the std.length actions lug abutments .
But thats what happens when you try to shoehorn a long magnum round into an action designed for std. length rounds.
Despite this, high grade custom .375H&H on pre64s aren't exactly unpopular or disliked by too many.

So we can say, Pre64 is less than ideal length for both .250sav and the long magnums.

Considering you don't like .250/3000 in a pre64 you probably wouldn't like a .358 win in pre64,.....however a good number of guys do still like & appreciate such a combo.