What are the different rear scope mount options for an unaltered Mauser 98? With the bulb.

The ones I have seen:

EAW mounts
Claw mounts
Warne Weaver mount (have this setup on my 9.3x62 M98)
Custom rear bridge added

I think Leupold makes a rear mount for an unaltered Mauser 98, but don't recall seeing one installed ever.

Can a standard Talley base be modified and fitted? I know it's not an issue without the bulb - that's what I have on my 8x57.

Any other ideas?

BTW - my action is 1909 with an extended release on the bolt that comes up to the stripper slot and I want that to stay intact.

Leupold, warne weaver

https://www.midwayusa.com/mauser/br?cid=11709

As you mentioned probably others could be altered hole spacing would come into play.

Assuming the 'bulb' is the boss around the clip cut-out, I find the Leupold STD bridge mount works fine, all the better because it gives lateral adjustment.

If, on the other the hand, the 'bulb' refers to the unaltered bolt handle, you might look out for an old O'Neil-Hopkins mount such as Elmer Keith had on his 333 OKH

Leuopold , old Redfield , as long as you don't have the high rear bridge with the extended bolt stop for holding the stripper clip .

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gary MacDonald:
Leuopold , old Redfield , as long as you don't have the high rear bridge with the extended bolt stop for holding the stripper clip . Old Tasco bases also , only for std length . The Tasco takes weaver style rings .

Just remembered another , for long or short actions , B Square made a weaver one piece mount .
Sorry , I didn't know how to edit previous posts .

Thanks.

I have a one piece Redfield mount in my parts box.

I think I'm going to try the Leupold. I really like the way the EAW and claw mounts look, but I have a hard time paying extra money without get extra function. It's a 6.5x55, so no need for the scope to come off like a DG rifle in a pinch.

The Leupold rear base didn't fit on my 1909 due to the extension on the bolt release that comes up to the stripper clip slot. I don't want to use a one piece nor the Warne Weaver base. I guess it's something custom, maybe claw mounts.

If I remember Weaver makes a short rear base that fits behind the stripper clip guide. It may be a steel grand slam mount. You may have to bevel the back of it to clear the bolt handle. I'll check tonight.

Leopold one piece for sure. On a Argentine you have to either use a regular 98 bolt stop, or grind off that silly clip holder.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Leopold one piece for sure. On a Argentine you have to either use a regular 98 bolt stop, or grind off that silly clip holder.

I agree with your choice and, yes, the Argentine clip holder is a problem. I'd like to defend the clip boss on ordinary M98s, though - they give the rifles something to amuse the eye, like corbels on an old building. I find a lot of modern, commercial actions boring in their cylindrical simplicity.

Weaver Steel #45 placed on a Peruvian, probably too bubba. You have to bevel the bottom front to move it forward and releave the back to clear the bolt, then find a set of very thin rings, like milletts.

even more bubba but the right guy could make this right.

Sambar, I agree; the clip guide looks good on Mausers. But the curved piece on the Argentine bolt stop that holds the clip in place is and was a useless contrivance even when using clips. The clip won't fall out.
All you have to do is saw it off and leave a little of it on, or install a standard 98 bolt stop.
Rich, the Weaver Grand Slam bases will take any rings; they do not have to be the thin types; I use them fairly often.

Is the Argentine action/bolt stop the same as the Turkish one?

Seems to me Talley makes a dedicated mount.

No, the Turkish is like all other 98 bolt stops with the little bump on top for your finger to grasp. The Argentine has the big curved clip retainer.
But if you mean are they interchangeable, yes, they are identical in fit and function as a bolt stop.ejector housing.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
No, the Turkish is like all other 98 bolt stops with the little bump on top for your finger to grasp. The Argentine has the big curved clip retainer.
But if you mean are they interchangeable, yes, they are identical in fit and function as a bolt stop.ejector housing.

The Turk 1903 is indeed similar to the Argentine as it too was designed for the 7.65x53.

Actually, its the same as the 1909 Peruvian but both are longer and reach up to the clip slot.



The poster meant thin rings because a standard weaver ring is too wide and will hang off the back of the modified base over the angled cut by the extraction cam.

If you like turn in rings, Leupold makes a nice set for unaltered 98's. If you like Weaver, then Warne makes a good set. Both have hole spacing that is less than the std FN .500" so placement is easier and negates the need for an angled cut on the rear so the bolt root will clear.

Like Duane, I kinda like the Talley bases and usually just make some.

The Weaver #45 holes are ~.370

quote:

Originally posted by richj:
The Weaver #45 holes are ~.370

No, they're .504".

http://www.brownells.com/GunTe...detail.htm?lid=11214

oups then the one in the pic is not a #45, or is it inclusive of the 2 screws?

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:

quote:

Originally posted by richj:
The Weaver #45 holes are ~.370

No, they're .504".

http://www.brownells.com/GunTe...detail.htm?lid=11214

Ok, I am talking about the Turk model 38, not the 03 in your picture; I see far more 38s.
Yours looks like a converted 03. to 8mm.
The k.kale 38s look like any other 98.
As for the Weaver bases, I mill a slot into the clip guide center so the base can move forward. still have the clip guide, sometimes.
Not on the high hump Peruvian type though. Use a one piece Leopold on those.

Use a side mount and don't worry about humps and bumps plus the crest, if any, is not covered.

Very nice, the blueing is very well done too

Thanks dpcd.

That side mount looks nice, Jgrabow ... but I worry about the lack of distance between the back and front. Were the scope bumped hard at the front or rear, would it be more likely to move than mounts positioned on the receiver rings?

This is a solid steel mount. I think if you hit the scope hard enough to move the mount the scope would be destroyed.

quote:

Originally posted by Jgrabow6493:
Use a side mount and don't worry about humps and bumps plus the crest, if any, is not covered.

Bolt handle looks to have been altered. I've put bases on many M98's using paired bases, Parker Hale and later, Weaver, but have to alter the bolt handle. The original configuration of bolt handle shown in richj's post would most likely not clear the scope even with the side mount.

That side mount is very nice all the same and while I detest high mounted scopes, in this case the mounting is not too high and the setup looks very usable.