What kind of classy scope mounts will work on a military 98 mauser that still has the charging humps for the stripper clips?

any if you carefully mill out the metal where the charger humps go.

I think Conetrol still makes them. People seem to think that they are pretty high falutin.

To me, classy is the original Kimber/Warne dovetail mounts with side levers. Why don't they make those any more?

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
To me, classy is the original Kimber/Warne dovetail mounts with side levers. Why don't they make those any more?

Like thems?

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
any if you carefully mill out the metal where the charger humps go.

What Lindy said, with Talley bases and rings.

I don't personally care for split top rings.

Yes like those and fortunately, I like vertically split rings; look cleaner than the horizontal ones.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Yes like those and fortunately, I like vertically split rings; look cleaner than the horizontal ones.

Plus 1, but Kalif. folks think different.

I like these Nightforce Direct Mounts, I wish someone would build something like this for a Mauser 98.

Ha!

I just live here. I am a Wyomingite, Arizonan, New Mexican, Montanan, Italian, Spaniard, Australian, Alaskan.

Oh,

I am also Greek, Turkish, Afghanistani, Djiboutian and but made of 100% American made parts.

I prefer the vertically sliced ones too. As long as they are made right. The Warrens and the old Kimber QD are the best. The screws in the lower portion of the ring have to bottom out the ring together and there needs to be independent screws to lock the ring to the base. Only the top screws should pull the rings together on the scope.

Some of the designs will also tighten the ring when you tighten the system to the base. These rings never seem to return to zero if you take them off and put them back one. That sort of defeats the purpose of having QD rings.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Wonderful Wyoming:
Oh,

I am also Greek, Turkish, Afghanistani, Djiboutian and but made of 100% American made parts.

Ok!

Just ribbing you, I get sore over being labeled a Californian.

Then again I get sore when people think California is only Hollywood assholes and feinstin's asshole.

I'll leave that alone.

Closest I have found to the Kimbers is Warnes QDs made for the Tikka; then I make plain dovetail bases for them; on one Mauser I just milled the square bridge for it.

If you are already going to alter the action by drilling and taping why not simply remove the ears and be done with it. Opens up a lot more options

I put Leupold swing-off mounts on my son's FN Mauser without removing the charger boss, and the one-piece base has been made to position the rear ring over it. The boss is an aesthetic part of the Mauser charm and I don't like milling it off.

Sure, but Leupolds ain't classy, I presume, speaking for the OP.

Simple solution:

http://www.midwayusa.com/produ...rd-scope-base-mauser

And in regards the Nightforce Direct Mount, not even close to "classy". In fact, I think it's butt ugly.

quote:

Simple solution:

Why would you want simple.

They work great.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
The boss is an aesthetic part of the Mauser charm and I don't like milling it off.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one!

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
The boss is an aesthetic part of the Mauser charm and I don't like milling it off.

BY the time people put a 3 pos.safety and new bolt handle on, trying to save the hump -is too little too late in my mind.
(if ones likes originality)
And putting modern Talley style mounts over the retained hump looks silly anyway,
cause the two don't match as far as orig. periods go,and one reduces the (custom)base contact area in the process.
the H&H side mount is a different story.

Even Rigby & Co. ground the hump off numerous of its dedicated open-sight use .416 mausers.
But people(pro or amatuer) who see such weapons as a primary tool more than anything else,
never much/if ever complained either way about such mostly trivial aesthetic variations.

Two words that define a classy scope mount on a classic sporter: Griffin and Howe. I say da*n the cost and put their QD side mount on every one I build. Extremely reliable return to zero, I carry mine in a leather tube slung over my shoulder or in my day pack and slide it on the rifle if I feel a need for it- I consider the Lyman 48's to be my primary sighting tools.

don't remove the hump on the gun. remove the metal from the scope base so it doesn't interfere with the hump.

Down through the years there have been some pretty "classy" mounts and bases from custom builders that started out as the plain jane Leupold/Redfield setup. Modified they can look pretty nice indeed.

The one piece Talley ultra light is a good looking mount, similar to Echols mount.

I also like the wildly complex David Miller mounts.

The best mount I have ever seen is the Smithson set up.

I have a set of one piece and another of two piece, Buehler split top rings and bases. I don't care for the looks myself, but they are quite clean looking and have the clearance for the charger hump.
If anyone wants to trade for some used, leupold 2 piece rings and bases I'd jump at it.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Wonderful Wyoming:
The one piece Talley ultra light is a good looking mount, similar to Echols mount.

I also like the wildly complex David Miller mounts.

The best mount I have ever seen is the Smithson set up.

ThE Echols although not appearing as complex as Millers,
still do have a lot of precise individual detail in the installation.

I don't know any other shops (in the US)that go to as much trouble & fuss
in a fixed scope mount installation, as Miller and Echols.

Smithsons are a really nice QD set-up, but a bit finicky is your after a rapid scope removal
or installation in the field.

In regards to QD rings, ToM Burgess are about the pick of the bunch to me.

Who does Miller's metal work?

I belive all the build work done in the Miller Shop, is shared between Dave and Curt Crum.
Dave does much of the metal, Curt does both metal and wood, If I'm correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
I belive all the build work done in the Miller Shop, is shared between Dave and Curt Crum.
Dave does much of the metal, Curt does both metal and wood, If I'm correct.

Always suprised Crum didn't have his own shop.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Sure, but Leupolds ain't classy, I presume, speaking for the OP.

True, but they work. I had two-piece Redfield mounts of the same design on my .338 for 30 years and they never let me down.

For classy, you might google Recknagel's catalogue. They have heaps of stuff and even the prices are classy.

I'm not a fan of side mounts, mainly because the attachments to the rifle are generally close together. Anything that bumps or wrenches at the front or back of the scope is likely to move it more than with mounts attached to the receiver rings.

Nothing wrong with Redfield mounts. Just not what I am trying to do here.

You should never speak for the OP, or presume.

EAW mounts are about $500 intalled.

I am also not a fan of side mounts. I don't care for their looks.

Warne makes steel weaver style bases for the 98 Mauser with the charging hump. I have them on mine.

I usually remove the hump but not always. It was about 1985 that Martin Hagn showed me a very nice Mauser rifle he had built. On it he had fitted a base for Talley rings into a slot through the hump. It looked like the base grew there and I liked the appearance a lot. I made my next rifle for myself that way and though I don't think the work was as good as Martin's, I like it too. Regards, Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
I usually remove the hump but not always. It was about 1985 that Martin Hagn showed me a very nice Mauser rifle he had built. On it he had fitted a base for Talley rings into a slot through the hump. It looked like the base grew there and I liked the appearance a lot. I made my next rifle for myself that way and though I don't think the work was as good as Martin's, I like it too. Regards, Bill.

You cut the slot with the shaper or mill with a dividing head, or just rough it on the mill and file it in Billy? Toss up a picture if you have one pleazzeee. I always thought of doing that but I always sort of figured it would look like an afterthought from hell. I have seen a couple Gwerschmitten Gwerbotton claw mounts done like that but they were done in the typical, rough German way and looked like post-it notes on a fridge door.

I've used various mounts for a 98 mauser. Leupold, Weaver two piece type and at least one other I cannot remember for scoping maybe 8 or so mauser type actions, both small and large ring. Always ground off the hump or at least altered it. Did a fair amount of fitting for any mount I used.....can't remember ever buying a scope mount that was for a 98 mauser that really fit right. Always, had to play with the mount, the rear part of the receiver by the hump, or both to get a fit that suited me.

Rod, I just cut the slot with an end mile then finished with files. Figured if Martin could do it, so could I. While this is not exactly true (Martin was and is a gifted man with a file), the result was acceptable. At least, I didn't struggle with nausea when I looked at it in daylight. Subsequently, I modified the rifle (widened the slot) to install Weaver-style, steel bases because I wanted to be able to mount the scope lower (makes the scope mount snobs cringe but there it is). The Talley looked better in many respects but were just too high to suit me.
I believe Martin made his bases and they were milled in place. They truly looked like they grew there.
I have yet to post a picture on any forum but may give it a try someday. My internet is so hit and miss that I am pretty limited in what I can do. I can print a picture and mail it to you

To much bother Billy. Besides I'm not old enough to have used Canada post (I've always wanted to say that). I have always done the Mauser rear bridges in the mill with the spacer or dividing head. It works good (especially now that carbide is so cheap) and it wouldn't be any trouble to cut a slot for a base through the hump that way. Would have to cut the sides of the 90 degree uprights with a dovetail cutter but it would just be one tool change. I've just never had a customer ask for it.

I've always done them with a grinder and files just because I can probably do two in the time it takes to set up the mill. Now, for Enfields, I use the mill to avoid blisters! Regards, Bill