I've long wondered but havn't jet had the chance to find out the difference in weight between a larg ring and a small ring m/98. The difference in the diameter of the front ring must also make a difference in weight - but how much? Thumb slot or solid wall must ofcourse be accounted for.
The reason for my question is weather it would be worth the effort to build on a small ring vs a large ring....

Thanks
//K9

Interestingly, a SR 98 like a Mexican weighs the same as a standard 98. The real weight savings stems from the fact that the SR action can use a narrower stock and slimmer barrel (especially over the chamber) without sacrifice of aesthetics.

z1r,
I had to think about that a second.. the difference (or lack there of) would be on the wall thicknesses, right? makes sense.. since the SR is smaller OD and ID....

now, a SR/LR would "weigh" less.. though, for me, it's a troutline weight!!

Not exactly a 98 Mauser, some people think they are a copy, but actually they more a copy of the 93-94 Mauser and that is the type 38 and type 99 Arisaka's. I think the actions are lighter then a 98 Mauser action.

you're really streching my memory, but if it seerves I believe the standard K98 was 2.2#'s and that went down to the lightest weight G33/40 at 1.9#'s. also I think roy dunlaps book lists this but i haven't read through that for years either

The g33/40 does weigh less than a standard 98 or SR Mexican due to all the lightening cuts, hollow bolt knob, etc. Even there however, the weights savings is not much. As Z said, the slimmer profile the smaller receiver ring allows is where you truely save weight.

What are the actual weights of these actions? Anybody know and if you do what does this include? just the action and bolt, bottom metel etc.

I'm about to have a light rifle built using a Husky 1640 action and was wondering how the action stacked to the rest weight wise.

I've got it figured at a little less than 5 1/4 lbs before the stock.

Terry

TC1 is that a 1640 aluminum bottom trimmed or the early one

I remember weighing a complete LR thumbcut VZ24, all up with bottom metal,couple oz less than 3lb.
A new GMA mauser std length with entended LR,solid leftwall,integral bridges and straddle bottom metal is bit less than 3.5lb.

I much prefer LR on std.m98.I think they look a little slab sided(like m70)otherwise.
Yeh I know you can mill the left wall to give an appearance of a step, but it aint the same.
You can still build a trim light rig on LR.

quote:

Originally posted by GSP7:
TC1 is that a 1640 aluminum bottom trimmed or the early one

This one is the earlier steel bottom metal.

WoodJack, I would agree for the most part but when you use a featherweight barrel (1.15" shank .550 muzzel) on a LR it looks kind of funny to me.

Terry

Ok, how does this short LR 250sav look...?

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
Ok, how does this short LR 250sav look...?

I like the little quarter rib, it helps things out. The action has been shortened too. Other wise it would look like too much action and not enough barrel. Just my opinion

I saw that rifle for sale somewhere recently.

Terry

Have an old article that put the weight of a G33 and the VZ33 at 40oz--4oz lighter than a standard 98. Would have to unscrew a barrel to find out...

I think the Husky 1640 with alloy bottom metal is also 40oz.

The short-lived FN Browning SR version is about 2oz lighter.

You could cut that springfield knob off the Mex 36 and save some ounces

Not sure for these weights but have in notes that the Rem TI Long is 31oz....that is light. The BDL is just shy of 40oz which...so you can have in the SR VZ/G 98 models the same approx. weight. A beautiful thing.

Now if we could get some TI bottom metal for a 98...