It seems that many people are either a die hard M98 or a M70 fan. I know that both are crf, but what differences exist between the two? Strength, accuracy, reliability, smoothness, safety, lock time, trigger quality, etc... Thank you for your responses.

You relly want to start a flame war don't you?

I'll be back in a bit to see how high the flames are!

28

Actually I'm not trying to start anything, and I hope ,y post doesn't do that. I am simply trying to learn the differences. I consider myself above average in gun knowledge, but find myself lacking on many subjects. I've learned so much on this site that I thought ya'll could help me with this one as well. I'm not looking for opinions, but factual differences between the two actions. Thanks.

the factual difference is the 98 is the better action...

((((DUCKS, tucks and ROLLS, skeedaddles outta here laffin')))

M70 Pros
1. Stiffer receiver (the integral magazine well)
2. Lock time was designed to be faster
3. More modern materials and heat treat with more reliable mechanical properties. Who ever heard of a M70 receiver setting back or the bolt lugs failing except when the case head was melted?
4. M70 trigger is usually used
5. Drilled and Tapped
6. Safety is the most widely copied on the planet
7. No charger hump to get rid of
8. No thumb cut if you dislike that feature.
9. Often comes attached to an excellent barrel
10 Often comes with a usable stock attached
11. Sometimes comes equipped with both stock and barrel that are usable.
12. If it determined that the barrel is undesirable it often can be sold for something other than a tomato stake
13. Same goes for the stock
14. If you buy a nice custom rifle already built from one you do not have to think about #3.
15. Available in a version with a magazine cabable of handling everything from the .22 Hornet to the .375 H&H and .458 Lott.
16 Left locking lug is solid

Thanks ireload2. I understand that the M70 is more modern, but there are newly manufactured M98s that are being built to modern standards, not as military surplass rifles. If they are both built to the same standards (as far as their design will allow) then what differences exist between them?

Who is currently building M98s????

Many companies have built actions based on the original design but who is building M98s??

The 98 Mauser has many issues that many of the commercial "copies" do not.... but other than the bolt, extractor and maybe the ejector the similarities end right there...

1,2,4,6,15
Bear in mind the 98s are largely popular due to quality workmanship (machining)of the original German commercial and military versions. Current manufacture in Serbia or whereever is going to be rougher than the preferred 98 standard.
If you are talking about design features there are several differences between the 98 and M70 that take too long to describe here.

Keep in mind not all M70 are CF actions. There are a whole lot of PF out there.

I don't remember all of the companies that are currently making new M98s, but Granite Arms is one of them. I know there is one more, and it is a very high quality action, but unfortunately I con't remember the name. And yes, I am aware that many M70s are of the post '64 push feed variety. Thanks for the responses.

The 98 is one of the safest bolt actions available. It was designed when ammo was unreliable and many little safety features were built in. It also has very reliable ignition. Many people think this is a problem???? causing slower lock time. Best reference that I have that compares the two is The Commercial MAUSER '98 Sporting Rifle by Lester Womack. It compares the pricing of the commercial Mausers vs M70s. Also goes into great detail about all the 98 safety features. The pre 64 M70 is a good action, just not as refined or safe as a good 98. Just my 2 cents.
gunmaker

One notable difference that has never been explained to my satisfaction is the difference in the front action screw. Specifically, the part of the reciever that it screws into.

In the Mauser it goes right into the meat of the recoil lug, and these parts butt into one another forming a tight metal to metal contact that eliminates any need for additional pillar bedding or stock ferules.

In the M-70, the recoil lug is left hanging on its own, the screw compresses wood, and is threaded into what appears to be the thinner lug seat area of the receiver.

In my small brain the Mauser design is better in this regard, but I'd love to hear a knowledgable arguement as to how the M-70 recoil lug/front screw arrangement is superior. (I'm open minded and convincable!)

Most of the safety advantages of the Mauser 98 are negated by good metallurgy and heat treat in the action and the cartridge cases.
The Ruger M77 posesses some of the M98 safety features and not many consider those features a compelling reason to buy the Ruger.
The Savage 110 bolt gun has the gas baffles on the bolt and few buy a Savage just for the gas deflecting feature.
The 700 Remington has what is touted to be a superior breeching system but who buys a Remington for the breeching system.
A 6.5 Jap Arisaka maybe safer than a M98 but the safety stinks too.

quote:

Originally posted by montea6b:
One notable difference that has never been explained to my satisfaction is the difference in the front action screw. Specifically, the part of the reciever that it screws into.

In the Mauser it goes right into the meat of the recoil lug, and these parts butt into one another forming a tight metal to metal contact that eliminates any need for additional pillar bedding or stock ferules.

In the M-70, the recoil lug is left hanging on its own, the screw compresses wood, and is threaded into what appears to be the thinner lug seat area of the receiver.

In my small brain the Mauser design is better in this regard, but I'd love to hear a knowledgable arguement as to how the M-70 recoil lug/front screw arrangement is superior. (I'm open minded and convincable!)

If you look at a lot of Mausers that have been used hard and have arsenal repairs you will find the butt has been damaged by dropping the rifle or striking it on butt. Many of the arsenal repairs replace broken out chunks of the heel or toe of the butt stock. I think the Mauser recoil lug system is also intended to deal with this abuse. Striking the butt on hard ground is more damaging than recoil.
Long after Mauser died the Germans went to the cupped butt plate.

What you say about the location of the screw is accurate but the screw and the stock is the weakest part.

Easy - Model 70s were made in left-hand. M98s weren't - 'nuff said.

I'll try to give this a shot as I like both of them. I'm sure if I get something wrong, somebody'll let everybody know.

Many Mausers that are sporterized adopt many of the M70's accessories/add-ons; for instance, they often have 3 position safeties that can lock the bolt and firing pin, adjustable triggers, charger humps removed/drilled and tapped for scope mounts, etc. As somebody noted above, all these and improved metallurgy and heat treatment came at no additional cost with the Model 70's.

Internal to the action, the Mauser has an internal C or H ring which the barrel butts up against. The extractor cut is made in the action, instead of in the barrel. This makes it easier to rebarrel (you don't have to cut or time the extractor cut). This is an advantage if you'd like to build a rifle yourself and you don't have a lathe. You can hand-ream a short-chambered, pre-threaded barrel.

Because the M70 doesn't have the C ring, it has a coned breech, which is sort of like a feeding ramp. Some people think this makes it feed smoother and some people think it's a strength or gas release liability in the case of a case head separation. The new (post 64) Model 70's have better gas deflection built into the action than the pre-64's. This gas deflection liability in the pre-64's is something recognized but mostly remedied in the post 64's. Holes on the front receiver ring on the non-shooting side and gas escape through the magazine well are examples of these features. The shroud on the Mauser is also built to deflect gas from the shooter's face. I can't remember if the new M70 does this; I think it may have been one of the differences between the two actions, too. The Mauser includes a third lug on the back end of the bolt in case the front two let go. The Mauser was not through-hardened, the outside was case-hardened and the inside was mild steel. Because of this, it was designed to sag or stretch instead of exploding at failure. On the other hand, the new through-hardened, cold-rolled steels used in the M70's are so much stronger that it somewhat negates this advantage.

The new Mausers and Mauser hybrids, like the Zastava's brought in by Charles Daly and now Remington, the hybrid C-Ring actions by Montana rifle company, or the various actions made by Waffenfabrik Hein, or the high-end ones built by GMA or Empire Rifle Company incorporate some or all of the features above. Obviously, most have the good metallurgy, safeties, adjustable triggers, and scope mount holes, too.

Hope this helps.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Alexander:
Easy - Model 70s were made in left-hand. M98s weren't - 'nuff said.

Mauser made a few lefthanders. It was a $200 upgrade when the rifle cost $200. This was in the late 30's At the same the M70 was priced around $60-70. I've also seen some left hand Mauser 98 actions with PO Ackley's name on them. I don't dislike the M70. After trying to blow up a 98 in school, I've got a lot of confidence in that system.
gunmaker

I'd like to take the liberty of comparing a modernized Mauser with the same features of the M-70 to the M-70 Classic and when we do that the overwhelming difference is cost.

The M-70 has more modern steel but the Mauser is adequate....is more strength better?

The M'98 needs new bottom metal that is hinged and it's not cheap!!!!!

The M-98 needs an adjustable trigger.....add cash!

The M'98 needs the bolt handle bent or replaced.....add more cash

The M'98 needs to be drilled and tapped...guess what...yup add cash!

The M'98 needs a change of safety to set a scope on it and as I have said the comparison should be apples to apples add a whole lot more cash....

Some of the M'98 actions are smoother than gooseshit.....what's that worth? It's subjective...I sure like it but is that worth a lot of cash? The M-70 isn't real bad and it can be honed.

In the end I'd say the M-70 classic is a far less costly action and as good as the Mauser after being decked out.

I don't think it's reasonable to compare a Mil-surp Mauser as is to a M-70 as they're too far apart in features.

If you would like to see a detailed visual presentation of the 2 get a copy of "Bolt Action Rifles" by Frank de Haas. It has detailed description of most variations of both actions and should show you what you want to know. Don't know if it is still in print but the latest one I have is the 3rd edition.

One other "New" Mauser maker is Satterlee Arms.
Allen

I am chuckling at all the experts pointing out the M-70 3 position safety. The Mauser had it first, all Winchester did was change if from left to right to back to front which is an improvement in my mind.

Many of the features that made the M-70 so popular were copied from the Mauser; control round feed, magazine and follower design and feed rails, the three position safety etc.

It had new features to as has been pointed out, the trigger being chief though I don't think anyone can deny that the Mauser style is safer.

One thing that has not been mentioned is the action length. The Pre-64 was available in one length only and it was sized to fit a 375 H&H length cartridge. The Mauser is more suitable for 06 length or smaller cartridges. This of course changed with the M-70 Classic.

The 98 didn't have the 3 position safety first.
The 93, 94, 95 and 96 Mausers all had the 3 position safety before the 98.
The earlier 71/84 Mauser and the 91 Mauser had a similar 2 position safety. So did several of the Mannlichers and the 1888 comission Rifle.

The feed rails and CRF extractor predated the 98.

It think this rifle may have had CRF before any Mauser. It is the 1888 Lee-Metford.

Good discussion guys

One thing the Mauser has (that most of its clones don't, including the BSA's, which are my favourite "clone") is a extractor with a keying effect (sorry don't have a text handy that gives the correct jargon) in the grove just behind the bolthead. This usually prevents a fairly frequent occurence in the "clones" where the action has sufficient camming power to pull the extractor back over a tightly chambered case (either a live round or a empty one). Either scenario has the potential to spoil your day, or a hunt, don't ask me how I know this . . . basically it happens more often that the gas escape thing that everyone dwells on.

I would be very interested if to know if either the pre 64 or classic M70 has this redeeming feature ??

Foster

The classic M70 does not have the dovetail feature.
It is interesting to mention the dovetail on the 98 extractor. The 91 Mauser has a small stud installed in the receiver to back up the extractor when the action is closed.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
I am chuckling at all the experts pointing out the M-70 3 position safety.

And, of course, the real expert here is you?

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
I am chuckling at all the experts pointing out the M-70 3 position safety. The Mauser had it first, all Winchester did was change if from left to right to back to front which is an improvement in my mind.

Yep, the military Mauser has a 3 position safety that locks the bolt and/or the firing pin. But because it's top-mounted on the bolt, you can't use it with a scope.

So I think what most of the folks above have said is that most people end up having it converted to a Model 70-style safety at extra cost if they build a sporter on a Mauser.

Steve

montea6b, the reason for the M70 front action screwing going into a flat behind the recoil lug is that it permits solider bedding into the stock. The flat is both in front of and behind the guard screw and allows for even pressure on both sides. In American target shooting, the Winchester 54 with its stiffer receiver was superior to the Springfield 190. Then a few years later the 70, starting with the same receiver forging as the 54 but better bedding, took over on the target ranges and became dominant. The Mauser, with its whippy receiver and badly positioned front guard screw, never had a look in.

Partly correct...re. Mauser safety...my 1909 Argentine Mauser '98 type safety clears my scope just fine in its
original configuration. The scope is a standard type 3-9X. So, maybe it won't clear in some cases, but in mine
it does.

Fred Wells, the famed Gunsmith was quoted as saying there are no improvements that can be made to the '98 Mauser,
all changes lessen the design.

I'd take a model 98 Mauser anytime over a model 70.

Tom

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:
The classic M70 does not have the dovetail feature.
It is interesting to mention the dovetail on the 98 extractor. The 91 Mauser has a small stud installed in the receiver to back up the extractor when the action is closed.

Be more specific on that small stud to back up the extractor on the 91 Mauser. I've had a few 91 Argentines and never noticed it. Haven't seen any reference to it in schematics either.

Max,
The stud is installed in the receiver at about the 4 o'clock position so that it lines up with the extractor when the bolt is closed. If you take a flash light and point it into the receiver you can see the stud adjacent to the face of the barrel.
The stud is apparently pressed or screwed into the receiver and then ground flush before it is blued so the stud is very difficult to see on the outside surface. Apparently Paul Mauser was a real detail "weenie". I suspect that he may have blew out a few extractors with his destructive testing. To help the extractor the stud was installed to keep the extractor from being blown out of it's slot. To provide clearance for the stud the solid lug does not extend to the end of the bolt while the split lug does.
I have 2 M91s and they both have it.

I'll take mine out of the safe and take a look at that, very interesting. I've never had to do any work on a 91, never rebarreled that particular model, so guess I never looked up in there to see it. I will now thought, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:
Max,
The stud is installed in the receiver at about the 4 o'clock position so that it lines up with the extractor when the bolt is closed. If you take a flash light and point it into the receiver you can see the stud adjacent to the face of the barrel.
The stud is apparently pressed or screwed into the receiver and then ground flush before it is blued so the stud is very difficult to see on the outside surface. Apparently Paul Mauser was a real detail "weenie". I suspect that he may have blew out a few extractors with his destructive testing. To help the extractor the stud was installed to keep the extractor from being blown out of it's slot. To provide clearance for the stud the solid lug does not extend to the end of the bolt while the split lug does.
I have 2 M91s and they both have it.

Ireload2,

By God you're right. Now that I've located it, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Don't even need a good light to see it. Thanks