Mausers unsafe?

12 February 2008, 04:30

mete

Without doubt it can be said that the late WWII M98s could have numerous problems but that is not a design problem but QC due to the war....The air head doesn't mention where or when it was made. Un altered in 308 ??.He's not worth spending any time with !

....I wonder how many M98s are still out there performing well without ever blowing up ?

12 February 2008, 04:46

rem721

mete,

Even late WWII heat treat was good, they simply cut corners on everything that wasn't safety related. I'm afraid Peter needs to remove his head from his hienie.

12 February 2008, 04:47

butchlambert

Mete, you should see some of his other threads. My Aussie buddies would like to find out who he is and take care of him.
Butch

12 February 2008, 05:44

craigster

He says, "Test conducted by me on my only unaltered Mauser 98 in .308W." I've yet to see an "unaltered "M98 chambered in 308 Win. and I never will. This guy doesn't know his ass from a hot rock.

12 February 2008, 06:52

smithrjd

Late Spanish lafortuna (SP)? After a check over I would have no problem using an unaltered military 98. In fact my very first centerfire rifle was a 42 BCD in 8X57. Barrell was poor but still well within minute of deer for Minnesota whitetails. My brother in law still has the rifle and it is still taking deer. Don't know of too many military unaltered 98's in 308. Perhaps the lower pressure 7.62X51 NATO?

12 February 2008, 06:58

vapodog

quote:
Originally posted by craigster:
He says, "Test conducted by me on my only unaltered Mauser 98 in .308W." I've yet to see an "unaltered "M98 chambered in 308 Win. and I never will. This guy doesn't know his ass from a hot rock.

Dead nuts on the head

12 February 2008, 07:50

Howard

Israel had some Mauser 98's in 308 for their military. Not sure if they were original mfg or simply re barreled to NATO standards.

12 February 2008, 07:52

Thomas Jones

I was at the NW sportsmans show this weekend.
I wonder if the nice gentelman who was showing the Holland & Holland exibit knows the 46.000 dollar rifle he was kind enough to let me hold and admire is usafe.
It was built on a military 98. Thumb cut and all !
...tj3006

12 February 2008, 08:08

Tex21

Well shucks. I guess the cat's outa the bag now, eh?

12 February 2008, 08:51

craigster

quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
Israel had some Mauser 98's in 308 for their military. Not sure if they were original mfg or simply re barreled to NATO standards.

I do believe that all the Israeli 7.62/.308's were rebarrels.

12 February 2008, 16:22

jeffeosso

quote:
Originally posted by craigster:
He says, "Test conducted by me on my only unaltered Mauser 98 in .308W." I've yet to see an "unaltered "M98 chambered in 308 Win. and I never will. This guy doesn't know his ass from a hot rock.

a good of the isreali 98s came from fn in 308, and some were rebarrels

12 February 2008, 16:24

jeffeosso

quote:
Originally posted by smithrjd:
Late Spanish lafortuna (SP)? After a check over I would have no problem using an unaltered military 98. In fact my very first centerfire rifle was a 42 BCD in 8X57. Barrell was poor but still well within minute of deer for Minnesota whitetails. My brother in law still has the rifle and it is still taking deer. Don't know of too many military unaltered 98's in 308. Perhaps the lower pressure 7.62X51 NATO?

the spanish did rebarrels, with a block in the front of the magbox, to fit the 7.62x51 ..

12 February 2008, 17:35

Yale

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The gentleman's assessment from the BR forum on the proper feeding of the 308 Winchester case in a standard length Model 98 action comports with my experiments. My attempts at getting a 7mm-08 to feed perfectly were unsuccessful.

On the other hand, the 7mm-08 feeds beautifully in my 1924 intermediate length Yugoslav action with no adjustment needed. The rails are cut differently and of course the action and magazine are shorter, which must account for the flawless feeding of the 308 based 7mm-08 cartridge.

As far as his assessment of 1898 Mauser action strength, his conclusion runs afoul of my experience with a 6.5-06 on a 1908 Brazilian and a 7x57 Ackley on an old Brno. No set back, no cracks and no problems after hundreds of rounds.

Hell, I even lapped in both actions a bit too much years ago, and they still function fine with no set back. I know this because I am using both actions for experimental reasons, and pull the barrels after 300 round intervals, and measure for set back. None yet.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

12 February 2008, 17:45

ramrod340

quote:
My attempts at getting a 7mm-08 to feed perfectly were unsuccessful.

I've found that a spacer in the back of the magazine makes a 98 handle a 243 or 308 case just fine. Not something I thought of just copied. I have MKX in 243, 22-250 and had a 308 all fed just fine with the factory spacer. Best I can measure the mag box is the only difference between an 06 and 243 length MKX action.

12 February 2008, 18:33

.366torque

CRAP!!! I was hoping the putz would cause a drop in Mauser prices!!

I forget whose tagline it is: "Trust in God and the Mauser"!

PS up here in Canada we have lots of Parker Hale 308's on the military 98. Never a complaint!

12 February 2008, 18:40

rem721

quote:
Originally posted by Yale:
Ladies and Gentlemen:

The gentleman's assessment from the BR forum on the proper feeding of the 308 Winchester case in a standard length Model 98 action comports with my experiments. My attempts at getting a 7mm-08 to feed perfectly were unsuccessful.

On the other hand, the 7mm-08 feeds beautifully in my 1924 intermediate length Yugoslav action with no adjustment needed. The rails are cut differently and of course the action and magazine are shorter, which must account for the flawless feeding of the 308 based 7mm-08 cartridge.

As far as his assessment of 1898 Mauser action strength, his conclusion runs afoul of my experience with a 6.5-06 on a 1908 Brazilian and a 7x57 Ackley on an old Brno. No set back, no cracks and no problems after hundreds of rounds.

Hell, I even lapped in both actions a bit too much years ago, and they still function fine with no set back. I know this because I am using both actions for experimental reasons, and pull the barrels after 300 round intervals, and measure for set back. None yet.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Chris,

Proper feeding in a mauser is something many purport to know yet few have actually mastered.

12 February 2008, 18:40

jorge

Gentlemen: Consider the source, "Benchrest.com" then everything makes sense as to the validity of the piece. jorge

12 February 2008, 19:13

butchlambert

Jorge,
What you find on BR.Com is folks just like on AR and other forums. Don't knock all of the BR.Com people because of a new guy that is a nut. I think we have a few on this board also.
Butch

12 February 2008, 20:54

mete

Rem 721, Speaking from personal experience . My 1943 Oberndorf M98 [All matching numbers ,no sheet metal guard etc] had very spotty case hardening so I had it reheat treated.That and rebarrel to 6.5x55 makes it modified so it doesn't count that it took many deer over the years without blowing up !!!

12 February 2008, 21:45

Customstox

Butch,
Your link did show one fact. That a frontal labotomy patient can still type.

12 February 2008, 21:56

Yale

Dear Rem721:

Your observation on the proper feeding for an 1898 Mauser and a person's mastery of it is correct. That's why I converse with Mr. Dennis Olson and Mr. Pete Grisel from time to time on the feeding issue among others.

The learning curve is where the fun is, and I just learned somthing from ramrod340.

By the way, thanks, ramrod340 for your idea.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

12 February 2008, 22:20

rem721

Yale, you're getting advice from two of the best.

It's been my experience that the addition of the block at the rear does nothing to enhance feeding, rather it keeps the rounds from rattling around. The Chileans employed a nifty solution to the feeding issue by installing a block at the front of the magazine and then carving an ersatz ramp into it. That way they didn't have to deal with any feedrail issues. A very expedient way to quickly convert a bunch of rifles from 7x57 to the shorter 7.62 Nato.

13 February 2008, 00:49

jÃ¸rgen

quote:
Originally posted by mete:
Without doubt it can be said that the late WWII M98s could have numerous problems but that is not a design problem but QC due to the war....The air head doesn't mention where or when it was made. Un altered in 308 ??.He's not worth spending any time with ! ....I wonder how many M98s are still out there performing well without ever blowing
up ?

Many m98 performs vithout ever blowing up, but it is a fact that m98 blow up at mutch lower presure than most modern PF rifle. This is specialy in standard casehead dimensions.
The problem is caused by the lack of support of the casehead on all CRF rifles.
Tests involving several CRF rifles and even more PF rifles, showed that a CRF rifle blew up at apx 40% lower presure.
Most of the PF rifles handled up to 10.000 bar in a 6.5x55 while all the CRF let go before 6.500 Bar.

The always foolproof magazine of a m98 is also as the guy said, a wery overexacduratet feature.
It works, but only when properly ajusted, and only flawlesly with the caliber it is trimmed for, and often limited to certain bullits.

Any untrainde fool can easily make a m98 jam, as he can with all other rifles

13 February 2008, 13:03

Bent Fossdal

Good to see you, JÃ¸rgen!!!!

13 February 2008, 18:57

Howard

quote:
Originally posted by jÃ¸rgen:
It works, but only when properly ajusted, and only flawlesly with the caliber it is trimmed for, and often limited to certain bullits.

And isn't that the beauty of the Mauser System? It works flawlessly with what you are actually using, not some type of compromise made to work ok with a variety of cartridges and dimensions.

13 February 2008, 19:14

ramrod340

quote:
The learning curve is where the fun is, and I just learned somthing from ramrod340

IN a MKX the spacer is 7/16 and the follower is 1/2" shorter. I picked up a used follower but my buddy used a factory from a short action and shortened the tip of the spring. I was thinking Ruger but I would not place $$ on it.

14 February 2008, 03:48

Dr.K

Mauser's are Unsafe ?, Why am I always the last to know ?.

I'll have to scrap those 98's for a nickel a pound and use the stocks for kindling now .

Anyone tell the Germans they were unsafe ?.

Shoot Straight Know Your Target . ...

14 February 2008, 20:07

tnekkcc

So that's where Bill Leeper went

14 February 2008, 21:00

jÃ¸rgen

quote:
Originally posted by Dr.K:
Mauser's are Unsafe ?, Why am I always the last to know ?.
you dont know to, that a ford T, wouldn't stand a modern crash test with 5 stars

I'll have to scrap those 98's for a nickel a pound and use the stocks for kindling now .

Anyone tell the Germans they were unsafe ?.

you dont need to, they lost the war you know

Shoot Straight Know Your Target . ...

I ame not saying that a Mauser is unsafe, just saying that in many situations a modern action provides more safety, reliability and strength, and not to forget, a mutch smoother boltcycle, whitch leeds to a mutch faster second shoot

14 February 2008, 22:00

Dr.K

Once again my Humor eludes the majority of you .

I shall practice on my Punch Lines and polish my delivery !.

Where are Mausers Now Made ?. I've got some pre 64 commercial 3000 L series .

Shoot Straight Know Your Target . ...

15 February 2008, 21:43

Atkinson

Give me your ragged, your poor, your worn out Mauser 98s, I will care for them and see to it that they don't get all blown up!

15 February 2008, 21:53

Yale

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I'm next in line behind Mr. Atkinson. I'll provide a special home for any donated Mauser 1898 actions.

What you get for your charitable contribution are pictures of your orphaned 1898 Mausers in all sorts of hunting situations. You will be glad that you donated. They will, too.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis