quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
And it all comes down to what you intend to use the rifle for.

You are absolutely correct and I think this (the above) is the thing most people forget. My .308 mauser will shoot sub-moa if I do my part. At best it gets 3/4 MOA(so far), but that is still sub MOA. Certianly good enough to kill most game.

If I want benchrest quality I will build a benchrest rifle. Then have a benchrest buddy shoot it. Because I cannot shoot that good!

Next time any reader here thinks he can REALLY take advantage of a super-accurate hunting rifle, I have a little challenge for them.

Shoot your hunting rifle of choice, I don't even care if it's a Kenny Jarratt bean-field rifle or a Benchrest winner, at any range you choose. Any hunting rifle, any scope, any range.

Shoot a 5-shot group from a FIELD position and get humbled quick!

FIELD position in this experiment means no sandbags and supported directly by the shooter's body. Shoot from behind a log if you want as long as you rest the rifle on your hands and not your jacket or sleeping bag. Shooting sling is OK and AAMOF is, in my own case, the ONLY way I can shoot MOA from a field position.

Tighter than MOA in the hunting field? Maybe in your dreams....

BTW I shoot Mausers & Springfields only; so far, I practice mainly at no more than 500 yards since a '40' is 440 yards wide. Back in the old days I'd sometimes take a shot across a quarter-section but the 880 yards meant some deer would run off and need to be trailed.

BTW a 243 or 6mm Rem is, IMO, not powerful enough to be an effective killer on whitetail deer beyond about 350 yards. Back in the '60s my state had a problem with the wasting disease and so LOTS of deer had to be killed. The wardens enlisted the help of local varmint hunters and long-range shooters and one of these was a friend of mine.

He shot mainly Winchester 243s in several configurations, pre-64s naturally since this was in the middle '60s. He had no trouble hitting where he wanted, but many times the deer wouldn't drop right away unless they were fairly close, within 300 yds. Sorry, I don't remember what bullets he was using.

When we rechambered the first rifle to 6-284 business picked up right away. No further trouble with shots across a '40' or an '80', hardly any deer took even a few steps. Altogether he had 3 243s rechambered and he killed a potful of deer with 'em before the biologists said they were through with the program.

Offered FWIW, as always YMMV.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Next time any reader here thinks he can REALLY take advantage of a super-accurate hunting rifle, I have a little challenge for them.

Shoot your hunting rifle of choice, I don't even care if it's a Kenny Jarratt bean-field rifle or a Benchrest winner, at any range you choose. Any hunting rifle, any scope, any range.

Shoot a 5-shot group from a FIELD position and get humbled quick!

FIELD position in this experiment means no sandbags and supported directly by the shooter's body. Shoot from behind a log if you want as long as you rest the rifle on your hands and not your jacket or sleeping bag. Shooting sling is OK and AAMOF is, in my own case, the ONLY way I can shoot MOA from a field position.

Tighter than MOA in the hunting field? Maybe in your dreams....


Regards, Joe

What the hell would that prove? I don't shoot long distances free hand. If I want to shoot long, I get a good rest and have at it.

If you want to go afield and shoot distance with a 2 MOA scattergun, have at it. For me, I will take every advantage I can get.

If you think that an accurate rifle makes no difference in the field, you really need to get out more and spend a little less time behind the keyboard.

In my experience, only guys who can't shoot say that accurate rifles don't offer an advantage.

What Joe is getting at here is, once you remove all the artificial support the rifle is only as accurate as you are.

It's the old "dope in the rifle as opposed to the dope behind the rifle"

So why handicap yourself with a crappy rifle? On the converse, no matter how good you are, you will never be more accurate than your rifle.

Think Tony Boyer could win with a shot out 30-30 with a buggered crown?

What I was getting at was that Joe's test is absolutely, positively worthless because no one with any skill and experience is going to be shooting long distances without a solid position.

Fwiw, I have no trouble at all shooting under moa from prone with no other artificial support beyond the sling. I'd say thousands of high power shooters could say the same.

Some Echols Legends and Rifles Inc. rigs are known to print .3" at 100yd.
Shooter error is something one cant avoid, I prefer an accurate rifle that minimises any extra variance to such.

CAS II, go back and read my post again and maybe again if necessary. Nowhere in it will you find any reference to freehand but I DID say no sandbags.

IOW just the items a hunter would have with him on a big-game hunt. Do YOU carry sandbags to the woods or mountains?

Now go try the test with only what you'd carry into the woods, and imagine that you see a shootable animal. Are you gonna take 10 mins to find just the right rest and whip out your sandbags or whip off your ruck to use as a rest?

Just to make the cheese more binding try the 5 shots in under 2 minutes, starting from the standing position like you'd be doing if you were really hunting but then assuming any field body position including prone with shooting sling if you want. Heck, use your ruck if you want, just be honest with yourself about the difference in performance and the ability of a HUNTER to take advantage of anything better than about 1 MOA.

If you say you can shoot 5 shots less than .5 MOA in the field with ANYTHING then I want to see all the shooting trophies you musta won. 'Cause guess what? The best in the world, literally the best shooters in the entire WORLD, can't do it repeatably and only a very few can do it at all, any time.

For a real-world glimpse of the very best run-whatcha-brung shooting in the world, read Precision Shooting's coverage of the Hickory Egg Shoot. Why, there they make it so easy they only shoot 3-shot groups and they allow the use of sandbags!

And they STILL can't hold that tight!
Regards, Joe

Of course accurate rifles offer an advantage, no argument. But, accuracy is a relative term.

Is it worth an extra few thousand $ to go from less than 1 MOA to less than .5 MOA when the HUNTER can shoot only 1 MOA in the field? Only the client can answer that.

Is it worth an extra few thousand $ to try to make a Winchester or Mauser perform ALMOST as well as a Remington or (gasp!) Savage? Again, only the client can answer that.

I have only a limited number of benjamins to spare and I'll spend them on quality barrels & quality wood & some nice engraving & glass. Let others try to convince clients that they can make silk purses out of sow's ears, I'll just continue building & shooting my 3/4-1 MOA sow's ear rifles and killing deer out to ridiculous ranges.

Try the test, it'll put new colors in your paint box.
Regards, Joe

Trax,
They may do a 3 shot group once in a bluemoon, but not on any type of regular basis.
Butch

Joe, are you drunk? You changed your argument twice in the same post.

Now you are saying that I claim to be able to shoot under .5 MOA from field positions? Show me where I posted that. I can and do shoot under 1 MOA routinely with any rifle I own that is capable. It is no big feat if you practice a little.

We clearly have drastically different views, as if I miss I want it to be because I missed the shot, not because my rifle threw a bullet into the unknown. If you can't see the value in knowing that a bullet is going to hit the point of aim with relative certainty then we dont have much to talk about.

Interesting and very thought provoking replies. I likely cannot afford a Krieger on this rifle; will save that for a 264 LBC.

Z1R reminded me that Tom Burgess once mentioned that he very seldom found Mausers with off center threads.

When I am healthy enough to set my tools up on the pad, I will go the whole nine yards on any Mauser or Remington I do. Why? Simply because I have OCD, and doing that would please me.

This is for a hunting rifle. I will get a decent barrel blank turned to fit the action threads and take it from there.

I know my smith will do a good job on this rifle. He is careful, and pays attention to detail.

I once got a piece of crap back for my money. I used a plumbers cut-off wheel to cut the "rifle" into one inch pieces, had them all engraved and took them to the local range so everyone could have a souvenir.

Thanks again for everyone's input.

Could someone call Joe a cab?

LD

Jd,
.5 moa rifles are about as essential as full penetration welds on bolt handles....

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Jd,
.5 moa rifles are about as essential as full penetration welds on bolt handles....

Oh goodness! now this is getting good!

Lawndart, take a look at getting a shilen barrel. They are what I use frequently. They are excellent barrels for the money.

quote:

Originally posted by CAS II:
I can and do shoot under 1 MOA routinely with any rifle I own that is capable. It is no big feat if you practice a little.
Sure. S-u-r-e you can, off the bench. Try it out on the ground with just you and your rifle.

We clearly have drastically different views, as if I miss I want it to be because I missed the shot, not because my rifle threw a bullet into the unknown. If you can't see the value in knowing that a bullet is going to hit the point of aim with relative certainty then we dont have much to talk about.
Miss? What miss? Into the unknown? 1 MOA, 5" at 500 yards, is not 'into the unknown'. If you miss then you need more practice or better judgement.

CAS, go out and shoot a 5-shot group at 500 yds from a field position and come back and show us.

Better yet, read about or attend the Hickory Egg Shoot, it'll show you what's REALLY possible (and IMPOSSIBLE) in the field.

You can spend all the money you want, but still 999 shooters out of 1000 will not be able to EVER notice the difference in the field since they can't shoot better than 1 MOA anyway. If you think you're one of the magic few, then why aren't you winning matches?

My point, and my opinion, is that money spent on ultra-precise truing of Mausers and Springfields and the like is largely wasted, the benefit with these military actions is minimal at best. If you wanta spend your money that way then go right ahead but it won't kill any more game or win any more matches for you.

AAMOF IMO you'd get about 10 times the benefit if you spent the 'ultra-precise' money on practice. 'Course it all depends upon whether you wanta kill game or just talk about spending money....
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by CAS II:
I can and do shoot under 1 MOA routinely with any rifle I own that is capable. It is no big feat if you practice a little.

I would love to see that. Where do you live? If you can indeed do that I could learn a lot from you.

Anyone who thinks .5" makes a difference in the field is spending too much time behind the keyboard.

Kevin,
You haven't changed. Why do you think the search feature is availabe on the forum? You're just taking up space.
Butch

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
The point being, has one person taken the same components except for the receiver, and did the exact same work, used the same ammo, same day, same time, and same shooter. In other words, if there is no scientific control then the statements are opinions.

No scientific test, just empirical actual results. Back in '48 almost everyone was using Mausers in Benchrest, it was the dawn of Benchrest as we know it. The records were set with Mauser rifles for the most part and several smiths won an enviable rep during the '50s for their Mauser varminters and Benchrest rifles.

None of these rifles and no Mausers by any of these reknowned Mauser smiths won many more competitions after the late '50s. You can bet your sweet bippy that these Mauser guys were burning the midnight oil to try to figure out a way to stay in business, but it was a no-go.

And ever since, folks have been trying to figure out a way to make the Mausers competitive but so far no one has been able to do it.

Winchesters were competitive for a short time but by the late '70s a Benchrester had 3 choices: go round, go custom or go home. And it's still that way.

Kevin, my rudeness stems from your habit of challenging and quibbling with every little detail. This forum is not a courtroom or a Law Review and you don't get brownie points with the judge and jury for your ability to focus on minutiae and find fault with things, sorry.
Regards, Joe

Kevin, perhaps the reason people call you out by profession is your habit of pointing out your occupation every time legal or law issues come up?

Howard

Perhaps.

Hey, I sure am looking forward to seeing some photos of your and your son's custom rifles all done up and scoped and ready to go.

How are they coming along?

Kevin,
Your off topic.
Butch

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
Howard

Perhaps.

Hey, I sure am looking forward to seeing some photos of your and your son's custom rifles all done up and scoped and ready to go.

How are they coming along?

This is usually what happens when someone is losing an argument; they change the subject. It is an old lawyer trick. Either that or ask for pictures.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
Kevin,
Your off topic.
Butch

Not really. This whole thread has gone from single point truing, to blue printing, to suitability of mauser acions for bench rest, to the benenfits of sub MOA in big game rifles to arguments about occupations.

To me allowing a "conversation" run its course is what makes them interesting.

As far as my rifles Customstox just returned from nearly a month in AK so for the last several weeks nothing has been done on them. I think the stocks are about ready to start checkering.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Kobe:

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
Howard

Perhaps.

Hey, I sure am looking forward to seeing some photos of your and your son's custom rifles all done up and scoped and ready to go.

How are they coming along?

This is usually what happens when someone is losing an argument; they change the subject. It is an old lawyer trick. Either that or ask for pictures.

Then perhaps it's because it's humorous to do so??????

Lets get back to the single point truing question(because I am more interested in that). Someone stated that most mausers had true threads? Is that an observation? and how was that observation reached?

quote:

and how was that observation reached?

the exact same thing I asked!!!!!!Now lets see if Butch tells you to "search" for the answer or if Steele mentions your profession!

Kevin,
Got your goat Kevin!
Butch

I already told you, in several ways, how the conclusion was reached.

And yet you're still bleating!

If you're not satisfied with our data and opinions, why don't you see for yourself? I'm VERY sure that some smith, somewhere, will be overjoyed to conduct extensive scientific experiments to answer any question you care to ask---er, fund.

Think about it logically for a moment. Don't you think that the folks who spend $10K-$20K PER YEAR on building and upgrading their Benchrest rifles would have already investigated this? Especially since the flat-bottomed Mausers held all the early records? Especially since the solid-bottomed FN was also available in the late '50s-early '60s with a 222 bolt face to compete directly with the Rem 722?

That flat-bottomed FN, even when chambered for the magic 222-series of BR cartridges, never had a chance. Not a prayer.

All the super-accurate flat-bottomed actions are custom and therefore in a completely different league altogether. Like I said: for the best accuracy either go round, go custom or go home.

BTW I own no round actions whatsoever.
Regards, Joe

Steele

I understood your answer, but clearly I have not gotten through.

My point.

I asked for some data that backed up an opinion. The word "YOU", personality, profession, habits, etc. was not required in your answer, nor are sentences like "And yet you are still bleating".

From the PMs I have received, I am not the only one who thinks you are rude. And I am just asking you to refrain from being so rude.

You stated the following:

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Single-point rethreading and squaring up and blueprinting (regardless of precise definition) and all the other tricks a smith can think of will still not make any Mauser competitive in any accuracy competition. Sure, it'll produce sub-moa groups but the action will also do the same thing without all the extra expense.

He asked you this.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
what data are you using to support this statement?

You responded:

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Anyone who has read anything about Benchrest…

I personally do not care about anything Benchrest and Mauser related. As I stated:

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:
If I want benchrest quality I will build a benchrest rifle.

The question is not can I build a benchrest rifle out of a Mauser. The question is, what data, experience, and empirical data do you have that shows YOU that it is not worth facing, truing, lapping, or any performing any other “accuracy” work on a mauser.

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
I already told you, in several ways, how the conclusion was reached.

And yet you're still bleating!

If you're not satisfied with our data and opinions, why don't you see for yourself?

I have no beef with you, or anyone else here. What I do want is this data and an explanation of your opinion, or anyone else’s. If I missed the data in your posts, please point it out.

One of my first responses to 'sources' and 'data':
"in the late '40s when the Pine Trails range held the first Benchrest competition in the US, the Mauser was the preferred platform. However they would also know that by the early '60s the Remingtons had almost completely taken over and by the '70s even the Remingtons were losing ground to the custom actions. No Mauser actions have won Benchrest competitions in the US in over 40 years now."

Here's another specific response:
"FWIW, in the '60s at Trinidad we were taught to take a truing cut across the front exterior face of the Mauser receiver ring and to remove the first thread inside the ring's front face, both operations done while spinning on a receiver or thread mandrel between centers.

And to not worry too much about the internal C-ring and its trueness.

Bill Prator and Harry Johnson, our metalwork instructors, both agreed (rare!) that anything more would be wasted on a Mauser. Wasted not because there would be no gain at all, but rather because the potential gain would be so small that the difference would probably be lost in the action's comparatively erratic performance level."

And now, still another response:
"Part of it is the rigidity/stiffness of the action, but it's also surprising just how much importance lies in the action's concentricity and balanced response to the dynamics of firing.

I was surprised to read in Harold Vaughn's Rifle Accuracy Facts that he was able to achieve tighter groups by boring new holes in his Rem 721 receiver. One would tend to think that more holes would make the action more flexible and therefor less accurate, but Vaughn found that balancing the stresses by boring new holes actually caused a more concentric vibration and thus tightened the groups measurably."

And yet another:
"Mauser lock time is easy to cure, up to whatever level you have enough funds to purchase. Reduced striker fall, increased spring tension, titanium striker, bushed striker nose, etc."

Ad infinitum:
"No scientific test, just empirical actual results. Back in '48 almost everyone was using Mausers in Benchrest, it was the dawn of Benchrest as we know it. The records were set with Mauser rifles for the most part and several smiths won an enviable rep during the '50s for their Mauser varminters and Benchrest rifles.

None of these rifles and no Mausers by any of these reknowned Mauser smiths won many more competitions after the late '50s. You can bet your sweet bippy that these Mauser guys were burning the midnight oil to try to figure out a way to stay in business, but it was a no-go.

And ever since, folks have been trying to figure out a way to make the Mausers competitive but so far no one has been able to do it.

Winchesters were competitive for a short time but by the late '70s a Benchrester had 3 choices: go round, go custom or go home."

And ad nauseam:
"Don't you think that the folks who spend $10K-$20K PER YEAR on building and upgrading their Benchrest rifles would have already investigated this? Especially since the flat-bottomed Mausers held all the early records? Especially since the solid-bottomed FN was also available in the late '50s-early '60s with a 222 bolt face to compete directly with the Rem 722?

That flat-bottomed FN, even when chambered for the magic 222-series of BR cartridges, never had a chance. Not a prayer."


Well, you wanted sources and reasons and data. So far at least, it appears that I've supplied plenty of that.

Maybe it doesn't suit your opinion or maybe you don't believe me or maybe you don't like my posts or maybe you just haven't really read them.

I'm sorry that I appear to be so rude but it seems to me that you appear to be quite inattentive.

If our responses don't answer your questions satisfactorily then I'm sorry; perhaps you need to question another forum.
Regards, Joe

The thought just occurred to me that you may be wanting actual numerical test results from a side-by-side machining & shooting comparison experiment.

In that case you should probably go to another site or commission your own test 'cause I don't think anyone here has ever done such a test on Mausers vs any other action.
Regards, Joe

JD,
I think he is just enjoying agitating and no answer is good enough for him. He wouldn't understand it if it hit him in the head.
Butch

Once again, "you" and "your", such as "maybe "you" should go to another site, or "you" need to question another forum, or "Ad Nauseum", maybe it doesn't suit "your" opinion, maybe "you" don't like my posts, maybe "you" have not read them, etc.

I asked a simple question. What data supported your opinion. That was it. It had nothing to do with you or me, period.

I understand the answers. What I, and a few others don't understand is your seeming need to attack a questioner's person becasue they ask you for data, unless its because you are insecure about the data you have and you want to divert attention away from your answer by attempting to belittle the questioner, which is what a lot of people do here on AR, as can be clearly seen by reading the responses of a number of people on this thread, including Butch, who has not offered any data whatsoever.

To get back to the subject, if I understand correctly, the data suggests that mausers have not won becasue they:

1. Have a flat receiver.
2. Are not custom.
3. The receiver isn't rigid.
4. Has a slow lock time.

Thank you. Done. Not one "You" used.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
JD,
I think he is just enjoying agitating and no answer is good enough for him. He wouldn't understand it if it hit him in the head.
Butch

Butch, I am not enjoying this. It is actually pissing me off. Especially with posts like yours. You have done nothing to explain, so unless you want to contribute, I would politely ask you to be quiet.

Joe, again, I am not trying to build a benchrest rifle. All those posts, save one, have nothing to do with what I am asking you.

It was stated, in this thread, that mauser threads were true. I am asking, how was that observation reached. I am not attacking you, but you seem to be determined to answer.

"FWIW, in the '60s at Trinidad we were taught to take a truing cut across the front exterior face of the Mauser receiver ring and to remove the first thread inside the ring's front face, both operations done while spinning on a receiver or thread mandrel between centers"

If mauser threads are true, and you do not believe that any accuracy work is worthwhile, do you agree that someone building a rifle from a mauser should face the receiver and remove one thread? Or just leave it be?

I am asking, I am wanting to learn, if you have some basis for what you think other than anecdotes and the fact that benchrest has abandoned the mauser.

Nat,
This is a public forum. The only thing that I have directed to you is how do you set up and chamber. Maybe I could learn something. Does that piss you off?
Butch

At Trinidad during the summer, there's another man who shows up for classes who also really likes Mausers. He built one for accuracy using a couple of techniques he picked up from one of the old Mauser-action benchrest crowd.

One was using steel pins in the rear of the action (in place of bushings) to keep the bolt running true in the action. I can't remember how he set these up, but I think the pins were fine-pitch threaded so he could adjust them in and out to indicate them in, and then he soldered them once they were set right.

The second was leaving the barrel shank a certain amount short, but tightening a certain amount past contact of the barrel shoulder and the front action shoulder until the barrel shank contacted the C-ring. This was supposed to equalize the stress of the joint and enhance accuracy. Wish I could remember better.

I'm probably screwing this up, but does this ring any bells with anybody?

Jack shot great groups with that Mauser.

Steve

Kevin you can add to the list the weight of the mauser receiver will also keep it from BR competition. They are approx 2lb 15oz. A Kelbly receiver is less than 2 lbs. Assuming that it did not have the other problems you just can't put a 5lb 2oz barrel and a 45X scope on and make legal weight by a long shot. This is using a 22oz stock.
I do have a couple mausers that are 5/8-3/4" rifles off the bench when there is a light wind and I have my best load. I hope this helps you.
Butch

I definitely DO NOT agree that Mauser threads are true to anything but themselves.

The response about their trueness was hearsay from someone who told us it came from a past smith with a good rep. Might be true in his experience but not in mine.

I've rebarreled maybe a few hundred Mausers, not as many as 300 though. Can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Mausers where both shoulders or even one shoulder bore all the way around. Many would bear on the inner ring as much as 40-50% with only minor crush, but most were not that good on either ring.

I personally turn & burnish the threads to a snug hand-tight fit and then use a THREAD mandrel (NOT a receiver mandrel!) to take a truing cut across the Mauser outer receiver face. This ensures that the barrel's shoulder will be concentric with the receiver threads and have very close to 100% bearing on the receiver face. I don't worry about the inner ring unless requested by the owner.

Of course this doesn't align the bore with the bolt raceway. I don't care, since as you say this isn't Benchrest.

This procedure is only one of several perfectly satisfactory methods practiced by professionals for many years. Not necessarily the best or even one of the better procedures, but in my experience it will give any Mauser an excellent chance to shoot less than MOA with the least expense and least possibility of trouble.

I don't claim to be a Benchrest smith and certainly not a toolmaker; this is one of my methods and I'm happy with my various Mausers' equal-or-below-MOA performance.

Can a better 'blueprint' lead to better accuracy? I'm sure it can and has.

Will the improvement be enough to justify the expense? IOW will the improvement make the action competitive with its commercial peers if the same work was done to them?

No, not in the publicly stated opinion of many professional smiths, at least one of whom was a noted ex-Ackley employee as well as one of the more famous seminal barrelmakers of the 20th century: Bill Prator, the man Boots Obermeyer called "a giant in the barrelmaking field!".

If this further information isn't good enough, I suggest that you go do your own experiment and report back to us, we'll be interested to hear.
Regards, Joe

quote:

I personally turn & burnish the threads to a snug hand-tight fit and then use a THREAD mandrel (NOT a receiver mandrel!) to take a truing cut across the Mauser outer receiver face. This ensures that the barrel's shoulder will be concentric with the receiver threads and have very close to 100% bearing on the receiver face. I don't worry about the inner ring unless requested by the owner.

Of course this doesn't align the bore with the bolt raceway. I don't care, since as you say this isn't Benchrest

Id prefer the method of a receiver mandrel to machine the thread and grind the action outer surfaces square & concentric to the centre line of the action.
For the amount of effort that some highly talented smiths put into detailed custom barrels,custom bases machined square and true on the receiver,impecable wood to metal fit,etc,...to then not bother to have the bore in line/centre with the raceways would seem rather odd.

Trax,
As sloppy as mauser receiver bores are you would need to ream the bore to make it all 1 size and round. You would probably need to send it to heat treat to make sure it could be machined. Your mandrel would need fitted bushings before surface grinding it. That won't make it shoot better. You would then need to bush the bolt body to snug the surface to the receiver. You would then need to bush the firing pin hole and drill it to .0625 and then turn down the firing pin to fit.
All of this expensive work will still leave you with a mauser that won't shoot like a 700.
Butch