Is there a difference in the machining quality or workmanship between a 1908 Brazilian and a Persian 98/29 (the Burno made, not the Iran made ones) action ?

Thinking more of the bolt body & inside the action.

Does one have tighter, closer tolerances or better finish as in tool marks and just better finished?

I know there can be differences in heat treat, potential lug set back & the writing on the outside of the action ect. not addressing those differences or potential differences.

Just the over all quality of the machining.

I have seen the machine work on the 1908 Brazilians' and was amazed at how nicely they are machined and slick the bolt works. But have not seen a Persian 98/29 in person to compare it to.

I remember reading somewhere that the 98/29 actions were also very tight and the bolt quite smooth or slick. Do you find that correct?

Allen

I have both. I will preface my comments by admitting that the Persian is as-new from the arsenal, while the Brazilian is in very good condition but not new.

Both are well machined and polished. I would perhaps give a slight edge to the Brazilian (a DWM model) as far as being free of even minimal tool marks on the polished above-wood surfaces of the receiver. The 98/29 is finished well by any standards, but I see a couple of small marks in corners, along the edge between the side wall and front ring and back near the bolt stop. It is a little harder to compare the bolts - the Brazilian bolt, being used, has more rub marks. As far as tooling marks, I can't see much on either. Both run very slick and without much wobble (except when pulled all the way back, as you expect in a Mauser).

Interestingly enough, both appear just a tad nicer finished than a commercial receiver from ~1922 that I have.

If I were building a rifle, a nice specimen of either one would work. I personally like the crest and Farsi writing of the Persian.

Todd