In another EARKIER POST, I opened a can of worms with the article.(below)

So if a Springfield is a Mauser, a Winchester 54 & M-70 are Mausers (technically speaking) and if a CZ 550 is a Mauser.

Not considering appearance or shape of features like the tang or curve of a bolt:

CAN ANYONE TELL ME SIMPLY WHAT MAKES "IT" A MAUSER TECHNICALLY?

* * *

The Winchester Co. based there Model 54 on the 1903 Springfield and so the M-70. See; Winchester's History

That the Springfield was without question a Mauser clone was confirmed in a series of patent infringementpatent infringement n. the manufacture and/or use of an invention or improvement for which someone else owns a patent issued by the government, without obtaining permission of the owner of the patent by contract, license or waiver.
..... Click the link for more information. lawsuits filed by Mauser. Mauser won and the court ordered the US Government to pay damages. This is where popular myth takes over. The myth says the US Government lost the case, appealed, lost again, but war intervened and only a small amount of the judgment, approximately $250,000, was actually paid to Mauser. The balance of the huge award was never paid and the Great War provided the US Government an easy out.

See ALSO: Battlefield tack driver: the model 1903 Springfield in WWI
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/...d+in+WWI-a0150451303

Yes, Let's do this.

The C-ring (internal breeching ring) more surface area for barrel abuttment. less dynamic headspace.

3rd back up bolt lug.

Dovetail 2nd bite on the extractor keeps the extractor in better contact with the bolt and cartridge head in the event of ammo that is on the warmer side. the mauser will extract the warmer loads better. especially on big case heads.

The anti bind guide rib on a mauser bolt acutally works compared to the (?) on an 03.

The Mausers safety sleeve is a full radius gas shroud that effectively blocks all potential gases from exiting the back of the action in the event of a case rupture.

The back of an m-98 bolt is a larger diameter as well, this also aids in gas blocking. The increased diameter in this area privides a larger diameter for the recocking cam surface,
the larger this diameter is the easier the recock.

A simple comparison for you to try, you must have an 03 sprg or M-70 and mauser 98 a good light source, barrels must be off the actions.

Hold each action up to the light so the light is where a chamber would be. Allow the light to shine in on the thread tennon.
Look thru each action, around the bolt, under the safety shroud, look everywhere there. Try to look thru each action with the bolts in and closed in battry.

you will find that in this simple comparison that the m-98 will show very little to no light.

The 03 sprg. shows lots of light every place.
The M-70 shows lots of light too.
Both the 03 and all M-70s are gas leakers.

Any place you can see light there will be gas coming thru in the event of a rupture.


Working for a former employer some 15 years ago as company marksman I had a 416 Dakota suffer a massive case head rupture on the bench rest which destroyed the rifle, it was the 11th hour on a rush gun that was to meet it's hunter in Africa. I filed in the sights, then.
1st shot and whack, junk. Blew the stock in two, never found the extractor, the chamber was bulged, the lugs set back .020 it was ugly.

Ruptures are a rare thing. It does happen and if you shoot enough and reload it's not "if" but "when".

I've seen what a 270 will do in a 7mm mag. ugly.

or a 270 in a 270 wheatherby. ugly.

what a 270 does to a 280 Dak. #10 blew the bottom of the action off.

All shot by "experienced shooters"

Chalk it up to "defication occurs"
and I promise you when it does. You want the gas protection of the M-98.
Not a 70.
Not an 03.

My 416 Dakota thing.
My only injuries where blood specs coming from particles that blew threw the action. The particles kind of outlined my safety glasses.
I had some brass shards in the right thumb that squirted under the bolt and out the back.

This experience gave me a flinch response.
Now I have concentrate more not to flinch.

Later inspection showed the ammo to be way wrong.

90gr of RL 15 and 400gr bullets don't mix well.
The box said.
350gr swift A-frame.
What happened?
The handloader got his info mixed.
It cost him his job.

Judgeing from the pock marks on my shooting glasses, It's a good thing I had them on.

Do the light test.

you will see why the m-98 design is better.

S.S.
aka/Timan
www.satterleearms.com

what's a mauser?
an m98, interchangable parts, and SOME derivatives (like the pruvian, mexican, m48)
an m91 isn't, nor an enfield of springfield 1903 ..

Mike,
to be clear, on the link you sent

quote:

The Spanish Mausers were rapidly reloaded due to the patented Mauser "charger" system, commonly known as "strippers"

the SOLE basis of the lawsuit, the PATENTED part, was

quote:

design, the single most important of which was the "charger loading" system

His entirely unsupported conclusion

quote:

That the Springfield was without question a Mauser clone was confirmed in a series of patent infringementpatent infringement

as it was ONLY the patened stripper clip function that was in question of the suit.

So, is the springfield a mauser?
No, sir, its not, it shares no interchangable parts other than the bolt collar .. the bottom metals CAN be used between a mauser and a 1903.. and an enfield,... which says that they are of a fairly standardized design... that not even mauser held to, re: 1903 turk, 1910 mexican, 1924 mexican, 1936 mexican, and m48

i flatly disagree that a m70, in ANY configuration, is a m1898

A lawsuit doesn't "make" a Mauser!

Please allow mw to clarify;
I asked: "TECHNICALLY WHAT MAKES A MAUSER "A MAUSER"?

I did NOT ask what makes an action type "NOT" a Mauser.

Further, if you PLEASE take the time to read the article attached above (quoted, but NOT written by me) you will discover it was the opinion of the international court prior to WWI that the Springfield Action is in fact a MAUSER.
My second question is why?

And it is my opinion that the lack of, or the presence of, a "stripper clip" guide in and action does NOT change weather an action is a Mauser or NOT.

Your comments are appreciated.

I'm not a gunsmith, but will tackle this from the standpoint that possibly a non-gun person would take.

If I didn't know anything about guns, and was shown the two actions I would look at them and think that yes, the springfield looked similar to the mauser. stripper clip slot, extractor, cocks the same way (remember, I don't know guns, only know I lift the bolt and it cocks), safety is operated the same (iirc).

is that what you were wanting to know? why 'somebody' might think that it was a copy?

Now, not being a gunsmith but liking guns, I do think that the flat bottomed, CRF actions are BASED on mausers design. they may depart from it and not be copies in the strict sense, but it is clear that the features that the greatest action (for specific things, there are types of shooting that it clearly isn't best for) were incorporated. Were they always incorporated as well? Were any of the changes improvements? I think No and Yes.

Personally I think the springfield has a lot of differences, more maybe than other designs. magazine cutoff is unique on the springfields, passive ejector, two piece firing pin. I like the exposed cocking piece knob though.

I think had Mauser been designing his rifle for a sporting rifle it is likely it would have sported things that many consider improvements, i.e. different safety, better trigger. It was designed for a battlefield, and that should be remembered when people want to criticize it.

How about the enfield? other than gas handling what about it's camming action for extraction? and what about it's safety, many don't like it but hard to argue it ain't in the way and it sure is safe.

I know we all go around and around with it, people pick their favorites and then maybe find it easier to support their position because of the emotional investment.

Red

You can go to http://www.google.com/patents and look these up.

This part of history seems to get re-written quite often. This is the best information that I have found and close to the time it happened.

The early 1901-1902 Springfields had a larger so-called thumb notch which I believe the early developers thought had something to do with loading the rifle. When they realized that this was also a Mauser patent they redesigned that part of the rifle so as to not infringe on the Mauser patent. I've never seen any documents to sustain my theory but believe that they made the same wrong conclusion that most folks do today in the belief that it is in fact a "Thumb-Notch" for loading the rifle.

YES! The Commercial Mauser sporters also had this.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Petrov:
I've never seen any documents to sustain my theory but believe that they made the same wrong conclusion that most folks do today in the belief that it is in fact a "Thumb-Notch" for loading the rifle.

YES! The Commercial Mauser sporters also had this.

Many people find that the thumb notch makes it easier to load the rifle by feel, such as reloading while keeping your eye on a wounded animal. The right hand drops a cartridge on top of the magazine and the left thumb(reaching through the notch) presses the cartridge home. This is even more apparent when dealing with larger cartridges.

I have read that a PH in Africa(Blunt?) added a thumb notch to a M70 for this reason.

DW has stated on this forum that a PH had him mill a notch into a custom action to aid in reloading.

quote:

Originally posted by Riflebuilders.com:
In another EARKIER POST, I opened a can of worms with the article.(below)

So if a Springfield is a Mauser, a Winchester 54 & M-70 are Mausers (technically speaking) and if a CZ 550 is a Mauser.

Not considering appearance or shape of features like the tang or curve of a bolt:

CAN ANYONE TELL ME SIMPLY WHAT MAKES "IT" A MAUSER TECHNICALLY?

* * *

I must be slow, i always thought that a Mauser (the 1898 version in this context), is a Mauser.

By your train of thought, every four wheeled, rubber tired, internal-combustion-four-stroke engine powered vehicle on the road is a Ford Model T

quote:

The early 1901-1902 Springfields had a larger so-called thumb notch which I believe the early developers thought had something to do with loading the rifle. When they realized that this was also a Mauser patent they redesigned that part of the rifle so as to not infringe on the Mauser patent.

That is fascinating! You cannot beat "original sources" for myth slaying.

As to the original topic what makes a Mauser to my mind is:

1) A bolt handle (with its root) perpendicular to the TWO front locking lugs. So that to unload you need a full 90% rotation of the bolt. And the ridiculous lack of camming on opening!

2) A "something" that when you pick it up and handle it you know makes it a Mauser. Which you don't get when you pick up a P.'14 (or Model of 1917) or Springfield...so I guess that "cut out" in Michael Petrov's post is that "something".

For anyone who would like to do more research on the subject.

This is from the ARTICLES of AGREEMENT entered into on May 5, 1905 between
General William Crozier representing the US and Messrs. Von Lengerke and Detmold,
the US agents representing Waffenfabrik Mauser through their patent attorney Mr.
Arthur C. Fraser.

U.S. Letters Patent, No. 467,180
U.S. Letters Patent, No. 477,671
U.S. Letters Patent, No. 527,869
U.S. Letters Patent, No. 547,933 (Withdrawn)
U.S. Letters Patent, No. 590,271

U.S. Letters Patent, No. 467,180 Extractor 1892
U.S. Letters Patent, No. 477,671 Extractor 1892
U.S. Letters Patent, No. 527,869 Magazine 1894
U.S. Letters Patent, No. 547,933 (Withdrawn) 1895 Safety
U.S. Letters Patent, No. 590,271 Safety & safety bolt housing lock 1897

You need to be a little more clear.
I'm assuming you are asking "what is a Mauser based design"?

Correct??

And that would be ANY turn bolt rifle made after 1898. Including all those push feed remies

But you need to understand that is a very loose, general and broad classification to say the least. that's like asking what revolvers are Colt's. Well every damn revolver in the world works in damn near the same way just as every turn bolt rifle works the same basic way.

But Only a Mauser is a Mauser. all others are just copies or modernization's of an existing design.

Please allow me to redefine the question.
One last time.

What phisycal design feature(s) (NOT FINISH OR COSMETIC STYLE)are defined in the 1800s' Mauser patents which define a turn bolt rifle action as conforming to the Mauser Parent design.

OR

WHAT DESIGN FEATURES MAKE AN ACTION A "MAUSER"?
And I do not mean a little stamp that says "Made by Mauser".

Please tell us that you're sharing your login credentials with a child.

frankly, go buy a m1898, pul the barrel off, and that's your baseline. If the parts don't swap, its NOT a mauser 98 ...

Well lets get into some history here.

My records show that the first bolt action was a needle gun built in 1841 by Johann Nikolaus von Dreyse From Germany.

But as far as I can tell the first turning bolt action that was feed from a magazine was built by Mauser. So there are the first two pieces of criteria 1. A turning bolt that locks in the action. 2. Ammunition feed from a magazine.
Then in 1893 Mauser came up with a flush fitting magazine with a floor plate. And I would say around 1896 perfected the claw extractor. Here's the funny thing my 1891 Argentine is a push feed action and Mauser saw this as a flaw and in 1896 improved the action to be controlled from the magazine to the chamber by use of a claw extractor.
Now he also invented a three position safety so the action could be operated while keeping the striker locked. A huge leap in safety for rifles of the time.

Lets see what else, Safety lug, Striper clips, removable floor plate with the follower and spring attached. Gas handling, Double shoulder barrel mount, cone breach, Yada yada yada.....

But if you trace it back to the very beginning then ANY turning bolt gun is Mechanically a Mauser. It's just the same as any pistol that uses a Browning blow back action is a 1911 type deign. Even my HK USP 45 is a "modified Browning action"

Some of the most important Mauser 1898 design features are lesser-known. For example, the bolt's ejector cut has a small ledge at its rear outer edge, to form a dogleg gas seal when the bolt is locked closed. The front edge of the bolt's sleeve is rebated downward, again providing a dogleg gas seal. The bolt's locking lugs are set back from its front edge which greatly increases their shear strength.

Several other 1898 features have already been mentioned such as the internal receiver ring, the Chinese-finger extractor groove, the lack of any coned breeches or indeed of anything other than multiple right-angles in the gas paths, the large-diameter gas shield flange on the bolt sleeve, the internal bolt shoulders preventing any unlocked discharge, the bolt anti-bind guide rib and the large holes provided for less-dangerous gas dispersion.

All these features and more are provided by the 1898 design while NONE are present in ANY Winchester, Enfield or Springfield.

I'd say that was pretty dad-gum clear, how about you?
Regards, Joe

quote:

Here's the funny thing my 1891 Argentine is a push feed action and Mauser saw this as a flaw and in 1896 improved the action to be controlled from the magazine to the chamber by use of a claw extractor.

Yep, Mauser identified that during the “heat to things” even soldiers trained in the use of the bolt action rifle would periodically short-stroke the bolt causing a cartridge jam with the push feed action. So he designed the claw extractor controlled round feed which eliminated the cartridge jam if one short stroked the bolt.

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:
Yep, Mauser identified that during the “heat to things” even soldiers trained in the use of the bolt action rifle would periodically short-stroke the bolt causing a cartridge jam with the push feed action. So he designed the claw extractor controlled round feed which eliminated the cartridge jam if one short stroked the bolt.

What do you mean by "short stroke" and what kind of a jam would a person experience? Just curious having never experienced a jam myself with any of my push feeds.

quote:

So if a Springfield is a Mauser, a Winchester 54 & M-70 are Mausers (technically speaking) and if a CZ 550 is a Mauser.

Not considering appearance or shape of features like the tang or curve of a bolt:

CAN ANYONE TELL ME SIMPLY WHAT MAKES "IT" A MAUSER TECHNICALLY?

* * *

The Winchester Co. based there Model 54 on the 1903 Springfield and so the M-70. See; Winchester's History

That the Springfield was without question a mauser clone was confirmed in a series of patent infringement patent infringement n. the manufacture and/or use of an invention or improvement for which someone else owns a patent issued by the government, without obtaining permission of the owner of the patent by contract, license or waiver.

"The new rifle "borrowed" a number of features from the superior Mauser design, the single most important of which was the "charger loading system". The bolt's dual forward locking-lug design, the flag-style, bolt-mounted safety and staggered internal box magazine were additional Mauser features incorporated into the new Springfield. The few features on the Springfield actually different are an attempt to skirt Mauser's patents and avoid paying royalties. There was no advantage to the '03's two-piece firing pin or ugly third locking lug"

"SIMPLY WHAT MAKES "IT" A MAUSER TECHNICALLY?"

I believe the proper term is Mauser clone. The article doesn't say it was a Mauser. But if it "walks like a duck........must be a duck." The court found it shared enough core features that it did not circumvent patent law. These features were highlighted in the article you attached.

I think a Mauser clone(copy) is the basic action layout package originally put together by Mauser. Some features were original and some borrowed, but never before seen together in one action. Here is my core five that I think comprise the package:

1. A turn bolt action, w/ 2 forward locking lugs
2. non-split bridge receiver
3. rotating bolt sleeve external to the rear bridge
4. staggered internal box magazine
5. rotating claw extractor

I would include the P14 and P17 Enfields, Rem 30 variants, and Ruger MK77 in that category too.

I do believe the ejector box used in the Mauser design is a unique/exclusive feature of a Mauser rifle.

Enfield 1914/1917 is not all that far off, nor is the ruger m77

Wespac:

I know on my 1891 Arg (and I will limit this observation to this rifle alone)
You can short stroke the action enough to not eject the spent cartridge and since it's a push feed if you cycled the bolt just right. The bolt would still have the spent cartridge retained by the extractor and could pick up a new round from the mag. Now granted this is a very rare possibility and has never happen on my rifle but the geometry is there that this could happen. A longer ejector will prevent this from happening. And Since I don't know if My ejector has ever been modified I can say this is a trait of all Mauser Push feeds.

It is also why I believe that nearly all new manufacture push feed rifle have a spring loaded ejector. A spring loaded eject solves the problem.

But I think you are more likely to run into a double feed on a claw extractor then a short stroke jam on a push feed. i.e. the extractor lets go of a spend shell in the chamber and the bolt pick up a new round from the mag. And granted this can only happen with an over pressure load or a bad extractor that I can think of.

My statement is simply that all bolt action rifles can trace their lineage back to Paul Mauser. Just as all revolving pistols can trace their origins back to Colt. And Autoloading pistol can be traced to John Browning. And any automobile can be traced to the Model T and further back to the "Horseless carriage"

So Mechanically speaking all bolt rifles are based off the Mauser design. But It is not a Mauser. It's like saying all AR-15 are Armalites Nop. They are clones built on Stoner's rifle.

A mauser is rekognised by the following chriterias:
1: Ratteling and poor bolttravel.(way better on both Kragh-Jørgensen and model 1917)
2: Staggered magasine that needs mutch atention to caliber diference.(Mutch faster and more reliable on specialy the Norwegian Kragh_jørgensen)
3: a safe but poorly operationing flagsafety.(mutch more userfriendly on the model 1917, and still just as safe)
4: a lot of aftermounted gasleak controle features introduced on the m98 to reduce problems from a basicaly verry poor design with 2 frontlugs traveling in broached raceways.(those features was desperate attempts to solve/reduce some og the basic gas handeling problems that Paul Mauser personaly discovered on his earlier versions)

The famouse 3 lug is of little or no real walue, when engaging that early. Basicaly because of the lack of strength of the recievers with the thumb cut. (the 1917 using the bolthandle in a mutch stronger reciever with a sort of delay, is mutch to prefer)
The nonrotating clawextractor was used by Kragh Jørgensen on their model 1889
The boltcyckeling and magasinefunktion was also lightyears ahead on the Krag-Jørgensen.(specialy on the Norwegian model)
The pushfeed with an extractor like on the post64 winchester, and Remmington 700 gives you mutch higher safetyfactors against casehead seperations compared to the clawextractors.
Maybe the 1 lugdesign on the Kragh-Jørgensen also gives you a mutch better gasleak protection as ther is no left side raceway to lead the gas towards your face (right hand shooters)
Savage has made a mutch better design on blocking the raceways at the front instead of the rear on the mausers.

Those statements is to be seen as small provokations, with a lot of truth. Hopfully making some people looking a little more nuanced on Rifledesigns.

The M98 also has another important safety feature - due to the way the front shoulder of the striker (firing pin) and the bolts' internal recess are machined, the striker cannot complete its full travel and strike a primer until the bolt is closed and in battery. This is my understanding of it anyway.

How many of the other actions have this feature I ask? Like Timan says, shit happens, and I have known the below scenario to happen (though only once):

The thought of a cartridge going off as I was chambering a round on a controlled feed rifle gives me the willies nowadays!

I have to admit I didn't read the above posts all that thoroughly - if this has already been pointed out, my apologies for ploughing the paddock twice!

Hmmm...I am no expert on any of these but I think there were a few turn bolts before the Mauser rifle...



The 1878 French Gras-Kropatschek




The 1879 Lee-Navy



The 1880 Japanese Murata



The 1886 French LeBel

But maybe I am wrong

Yes those were built before the M1898 but Mauser built a turning bolt rifle in 1871 And the first bolt action was built in 1836 but it was a single shot.

The thing is, What really make a Mauser a Mauser is the fact that it is the Standard by which all others are measured. Weather you like a 98 or not you have to admit that the Ubiquitous Mauser is the standard.

And there would be no Remington 700, Winchester M70, Weatherby Mk5, M77 Ruger, Sako, Savage, Browning,

But Among other things if the Germans would not have been so arrogant that they felt the K98 didn't need improvement and had actually used some of that ingenuity that they are so known for. They could have built a semi auto rifle and had a better chance against the allies.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Hmmm...I am no expert on any of these but I think there were a few turn bolts before the Mauser rifle...



The 1878 French Gras-Kropatschek




The 1879 Lee-Navy



The 1880 Japanese Murata



The 1886 French LeBel

But maybe I am wrong

Actually the first Mauser bolt action rifle was designed by Peter Paul (known as Paul) Mauser in the early 1860’s, it was a single shot rifle, and was introduced to a number of governments for prospective sale around 1865/1866.

The Mauser brothers, Paul and Wilhelm Mauser, then formed a partnership with Samuel Norris of Austria in December, 1867 and attempted to sale an improved model of Paul’s rifle as the Mauser-Norris Model 67/69 Rifle during the 1867-1869 timeframe. The partnership was dissolved in 1869 when no government sales were forthcoming.

In 1870 Paul and Wilhelm Mauser commenced work on a new improved bolt action rifle which was sold to the German Empire in 1871; the M71 it was the first model to have the Mauser “wing” safety. It remained a single shot until 1980 when the Mauser brothers updated the design with an eight shot tubular magazine leading to the M71/84 designation.

Then we have the Models 1889/90/91 and Experimental Model 1892; Mauser introduced the non-rotating claw extractor with the M92.

Then we have the Model 1893, followed by the Models 1894 and 1895, then the Model 1896 rifle (which evolved into the M1938 Carbine).

And finally the M1898 is introduced; followed by numerous commercial and military iterations.

Well but maybe we can argue what is a bolt action...because you had the need gun by Johann Nikolaus von Dreyse introduced to the Prussian Army in 1848 which is a breach loading rifle with a bolt.

The readers who know me know I like to churn things up by making controversial, misleading statements to inspire debate and make friends think.
I thought someone would “call me out” on this issue & challenge me with facts.

FACT:
In the 1800s’ Mauser filed for patents to define his new battle rifle actions.
When you read a patent document the inventor lists the features which define his product as unique.
“Bobster” almost got it perfect:
1.A turn bolt action, w/ 2 forward locking lugs
2. Non-split bridge receiver
3. Rotating bolt sleeve external to the rear bridge
4. Staggered internal box magazine
5. Rotating claw extractor

The U.S. Government built a NEW battle rifle action the 1903 Springfield.
The NEW rifle was found by the international court to have infringed on the patents held by Mauser so many ways that the court ruled that it was “virtually” a Mauser for the purpose of litigation and made a judgment against the U.S. Government.

This is where the fun begins. (comment)
The NEW rifle is NOT a Mauser but it owes some of its features to the Mauser designs.
Now the Winchester 54 came from the 1903 Springfield and so does the M-70.
And it is true you can see both the influence of the 1903 and the Mauser in both.
Neither of these are Mausers

Now this was all inspired by the sincere question;
“WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MAUSER AND AN M-70”

In my opinion that is not a good comparison.
It is not valid to compare a 1800s’ Mauser with the 1903 Springfield.
Changes were incorporated into the 1903 action for better or not.

It is also not valid to compare a 1800s’ Mauser with the 1930s’ M-70 Winchester.
The M-70 Winchester is NOT a battle rifle action but was developed for “sporting market”

It would be better to compare a commercial 1950s’ FN “commercial” Mauser action to the 1930s’ Winchester M-70. You choose which you like.

Just as it would not be fare to compare one of the really fine NEW Mauser actions from our friend Mr. Satterlee “tinman” (and some others) to the 1930s’ M-70.

Perhaps it might be better to compare the NEW production Mauser with a New designed action like a Kimber center fire action or - - - You decide.



A Winchester M-54 or M-70 is NOT a Mauser, nor a 1917 Enfield, a Weatherby, a Kimber, a Remington and on………!

The take home part is:
1. Most all modern “turn bolt” actions owe some if not most of their existence to the 1800s’ Mauser Patents. The Mauser Patents actually have influenced almost every person on this earth. (Not always for the best.) Just think about that.

2. If you are building a sporting rifle & starting from scratch it is much easier to start with a “commercial” action then a battle rifle action.

The best to you all.

quote:

Originally posted by Riflebuilders.com:


The take home part is:
1. Most all modern “turn bolt” actions owe some if not most of their existence to the 1800s’ Mauser Patents. The Mauser Patents actually have influenced almost every person on this earth. (Not always for the best.) Just think about that.


The best to you all.

Which is the point I was getting at.
MAny have stated that only a Mauser can be called a Mauser and they are correct. All others are 98 Actions or some other form signifying that the design is either based on a 1898 or is a precise copy of an 1898.

But as you stated The Mauser Bros. have influenced every rifle design since and every person on this planet. Thats a scary but completely true statement.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:

Which is the point I was getting at.
MAny have stated that only a Mauser can be called a Mauser and they are correct. All others are 98 Actions or some other form signifying that the design is either based on a 1898 or is a precise copy of an 1898.

But as you stated The Mauser Bros. have influenced every rifle design since and every person on this planet. Thats a scary but completely true statement.

You are correct about that many designs has ben influenced by M98. There are also some who hasn't.
Some of those that has been influenced, devides into 2 groups.
1: Those who tryes to copy and follow the same basic route as m98
2: Those who looked at the m98 designfeatures, and from that decided HOW NOT TO DO

The M98 is a brilliant design for its time. Just dont get to religius about it. As it is only 1 design in a line of evolutions, and among quite different designs.

Mauser was Not the first to use the Turnbolt lock
Mauser was not the first to use multiple luckinglugs
Mauser was the main inventor of the sloppy and ratteling bolt
Remmington and Weatherby among other PF rifles has a way better caseheadsupport, and therefor highly reduced risk of gasleak.
Sauer 200/202 and TC Icon and other fatboltdesigns has a ekstremly mutch better gasblocking design as anny of the mauser inspiered.

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

Sauer 200/202 and TC Icon and other fatboltdesigns has a ekstremly mutch better gasblocking design as anny of the mauser inspiered.

I would be interested in your opinion of the gas blocking ability and overall safety and soundness of the Blaser R93 design.

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:

Which is the point I was getting at.
MAny have stated that only a Mauser can be called a Mauser and they are correct. All others are 98 Actions or some other form signifying that the design is either based on a 1898 or is a precise copy of an 1898.

But as you stated The Mauser Bros. have influenced every rifle design since and every person on this planet. Thats a scary but completely true statement.

You are correct about that many designs has ben influenced by M98. There are also some who hasn't.
Some of those that has been influenced, devides into 2 groups.
1: Those who tryes to copy and follow the same basic route as m98
2: Those who looked at the m98 designfeatures, and from that decided HOW NOT TO DO

The M98 is a brilliant design for its time. Just dont get to religius about it. As it is only 1 design in a line of evolutions, and among quite different designs.

Mauser was Not the first to use the Turnbolt lock
Mauser was not the first to use multiple luckinglugs
Mauser was the main inventor of the sloppy and ratteling bolt
Remmington and Weatherby among other PF rifles has a way better caseheadsupport, and therefor highly reduced risk of gasleak.
Sauer 200/202 and TC Icon and other fatboltdesigns has a ekstremly mutch better gasblocking design as anny of the mauser inspiered.

What you are stating is true to an extent.

But what you are also saying is that a Rifle such as the AK 47 is nothing more then a stamped sheet metal pile of junk (which it really is)

But that pile of junk is the most copied and well distributed assault rifle in history And trying to diminish it's role in history is a disservice.

I agree that the Mauser is a sloppy action by todays standards but tell me of a better action built in that time period that could compete with the Mauser on the battle field. And don't bring up the heap of junk, arse backwards design, Krag either.

C
Next thing you'll do is tell us how much better a push feed is over a CRF rifle

Most custom rifles built on Mauser actions can shoot 1 MOA. As a hunting weapon that is fine. The K98 was not designed for competing in matches. Compared with tighter actions (Remingtons, Sakos, Tikkas, Savages, Blasers, SHR's, Schultz & Larsens, Brownings, Sauers, etc) they do not much better than the Mauser. As a DG rifle the Mauser is without equal.

Point is accuracy revolves more around how concentric evrything was put together in a well made barrel - cutting of the chamber in the barrel and its line up, squaring of the bolt face, uniformity of twist and dimentions of groove, evenly cut crown, etc.

Considering this, I must conclude that the K98 action is still fit for purpose.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
It's just the same as any pistol that uses a Browning blow back action is a 1911 type deign.(sic)

Untrue. The JM Browning designed model 1911 is a locked breech. There is no pistol that fires the 45ACP cartridge that uses a blowback action.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:

I agree that the Mauser is a sloppy action by todays standards but tell me of a better action built in that time period that could compete with the Mauser on the battle field. And don't bring up the heap of junk, arse backwards design, Krag either.

C
Next thing you'll do is tell us how much better a push feed is over a CRF rifle

I agree that the m98 has its place in history.
The main reason for its historical status, is volume.
Manny other designs has better features on certain aspects.

Regarding PF / CRF, there is litte doubt that regarding cyckeling speed and primary safety, the PF design is lightyears ahead of the CRF