quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Impossible to beat a military rifle for utter and absolute reliability under all conditions. IMO a large-ring Mauser would be MUCH better than an M70 of any type & vintage. JMO.
Regards, Joe

X-2

quote:

Originally posted by elkregulator:
Aside from good maintenance practices and being familiar with the equipment what would make a gun unquestionably reliable?

I’m currently working on a “go to” gun. Something that can take temperature change, weather, water, drops, feeds reliable, safety is reliable, and the trigger is reliable.

This is what I’m thinking :
-Winchester 70 classic stainless (moderate budget, no Dakota 76 here)
-Mcmillan/manners/HS stock
-Broughton tube
-Williams bottom metal and extractor
-Tuned factory trigger
-Coated
-Beltless case
-sights?


Please don’t answer double barrel, single shot, or AK-47. That’s not what I’m looking for.
I didn’t already see this exact topic, but if this has been discussed in detail, please post a link.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks,

All other nonsensical babbling aside, I think your idea and blueprint is superb and can't think of anything that would be heads above better for what you want. Here is mine in an Echols McMillan graphite stock. It has Williams bottom metal, Williams extractor, the factory 270 WCF barrel cut at 23", an adjusted factory trigger, a bit of safety work, and Leupold DD"s on top. It balances dead nuts on the front guard screw with five rounds in the magazine.

It feeds very well, shoots great, extracts every time, and I'd say you're on the right track.

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:

All other nonsensical babbling aside, ...Here is mine in an Echols McMillan graphite stock. It balances dead nuts on the front guard screw ...

That's one goofy rifle, it's used to "balance dead nuts", whatever they are on your guard screw, and the bolt handle appears to be completely missing from the right side. Otherwise, all nonsensical babbling aside, very nice rifle for a wrong handed shooter

Best

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Change out bottom metal - strictly cosmetic in the case of the Mauser but considered necessary for the Remington

Never seen a Remington fail because of it's bottom metal. I've seen them fail because some idiot couldn't get it and the magazine back in the gun correctly.

In the event either bottom metal failed, the Remington would be the easiest to obtain and the least expensive to replace.

quote:

Fiddle with the follower - not necessary for the Mauser with any conservative cartridge sized for the action

Maybe related - Of the two designs, the Remington requires less work to get feeding when changing calibers. Period!

quote:

True the receiver - ALWAYS done when rebarreling, regardless of the action

Not always. Only when they are found to be out of whack. And then the Remington is much easier to true.

quote:

Reshape the extractor claw - not necessary for the Mauser if not a belted magnum case

Wrong! Absolutely necessary if you need the ability to throw a round in the chamber and close the bolt. That little modification can come back to cause reliability issues down the road.

quote:

Cut a half moon in the back of the action - where did THAT come from?

No Comment!

quote:

The trigger is the Remington's weakest point and has always caused problems while the Mauser's military 2-stage trigger is light-years safer & more reliable when compared to the Remington with its history of hangups and ADs.

Only if you are an idiot does the Remington trigger cause problems. Improper maintenance is the Remington's weakest point. I have never seen a properly maintained Remington fail. Never.

Of the two designs, I would have to say that the Mauser is more idiot proof than the Remington. This is certainly not meant to imply that only idiots own Mausers, Hell no! It only means that if you are an idiot, you would probably be happier with the Mauser. Oooorah!

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:

Cut a half moon in the back of the action - where did THAT come from?

Regards, Joe

Mike is correct on that, but it is the inside back of the mag box at the top below the bolt. It is generally a good idea to relieve this area in a half moon shape below the bolt to prevent the cartridge case head from snagging when you are loading from the top in a hurry.

Best

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I hunted with a 1968 production Model 700 ADL in 243 Winchester in Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1993.

No failures, during hot summer ground hog hunts, drenching rain deer hunts and 10 degree frozen solid season deer hunts. Keep the trigger clean and oiled, use a bronze brush to clean out the extractor from time to time, and you'll have no problems.

I've hunted, but to a lesser degree with pre-64 Model 70's, newer CRF Model 70's, Weatherby Mark V's, Sako A-V's, etc.

No failures.

I've huntied with two 1898 Mauser actioned sporters, that I put together pretty much by myself.

No failures.

In my experience, the key is to keep the firearm clean and oiled with some type of oil that doesn't gum up. I use G-96.

I have not hunted in sub-zero weather nor in a blinding sand storm though.

On the other hand, I am building all of my future hunting rifles using 1898 Mauser actions. I'll probably use the original military trigger on all but the varmint one. Furthermore, I'm using the simple Buehler flip up safety on the scoped versions.

I've used 3-position Model 70 type safeties on Mausers, but I just like the Buehler a little better in keeping the action as original as possible. No other reason.

The 1898 Mauser engineering and manufacturing fit and finish from the Austrian, Belgian, Czech and German plants before 1943/1944 is really amazing stuff. The safety features, simplicity and ruggedness are quite evident.

So, I'm going with the 1898 Mauser for a number or reasons, including in answer to your original question, unquestionable ruggedness and reliability.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

USMC absolutely insists on replacing the 700 bottom metal to add rigidity and durability, no other reason.

Never had to fiddle with a Mauser follower but never changed to a really outlandish caliber either.

I automatically take a truing cut on every receiver that I rebarrel, obviously everyone doesn't....

One of the first things I was shown about the Mauser was its ability to snap the extractor hook over the already-chambered case rim, by simply compressing the extractor tail while closing the bolt.

Mauser mag box is already relieved at the top rear for stripper clip loading.

Remington trigger is its failure mode, it's too delicate and too closely-fitted. Any oil or wax (WD-40) or sand or ice will cause malfunctions and often ADs. Even the tiny brass shavings generated by the 700's extractor will sometimes cause problems.

Yes, I too have used many 700s beginning in the early '60s and I too have never, repeat never, had any problems at all. However during that same period I saw several dozen 700s come into various shops with trigger problems. Was always cured by a good cleaning & degreasing but it's not what I'd call utterly reliable.
Regards, Joe

Haven't you guys figured this out yet.
It's like Ford and Chevy, CRF, PF, Bolt action and Double rifle

To each his friggin own. So long as the rifle gets the job at hand done.

quote:

Originally posted by GaryVA:
The 98 Mauser on the other hand makes for a better candidate for a hard core unquestionably reliable sporting rifle. It is simple and robust, and indeed is the type of weapon you can use to arm an entire battalion for use in combat as you'll likely have far fewer problems. The design is such that the operator can easily break down the rifle into its small parts as they are stout and few. The trigger is such that it is near impossible to trap moisture and freeze. It will not be the equal of a long range precision rifle in the league of an M40, but it does make for an unquestionably reliable sporting weight rifle for use in extreme wilderness hunting. It is indeed designed for combat in the trenches and requires very little modifications to the existing parts for use as a wilderness rifle. That is my reasoning as to why I do not consider a standard 700 or even a modified 700 to be the same level of ruggedness as a basic 98 Mauser. I cannot see how anyone could keep a straight face and say the basic 700 action is more rugged than the basic 98 Mauser action.

+1

Right on the money!