Have any of you all heard of any failures with the Old Interams Mark X or the new Charles Daly Mausers? I'm trying to get a feel for the quality of the Zastava produced mausers. Not so much interested in finish issues but reports of poor metalurgy or the like.

They appear to be a decent value but the old Yugo surplus mausers have a spotty reputaion and I wonder if this carries over into the commercial rifles?

Any of you professional gunbuilders ever use these actions?

Thanks.

I have a few rifles built on various versions of the old Mk X (Whitworth, Parker Hale) and I see no metalurgical problems. Maybe not the best finished rifles, but solid, dependable performers. - Dan

I HAVE SEEN AND HANDLED PLENTY ,I NEVER HEARD OF ANY FAILURE PROBLEMS ON A MAUSER OF ANY MAKE BUT I DO THINK IF I WERE GOING TO BUILD I WOULD FIND A F.N. ACTION OLDER INTERARMS ACTIONS ARE FINE BUT FINISHED ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY WERE ,NOT VERY EXPENSIVE RIFLES ACTUALLY THE BARGAIN OF ITS DAY PAUL

Ditto to Dan Belisle's comments. Not the best finished actions, but plenty strong and dependable.

Blue,

Both are made in Yugoslavia at the Zastava plnat. The old Mark X had a logo that consisted of two "Z's" and a "C". The logo looked like it said CZ and thus the notion that they were a CZ product.

More than that I admit I'm ignorant. I have one of each but cannot attest to how well constructed they are as I just got them. I do like the safety better on the Charles Daly version as it does not lock the bolt when in safe. Thus, if it is inadvertantly slipped to safe you can still close the bolt unlike the Mark X. However, I still do like like side safeties and would prefer an FN flag style. I can wish can't I?

One detractor of my Charles Daly is that the rear scope base holes were drilled at an angle. They are aligned both with the bore and the front holes however, rather than being at 90 degrees to the bore they are at about 75 to 80. the front holes are correct. It has been sent back under warranty. Had it only a day. We'll see how good the CD warranty is.

I had a MarkX in .270, it was assembled from parts picked up here and there. One of the most accurate hunting rifles I've ever owned. I sold it not long ago to help finance (actually justify ) another rifle project.

John Ricks is putting the finishing touches on a .375H&H built on a new Whitworth action I found a couple of years ago. I like them a lot. Just be sure and specify a matte blue finish, it hides a lot of imperfections

Terry

TC1,

In comparing the Mark X I have to the CD, The CD being a matte finish is much straighter. The Mark X I have is also pretty straight but you can see where corners have been rounded a bit by the buffer. The CD action obviously never saw a buffer thus would take much less stoning to get a nice finish IMO.

I've got a 458 Win built on the new Daly action and it's been a fine rifle. I did have a minor feeding problem that Jeffeoso showed me how to correct in about 10 minutes, it was on the follower. Other than that no problems over the past year, I've probably shot about 400 full power rounds through it so far.

Thanks All.



I was asking because I came accross a post made a while back by Carcano91 who was referencing a DEVA institut article suggesting there had been some problems with the Zastava made receivers. He seemed to suggest Metalurgical problems. Can't access that site anymore so, I thought I'd check with the experts here.



I've never heard of any metalurgical or design flaws with these. Sure, the occasional manufacturing flaw, but what rifle these days doesn't suffer from that? Besides, I'm sure that if a real problem existed we would have heard from Thomas Burgess on the matter by now. He seems to know everything Mauser.



Anyone else?

The low (and I mean LOW) reputation of these Yugoslavian-made Zastava Mausers is well known here in Europe. That does not infer that they have not been decent bargain rifles for a low price, but their quality is are below any Czech military 98 action, for comparison (if one will compare an original 98 to a civilian action with some altered features). I would rank their metallurgy above Spanish steels, but only a bit so.

For a cheap truck rifle, they are okay. Anybody who is building a custom rifle on a Zastava 98 action (I shall make the due exception for their cutsy mini-Mauser action in .222, .223 and 7,62x39), is simply *cheating* his customer.

As to the DEVA findings, the pictures of the blown-up barrel & gun were in one of their printed annual reports from the last 10 years. Linear structure (i.e. materials) failure in the barrel steel.

Carcano

Carcano91,

Thanks fo the reply.

One last question to all, were any of the commercial Mausers ever cast?

I know the Santa Barbara Mausers had QC issues but from what I understand they were forged actions that suffered from the above mentioned poor metallurgy and equally poor heat treatment.

I'm trying to get a feel for the lineage af some of the Mausers that were once on the market. I was under the impression that some of the Parker Hale actions were also Zastava made. Is that correct?

thanks!