PDA

View Full Version : military surplus vs. modern bolt rifles


Zulu
12-14-2006, 8:38 AM
what are some of the pro's and con's with both. I cant decide on building an older nagant or 1903...vs. just getting a remi 700. i am not a hunter but i would like something that can stand up to the elements... including powdery desert heat/sand or extreme frost/cold. One of my friends claims that miliary surplus is held to much higher standards then say a law enforcement remi 700. what do you all think?

Fate
12-14-2006, 8:43 AM
Please don't "build" on military collectibles.

But whether you own milsurp or a 700-type depends a lot on if you want to shoot groups that are touching or if you want to be able to hit a man-sized target anywhere, anytime.

ocabj
12-14-2006, 8:52 AM
what are some of the pro's and con's with both. I cant decide on building an older nagant or 1903...vs. just getting a remi 700. i am not a hunter but i would like something that can stand up to the elements... including powdery desert heat/sand or extreme frost/cold. One of my friends claims that miliary surplus is held to much higher standards then say a law enforcement remi 700. what do you all think?

Military surplus held to higher 'standards' than a LEO Remington 700? Doubtful. I don't see how a Mosin Nagant M91/30 (much less a Finnish M39) were built to higher standards than a modern day Remington 700. Just look at the fit and finish of any military surplus rifle and compare it to the fit and finish of a Remington, Savage, Tikka, or Sako bolt gun. The technology used to build modern rifles exceeds the technology used to built the older WWI/WWII era military rifles.

It's not to say that a 1903A3, Swedish M96, or an M1 Garand can't outshoot a Remington 700 or Savage 10/110 series. But to say that they are somehow better in quality than a modern bolt gun is not realistic.

I don't want to say that building a 1903 or Mosin Nagant into a match gun is a waste of time. But you will be better served as far as time, effort, and finances by going with a factory Remington or Savage (or Tikka, Winchester, Sako, etc). For the most part, you could take any surplus rifle and throw money, time, and work into it and make it shoot as good as any other rifle out there. But again, is it realistic to take a Mosin Nagant M91/30 and turn it into a long range precision competition gun? Probably not. But I'm sure it could be fun for many.

FatKatMatt
12-14-2006, 9:06 AM
I think it would be much more fun to take an old milsurp action (just an action, not a complete, collectable rifle for you puritans) and put a new barrel, free float it, a new stock, a match trigger, better iron sights, a scope mount and a nice modern scope. Then you have a complete custom rifle that you really built yourself and not a common thing from the assembly line. Besides, milsurps have charachter compared to the bland commercial rifles; those all look the same.

BTW, I'd go with a 1903 action over a Mosin action if you want it to be a precision machine. Just my $0.02

ocabj
12-14-2006, 9:13 AM
I forgot to mention this in my reply:

http://www.ocabj.net/images/kittens_sporterize.jpg

proraptor
12-14-2006, 9:20 AM
Good I hate kittens!

DrjonesUSA
12-14-2006, 9:21 AM
what are some of the pro's and con's with both. I cant decide on building an older nagant or 1903...vs. just getting a remi 700. i am not a hunter but i would like something that can stand up to the elements... including powdery desert heat/sand or extreme frost/cold. One of my friends claims that miliary surplus is held to much higher standards then say a law enforcement remi 700. what do you all think?


First, I agree with what's said above that you should be careful what you "build on": many of those milsurp rifles are truly pieces of history.

Second, if you want something that will stand up to the elements, it's simply no contest: a modern bolt-gun with a synthetic stock will win hands down over a wood-stocked rifle.

Synthetics are impervious to oils/solvents, heat, cold and moisture, and there is no natural wood in existance that can claim the same attributes.

If you aren't going to be hunting, what the heck are you going to be doing out in the elements with a rifle? Just hanging out? General sniping? :D

As always, it depends on your needs, but if you want a very reliable, durable and accurate gun that will stand up to any weather, you won't be able to beat a quality modern synthetic-stocked rifle.

As far as the mil-surps being held to a higher standard than say, a 700P (which is the rifle of choice for most all LE & military snipers) that's ridiculous.

The 700P (and pretty much ANY modern bolt gun) will easily beat any milsurp gun for accuracy, but it isn't a fair comparison.

Military battle rifles like the Mosin are completely different animals than modern bolt-guns.

The only thing they have in common is the type of action.

Modern bolt-guns are precision weapons that are capable of extremely small groups at long distances.

Mil-surp bolt guns were made to enable the shooter to hit & kill a man at long ranges, but not with pinpoint accuracy.

mltrading
12-14-2006, 9:28 AM
Good I hate kittens!

How about this one?:)

fal_762x51
12-14-2006, 12:17 PM
Yeah, no Bubba; bad ju-ju. Get a K31 with the St. clamp scope mount. You'll be amazed at what that combo can do and the C&R Gods won't be angery with you.

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/calegal/standard.jpg

tteng
12-14-2006, 12:33 PM
Well, milsurplus bolt-gun are made to be used/abused/dropped/soaked/bang-up/uncleaned and still able to hit a man out to 200-300yrds w/ iron sight. Can't say the same w/ Remchester w/ scopes.

DrjonesUSA
12-14-2006, 12:38 PM
Well, milsurplus bolt-gun are made to be used/abused/dropped/soaked/bang-up/uncleaned and still able to hit a man out to 200-300yrds w/ iron sight. Can't say the same w/ Remchester w/ scopes.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Guns such as the 700P and the scopes a professional would mount on them are absolutely made to survive combat conditions and hit a man out to 1000+ yards.

If mil-surp rifles are so totally comparable to rifles like the 700P, why isn't the military using them for sniping?

tteng
12-14-2006, 1:03 PM
Depends on how you define combat condition: sniping or mass infantry assult. MN was made w/ different usage & user in mind, where minimal maintenance and expertise were required, it was truely a combat rifle in its time. In the hand of Vasily Zaitsev it was also a deadly sniper rifle.
I'm sure a scoped Remchester is truely a deadly weapon, but I won't call it a combat rifle.

DrjonesUSA
12-14-2006, 1:17 PM
Depends on how you define combat condition: sniping or mass infantry assult. MN was made w/ different usage & user in mind, where minimal maintenance and expertise were required, it was truely a combat rifle in its time. In the hand of Vasily Zaitsev it was also a deadly sniper rifle.
I'm sure a scoped Remchester is truely a deadly weapon, but I won't call it a combat rifle.


It's not: The mosin was the AK-47 of its day; a battle rifle, not a sniper rifle.

It's nothing like a modern bolt-gun which is built from the ground up with accuracy in mind.

chiefcrash
12-14-2006, 1:17 PM
I forgot to mention this in my reply:

http://www.ocabj.net/images/kittens_sporterize.jpg

http://www.senocular.com/pub/images/humor/think-of-the-domokun.jpg

Addax
12-14-2006, 2:47 PM
Cruelty to Animals and Domo-Kuns is not something we condone here!:rolleyes:

BTW, I despise Cats and turn my dog loose on them any chance I get!!!

Ok, Back to the subject.

It really depends on what Milsurp. Rifle you are talking about.

If you look at milsurp rifles like the Swiss K31/55 Sniper rifles, they are exteremely accurate. The Swiss took their tried and trusted K31 action, and convereted some into one of the most accurate and well built Military Bolt Sniper Rifles in its day.

There is also the Enfield based L42a1 Sniper Rifles that were in UK service until the 1980's that are pretty darn accurate and battle tested/proven.

The 1903A4 Sniper Rifles are really beautiful shooters and I have seen a few examples out shoot modern Rem 700 PSS with new fancy scopes.

Granted the rifles I just mentioned above are also in the $3000+ price ranges.

You can also take Enfield No4 Mk2 Milsurp rifles (which many have not been fired since mfg in the 50's), install a modern scope mount with scope and if you want you can bed the stock and make it into a really accurate rifle.

BUT I don't recommend taking collectible rifles and converting them, you kill their value!

Keep in mind that Milsurp rifles were all built to Milspec. and are made to survive use on the battlefield.

Newer rifles like the Rem 700 militar/police grade rifles are made to mil spec standards of today's battlefield requirements and can also take a punishment.

If you are looking for an everyday sniper/target rifle, go with a new mfg. Remington or Savage, or Sako or whatever new mfg. rifle and style fits the bill. If you break a part, it is cheap/easy to fix/repair/replace.

If you go with a purpose built MilSurp sniper rifle, I would not recommend shooting it. Break a part and it will cost you allot of $$ just to find the right part(s).

I hope this helps.

Pthfndr
12-14-2006, 5:36 PM
...i would like something that can stand up to the elements... including powdery desert heat/sand or extreme frost/cold....what do you all think?

I think you
A) need to be more specific about what you are really going to use it for and.
B) decide how much do you want to spend and,
C) Explain what exactly you mean by "build".

If you plan on dragging it through rain, mud, water, snow, etc, then something in a synthetic stock is pretty much the only way to go.

grammaton76
12-14-2006, 6:36 PM
BTW, reversible mods to C&Rs don't count as bubba'ing.

If you start trying to cut up your rifle, or toss the original wooden stock in the fireplace, the C&R deities will come for you at high noon. JBTs come at midnight, and C&R deities are the complete opposite.

However, the C&R deities will simply turn a watchful eye upon you, blink, and move on if you swap the stock over, but keep the original one well preserved. It can be argued that putting an ATI synthetic stock on your milsurp is protecting it AND the original wood in a way that further denting up its wooden stock is not accomplishing.

metalhead357
12-14-2006, 6:58 PM
I think you
A) need to be more specific about what you are really going to use it for and.
B) decide how much do you want to spend and,
C) Explain what exactly you mean by "build".

If you plan on dragging it through rain, mud, water, snow, etc, then something in a synthetic stock is pretty much the only way to go.

I pretty much agree- as in DONT butcher up a perfectly good 1903 or 03A3 by drilling into it for mounts!!!! There's already thousands out there that have-- buy one of THEM and go to town on an already bubba'd one.

As for build- are we talking from ground up or are you thinking of just adding something like a syn stock to a mOisin, add a turned down bolt and maybe a moisin scope mount- THAT AINT bubba'ing anything

There are MILLIONS of surplus rifles out there- KNOW which you get in whether its a common arm or pretty rare; DONT go doing anything to a rare one....but a $89 Moisin........................

tankerman
12-14-2006, 7:26 PM
If 700's are so reliable why do they sell after market replacement extractors and winchester type safeties? Why aren't BIG Game guns built on Remington actions? Oh thats right Rem. just started importing Mausers and putting their name on them, I guess they are coming around.

mike100
12-14-2006, 7:37 PM
I know modern low to mid range bolt actions can be some real accurate guns, but the appeal of 'surps to me are rugged iron sights guns that can be re-stocked into handy rifles.

my post war '46 m44 is the most accurate gun I own...which isn't saying much, just that it groups better than my socom 16..actually I'd put it up against any M1A at 100 yards.. the postwar example is just a lucky find..the finish is way better than a wartime one..I'd buy another.

Sutcliffe
12-14-2006, 8:02 PM
There is nothing finer than a swede 1896 bolt action. That said, the action isn't quite as strong as the larger ringed '98 actions that are quite reasonable in price and easy to get.
Many people gasp in horror at altering a mil-surp. I say they should only mind the rifles in their safe, not yours.
Sporterizing can be more expensive than buying a pre made hunting rifle from Remington, ruger etc. etc. The only way this rule won't apply is if you have a shop and can do many of the things yourself.
I've seen some really pretty Springfield sporters. I wouldn't want one though. Not a huge fan of the '03 action. I've never seen a sporterized Mosin-nagant or Enfield that would qualify as pretty. Really strong actions are the 1917 Enfields. Not pretty, but you can build almost anything from them.

If you want a hunting rifle then it might make sense to purchase one made for that purpose. It will be cheaper and less likey to get you *****-slapped by any serious collector of surplus rifles.

icormba
12-14-2006, 8:18 PM
Military Rifles from WWI-WWII were not built to be sniper rifles. Sniper rifles of that era were built from military rifles.
Modern Sniper rifles were built to be sniper rifles.

...make sense?

Shooting my 100 year old Swede M41b almost makes me forget that :)

M. Sage
12-14-2006, 8:44 PM
The old milsurp rifles are battle rifles. They're usually minute-of-man. A modern hunting bolt action is usually quite a bit more accurate. The modern rifles can be had in stainless or parked, or in some other anti-corrosive finish, plus synthetic stocks are pretty common. They withstand the elements better than 60-year-old wood. It's easier to find more accurate ammo for the newer rifles, too.

Is an old milsurp battle rifle "more robust" or whatever? Only if you've got a bayonet on the end of it and are skewering people, or want your rifle to pull double-duty as a club.

If you want a target or hunting rifle, get something modern. Milsurps are fun for plinking and such.

DrjonesUSA
12-15-2006, 11:59 AM
If 700's are so reliable why do they sell after market replacement extractors and winchester type safeties? Why aren't BIG Game guns built on Remington actions? Oh thats right Rem. just started importing Mausers and putting their name on them, I guess they are coming around.


Why do they sell spare parts for AKs, ARs, HKs, Glocks, and 1911s? Maybe because everything can and will break at some point.

If the Rem action is so horrible, why are pretty much ALL professional sniping guns built on them?

I'm not saying they are the greatest guns in the world, but the 700 is tried and true and there are millions of them in use all around the world.

SigShooter
12-15-2006, 12:23 PM
Another thing to remember is that most C&R era military rifles are designed "loose" for the rigors of the battlefield. They are purposely built with tolerances that allow for mud, grime, snow, blood, flesh etc. etc. whatever may get lodged in between their moving parts to still go bang every time.

Take a true GI 1911 and (unloaded) shake it in your hand. The rattling you hear is there on purpose. If they were designed like the race guns built on the 1911 frame, with fitted frame/slide, extra power springs etc., they would malfunction at the first drop of mud. (overstatement I know;) )

This built in reliability factor also detracts from the accuracy of these firearms. Not so much that you'd be hard pressed to hit the side of a barn (from the inside), but enough to make buying a modern bolt more cost effective than modernizing a C&R.

Personally, I am in the camp that wants to keep the C&R stuff looking like it did 50+ years ago, but I hold nothing against those that want to modernize a C&R. Do I think that it is cost effective? No. Is it fun? Hell yes! In fact, if you have the money or just get the itch to do it, I say go all out as long as you are enjoying your firearm, staying legal and most importantly staying within the safe limits of the firearm/your abilities.

So it really comes down to personal preference and application of the rifle... Do you prefer a semi-accurate C&R look, or would you rather have a modern looking accurate rifle? Are you going to just be punching holes in paper (or fruit of your choice), doing competitive shooting or hunting?

If either of the last two, IMHO a modern bolt is going to be much more effective & productive. Especially when a 3" difference can be the difference between a deer going down in one shot or living it's last 20 minutes in extreme agony.

tankerman
12-15-2006, 1:40 PM
Why do they sell spare parts for AKs, ARs, HKs, Glocks, and 1911s? Maybe because everything can and will break at some point.

If the Rem action is so horrible, why are pretty much ALL professional sniping guns built on them?

I'm not saying they are the greatest guns in the world, but the 700 is tried and true and there are millions of them in use all around the world.

I am not talking about spare parts. I am talking about quality extractors and safeties; Mauser, Winchester and Sako style made to fit on Rem. 700's. Millions more Mausers are tried and true in battle, and Winchester model 70's are known as the riflemans rifle. 700's are excellent bench guns. In dangerous situations claw extractors are better, that is fact. Sniping guns are built on Rem. actions because they are inexpensive and the lock time is the fastest on any production gun(time from trigger brake to the cartridge going off), assists in accuracy, by giving you less time to flinch. I never said the REM. action was horrible. I do believe that there is more to look at than sniping qualities when looking at a rifle.

Pulsar
12-15-2006, 2:49 PM
Thoughts from a gunsmithing student here.

Military rifles are NOT held to the same standards as a remi 700. Most of your old military bolt rifles were put together in a hurry. I've seen some old military bolts that the barrel didn't even thread into straight. When you get into Mausers you have to be very picky as well. You don't want a German K98 built in the middle to late WW2, as most of these guns were built using slave labor and are very poor quality.

Another thing to consider with old military bolt guns. You don't know how many times that gun has been fired, it could have had tens of thousands of rounds put through it, or only a few. You get one that has been shot a lot, and the metal in the receiver could be worked hardened and may shatter when the gun is fired.

You also can't knock that a Remi 700 already comes with scope mount screw holes already drilled and tapped, just about all military rifles need to be taken to a gunsmith to have these holes drilled and tapped.

Pulsar
12-15-2006, 2:56 PM
I am not talking about spare parts. I am talking about quality extractors and safeties; Mauser, Winchester and Sako style made to fit on Rem. 700's. Millions more Mausers are tried and true in battle, and Winchester model 70's are known as the riflemans rifle. 700's are excellent bench guns. In dangerous situations claw extractors are better, that is fact. Sniping guns are built on Rem. actions because they are inexpensive and the lock time is the fastest on any production gun(time from trigger brake to the cartridge going off), assists in accuracy, by giving you less time to flinch. I never said the REM. action was horrible. I do believe that there is more to look at than sniping qualities when looking at a rifle.

The rem 700 is actually one of the safest rifles you can get your hands on, and is easily accurized by just about any gunsmith, there are kits out that that make truing the action a 15 minute job, I haven't been able to find kits for other guns out there. With out the kit truing the action is a 2-3 hour job.

Anyways back to my original statement, the Remington 700 uses a safety breech, where as the Model 70 uses a cone breech and a Mauser uses a straight breech. The safety breech is aptly named (Arisaka also used the safety breech). If the gun were to blow up, from a bad handload, or just plain old wear and tear, it doesn't allow the gases to blow back at the shooter. You may loose the gun and probably need a new pair of pants, but you should be relatively unharmed.

Fate
12-15-2006, 4:23 PM
Thoughts from a gunsmithing student here.

You don't want a German K98 built in the middle to late WW2, as most of these guns were built using slave labor and are very poor quality...

You get one that has been shot a lot, and the metal in the receiver could be worked hardened and may shatter when the gun is fired...
Where are you going to school? Are you sure it isn't a Comedian's school? They sure teach some funny stuff.

tankerman
12-15-2006, 4:58 PM
Thoughts from a gunsmithing student here.

Military rifles are NOT held to the same standards as a remi 700. Most of your old military bolt rifles were put together in a hurry. I've seen some old military bolts that the barrel didn't even thread into straight. When you get into Mausers you have to be very picky as well. You don't want a German K98 built in the middle to late WW2, as most of these guns were built using slave labor and are very poor quality.

Another thing to consider with old military bolt guns. You don't know how many times that gun has been fired, it could have had tens of thousands of rounds put through it, or only a few. You get one that has been shot a lot, and the metal in the receiver could be worked hardened and may shatter when the gun is fired.

You also can't knock that a Remi 700 already comes with scope mount screw holes already drilled and tapped, just about all military rifles need to be taken to a gunsmith to have these holes drilled and tapped.

That blanket statement about Mausers is incorrect, learn more about Mausers. Approx. 14 million k98's were made thats not including the earlier variants of the 98. Some are suspect (usually a metallurgy issue),I do not agree that anything from mid war on should be avoided. Just because you can see tooling marks or the fit and finish aren't perfect does not mean the gun is dangerous Do you think the same is true for 1903's?

Sutcliffe
12-15-2006, 5:15 PM
Just because you can see tooling marks or the fit and finish aren't perfect does not mean the gun is dangerous Do you think the same is true for 1903's?
Correct me if I'm wrong but, aren't early production 1903's to be avoided? Something to do with improper heat treat or maybe a bad batch of steel if I recall. Japanese Arisaka's are about the only action I know that has a reputation for being dangerous because of wartime shortages.

M. Sage
12-15-2006, 6:13 PM
Just because you can see tooling marks or the fit and finish aren't perfect does not mean the gun is dangerous Do you think the same is true for 1903's?

God, if poor finish means a gun's dangerous, what about 1942 Mosin-Nagants!? :eek: Funny stuff there.

Work-hardening the action? If anything, the metal would get a bit softer (annealed) because of the heat/cool cycle. That said, unless you're getting it blazing hot regularly, it's not going to change the hardness of the metal enough to make a difference by the time the rifle is worn out.

Pulsar
12-16-2006, 9:04 AM
OK, I see I need to explain.

Yes, early 1903's are to be avoided, I can't remember the exact numbers, I think it's any 1903 with a serial number below 400,000 or something like that. Those early 1903's weren't case hardened properly and instead of having just the outer layer hard and the inside soft they receiver wound up being through hardened, making the receiver very brittle.

And I stand by my statement of the gun getting work hardened, it happens. It's got nothing to do with the gun getting hot, it has to do with the constant beating the gun takes when it's fired. You hit steel with a hammer long enough and it will harden. This is why as a rule of thumb if I'm sporterizing any old military bolt rifle, I'll send the receiver out for heat treat. I'd heat treat it my self, but by sending it out to a company that specializes in the process I cover my own butt.

And I didn't say all K98s were bad, I said the ones that were built when Germany was using slave labor were bad, I've seen some of those slave built K98s that don't even headspace, you can't tell me that's safe. Remember that Germany didn't start using slave labor till they were beginning to lose the war which caused quality control to go out the window.

Stuka
12-16-2006, 3:42 PM
I don't see any problem with sporterizing an M91/30 that can be bought for $80 at your local Big5. There are millions of them out there, and most are not anywhere close to being rare (they would not be $80 if they were). And as mentioned, keep the stock. I sporterized mine (its a 1942 M91/30) with an ATI stock, but I have the original stock tucked away nice and safe.

tankerman
12-16-2006, 4:00 PM
[quote=Pulsar]


And I stand by my statement of the gun getting work hardened, it happens. It's got nothing to do with the gun getting hot, it has to do with the constant beating the gun takes when it's fired. You hit steel with a hammer long enough and it will harden. This is why as a rule of thumb if I'm sporterizing any old military bolt rifle, I'll send the receiver out for heat treat. I'd heat treat it my self, but by sending it out to a company that specializes in the process I cover my own butt.

What you are saying still makes no sense to me. The chamber is in the barrel( which is taking the brunt of the force), if sporterizing the only thing that would be affected would be the bolt face,(easy enough to get an after market bolt) I really doubt that the locking lugs move enough to create a 'HAMMER' force on the receiver. Where would all this work hardening becoming from that would affect the receiver? And please don't tell me it's from closing the bolt. Plus in order for the reciever to work harden ,enough force would have to be excerted on the metal to cause enough deformation to stress the metal and I don't think that the pressures of WWII 8x57 fit that description.

xenophobe
12-16-2006, 4:16 PM
Well, milsurplus bolt-gun are made to be used/abused/dropped/soaked/bang-up/uncleaned and still able to hit a man out to 200-300yrds w/ iron sight. Can't say the same w/ Remchester w/ scopes.

Ignorance at it's finest....

You would be hard pressed to find a military bolt action as durable or accurate as a M40A3.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6933/ordm40a3lgby6.jpg

tankerman
12-16-2006, 5:03 PM
Winchester Model 70 was the sniper rifle the USMC until they started cutting corners after 1964 when Rem, took its place. After 1992 the Model 70 was pretty much returned to its original design. I think some euro company still sells them as a military type weapon. Hathcock(sniper) used a Winchester not a Remington.

Fjold
12-16-2006, 5:20 PM
Yes, early 1903's are to be avoided, I can't remember the exact numbers, I think it's any 1903 with a serial number below 400,000 or something like that. Those early 1903's weren't case hardened properly and instead of having just the outer layer hard and the inside soft they receiver wound up being through hardened, making the receiver very brittle.



Springfield Armory serial numbers under 800,000, Rock Island Armory serial numbers under 285,507, are supposedly the ones to be careful of. Those numbers should be considered as “approximates.”

I won’t even begin to get into the debate, but for what it is worth those are the approximate serial numbers for what are referred to as “low numbered 03’s.”

Fate
12-16-2006, 9:19 PM
And I didn't say all K98s were bad, I said the ones that were built when Germany was using slave labor were bad, I've seen some of those slave built K98s that don't even headspace, you can't tell me that's safe. Remember that Germany didn't start using slave labor till they were beginning to lose the war which caused quality control to go out the window.
Your "work hardened" belief is ridiculous.

So is the paranoia about slave labor-built K98s. Were those "non-headspacing" examples you've seen, original matching serial numbers or some random mismatch bolt? Were you using German Military Spec headspace gauges? Commercial ones are KNOWN to sometimes give false readings because they are set up for different specs.

There was still quality control going on. Every rifle was inspected and received a Waffenampt proof stamp if it passed. Safety never was an issue with any K98s except maybe the 1945 single shot volks-rifles that were made for the defense of Berlin.

Bottom line, you are perpetuating "gun show BS."

Pulsar
12-16-2006, 10:40 PM
OK, I gotta quit posting tired. Been fighting some work hardened material all week and it snuck into my postings. It's not work hardening that happens, it's the case hardening on the receivers wearing out. Which obviously has potential for problems, like the bolt wearing down the rails, the barrel destroying the threads. Not good to have one material harder than the other.

However, I'm sticking to my guns (pun intended) on the slave labor K98's. I've just seen some very badly manufactured k98's that came from late WW2. The headspace one I already told you about (and yes it's commercial gauges, but the way they work, I don't know how they could possibly give a bad reading). I've also seen on that the barrel threads in the receiver weren't cut straight in line with the receiver, so that the barrel had a very visible cant to the left. And Mind you, I'm really only complaining about the late WW2 K98s, almost all the other mauser variants out there aren't really a problem. But most everyone seems to want German mausers, and I always feel it's prudent to inform people as to what to avoid.

IMHO the VZ 24 and the FN mausers tend to be the best quality for mausers. But can't knock some of the collectibles like the Mexican mauser or the Siamese mauser.

tankerman
12-17-2006, 4:53 AM
OK, I gotta quit posting tired. Been fighting some work hardened material all week and it snuck into my postings. It's not work hardening that happens, it's the case hardening on the receivers wearing out. Which obviously has potential for problems, like the bolt wearing down the rails, the barrel destroying the threads. Not good to have one material harder than the other.

However, I'm sticking to my guns (pun intended) on the slave labor K98's. I've just seen some very badly manufactured k98's that came from late WW2. The headspace one I already told you about (and yes it's commercial gauges, but the way they work, I don't know how they could possibly give a bad reading). I've also seen on that the barrel threads in the receiver weren't cut straight in line with the receiver, so that the barrel had a very visible cant to the left. And Mind you, I'm really only complaining about the late WW2 K98s, almost all the other mauser variants out there aren't really a problem. But most everyone seems to want German mausers, and I always feel it's prudent to inform people as to what to avoid.

IMHO the VZ 24 and the FN mausers tend to be the best quality for mausers. But can't knock some of the collectibles like the Mexican mauser or the Siamese mauser.

Vz-24's and FN's are the best quality? I don't get some of you opinions about Mausers. There have been so many variations produced at an insane amount of different factories. To try to break down which is best, confuses me. Commercial or military? Which model? Which variation? It could go on and on picking those two seem so arbitrary. What about the Swede's or the 1909 Argentine or a 98? It seems that there is to much Mauser to try and say what is best quality. I think it might be more appropriate to call them favorites. Unless you have some factual evidence that shows why they are of a higher quality.

M. Sage
12-17-2006, 6:14 AM
Case-hardening? If you wear through the case-hard, then the reciever is worn out, done, over, finished.

You have to wear through a pretty good amount of metal to get through to the soft stuff.

Tzvia
12-17-2006, 6:50 AM
Charles Daly imported 98 actions from Zastava of Serbia but stopped in January. If you are lucky, you might find one to build your sporter on. I think Remington now is the importer or has some kind of contract with Zastava but I don't think they sell actions. (Just checked their website, they don't).

While it's true that some milsurps are quality guns for a reasonable price, butchering one is a sin. Period. Yes, even the $50 Turk mausers (well, they were $50 back when I bought 3). As for the typical $300 Brazillian Mauser, or $500 03A3, my take is this. Take a $300-500 milsurp, mount a scope, refinish action, put in pillar bedded synthetic stock, maybe rebarrel; in short, adding hundreds in labor and parts and you end up with a sporter worth (minus scope if not a cheezy tasco) $300. Not cost effective. The milsurpers won't touch it, and bubba only wants to spraypaint it cammo and throw it in his truck.

Why not just buy a Savage, like something in their 'Weather Warrior' line, stick your scope on it and have done with it. They have a rep for quality at an affordable price. Problem solved, no kittens butchered and the milsurp world has one more piece of history for me to spend my money on.

Fate
12-17-2006, 1:39 PM
The headspace one I already told you about (and yes it's commercial gauges, but the way they work, I don't know how they could possibly give a bad reading).
They give an incorrect reading because they do not match the same specs that the rifles were built to. The "safe zone" of the commercial gauges is actually smaller than the true "safe zone" of these 60 year old rifles. Thus what might fail a "go" or "no go" commercial gauge isn't necessarily unsafe. That's why the only real gauge measurement that counts with regards to safety, in milsurps is the "field" gauge.

M. Sage
12-17-2006, 2:56 PM
+1 to that. Field gauges for used battle rifles.