Mauser opinion needed

[bruceflinch]

Looked at an 1891 Argentinian Mauser today. Chambered in 7.62

Bore was decent, Metal good except on top of the reciever where the bluing is rubbed off. The stock is in real nice condition except where some Chowderhead etched "Cal 7.62" on the side. Stock, Reciever, & Bolt are all matching #'s. Marked @ $249. You guys think it's worth it?

What might the exact caliber be? 7.62 x 54?

[big103]

Hay Bruce your up this late. Sounds like you looking at a 308 conversion. If it`s stamped 7.62 om side of the barrel or receiver. They were originally chambered in 7.65 Argentine round. A lot of times the crest is missing from the receiver looks like two hands holding a mushroom.


250 seems a little high but I don`t know what the market on this are.

You heading to the range tomorrow?

[bruceflinch]

^ It had a crest of 2 hands shaking in 2 different places.

Yeah I'm ready to crash. Shooting IDPA in the AM...

[big103]

Ok might see you there. let you know.

Yeah just looked on gunbroker 250 is about what there asking there but most are missing the crest. And there in original caliber. Unless some one miss marked and it`s still in original caliber

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=252924753

http://www.reconord.com/1891_Argentine_Mauser.html

[TRAP55]

Bruce, I've seen two chambered in 7.62 Nato/.308 and one in .300 Savage. All three looked like they just had a chamber reamer run into them.
Surprisingly the .300 Savage was pretty accurate considering a .308 bullet going down a .313 bore. It also looked like the barrel had been set back a few threads for the rechamber, the other two didn't.
The .308's were lucky to hit the black at 50yrds, and really deformed brass.
JMO......$250 is high, if it's been re-chambered, especially to 7.62 NATO. No telling how many factory .308 Winchesters may have been though it, and if the lugs have set back from that. Without a check on that, the headspace, and a chamber cast, I'd pass on it.

[bruceflinch]

^ Yes, Pass is what I considered after Big's remarks. Shame coz it's a real nice specimen for 1891. The carving in the stock is not not deep, but not professional, either. Can't imagine I want to waste the time & money figuring out if it shot well. Bummer.

The Guy had 2 SMLE's, tho....Hmmm, maybe I better go back & looked a little harder...

[Milsurp Collector]

For reference here is my 1891 Argentine rifle (there was also a carbine version).

[gunboat]

As I recall, there is not quite enough shoulder on the barrel to set it back for the 300 or 308. In photo #4 note the shoulder and barrel diameter just forward of the receiver face.
I had one that I tried to modify for 308 by turning off the shoulder and threading the barrel for a nut - a-la-savage. I was not comfortable with the resultant external threaded chamber diameter so I scrapped the barrel.
my tuppence

[bruceflinch]

[QUOTE=Milsurp Collector;7212725]For reference here is my 1891 Argentine rifle (there was also a carbine version).

Just a bit nicer than the one I saw!

[mosinnagantm9130]

You seem to dig the LE's bruce, have you looked at the No.4's yet? Mine's a great shooter, and I find the sights to be easier to use than those on a No.1.

[TRAP55]

As I recall, there is not quite enough shoulder on the barrel to set it back for the 300 or 308. In photo #4 note the shoulder and barrel diameter just forward of the receiver face.
I had one that I tried to modify for 308 by turning off the shoulder and threading the barrel for a nut - a-la-savage. I was not comfortable with the resultant external threaded chamber diameter so I scrapped the barrel.
my tuppence

gunboat, one of those .308's had no shoulder left, the other looked more or less untouched. The fired brass was really a mess coming out of that one. Owner had it re-barrel to .257 Roberts.
The .300 had no shoulder either, and my guess was it had been torqued to the inner ring. Whoever had done the work knew what they were doing. Headspace was right on the money and the sights had been re-indexed.
Buddy picked it up in a package deal trade. I was so impressed with how well it shot, I took it home and slugged the barrel just to make sure it was 7.65.

Milsurp Collector, if they hadn't scrubbed that crest, that would be a museum quality piece! Very nice! Do you have the sword bayo to go with it? I "had" one with the bayo almost as nice, but my boy laid claim to it, along with half my Argy ammo stash!
Serial dates yours at 1892.

[Milsurp Collector]

Milsurp Collector, if they hadn't scrubbed that crest, that would be a museum quality piece! Very nice! Do you have the sword bayo to go with it?

Thanks. Yes, I have a bayonet (top one below). Has the matching scabbard and includes the leather frog.

[bruceflinch]

You seem to dig the LE's bruce, have you looked at the No.4's yet? Mine's a great shooter, and I find the sights to be easier to use than those on a No.1.

I think the one LE may have been the No4. It had significantly nicer sight IIRC, a peephole, mounted on the reciever. I think he wanted about $250 for that as well. Most of the C&R's were $250. Wood wasnt too bad. The other LE was a carbine.

[Milsurp Collector]

Metal good except on top of the reciever where the bluing is rubbed off.

A lot of times the crest is missing from the receiver looks like two hands holding a mushroom.

^ It had a crest of 2 hands shaking in 2 different places.

The marks you mentioned are inspection marks. The area on the top of the receiver "where the bluing is rubbed off" is where the crest was. They were often scrubbed on the M1891s before they were disposed of as surplus. The crest on the receiver ring originally looked like this: