Mauser bore quality.

[joe sixgun]

Been wanting a Mauser rifle and came across 2 at the LGS today. Both looked good on the outside but not sure about the bores. He also had a Garand on the shelf. None of the three had sharp or crisp rifling. You could see the rifling but it just didn't look right to me. What should I expect to see in a good retired milsurp? I know some of you have pictures down the bore. I just don't want to pick up a wall hanger. Thanks.

 

[Fal 4 Me]

If you're looking for a good shooter Mauser, Aim Surplus has Yugo M48's for 299.00 to 399.00. These were lightly used and generally have very good bores.

Bore conditions on milsurps vary greatly, but even a slightly frosted or pitted bore can be very accurate.

 

[James K]

It depends in part on what you want. If you want a historical piece that was used in WWII, good luck as the ammunition used had corrosive primers. Not only did few Mausers remain in pristine bore condition, but maintenace was not kept up in most of those used from then on. Rifles like the Yugo M48 were made after the big war and many went into storage to wait for another war that never came, so they are often found in excellent condition. But historical value? None.

Jim

 

[joe sixgun]

One was in 7x57 which interested me but someone chopped the stock and the bore was very dull. The other was in 6.5x55 I THINK. I look at so many guns they sort of melt together in the memory. LOL.

 

[highpower3006]

The other was in 6.5x55 I THINK.

If one was in 6.5X55, it was probably a 94/96/41 Swede Mauser. They are very nice shooters and it is hard to find one with a bad bore. My 96 FSR rifle shoots like a laser.

 

[Scorch]

Sounds like you need to study up on Mausers. Small rings are not large rings. Not all Mausers are created equal. 98s are better than96s which are better than 95s which are not as good as 94s which are better than 93s which are better than91s which are about the same as 89s which are not as good as 84s or 71s. Many 98s are labeled as some other model like 29, 33, 34, 35, or 46, etc, (which makes sense, since those others were not adopted until later), and some later models like 1916s, 1905s, 1910s are just 93s or 95s in different configuration. So, until that all makes sense to you, I would recommend taking it slowly. But by all means, jump on in!

 

[emcon5]

I don't disagree with anything Scorch wrote, but want to comment on one thing, by the time 1896 rolled around, the improvement in each successive model was pretty small, and between the 96 and 98 was pretty much a baby-step. The main improvements were an additional safety lug, gas handling, strength (for the large ring M98), and a cock on open bolt.

The M96 action is not as strong as the M98, but it is plenty strong for the cartridge it is designed around, and the 6.5 Swede is an excellent round.

The excellent C&Rsenal YouTube channel does a great video on the Gewehr 98 in their WW1 weapons series that covers the features of the M98 and touches on some of the improvements over previous models.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrpcpdwEfPk

As mentioned, some of the best examples available are the ones that came from Yugoslavia, either their own production M24/48 and M48, or their reworks of German Kar98ks. All were either reworked and re-barreled after the war, or in the case of the M48 series built post war. Some of the M48s look unissued.

AIM still has some: http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.a...=Yugoslavian+Model+M48/M48A+8mm+Mauser+Rifles

 

[tobnpr]

AIM is off their rocker... $400 for an M48 or M48A?
But hey, seems there is no shortage of buyers that will pay anything for a rifle with "C&R" attached to it

Anyway- the later "A" series have stamped- rather than machined- floorplates to save $$... My bet is that AIM has a lot more of the later "A" production rifles. There should be a price difference because there is a difference in value.

SOG has both, with the M48 at $270 and the M48A at $250. And, they've had them on sale for less in the past. As James stated, these are post-war production rifles. Fine for a shooter- at $200. Paying the same cost as modern, more accurate production rifle for one is insane.

 

[ScaryWoody]

I have a German K98. Bore is smooth and shoots all over the place. I looked at changing barrels but I'm just not strong enough.

 

[wpsdlrg]

"shoots all over the place"......


What loads ? Very possibly your 98 just doesn't like the loads you're using.

The Germans did not use corrosive primers, at least not by the time the K98k came around. So, it is unlikely that your K98 has a pitted bore. Could be shot out.....the crown might be damaged, the stock to action fit may be bad, etc. etc. Lots of things to consider before a re-barrel.


To the OP:

A great many surplus Mausers do not have "sharp" or "crisp" rifling. However, with the right loads, etc., most can be made to shoot well. My Yugo M48, which I re-barreled using an unused, spare military barrel (essentially a brand new 50-plus year old barrel), did not look as sharp or crisp as modern commercial rifling does. Regardless, it is quite accurate.

IMO, the most important things to look for as regards the barrel are A) that the barrel has no pitting and B) that the crown is in good shape. No question, surplus military rifles are always a roll of the dice, so to speak. But, if you are prepared to put enough effort into it, they usually can be made to shoot as well as one could expect - given what they are.

 

[Gunplummer]

Dark and pitted barrels mean nothing. Military guns were held to a certain standard and some were on the lower end. Very few were "Shot out". Maybe some of the Russian captured Mausers, but most not. If you are going to use it in it's original form, it will be rare if it is not good enough with open sights. If you want a clean barrel, look around for an early war T-99 Arisaka. They were chrome lined.

 

[eastbank]

the germans did use corrisive primers, up to and in ww-11, in fact the U.S. used them and even used them in natinal match shells into the 50,s. i think the m1 carbine ammo was the only one never loaded with non corrisive primers. a pitted barrel may shoot jacketed bullets well, but will be sure death with most cast bullets. eastbank.

 

[F. Guffey]

http://www.odcmp.org/1101/USGI.pdf

I have no fewer than 40 Mauser barrels that are take-offs. When I look down a barrel and see the barrel has been abused and or shot out I do not have to justify turning it into something else, then there is that problem created when all the numbers do not match, same thing. Anyhow, I have removed barrels that have show little to no evidence of ever having been shot.

A few bit surprises, I purchased a last ditch Mauser, the stock was finished with shoe polish and the metal finish looked as thought it was hot dipped, the bands were cut from a tin can. I took it to the range with about 40 rounds of reloads. I thought the bullets were tumbling and decided the action would become a project. A shooter at the next bench made a comment about the groups. Instead of tumbling bullets the groups were clover leafs...or was it shamrocks.

I purchased a Golden State/Santa Fe 03. My plan was to use the action on a 03A4 barrel. the Golden State rifle was so accurate I could not improve the accuracy; I applied the 'Leaver policy' designation.

F.Guffey

 

[James K]

The U.S. Army was reluctant to go to non-corrosive primers prior to WWII because they had just come on the market in the mid-1930's and their stability was unknown. It would have been highly embarrassing to get into a war and find that all your rifle and MG ammo had dead primers, so they chose to keep the highly stable FA-70 primer compound through WWII, even though it was corrosive. For some silly reason, they thought it would be less of a problem for the GI's to have to clean their guns than to have them not fire.

The carbine ammo was an exception. Williams and Winchester told the Army in effect that if they did not use non-corrosive primers, carbines would rapidly become useless, since there was no field provision for cleaning the short stroke gas system. The Army agreed because they considered the carbine a wartime expedient that would be dropped after the war. In fact, the carbine, in both M1 and M2 versions, remained in service after the M1 rifle had been phased out.

Jim

 

[emcon5]

What loads ? Very possibly your 98 just doesn't like the loads you're using.

This is certainly true. There are also some things that can be done to a K98k to improve accuracy, such floating the barrel under the handguard, clearance around the bayonet lug and front band, shimming the action if necessary, clearance between the magazine body and the receiver.

Covered in detail here:

http://www.mausershooters.org/k98k/SC_tips2.html#bed

and here:

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthr...-restore-accuracy-to-your-Russian-capture-98k

Even after doing all that, you still may find your rifle likes one load over another, sometimes significantly so. This is a Soviet capture "AR" code from 1942, the group on the left is commercial Privi Partizan, and is similar to how it shot with both Yugo and Czech surplus ammo. I was about to give up on it, when just for the hell of it, I tried some reloads I had worked up for a different rifle:

Both groups are 100 yards, from sandbags using a "scout" scope.

The Germans did not use corrosive primers, at least not by the time the K98k came around.

This is not a correct statement.

 

[F. Guffey]

And then there was ammo manufactured in Canada, nothing made in Canada for the military used corrosive primers.

F. Guffey

 

[emcon5]

From memory, the only other Mauser ammo you will find that you can guarantee is non corrosive is 6.5X55 from Sweden.

The Swiss 7.5 is also non-corrosive, but the subject is Mausers, so it really doesn't apply.

 

[James K]

"And then there was ammo manufactured in Canada, nothing made in Canada for the military used corrosive primers."

True. But about a year ago I dug out some 8mm made in Canada during WWII for the British* with the intent to shoot it up. Nope. About half the primers were dead and the rest gave hangfires ranging up to 3-4 seconds. WWII U.S. military I have fired recently still works like new.

Of course, the military would not consider issuing or even having ammo that old (72 years), but it does show that concerns over primer stability were not entirely without a basis.

*The BESA machine guns on British tanks used the original 8x57.

Jim

 

[Gunplummer]

Don't bet on it. When I was in Cuba I occasionally worked with the Navel Ordnance. You would be surprised what was in some of those ammo bunkers yet.

 

[F. Guffey]

http://www.odcmp.org/1101/USGI.pdf

"And then there was ammo manufactured in Canada, nothing made in Canada for the military used corrosive primers."

U.S military ammo and ammo made in Canada. We loaded 8mm57 ammo in this country. If I found Ammo made in Canada and or 8mm57 made in this country I would add both to the collection.

And then there is the assumption it is the primer that causes delay fire. I do not assume, (one more time) I purchased a lot of cheap ammo with the sole purpose of pulling it down for the bullets and powder. I took a few rounds to the range to test fire. The ammo was some ugly stuff; the scariest part was the delay fire. When I pulled the bullets and started dumping the powder I found the powder in the base of the case caked. The primers worked but it took a little time to get the powder going, Once the burn was through the cake things picked up.

Scary part? Pull the trigger, bust the primer and then open the bolt about the time the caked powder burned through to the loose powder.

And then there were cases with caked powder behind the bullet, the primers were good, the powder in front of the primer would burn but the caked powder would be an obstruction. I shook all of the cases, if I did not feel powder moving I did not fire the round.

I find nothing entertaining about pulling the trigger and not know what is about to happen.

It was about this time I called Hornady about my plans to pull down the ammo. They convinced me I had to have their cam lock bullet puller. I spent more time waiting for parts than I did using it. About the third time I called Hornady about their cam lock puller needing repairs they accused me of making too many mistakes. That is not something that can be worked out on the phone so I went for a visit. During the visit they said they had a problem with a contractor and heat treating; I ask them to tell me where they were located and while I was there I could go by and talk them.

And then: they explained to me they changed contractors. I received more parts for the cam lock in the mail, I added the new parts to the other new parts that were wore out and then, I decided I could talk about having the cam lock but using it was something else.

F. Guffey