CMP Forums

CMP Forums (http://forums.thecmp.org/index.php)
-   CMP Bolt Action Rifles (http://forums.thecmp.org/forumdisplay.php?f=79)
-   -   the best mauser rifle? (http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=177160)

.22shooter 10-29-2015 12:28 PM

the best mauser rifle?
 
I jumped into a conversation recently (couldn't mind my own business as usual) and my answer to the above question was "The A3 springfield of course!" The looks that I received..... haha

Seriously though, I've nearly talked myself into a few mauser variants (swedes and yugos) and shortly thereafter I remember that I'll probably be disappointed. Mostly because of the sights; I personally shoot forward mounted open sights very poorly.

My wife recently made a comment that its best to have a lot of things in pairs. She didn't think that applied to Springfields :D

Bill

Stewbaby 10-29-2015 12:32 PM

Can't beat a Swede for smooth and accurate, but I like my A3 more and agree, the sights are part of that reasoning.

S99VG 10-29-2015 02:51 PM

Dare I say it but the 98 is a better design. By inches or miles I'll let you decide. The 38 Swede carbine is a nice little rig, albeit not a 98 action. It does handle and feel a lot like an 03/03A3.

.22shooter 10-29-2015 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S99VG (Post 1372429)
Dare I say it but the 98 is a better design. By inches or miles I'll let you decide. The 38 Swede carbine is a nice little rig, albeit not a 98 action. It does handle and feel a lot like an 03/03A3.

How? More importantly how does the superior design improve performance?

Deppizzymo 10-29-2015 03:51 PM

Believe it or not I really like the look of the FR8. I have never had the pleasure (or displeasure from the recoil?) of shooting one. Short, handy and complete with a peep sight. The only thing missing is a bent bolt handle.

S99VG 10-29-2015 05:22 PM

Again, performance may be a measure of inches and not miles, but the 03 action has always struck me as an over complication of the basic Mauser design. I think the Mauser lends itself to better, or easier, bedding. It isn't encombered with an unnecessary mag cut-off and doesn't have the 03s less than stellar sighting system regarding its use as a battle rifle. Performance can be measured in many ways and these are just a few items in which the 03 doesn't really shine. Now for personal use I'd pick an 03A3, 1917, No. 4 Mk. I Enfield and M38 Swedish Mauser in that order. I really don't champion one rifle design over another. For classy looks though it's hard to beat a C-stocked 03. I'm not going to add IMHO because I obviously am not parroting someone else's opinion.

.22shooter 10-29-2015 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S99VG (Post 1372513)
Again, performance may be a measure of inches and not miles, but the 03 action has always struck me as an over complication of the basic Mauser design. I think the Mauser lends itself to better, or easier, bedding. It isn't encombered with an unnecessary mag cut-off and doesn't have the 03s less than stellar sighting system regarding its use as a battle rifle. Performance can be measured in many ways and these are just a few items in which the 03 doesn't really shine. Now for personal use I'd pick an 03A3, 1917, No. 4 Mk. I Enfield and M38 Swedish Mauser in that order. I really don't champion one rifle design over another. For classy looks though it's hard to beat a C-stocked 03. I'm not going to add IMHO because I obviously am not parroting someone else's opinion.

Well noted! I appreciate the educated response. How is the A3s sighting system less than stellar? Unless your preference is for forward mounted open sights (few people)....rear mounted aperture sights of any kind are almost always an improvement.

Bill

Rick the Librarian 10-29-2015 06:26 PM

Without considering accuracy, the best Mauser "looker" to me is the M1898 GEW.

http://www.fototime.com/7EC45684AB810DF/standard.jpg

tinydata 10-29-2015 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S99VG (Post 1372513)
Again, performance may be a measure of inches and not miles, but the 03 action has always struck me as an over complication of the basic Mauser design. I think the Mauser lends itself to better, or easier, bedding. It isn't encombered with an unnecessary mag cut-off and doesn't have the 03s less than stellar sighting system regarding its use as a battle rifle. Performance can be measured in many ways and these are just a few items in which the 03 doesn't really shine. Now for personal use I'd pick an 03A3, 1917, No. 4 Mk. I Enfield and M38 Swedish Mauser in that order. I really don't champion one rifle design over another. For classy looks though it's hard to beat a C-stocked 03. I'm not going to add IMHO because I obviously am not parroting someone else's opinion.

Relatively new guy here, but why is the Mauser easier to bed? I've looked inside both types of rifle and they have the same bedding system and general layout (a real surprise! :D)

Given the fact that I'll never fight with a bolt-action rifle, I can throw out the uneducated guess that I'd find the 03A3 the best Mauser design for combat use. The large receiver-mounted aperture is impossible to beat. That being said, I have yet to find a rifle that I'll take over the old 03 for leisurely target shooting. No matter how I try, neither the V sight nor the much-improved Swede M96/M38 sights yield the same results the 03 peep does. The infinitely adjustable rear complements the fine front sight very well- I can fine tune the POI right where I want it.

http://i607.photobucket.com/albums/t...psn0nujv3l.jpg
(I know, I'm shameless)

S99VG 10-29-2015 08:52 PM

The 03 sight, not A3, is less than stellar. The bottom of Mauser actions are flat. "Springfields" have kind of a wedge shape in cross section. I just think that the Mauser design provides a better contact patch with the stock. As leisure shooters we can make all milspec sights work, but as a battle rifle I just don't know what they were thinking with the 03. Don't forget that the A3 sight was developed after Garand put one on his rig and Winchester on their carbine. Having said that I think if I were to lug one of these into battle it would have to be the 1917, unless someone handed me a Garand - but that's getting way off topic. These are just some of my observations?

PS - tinydata, nice rifle!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:14 PM.