View Single Post
  #9  
Old 10-29-2015, 06:39 PM
tinydata tinydata is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S99VG View Post
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! )

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.


(I know, I'm shameless)
__________________
"As the troops used to say, 'If the country is good enough to live in, itís good enough to fight for.' With privilege goes responsibility."

-Eugene B. Sledge
Reply With Quote