Mauser 98 EGW rail question.

Butcherbill

Butcherbill

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Location
Blaster land, Okanagan BC
I don’t know if this is the right sub forum, I’m looking at picking up a EGW pic/weaver rail for a modern commercial Mauser 98 action that been factory d&T’d. Manufacturer says it’s compatible with my rifle and I’ll measure screw hole spacing to be sure.

I’m hoping someone has used one and can answer a question, will this rail allow the irons to be used? The rear sight is a flip up style, the current weaver bases on it are low enough that the irons are visible. I’m finding the spacing is a bit tough to fit a scope and I don’t want to use an offset base to be honest, I prefer a rail over bases and I’d like to mount a 2-7x33 Leupold on it and depending on eye relief I might not have the spacing. If I was going with a 1.5-4x20 with the straight tube and no front bell I’d be fine with the current bases.

1747940898402.jpeg
 
Cannot speak for the M98 but I have an EGW rail on a BLR which has lower sights than my Zastava 98s and the iron can be used no problems.

Therefore, the rails have a lengthwise groove which is usually lower than the irons.

If in doubt, contact EGW (which I did in my case) to make sure....
 
My own experience was about a Mauser 98 - that is a top loading thing - no detachable magazine in that one - as a result, I did not like any sort of rail on it - even a low mounted scope could be in the way of inserting rounds into that magazine - so I wanted the top area as clear as I could get it - I learned to use two piece bases. However, since then, I have had Remington 788 and Tikka T3 and T3X with rails - they do not intrude into the port at all - yet they all were "detachable magazine" loading that required those magazines to be removed in order to reload them. The push feed Model 70 Winchesters and the Parker Hale rifles had hinged floor plates, so for those I preferred the two piece bases - it just became like a "habit" - I do not think any of the rifles here have "rails" on them.

For someone who thinks there is some sort of geometric advantage to a rail, I do not think so. I could not get a pair of bases to make a proper plane on top - the rail that I installed simply flexed to mate up to the goof a$$ grind that had been done on the rifle receiver top. So I do not think using a "rail" with properly torqued up mounting screws fixes any issue that one runs into with two piece bases.
 
riversrest said:
Cannot speak for the M98 but I have an EGW rail on a BLR which has lower sights than my Zastava 98s and the iron can be used no problems.

Therefore, the rails have a lengthwise groove which is usually lower than the irons.

If in doubt, contact EGW (which I did in my case) to make sure....
Click to expand...
Good to know, it’s a Zastava M70 I’m dealing with. Have sent a message to EGW as well, hopefully they can clarify further. The rail looks like it will be low enough in the center for the irons.
Potashminer said:
My own experience was about a Mauser 98 - that is a top loading thing - no detachable magazine in that one - as a result, I did not like any sort of rail on it - even a low mounted scope could be in the way of inserting rounds into that magazine
Click to expand...
You know I hadn’t considered that, all my other rifles that have full rails use box mags. Will have to do some further fitting and measuring it seems, I have a temporary scope I was going to mount with lg eye relief so I’ll see what clearance I get for top loading. I guess if the rail makes it tight I can always open the floor plate and bottom load it, not a deal breaker for me.

Thanks for bringing that up, I have measurements from Leupold’s sight for the 2-7x33 so hopefully I have the room with the current setup and rings I have.
 
I did have a Leupold 2-7x33 - not sure if that was a Vari X-1 or Vari X-2 - I bought it circa late 1970's / possibly, early 1980's - over the years it saw service on various of my rifles - on a push feed Model 70 in 308 Win and in 338 Win Mag, also on a Ruger #1A in 7x57 - I last saw it on a Remington 788 in 308 Win that went to my Brother In Law on Vancouver Island - that Rem 788 had a 243 Win barrel when my wife used it. In all cases, that scope was on two piece bases though - probably Low or Medium rings - whatever was needed to clearance the bolt handle.
 
Butcherbill - I have a Zastava M70 - when bought, it was in 458 Win Mag - now it has a 300 Win Mag barrel on it. Be careful if you choose to "bottom load"- that follower wants the last round on the correct side. Not like a Schultz and Larson rifle with "ambidextrous" follower that does not care if last round to right or to left side
 
Hmatt said:
I put this rail on my husq 146 , irons are not useable anymore and the bolt handle had to swept. This is all I have for information. Enjoy!
Click to expand...
EGW got back to me and said the same thing, I asked for height dimensions at the front and rear of the rail. Hopefully they can provide and I’ll compare with the weaver bases mounted, I can use the irons with the weaver’s currently.
Potashminer said:
Butcherbill - I have a Zastava M70 - when bought, it was in 458 Win Mag - now it has a 300 Win Mag barrel on it. Be careful if you choose to "bottom load"- that follower wants the last round on the correct side. Not like a Schultz and Larson rifle with "ambidextrous" follower that does not care if last round to right or to left side
Click to expand...
Good info, thanks for that. I mounted my temp scope, with the mounting tube length and big eye relief it fits fine. Lots of space to top load the internal mag like this. Not much rearward room though if I had to adjust further, only an 1/8”. Outside of ring to ring it measures 4 7/8”.

I was hoping to use that scope on a 45-70 as it’s a slug gun optic, parallax is 75m iirc. Not that it really mattered, I had it on a .308 for the last 3-4 years and have no issues shooting out to 200-250m. It just would suit my 45-70 more than the Zastava.

1747967146580.jpeg
 
I put the same EGW rail on my Interarms 7x57 (same as M70 Zastava) its close but you can use the iron sights. It had a 3-9x40 with medium rings on it and didn't have an issue with anything. The bolt handle is the butterknife style so already a little curved so that helped with spacing.
I did have to cut 2 mounting screws down a little as they interfered with the bolt- can't remember if it was front or rear mounting screws.
It was a little harder to top load but it was a hunting rifle so never in a real hurry to load anyhow.
If you'd like pics let me know, as there is no scope on it I can remove it and measure the front height if you'd like too.
 
timsinc said:
If you'd like pics let me know, as there is no scope on it I can remove it and measure the front height if you'd like too.
Click to expand...
Pics would be helpful, thanks. Don’t go pulling it off on my account, if you have a caliper you should be able to measure front and rear heights with it mounted.
riversrest said:
Is that measured to the groove ?

I second the opinion of loading via floorplate is a kind of awkward...
Click to expand...
I asked EGW for measurements from the base to the center grove, they said the rear is .420” and the front is .260”. My weaver bases measure .395” at the rear and .235 at the front.

Was thinking of finding some .025 shims and taping them on top of my bases to see if the irons are still clearly visible, that little of a difference shouldn’t make a difference I hope.
 
Not my best photography work! hard to get the camera to focus on the sights and not the end of the rail.
Didn't measure the back end of it but the front came out a .265 from the underside to the lowest point on the top of the rail, tried to get a measurement from the bottom groves on the top to the bottom of the rail with the pokie end of the calipers and that came to .291. I did move the base ahead a little so the poker would bottom out on the receiver.
Figured it easiest just to add a link for pics- if you would like to see anything else let me know.
When I took it off I found it was the rear screws I had to cut a bit to clear the bolt.
I found there was enough space to load from the top, a little tight but not too bad- might depend on what cal you're using but 7x57 did just fine for me.
Best of luck!
https://photos.app.goo.gl/TFMcmpWSk2EtoM3B8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom