I'm thinking of purchasing one of the two. Does anyone have experience with any of the said firearms? Would like some insight on final fit, function and accuracy. They seem to b a very reliable and great quality rifle, hence made in Germany.
Mauser MO3 and M12
- Thread starter track
- Start date
I've been checking them out, too.
Here's what I've figured out so far...
- Mauser went bankrupt around 2005 and was bought by the Sig/Blaser consortium
- The M03 was introduced soon afterwards is "only a Mauser in name", a significant departure from classical Mauser actions
- The M03 is pretty Gucci (north of $6k US!)
- The M03 is modular and designed to be taken down for transport and storage in its case. Your rifle can be highly customized at purchase because of the modularity (pick your stock design, barrel profile and length, engraving, iron sight style, etc, etc).
- The M12 is the "budget" offering at a price point similar to Sako ($2k-ish)
- The M12 is truer to classic M98 actions (in fact, any mounts that fit a M98 should fit a M12) albeit with improved 60 degree bolt, safety, and detachable mag
- The M12 3-position safety seems pretty similar to the Buehler aftermarket safeties for M98's
They are really quite different in their positioning. While the M12 seems to be a well-made firearm, like a Sako or a Cooper, the M03 seems to cross the line from being a well made firearm to an uber-prestige firearm.
The only knock I can find on the M12's so far has been the quality of their wood stock is not great. A few complaints of obvious knotting in the grain.
Interestingly, the Sig 101 is pretty similar to the M12 in terms of design and construction. The differences seem to be mostly cosmetic in the shaping of the action.
Hope that helps!
Here's what I've figured out so far...
- Mauser went bankrupt around 2005 and was bought by the Sig/Blaser consortium
- The M03 was introduced soon afterwards is "only a Mauser in name", a significant departure from classical Mauser actions
- The M03 is pretty Gucci (north of $6k US!)
- The M03 is modular and designed to be taken down for transport and storage in its case. Your rifle can be highly customized at purchase because of the modularity (pick your stock design, barrel profile and length, engraving, iron sight style, etc, etc).
- The M12 is the "budget" offering at a price point similar to Sako ($2k-ish)
- The M12 is truer to classic M98 actions (in fact, any mounts that fit a M98 should fit a M12) albeit with improved 60 degree bolt, safety, and detachable mag
- The M12 3-position safety seems pretty similar to the Buehler aftermarket safeties for M98's
They are really quite different in their positioning. While the M12 seems to be a well-made firearm, like a Sako or a Cooper, the M03 seems to cross the line from being a well made firearm to an uber-prestige firearm.
The only knock I can find on the M12's so far has been the quality of their wood stock is not great. A few complaints of obvious knotting in the grain.
Interestingly, the Sig 101 is pretty similar to the M12 in terms of design and construction. The differences seem to be mostly cosmetic in the shaping of the action.
Hope that helps!
Roadway thanks for your response. I as well was researching both Mauser models on cyber space where there was much information on them; of course nothing negative was mentioned and all positive. The MO3 is much more expensive hence the modular style, ring and base mounting system and the other many options. Purchasing a MO3 is one thing, however after that it become just as expensive. An extra barrel is $1,300, another mounting system is $600.00 and another scope, $800.00 a grand total of $2,700.............it adds up.
Whereas the traditional M12, sans claw extractor, is the more affordable and simple way to go and still have that Mauser quality. The wood is basic with no nice wood grain but sculptured well. LOL! beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I love knots in wood.
Lets add some controversy before you get too excited.
1) M12 and Sauer 101 have barrels heat pressed into the action. For many people its a big thing. Bolt locks to the barrel directly (which on itself is good). But it complicates changing of a barrel even more.
2) M12 and Sauer 101 have all plastic magazines. No metal even just for feedlips:
3) M12 and Sauer 101 are not glass or pillar bedded. Bedding on Sauer 101 is basically one aluminum block with 2 pins:
Bedding on M12 is recoil lug on a metal plate and that's it:
4) Bolts on M12 and Sauer 101 are very close internally. There is a safety catch blocking firing pin directly on open bolt, which is nice. However the internal assembly of the bolt has parts which are not designed to be disassembled by user.
5) For M12 mauser claims that any mount for the regular old mauser m98 will fit. However it is not the case apparently. The radius of the receiver is the same, but the drilling is a bit of, so people report that many one piece bases for M98 do not fit on M12 - the holes do not match. Some say even 2 piece bases for m98 wont fit M12. To be precise I know of the following:
EAW Apel Weaver for M98(86-00110) 2 pieces - back base does not fit.
RECKNAGEL (57060-0010) one piece - does not fit, needs drilling.
МАК (5520-50010) - does not fit, needs metalwork to get it right.
Sauer 101 on the other hand uses Rem 700 bases.
Are you sure you don't want a Sako yet?
1) M12 and Sauer 101 have barrels heat pressed into the action. For many people its a big thing. Bolt locks to the barrel directly (which on itself is good). But it complicates changing of a barrel even more.
2) M12 and Sauer 101 have all plastic magazines. No metal even just for feedlips:
3) M12 and Sauer 101 are not glass or pillar bedded. Bedding on Sauer 101 is basically one aluminum block with 2 pins:
Bedding on M12 is recoil lug on a metal plate and that's it:
4) Bolts on M12 and Sauer 101 are very close internally. There is a safety catch blocking firing pin directly on open bolt, which is nice. However the internal assembly of the bolt has parts which are not designed to be disassembled by user.
5) For M12 mauser claims that any mount for the regular old mauser m98 will fit. However it is not the case apparently. The radius of the receiver is the same, but the drilling is a bit of, so people report that many one piece bases for M98 do not fit on M12 - the holes do not match. Some say even 2 piece bases for m98 wont fit M12. To be precise I know of the following:
EAW Apel Weaver for M98(86-00110) 2 pieces - back base does not fit.
RECKNAGEL (57060-0010) one piece - does not fit, needs drilling.
МАК (5520-50010) - does not fit, needs metalwork to get it right.
Sauer 101 on the other hand uses Rem 700 bases.
Are you sure you don't want a Sako yet?
Owlowl, I was aware of the polycarbonate magazine and the no bedding. Barrel heat pressed into receiver is something I never heard of.......good or bad? Where did you receive your info on the scope mount holes not in sink with bases? I read a lot of great things about the M12, even well known gun writers (Boddington/Van Zwoll) gave it a double thumbs up. You do have a point, especially when compared to the Cooper model 52 and the Sako Model 85. The mentioned are bedded and have metal magazines and believe that the barrels are screwed in. Maybe the MO3 would be the better choice of the two.
If you can afford M03 that is
By the way, I don't have anything against M12, just presenting details people might not know.
Info on bases comes from http://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/292/1127139.html you can use google translate. One of the participants of that topic is actually an engineer working for Mauser.
For the
Boltface on M12 is like this:
The M03 has one ejector and boltheads are detachable to switch calibers.
PS
I would especially skeptical about any rave reviews from "well known writers" and magazines on anything. There is no such thing is independent "well known gun writter". Its all a paid ad or at least "we give you free stuff do a good review". Try to find any "well know review" on Sako 85 which would mention ejection problem - none. Yet it happens quite often. Try to find any well know magazine review on say Kimber quality issues - none. There is no such thing as 100% quality manufacturer and 0% quality manufacturer, they all are in a grey, it just depends on your perspective and personal experience. A lot of people here would swear by Savage, yet you go and handle Savage next to Sako and there will be no doubt in your mind where the quality is. Is it worth it to you - no one can't say. But any review on any firearm will say "thats a good value for the money" or "definitely worth trying" or something. These are completely useless ratings these days.
Again, I in fact believe M12 is a nice rifle, I've seen Sauer 101 in person - very nice rifle, M12 as I hear should be even better. But its all subjective and for each of us "value" and "features that matter" are way too different. So I would rather see all the info and pick and choose rather then someone else just giving me a "great buy rating".
By the way, I don't have anything against M12, just presenting details people might not know.
Info on bases comes from http://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/292/1127139.html you can use google translate. One of the participants of that topic is actually an engineer working for Mauser.
For the
This is a complete misinformation, sorry to say. I'm not saying it is good or bad, its just wrong. Both M03 and M12 are push feed 6 lugs bolt. M03 has one ejector, M12 has 2. They both have nothing to do with original mauser action. None.
Boltface on M12 is like this:
The M03 has one ejector and boltheads are detachable to switch calibers.
PS
I would especially skeptical about any rave reviews from "well known writers" and magazines on anything. There is no such thing is independent "well known gun writter". Its all a paid ad or at least "we give you free stuff do a good review". Try to find any "well know review" on Sako 85 which would mention ejection problem - none. Yet it happens quite often. Try to find any well know magazine review on say Kimber quality issues - none. There is no such thing as 100% quality manufacturer and 0% quality manufacturer, they all are in a grey, it just depends on your perspective and personal experience. A lot of people here would swear by Savage, yet you go and handle Savage next to Sako and there will be no doubt in your mind where the quality is. Is it worth it to you - no one can't say. But any review on any firearm will say "thats a good value for the money" or "definitely worth trying" or something. These are completely useless ratings these days.
Again, I in fact believe M12 is a nice rifle, I've seen Sauer 101 in person - very nice rifle, M12 as I hear should be even better. But its all subjective and for each of us "value" and "features that matter" are way too different. So I would rather see all the info and pick and choose rather then someone else just giving me a "great buy rating".
OwlowlI believe that what they meant by" the M12 being truer to classic M98" is that it is closer than the M03, the receiver that is and not the bolt sans claw extractor. Yes I can afford the M03 but the features that it has is something that I really don't need. Something simplistic/conventional as the M12 and at a lesser price seems more realistic. Well I'm going to take the plunge and test it on the range first. I believe that a 308 Winchester would be a good first candidate to test this rifle. It would be great to hear from someone who has first hand experience with this Mauser model, with an unbiased opinion unlike gun writers.
Sauer 202 is more expensive than M12 and Sauer 101. Bolt is smooooth as silk. Very nice rifle 202. Have its own "bag of details" I don't really open up right now.
All barrels for Blaser, Sauer and Mauser rifles all models come from the same factory, same process by the way. Meaning they are very good. Manufacturer claims 10000 round barrel life without accuracy falloff for standard chamberings, and I think like 7000 for magnumns. (note - thats not me claiming that)
This is the M98 bolt:
Now this is CRF with a claw extractor. If you don't see the difference take it as a fact - M12 is not an inch closer to M98 than M03 is.
Again, I'm NOT saying its a bad thing. All I'm trying to point out - where the facts are and where marketing speak is.
M12 itself does not suffer A BIT from establishing that fact. It is not any lesser a rifle. But its not M98 or based on M98 - it is just different.
Now on a good side M12 locks to the barrel - this is good. M12 as everyone says has a very smoth bolt. M12 and Sauer 101 have very good safety (direct block of firing pin), M03 is even better since it has a decocker - so while on Safe M03 can't possibly fire at all because the spring is not loaded. Steel, fit and finish are very nice on M12 and Sauer 101. The wood is not fancy, but it will do just fine. Plastic stocks on M12 and Sauer 101 seems to be better than Sako 85 factory stocks. Iron sights on M12 are the same as M03 and I find them to be very good.
Basically if you are on market with $2k M12 or Sauer 101 are very close if not better than Sako 85 (arguably, depends on your tastes).
If you have around $3k Sauer 202 comes on the top. And I would look at Anschutz 1780 (in fact I personaly would take Anschutz 1780, but Sauer 202 has a lot of variety of options )
If you have around $4k I would take M03 - you can make it to be anything you like with like 5 contours and 4 barrel lengths available plus like 4-5 different stocks. M03 however is slightly pointless if you use just one barrel. Pointless for the money anyway.
All barrels for Blaser, Sauer and Mauser rifles all models come from the same factory, same process by the way. Meaning they are very good. Manufacturer claims 10000 round barrel life without accuracy falloff for standard chamberings, and I think like 7000 for magnumns. (note - thats not me claiming that)
Honestly, due all respect, I'm not trying to be rude. But you and I seems to have very different understanding what M98-style bolt is. M12 is nowhere near M98, on the terms of action design M02 and M12 and Sauer 202 are practically THE SAME, compared to original M98 they all are now ever close. I don't know how to explain it further.
This is the M98 bolt:
Now this is CRF with a claw extractor. If you don't see the difference take it as a fact - M12 is not an inch closer to M98 than M03 is.
Again, I'm NOT saying its a bad thing. All I'm trying to point out - where the facts are and where marketing speak is.
M12 itself does not suffer A BIT from establishing that fact. It is not any lesser a rifle. But its not M98 or based on M98 - it is just different.
Now on a good side M12 locks to the barrel - this is good. M12 as everyone says has a very smoth bolt. M12 and Sauer 101 have very good safety (direct block of firing pin), M03 is even better since it has a decocker - so while on Safe M03 can't possibly fire at all because the spring is not loaded. Steel, fit and finish are very nice on M12 and Sauer 101. The wood is not fancy, but it will do just fine. Plastic stocks on M12 and Sauer 101 seems to be better than Sako 85 factory stocks. Iron sights on M12 are the same as M03 and I find them to be very good.
Basically if you are on market with $2k M12 or Sauer 101 are very close if not better than Sako 85 (arguably, depends on your tastes).
If you have around $3k Sauer 202 comes on the top. And I would look at Anschutz 1780 (in fact I personaly would take Anschutz 1780, but Sauer 202 has a lot of variety of options )
If you have around $4k I would take M03 - you can make it to be anything you like with like 5 contours and 4 barrel lengths available plus like 4-5 different stocks. M03 however is slightly pointless if you use just one barrel. Pointless for the money anyway.
I own an M03 and i can tell you that it is an outstanding rifle, either in 375H&H or 300Win Mag chamberings.
You wont be disappointed if you get one, Sauer 202 is a very good rifle too.
I dont think you can go wrong with either one.
Cheers
Victor..
You wont be disappointed if you get one, Sauer 202 is a very good rifle too.
I dont think you can go wrong with either one.
Cheers
Victor..
I checked out a M03 a few weeks ago, and was surprised how rough the bolt was - more like a browning. I also didn't like the thin recoil pad. The rough bolt really turned me off - I don't know if they are all like that.
I have a sauer 202 - very smooth bolt, but the set trigger is not nearly as good as the set trigger on my Mannlicher or Heym. Both the latter two have lovely smooth bolts, and fabulous set triggers.
I was quite keen to see a sauer 101, but I've heard its recoil pad is too hard and thin - which is a turn off.
I have a sauer 202 - very smooth bolt, but the set trigger is not nearly as good as the set trigger on my Mannlicher or Heym. Both the latter two have lovely smooth bolts, and fabulous set triggers.
I was quite keen to see a sauer 101, but I've heard its recoil pad is too hard and thin - which is a turn off.
The Mauser M12 arrived and I compared it to the other firearms in the same price range.
Neahs compared to the Cooper 52, Sako 85, Weatherby Mark V.
1) Plain grade 1 wood
2) Action is less smooth than the noted above three
3) Tupperware detachable clip
4) Non-removable sling swivels
5) Cartridge does not fit in magazine when bullet is touching lands
6) Tupperware grip cap
Yeahs
1) Wonderful trigger pull
2) Spring loaded detachable magazine, plus five cartridges can fit
3) Workmanship is superb (fit and finish)
4) Great balance
5) No tools needed to remove shroud/firing pin
6) Open sights, nice silver bead on front sight
7) Three position safety
8) Very soft recoil pad
9) Hammer forged steel
10) Steel receiver
11) Stock sculpting is very nice
12) Very nice split checkering
13) Free floated from tip of fore end to right up to the receiver
The Mauser M12 is the 4th (bottom) firearm. Of course I haven't tested it on the range for function and accuracy, but so far I would give the Cooper, Sako and Weatherby a higher rating. However, the real test will be this November in the cold temperatures. Will give a range report later.
Neahs compared to the Cooper 52, Sako 85, Weatherby Mark V.
1) Plain grade 1 wood
2) Action is less smooth than the noted above three
3) Tupperware detachable clip
4) Non-removable sling swivels
5) Cartridge does not fit in magazine when bullet is touching lands
6) Tupperware grip cap
Yeahs
1) Wonderful trigger pull
2) Spring loaded detachable magazine, plus five cartridges can fit
3) Workmanship is superb (fit and finish)
4) Great balance
5) No tools needed to remove shroud/firing pin
6) Open sights, nice silver bead on front sight
7) Three position safety
8) Very soft recoil pad
9) Hammer forged steel
10) Steel receiver
11) Stock sculpting is very nice
12) Very nice split checkering
13) Free floated from tip of fore end to right up to the receiver
The Mauser M12 is the 4th (bottom) firearm. Of course I haven't tested it on the range for function and accuracy, but so far I would give the Cooper, Sako and Weatherby a higher rating. However, the real test will be this November in the cold temperatures. Will give a range report later.
Last edited:
Your eyes are quite good young Jedi. Your right, there is a short distance from rear to front open sight. I noticed that when I shouldered the rifle, that the rear sight was far away from the receiver; however, I forgot to mention that the sights are "high" but they are right there inline with each other, and my eye caught that silver bead with ease. The barrel is only 22 inches which kind of makes the sights look close together. Another thing I forgot to mention, the M12 is quite light, in weight that is.
I measured all four rifles with digital calipers, all one inch from the muzzle.
Cooper .640
Sako .625
Weatherby .609
Mauser .670
Your right, the barrel is heavier than the others. The Cooper is chambered for the 6.5x284 Norma and needless to say it shoots sub 1/4 moa. If a target shooter was behind the gun I'm sure that tighter groups would be attained. Well, I'm pleased with the Mauser and will find it fun to conduct load development, using only 150 grain nolser ballistic tips. Varget, VV140 and Benchmark are the powders I'll work around that 150 grainer.
