Mitchell's Mausers - Get yo pimp shine on!

BeaverMeat said:
My Holy Grail is not a Mauser by the way, That would be a No4 MkI (T), but I can not afford a quality LE or Garand for the price of a quality Mauser at this time. And my apologies if my comment came off as assholian. But, why did you bother to comment on a thread about Mausers, if you have no interest?

Small minded? It's a gun, guns do not win wars by themselves. How could I, who enjoys all WWII era firearms be considered small minded?

forget it. I believe someone wants to argue for the sake of, well. nothing.
Click to expand...

No.. but it seems the running theme is that the Mauser is superior. It is not, in my opinion. My Finn Mosins and my No4 will shoot with any Mauser.
 
davemccarthy707 said:
No.. but it seems the running theme is that the Mauser is superior. It is not, in my opinion. My Finn Mosins and my No4 will shoot with any Mauser.
Click to expand...
The Mauser superior? In quality of materials and manufacture, ABSOLUTELY!! In my experience generally speaking a K98k in good repair will outshoot a Lee Enfield in good repair.
In design, far superior to any other bolt action service rifle. In my opinion, others may disagree but I 'll bet more agree with me than you.
 
Mike Webb said:
The Mauser superior? In quality of materials and manufacture, ABSOLUTELY!! In my experience generally speaking a K98k in good repair will outshoot a Lee Enfield in good repair.
In design, far superior to any other bolt action service rifle. In my opinion, others may disagree but I 'll bet more agree with me than you.
Click to expand...

You have a good point...
I agree with you the Mauser is the better rifle, the Enfield No 4 however, is the better battle rifle in my opinion.
 
polaris said:
You have a good point...
I agree with you the Mauser is the better rifle, the Enfield No 4 however, is the better battle rifle in my opinion.
Click to expand...

No question. Ten rounds and a shorter throw action beats the K98k in a fight, I think. And the Lee Enfield no.4 is by no means inaccurate. I heard it said once that the Mauser is a hunting rifle, the 1903 Springfield is a target rifle and the Lee Enfield is a battle rifle.
 
Was just reading a bit of Roy Dunlap's "Gunsmithing" the other day. His comment:

After 1941 Germany became sloppier and sloppier in manufacturing and the rifles became poorer and poorer. Actions made in 1941 and in the earlier years are usually quite well machined and of excellent material, most of them being of Swedish steel and expertly heat-treated. Later actions were less carefully machined and the '43, 44 and 54 receivers and bolts were often made of poor grades of steel, from German scrap, and sometimes not heat treated at all....Not all the later actions were poor - some of the manufacturers kept their standards fairly high. Those guns made outside Germany, by forced [slave] labour, are the poorest....I prefer the Czech and Polish Mausers over the German. They actually seem to be of a steel very similar in working qualities to the nickel-steel used in the high-number Springfields. It cuts, drills, taps and welds very well, something which cannot be said for the German materiel. Origianal specifications for the Mauser action call for deep carburization of the wearing surfaces, meaning they have to be deeply case-hardened inside. All variations of the heat treatment are found, however. Some actions are deeply hardened on all portions, others have just the receiver ring treated, some have a light case all over, and some few have no hardening treatment, although heat-treated.
Click to expand...
 
"...certain "notoriety" to Mitchell's Mausers..." This is why Americans think we're so polite. snicker. It's particularly amusing how they call it 'original'.
 
It's been relisted.

And thanks for posting this up, by the way. I'm a rookie and wouldn't even know where to start to look for a fake. Well... ok, maybe the polished shiny parts on a milsurp are a giveaway. Threads like this are an education, for sure.

Hahah I googled mitchell's mauser and the SECOND result is titled "why avoid mitchell's mausers?" that's a sign for sure.
 
You guys are a bunch of weenies.

First off, no one expects a "Mitchell's Mauser" to be absolutely correct.

Secondly, they don't claim it is correct.

Thirdly, the rifle is an "original" WWII Mauser. So what if it's a Russian capture???

Then of course, think of the cause it's being auctioned off to support.

If it's so out of line, how many here have paid over $700 for one of last batch of Russian Capture imports???

Sure the rifle has been primped and polished. Hopefully the bore is as nice as the rest of it.

Not my cup of tea and definitely not the OPs but that doesn't mean I have an issue with it either. In the last six months, I've run across at least 50 RC rifles that have had the cleaning rods replaced, capture screws replaced and the Russian varnish removed and re-oiled. Some people like to buy them that way.

Good for the fellows that are auctioning the rifle and hopefully they make a fortune on it to facilitate their cause. I'm willing to bet Mitchell's donated the rifle to them for their cause. Good for them as well.
 
It almost sounds just like all the Garands showing up lately on the EE that have been Re-Hump-Dee-Dumped, Reparked and Restocked courtesy of Boyds.

bearhunter said:
You guys are a bunch of weenies.

First off, no one expects a "Mitchell's Mauser" to be absolutely correct.

Secondly, they don't claim it is correct.

Thirdly, the rifle is an "original" WWII Mauser. So what if it's a Russian capture???

Then of course, think of the cause it's being auctioned off to support.

If it's so out of line, how many here have paid over $700 for one of last batch of Russian Capture imports???

Sure the rifle has been primped and polished. Hopefully the bore is as nice as the rest of it.

Not my cup of tea and definitely not the OPs but that doesn't mean I have an issue with it either. In the last six months, I've run across at least 50 RC rifles that have had the cleaning rods replaced, capture screws replaced and the Russian varnish removed and re-oiled. Some people like to buy them that way.

Good for the fellows that are auctioning the rifle and hopefully they make a fortune on it to facilitate their cause. I'm willing to bet Mitchell's donated the rifle to them for their cause. Good for them as well.
Click to expand...
 
RRCo. said:
Was just reading a bit of Roy Dunlap's "Gunsmithing" the other day. His comment:
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Mr. Dunlap's assessment of German production Mausers. Quality was high throughout the war as far as steel and heat treatment go however cosmetically the finish was not as good on mid to late war rifles. I don't know where the "guns made outside Germany, by forced labour" were made as Brno and Bysterica in Czechoslovakia produced the only German K98k's for the Third Reich that I know of. Machinability is not really an indication of steel quality in general.
 
Most 98k factories did not use slave labour to make critical components.

Quality was and heat treating was fine on most rifles until the very end.
The factories an Brunn I and Brunn II actually kept up quality standards way beyond steyr or bcd. Late 1944 and 45 rifles from czech are still really well made. The only k98k I'd be hesitant to fire would be a t block bnz45.

Addressing MM. They stretch the truth quite far, and imho outright lie in how they describe their rifles. They are trash.
Postwar bolts typically. All ground and renumbered. Sanded to death.
Is someone buys an RC, strips the varnish, adds a hood, rod and screws, he is still 1000 times better then a mitchells.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom