Why all the love for the M98 action?
- Thread starter Eaglelord17
- Start date
M98 Mauser is the Small Block Chevy V8 of rifles.
It's good, it works, it's been made to do just about everything you need to do with a rifle, and there are just about as many iterations, variations, permutations and combinations of the design as there are stars in the sky. Just like the SBC.
Also just like the SBC, there is nothing magical about it. Quality, performance and ubiquity is a pretty decent yardstick by which to measure excellence though.
It's good, it works, it's been made to do just about everything you need to do with a rifle, and there are just about as many iterations, variations, permutations and combinations of the design as there are stars in the sky. Just like the SBC.
Also just like the SBC, there is nothing magical about it. Quality, performance and ubiquity is a pretty decent yardstick by which to measure excellence though.
I've heard of that, it's very impressive.
I have very few positive things to say about Japan's involvement in the second world war, except to say that they produced some fascinating weapons. I believe a Type 38 will be the rifle I buy to get myself into reloading, because I've always wanted a Type 38 and 6.5x50 Semi-Rimmed is absolutely not something I'm going to find at Canadian Tire for 19.99 for a box of 20.
I look forward to eventually owning one when funds permit.
Tha'ts for sure, as the 1640 action is a compound between the M/94 and the M98. It uses the same bolt head pattern than the M/94 but with an added (third) locking lug and gas escape ports, plus as JBMauser pointed, a relocated ejector slut, to keep it off the left front lug and by the meantime being used as an added gas vent.
The 1640 also uses M/94 breeching system, as the Swedes did not have the rights to use some Mauser M/98 patterns, which after WWII belonged for a big part to FN.
This means that instead of being seated on the inner ring of the action like the M/98, the barrel is seated on the outside ring, like for the M/94.
Modern alloys permitted the use of a thin receiver (small ring) with high pressure rounds (.358 Norma have a MAP of 63 000 PSI).
I still have to see an "H" ring action showing signs of abuse... actually, I saw several, but all were modified to fit long cartridges (like the 300 H&H).
Slightly off-topic, but the Ross 1910 action was probably as strong as any ever built, perhaps even stronger than the Arisaka. The .280 is a big case it's been packed full of the strongest powders without blowing the action. Here's Herb Cox talking about how he packed about 69 grains of #14 powder into the case and only succeeded in blowing out the case bottom and the extractor. He then replaced the extractor, re-proofed the rifle and continued to use it; it's location is known today BTW. There are at least two known cases of .303 ammo being fired through .280 Rosses without injury or failure, in one case as many as 10 rounds of .303 reportedly.
Last edited:
I used to own a BSA Lightweight in .30-'06, the one with the muzzle break. It was one of two belonging to a couple, t'other being in .270. They were shooting together and she inadvertently chambered a .30-'06 round in her rifle.
Must have been a hard job closing the bolt, but she did it again! The 'smith that sold me the '06 said that he checked out the .270 and it was fine. The '06 was sold and a .270 bought to replace it in order to prevent a repeat. I got the benefit.
That was a very nice little Mauser variant and I regret parting with it.
Must have been a hard job closing the bolt, but she did it again! The 'smith that sold me the '06 said that he checked out the .270 and it was fine. The '06 was sold and a .270 bought to replace it in order to prevent a repeat. I got the benefit.
That was a very nice little Mauser variant and I regret parting with it.
The original question was WHY, and I think we must credit American propaganda with that.
In its quest for a new rifle to replace the already-obsolescent Krag, the US engineered a replacement in 1901 which was, essentially, a copy of the very latest Mauser, the 98. These were made in small numbers and removed when the final version, the 1903, was introduced. The 1903 essentially was a 98 although with a Krag firing-pin assembly and this rifle satisfied the US military requirements. The few 1901s were surplused quickly, showing up 40 years later in .303 calibre as the Bannerman Springfields, 100 of which were given to Great Britain in the desperate period of early WW2.
A whacking huge lawsuit ensued, being that Mauser/DWM were not happy with having their latest and best design virtually pirated from them. In the end, the US paid $200,000 for the patent rights with which to produce their 1903s legally. The world economy at that time recognised the US dollar as 1/20 of a Troy ounce of fine gold. The US therefore paid 10,000 ounces of fine gold for the rights to produce their rifle, which was based solidly on the 98 Mauser. Considering that today's price of gold is $1162.06US to the Troy ounce fine, this would mean a payment of $11,610,600 for the licence to use the Mauser 98 patents. This is not small change, nor is it to be ignored.
Paying THIS kind of money for a design..... and then modifying to US military standards..... the 1903 HAD to be the best rifle in the world. Politically, nothing else was possible.
Actually, the 1903 was in ways a flawed design; it earned its laurels as a range rifle (and it DID earn them, no mistake) although the very high standards of maintenance and tuning must have had at least a bit to do with that. The old practice of swapping barrels every 3000 rounds would have helped here although made partly necessary by the Pyro powder. In contrast, a Lee-Enfield barrel using Cordite Mark I still was in its prime at 3000.... and this improved a good bit with the introduction of Cordite MDT 5-2 in 1910.
The 1903 was never what one could call CHEAP or COMMON. It was a highly-tuned specialists' rifle which only really BECAME a good combat rifle with the introduction of the A3 version.... well after its replacement, the M-1, was in production. Supplies of 1903 rifles were supplemented 2 to 1 during the Great War by the "vastly-inferior British-designed" Model 1917 which likely was one of the BEST WW1 rifles actually to take the field.
But everybody KNEW that the 1903 was based strongly on the 98 so, when large supplies of surplus 98s hit the market, their prices were buoyed by the 1903 legend.... and so, almost a century later, the 98 still is considered to be the acme of perfection.
No doubt the 98 can be a wonderful rifle (NOBODY gets their hands on my 98AZ without my myopic eagle eye on them) but, if you want to take all the propaganda, nationalism and emotion out of the equation, there HAVE BEEN superior designs. As an example, I would urge you to look at a BUFFALO NEWTON (IF you can find one): a 98 ACTION with a Mark III ROSS BOLTHEAD.
One reason for the ubiquity of the 98 is simple: it was EASY TO PRODUCE, once you had the equipment. And good German equipment, used for producing the 98, was scattered about the globe in 1919/20 as the German State Arsenals of Danzig, Amberg, Spandau and Erfurt..... and the massive DWM plant in Berlin..... were stripped of their tooling..... which ended up in Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia and assorted other places around the map.
So there are the reasons: design, national pride, MONEY and the results of a war which nobody in their right mind wanted.
That's how I see it, anyway. Please don't start the flaming for a few minutes: this old man needs a few minutes, cane firmly in hand, to climb into his nice Nomex coveralls!
In its quest for a new rifle to replace the already-obsolescent Krag, the US engineered a replacement in 1901 which was, essentially, a copy of the very latest Mauser, the 98. These were made in small numbers and removed when the final version, the 1903, was introduced. The 1903 essentially was a 98 although with a Krag firing-pin assembly and this rifle satisfied the US military requirements. The few 1901s were surplused quickly, showing up 40 years later in .303 calibre as the Bannerman Springfields, 100 of which were given to Great Britain in the desperate period of early WW2.
A whacking huge lawsuit ensued, being that Mauser/DWM were not happy with having their latest and best design virtually pirated from them. In the end, the US paid $200,000 for the patent rights with which to produce their 1903s legally. The world economy at that time recognised the US dollar as 1/20 of a Troy ounce of fine gold. The US therefore paid 10,000 ounces of fine gold for the rights to produce their rifle, which was based solidly on the 98 Mauser. Considering that today's price of gold is $1162.06US to the Troy ounce fine, this would mean a payment of $11,610,600 for the licence to use the Mauser 98 patents. This is not small change, nor is it to be ignored.
Paying THIS kind of money for a design..... and then modifying to US military standards..... the 1903 HAD to be the best rifle in the world. Politically, nothing else was possible.
Actually, the 1903 was in ways a flawed design; it earned its laurels as a range rifle (and it DID earn them, no mistake) although the very high standards of maintenance and tuning must have had at least a bit to do with that. The old practice of swapping barrels every 3000 rounds would have helped here although made partly necessary by the Pyro powder. In contrast, a Lee-Enfield barrel using Cordite Mark I still was in its prime at 3000.... and this improved a good bit with the introduction of Cordite MDT 5-2 in 1910.
The 1903 was never what one could call CHEAP or COMMON. It was a highly-tuned specialists' rifle which only really BECAME a good combat rifle with the introduction of the A3 version.... well after its replacement, the M-1, was in production. Supplies of 1903 rifles were supplemented 2 to 1 during the Great War by the "vastly-inferior British-designed" Model 1917 which likely was one of the BEST WW1 rifles actually to take the field.
But everybody KNEW that the 1903 was based strongly on the 98 so, when large supplies of surplus 98s hit the market, their prices were buoyed by the 1903 legend.... and so, almost a century later, the 98 still is considered to be the acme of perfection.
No doubt the 98 can be a wonderful rifle (NOBODY gets their hands on my 98AZ without my myopic eagle eye on them) but, if you want to take all the propaganda, nationalism and emotion out of the equation, there HAVE BEEN superior designs. As an example, I would urge you to look at a BUFFALO NEWTON (IF you can find one): a 98 ACTION with a Mark III ROSS BOLTHEAD.
One reason for the ubiquity of the 98 is simple: it was EASY TO PRODUCE, once you had the equipment. And good German equipment, used for producing the 98, was scattered about the globe in 1919/20 as the German State Arsenals of Danzig, Amberg, Spandau and Erfurt..... and the massive DWM plant in Berlin..... were stripped of their tooling..... which ended up in Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia and assorted other places around the map.
So there are the reasons: design, national pride, MONEY and the results of a war which nobody in their right mind wanted.
That's how I see it, anyway. Please don't start the flaming for a few minutes: this old man needs a few minutes, cane firmly in hand, to climb into his nice Nomex coveralls!
Appreciate the history smellie. The tooling making its way around Europe really helped proliferate the 98. Having many nations fielding the design really boosted its legacy.
I rather like the 98 action. It's strong, simple enough and can be smooth with some work. My biggest complaint was always the sights on the 98 and its variants. It may just be my eyes but with any of the Mosin-Nagant variants I can hit a head sized target at 300 yards 9/10 times. I can not do that with the 98 sights. I can barely see the target. This is slightly less so with the roller coaster sights.
I rather like the 98 action. It's strong, simple enough and can be smooth with some work. My biggest complaint was always the sights on the 98 and its variants. It may just be my eyes but with any of the Mosin-Nagant variants I can hit a head sized target at 300 yards 9/10 times. I can not do that with the 98 sights. I can barely see the target. This is slightly less so with the roller coaster sights.
It's well documented that Germany knew the bolt gun was obsolete and began efforts to replace it but blew it with the G91. The US got it right with the Garand and the Soviets did a pretty good job with the SVT. The k98 remained the primary German infantry rifle (and built in massive numbers) because they failed in their development of a self loader for this reason and not necessarily do to any particularly great attributes.
milsurpo
milsurpo
MauserMike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
I've often thought the sights were definitely meant for 20 year-old eyes!
Smellie, what is it about the Kar98az that you like so much? I recently inherited one, have not shot it at the range yet. Erfurt 1916.
Smellie, what is it about the Kar98az that you like so much? I recently inherited one, have not shot it at the range yet. Erfurt 1916.
@ MAUSER MIKE:
It's just such a HANDY little beast, short enough, light enough, powerful enough: nothing to excess.
Mine is a 1914 Danzig with a long and only partly-deciphered history. Definitely War One, definitely Czechoslovakia in 1923, possibly Spain..... but who puts a leaping horse and a CIA monogram onto a Mauser?
I find it somewhat on the merciless side with JsS or SmE ammo but manageable and accurate with the proper 154-grain slug. I am slaughtering pieces of paper, not Tanks, so I don't need the anti-Tank loads.
The sights, I think, are the rifle's greatest weakness; it could have been so much better with the U-notch and square post of the SMLE. Five in the mag is just nice although, if I REALLY must face a screaming horde of invading Gophers, I do have an original 25-round mag for it.
I think the HANDINESS does it for me. Wonderful companion piece to an SMLE.... and not quite as heavy. I can really understand why the Sturmabteilungen favoured this short rifle over the standard Gewehr 98. For close-in and trench fighting, it was the best they had..... and it was good.
(Not as good as a Ross, of course: there is NOTHING as good as a Ross! Must keep up appearances, y'know!)
It's just such a HANDY little beast, short enough, light enough, powerful enough: nothing to excess.
Mine is a 1914 Danzig with a long and only partly-deciphered history. Definitely War One, definitely Czechoslovakia in 1923, possibly Spain..... but who puts a leaping horse and a CIA monogram onto a Mauser?
I find it somewhat on the merciless side with JsS or SmE ammo but manageable and accurate with the proper 154-grain slug. I am slaughtering pieces of paper, not Tanks, so I don't need the anti-Tank loads.
The sights, I think, are the rifle's greatest weakness; it could have been so much better with the U-notch and square post of the SMLE. Five in the mag is just nice although, if I REALLY must face a screaming horde of invading Gophers, I do have an original 25-round mag for it.
I think the HANDINESS does it for me. Wonderful companion piece to an SMLE.... and not quite as heavy. I can really understand why the Sturmabteilungen favoured this short rifle over the standard Gewehr 98. For close-in and trench fighting, it was the best they had..... and it was good.
(Not as good as a Ross, of course: there is NOTHING as good as a Ross! Must keep up appearances, y'know!)
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Personally I think we ask a bit much of this army issue rifle.
Designed for men (probably mostly younger eyes) of military age.
Plus it was not designed for long range bullseye target practice, it was designed to shoot at human targets.
Designed for men (probably mostly younger eyes) of military age.
Plus it was not designed for long range bullseye target practice, it was designed to shoot at human targets.
I have seen far too many sub-MOA groups out of military-issue surplus Mausers EVER to discount what one might do.
For good shooting you need a good RIFLE, a good SHOOTER and good AMMUNITION.
With a bit of attention, many of the RIFLES are good. With coaching, experience and practice, many SHOOTERS can become good, also. The weakest link in the chain is the AMMUNITION. People expect "new, fresh, Match-grade" performance out of 80-year-old ammunition which was mass-produced for machineguns in the first place. When they don't get RESULTS, obviously the RIFLE is to blame because it cannot give Camp Perry groups when it is fed garbage.
Handloading is the ONLY way.
For good shooting you need a good RIFLE, a good SHOOTER and good AMMUNITION.
With a bit of attention, many of the RIFLES are good. With coaching, experience and practice, many SHOOTERS can become good, also. The weakest link in the chain is the AMMUNITION. People expect "new, fresh, Match-grade" performance out of 80-year-old ammunition which was mass-produced for machineguns in the first place. When they don't get RESULTS, obviously the RIFLE is to blame because it cannot give Camp Perry groups when it is fed garbage.
Handloading is the ONLY way.
