zastava opinion
- Thread starter m1978
- Start date
- Location
- Western Manitoba
No cross bolts - certainly an option is to do a bit of routing and install U-shaped steel stirrup under and in front of the trigger - so that holds the stock together between trigger and magazine mortice - totally hidden - I think Weatherby still does that in their stocks? At same time, gives you a chance to inspect that thin bulkhead between trigger and magazine - not a place that normally gets viewed very often. Epoxy bedding at the recoil shoulder seems to deal with that ledge at front of the magazine - where the receiver recoil lug mates - Swede Mausers never had cross bolt there either, and a common problem area once that wood allowed to soak in gun oils for a decade or two, even just from 6.5x55 level of recoil.
Not sure yet, mine just shipped out so time will tell, but I'll be stripping it down to go over it in detail and determine the condition of the wood. 9.3x62mm isn't a recoil monster but it's not a lightweight, either. I may reinforce with some glass tape and epoxy if needed but I've not heard of the lack of crossbolt being an issue on these.
Warne Steel Bases with the confirming QD rings what I use.
I had to shimm the last I bought on the front base.
It was out 2/10 tenth mm on the clock low. (Mitotuyu gauge).
Other than that the extractor band was rubbing extremely...
I had to shimm the last I bought on the front base.
It was out 2/10 tenth mm on the clock low. (Mitotuyu gauge).
Other than that the extractor band was rubbing extremely...
Mine arrived this morning, opened the front door to find a rifle on my doorstep! Overall I'm very happy with it. It definitely needs a disassemble and detail clean and wood stock prep but otherwise it should be a solid hunter.
Update on this, I'm currently waiting for the epoxy to cure. The inside of the stock was pretty "meh", not sure how it would hold up to being hammered with recoil. The recoil lug itself is tiny and there was a decent gap between the tang of the stock and the action itself so I beefed it up a bit. So I skim-bedded it, we'll see how it goes, then detail clean the metalwork and oil up the stock.
Busy day in the garage for gun projects!
No, they aren't supposed to be the same. The M98 should be lower in the rear than the front - the rear scope base is taller to compensate for this. But with the scope bases in place, running a level over them shows the front base is a quarter inch lower than the rear. That's a scope wrecker, so I'll have to shim it up. I've tried 2 #45's along with a #46 and a #402 and it's consistent, so not an out-of-spec base.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
That is certainly a LOT of difference. I suspect I have installed at least a dozen sets of Weaver scope bases on various Mauser 98's that I have here - some commercial grinds and some home done milsurps - until reading your thread, I had thought that .020" was a lot of shim when using the #45 rear and the #46 front - and that was mostly to get the things tilted to "flat with each other" - was mostly due to poorly done finishing grinds that resulted in tilted top surfaces compared to receiver or bore centre line. I have found it "handy" to use calliper jaws from flat bottom of receiver to top flat of bases to confirm height. I have also used an action mandrel in a receiver contour fixture to verify heights, but most times was not worth the set-up fuss.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
I just checked on a Brazil 1908 receiver - recoil lug about .240" deep x about 1.060" wide. I think that is pretty "normal" mauser 98 dimension. Not certain that I followed your words, but in a properly bedded Mauser 98 there should be a gap between the wood inletting and the rear tip of the tang of the receiver. Should not fit tightly there, or the inevitable "crack" will occur.
The size of that recoil lug is what gave me concern about my Zastava in 458 Win Mag - that it did not have an auxiliary recoil lug on the barrel. The Win 70 in 375 H&H did, so at least Winchester thought it was needed. I did exchange posts with Phil Shoemaker on 24hourcampsite about how he did install a barrel recoil lug on his Mark X in 458 Win Mag, which, I believe, was the predecessor to the "modern" Zastava's. In a previous article describing his build, he had stated that the 458 Win Mag "known to break stocks" - why he felt the auxiliary lug was essential for his purposes.
Last edited:
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Bases same height front and back - I do not think I have ever seen a Mauser rifle - 93, 96 or 98 that did not have different height scope bases - front versus back. But I think there was "square bridge" - so blocks welded or soldered to both rear bridge and front receiver ring that used same height rings - so the base blocks must have been different heights - I have never handled one to know. But yes, top face of rear base needs to be "same height" as top face of front base, compared to centre line of bore, I think.
Using these Leupold bases on my Zastava's receiver front obviously higher than receiver rear windage adjustable no issues. https://www.leupold.com/std-mauser-fn-2-pc-gloss
Last edited:
I was going to go with these ones?
https://warnescopemounts.com/product/remington-799-matte/
Those Leupold bases look good too.
https://warnescopemounts.com/product/remington-799-matte/
Those Leupold bases look good too.
Zastava L KM70 = Rem 798 note front base thinner than rear base should work fine unless rear base windage adjustment needed. https://warnescopemounts.com/product/mauser-fn-matte/
So I just put 10 rounds through it today. I like to keep notes as I'm going through the motions:
1: LOP is long, a hair over 14.5". Nice on a Sporting shotgun, but I prefer shorter for hunting. I may not mount a scope though, because of #2.
2: Sights appear to be good, which is nice because I've now tried 3 different sets of bases and they are simply waaay off, there is no way the receiver is to spec if two sets of Weaver and a set of Leupold bases don't line up quite right.
3: Safety doesn't work. It did out of the box, but after a few rounds I tried it out and nope, won't click over.
4: Trigger is BRUTAL. There's two noticeable catches in the trigger pull and it must be a good 7 pounds or so. On the flip side, it's adjustable. And since the gun is a "beater" to me, I'll probably pull it apart and tinker with it and smooth some bits and pieces out.
5: Action is rough, the bolt stroke won't always come back all the way unless you pull the bolt back firmly and to the right for the extractor to slide through the bolt. Straight back causes it to hang up.
6: Finicky to feed, it mangled 4 out of 10 case mouths bad enough that they went into the discard pile. If the rounds aren't sitting perfectly flush, the bolt won't strip them out of the stack.
7: Failed to feed, one round was stripped off the stack and got bound up between the bolt raceway and feed ramp
8: The stock is trash - the checkering is pressed in and the wood quality is poor, even after several coats of tung oil rubbed into the stock (4, currently) it's very dry. On the other hand, it took the bedding compound nicely.
On the other hand:
1: Even though the stock is long, I like the ergonomics.
2: Recoil is back-and-up and fairly manageable even with the sh!t recoil pad.
3: Once you clean the storage/shipping grease off, the finish on the metalwork is fine and cleans up nice with just a drop of oil on a rag.
4: The barrel looks really great. The crown is nice, the chamber is to spec, the sights are aligned, and the rifling is well done.
5: I managed 3 shots in 2" at 50 meters with iron sights. With Norma Alaska 285gr hunting ammo. That's bear-over-baits-accurate and better than I've shot a heavy-kicker with irons in a long time.
6: It's a beater, not a prized possession, so I'm not fussed about tinkering with it to get it to do whatever I want.
That said, for a new hunter/shooter I would NOT recommend it over something like a Winchester XPR, Savage Axis, Ruger American, and definitely not over a Tikka T3x or a Weatherby Vanguard. Not in a million years. That list of negatives would be a deal-breaker if I didn't already have a half dozen other rifles capable of taking the same game as the Zastava. As a beater chucking huge bullets at moderate velocities it's fine, but I can find Vanguards on the shelf for less than $100 more that I would trust to make once-in-a-lifetime shots that I would never try with this particular rifle.
So after all that, that is my opinion of the Zastava. At least this one.
1: LOP is long, a hair over 14.5". Nice on a Sporting shotgun, but I prefer shorter for hunting. I may not mount a scope though, because of #2.
2: Sights appear to be good, which is nice because I've now tried 3 different sets of bases and they are simply waaay off, there is no way the receiver is to spec if two sets of Weaver and a set of Leupold bases don't line up quite right.
3: Safety doesn't work. It did out of the box, but after a few rounds I tried it out and nope, won't click over.
4: Trigger is BRUTAL. There's two noticeable catches in the trigger pull and it must be a good 7 pounds or so. On the flip side, it's adjustable. And since the gun is a "beater" to me, I'll probably pull it apart and tinker with it and smooth some bits and pieces out.
5: Action is rough, the bolt stroke won't always come back all the way unless you pull the bolt back firmly and to the right for the extractor to slide through the bolt. Straight back causes it to hang up.
6: Finicky to feed, it mangled 4 out of 10 case mouths bad enough that they went into the discard pile. If the rounds aren't sitting perfectly flush, the bolt won't strip them out of the stack.
7: Failed to feed, one round was stripped off the stack and got bound up between the bolt raceway and feed ramp
8: The stock is trash - the checkering is pressed in and the wood quality is poor, even after several coats of tung oil rubbed into the stock (4, currently) it's very dry. On the other hand, it took the bedding compound nicely.
On the other hand:
1: Even though the stock is long, I like the ergonomics.
2: Recoil is back-and-up and fairly manageable even with the sh!t recoil pad.
3: Once you clean the storage/shipping grease off, the finish on the metalwork is fine and cleans up nice with just a drop of oil on a rag.
4: The barrel looks really great. The crown is nice, the chamber is to spec, the sights are aligned, and the rifling is well done.
5: I managed 3 shots in 2" at 50 meters with iron sights. With Norma Alaska 285gr hunting ammo. That's bear-over-baits-accurate and better than I've shot a heavy-kicker with irons in a long time.
6: It's a beater, not a prized possession, so I'm not fussed about tinkering with it to get it to do whatever I want.
That said, for a new hunter/shooter I would NOT recommend it over something like a Winchester XPR, Savage Axis, Ruger American, and definitely not over a Tikka T3x or a Weatherby Vanguard. Not in a million years. That list of negatives would be a deal-breaker if I didn't already have a half dozen other rifles capable of taking the same game as the Zastava. As a beater chucking huge bullets at moderate velocities it's fine, but I can find Vanguards on the shelf for less than $100 more that I would trust to make once-in-a-lifetime shots that I would never try with this particular rifle.
So after all that, that is my opinion of the Zastava. At least this one.
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
Same here. I have a pair, 9.3x62 and 7x57, both full wood models. Cycling the actions, granted, while they are not the smoothest, they are gradually improving. I did have a gunsmith friend cut down the L.O.P. on them but, that's the only work/repair/alteration I've had done.
