- Thread starter Boticum
- Start date
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
Depends on who you ask and what aspects of it you are comparing. If you are looking for a rifle for today, I would choose the Rem 700. If you only care from a historical prespective, then read as much as you can and let us know what you concluded.
Depends on who you ask and what aspects of it you are comparing. If you are looking for a rifle for today, I would choose the Rem 700. If you only care from a historical prespective, then read as much as you can and let us know what you concluded.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
Boticum,
The biggest two differences are the type of extraction, and obviously, the quality of steel being used.
The Mauser '98 has a "controlled round feed". Which means the case is controlled from magazine to chamber. This is accomplished by a bar that sits alongside the bolt body and has a 90 deg. bend slightly around the face of the bolt. The 90 deg. face goes into the rim of the brass. As the bolt pushes the round forward the head of the case pops up out of the magazine where there has always been positive control of the case.
The Rem 700 extractor does not engage the head of the case until it has been solidly pushed into the chamber. There is a point when the case is not controlled by anything other than gravity.
Initially it would seem obvious that the first would be the choice. However, when you boil it down, the the CRF of the Mauser can put side pressure on the case as it goes in. This can affect extreme accuracy. The Rem 700 on the other hand, can can be fed by simply laying a case on the feed tray giving no adverse side pressure while chambering a round. Certain model Mauser 98's can do this but it is rough on cases. Which can also have an effect on accuracy. (There is sometimes a ding on the rim from doing this)
So, if you have modern strong steel and your Mauser feeds your chosen sniper round correctly, that would be my choice. Most Mauser's have had to be reworked to have this accuracy. The Rem 700 though is pretty much ready to shoot as it comes. That is providing it's a heavy barreled model with the necessary accuracy enhancements already done to it. Either way it takes a lot work to really accurize a rifle well.
Boticum,
The biggest two differences are the type of extraction, and obviously, the quality of steel being used.
The Mauser '98 has a "controlled round feed". Which means the case is controlled from magazine to chamber. This is accomplished by a bar that sits alongside the bolt body and has a 90 deg. bend slightly around the face of the bolt. The 90 deg. face goes into the rim of the brass. As the bolt pushes the round forward the head of the case pops up out of the magazine where there has always been positive control of the case.
The Rem 700 extractor does not engage the head of the case until it has been solidly pushed into the chamber. There is a point when the case is not controlled by anything other than gravity.
Initially it would seem obvious that the first would be the choice. However, when you boil it down, the the CRF of the Mauser can put side pressure on the case as it goes in. This can affect extreme accuracy. The Rem 700 on the other hand, can can be fed by simply laying a case on the feed tray giving no adverse side pressure while chambering a round. Certain model Mauser 98's can do this but it is rough on cases. Which can also have an effect on accuracy. (There is sometimes a ding on the rim from doing this)
So, if you have modern strong steel and your Mauser feeds your chosen sniper round correctly, that would be my choice. Most Mauser's have had to be reworked to have this accuracy. The Rem 700 though is pretty much ready to shoot as it comes. That is providing it's a heavy barreled model with the necessary accuracy enhancements already done to it. Either way it takes a lot work to really accurize a rifle well.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
Boticum,
The Mauser 98 was the "best" sniper rifle action at about the same time as the Stutz Bearcat was the best automobile.
The current Winchester Model 70 (and it's FNC variants) is a copy, sharing many of the same features pioneered by the M98.
M98 variants will be around as long a bolt actions are viable weapons systems. But time and technology has passed the original Oberndorf M98 by.
And what is the Remington Model 700? Just a variant of the M98, with design features more suitable to mass manufacturing. The Model 700's and it's variants best features? It's cylindrical action, and fast lock time . It's these two small design changes make for a superior platform to build a precision rifle.
The M98 can be built into a "prettier rifle". But if tactical accuracy is your game, the Model 700 and it's close copies currently have the market cornered.
But I will say that Sako/Tikka TRG's and AI's are making serious inroads into that arena.
IMHO,
Bob
Boticum,
The Mauser 98 was the "best" sniper rifle action at about the same time as the Stutz Bearcat was the best automobile.
The current Winchester Model 70 (and it's FNC variants) is a copy, sharing many of the same features pioneered by the M98.
M98 variants will be around as long a bolt actions are viable weapons systems. But time and technology has passed the original Oberndorf M98 by.
And what is the Remington Model 700? Just a variant of the M98, with design features more suitable to mass manufacturing. The Model 700's and it's variants best features? It's cylindrical action, and fast lock time . It's these two small design changes make for a superior platform to build a precision rifle.
The M98 can be built into a "prettier rifle". But if tactical accuracy is your game, the Model 700 and it's close copies currently have the market cornered.
But I will say that Sako/Tikka TRG's and AI's are making serious inroads into that arena.
IMHO,
Bob
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
I'm somehow missing why a cylindrical action is better than a squared action and an integral recoil lug is not as good as separate recoil lug?
Anybody got any thoughts on that? Serious question, not sarcastic.
I'm somehow missing why a cylindrical action is better than a squared action and an integral recoil lug is not as good as separate recoil lug?
Anybody got any thoughts on that? Serious question, not sarcastic.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
Of the 2 you askeed about, the 700. However If I were chosing a sniper rifle it would be a TRG 22/42 or an AIAW over the 700.
Of the 2 you askeed about, the 700. However If I were chosing a sniper rifle it would be a TRG 22/42 or an AIAW over the 700.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
A cylindrical action is easier to true.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm somehow missing why a cylindrical action is better than a squared action and an integral recoil lug is not as good as separate recoil lug?
Anybody got any thoughts on that? Serious question, not sarcastic. </div></div>
A cylindrical action is easier to true.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm somehow missing why a cylindrical action is better than a squared action and an integral recoil lug is not as good as separate recoil lug?
Anybody got any thoughts on that? Serious question, not sarcastic. </div></div>
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
Sandwarrior - it is not so much a matter of "better" as it is advances in manufacturing techniques. Prior to CNC, almost all of the machining that had to be done to a bar of steel to turn it into an M98 Mauser action was done by craftsmen operating lathes and mills and so forth. Of course, unless you are making rifles for war, the cost of production for such a product goes up dramatically once peace breaks out. The more of the process that can be automated - or, the easier the operations are to perform to attain the same level of function with less individual attention of a human during the process - the better.
Cylinders of steel are easier and cheaper to set up in a lathe or other machine and work on. A recoil lug captured between the barrel and receiver face is cheaper to manufacture and assemble than the multitude of cuts it takes to make an action with an integral lug.
CNC has changed much of this because it can all be programmed instead of requiring constantly changing the set-up and moving back and forth between different machines. Still, the basic Remington 700 design IS easy to manufacture and it WORKS. Perhaps this is why so many custom action makers are cloning it.
Which is "better" is a Ginger vs Mary Ann question - they both will serve the desired purpose. As big a fan as I am of CRF and external extractors, I cannot say a Mauser/Win M70 has any sort of edge over a M700-based design.
Now if Dave Kiff would make a M70 bolt and Glen Harrison would make a cylindrical receiver that would use said bolt..., well then - that would be something.
Sandwarrior - it is not so much a matter of "better" as it is advances in manufacturing techniques. Prior to CNC, almost all of the machining that had to be done to a bar of steel to turn it into an M98 Mauser action was done by craftsmen operating lathes and mills and so forth. Of course, unless you are making rifles for war, the cost of production for such a product goes up dramatically once peace breaks out. The more of the process that can be automated - or, the easier the operations are to perform to attain the same level of function with less individual attention of a human during the process - the better.
Cylinders of steel are easier and cheaper to set up in a lathe or other machine and work on. A recoil lug captured between the barrel and receiver face is cheaper to manufacture and assemble than the multitude of cuts it takes to make an action with an integral lug.
CNC has changed much of this because it can all be programmed instead of requiring constantly changing the set-up and moving back and forth between different machines. Still, the basic Remington 700 design IS easy to manufacture and it WORKS. Perhaps this is why so many custom action makers are cloning it.
Which is "better" is a Ginger vs Mary Ann question - they both will serve the desired purpose. As big a fan as I am of CRF and external extractors, I cannot say a Mauser/Win M70 has any sort of edge over a M700-based design.
Now if Dave Kiff would make a M70 bolt and Glen Harrison would make a cylindrical receiver that would use said bolt..., well then - that would be something.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
The cyclindrical action can be argued that you have better symmetry in certain areas of the receiver for load paths. I don't necessarily agree that a round receiver is better than a prismatic receiver or visa versa.
However, the integral recoil lug vs. a sandwhich style lug does present some very positive about the integral one. Namely making sure that the recoil lug alignment is the same each time the barrel is changed/checked is a priority. Many of the top level actions today use integral recoil lugs: Surgeon and Accuracy International just to name 2.
The mass production aspect of a sandwhiched recoil lug is better than the integral receiver, especially if you're not using a prismatic receiver but instead a round receiver.
One of the big set-backs for round receivers is that a double stack magazine requires a huge amount of the receiver to be cut away from the magazine port and compromises the already "soft" stiffness in the middle portion of the receivers. With a prismatic receiver that effect can be reduced significantly.
The cyclindrical action can be argued that you have better symmetry in certain areas of the receiver for load paths. I don't necessarily agree that a round receiver is better than a prismatic receiver or visa versa.
However, the integral recoil lug vs. a sandwhich style lug does present some very positive about the integral one. Namely making sure that the recoil lug alignment is the same each time the barrel is changed/checked is a priority. Many of the top level actions today use integral recoil lugs: Surgeon and Accuracy International just to name 2.
The mass production aspect of a sandwhiched recoil lug is better than the integral receiver, especially if you're not using a prismatic receiver but instead a round receiver.
One of the big set-backs for round receivers is that a double stack magazine requires a huge amount of the receiver to be cut away from the magazine port and compromises the already "soft" stiffness in the middle portion of the receivers. With a prismatic receiver that effect can be reduced significantly.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
Interesting, pluses and minuses still on both sides.
I can see where from a mass production standpoint one bar of steel cut to length many times and each forming one receiver is definitely faster than doing it the way the Mauser's were built. And since it works well, stick with it. Although I agree with bohem that a double stack takes a little of the stiffness out of the Rem. A single stack feeding a 700 would be the way to go then for mass production.
And FWIW, while I do like the CRF, I did count it as a detractor, not a plus. My personal choice is the CPRF found on my WSM, WSSM model 70's. It's like a Sako extractor except the bolt face doesn't have the ring around the bottom half, just to the top. That way the case can slide up just like a Mauser or it can be laid in the tray just like a 700. Again, geometry of the inner rails and feed tray along with the feed ramp make that a viable thing. If the geometry was off then it could decrease accuracy immensely.
Interesting, pluses and minuses still on both sides.
I can see where from a mass production standpoint one bar of steel cut to length many times and each forming one receiver is definitely faster than doing it the way the Mauser's were built. And since it works well, stick with it. Although I agree with bohem that a double stack takes a little of the stiffness out of the Rem. A single stack feeding a 700 would be the way to go then for mass production.
And FWIW, while I do like the CRF, I did count it as a detractor, not a plus. My personal choice is the CPRF found on my WSM, WSSM model 70's. It's like a Sako extractor except the bolt face doesn't have the ring around the bottom half, just to the top. That way the case can slide up just like a Mauser or it can be laid in the tray just like a 700. Again, geometry of the inner rails and feed tray along with the feed ramp make that a viable thing. If the geometry was off then it could decrease accuracy immensely.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
round relievers are easier, and cheaper, for the manufacturer to make.
There's no advantage to them.
And to reply to the aftermarket companies copying the 700 action;
True, aftermarket companies are copying the 700 action for their own versions, however they aren't copying the low quality portions like multi-piece bolts, and non-integral recoil lugs...
Who here *honestly* believes that a multi-piece bolt is better than a 1 piece forged bolt?
Am i the only person who's disappointed when companies release products with *glaringly* clear shortcuts in manufacture, and the industry mass proclaim it as "innovation"?
round relievers are easier, and cheaper, for the manufacturer to make.
There's no advantage to them.
And to reply to the aftermarket companies copying the 700 action;
True, aftermarket companies are copying the 700 action for their own versions, however they aren't copying the low quality portions like multi-piece bolts, and non-integral recoil lugs...
Who here *honestly* believes that a multi-piece bolt is better than a 1 piece forged bolt?
Am i the only person who's disappointed when companies release products with *glaringly* clear shortcuts in manufacture, and the industry mass proclaim it as "innovation"?
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
Interesting comparison to make.
I have these two:
byf 41 with Zeiss ZF39 Zielvier (x4)
GAP .308 (on trued Remington 700SA) with MST100 (x10)
Whilst the Mauser action is as tough as old boots and the Remington can be a little tempramental - If you're just looking for an easily obtainable, cost effective action to build a rifle on I would have no hesitation in recommending the 700SA as the basis for a "precision rifle" above and beyond the Mauser....if only because they are still in production as opposed to being refurbished old stock.
Why?
In it's original configuration the Mauser has a bitch of a trigger - even with modern trigger (such as the Huber Concept I have fitted to the 98k) the pull is inconsistent. The bolt is "agricultural" compared to say an Enfield of the same period. The best I can manage with 200gr SMK bullets is between 1.5 and 2 MOA groups. Historically a very interesting rifle and glad I've got it but....
My GAP M40A1 tribute will pull 0.4 MOA groups (if I do my bit) all day on factory FGMM 175SMK's (this is a comment on my shooting, the rifle is capable of much better). The range of options and smiths working up fantstic custom rifles on this platform far outweigh those working on old Mauser actions. In addition, modern materials and engineering tolerances probaly help a great deal in the overall result.
If you want to buy a dedicated "sniper rifle" as opposed to a platform based on a modern sporting rifle (Rem 700) or 70+ year old battle rifle (Mauser 98k) I'd get this one:
I've had it a long time now - still puts a smile on my face and I can't see any reason why I'd get rid of it. For me it is perfect. I get similar results to my GAP using FGMM 168SMK (0.4 MOA groups).
The AW is built like a tank, has a great trigger out of the box and keeps right on going where others stumble.
Interesting comparison to make.
I have these two:
byf 41 with Zeiss ZF39 Zielvier (x4)
GAP .308 (on trued Remington 700SA) with MST100 (x10)
Whilst the Mauser action is as tough as old boots and the Remington can be a little tempramental - If you're just looking for an easily obtainable, cost effective action to build a rifle on I would have no hesitation in recommending the 700SA as the basis for a "precision rifle" above and beyond the Mauser....if only because they are still in production as opposed to being refurbished old stock.
Why?
In it's original configuration the Mauser has a bitch of a trigger - even with modern trigger (such as the Huber Concept I have fitted to the 98k) the pull is inconsistent. The bolt is "agricultural" compared to say an Enfield of the same period. The best I can manage with 200gr SMK bullets is between 1.5 and 2 MOA groups. Historically a very interesting rifle and glad I've got it but....
My GAP M40A1 tribute will pull 0.4 MOA groups (if I do my bit) all day on factory FGMM 175SMK's (this is a comment on my shooting, the rifle is capable of much better). The range of options and smiths working up fantstic custom rifles on this platform far outweigh those working on old Mauser actions. In addition, modern materials and engineering tolerances probaly help a great deal in the overall result.
If you want to buy a dedicated "sniper rifle" as opposed to a platform based on a modern sporting rifle (Rem 700) or 70+ year old battle rifle (Mauser 98k) I'd get this one:
I've had it a long time now - still puts a smile on my face and I can't see any reason why I'd get rid of it. For me it is perfect. I get similar results to my GAP using FGMM 168SMK (0.4 MOA groups).
The AW is built like a tank, has a great trigger out of the box and keeps right on going where others stumble.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
your asking if Just Juice apple juice is better than Coca Cola when it comes to ordering a coffee.
Also are you talking about the actual Mauser K98 used in the war(s) or Mauser 98 action in general? And are you talking a current US Army/USMC M24/M40 rifle or a tuned GAP?
All this info will be very helpful to answer your question.
~~~~~
your asking if Just Juice apple juice is better than Coca Cola when it comes to ordering a coffee.
Also are you talking about the actual Mauser K98 used in the war(s) or Mauser 98 action in general? And are you talking a current US Army/USMC M24/M40 rifle or a tuned GAP?
All this info will be very helpful to answer your question.
~~~~~
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
Mauser 98 action is a good strong action, but there's a lot more choice for parts for a rem 700.
They're both good actions but i think it's more about everything you attach to it.
But then again i'm building a Mauser.
Mauser 98 action is a good strong action, but there's a lot more choice for parts for a rem 700.
They're both good actions but i think it's more about everything you attach to it.
But then again i'm building a Mauser.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
I will cut you some slack since you are from Sweden and I realize english is not your first language. However I will say that in your neck of the woods you would do good to look at at Sako TRG or AI AW. They are both excellent rifles.
You said "best" not "affordable". Neither the Remington nor the Mauser are "best" at anything they are both compromises.
Another suggestion might be to not worry about what the best "Sniper Rifle" is unless you are in a position where you need to engage human targets from concealment in support of combat operations. Instead identify what it is you will be doing with the rifle and select the best choice balancing your budget and needs.
I will cut you some slack since you are from Sweden and I realize english is not your first language. However I will say that in your neck of the woods you would do good to look at at Sako TRG or AI AW. They are both excellent rifles.
You said "best" not "affordable". Neither the Remington nor the Mauser are "best" at anything they are both compromises.
Another suggestion might be to not worry about what the best "Sniper Rifle" is unless you are in a position where you need to engage human targets from concealment in support of combat operations. Instead identify what it is you will be doing with the rifle and select the best choice balancing your budget and needs.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will cut you some slack since you are from Sweden and I realize english is not your first language. However I will say that in your neck of the woods you would do good to look at at Sako TRG or AI AW. They are both excellent rifles.
You said "best" not "affordable". Neither the Remington nor the Mauser are "best" at anything they are both compromises.
Another suggestion might be to not worry about what the best "Sniper Rifle" is unless you are in a position where you need to engage human targets from concealment in support of combat operations. Instead identify what it is you will be doing with the rifle and select the best choice balancing your budget and needs.</div></div>
Well, I'll disagree with you. The Mauser is flat out the best dangerous game rifle ever made. Far and away better than the Rem 700. Of which it's heritage, and the Win 70's (any other front lug rifle as well) comes from. Granted some of the shortcuts have actually been bonuses when seen from a need standpoint. Particularly tactical precision shooting.
But, when you look at it the Best Rem 700 is about equal to the best current Mauser production precision rifle the CZ700/750. I've not shot an AI or even handled one. But my understanding is it's a beefed up 700 (Mauser) type action. The TRG is the same. A little closer in lineage to the Mauser than the 700 but pretty much the same idea.
Now one thing they did there with the TRG is beef up the action by closing over the top. Or not taking the full cut out of the top. That adds strength. But the basic premise is still the same.
I will say though that all this comes to one point. What is the best you can get out there right now? TRG, AI one of the custom actions such as Bat, Surgeon, even Savage precision. The top cut out isn't made so you have more material to stiffen the action. The bolt guide on the savage floats but not the lugs. The bolt handle can be changed to a style you want, without welding or soldering. They've done pretty good at Bisley. And, I've had great success with mine.
But, there's one thing you can't avoid, and that's paying a high cost to have it all trued and put together right. Whether you buy it in pieces or all together like the TRG or AI. It's going to cost you some serious money to have it shoot super consistent. And feeding it the right stuff?....same story all over again. Even reloading for super accuracy gets a little spendy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will cut you some slack since you are from Sweden and I realize english is not your first language. However I will say that in your neck of the woods you would do good to look at at Sako TRG or AI AW. They are both excellent rifles.
You said "best" not "affordable". Neither the Remington nor the Mauser are "best" at anything they are both compromises.
Another suggestion might be to not worry about what the best "Sniper Rifle" is unless you are in a position where you need to engage human targets from concealment in support of combat operations. Instead identify what it is you will be doing with the rifle and select the best choice balancing your budget and needs.</div></div>
Well, I'll disagree with you. The Mauser is flat out the best dangerous game rifle ever made. Far and away better than the Rem 700. Of which it's heritage, and the Win 70's (any other front lug rifle as well) comes from. Granted some of the shortcuts have actually been bonuses when seen from a need standpoint. Particularly tactical precision shooting.
But, when you look at it the Best Rem 700 is about equal to the best current Mauser production precision rifle the CZ700/750. I've not shot an AI or even handled one. But my understanding is it's a beefed up 700 (Mauser) type action. The TRG is the same. A little closer in lineage to the Mauser than the 700 but pretty much the same idea.
Now one thing they did there with the TRG is beef up the action by closing over the top. Or not taking the full cut out of the top. That adds strength. But the basic premise is still the same.
I will say though that all this comes to one point. What is the best you can get out there right now? TRG, AI one of the custom actions such as Bat, Surgeon, even Savage precision. The top cut out isn't made so you have more material to stiffen the action. The bolt guide on the savage floats but not the lugs. The bolt handle can be changed to a style you want, without welding or soldering. They've done pretty good at Bisley. And, I've had great success with mine.
But, there's one thing you can't avoid, and that's paying a high cost to have it all trued and put together right. Whether you buy it in pieces or all together like the TRG or AI. It's going to cost you some serious money to have it shoot super consistent. And feeding it the right stuff?....same story all over again. Even reloading for super accuracy gets a little spendy.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
I have precision rifles built on both actions and the accuracy is nearly identical. Having said that, I also would not hesitate to recommend going with a R700 style action over the 98 Mauser. It simply gives you more options to work with, stocks, triggers, scope bases, etc. IMO, it is the better platform for that reason and I believe it to be more ridged than a mauser as well.
I have precision rifles built on both actions and the accuracy is nearly identical. Having said that, I also would not hesitate to recommend going with a R700 style action over the 98 Mauser. It simply gives you more options to work with, stocks, triggers, scope bases, etc. IMO, it is the better platform for that reason and I believe it to be more ridged than a mauser as well.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mdesign</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have precision rifles built on both actions and the accuracy is nearly identical. Having said that, I also would not hesitate to recommend going with a R700 style action over the 98 Mauser. It simply gives you more options to work with, stocks, triggers, scope bases, etc. IMO, it is the better platform for that reason and I believe it to be more ridged than a mauser as well.</div></div>
I think you reiterate a point well made. If you get down to the best smith you can find to put it all together that's one major thing. Even though I don't believe the Rem 700 is stiffer. But That's the machining end and it has to be done right. Without a decent stock (which there are good ones but not all styles), trigger, (many good one's for Mausers as well as 700's) bases (just recently coming on the market more availble) and other accessories that help with accuracy. You have to have a smith that is the same way. A guy who believes in micro-machining and not just making the rifle look good.
Big note here: I can't get a MCMillan style stock like this right now:
http://tinyurl.com/28qflxm
I've heard Choate is going to do it. But I haven't seen them put it up on their website yet.
I'll agree, not getting a decent style tactical stock makes it difficult to want a Mauser action for that purpose.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mdesign</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have precision rifles built on both actions and the accuracy is nearly identical. Having said that, I also would not hesitate to recommend going with a R700 style action over the 98 Mauser. It simply gives you more options to work with, stocks, triggers, scope bases, etc. IMO, it is the better platform for that reason and I believe it to be more ridged than a mauser as well.</div></div>
I think you reiterate a point well made. If you get down to the best smith you can find to put it all together that's one major thing. Even though I don't believe the Rem 700 is stiffer. But That's the machining end and it has to be done right. Without a decent stock (which there are good ones but not all styles), trigger, (many good one's for Mausers as well as 700's) bases (just recently coming on the market more availble) and other accessories that help with accuracy. You have to have a smith that is the same way. A guy who believes in micro-machining and not just making the rifle look good.
Big note here: I can't get a MCMillan style stock like this right now:
http://tinyurl.com/28qflxm
I've heard Choate is going to do it. But I haven't seen them put it up on their website yet.
I'll agree, not getting a decent style tactical stock makes it difficult to want a Mauser action for that purpose.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
I would not swear for sure to the rigidity question but that long skinny rear tang on the Mauser requires careful bedding. Seen more than one not done well and they are fairly flexible.
I would not swear for sure to the rigidity question but that long skinny rear tang on the Mauser requires careful bedding. Seen more than one not done well and they are fairly flexible.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Boticum</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is the Mauser 98 a "better" sniperrifle than the Remington 700, or is it the other way around??
I have read that the Mauser is the best sniperrifle in the world, but I have also read the same thing about the Remington... </div></div>
Age old question...
The Mauser and its controlled feed clones (Springfield, Enfield, Winchester M70, etc.) will feed a round with the gun tilted to one side, and even nearly upside down- as stated previously by other replies, it is a controlled feed design, the extractor grabs the cartridge rim, and the bottom of the bolt face is machined open so the case head slides up into the bolt face and is held by the extractor hook, as it goes into the chamber. The Mauser also has an extractor that is very strong if not overbuilt, another good trait.
The Remington is a push feed, the cartridge just rattles along ahead of the bolt until it is fully chambered- the extractor on the M700 is small and weaker looking compared to the M98, and the ejector on the M700 is a plunger type located inside the bolt face.
The Remington is a stronger design structurally, in that the bolt face is not machined open on the bottom, but instead has a ring of steel around the edge, where the cartridge case head fits inside when the bolt it closed. Therefore the case head is fully surrounded by a ring of steel of the bolt.
(interesting sidenote- the Weatherby Mark V with its "3 rings of steel" design, is stronger than either M700 or M98, for that matter)
The Remington is definitely stronger than the later Mauser clones, such as those made by FN during the 1950's, that used "H" type receiver slot machining techniques, as compared to the earlier Mauser "C" type receiver.
If you do your homework on this topic, read "Bolt Action Rifles" by de Haas, the Remington 700 section states it was the strongest bolt action in existence when it was first released- and in torture tests against the best milsurp actions of the time, the Springfield, Mauser, and Enfield actions failed in that order, and the Remington was still going strong. At that time the Remington was called the model 721/722, but it was the same action as the model 700 we have today.
(interesting sidenote #2 - the Enfield finished stronger than the Mauser- I also have an Enfield Eddystone, and the action has more meat around the chamber and receiver than a Mauser, and will accept the long belted magnum rechamberings- not recommended for a M98- and where would a Jap Type 38 or Type 99 place ?)
As previously stated, the lock time on the 700 is quicker than the old M98 Mauser- but that can be sped up with a lighter firing pin, or stronger spring.
The Mauser appears to be a more elegant looking rifle than the Remington- and the Mauser has a more colorful history, being a standard issued arm of many armies during WWI and WWII, and the rifle that set the standard for others to follow. The fact it was used by the Hitler's Nazi forces during WWII gives it even more collector status- and the Germans are known for being premier gunmakers.
The Mausers of the 1900-1944 era made by FN/Belgium and Germany are of very high quality, I've owned at least a dozen. They have more of a hand made look and feel, than a modern Remington. The Remington looks like something that rolled off an assembly line and made mostly with programmed machinery, rather than hand crafted. The Mauser just has more history and a higher degree of collectible status, than a M700.
Finally, a Remington you sort of just hunt with, or target shoot. A vintage pre-1945 Mauser does all that, but also gives a certain satisfaction to just look at, work the action, snap the trigger/firing pin, listen to- and show to friends as a conversation piece. It's a piece of history, especially if it has Nazi markings on it- and is a remarkable design milestone that many copied. The Remington 700 just doesn't have the same pedigree, even though it's more modern, stronger, and more accurate out of the box most times. (yet I had a 1909 German-made Argentine 7.65 x 53 that would shoot as good as any M700) Sort of like comparing a 1957 Ferrari to a 2010 Mustang- the Mustang may be faster now, but the Ferrari doesn't have to be, it's at another historical level.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Boticum</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is the Mauser 98 a "better" sniperrifle than the Remington 700, or is it the other way around??
I have read that the Mauser is the best sniperrifle in the world, but I have also read the same thing about the Remington... </div></div>
Age old question...
The Mauser and its controlled feed clones (Springfield, Enfield, Winchester M70, etc.) will feed a round with the gun tilted to one side, and even nearly upside down- as stated previously by other replies, it is a controlled feed design, the extractor grabs the cartridge rim, and the bottom of the bolt face is machined open so the case head slides up into the bolt face and is held by the extractor hook, as it goes into the chamber. The Mauser also has an extractor that is very strong if not overbuilt, another good trait.
The Remington is a push feed, the cartridge just rattles along ahead of the bolt until it is fully chambered- the extractor on the M700 is small and weaker looking compared to the M98, and the ejector on the M700 is a plunger type located inside the bolt face.
The Remington is a stronger design structurally, in that the bolt face is not machined open on the bottom, but instead has a ring of steel around the edge, where the cartridge case head fits inside when the bolt it closed. Therefore the case head is fully surrounded by a ring of steel of the bolt.
(interesting sidenote- the Weatherby Mark V with its "3 rings of steel" design, is stronger than either M700 or M98, for that matter)
The Remington is definitely stronger than the later Mauser clones, such as those made by FN during the 1950's, that used "H" type receiver slot machining techniques, as compared to the earlier Mauser "C" type receiver.
If you do your homework on this topic, read "Bolt Action Rifles" by de Haas, the Remington 700 section states it was the strongest bolt action in existence when it was first released- and in torture tests against the best milsurp actions of the time, the Springfield, Mauser, and Enfield actions failed in that order, and the Remington was still going strong. At that time the Remington was called the model 721/722, but it was the same action as the model 700 we have today.
(interesting sidenote #2 - the Enfield finished stronger than the Mauser- I also have an Enfield Eddystone, and the action has more meat around the chamber and receiver than a Mauser, and will accept the long belted magnum rechamberings- not recommended for a M98- and where would a Jap Type 38 or Type 99 place ?)
As previously stated, the lock time on the 700 is quicker than the old M98 Mauser- but that can be sped up with a lighter firing pin, or stronger spring.
The Mauser appears to be a more elegant looking rifle than the Remington- and the Mauser has a more colorful history, being a standard issued arm of many armies during WWI and WWII, and the rifle that set the standard for others to follow. The fact it was used by the Hitler's Nazi forces during WWII gives it even more collector status- and the Germans are known for being premier gunmakers.
The Mausers of the 1900-1944 era made by FN/Belgium and Germany are of very high quality, I've owned at least a dozen. They have more of a hand made look and feel, than a modern Remington. The Remington looks like something that rolled off an assembly line and made mostly with programmed machinery, rather than hand crafted. The Mauser just has more history and a higher degree of collectible status, than a M700.
Finally, a Remington you sort of just hunt with, or target shoot. A vintage pre-1945 Mauser does all that, but also gives a certain satisfaction to just look at, work the action, snap the trigger/firing pin, listen to- and show to friends as a conversation piece. It's a piece of history, especially if it has Nazi markings on it- and is a remarkable design milestone that many copied. The Remington 700 just doesn't have the same pedigree, even though it's more modern, stronger, and more accurate out of the box most times. (yet I had a 1909 German-made Argentine 7.65 x 53 that would shoot as good as any M700) Sort of like comparing a 1957 Ferrari to a 2010 Mustang- the Mustang may be faster now, but the Ferrari doesn't have to be, it's at another historical level.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
if your going custom i would go with with, yes, the remington has more part offerings for it but the accuracy will all be the same, i have built rifles on both platforms and im partial to the mauser IMHO, i love the crf and have nothing against the push feed its just an opinion regardless of what people may say, you can make it "tacticool" just without a detachable mag (well a good one).
on another note people always seem to say that "its not as strong" well it is, and some people say that it will not support heavy barrels well, but it does that and it does it fine without having to bed under the barrel, i know for a fact b/c i have done it, the are not difficult to bed by any means, one more thing and i will be done one thing that i love about the mausers is how absoutly hard they are much harder then the remington
its your choice go with whatever you want i own both and love both
if your going custom i would go with with, yes, the remington has more part offerings for it but the accuracy will all be the same, i have built rifles on both platforms and im partial to the mauser IMHO, i love the crf and have nothing against the push feed its just an opinion regardless of what people may say, you can make it "tacticool" just without a detachable mag (well a good one).
on another note people always seem to say that "its not as strong" well it is, and some people say that it will not support heavy barrels well, but it does that and it does it fine without having to bed under the barrel, i know for a fact b/c i have done it, the are not difficult to bed by any means, one more thing and i will be done one thing that i love about the mausers is how absoutly hard they are much harder then the remington
its your choice go with whatever you want i own both and love both
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Boticum</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is the Mauser 98 a "better" sniperrifle than the Remington 700, or is it the other way around??
I have read that the Mauser is the best sniperrifle in the world, but I have also read the same thing about the Remington... </div></div>
To the OP, a few other issues to be aware of- if converting the Mauser M98 to the full length belted magnum i.e. 300 H&H, 375 H&H or longer, the milsurp action would requires grinding away material from the feed ramp, in order to lengthen the magazine and accept the longer cartridge- this weakens the action around the critical lower lug area. The side slot cutout on the Mauser has been known to cause cracking in the side rail, where the heat treatment of the thin section causesd it to be harder and therefore more brittle. The Mauser action to get would be the later FN Supreme without thumb slot in side rail, and "C" type receiver, logic dictates it would be inherently stronger.
On the other hand one can just order a new Remington M700 action direct. I remember a few years back some company was making new Mauser-type actions too, and they are probably expensive. The older 1960-70's M700 ADL's are as common as dirt and cheap now, they are one of the most common rifles listed for sale in the local liquidator papers here in USA- I just bought a scoped 30-06 ADL for only $275 in 80% condition out of the local paper. For how strong the M700 is, and the modern dimensional quality, that's smokin' deal.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Boticum</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is the Mauser 98 a "better" sniperrifle than the Remington 700, or is it the other way around??
I have read that the Mauser is the best sniperrifle in the world, but I have also read the same thing about the Remington... </div></div>
To the OP, a few other issues to be aware of- if converting the Mauser M98 to the full length belted magnum i.e. 300 H&H, 375 H&H or longer, the milsurp action would requires grinding away material from the feed ramp, in order to lengthen the magazine and accept the longer cartridge- this weakens the action around the critical lower lug area. The side slot cutout on the Mauser has been known to cause cracking in the side rail, where the heat treatment of the thin section causesd it to be harder and therefore more brittle. The Mauser action to get would be the later FN Supreme without thumb slot in side rail, and "C" type receiver, logic dictates it would be inherently stronger.
On the other hand one can just order a new Remington M700 action direct. I remember a few years back some company was making new Mauser-type actions too, and they are probably expensive. The older 1960-70's M700 ADL's are as common as dirt and cheap now, they are one of the most common rifles listed for sale in the local liquidator papers here in USA- I just bought a scoped 30-06 ADL for only $275 in 80% condition out of the local paper. For how strong the M700 is, and the modern dimensional quality, that's smokin' deal.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
the mauser craking because you cut back on the feed ramp is something that i have never seen and we have done a lot of conversions like this and all the rifles have had many rounds threw them since.
the mauser craking because you cut back on the feed ramp is something that i have never seen and we have done a lot of conversions like this and all the rifles have had many rounds threw them since.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
I always hear how strong the Rem 700 action is but I'll still tell those of you who haven't dealt with the maximum load of both, the Mauser has a place for the gases to go and the Rem 700 doesn't. The Rem 700 may have better steel than the older pre-WWII Mausers but it certainly doesn't have better steel than the CZ700's-750's. They have equally strong steel and they give the gases in an overpressure situation a place to go.
The Basic design of both rifles can be made to be very accurate. It's a preference of what you want if that's the case. Push or controlled feed. I still say the CPRF Winchester (again, another Mauser clone) offers is really the cats-ass as far as what style of extractor to go with.
I always hear how strong the Rem 700 action is but I'll still tell those of you who haven't dealt with the maximum load of both, the Mauser has a place for the gases to go and the Rem 700 doesn't. The Rem 700 may have better steel than the older pre-WWII Mausers but it certainly doesn't have better steel than the CZ700's-750's. They have equally strong steel and they give the gases in an overpressure situation a place to go.
The Basic design of both rifles can be made to be very accurate. It's a preference of what you want if that's the case. Push or controlled feed. I still say the CPRF Winchester (again, another Mauser clone) offers is really the cats-ass as far as what style of extractor to go with.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
The old mauser K98 is a very good weapon, and has a nice history. I think it's difficult to make a difference between both weapons, because the NEW Rem. Mod. 700 are manufactered in a time with modern CNC machines (same for the technology research of STEEL), and the germans didn't had that at WWII. For what you want to use the rifles, I don't know, but if you go to the shooting range, they will both do the job. Having a good rifle is only one part, the other part is the men behind the rifle
and this men needs to practice a lot to get what he want!
If you like european rifles, we also have Steyer (steyer elite, Steyer SSG 04 A1, steyer elite 08,...) and Sig Sauer (SSG3000),...
The Price for Remington MOD. 700 at belgium are also a little bit expensive, just same as all other guns.
Remington Mod 700 SPS Tactical +/- €790
Remington Mod 700 SPS Varmint +/- €710
Remington Mod 700 Police +/- €1117
If you live at the US, it will be likely cheaper then Europe. But yeah, the US is the paradise for people who like guns
Greetz
The old mauser K98 is a very good weapon, and has a nice history. I think it's difficult to make a difference between both weapons, because the NEW Rem. Mod. 700 are manufactered in a time with modern CNC machines (same for the technology research of STEEL), and the germans didn't had that at WWII. For what you want to use the rifles, I don't know, but if you go to the shooting range, they will both do the job. Having a good rifle is only one part, the other part is the men behind the rifle
If you like european rifles, we also have Steyer (steyer elite, Steyer SSG 04 A1, steyer elite 08,...) and Sig Sauer (SSG3000),...
The Price for Remington MOD. 700 at belgium are also a little bit expensive, just same as all other guns.
Remington Mod 700 SPS Tactical +/- €790
Remington Mod 700 SPS Varmint +/- €710
Remington Mod 700 Police +/- €1117
If you live at the US, it will be likely cheaper then Europe. But yeah, the US is the paradise for people who like guns
Greetz
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
the mauser is a better and more trustable sistem <span style="font-style: italic">for me</span>, here in the jungle... in brazil, you will find very fine mausers...
it has a very long lock time, a worse trigger and a 19th century stell. but i love it...
the rem700 is much more easy to make work fine!
the mauser is a better and more trustable sistem <span style="font-style: italic">for me</span>, here in the jungle... in brazil, you will find very fine mausers...
it has a very long lock time, a worse trigger and a 19th century stell. but i love it...
the rem700 is much more easy to make work fine!
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
Ask yourself which one is used more often:
1) as a basis for current military and police sniper rifle
platforms?
2)at tactical matches?
3) at target matches?
Good luck
Jerry
Ask yourself which one is used more often:
1) as a basis for current military and police sniper rifle
platforms?
2)at tactical matches?
3) at target matches?
Good luck
Jerry
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jerry M</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ask yourself which one is used more often:
1) as a basis for current military and police sniper rifle
platforms?
2)at tactical matches?
3) at target matches?
Good luck
Jerry
</div></div>
Whats this got to do with anything. Remington 700 is cheap. thats why its used. The customisation is another big reason its so popular.
if you took the Remington 700 on its own merits from the factory.
Stocks are crap
Triggers are crap
Barrels are average at best
finish is poor
Action is often not true
bolt handle is likely to snap off
made to a cost (as low as possible)
Does this sound like a quality piece of craftsmanship. ?
Dont get factory made 700 confused with a custom 700. by the time most people are done there is no factory parts left which makes it a different gun.
As for military and police snipers they get what they are given. if i was given one of those id send it back and buy my own.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jerry M</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ask yourself which one is used more often:
1) as a basis for current military and police sniper rifle
platforms?
2)at tactical matches?
3) at target matches?
Good luck
Jerry
</div></div>
Whats this got to do with anything. Remington 700 is cheap. thats why its used. The customisation is another big reason its so popular.
if you took the Remington 700 on its own merits from the factory.
Stocks are crap
Triggers are crap
Barrels are average at best
finish is poor
Action is often not true
bolt handle is likely to snap off
made to a cost (as low as possible)
Does this sound like a quality piece of craftsmanship. ?
Dont get factory made 700 confused with a custom 700. by the time most people are done there is no factory parts left which makes it a different gun.
As for military and police snipers they get what they are given. if i was given one of those id send it back and buy my own.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
Almost all of the early African grade rifles were made form old Mausers...
Remington is my preference BUT in the hands of a good gunsmith and a Mauser can shoot right along side it.
Almost all of the early African grade rifles were made form old Mausers...
Remington is my preference BUT in the hands of a good gunsmith and a Mauser can shoot right along side it.
Re: Mauser 98 vs Remington 700...??
No dog in this fight. You want to shot a mauser 98 go for it. Firearms have evolved slightly in the past hundred years.
Remingtons are popular for several reasons. First one is they get the job done a majority of the time, at reasonable cost. Additionally, there are 1/2 custom clones of the M 700 on the market. So there must be something to the design.
The 1898 Mausers were very popular for the same reason 60 years ago. That and the fact that millions of then were produced by dozens of countries, since the 1800's.
Good luck
Jerry
No dog in this fight. You want to shot a mauser 98 go for it. Firearms have evolved slightly in the past hundred years.
Remingtons are popular for several reasons. First one is they get the job done a majority of the time, at reasonable cost. Additionally, there are 1/2 custom clones of the M 700 on the market. So there must be something to the design.
The 1898 Mausers were very popular for the same reason 60 years ago. That and the fact that millions of then were produced by dozens of countries, since the 1800's.
Good luck
Jerry
Glad you all offered this topic as I am having built a rifle on a G33-40 98 action left to me after my dad passed away. Here are things I like about the 98 action over the Rem 700. I own Rem M7, and K98 action rifles and like both. These are the things I prefer about the K98. My 98 actions have a Buhler style safety. The safety snuggles up to the scope and isn't easily bumped into fire. It locks the bold in place and it will not open accidentally. I had a Win M70 and being a hunter I would at times find the bolt just about open and one time I did and the cartridge nearly fell out. So far my Rem M7 SS .223R rifle has not opened accidentally but I always check. The travel of the Rem 700 firing pin's is shorter and that is a strong point. The K98's firing pin travel is longer but it is reliable, making for good primer ignition. I have shot Mauser K98's since I was a kid and have had good accuracy, reliability and fond memories of deer and bear I have killed with them. I am a hunter not a sniper and I still like the Mauser 98. BTW last I looked Mauser was re-introducing the 98 action. Now that would be something for a hunter to own but it is very costly. My G33-40 6.5X55 GWI will be built in the next few weeks. Thanks for the great discussion!
I see nothing wrong with the Mauser 98 action and a whole lot to like about it. I take issue with a few of the statements made here as I read through the thread though.
The Mauser was the most popular action for African game guides cause it was readily available and cheap, not because it was the best or strongest action out there. Just as the 7x57 cartridge had taken more game than any other cartridge on the continent. As far as dangerous game, big double rifles were, and still are, to a certain extent, preferred. When you are shooting Cape Buffalo at 20 yards, and the evil bastard is pissed off at you, you don't use a pop gun, you want a cannon.
Lock time is part of trigger control and should not be an issue for an accomplished shooter. Short lock times and super light triggers are band aids, nothing more. That said, I'm not that accomplished as a shooter, so I'm in favor of all the help I can get.
I am headed out next week to shoot a gun I picked up in a Mauser 98 action. It is pretty much a custom from the late 50s early 60s, unknown provinence and it only cost me $300 bucks. It has a 243 Win tube on it and an ancient Bushnell 3x9. Fajon style thumbhole stock. I'll play with it and see how it shoots, for what I've got in the thing, I wouldn't hesitate to have a new tube spun up for it, if I get better than 2 MOA out of it, I'll just keep it and play.
The Mauser was the most popular action for African game guides cause it was readily available and cheap, not because it was the best or strongest action out there. Just as the 7x57 cartridge had taken more game than any other cartridge on the continent. As far as dangerous game, big double rifles were, and still are, to a certain extent, preferred. When you are shooting Cape Buffalo at 20 yards, and the evil bastard is pissed off at you, you don't use a pop gun, you want a cannon.
Lock time is part of trigger control and should not be an issue for an accomplished shooter. Short lock times and super light triggers are band aids, nothing more. That said, I'm not that accomplished as a shooter, so I'm in favor of all the help I can get.
I am headed out next week to shoot a gun I picked up in a Mauser 98 action. It is pretty much a custom from the late 50s early 60s, unknown provinence and it only cost me $300 bucks. It has a 243 Win tube on it and an ancient Bushnell 3x9. Fajon style thumbhole stock. I'll play with it and see how it shoots, for what I've got in the thing, I wouldn't hesitate to have a new tube spun up for it, if I get better than 2 MOA out of it, I'll just keep it and play.
i might have missed it but what caliber was he going to use. have a matching numbers (took a few years to get the one i wanted) 1933 K98 Oberndorf (last year that rifles were made for civilians but they were used by non military government "nazi" civilians guarding the trains, postal routes and such, the factory was nationalized in a few months in 1934 and the rest is history).
If your looking for $500 original rifle to go hunting with your stuck with 7.92 x 57J ammo.
the JS ammo was the same caliber but had a higher volocity for GPMG (MG-38/42), which is not safe to fire in original rifles because the strength and care for the weapon is not known.
and because of the possible safety issue the few factory loads that are available are loaded way down.
so for hunting i would pick up a Rem 700 and shoot for your hearts content...youll be more accurate as well.
if you are buying a action to have a build put together the 700 is the obvious choice by a mile, for all the reasons state above.
the mauser action was the strongest action in the world at the time not only because or its design but also the other rifles of the period were pieces of crap at the turn of the century. and the tolerances that were held by the germans at that point in time were 10 fold tighter than other facilities. it has been far surpassed now, mainly because it has to many cut outs and a open top for ease of feeding.
If your looking for $500 original rifle to go hunting with your stuck with 7.92 x 57J ammo.
the JS ammo was the same caliber but had a higher volocity for GPMG (MG-38/42), which is not safe to fire in original rifles because the strength and care for the weapon is not known.
and because of the possible safety issue the few factory loads that are available are loaded way down.
so for hunting i would pick up a Rem 700 and shoot for your hearts content...youll be more accurate as well.
if you are buying a action to have a build put together the 700 is the obvious choice by a mile, for all the reasons state above.
the mauser action was the strongest action in the world at the time not only because or its design but also the other rifles of the period were pieces of crap at the turn of the century. and the tolerances that were held by the germans at that point in time were 10 fold tighter than other facilities. it has been far surpassed now, mainly because it has to many cut outs and a open top for ease of feeding.
I'm a huge Mauser fan. I've owned tens of them from various countries and timeframes and still have a couple around (German, 1915 G98 and 1944 k98). While I appreciate the design and craftsmanship that went into these rifles, as well as all of the safety features, I question the practicality of a Mauser build anymore. The M700, T3, hell even the Ruger American aftermarket is bigger and growing faster. Manufacturing for those actions is more refined, there is one version, all made on more modern equipment to better tolerances, likely with better materials.
I've played around with my AICS pattern mags and a spare M98 receiver I have hanging around and I don't think they will work in it without modifying the receiver.
It's one of those things that can and will work, but you're going to spend a ton of time and/or money on it. I'd be more inclined to buy an ARC M5 (oh yeah, I did... lol) if you're into well-thought out and executed CRF actions. Kind of a have your cake and eat it too option.
I've played around with my AICS pattern mags and a spare M98 receiver I have hanging around and I don't think they will work in it without modifying the receiver.
It's one of those things that can and will work, but you're going to spend a ton of time and/or money on it. I'd be more inclined to buy an ARC M5 (oh yeah, I did... lol) if you're into well-thought out and executed CRF actions. Kind of a have your cake and eat it too option.
I had a custom barrelled and trued Rem 700 for a long time that worked just fine and grouped shots under an inch. I'm now running a Geco M98 that was rebarreled by Gustav in 6.5x55. It punches one hole groups rather boringly, even with the old 2 stage trigger pulling about 3 pounds. I paid $340.00 Canadian for this ugly thing. I feel like I'm missing something. What was the question?
Some people make a big deal out of the differences, but if you manage to find a good 700 clone and a good Mauser side by side, they'll be nearly identical. The Mauser will be reliable, expensive, and likely require a custom stock/chassis. The 700 will be unreliable and easier to customize. Both will be accurate.
I'd rather a Mauser, but I'm in the minority, and have had awful luck with push feeds. They just do not work in my experience.
I'd rather a Mauser, but I'm in the minority, and have had awful luck with push feeds. They just do not work in my experience.
Technology is a great thing. We've all benefited from the improvements in design, materials, and manufacturing in the last 119 years since the '98 hit the market. 1" groups at 100 yards were something to brag about in the '50s. Now they mean that there's a problem somewhere. All that being said, some designs are timeless - not because they're the best but because they're a beautiful piece of art that still works and is still (if only marginally) competitive. That is the Mauser in all its forms. Many of us remember them as the first rifle we ever shot - whether it was a worn out military surplus rifle (a carbine if we were lucky) or a beautiful, fluid- actioned post-war FN. As the Greatest Generation has passed away and left their prized Mausers to us Baby Boomers, I think you'll see more of them showing up at the range and during hunting season. I hope so. It can't always be about the latest trend or technology. Sometimes it is about art and history.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
In making the comparison the pre 64 Win should be used instead of the 98. It has some simple advances in design and is built with more current materials. The first thing to understand is that Remington did not design the 700 to be a better bolt rifle. They designed the 700 to be cheaper to produce. That's the motivation, pure and simple.
Most people are familiar with the various improvements often made to a 700 action by the many good smiths. Side bolt release, Sako or M-16 style extractor, weld two piece bolt or replace with one piece, pin the recoil lug, replace the trigger, blue print the action and all this is done to try and upgrade it to a CRF M70. Nothing is perfect and the M70 can benefit from being printed. After all this is done the Rem. is still lacking. The M70 has a vastly better safety and the trigger is dead reliable.
The 700 made it's bones with the military and when the custom action makers included all or most of the improvements they retained the 700 geometry because stocks, triggers, etc. we're already available.
I could keep keep going but it's not necessary. Just keep in mind that Rem's motivation was to build a rifle more cheaply and they did.
Most people are familiar with the various improvements often made to a 700 action by the many good smiths. Side bolt release, Sako or M-16 style extractor, weld two piece bolt or replace with one piece, pin the recoil lug, replace the trigger, blue print the action and all this is done to try and upgrade it to a CRF M70. Nothing is perfect and the M70 can benefit from being printed. After all this is done the Rem. is still lacking. The M70 has a vastly better safety and the trigger is dead reliable.
The 700 made it's bones with the military and when the custom action makers included all or most of the improvements they retained the 700 geometry because stocks, triggers, etc. we're already available.
I could keep keep going but it's not necessary. Just keep in mind that Rem's motivation was to build a rifle more cheaply and they did.
I don't know about sniper part but inrecall reading an article somewhere geared towards bench rest people and they pointed out massive amount of inherent flaws with using milsurp k98 actions.
