Author Topic: Mauser or springfield the best ?  (Read 3473 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NickSS

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
Re: Mauser or springfield the best ?
« Reply #30 on: May 17, 2010, 01:42:15 AM »
There is no best only different.  First the Springfield 1903 and 1903A3.  The forst 1903s made by Springfield are basically a 98 Mauser action modified with some ideas that the US Army Wanted and no one else did.  These are the magazine cut off, Replaceable firing pin tips and a knob to recock the rifle in case of a misfire.  The first 800,000 or so Springfields were what were known as single heat treat rifles.  They were not soft steel the problem was is that in the rush to make a lot of them some were over heated and became brittle and some 69 of them blew up over the years.  Springfield came up with a double heat treat that made the rifle strong and not subject to being brittle.  Then in the 1930s they switche the steel to a nickel steel that was strong but also made the bolt not as smooth to operate (feels a little sticky). Things I like about the Springfield are that they are very accurate and have good sights (the good sights probably contribute to their good accuracy).  The things I do not like about the Springfield are the short butt stock on all of them and the two part firing pin.

I have owned all of the mauser military rifles ever made ( at last count I have owned or own around 250 of them). The early Modle 91, 93, 94, 95, and 96s are all small ring actions and the bolts cock on closing.  These rifles are good guns and with the ammo they were designed for are all perfectly safe to shoot.  Some of these rifles were works of art as far as fit and finish go and shoot extreamly well if they are not warn out.  Unfortunately most of the good ones are in collectors hands and the stuff mostly out for sale (except for some sweadish Model 96s) are not so good.  Then we get to the 98 Mauser.  These come in nuberous calibers, stocks, fittings and grades of manufacture.  If you get a pre war rifle (either WW1 or WWII) you will have much better fit and finish that one that was made during the war.  Again a lot of these rifles saw hard use and have been remade several times with varying degrees of skill.  To day (and even in the old days) the most sean caliber is 8X57 JS Mauser.  This is an excellent round and was used by Germany and many other European and others around the world.  The 98 Mauser comes usually with a V notch rear sight and a inverted V (barleycorn) front sight that are non-adjustable for windage except for drifting the front sight in its dove tail.  These rather rudmintary sights make shooting these rifles really well somewhat more difficult.  I think the 98 action is much better than the Springfield modified Mauser action as most of the mods were detrimental to the original.

Things I like about the 98 is that they are strong durable and accurate.  The thing I don't like is the stock desigh on most of them are perfect for aggravating felt recoil at least to me.

Offline leadman

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Re: Mauser or springfield the best ?
« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2010, 07:02:17 PM »
I have sporter and original rifles of both. I have shot a couple 200 yard military matches with my Remington 1903a3 with 2 groove barrel with cast bullets. I placed about 2/3 to 3/4 up from the bottom. Not to bad for an old, left handed arthritic man.
I also own a Remington 1903 with 4 groove barrel made in 1942. I much prefer the 1903a3 sights if the light might not be bright. The 10-3s are generally lighter and trimmer than the Mausers. I also have an old sporter 1903a3 I am restoring as a sporter.

I have an original M48a and a 1891 Argentine. The M48a is a heavy gun with poor sights. The 1891 even though it has a very long barrel is lighter but still has poor sights.

My sporterized 1891 is on it's second barrel and will shoot less than 2" at 200 yards. The second barrel is an original I bought from Sarco years ago. This gun is fairly light even with the 26" barrel and feeds very well with the in-line magazine. I have shot quite a bit of game to include elk with the 7.65 X 54.

I have 3 Enfields and 2 K-31s. The Enfields are huntable as they are but not near as accurate as the 1903s. The K-31 are accurate but also demand good eyes for the sights.

I' ve had several Swedish Mausers and sporterized one and it was a fine hunting rifle when scoped.