Author Topic: Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"  (Read 3251 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lgm270

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1862
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« on: January 01, 2006, 03:40:47 PM »
Check out this cute little "Tanker Mauser", a new Mauser 98 made at Zastava  in Yugoslavia with a 17.5" barrel and chambered in 8mm Mauser, 30-06, .270, 308 and 243.  It's brand new construction in the full military configuration, except for the short barrel and what Mitchell arms calls the "cute" factor.  Cost is $495.00.  A reasonable price if you want a ready made scout type rifle to which you can mount an EER scout scope.  

I don't understand why they would chamber something like this for the .270 Win (a 17.5" barrel!), but the traditional  8mm Mauser and the utilitarian .308 are also available as well.


http://www.mitchellsales.com/rifles/m63%20tanker/index.htm

Offline jh45gun

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4992
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2006, 06:00:06 PM »
For 500 bucks I would buy a sporter. Besides that scout rifle kit is a added expense.  Too pricey in my book. Not when you can get K31's for a 100 bucks or even the Swedes for 300 that will probably shoot rings around these 500 dollar plus rifles. Seems awful funny to me that if a company like Mitchell sporterizes or alters  a rifle its ok but if I do it I am called a bubba. Bah!  :x
Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use it.

Offline Mikey

  • GBO Supporter
  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2006, 03:02:51 AM »
Right about that jh45gun.  I don't find those 'tanker mausers' all that fetching.  I would have to use ear plugs every time I wanted to take a shot and par'n me but either of those full-length calibers listed, 8mm, 06, 270, would kick like a bear.  I also don't get the impression they would shoot worth a hoot but I would like to hear about that first.  

I think if I wanted a short barrelled Mauser I would get a Rhineland Arms conversion to 45 acp.  At least that would be manageable.  Mikey.

Offline darrell8937

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2006, 07:12:35 AM »
The tanker is not sportierized by Mitchel. They are just the importer. These were a special order from some country that did not take deleviry from the factory. They are new production. Not a model 48 or 98 sporterized. NEW<NEW<NEW.

Offline jh45gun

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4992
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2006, 08:10:06 AM »
Maybe the barrels and stocks are new but I would bet that the action and bolt are used mauser.  Some country? Look at the calibers 30-06, .270, 308 and 243 all US calibers why would some other country want them?  Nope I would bet these were contracted by mitchell for the US market and I also would bet Mitchell supplied US made barrells.
Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use it.

Offline R.W.Dale

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2006, 08:12:24 AM »
Quote from: darrell8937
The tanker is not sportierized by Mitchel. They are just the importer. These were a special order from some country that did not take deleviry from the factory. They are new production. Not a model 48 or 98 sporterized. NEW<NEW<NEW.


 Correct! Kinda. Mitchell cut up and bubbatized a bunch of the Egyptan M48BO mausers. So yes they were orderd by a country that did not take delivery. but NO they did not come with a 17.4' barrel or chambered in anything other than 7.92x57. So yes they are a very overpriced BUBBA job.

Offline jh45gun

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4992
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2006, 08:41:51 AM »
Yea I kinda figured the Yugo's would  not be making new mauser actions. Tooling up to do so for one order would not make any sense.
Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use it.

Offline lgm270

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1862
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2006, 10:47:16 AM »
The short barrel is not good for all purposes, that's for sure.

I don't think I would rechamber the 30-06 for a .300 Win Mag.

Offline Mikey

  • GBO Supporter
  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2006, 05:30:53 AM »
My gunsmith got one of those for Christmas and I'm going up to take a look tomorrow.  I'll let ya'll know what I think later.  Mikey.

Offline darrell8937

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2006, 01:39:51 PM »
Well. This is a exact quote,, copy paste from Mitchels web site.. It say they are new, not egyptian 48 cut off mausers. Says they were made in Serbia,,

here it is..
These M63 Tankers are brand-new rifles produced with all new parts, using modern materials and methods. A foreign government had placed an order with the Serbian factory, but had failed to take delivery. MitchellÂ’s was able to contract for the entire lot and bring it to the United States market at the very attractive price of only $495.

Offline darrell8937

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2006, 01:48:43 PM »
seems like they are new production, not bubbatized rifles..

here is a another quote.

New Mausers

When Zastava ceased the manufacture of M48 Mausers, they began making high quality AK-47s. Now the factory is retooling once again to produce models like the Tanker to stimulate non-military sales. Don Mitchell playfully hints at the possibility we will soon see a new tactical rifle and maybe even a Mark X-like sporting rifle, so stay tuned.

The M63 Tanker action is a faithful copy of the 1898 military Mauser. It's made of real machined steel and incorporates the mechanical features that have kept the Model 98 at the head of the class for 107 years such as controlled round feed, (to eliminate double charging) and a positive, non-rotating extractor. The solid, inner-collar breeching strengthens the receiver, encircles the bolt head and minimizes cartridge head protrusion. A three-position, direct-acting safety and an interlocking relationship of parts prevents the firing pin from falling if the bolt isn't fully locked. Topping it off is a combined bolt stop and mechanical ejector, unobtrusive safety lug, outstanding gas handling characteristics and a rugged, staggered-round box magazine.

The Tanker is a short, little runt. The M63 barrel is 17.4" long compared to the 24" tube of the standard 98K. When you compare the models side-by-side, what's been done to produce the M63 look is to shorten the forearm and move the front band and bayonet lug back proportionally. The overall length of the M63 is 37" compared to the 43.5" OAL of the M48. In fact, the M63 is within millimeters of the OAL of Winchester's Model 94 carbine.

This 7.4-pound little baby is handy. Not only is it compact, but its neutral balance point is right under the front receiver ring. You can just wrap your hand around it at that point and head for the hills. Don Mitchell remarked that the M63 would be a great carbine for the deer woods. As far as milsurps and calibers go, it would be ideal.

The light, almost blond-colored stock of the M63 is distinctive. I asked Mitchell about the wood since it looked a lot like birch. Mitchell said it was a variation of teak. The wood is fine-grained, dense and, because of its natural color, sets off the blued parts nicely.

Yes, all the metal is well polished and deeply blued. The buttplate caught my eye. It's corrugated. I've seen a similar design on FN contract Mausers.

The sights are typical Mauser--an inverted V front and a tangent rear. The rear tangent is graduated from 200 to 1,400 meters. OK, 200 meters is a good battle zero, but why on a carbine oriented toward the civilian market to be shot at targets ranging from 25 to maybe 200 meters? It would make more sense if the rear sight were graduated from 50 meters to 500 meters in 50-meter increments. Scoping is an option to consider and Mitchell can furnish a mount that replaces the rear sight leaf, providing a scout rifle-type forward scope placement.

The trigger is a standard double-stage military design. Measured on a Lyman digital scale, the Tanker trigger broke cleanly at 7.3 pounds. As an option, Mitchell's offers an adjustable, single stage replacement unit.

Ammo

Mitchell's Mausers is also importing a line of "premium" grade 8x57mm ammunition made by Prvi Partizan in Serbia. The firm is marketing four different 8x57 Prvi Partizan loads under the Mitchell brand label including a 175-grain PSP BT, a 175-grain HPBT a 198-grain FMJ and a 198-grain FMJ SWAT. I shot all four loads in the M63 for accuracy and velocity side-by-side with a 1941 Portuguese contract Oberndorf Mauser K98 for comparison.

The average velocity of all four loads in the M63 was 2,331 fps over a PACT Professional Chronograph. In the K98, it was 2,468 fps. In general, you lose an average 137 fps out of the shorter 17.4" barrel, which is insignificant.

In spite of its short sight radius, the little carbine turned in an exceptionally strong performance with Mitchell's ammunition. At 50 yards, all four loads hovered around an inch. At 100 yards, the 175-grain PSP BT and the 198-grain FMJ clustered into 1 1/2" while the 198-grain SWAT and 175-grain FMJ HPBT averaged 1 3/4".

I was surprised that the standard soft-point hunting load and 198-grain FMJ load outperformed the SWAT and 175-grain hollowpoint ammunition, but they did, and did so consistently. In fact, the 50-yard groups shot with the 198-grain FMJ load averaged 3/4". On the other hand, the K98 favored the 175-grain HP, 198-grain SWAT, 175-grain PSR and 198-grain FMJ in that order.

Recoil?

I imagine if fired at night, the little fire-breathing dragon would light up the sky, but recoil is not bad at all. Really the only difference between the Tanker and a regular 98K Mauser is the lack of 6.6" of a slim barrel and a bit of wood. The M63 still weighs approximately 7.4 pounds plus the 8x57 is a conservative round. The 198-grain loads are churning up only 2,280 fps in the shorter barrel while the 175-grain ammunition is pushing 2,400 fps. I've owned two FN police carbines, and one of the most accurate and pleasant shooting loads in the little guns was the 125-grain Hornady bullet pushed along by 50 grains of IMR 4895.

While the Tanker proved accurate, its 200-yard battle sight was no blessing. As might be expected, the carbine shot high. At 100 yards, the high-velocity 175-grain loads were the worst offenders with the PSP plunking in 8 1/2" high and the FMJ HP, 12" high. Both 198-grain loads were 3" high, which is not a bad bunting zero, but Mitchell's 198-grain loads are based on FMJ bullets, a no-no in most state big-game regulations.

The notch of the rear sight is already right down at wood level so it cannot be filed deeper. The easiest solution would be to replace the front sight with a higher one. Brownells stocks a high Mauser front sight blank (Catalog No. 078-050-000) designed with this exact problem in mind.

The other alternative would be a scout-type scope arrangement. In my opinion, scoping the Tanker would destroy its racy, little lines and adversely affect its innate handiness.

I haven't seen actual surplus Mauser police carbines in the pipeline for years, and my hunch is we won't see anymore anytime soon. There just weren't that many ever produced. You might stumble upon a Netherlands FN Model 1948 carbine, an Iranian Model 49 carbine, a Persian Czech Model 30 carbine, a Venezuelan FN Model 24/30 carbine, or even a Yugoslavian FN Model 24 carbine at the next gun show, but don't count on it.

In the meantime, Mitchell's new M63 Tanker is filling this unique niche, and it's proved to be an exceptionally fine and attractive little Mauser.

M63 TANKER

Maker: Zastava Kragujevac, Serbia Importer: Mitchell's Mausers PO Box 9295, Fountain Valley, CA 92728 (800) 274-4124, www.mitchellsales.com

ACTION TYPE: Controlled feed bolt action

 1 -  2 -  Next  
Save Print Send Link Subscribe

Offline Big Paulie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2006, 08:55:41 AM »
IMHO, the presence of the 17.5 inch barrel is an absolute travesty.  A 30-06 or .308 blasting out of that short thing is going to be brutal, any way you cut it.  (Indeed, Remington stopped making their Model 7 carbines with 18 inch barrels in .308 for the same reason.  Models 7s are now made with 20 inch barrels.)

        If only these had been ordered/made with 20 inch barrels, I might have been first in line.  But $400 for a small explosion in front of your face?  No way.  For $300, you could get a nice commercial grade Mark X Mauser in 30-06 with a 24 inch barrel, drilled and tapped, and pay $60 to shorten it to 20 inches.  With its wooden stock, it would be a far superior hunting rifle than the Mitchell, and with a synthetic stock it woud be a far superior Scout Rifle to the Mitchell.  (Did I mention that you would get a bent bolt and a decent safety?)

     If you are an 8mm Mauser fan, or a .243 Win fan, then maybe the Mitchell makes a little more sense.  Course, it has a terrible sight that is virtually unusable in 90% of all hunting situations.  (Try getting that sight down on a buck in the deep woods during the first two hours of morning or the last two hours of light. No way.)

Just Opinions.

Big Paulie

Offline Mikey

  • GBO Supporter
  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2006, 03:29:25 AM »
OK, my gunsmith got one in for himself and I went and hefted it at the shop.  First off, it is beautifully done - the stock and metal are all new.  The action is new production, so you are getting a brand spankin' new 98 Mauser action in 8mm.  With the abyonet mounted she hefts about the same as a K-98 or any M-48/48A.  However, with the bayonet removed she is light at the front end and in either the 8mm or the 06, she would be pretty brutal to play with.  The action was not any tighter than my M-48A or as smooth as either of my Vz-24s, but it is a good, tight Mauser bolt.  

I think they are a bit overpriced for what you get and they may not be practical field pieces with the standard Mauser sights.  If you scope it I would suggest a long eye relief scope so as not to put your eye out when she recoils.  Possibly a scout mount on the rear sight would be better.  HTH.  Mikey.

Offline Big Paulie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2006, 10:45:32 AM »
Mikey,

   Glad you got to handle one.  Unfortunately, it sounds like a well made Edsel.   This is one of those things where, if you are willing to spend another $200 on it, you will probably end up with a fairly usable rifle, . . .lthat you could then sell for no more than $200.

  Since it has a steel buttplate, . . . .add the .308 Winchester to the brutal list, along with the 8mm and the 30-06.  (If you have ever fired 10 rounds from an Ishapore in .308 Win., you will know what I mean.  That military stock really sends all recoil straight back!)

  If only, IF ONLY, they had put 20 or 22 inch barrels on them.  (Of course, you would still be left with a rifle that, for all practical field purposes, has no usuable sights.)

Big Paulie

Offline S.S.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2840
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2006, 03:31:38 AM »
I really think that they are very very over priced for what they are,
and I find the story of them being a "CONTRACT" rifle that the country
who ordered them backed out on the purchase a little far fetched.
Think for a second, what country on earth would place a contract for
weapons that are 100+ year old technology?
I think that this is just another gimmick like adding "X-TREME"
or "TACTICAL" to the name... Just marketing technique..
And as far as making a "Scout" rifle, that too is a concept that I have never understood as to "WHY". It is just another neat name that
to me serves no practical purpose... A carbine with a misplaced scope
is what they look like to me.
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
"A wise man does not pee against the wind".

Offline Big Paulie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
Mitchell "Tanker Mauser M-63"
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2006, 12:11:39 PM »
I agree.  By the way, what country orders military rifles in .243 Winchester?

   Plainly, the Contract rifle story is a marketing gimmick, and if there is any truth to it, then they probably had some official of some foreign country sign the purchase order for the rifles, and then immediately assign the purchase order to Mitchell.  If this is the case, then they could say that a foreign country ordered the rifles, and then decided not to take delivery.

   Or, perhaps some foreign country did enter a purchase order for the receivers, many many years ago, and then never paid for them, leaving the receivers with the manufacturer, packed in grease in wooden boxes in a warehouse.

  Or, maybe they were originally ordered by the country of Yugoslavia, which then later dissolved, and so someone can say that the country never made good on the order.

   I guess we could go on and on.