Author Topic: Death of the Commercial Mauser (Read 8489 times)

Swampman · « **Reply #30 on:** June 27, 2012, 01:40:44 PM »

Quote from: muznut 54 on May 11, 2012, 02:57:11 AM

All my feather wt. M70s are factory epoxy bedded and are as accurate as all get out.

Actually they just use a dab of hot glue. In almost 50 years of shooting I've never seen an accurate Winchester Featherweight. I just dumped a 7mm-08 that was a 3 MOA rifle.

Swampman · « **Reply #31 on:** June 27, 2012, 01:42:08 PM »

Quote from: Swampman on May 08, 2012, 11:59:35 PM

The Remington pump rifles are very accurate.

As accurate as most boltguns.

muznut 54 · « **Reply #32 on:** July 05, 2012, 04:04:54 AM »

Quote from: muznut 54 on May 08, 2012, 01:59:41 AM

M77 wont get the best of a M70crf.

I might have to eat my words I decided to keep my Ruger M77 MK2 350mag so I ordered some new brass and a set of Burris ruger style steel rings because I thought the factory rings were giving me a problem. I worked up a load with Acc2700 even though its not a listed powder for this cartridge but anyway I used 63.5gr a win mag primer and a 200gr Hornady and shot a five shot group @100 that a nickel could cover and I also loaded some Magmus 158gr jacketed .357 bullets with the same charge and they hit in the same place. I must say I'm tickled pink and I hold this Ruger right up there with my Winchester CRF M70s now.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #33 on:** July 05, 2012, 05:53:37 AM »

you need to shoot my old push feed featherweight 280. Ive shot 5 shot 3/4 inch groups with it using loads it likes. Cool thing is i dont think theres a single load ive tried in that gun that goes over a inch and an eight for 5 shots. Its one of the most consistantly accurate guns i own. Ive also got a win push feed lightweight carbine in 250 sav that will shoot 87 grain sierras into tiny little groups. thing is with that one is its a 1-14 twist and it only shoots 80-90 grain bullets like that. Go any heavier and it sprays them. Im a big rem fan but ive had at least as good of luck with winchesters and would have more if they didnt cost so much. I dont think ive ever ran into an inaccurate post 64 winchester. Ive seen many pre 64s that were mediocure but the later guns and especially the guns there making right now will put remington and ruger rifles to shame with there fit and finish and barrel quality.

Quote from: Swampman on June 27, 2012, 01:40:44 PM

Quote from: muznut 54 on May 11, 2012, 02:57:11 AM
All my feather wt. M70s are factory epoxy bedded and are as accurate as all get out.

Actually they just use a dab of hot glue. In almost 50 years of shooting I've never seen an accurate Winchester Featherweight. I just dumped a 7mm-08 that was a 3 MOA rifle.

muznut 54 · « **Reply #34 on:** July 06, 2012, 02:02:07 AM »

L.S. I believe How accurate your Feather wt is, I have Many CRPFs and CRFs and they are all tack drivers and I did see swampys post and didn't respond because I considered the source. All my feather wts are CRF WSM cals up to the 325wsm from N.Haven CT. plant and I had all the barreled actions off the stocks for deep cleaning after bad weather and they all have excellent bedding jobs and I wouldn't expect any more from a custom shop.

Swampman · « **Reply #35 on:** July 06, 2012, 04:10:09 AM »

It's impossible for a CRF rifle to be as accurate as a push feed.

Brithunter · « **Reply #36 on:** July 06, 2012, 04:33:04 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on July 06, 2012, 04:10:09 AM

It's impossible for a CRF rifle to be as accurate as a push feed.

What a load of bollocks

.

OK care to explain why you think this?

Swampman · « **Reply #37 on:** July 06, 2012, 10:27:37 AM »

It's very common knowledge. That big old clunky extractor prevents the cartridge from being concentric with the bore. It's ok for a military firearm where reliability is more critical than accuracy and functioning in filth matters. It stinks for precision shooting.

Empty Quiver · « **Reply #38 on:** July 06, 2012, 11:05:41 AM »

I'm guilty of not appreciating the Mauser. Well I do appreciate it, it is a design that carried Germany through two wars. I don't exactly support it I suppose.

There is nothing wrong with a Mauser now that hasn't been wrong since day one. It is over built for the job at hand. Now if you want to push things or experiment that is good, but at 12,500' a couple extra pounds of rifle seems superfluous.

It is amazing in the same way the Brooklyn bridge is amazing. Something that old still in use, hell in overuse, better than one hundred years after being made. Way over designed, way over built. By today's standards totally unnecessary.

Strange to find that hundred year old rifle that doesn't need to be babied. No special loads, just for the old geezer.

muznut 54 · « **Reply #39 on:** July 06, 2012, 01:08:58 PM »

Quote from: Swampman on July 06, 2012, 10:27:37 AM

It's very common knowledge. That big old clunky extractor prevents the cartridge from being concentric with the bore. It's ok for a military firearm where reliability is more critical than accuracy and functioning in filth matters. It stinks for precision shooting.

That sounds good but explain my Ruger77 350mag with that old clunky extractor shooting a five shot group that I could cover with a nickel? And today I shot five more in that same ragged hole minus.358 that is a real tight group. Also explain the FNH PBR based on a Winchester CRF action that the FBI snipers use along with many police swat teems?

Swampman · « **Reply #40 on:** July 07, 2012, 12:06:49 AM »

Even a blind hog finds an acorn every once in awhile. Accidents and good groups out of Ruger longguns happen. The police aren't very smart but nearly all of them shoot Model 700s and for good reason. If they buy something else it's based on their budget and the kick back the Chief is getting under the table. It's common knowege that a CRF gun will never be as accurate as a pushfeed. The Model 700 was designed by a benchrest shooter because there was nothing available that was accurate enough to be competitive. Is it the perfect rifle?....no. Is it the most accurate out of the box hunting rifle you can buy?....yes.

Brithunter · « **Reply #41 on:** July 07, 2012, 02:10:23 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on July 07, 2012, 12:06:49 AM

Even a blind hog finds an acorn every once in awhile. Accidents and good groups out of Ruger longguns happen. The police aren't very smart but nearly all of them shoot Model 700s and for good reason. If they buy something else it's based on their budget and the kick back the Chief is getting under the table. It's common knowege that a CRF gun will never be as accurate as a pushfeed. The Model 700 was designed by a benchrest shooter because there was nothing available that was accurate enough to be competitive. Is it the perfect rifle?....no. Is it the most accurate out of the box hunting rifle you can buy?....yes.

Yes Swampan the Rem is so precise and accurate that Remington only have a 2" acceptance standard at 100 yards

that's double what other "less accurate" makers according to you anyway guarantee.

Now as for this:-

"Even a blind hog finds an acorn every once in awhile."

You have just said about the truest thing I have ever heard from you or seen you post. Yes sir even the occasional Remington can do better. The others well that's what all the after market fixes and bits are for are they not?

Now back to the Mauser claw extractor

It's plain you lack even the basic understanding of how it works

. The claw can only push the cartridge rim over as far as the lip on the bolt face. Mausers and rifles made to the design and idea do have this lip you know

then of course unless the chamber is cut really sloppy then the chamber will also align the cartridge. So basically it comes down to the fact that some , especially modern, rifles are just not made as well or with as tight Q/C as good makes had.

You can trot out the worn our CNC yadda..yadda if you like but the fact is quality standards are lower today with a lot of makers than they were 50+ years ago when the workman/women took pride in their work. In fact there is a nice thread about the poor quality and expense of modern .22 L/R bolt rifles when compared to even the modest ones of 60 years ago.

History also proves you wrong too. During the 2nd Boer War that finished in 1902 BTW

the Boers managed to head shoot British soldiers from 300-500 yards distance with their 7mm Mausers and iron sights. Those Mauser's were the Model 1892 and 1896 which of course all had the standard full length Mauser claw extractor. These are from actual battle field reports.

One such report tells how after being ambushed a British patrol took cover behind some rocks. One soldier left his foot showing it seems and a Boer put a 175 grain bullet through his foot as he recoiled in pain and sat up more it seems that another Boer put another bullet through his head. Now that is some serious snap shooting skill.

muznut 54 · « **Reply #42 on:** July 07, 2012, 05:46:10 AM »

I forgot to mention the FNH SPR with the M70 CRF action that is well known for better than half inch groups and that many sniper teams are buying.

Swampman · « **Reply #43 on:** July 07, 2012, 10:11:36 AM »

Most WW1 and WW2 sniper rifles are horrible in the accuracy dept and shooting 4" to 5" groups is the norm. In fact good accuracy didn't become common until the 1980s when CNC machinery came into play. Most Remington 700 sporting rifles will do 1/2" or better right out of the box with factory ammo. That said Rugers, Winchesters, and most mausers are accurate enough to hunt with. They just don't meet my standards.

Brithunter · « **Reply #44 on:** July 07, 2012, 01:16:27 PM »

Swampman I suggest you quit before you really show how little you really know

I take it that you may have heard of Ken Waters and his "Pet Loads series" and books?

If not I suggest you find some and read then. Not skim them actually read them!

In several he points out how much improved bullets have become over the decades. Many still quote Townsend Whelen on grouping performance of normal hunting rifles however they forget to look at WHEN HE WROTE IT

.

Bullets have vastly improved since he wrote that comment just after WW2. CNC had bugger all to do with either.................................. I knew you would have to trot out that tired old saw

.

Now in one of Whelen's books is a photo of a group shot by him using an experimental bullet for the 06 US cartridge at Frankford Arsenal in November 1921. The group is of SEVEN shots not your silly little three shot group but over twice as many........................... Count them S.E.V.E.N.

At a range of 600 yards from a rest the group size is 2.24" Diameter and this was shot with a Mauser clone. Yep a Springfield 03 rifle which was made the old way by skilled manual machinists. The "modern" computer had not been invented then so none of your beloved CNC

. Oh bullet weight was 170 grains and it had a 4 degree boat tail.

Just think an inaccurate design ............................. according to you anyway!

Shooting a group of a size that is not even 1/4" larger than your beloved modern rifles have as an acceptance group size at 1/6 of the distance. Oh yes and you modern stuff has the "help" of CNC machinery too

some improvement.

Swampman · « **Reply #45 on:** July 07, 2012, 01:57:10 PM »

As I mentioned it's impossible for a CRF to shoot as well as a push feed. You can carry on for days but what I'm saying is common knowledge. A well known gun writer said "the first MOA group I ever saw was in 1983." I believe him because those old clunkers were just good enough for big game hunting but not very accurate. None of them were even close to the Remington 700's remarkable pinpoint accuracy right out of the box.

Brithunter · « **Reply #46 on:** July 07, 2012, 09:25:08 PM »

Quote from: Swampman on July 07, 2012, 01:57:10 PM

As I mentioned it's impossible for a CRF to shoot as well as a push feed. You can carry on for days but what I'm saying is common knowledge. A well known gun writer said "the first MOA group I ever saw was in 1983." I believe him because those old clunkers were just good enough for big game hunting but not very accurate. None of them were even close to the Remington 700's remarkable pinpoint accuracy right out of the box.

OK Swampy we know you too dumb to learn and really read what is written except perhaps in a few comics

it's blatantly obvious you subscribe to this:-

"see what you WANT to see and disregard the rest"

Yet once again you harp on the same ole broken record about:-

"None of them were even close to the Remington 700's remarkable pinpoint accuracy right out of the box."

So if that is the case why don't Remington tell people what group size they use as a minimum acceptance? Why does one really have to go at them to get any information about their quality standards? Why is it if they are so good in the accuracy department that the acceptance standard is only 2" at 100 yards and not even MOA?

I'll tell you why ......................................... Remington know darn well if they had a MOA minimum acceptance standard for their rifles a large portion of their production would never meet it.

Could it be that although you live in cloud cuckoo land they know the awful truth and a fair bit of their production even struggles to reach the 2" grouping at 100 yards. The ole faithful like you trot out the excuses and drivel about light weight barrels and at the Remington 700 is the most accurate rifle out of the box

.

Now as for this gem:-

Quote

[size=78%]As I mentioned it's impossible for a CRF to shoot as well as a push feed[/size]

Well that is so easily disproved it's not even funny

Another gem is this pearl of miss-information:-

Quote

[size=0px]Most WW1 and WW2 sniper rifles are horrible in the accuracy dept and shooting 4" to 5" groups is the norm. In fact good accuracy didn't become common until the 1980s when CNC machinery came into play. Most Remington 700 sporting rifles will do 1/2" or better right out of the box with factory ammo.[/size]

Pardon me but was not the Model 700 introduced in 1963 or there abouts?

So basically what your saying is that ANY Remington rifle made before the advent of the installation of CNC controlled machinery into the Remington plant that everything including their flagship Model 700 made before that point was poor in the accuracy department!

See even when you try to be clever you just open that mouth of yours and shove that foot right in it once again

.

"They just don't meet my standards."

Now what that actually should say is:-

"That's because it's not a Remington it does not meet my standards"

You missed out this bit though:-

"no matter how poor it may be because it's a Remington in my clouded addled mind it has to be the best!"

You really missed your vocation you know

you should have been a politician after all you obviously live in delusion and can i'll bet say all this rubbish with a totally straight face.

Swampman · « **Reply #47 on:** July 07, 2012, 09:59:34 PM »

Townsend Whelen said..."Only accurate rifles are interesting".
That's why I'm not interested in CRF rifles. They are pie plate accurate. I've owned and shot many of them over the years in hopes of finding one that was accurate. Every one of them has proven me and almost all knowledgeable riflemen correct. They are ok battle rifles but not for precision shooting. Seeing Remington 700s by the dozens that shot sub-MOA right out of the box has ruined me on buying old timey rifles.

RaySendero · « **Reply #48 on:** July 08, 2012, 12:37:41 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on July 07, 2012, 09:59:34 PM

Townsend Whelen said..."Only accurate rifles are interesting".
That's why I'm not interested in CRF rifles. They are pie plate accurate. I've owned and shot many of them over the years in hopes of finding one that was accurate. Every one of them has proven me and almost all knowledgeable riflemen correct. They are ok battle rifles but not for precision shooting. Seeing Remington 700s by the dozens that shot sub-MOA right out of the box has ruined me on buying old timey rifles.

Swampy,

Here's a traget I shot with my "old timey" CRF rifle:

Swampman · « **Reply #49 on:** July 08, 2012, 12:51:24 AM »

Yep, like I said accurate enough for deer hunting. Almost any rifle will on occasion shoot a nice group. I'm talking about everytime, day in day out, for years. Nothing wrong with hunting with vintage style firearms, the extra challange makes it a lot like hunting with a flintlock or a crossbow. Good fun if you get several shots at deer a year. Frequently I hunt with an old levergun myself. When I'm serious, I just prefer having the best tool for the job. That would be a Model 700 Remington in .30-06 or .270. I ordered a Ruger Gunsite Scout yesterday. I hope this one finally proves me wrong, but I'm not expecting much.

RaySendero · « **Reply #50 on:** July 08, 2012, 01:50:39 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on July 08, 2012, 12:51:24 AM

.....
I hope this one finally proves me wrong, .....

My post above already did that.

Swampman · « **Reply #51 on:** July 08, 2012, 01:53:31 AM »

No, it shows one 3 shot group that is about 2-3 times larger than what my Model 700 will shoot on a regular basis.

Brithunter · « **Reply #52 on:** July 08, 2012, 05:17:09 AM »

I will once again ask what I know others have in the past Swampman prove it.

Shoot the targets with a bone fide witness and post them!

You will excuse me if I don't hold my breathe

.

And a bone fide witness does not mean your mate from the swap or brudder

. How abou a proper Range master?

Swampman · « **Reply #53 on:** July 08, 2012, 05:35:54 AM »

I've done that before. 3 in one hole.

muznut 54 · « **Reply #54 on:** July 08, 2012, 05:55:47 AM »

I think you mistook that for the last two missing the target.

RaySendero · « **Reply #55 on:** July 08, 2012, 07:30:22 AM »

Quote from: Brithunter on July 08, 2012, 05:17:09 AM

I will once again ask what I know others have in the past Swampman prove it.

Shoot the targets with a bone fide witness and post them!

You will excuse me if I don't hold my breathe .

And a bone fide witness does not mean your mate from the swap or brudder . How abou a proper Range master?

LOL - Brit, You know him, too!

Swampy, the only piece of evidence on this thread shows your wrong.
That's right WRONG!

Brit offered you an option that your reputation badly needs.

84Jim · « **Reply #56 on:** July 08, 2012, 08:11:16 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on July 07, 2012, 10:11:36 AM

Most WW1 and WW2 sniper rifles are horrible in the accuracy dept and shooting 4" to 5" groups is the norm.

I just got back from a CMP style Vintage Sniper match, my third. This is rapidly becoming one of my favorite shooting sports. What a great way to spend a weekend morning, getting to shoot pieces of American history. Which brings me to the point, why would anyone say something like that? I suppose Swampy was trying to prove that claw extractors make for inaccurate weapons. First, I think his numbers are an exaggeration to the bad side. I have no doubt that 1903 Springfields are capable of at least 1 1/2 minute inherent accuracy when a 3 shot group shot off of sandbags, a rest, or one of those lead sleds, is the standard. I have even less doubt that a M96 Swedish or a Swiss K31 could do even a little better.
Second, the weapons that were fitted for Sniper duty were open sight bolt action service rifles that had a period scope installed. WWII era scopes were generally low power (2 1/2 - 3 X) units of marginal optical quality. The scopes were mounted excessively high to allow for ejection of casings and stocks were designed for open sight alignment. A combination that is not easy to shoot accurately, and definately not a fault of the rifle.
I wonder how accurate any of todays bolt guns would be if fitted with similar optics, mounted on the highest rings money could buy, with a stock with no cheekpiece and excessive drop.

Brithunter · « **Reply #57 on:** July 08, 2012, 11:23:18 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on July 08, 2012, 05:35:54 AM

I've done that before. 3 in one hole.

Maybe in your dreams

.

Still waiting for proof though

Swampman · « **Reply #58 on:** July 08, 2012, 12:45:23 PM »

I care as little about my reputation as you do the well known facts.

George Foster · « **Reply #59 on:** July 08, 2012, 10:33:16 PM »

Swamp, that is the same picture of a group you showed on 24HR Campfire and then someone showed the picture of the whole group. The whole group showed two bullet holes way away that you claimed were foulers. I do believe your reputation is intact!