Rugged .308 Rifle (Bolt-Action, Iron Sights)

Yep, I would get a milsurp that is already chambered in 7.62. My number one choice would be a FR-8, as they come with adjustable aperture sights and are a nice handy length with a 17.75" barrel.

Controlled round feed, as in a mauser action. The action of a savage and many other "modern" rifles will not feed as reliably as the mauser type action when the rifle is inverted or other such conditions.

Click to expand...

I hear this alot. One might note that the Accuracy International does not have CRF. It is a contemporary issued sniper rifle system. It feeds just fine upside down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CArDJs6e9xc&list=UUA5OtK7qlFB9Rqbm6G9LWcQ&index=14

cal30_sniper,

The investment cast vs forged steel is a tired debate from the 1911 forums. If a casting is well done, (and Ruger is an expert outfit at casting steel) then there will be no difference between the casting and a forged piece, other than Ruger will be using a newer steel with precise metallurgy, and the Mauser will be using....? This bias against cast steel must be based on the name "investment casting" and a mental association with pot metal investment cast junk, but that's NOT what Ruger does. As far as casting technology and techniques have come today, it would be a fallacy to assume that a forged part is better simply because it is forged.

So if the cast parts and mysterious "cost cutting" are the only problems with the Ruger, I'd still take it for $300 more, and apparently I'm not alone, as they have sold like hot cakes.

Also, if you feel the 10 round magazines for the Ruger scout are silly, that's ok because you can get 3 and 5 round magazines. As for the flash suppressor, I know several people that have bought the scout as a suppressor host, and at that task it excels. So while I could take or leave the flash suppressor, the threaded barrel is a handy feature if you think you might suppress it some day (I plan on getting one for that purpose). And if the flash suppressor bothers you, you can always swap it with a linear comp or a thread protector to quiet things down.

If you can ignore the paranoid old women types on the internet forums, here's a rifle that fits your description to a "T" and is quite cheap.

Click to expand...

Who are you referring to Whelen?

Quote:
If you can ignore the paranoid old women types on the internet forums, here's a rifle that fits your description to a "T" and is quite cheap.

Who are you referring to Whelen?

He's probably talking about how tons of people "warn" you about firing modern 308 in small ring mausers because they will certainly blow up, maim you, etc.

texas chase said:

Quote:
If you can ignore the paranoid old women types on the internet forums, here's a rifle that fits your description to a "T" and is quite cheap.

Who are you referring to Whelen?

He's probably talking about how tons of people "warn" you about firing modern 308 in small ring mausers because they will certainly blow up, maim you, etc.

Click to expand...

That's how I read it too. Don't get me wrong, I love small ring Mausers, but you couldn't pay me enough to convert one of mine to 7.62 and fire full power .308 Win loads through it. The Spanish small rings were rechambered for 7.62 CETME. They weren't supposed to even fire 7.62 NATO, much less .308 Win. I even shudder at the thought of the Carl Gustaf .30-06 M96 Swedish Mauser conversions as well as the .308 Kimber Swede conversions, and the Swedes were a lot better known for their metallurgy than the Spanish.

I think the people to whom I referred is quite clear.

cal30_sniper said:

That's how I read it too. Don't get me wrong, I love small ring Mausers, but you couldn't pay me enough to convert one of mine to 7.62 and fire full power .308 Win loads through it. The Spanish small rings were rechambered for 7.62 CETME. They weren't supposed to even fire 7.62 NATO, much less .308 Win. I even shudder at the thought of the Carl Gustaf .30-06 M96 Swedish Mauser conversions as well as the .308 Kimber Swede conversions, and the Swedes were a lot better known for their metallurgy than the Spanish.

Click to expand...

If the cited article is correct, you can't chamber a firearm to 7.62x51mm CETME, because it isn't a unique chambering, rather it is a unique loading of an existing cartridge; the 7.62x51mm. Further, NO WHERE in the article did it say the CETME cartridge was a reduced pressure loading, rather it is stated that the CETME is a cartridge loaded with a reduced powder charge and a lighter bullet, which in no way means the cartridge is reduced in pressure. Any semi-competent handloader will tell you that light bullets and small powder charges are in no way, shape or form indicative of a low pressure loading.

Last of all I OWN a 1916 Mauser and the underside of the barrel near the muzzle is stamped ".308 Win.". I have and will continue to fire it in it my handloads which propel a 150 gr. bullet up to 2800 fps or so.

One last piece of evidence on which to chew; Samco Global sells 1916 Mausers chambered in .308 Winchester and have sold them for as long a I can remember...certainly since the '90's and possible longer. This fact would beg the question: Since they've imported and sold God only knows how many over the last 20+ years, and if they are as dangerous as the internet experts seem to think, wouldn't ONE...just ONE have blown up and maimed someone? And if this did occur, would an enterprise like Samco Global continue to sell the rifles???

There was a heated discussion on this very subject some time back, and in the interest of obtaining the truth, I e-mail Samco and asked them about the strength of these rifles. They replied with a *.pdf of an article from (going from memory) Guns magazine in which Gary James (?) tested one of these rifles. When I get home, I'll see if I can dig it up.

35W

The short and long answer is yes, it is dangerous to fire .308 Win in a Small Ring Mauser.

The long story is the Model 91, 93, 94, 95, and 96 were all designed for low pressure cartridges. The 7x57, 6.5x55, 7.65x53, 9x57 and 9.3x57 are some of the ones I can think of off the top of my head. The Swedes also chambered some M96 commercial variants in 9.3x62, .30-06, and 8x57, which were higher pressure cartridges. These catridges are severely pushing the capabilities of the small ring action, even when used with supposedly superior Swedish steel and quality control.

The original chamberings of the small ring mauser are capped at 46,000 cup, or roughly 51,000 psi (SAAMI Specs). The .308 Winchester is loaded to 62,000 PSI. That's 122% of even the hottest allowable 7x57 load that the M93 Spanish was originally chambered in. In reality, it's about 125% of the 50,000 psi that most recommended small ring mauser loads max out at. Those are both within the proof specs, but proof specs are for surviving a freak occurrence, not day in day out shooting. Also, proof specs are also for when the rifle was brand new, not after 100+ years of use.

The main problem is not the rifle blowing up on the spot (although the .308 conversions have been known to do this), but lug set back. The receivers simply aren't hard enough to take that kind of punishment all the time. Combined over multiple firings, this starts to build unusual stresses within the receiver, and it can eventually let go violently. Another serious problem with the small ring is it's lack of gas handling capability. The bolt gas escape ports aren't nearly as large as the 98, and the shroud on the small rings does not shield the shooters face very well in the event of a gas leak (unlike the 98 shroud, which is very well designed). Any pierced primer or case failure, and the gas may come straight back into your face.

The short story is you will probably be fine for a while. Then again, you might not. At some point, you are almost guaranteed to have problems. For the extra hundred bucks or so it costs to buy a large ring in 7.62x51, it's just not worth risking it. You're putting your fingers, hands, arms, face, eyes, hearing, and life on the line for a very silly gamble. If you have a 7.62x51 CETME conversion small ring, download it to 7.62x51 CETME or small ring pressure specs, and bang away to your hearts content. If you have a large ring 7.62x51, shoot all the 7.62x51 NATO and .308 Win you want. But don't put one in a small ring. You're taking a much greater risk than you have to.

You should not fire 7.62 NATO or .308 through a rechambered 7mm Mauser like the FR7. However the FR8 was rechambered from 8mm and has a heavier receiver and can take it.

35 Whelen said:

I think the people to whom I referred is quite clear.




If the cited article is correct, you can't chamber a firearm to 7.62x51mm CETME, because it isn't a unique chambering, rather it is a unique loading of an existing cartridge; the 7.62x51mm. Further, NO WHERE in the article did it say the CETME cartridge was a reduced pressure loading, rather it is stated that the CETME is a cartridge loaded with a reduced powder charge and a lighter bullet, which in no way means the cartridge is reduced in pressure. Any semi-competent handloader will tell you that light bullets and small powder charges are in no way, shape or form indicative of a low pressure loading.

Click to expand...

You need to read the fine print in the sidebar:

Winchester later asked for and was granted permission to develop a civilian version called the .308 Winchester which is not always interchangeable because of higher pressures

Click to expand...

Furthermore, a lighter bullet and smaller powder charges in the same casing is almost always a sign of lower pressures. In the same casing, if you have a certain grain of bullet with the certain grains of the same powder, you can almost always use that weight of powder with a lighter grain of bullet. That's because it generates less pressure. You can never load a max load of the same powder for a lighter bullet into the same casing with a heavier bullet. That generates overpressure.

So yes, a lighter bullet and a lighter charge of the same powder will generate less pressure. It's unlikely that the Spanish government used two different types of powder when one would have sufficed. Even if they did, however, the 7.62x51 CETME was still loaded to lighter pressures, and one of the particular reasons for that was to be safe for large volume fire in the older small ring mausers that were being rechambered.

Sorry, but no one should stake their life on the fact that bubba stamped .308 Win on the bottom of your barrel, or Samco decided it should be safe. I've seen some of the junk that comes out of Samco, I wouldn't stake anything on them at all. The fact is, numerous small ring mausers have blown up, up to and including Swedes that were pushed a little too far. The reason you don't see lawsuits, is that most of those guys were also handloading, and there's no way to prove it wasn't their mistake that caused it. Other explosions are documented in foreign militarys of the time, where it turns out you didn't have much legal recourse at all.

Also remember the early poorly heat treated 1903s. A good number of those blew up, but it still wasn't enough of a percentage to force the federal government to get rid of them. They kept them in reserve, and then later let them loose on the public. If our own government did it, what do you think a war torn and unstable Spanish government was capable of doing?

If you want to take risks, go right ahead. But do so knowing the risks, and don't try to lead the uninformed blindly along behind you. I've presented the facts of pressure limits. The documented failures are out there, along with many other undocumented ones. For anyone thinking of trying this, do your own research, draw your own conclusions, and talk to guys on milsurp forums like gunboards that actually work with these rifles in large numbers. Don't just experiment for yourself on pure chance and hope for the best. You're not guaranteed to have a failure by a long short, but it dang sure could happen.

Husker_Fan said:

You should not fire 7.62 NATO or .308 through a rechambered 7mm Mauser like the FR7. However the FR8 was rechambered from 8mm and has a heavier receiver and can take it.

Click to expand...

Correct. The FR8 is designed off a Model 98 Mauser (also known as a large ring).

35 Whelen said:

Last of all I OWN a 1916 Mauser and the underside of the barrel near the muzzle is stamped ".308 Win.". I have and will continue to fire it in it my handloads which propel a 150 gr. bullet up to 2800 fps or so.

Click to expand...

Cross referencing the load manuals I have on hand, there's not a single loading that will do this and stay below max pressure for the 7x57 cartridge that rifle was originally chambered in. Lyman #49 shows a 150grn bullet with 50.0 grns of 748 powder at 2996 with 43,200 CUP, which is under the limit, but the same powder listed in the Lee Manual shows a max load of 48.5 grns of 748 at 48,000 CUP, which is well over the 7x57 limit. Likewise, the Lyman 49 shows 52grns of H380 at 2787fps and 45,200 PSI (which is under the limit), but the Lee Manual shows 51 grans of H380 at 2876 fps and 61,400 PSI, which is way over 7x57 levels. No telling where the disparities are coming from, but the danger is certainly there.

Finally, unless either you or the fellow who marked .308 Win on the barrel after it was imported are qualified Strengths and Materials Engineers with dedicated research and testing on that action to make sure it is safe, you can't guarantee that it is. Even so, due to age and differing circumstances, you could only guarantee it was safe in your particular rifle if you did the testing (the rifle would also likely be destroyed in the process). The people who originally designed and built the rifle did not feel it was safe to fire it at higher 7.62x51 NATO and .308 Win pressures, thus, nobody else probably should either.

35 Whelen said:

There was a heated discussion on this very subject some time back, and in the interest of obtaining the truth, I e-mail Samco and asked them about the strength of these rifles. They replied with a *.pdf of an article from (going from memory) Guns magazine in which Gary James (?) tested one of these rifles. When I get home, I'll see if I can dig it up.

35W

Click to expand...

I found this particular thread, as well as the .pdf that you posted. Testing was done by H.P. White on a sample size of 3 Samco 1916s in 7.62x51. The .pdf you sent claims that they tested the guns, "successfully running pressures over the SAAMI max of 55,200 psi for .308 Win." I had to read that twice, because even that is wrong. SAAMI max for .308 Win. is 62,000 psi. SAAMI max for 7x57 is 51,000 psi. They supposedly did all these tests to validate these rifles, but they couldn't even get the SAAMI max right? It also states that the rifles were tested to destruction at 98,000 psi. Great, one round at 98ksi blew them up, that's proof that those particular rifles were strong for several shots. What it is not proof of, however, is that any of those rifles could hold up to a steady diet of even slightly overpressure rounds, much less rounds at a 120+% overpressure of SAAMI max for the round they were originally chambered in. It also doesn't state what the original manufacture dates were for any of these rifles tested. As we all know, steel got much better as time went along. Early model 1916s, made in the heat and haste of the Great War, might not be safe at all, even if later ones are. The simple fact is, WE DON'T KNOW. So why risk it for a few bucks?

And you're letting your wife shoot that thing? That's what I can't believe...

Thread referenced:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=653520&highlight=small+ring+mauser+strength

.pdf referenced:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachmen...7&d=1330392604

Huh, well I've learned a lot about small ring Mausers from this thread, I'd always read that they should be limited to lower pressure rounds, but had never heard the full history before.

To address those earlier who spoke about the Gunsite - do you actually have one, or have you just read articles? I only ask because I do have one, and finally got to take it to the range today. Unfortunately, all I got to shoot was steel, because I forgot to bring something to attach my targets to the stands (rookie move, I know). Here are my opinions as they relate to the OP and the commentators:

Sights are a bit rough, but functional, and mine were good to go out of the box. I popped a 12x12 plate at 200 yds with absolutely no adjustment out of the box.

Recoil, very manageable, both for me (6'4", 219 lbs), and another guy (5'8", 180 lbs). He shot it standing offhand at 100 and had no issues with the recoil shooting 175 gr Match 7.62x51.

I like the removable mag, but then again, I grew up in the era of the M14 and later. To be fair, I also own and shoot a Garand, M48, 1903A3, and FR8, and I still prefer detachable mags. Oh, and I get 10 rounds every reload, Mausers get 4-5.

I like the flash suppressor, mostly because even with the suppressor, a 16" barrel still spits a fireball at dusk. Speaking of which, the FR8, which has been recommended several times, has a flash suppressor.

As for price, I paid $885 or so out the door, and the last quote I got to bring a surplus Mauser up to the features of the Scout was over $1000, not counting the $200-$300 for the rifle.

Simply put, I think it's way too much money to pay for a design that's a little on the silly side. What exactly does a ten round box magazine and flash suppressor do for a bolt rifle other than make it heavier and harder to handle? Then you're supposed to pay nearly $1000 for it? Doesn't sound very practical to me.

Click to expand...

Um, you do know that the AR-15 has a detachable mag and a flash hider, and they don't make it harder to handle or heavier... In fact, I'm pretty sure that my Scout is lighter than my M48, has a higher magazine capacity, and is about 4-6" shorter... Plus, if I did want to put an optic on it, I could put a rail over the action (XS Ruger Gunsite rail) and still be able to reload it and have my iron back up sights.

My two cents...

My Ishapore Enfield in 308 - reliable - pretty accurate - certainly rugged and cheap.

What you heard is another "Google, Copy and Paste Expert" that has not, and will not offer one shred of first hand experience. This guy has been a member here for 9 days, and he's already made almost 100 posts. So, guess what he spends most of his time doing....

35 Whelen said:

What you heard is another "Google, Copy and Paste Expert" that has not, and will not offer one shred of first hand experience. This guy has been a member here for 9 days, and he's already made almost 100 posts. So, guess what he spends most of his time doing....

Click to expand...

When logic fails, result to personal attacks. Where have I seen that before?

I just spent the last hour and a half going through old posts on the board on this subject, so I knew this was coming. Every single one, numerous people preach caution based on historical data, pressure statistics, and pictures of blown up small rings mausers. 35 Whelen responds with a few cherry picked numbers, and the idea of "If it worked for 20 years in my personal rifle, it must be perfectly safe for every Spanish 1916 out there, because Samco said so in some test that nobody seems to have the actual methods for." I'm not going to get this forum any further off track, if you want to start a new thread, I'll debate you until you're blue in the face. For anyone else interested in the topic, run a search on "small ring mauser strength," you'll be enlightened at his resilience in the face of hard data and good reasoning. For the OP and anyone else that would ever consider firing .308 Win in a small ring mauser of any type, consider yourself warned...

rcmodel said:

And the solution to that problem is, don't shoot a bolt-action while standing on your head.

rc

Click to expand...

Ha! You kill me sometimes RC!

That Ruger Gunsite Scout does look like a whole lotta fun.

txgunsuscg said:

To address those earlier who spoke about the Gunsite - do you actually have one, or have you just read articles? I only ask because I do have one, and finally got to take it to the range today. Unfortunately, all I got to shoot was steel, because I forgot to bring something to attach my targets to the stands (rookie move, I know). Here are my opinions as they relate to the OP and the commentators:

Sights are a bit rough, but functional, and mine were good to go out of the box. I popped a 12x12 plate at 200 yds with absolutely no adjustment out of the box.

Recoil, very manageable, both for me (6'4", 219 lbs), and another guy (5'8", 180 lbs). He shot it standing offhand at 100 and had no issues with the recoil shooting 175 gr Match 7.62x51.

I like the removable mag, but then again, I grew up in the era of the M14 and later. To be fair, I also own and shoot a Garand, M48, 1903A3, and FR8, and I still prefer detachable mags. Oh, and I get 10 rounds every reload, Mausers get 4-5.

I like the flash suppressor, mostly because even with the suppressor, a 16" barrel still spits a fireball at dusk. Speaking of which, the FR8, which has been recommended several times, has a flash suppressor.

As for price, I paid $885 or so out the door, and the last quote I got to bring a surplus Mauser up to the features of the Scout was over $1000, not counting the $200-$300 for the rifle.

Um, you do know that the AR-15 has a detachable mag and a flash hider, and they don't make it harder to handle or heavier... In fact, I'm pretty sure that my Scout is lighter than my M48, has a higher magazine capacity, and is about 4-6" shorter... Plus, if I did want to put an optic on it, I could put a rail over the action (XS Ruger Gunsite rail) and still be able to reload it and have my iron back up sights.

My two cents...

Click to expand...

Sorry your reply got caught up in the other junk flying around in here. I figured I'd get back to you and push it back to the front in case anybody else had any commentary on your post. I do.

I'll answer your questions first. No, I have not fired a Ruger Gunsight before. I've fired several Ruger 77s in .308 and .30-06 however, and that's where I base my comments on the inferiorities of the Ruger action. Great for a sporting rifle. In fact, I like the Rugers way better than either Remington or Winchester. However, they were not designed nearly as rugged as the Mausers, and no amount of wishful thinking will ever change that. The Mausers were designed for battle, the Rugers were designed for hunting. The Mauser action is a bit heavier than the Ruger, I'll definitely give you that. You may never need the level of ruggedness that the Mauser has to offer, but it is there if you do. Then again, the Ruger is nice and new and shiny. That matters to some folks.

As far as extra capacity magazines and flash hiders, they absolutely do make a rifle heavier and harder to handle. That's simple physics. Twice the ammo capacity means twice the weight of ammo when it's loaded up. It also means a big bulky magazine sticking out the bottom of the rifle, conveniently placed at that exact point where the rifle will nicely balance in your hand for that extra stable offhand shot. If you've ever fired a Garand and an M1A, you've noticed the difference and know what I'm talking about. Extended magazines are also awesome for getting hung up on things, whether your trying to pull it out of a rifle scabbard, push through brush, get it out of a rifle case, or out from behind the seat of your truck. Yes, the Ruger has flush mount magazines available. They hold 3 rounds, the Mauser holds 5. Yes, with a ten round magazine, you only have to reload twice as often. It also takes you twice as long to reload. That is, unless you buy spare 10 round Ruger specific magazines. Then you have to carry those magazines around with you everywhere you go. Personally, I'll keep a few stripper clips and be able to load dang near as fast.

For 99% of usage any gunsight rifle will ever see, it's a gimmick. It adds a completely useless extra length to the end of the barrel, and increases the weight of the muzzle that much more. Also, current production Gunsight rifles have 18" barrels. I think the older one's have 16", I'm guessing you have one of those. Strangely enough, the shortest barreled .308 I have is my M1A with an 18" tube and flashhider. However, I've been on a lot of dusk and night hunts for varmints with my 16" barreled 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser, and muzzle blast has never been a problem for me. Your mileage may vary, but I've never found it to be an issue.

As far as optics, as long as you've got the original iron sight block on the barrel, it is very easy to mount a scout sight setup on a military mauser. Even if it doesn't still have it, it is neither difficult nor expensive to glassbed a scout mount to the barrel.

Finally, your comments on the price of bringing a Mauser up to speed are simply off-base. It does not cost a thousand dollars to have a barrel cut-down and re-crowned, cut off the nose of a military stock, and drill and tap a rifle for a receiver mounted peep sight. An old Lyman or Williams peep is also likely to be a more accurate and durable sight than that thing perched up on top of the gunsight receiver. I can't say that for certain because I haven't handled the gunsight. That sight sure looks awkard though. I'd say at the most you'd be looking at for that work is $300, even if you did none of it yourself. Even better, if you start looking, you'll likely find one that's already had a lot of that kind of work done to it. They sell pretty dang cheap once they've been altered at all from military original condition. Even if you threw a completely new barrel on one and had it refinished with a new stock, you'd still have to try really, really hard to get to $1000.

If you feel the need to pay nearly a thousand dollars for a nice shiny new rifle, go right ahead. Unless you're doing lightning fast magazine changes on your bolt action rifle or looking for oohs and ahhs at the range, a beat up old Mauser with a smudge of work will do anything that gunsight can, and do it way cheaper. In many cases, I think you'll find it will even do it better.

EDIT: Since we're on the topic, and I also feel that personal experience is irreplaceable, here's my "rugged bolt action rifle". It's a Model 94 Swedish Mauser, made in 1906, 16.25" barrel, fully bedded walnut stock, Williams peep sight, and a Timney trigger. It will shoot 1-1.5MOA with every grain bullet I've ever tried. I bought it exactly that way for $175. Prices have gone up in the last decade, but they can still be had for not too much more than that. It's not a .308, but it'll do about anything a .308 will do, and you can load a whole lot of 6.5x55 for the extra $700 a gunsight would cost you:


EDIT: I also forgot to mention, as Gtscotty said, if you ever plan on mounting a muzzle brake or suppressor, the threaded flash hider barrel would be nice. Then again, it doesn't cost a lot to get a barrel threaded either.

Finally, your comments on the price of bringing a Mauser up to speed are simply off-base.

Click to expand...

Maybe so, but it wasn't my comment, it was a quote, sent to me by a gunsmith that specializes in Mauser actions to bring the Mauser up to the Gunsite specs, ie, rebarrel in .308 with an 18" threaded barrel, mount a rear sight, mount a scout scope rail, and add a detachable mag and a turn down bolt. I can post the email if you want.

As far as extra capacity magazines and flash hiders, they absolutely do make a rifle heavier and harder to handle. That's simple physics. Twice the ammo capacity means twice the weight of ammo when it's loaded up.

Click to expand...

And yet, my Gunsite is still at least a pound lighter than a stock Mauser per the specs I found on the internet. As far as harder to handle, maybe I'm just used to dealing with it, as in my service time, my issued weapons have been M4 family weapons, the M14, and the Mk11.

Also, current production Gunsight rifles have 18" barrels.

Click to expand...

No, the newly introduced Stainless have 18" barrels. The blued are still 16" and they are still in production.

However, I've been on a lot of dusk and night hunts for varmints with my 16" barreled 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser, and muzzle blast has never been a problem for me. Your mileage may vary, but I've never found it to be an issue.

Click to expand...

I didn't view it as a problem, but the guys on the range with me all commented on the flash.

It also means a big bulky magazine sticking out the bottom of the rifle, conveniently placed at that exact point where the rifle will nicely balance in your hand for that extra stable offhand shot.

Click to expand...

I have to qualify standing off hand with a 15 pound rifle at 200 yards (my total loadout with mags is over 22 pounds, just in rifle and ammo), the 7 pound Scout is a dream compared to that. And actually, the balancing point on my Garand is just in front of the internal magazine, so even if it had one sticking out, I could easily get my hand there.

That sight sure looks awkard though.

Click to expand...

As I said, the sight is a little rough. It is the same sight from the newer Mini-14s, and is only adjustable with an allen wrench, which is probably its biggest downfall.

Extended magazines are also awesome for getting hung up on things

Click to expand...

So is my field gear. In fact, my field gear (especially my pistol) has gotten hung up on far more things than even the 20-30 round magazines I normally carry at work.

I think we're on the same page on everything. I get the quote on the Mauser now. Yes, I could see that it would easily take that much to fully refurbish a Mauser with all of the features of the Gunsight. I still think you'd have a better rifle in the end, but those features still wouldn't be worth paying for to me. That's completely up to the individual shooter. Yes, if you need all of the features of the gunsight in a bolt action rifle, the Ruger is a much better bang for your buck than trying to completely rebuild an old Mauser.

Then again, if you can get away without the detachable magazine, and can stand shooting out of a 50 year old barrel that is still quite accurate, A Mauser can still be modified to give 90% of the function of the gunsight for 50% of the cost. For people who aren't doing something that requires detachable mags, you get 100% of the function for 50% of the price in a more rugged platform.

As far as the weight disparity, a lot of the extra weight you're feeling in the M48 is due to the longer barrel and full length stock with barrel bands, etc. Cut the barrel down in length, sporterize the stock, and loose the huge chunk of steel rear sight for a nice receiver mounted peep, and you've gotten rid of a whole lot of the extra weight on that rifle. My short barreled swede is very light, in the same general region as my plastic stocked Savage 11F without its scope. I realize the small ring is slightly lighter than a large ring of similar barrel length and profile, but the difference isn't much.

I think the rest is up to individual preference. Thanks for the correction on the barrel length, I didn't realize that they came in different sizes according to finish.

Someone had a lee enfield for sale in 308 idk how common they are tho.

Thanks for the correction on the barrel length, I didn't realize that they came in different sizes according to finish.

Click to expand...

I didn't either until you mentioned it and I looked closer at the new ones

As for the barrel, I don't have a problem with utilizing an older barrel, I actually have a weird affection for old military rifles, my choice of .308 has more to do with having a common caliber among my rifles than dissatisfaction with the stock rifle.

Given the option (and money) I would actually love to totally redo a Mauser. I love the thought of a project gun, and love hearing stories about famous soldiers/adventurers/etc custom rifles. Budget wise though, its not in the cards for me, nor is the custom M1, or a dozen other guns I could dream up...