Mauser "tanker"... practical?

[Atla]

Well... whether Rem's or Savage's are better or worse would be debatable I reckon. ;> I'd personally take a Savage over a Remington -anyday-.

But:

I suppose if you wanted to compare them, the Rem/Sav guns are the sort where you have a warranty and can send them back to the factory to be upgraded or serviced.

If you go with this M63 'Tanker', if theres a problem you can't fix yourself - it'll have to go to a gunsmith. I doubt you'll be able to ship it out of country to the Serbian Company that actually makes them(There name slips my mind at the time, it begins with a Z). The possible custom smithing repairs probably adds some price to the long run of owning this gun. It -may- be possible to switch parts with a mil-surp M48 or 24/47, but it's also possible you won't be able to.

This ain't a 'cheap gun' like most military surplus's. Thats part of the reason a lot of folks knock it. They think that if it's a mil-surplus, which it's not, that it should be cheap. Which it most definitely ain't....(Compared to other Mauser's, Mosin's, etc)

I plan on picking one up when the cash is gathered. In a month or two probably. I'll make a thread about it than.

But it seems a lot of bias on the gun comes from either Mitchell's BS advertising, the price, or simple ignorance of not doing the time and putting in some research on the gun.

For example - Here's an article on the M63 'Tanker' Mauser.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_10_51/ai_n14936901

Evidently it shoots -atleast- 1.5 MOA.

I say 'atleast' because I don't know the guys shooting skills, it may be possible to do better than that. Most guns shoot better than the shooter.

The standard trigger on the sample broke at 7.3 lbs. (You can upgrade to an adjustable if you'd like)

The rear sight only goes down to 200 yards. (Unfortunately). So it shoots high at 100 yds, which can be fixed with a Brownell's mauser front sight replacement.

The total length is 37", compared to the 43.5" on a M48.

And of course, total weight is 7.4 pounds.

It'd make an interesting 'Scout' platform, it won't fill all the requirements but then I've never been a big bipod fan anyways.

 

[cracked butt]

This ain't a 'cheap gun' like most military surplus's. Thats part of the reason a lot of folks knock it.

Many of my milsurps cost twice that or more, but I still knock it.

They think that if it's a mil-surplus, which it's not, that it should be cheap.

Its Yugoslavian and therefore should be cheap. This thing is priced as much as the Remington 798 which is made in the same factory but has sporter features and has the remington name inflation built into the price. But then again Mitchell's is well known for tripling the price of everyone else on selling the same goods.

But it seems a lot of bias on the gun comes from either Mitchell's BS advertising, the price, or simple ignorance of not doing the time and putting in some research on the gun.

Mitchell's is less than reputable- I'm biased as hell against them.