doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com 98 Mauser scope bases

Tentman,
I won't say I've never been wrong,because I have often been.That said,it is still my opinion that most,if not all,so called "factory" mounted scopes were actually farmed out to local gunsmiths,photos not withstanding.This applies to other manufactures as well.They didn't want to slow the production lines down for "one off" scope mounting.As a service to their customers,they would take a rifle in and have someone else mount the scope. This type work was a big part of my gunsmith buddy's business.This applied to other special work as well,such as sideplates on Ruger #1s,etc.I would be especially interested in seeing Kudaue's opinion on this.

So...I guess that takes us back to the original question - is it or is it not safe practice? Did Mauser not do it much themselves because they didn't want to take the time to do it, or did they not think it was safe practice? Handloading being largely a non-issue for most of their European clientelle (and rarely one for Americans) did they think it was safe to cut the receiver ring as a general practice?

I'm still cloudy about Mauser's thoughts on this practice, from an engineering/proof/safety point of view. I can bet, though, that they sure didn't think it was ideal.

One comment I can make is that cutting a dovetail in a standard Mauser receiver ring most certainly does not make it any stronger and you have much less of a safety factor in case of a a case failure or some type of overload. As brought up in a previous post, Mauser didn't come up with the double square bridge version of the 98 w/o good reason.

While in college in Kansas in the late 1960's I bought a really nice WW I Mauser 8x57 that had been sporterized in Germany & restocked here(Amberg arsenal if I remember correctly). It had a dovetailed receiver ring & claw mount base & like most was missing the rings. Stupidly, I had the gun rebarreled to .270 WCF & the dovetail base removed & a blank fitted so a Redfield top mount could be fitted. I shot that gun w/o any issues for about 5 years but was never completely comfortable with the safety factor & as I got a little smarter about things gunwise I dissasembled the gun for parts & destroyed the receiver. I don't remember if the dovetail pierced the receiver ring or not. If I had been smart enough to leave it a 8x57 Mauser I would not have been as concerned about the safety factor & would likely still be shooting it.

Reading Ackley's blowup tests SHOULD be an eye-opener. Of the 3 Mausers tested, the dovetailed one failed at quite a light loading compared to the other 2 Mausers, and at a very ludicrously low loading compared to some of the stronger actions tested. Altogether too weak to be logically included in the same group with the others.

I've always been somewhat of a hot-rodder and own a '94 Swede fitted with a 270 WCF barrel, so I'm no stranger to pushing the envelope. However it's been my experience that the early Mausers need all the lug support they can get and so I wouldn't put a 270 on a dovetailed Mauser. Ditto a 243 WCF, it's rather high-pressured in the first place and in addition it has a history of far too many unexplained pressure excursions to suit me.

I've always found the various 57mm cartridges to give good performance in the field at any reasonable range, with no need for anything more unless at extended range or dangerous game. Two of my favorite dovetailed/claw mounted rifles were 9x57s rebored by Bob Snapp, and they were both splendid deer-killing machines!
Regards, Joe

Mr. Steel
Reading Ackley's blow up tests was one of the major influences in my decision to not press my luck any further with the .270 WCF in a dovetailed receiver ring WW I Mauser action.

I also agree with your opinion on the usefulness of Mauser cartridge designs based on the 57 mm case however in my case it took many years of fooling around with more powerful & inapropriate cartridges to figure this out. Too soon old & to late smart! I still prefer the Mauser 98 design over all others for a reasonable range hunting rifle.

I don't know if he is still in the business of producing claw mounts but there is a website, http://clawmounts.com/ that show very nice modern reproductions for sporting rifles. I believe he was a small supplier to Brownells for a very short time. I have a pair on a Winchester Model 70 in .375H&H. I've shot this rifle quite a bit and the mounts haven't failed.

I have a set of Steve's clawmounts on a custom 7x57 I had built on a 1909 Argentine action. They work beautifully and don't alter the action. He says they'll take recoil up to .375 level, which I don't doubt. Glad to hear a first person affirmation of this, though, as I'm considering a .350 Griffin & Howe next and would like to use his mounts again.