Printable View
Other choices seem to include the 8x60 (rimmed or no) and 8x65(? not quite remembering the exact length just now) which also came rimmed or no in both bore sizes.
The front sight certainly isn't "issue"! And I definitely concur that it's a reblue. Probably post WWII.
Many thanks for the advice Patrick it will be acted on. You say you have a similar rifle in your possession does the action have an arsenal mark or is it blank like mine? I really would love to find out where this rifle was built and the reason if any why it is unmarked. Did any of the arsenal's produce unmarked rifles?:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
Two similar/relevant cases, but not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer
Case 1) Schultz & Larsen M69 match rifle. Heavy 6.5x55 S&L barrel on an original Gew.98 action. No. 39xx with no series letter. I.e. first series of that year. All parts matching. Even the follower has a Prussian proof mark and the last two figures of the number. Refinished (parkerized) by S&L. All number, stamps etc clear, as on the Gew88. But no trace of the original crest/arsenal mark+date on the barrel ring. So, if done professionally, it is possible to refinish a rifle so that you cannot see any traces of the origin marks. Like the Gew.88 in this thread.
Case 2) M1896 Swedish Mauser / Carl Gustaf production, also in 6,5x55. Dinged wood, but professional refinishing of the metal. The giveaway (as in the case of the Gew.88) is the discrepancy between the wear/scratches etc on the wood and the metal.
I do not think that arsenals, like Amberg or Danzig, produced "unlabelled" actions. Arsenal rifles were part of military procurement, and apart from possible "lunchbox specials", were marked accordingly. But Mauser itself certainly did produce commercial actions for hunting rifles. In the case of the Gew.88 in this thread, I still thinky that it was a normal military rifle that was simply converted to a rimmed case for use by a hunter, and the simplest conversion would have been to the 8x57 IR. Although, as jmoore points out, other chambering are conceivable. We will all know a bit more if the chamber is cast and the bore measured as suggested in my previous contribution.
:wave:
Patrick
Sooooooooo... whatever was the resolution?
Still ongoing with my research whatever it turns out to be it will have to go to the proof house as it has no proof marks that I can find, I will post results when I eventually get them. Thanks for your interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer
Oh yes it has! Take a very close look at the root of the bolt handle, where the number is stamped. That looks like a crown over BNP - in other words, it has been proofed in the UK in recent times!
Well spotted you are quite right but the rifle itself does not have any legal proof marks and as I understand it it will have to go through proof as a complete assembly and then marked as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer
Sad but true!
Yes there is... at long last the mystery has been solved, well in part at least. I think that the general conclusion that the metal work has been refinished is correct, done to a very high standard and probably a long time ago. The real odd ball was the bolt / calibre and this was resolved when we realised that the wrong bolt head was fitted, this rifle was bought at auction and was probably assembled with the wrong part to make it look presentable. Many thanks to Phil Rose for all the work in solving the problem and getting the correct bolt head from the States and doing the necessary work to get it through the proof house.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
What was the end result 7.92 x 57mm now head spaced, proofed and ready to go. Many thanks to all for there input, sorry its taken so long to get to the end.:cheers:
Thanks for the final report. This puzzling stops the grey cells from rusting up!