Mitchell Mauser Question

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

I think you get that set free with the purchase of a Mitchells's Mauser. You must pay S&H .

[Harlan (Deceased)]

- You guys must be about my age. I found my old comics and made several scans of some of the ads - Not to wreck this thread any more than I have, I started to new thread on the general discussion forum to post the scans. I hope the other guys have you guys sense of humor!

Mitchell Mauser VS Comic Book Ads

[303carbine]

All that I have ever heard about Mitchells is bad, a lot of original rifles get destroyed in the making of their "tankers; and such.
If I wanted a shooter, a Mitchells would do, if I want a collector, I would look elsewhere.

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

The No5 is No1

You got that right!

[Charon]

If you want a different caliber as a shooter and have the money, buy one. Many don't want to mess around with 303s or 7.5s or 7.62 x whatever. They just want a rifle they can buy ammo for and go shoot it. Also, the American Rifleman article was favorable as to quality and production values. I don't see that as 'propaganda' and there is no evidence for such. If its cheap, American Riflman says its cheap.

As a collector I could say buy a Swiss K31 because bla bla bla or my M39 will outshoot bla bla bla or an Ishapore 308 is cheap and will be better than bla bla bla. That is not an answer to your question.

Note - no one here has a Mitchell or has said they have even shot one, so take all the advice in accord with that fact.

[Aragorn243]

An owner of a Mitchell's tanker carbine has already weighed in on page one. He likes it.

The American Rifleman is the mouthpiece of the NRA, a political organization. Mitchell's has had a full page ad in the American Rifleman nearly every month for years. It is where I personally was first exposed to Mitchell's. In that I had respect for the NRA, I assumed that any product they would advertise would be from an honorable company. I have since learned otherwise specifically again by Mitchell's. It is not an honorable company. They have very misleading adds, are known to renumber rifles to make them "match" and they clean and refinish weapons they claim were found that way in warehouses from WWII. That knowledge alone has made be question why the NRA carries their ads. It does not make me question why they would give them a favorable review. They have paid for it with their full page ads.

By no means am I against anyone buying a Mitchell's. I just want people to know what they are buying and if they are happy with that knowledge, more power to them. I happen to like the way most of them look, I think they are a quality product, they simply have no collectability left and are on the expensive side when compared to an original weapon in many instances. If you want a "new" rifle however, they are very nice.

As an example. I could have bought a K98 from Mitchells for $500. Instead I bought an RC K98 at a gun shop for $200. I brought it home stripped and cleaned the stock with about $5 worth of cleaning products, gave it a couple dozen coats of linseed oil and bought a front sight cover for $10 and I ended up with a rifle that looks almost exactly like a Mitchell's. The stock is not as bleached or as new looking but still very nice. Nicer to me in that it looks original to the rifle. So the definition of cheap to me does not fit the Mitchell's product.

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

Aragorn243 summed up why I might think propaganda would be an appropriate term in refrence to the Mitchells/ NRA relationship. I have read the article and think it is pretty objective but the misleading ads run in American Rifleman seem to tarnish the NRA a bit in my book.