-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
I think range scores with a Mauser 98 would be worse on average than with any US or UK battle rifle just because of the putrid sights.
It is also my understanding that the Nazis practiced on sillouette targets so it would be hard to compare that way too.
Frankly I can't shoot a Mauser 98 as acurately as any US or Brit rifle and it dosen't have a lot to do with recoil. It does have a lot to do with the sight set up.
-
03-27-2009 02:09 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Same for me Art. I think the sights are a poor design.
Imagine trying to use them in low light combat conditions.
-
-
-
-
-
Legacy Member
Submitted without editorial comment.
Five rounds, 100 meters.
Fired 6/18/02 from a 100% unaltered 1923 Carl Gustav M96.
-----krinko
Last edited by krinko; 07-05-2009 at 05:04 PM.
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
I have shot a boat load of M-98 rifles ranging from those that looked like they had been dragged behind a truck to those that were virtually new from rebuild or in exceptionally good original condition. With good barrels and ammunition I have not found it hard to shoot groups equal to 03 rifles using the standard battle sight. Using the aperture on the 03 or the 03-A3, my groups are certainly more consistent for vertical dispersion.
Concerning recoil, I have found that the 03 "S" stock is fine w/ M-2 ball. The "C" and scant stocks are better especially with heavy hunting loads. The KAR-98 is to me quite comfortable even in extended shooting sessions. I do tend to shoot mostly from the prone position using a hard hold. I usually wear a M-65 coat unless the weather is really hot. Then I just wear a shirt.
For accuracy, I glue a small piece of surgical rubber to the buttplate of my K-98 to keep it from slipping up and down on my shoulder. I do the same thing with my 03 and 03-A3 and M-1 rifles. It greatly improves my consistency in grouping.
The above is of course just my opinion based only on my own experience. Your results may be different. Sincerely. BruceV
-
Advisory Panel
It depends a lot on your eyesight. I have a strongly astigmatic right eye and poor accommodation (it's the age, y'know). Quite simply, I see the top of a square blade and the top of the backsight as double lines. With the Swedish Mauser and the Swiss G96/11 I can nevertheless line up the doubled horizontal lines and achieve good accuracy. But with the standard Mauser V backsight and inverted V blade I have only a very poor idea of the vertical position. The result is targets which tend to fall apart into two halves after a long session - narrow horizontal spread, enormous vertical spread.
Watching other shooters at BDMP competitions, I have the impression that this age-dependent difficulty is quite common, and partially explains the ranking I presented in my last posting.
One educational factor from learning to shoot wearing glasses - if you value your glasses and your face, you very quickly learn to hold the rifle firmly against your shoulder.
It is like holding up the hind leg of a horse for shoeing - if you hold the leg firmly against the horse, it can push like mad, but no more. Give it some space, and then it can really kick. That too is not theory, but personal experience.
Patrick
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
I don't think most folks would dispute that Mauser rifles, especially those made in peace time are very accurate rifles mechanically. That's only half the equation though. The other half is sighting equipment and trigger pull.
The best metallic sights are correctly made aperture sights. They are much more forgiving of old eyes, and can be aligned very quickly if one is familiar with their use.
After that the best iron sights are probably partridge (square notch, square post) though good U notch and post sights are about as good.
At the bottom, IMHO are the V notch pyramid sights on the Mausers. They are very difficult to achieve precision with compared to the others. As a battle sight I think the Mauser V notch/pyramid set up was probably better in combat than the tiny hard to acquire sights on the M1903 rifles but only marginally so, and inferior to them optically for target work.
That does not mean that an excellent shot can't achieve excellent results with them, especially if he/she has very good eyesight. It just means they aren't as good as most of the other options.
All other things being equal, better sights equate to better groups for the average shooter.
My $.02.
P.S. As I said before I don't find recoil on Mauser rifles prohibitive except with Turkish ball but that's just me and a lot of that has to do with body type and how your face is built.
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
I always use slip on recoil pads because I don't like pain. I don't recall having a problem getting hit in the cheek with any type of rifle. The worst rifle for recoil that I had, emphasis on had, was a sporterized M96 Swedish Mauser carbine with the 18" barrel and a commercial stock. It was very light and kicked like a mule on steroids. I've replaced it with a completely matching all original version including the sling that's comfortable to shoot. The ideal slip on pad for my Mosin Nagants are those that come from the French MAS series of rifles such as the 36/51 and 49/56. That also lengthens the pull which is good for me since I'm tall have long arms. I also tend to set the bottom of the buttstock high on my shoulder even if doesn't make solid contact. That keeps my head "horizontal" and my neck fairly vertical. All this is shooting from the bench. For what it's worth if anything. Carl
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Recoil
I have shot several mausers mostly offhand and they kick like a mule. I use a sling and pull the gun in tight and that is the only thing I know to keep from getting a bruised cheek or bloody lip
Reload with lighter loads and bullets, then you can enjoy shooting your mauser.
-
RED
Guest
-