Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/25/2020 4:10:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2020 4:11:29 PM EDT by Jerret_S]
Just got an email about these a few minutes ago. Seems like a decent deal and I added in my info and shipping was $9.99 add on their 3% credit card charge (who does this anymore) and it is under $240.

Not to mention they're antique guns.

Thinking about it, but dont really have an itch for these.

Should I?

Link
Link Posted: 1/25/2020 4:55:12 PM EDT
Should I?    
View Quote
Do you enjoy the latest century and a quarter old technology?  Especially after it has been worn and abused?

It has a history, and I can respect that.  I bought a slightly more modern rifle almost 30 years ago for a little bit less than half the price.

It was a Chilean M1895 Mauser.  Kind of fun to come home from work, to find that UPS has delivered a rifle laying outside your door.

I still have it, and it has digested several 7.62 NATO cartridges, in spite of what the nervous nellies tell you.  (Not without very good eye protection, however!).

I can't tell you whether you should buy it or not.  You might find it fun to own, (even shoot), and you might not.

I have to admit I was tempted when I read that e-mail a few minutes ago.
Link Posted: 1/25/2020 10:53:58 PM EDT
"This product is currently out of stock".

I don't really need any more.  It is tempting, but I bought several '93 Turks like this a while back and I've got a bunch of other '98 style Mausers as well.
Link Posted: 1/26/2020 12:42:11 PM EDT
I handload reduced 8mm for my 1888 Commission Rifle. They are about the same as a 30-30 Winchester load. I am not sure I would run any full power military rounds through them. The Mauser 98 had an upgrade to vent gas away from the shooter in case of a case head separatiion
Link Posted: 1/26/2020 1:38:53 PM EDT
I'd be all over one of it was unmodified...but 1930's rebuilds, nah, not for me...

But it is a good price for one...

Although technically not sure I agree its an Antique...I have read where it only maintains the antique status if its in original form, so the upgrades in the 30's seems to negate that...I wouldn't worry about it, but mainly curious...I have seen it interpreted both ways...
Link Posted: 1/26/2020 2:46:03 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 98kGuy:
I'd be all over one of it was unmodified...but 1930's rebuilds, nah, not for me...
View Quote
This. I’ve been hunting a cheap, unmodified Turkish M1893 to fill my WWI Ottoman rifle position, but these won’t fill that hole.
Link Posted: 1/26/2020 3:06:25 PM EDT
I bought one that was a “rebuild” and it had the worst looking barrel I’ve ever seen. Non concentric counterbore, rust and pitting 10” from the end, etc. I cut it down to 16.5” so I could actually use it. It’s not bad now, but definitely far from original. Attachment Attached File
Link Posted: 1/26/2020 5:48:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2020 5:51:28 PM EDT by Jerret_S]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 98kGuy:
I'd be all over one of it was unmodified...but 1930's rebuilds, nah, not for me...

But it is a good price for one...

Although technically not sure I agree its an Antique...I have read where it only maintains the antique status if its in original form, so the upgrades in the 30's seems to negate that...I wouldn't worry about it, but mainly curious...I have seen it interpreted both ways...
View Quote
Not sure on the exact law but many finn m39s are antique just because of the receiver . Weird I know.

Edit: ended up passing on these. Mostly because I just picked up another RC k98 recently. Classic would of had these for a low price of $499
Link Posted: 1/27/2020 12:06:43 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MBUZICHOMA:
I handload reduced 8mm for my 1888 Commission Rifle. They are about the same as a 30-30 Winchester load. I am not sure I would run any full power military rounds through them. The Mauser 98 had an upgrade to vent gas away from the shooter in case of a case head separatiion
View Quote
I also load reduced 8x57 with the small diameter bullets for my 1888.  I ordered a bunch of those bullets from Buffalo a while back.  My main load uses IMR 3130 powder, I'd have to look at my notes to see how many grains, but it is as you say similar in power to 30-30 Win.  I think I also worked up a load for IMR 4895 which is one of the powders I like to stock in bulk.  It has been a while since I've loaded any for the 1888, as I loaded a whole bunch a while back and haven't shot through them yet.

FWIW, these 1930s converted Turks don't seem to require reduced loads.  I've shot plenty of milsurp 8x57 through them even some of the fairly hotly loaded Turk surplus.  Some people might say that is crazy given they are a '93 style action which is weaker than a '98 style action (no bolt vents and no extra safety lug).  But I believe the Turks used their ammo in them.
Link Posted: 1/27/2020 9:46:08 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SoftwareJanitor:
I also load reduced 8x57 with the small diameter bullets for my 1888.  I ordered a bunch of those bullets from Buffalo a while back.  My main load uses IMR 3130 powder, I'd have to look at my notes to see how many grains, but it is as you say similar in power to 30-30 Win.  I think I also worked up a load for IMR 4895 which is one of the powders I like to stock in bulk.  It has been a while since I've loaded any for the 1888, as I loaded a whole bunch a while back and haven't shot through them yet.

FWIW, these 1930s converted Turks don't seem to require reduced loads.  I've shot plenty of milsurp 8x57 through them even some of the fairly hotly loaded Turk surplus.  Some people might say that is crazy given they are a '93 style action which is weaker than a '98 style action (no bolt vents and no extra safety lug).  But I believe the Turks used their ammo in them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SoftwareJanitor:
Originally Posted By MBUZICHOMA:
I handload reduced 8mm for my 1888 Commission Rifle. They are about the same as a 30-30 Winchester load. I am not sure I would run any full power military rounds through them. The Mauser 98 had an upgrade to vent gas away from the shooter in case of a case head separatiion
I also load reduced 8x57 with the small diameter bullets for my 1888.  I ordered a bunch of those bullets from Buffalo a while back.  My main load uses IMR 3130 powder, I'd have to look at my notes to see how many grains, but it is as you say similar in power to 30-30 Win.  I think I also worked up a load for IMR 4895 which is one of the powders I like to stock in bulk.  It has been a while since I've loaded any for the 1888, as I loaded a whole bunch a while back and haven't shot through them yet.

FWIW, these 1930s converted Turks don't seem to require reduced loads.  I've shot plenty of milsurp 8x57 through them even some of the fairly hotly loaded Turk surplus.  Some people might say that is crazy given they are a '93 style action which is weaker than a '98 style action (no bolt vents and no extra safety lug).  But I believe the Turks used their ammo in them.
I know they did the upgrades. My 1888 was a Turk rifle. It has the S and Z conversion done. The S they extended the throat to let the 323 bullet slowly squeeze down to 318. The Z was when ther recut the bore to 323 from 318.

I am sure the 1893 is a much stronger action than the 1888 though.
Link Posted: 1/27/2020 3:30:36 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jerret_S:

Classic would of had these for a low price of $499
View Quote
LOL.
Link Posted: 1/27/2020 8:19:54 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MBUZICHOMA:

I know they did the upgrades. My 1888 was a Turk rifle. It has the S and Z conversion done. The S they extended the throat to let the 323 bullet slowly squeeze down to 318. The Z was when ther recut the bore to 323 from 318.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MBUZICHOMA:

I know they did the upgrades. My 1888 was a Turk rifle. It has the S and Z conversion done. The S they extended the throat to let the 323 bullet slowly squeeze down to 318. The Z was when ther recut the bore to 323 from 318.
The one I have still has a .318" bore, so I buy properly sized bullets.  You are fortunate in not having to do that because the .318" bullets are harder to find and usually more expensive.

I am sure the 1893 is a much stronger action than the 1888 though.
General consensus is the 1893 is indeed much stronger.  I'm not sure if I'd shoot the Turk surplus I have through an 1888, although I bet the Turks probably did.
Link Posted: 1/27/2020 8:37:26 PM EDT
Oh, I should also add that to load the .318" bullets, I bought a custom sized mandrel die set from Lee.  Without that the normal dies usually won't seat the bullet securely enough.
Link Posted: 1/31/2020 12:30:19 AM EDT
I'd be interested in one (assuming I had the coin at the time) if it's in original condition with the magazine cut-off intact.  Also would consider an action by itself that still had that feature, including all of the cut-off components, if it were in good enough shape.
Link Posted: 1/31/2020 4:52:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2020 4:53:52 PM EDT by Jerret_S]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
I'd be interested in one (assuming I had the coin at the time) if it's in original condition with the magazine cut-off intact.  Also would consider an action by itself that still had that feature, including all of the cut-off components, if it were in good enough shape.
View Quote
I bet anything like that would be rare as hell and a a neat story to tell how it got here.
Link Posted: 1/31/2020 7:17:57 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jerret_S:
I bet anything like that would be rare as hell and a a neat story to tell how it got here.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jerret_S:
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
I'd be interested in one (assuming I had the coin at the time) if it's in original condition with the magazine cut-off intact.  Also would consider an action by itself that still had that feature, including all of the cut-off components, if it were in good enough shape.
I bet anything like that would be rare as hell and a a neat story to tell how it got here.
Yeah, I haven't heard of too many people who own one like that, but they do exist.  I'm mainly interested in the magazine cut-off system.  It's the only Mauser that had one AFAIK.
Link Posted: 1/31/2020 7:57:26 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 98kGuy:
Although technically not sure I agree its an Antique...I have read where it only maintains the antique status if its in original form, so the upgrades in the 30's seems to negate that...I wouldn't worry about it, but mainly curious...I have seen it interpreted both ways...
View Quote
C&R has to remain in generally original configuration to remain C&R eligibility - hence all the Fudds butthurt about sporterized guns and the tricks used to hide duffle cuts.  Antiques are actions made before 1 Jan 1899, no matter what else has been done to them.
Link Posted: 1/31/2020 8:06:03 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By backbencher:
C&R has to remain in generally original configuration to remain C&R eligibility - hence all the Fudds butthurt about sporterized guns and the tricks used to hide duffle cuts.  Antiques are actions made before 1 Jan 1899, no matter what else has been done to them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By 98kGuy:
Although technically not sure I agree its an Antique...I have read where it only maintains the antique status if its in original form, so the upgrades in the 30's seems to negate that...I wouldn't worry about it, but mainly curious...I have seen it interpreted both ways...
C&R has to remain in generally original configuration to remain C&R eligibility - hence all the Fudds butthurt about sporterized guns and the tricks used to hide duffle cuts.  Antiques are actions made before 1 Jan 1899, no matter what else has been done to them.
For C&R, isn't that only the case for guns less than 50-years old?  I could've sworn there was a blanket category for guns at least 50 years old.
Link Posted: 1/31/2020 9:02:12 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigstick61: For C&R, isn't that only the case for guns less than 50-years old?  I could've sworn there was a blanket category for guns at least 50 years old.
View Quote
C&R IS the blanket category for guns from 1899 til 1969.  Not antique, but more than 50 years old, including early Colt SP1s now.
Link Posted: 1/31/2020 9:25:44 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By backbencher:
C&R IS the blanket category for guns from 1899 til 1969.  Not antique, but more than 50 years old, including early Colt SP1s now.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By bigstick61: For C&R, isn't that only the case for guns less than 50-years old?  I could've sworn there was a blanket category for guns at least 50 years old.
C&R IS the blanket category for guns from 1899 til 1969.  Not antique, but more than 50 years old, including early Colt SP1s now.
What I mean is, isn't the requirement of original condition only for guns on the C&R list that would not be considered C&R merely on account of age?
Link Posted: 1/31/2020 9:40:16 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
What I mean is, isn't the requirement of original condition only for guns on the C&R list that would not be considered C&R merely on account of age?
View Quote
No, that's a requirement for all C&R guns, AFAIK.  You can do things like add optical sights, but generally sporterizing them takes em right out.
Link Posted: 1/31/2020 10:38:45 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By backbencher:

C&R has to remain in generally original configuration to remain C&R eligibility - hence all the Fudds butthurt about sporterized guns and the tricks used to hide duffle cuts.  Antiques are actions made before 1 Jan 1899, no matter what else has been done to them.
View Quote
Ok, yep, you're right, got them confused....thanks for the sanity check!
Link Posted: 2/1/2020 12:27:14 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By backbencher:
No, that's a requirement for all C&R guns, AFAIK.  You can do things like add optical sights, but generally sporterizing them takes em right out.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
What I mean is, isn't the requirement of original condition only for guns on the C&R list that would not be considered C&R merely on account of age?
No, that's a requirement for all C&R guns, AFAIK.  You can do things like add optical sights, but generally sporterizing them takes em right out.
First I've heard that.  I know the ATF stopped allowing C&R guns (based on age) being SBRed to continue to be considered C&R in 2011 or thereabouts (but those already converted were still C&R), with the SBR or SBS being considered a new gun, but that's the closest to something like that I've heard of.  The topic came up because CA has a C&R exemption to the restrictions on SBRs and SBSs, so it was inquired as to whether a sufficiently old registered AR could be SBRed, but the ATF ruling was brought up as a reason why it could not be done.

Now, something on the list ceasing to be on the list due to modifications is something I have heard of.
Top Top