About Springfield Sniper Rifle vs. K98 Sniper Rifle Page 4
|August 26th, 2008||#31|
| || |
Well, a Kar98k stored in a harsh environment is bound to be rusted...as any other weapon of that aera except the M1Carbine off course.
Most of the internal corrotion in the barrel is due to corrosive primers used back in tose days, and lack of proper cleaning.
Talking about K/98's in general there's two basic differences, the ones with wooden stock, and the ones with a laminated stock.
The first was more or less boiled in lineseedoil, wich proved a good protection.
The latter was made of thin sheets of wood glued together in a manner that made it one of the more solid stocks I know.
Actually I remember one of our NCO's diving off shore at the fortress and finding two such stocks on about 19-21 meters depth where they had probably been for the last 30-40 years or so.
All the metal was rusted away off course, but otherwise the stocks were in pretty good shape, and you could have just refitted barrel and action, and the gone off to war with them again.
My suggestion would be to soak the gun in oil prior to dismantling, and then go carefully, step by step, in stripping the rifle down.
The forward barrel bands are tricky, while the bolt assembly is easy as long as you know how to do it.
And for the record, I'd go for the K98 rather than any other rifle of that area, even though it's not mentioned here wich of the different sniper models of the K98 is in question.
|September 7th, 2008||#32|
| || |
I would have to go with the Springfield, however, my long range bolt gun which I will begin building after I finsih my new AR, will be based on a Mauser 98k the reason is I have two tons of 8mm ammo laying around. Not really but I do have a lot of it. Once that 8mm is gone I'll rebarrel it to .308 NATO.
The plan is to get get a scout scope and a fiberglass stock with a bipod, I plan to put a better trigger in it, along with getting the barrel re crowned, that should help.
The scout scope will allow me to use stripper clips. and I shoot left handed so having so I can reach over and jack the bolt without a scope in the way.
|October 20th, 2008||#33|
| || |
Over the years I have examined and worked on various rifles including Mausers, Springfield's, P14 and P17 Enfields, what was most glaringly obvious, the quality of Mauser rifles dropped considerably as the war progressed.
I agree completely with senojekips regarding the Lee Enfield rifle, the Number 1 Mk3* was an excellent rifle, and as a bolt action battle rifle with its smooth fast action, rate of fire and magazine capacity of ten rounds it had no equal. If newsreel and photographs of North Africa and Italy are examined, the vast majority of Lee Enfields carried by British troops were Number 1 Mk3*.
But the question is, which is better, the 1903 or the Mauser? Personally I would opt for the Springfield every time as Mauser quality did drop. However, if given another choice I would opt for the P14