Originally Posted by mmarsh

Got a question for you all.

My uncle back in the States has a 98K my Grandad brought back from Germany as a 'souvenir'. Actually Grandad brought back a few odd pieces including a Napoleon era French Rifle, a 1873 Winchester, the K98, a German P38, and a few others.

Anyway I saw it about 15 years ago, my uncle isn't into guns. So it was simply kept in the attic and it was just in terrible condition. I know squat about gunsmithing, but is that something that can be restored? Can you do it yourself or do you need to take it to a pro.

The rifle is a original WWII piece, not a reproduction.

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.

Good luck!


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.

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.

Originally Posted by senojekips

From the little that I know of the Moisin Nagant I find it hard to even put them in the same category, The Moisin looks pretty basic, not even of the standard of the SMLE Mk III*, (which incidentally, shoots very well also) whereas the Kar. 98k gave the impression of good workmanship and was nice to handle and use.

But anyway, that is not the question. We are comparing the Springfield 06 and the Kar 98k.

The Mosin Nagant, designed by Russian Sergei Mosin and Belgian Leon Nagant, was very crude when compared to other bolt action rifles of the period. I have handled and fired both Nagant and Mauser rifles among others, but unfortunately have never fired a Springfield. However, in my opinion, one of the finest sniper rifles ever built was the Enfield P14 built by Winchester, astonishingly accurate and in my opinion far heavier and stronger actions then the Mauser.

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

I love the Springfield, I love the way it looks, it's design and it is a very accurate rifle. That said, in a SHTF situation I would grab my personal kar98k. My kar98k looks a little uglier but the receiver is a little stronger, the firing mechanism is a little stronger (not my much) the sights are more rugged, especially the front sight. The accuracy of my particular kar98k, which was made in 1940 is excellent!! I can't speak for all mausers but this rifle is very accurate, which is the same as the Springfield. I would just be more comfortable putting 100's of rounds through the kar98k as it heated up and then dragging it around in a emergency situation than I would my beautiful Springfield rifle. So there you have it, they are both great rifles, and I think that the Springfield has more style and is a great match rifle. The kar98k can also be a great match rifle, if you get an accurate one, but it will always be a great battle rifle.

A sniper rifle requires special ammunition or it's performance isn't going to be very impressive. Ordinary military ammunition is referred to as " machine gun ammunition", for the reason that it is manufactured to function in automatic weapons where is is subjected to great vibration,G-forces and mechanical manipulation. In order to keep the cartridge from disassembling it has to be put together with crimped or rolled bullets and primers. The bullet is mechanically crimped into the case with great force and then sealed with waterproofing compound. Same with the primer. This means that the force required to separate the bullet from the case has to be high and it varies considerably depending on the force used to crimp it into place. This effects the pressure curve and therefore accuracy. A sniper or match target shooter will carefully hand-select each cartridge from the same lot number. The sniper will keep the ammunition next to his body in order to use his body to keep the ammunition at a constant temperature. The preferred ammunition is "match grade", meaning that this ammunition is hand loaded with precisely measured powder and bullet weight, into cartridge cases of uniform dimensions and the bullet and primer are hand seated. This ammunition is shipped in sealed cardboard boxed marked with all the loading and ballistic data on the label. When shooting at extreme range or where great accuracy is required ordinary service ammunition doesn't perform all that well. In Viet Nam U.S. snipers were provided with top quality rifles and optics, but often had no access to match grade ammo with mediocre results. The rifle is just the launch pad, the work is done by the ammunition.

Sniping as a successful military activity requires more that rifles and high-quality ammunition. It requires a sniper doctrine; some sense of how snipers should be employed to support the main mission. Snipers can't be allowed to become a private army. off doing their own thing regardless of what else is going on. It requires trained personnel and good optics. In WWI the Germans had all that right from the beginning. They had Jaeger light infantry and mountain troops trained in long range marksmanship and fieldcraft. They had excellent rifles, ammunition and, of course, world class optics. The British, French and others had none of this at the beginning. The British Army established sniper schools in France and later came to dominate the battlefield. Reference" SNIPING IN FRANCE" by Major H. Hesketh - Pritchard, DSO M.C. In the interwar period, the winners forgot all the knowledge acquired at great cost in the first war and had to start all over again inWWII. The Germans, of course, did not forget and were ready again at the starting gun.