I read the article entitled "Why The Mauser Isn't So Great" by Reid Coffield in the March 2012 issue. The author seems to ramble a bit and then makes a few meaningless comments about the shortcomings of the '98 Mauser. In closing he states that he ..." I still love my Mausers." I am glad that after 114 years someone finally told us about some faults with the '98 Mauser. It is articles like the one referenced above that have caused me to let most of my gun magazine subscriptions expire. All the best...
Gil

I would be interested to read that one. I'm kind of a Mauser fan, but it's not on their web site yet. I read a similarly smeared rendition of why you shouldn't use a 7.62x39 caliber in an Ar-15 build. In the end, the author says the down-sides are very bad, but the only "bad" he comes up with are, the cartridges are very tapered and don't work in a normal Ar-15 magazine, Com-bloc ammo is corrosive, and he also states that the cheapest ammo has only a casual reputation for accuracy. That was the end of the article! HUH? So get a mag made for the cartridge and quit using cheap corrosive ammo. This guy wrote a book on gunsmithing the AR-15. Now that's another drunk gunsmith I don't wanna meet.

Suz

Well said, Gil. I usually skip over articles that seem shallow or redundant. Take care...
Joe

I can remember up until a few years ago gun-writers had nothing but praise for any firearm and could not find a fault with them. Now recently as Gil mentioned the article in shooting times, to me it seemed like the author Coffield bashed one of my favorites for the last time and hence no more shooting times for me. The good days of O'Connor, Skeeter Skelton, Jordan, Keith, Ferguson, Lewis, Swigget and Bill Grover with the last survivor being John Taffin I think is coming to an end of an era.

I honestly think that the people I mentioned above with the exception of Coffield had a genuine passion about their job and loved to write and do their job and tell their opinions without clashing with the reader. Thankfully I still have many many magazines I put away and can always indulge myself.

I just reread the Shooting Times article about the Mauser and I can't see what the hubbub is about. Coffield simply points out a couple of the weaknesses of the gun. He says that the Mauser has a slower lock time and less rigid action than more modern bolt actions and backs his assertions. He also says "Does this mean the Mauser is obsolete and useless? Heck no! It's just that we need to be realistic about it." I took it as him addressing the unrealistic "worship" some people have for certain guns (or cartridges).

Pumpkin, I can see your point and the others also. I think they are just stating that most of us all ready realize that the flaws mentioned exist and that it wouldn't be ground-breaking news to anyone and isn't particularly interesting writing. However most of us are probably more familiar then the "average" reader and perspective is everything. It isn't just the gun-rags that suffer these cliche's when I started running and bicycling I subscribed as Sam was selling magazines as a fund raiser for school. And shoe reviews are kin to gun reviews. This is our chosen niche so we might as well enjoy it. My favorite action is a FN 98 and yes I like it good and bad, but I still pick up a copy of just about anything if it has an Oberndorf sporter on the cover. even if it just re-hashes all the blah-blah-blah I have heard for 40+ years and some of you (Bushy) may have been hearing even longer.

Fn, I agree with you. I think a number of folks on here could probably write for the gun magazines. But I also bet that many got started on that knowledge by reading the "gun rags". Personally I read all I can about guns. I may or may not agree with what is written but I can usually pick up some tidbit that might be useful later on. I figure I'll never learn everything there is to know but I'll keep trying, whatever the sources. Sometimes you can learn a lot just trying to prove that someone else is wrong!

Pumpkin......learning a lot from trying to prove someone is wrong...that should my tag-line, I've eaten more crow on here, but I tell ya what, I eventually learn. (to take out my frustrations on them ) And usually they're a better person for it too. Wow to think the Mauser 98 action is less rigid...how did he prove that one? I'm just thinkin about the mass and thickness of the action. I can't find the article on line. Is there a short answer? I wanna know, or maybe you can lead me to the article on the internet. I searched their web site but it's not on there.

curious
Suz

Most people reference the "thumb-cut" in the left wall of the receiver when this argument arises because of course they are bashing the military actions or early commercials, The real truth is that I have personally witnessed sub .25" groups to be common on a quality re-barreled action built w\ other high-grade components. I believe alot of other factors to be more influential in the end result then a cut well behind the locking lugs. I would be next to impossible to isolate this with commonly available equipment though so most of us just have to speak out of experience or lack of.

Facts are not value judgements. Whenever I read any article I try to keep my mind open to facts and alert to the bias of the author. From what I have read and experienced myself the K98 military Mauser when compared to a number of contemporary military bolt rifles had a somewhat slower cycle rate. Not sure that makes any difference today.

A slower cyclic rate is not a major problem Mac, until you are "knee deep in grenade pins and the hordes are coming over the parapet".

Cheers, Vince

The old 03A3 has a slower lock time than the Mauser - unless you put in aftermarket one-piece pin. Maybe that is why I can't shoot groups smaller than 0.5" at 100 yards with it....
Oh well, I think another 1/4" won't make much difference to the receiver of that bullet.

At that time Vince a sharp bayonet and/or a fully loaded Webley would be more important :-)

Ah, Mac I'd go old school, a sharp bayonet and a tomahawk