Search results

___________________________________________

I have seen the plain caps and stops B.S. marking on a shortened WW1 era barrel (it still displayed the WW1 eagle proof and other incidental marks) plus numbers 5 36 stamped (note gap but no stop) in same size and style under the B.S the full set of markings were applied above the mid...

did you find the thread? btw something extra to note - in your pics you don't appear to have the lock screws on each turret that you screw in (by hand) after the scope is set correctly, and are there to ensure the exposed adj knobs are 'locked' and can't be bumped off their settings...

I thought the picture was of my own one - I have the very same model (plus lots of later ones) there was a very detailed thread in this section - do a search - re the antecedent company was P Kohler and the thread covered Police issue scopes made by Kohler and others, I think - could be wrong...

Here’s my more detailed take on MO and its role re the 98k – it might be wrong, it might be spot-on – its probably going to be controversial but than again it might be completely ignored…………..lets share it now the BLM cold hammer forging barrel making process was a brilliant invention with...

every one is entitled to their own assessements and so are you - I haven't been loggged on since I wrote that post some days ago so apologise (not to you but to the authors of Kriegsmodell) for the slight delay in rectifying your wayward comments in last para:- YOUR ASSUMPTION OF WHOM I WAS...

Concentrating production in the most efficient firms, MO : depends how you assess 'efficiency' - Mauser was a monolithic profit motivated company that thoroughly abused its position within the armaments sector via influence peddling and in collusion with the military and party persons it had...

Repro and DR sorry guys my posts were just a sharing of knowledge and practical experience exercise……… maybe I should have been more clearer, while I have mounted scopes on my 98’s and know all the ins and outs of doing that , my current reference to a possible claw mount project has nothing...

have decided to update my knowledge about trainers, and have a query I refer to this thread : http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?4601-BSW-amp-Gustloff-serial-s-amp-stock-markings-S-A-amp-others I do note you said the content is a bit dated - so my query is do you still stand by the...

you couldn't fit that scope on in its current state even if the front receiver ring was dovetailed to take a claw block? there are plenty of options discussed in past threads - do a search ___________________

after the series of grossly misinformed and gratuitously misleading comments posted by tjg79 in this thread I decided not to continue with a more complete explanation of how to properly solder scope mounts on a 98k as to do so would likely just generate more unnecessary and unhelpful comments...

if your wanting excellent accuracy the condition of the muzzle is equally or more important than some minor discoloration or wear in the rifling - you need to have the last several inches in very good shape (ie without cleaning rod wear or other damage) - ideally you will use a bore sighter...

if your question is can a nominal 26.5mm dia. ring be machined out to take a 27mm scope tube ? the answer lies in how thick the metal is - its unlikley that the metal is already so thin in the rings to prevent them being opened up the 26.5mm advt size on repros seems to be an intentional...

re the still unanswered part of your enquiry: if the 26.5mm rings are the 'split version' first try if the 27mm scope tube will fit - i.e. if the rings can be 'stretched' to close over the tube - its only a 0.5mm difference after all, and even then the machining of the rings may be slightly off...

saw the forging inclusions as soon as I opened the foto and before reading your post - it all points to being a forging - some hand filing and machine marks are also evident - the 'finish' that appears rough like a cast items surface may look like could be just that the bolt developed a rusty...

following on from my last post, are we able to say with reasonable confidence that all ser no. known are below 1000, have no suffix and there are no markings anywhere on the rifle including the stock normally associated with the branch of the armed service (which mainstream 98k usually display) ?

so are you ready to start off with some thoughtful speculation to see where it might lead based on whats in this thread, that speculation should perhaps be based around what we seem to know about this rifle and others of similar kind - not commercially proofed but even more importantly not...

be assured I have been a diligent reader of all of M22 's posts and without naming others so as not to differentiate unnecessarily or unfairly there are several other very capable commentators on the dimunitive mauser on this forum - all of it interesting reading - and just in case M22 needs to...

gimme a break! I wasn't being hard on you and you are doing a fair job in very difficult circumstances as any retro piecing together of 'facts' is a daunting challenge - if there is a thematic message its try to be objective and subjective simultaneously as it will be easier to do effective...

you make some rather bold claims like ," I believe most trainers saw little use after 1941 and by 44-45 I believe most trainers were sitting idle. " and "Further evidenced by the pristine condition of many late KKW's encountered.' etc - I appreciate you have also quailified these to some...