Third Party Press

M-48 Yugo

Sr4440

Well-known member
Once again asking for advice.
Looked at a really nice M48 Yugo last week. Early type matching numbers. The thing looks new with a new stock and near perfect bore.
Took it out of the stock, has a dot after the assembly number which I think means re-done at the arsenal. Barrel number did not match indicating re-barrel. Bottom bolt number did match.
Very nice clean rifle..The guy, a friend, was asking $500.00
Yea,Nay?
 
Not a screaming deal, but probably about fair for a M48 these days.

If you like the rifle you're not getting robbed, provided it's as you describe.
 
Thanks Cyrano4747..it really is a nice rifle...not in love with it...got 2-3 coming up on auction this weekend I'd rather have...time will tell
 
Should have a matching numbered bolt handle.

The Yugos took great care of these rifles while they were in storage, inspecting and applying new preservative grease every ten years or so. If you elect to shoot it, be sure to take the bolt apart and clean out the heavy grease. Otherwise, the firing pin may drag, and you'll get failures to fire, especially with military surplus ammo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pat
Got mine when they first came in, all matching. I think I paid sub $200. It has a Yugo ON76 scope and Zrak mounts. Shoots very well....
 

Attachments

  • Yugo M48 .jpg
    Yugo M48 .jpg
    90.3 KB · Views: 13
Back in the day, I really wanted one of these. Below is a lengthy, you might want to skip a lot, review of the M48. Wasn't so great, at least the one tested.

 
Back in the day, I really wanted one of these. Below is a lengthy, you might want to skip a lot, review of the M48. Wasn't so great, at least the one tested.


Anecdotes are like assholes etc., but that has to be a screwy rifle or terrible ammo or something. Between my guns and rifles friends owned I shot a fair few of those in the mid-00s and they were solidly accurate rifles. I mean, they were still mass produced military guns. You weren't going to make clover leafs at 100 yards. But if you got one with a good bore (and a bunch of them came in looking basically pristine) it easily outshot the RC K98ks that were our other Mauser-flavored fodder in those days.
 
Anecdotes are like assholes etc., but that has to be a screwy rifle or terrible ammo or something. Between my guns and rifles friends owned I shot a fair few of those in the mid-00s and they were solidly accurate rifles. I mean, they were still mass produced military guns. You weren't going to make clover leafs at 100 yards. But if you got one with a good bore (and a bunch of them came in looking basically pristine) it easily outshot the RC K98ks that were our other Mauser-flavored fodder in those days.
I Concur.
 
Anecdotes are like assholes etc., but that has to be a screwy rifle or terrible ammo or something. Between my guns and rifles friends owned I shot a fair few of those in the mid-00s and they were solidly accurate rifles. I mean, they were still mass produced military guns. You weren't going to make clover leafs at 100 yards. But if you got one with a good bore (and a bunch of them came in looking basically pristine) it easily outshot the RC K98ks that were our other Mauser-flavored fodder in those days.
Could be up to the individual guns, but it is not the first time I heard of feeding problems, rough action, so so accuracy, and slivers with this type. Anyway, prices are high enough (not $200 any more) that I would wait to buy at minimum a bolt mismatch K98k with a decent bore. Better money spent. Just an opinion.
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top