Author Topic: History Channel -- Locked and Loaded (Read 18962 times)

Balog · « **Reply #25 on:** October 25, 2009, 11:38:11 PM »

Quote from: Gewehr98 on October 25, 2009, 11:00:51 AM

Those before the Gewehr98, yes.

Swedish Mauser, Spanish Mauser, Argentine Mauser, etc.

There are cock-on-opening kits for them, if one is so driven.

Are the cock on opening actions less sturdy than the CoC? I actually like the way my new Swede works...

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 25, 2009, 11:42:55 PM »

Actually, the 98 Mauser is considered the sturdiest of the Mauser family (cock-on-opening, plentiful camming action for extraction, beefy front ring diameter, etc), although Ackley was basically unable to destroy a Jap Arisaka action with blue-pill loads. He succeeded in blowing the barrel out of the action, but that was about the worst of it. The Arisaka is considered a cousin to the Mauser, as is the Pattern 14 and U.S. 1917 Enfield. The U.S. Springfield is a hybrid of the small-ring Spanish Mauser and U.S. Krag rifles, NOT the large-ring 98 Mauser.

Balog · « **Reply #27 on:** October 25, 2009, 11:48:09 PM »

/facepalm

I totally wrote those backwards. I meant to ask if my cock on closing Swede is a weaker action than the G98 et al.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #28 on:** October 25, 2009, 11:51:43 PM »

Isn't everything weaker than the G98?

I mean, like even Chuck Norris is weaker than the G98.

Fly320s · « **Reply #29 on:** October 26, 2009, 09:48:05 AM »

Quote from: fistful on October 25, 2009, 11:51:43 PM

Isn't everything weaker than the G98?

I mean, like even Chuck Norris is weaker than the G98.

Blasphemy!! Chuck Norris invented the G98. He also dug up the iron ore, then formed it into a steel receiver and barrel with his BARE HANDS! :D

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 26, 2009, 12:32:04 PM »

Chuck consulted with Krups and Oberndorf back in the day, setting them on the righteous path...

AJ Dual · « **Reply #31 on:** October 26, 2009, 01:03:13 PM »

I'm an R. Lee Ermy fan, so don't get me wrong, but I think Mike Rowe in some of these military/bomb/explosive shows would be a hoot.

mtnbkr · « **Reply #32 on:** October 26, 2009, 01:19:36 PM »

Quote from: AJ Dual on October 26, 2009, 01:03:13 PM

I'm an R. Lee Ermy fan, so don't get me wrong, but I think Mike Rowe in some of these military/bomb/explosive shows would be a hoot.

Absolutely.

Chris

HankB · « **Reply #33 on:** October 26, 2009, 02:22:09 PM »

Quote from: Gewehr98 on October 25, 2009, 11:42:55 PM

Actually, the 98 Mauser is considered the sturdiest of the Mauser family (cock-on-opening, plentiful camming action for extraction, beefy front ring diameter, etc), although Ackley was basically unable to destroy a Jap Arisaka action with blue-pill loads. He succeeded in blowing the barrel out of the action, but that was about the worst of it. The Arisaka is considered a cousin to the Mauser, as is the Pattern 14 and U.S. 1917 Enfield. The U.S. Springfield is a hybrid of the small-ring Spanish Mauser and U.S. Krag rifles, NOT the large-ring 98 Mauser.

The U.S. 1917 Enfield is cock-on-closing, but there are cock-on-opening kits around. And the USA was paying patent royalties to Herr Mauser for the Springfield until war broke out.

As for the Mythbusters cannon episodes . . . I do believe the cannon were underloaded. The velocity they got out of the steel cannon was "190 MPH" which works out to around 279 feet/second, which is pretty low for any firearm . . . that's down in the middle of arrow speed from a hunting bow! Range was still over 500 yards. The duct-tape cannon was about 30% slower, but yet gave only about 1/4 the range . . . only about 125 yards, even though fired at about the same angle. Overall, the numbers and results seem a bit "off" to me.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #34 on:** October 26, 2009, 02:50:17 PM »

An elastic gun barrel and breech would probably mess with velocity in all sorts of ways.

However, I noticed the range and velocity being difficult to get a correlation on as well.

RaspberrySurprise · « **Reply #35 on:** October 26, 2009, 04:20:16 PM »

I wonder what the projective weight was though? With a 1lb ball even only going 250fps that works out to 971ft lbs which is still quite enough to ruin your day.

mtnbkr · « **Reply #36 on:** October 26, 2009, 04:50:13 PM »

IIRC, it was a 16lb ball.

Chris

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #37 on:** October 26, 2009, 06:01:42 PM »

Quote from: HankB on October 26, 2009, 02:22:09 PM

The USA was paying patent royalties to Herr Mauser for the Springfield until war broke out.

Wasn't it the cartridge design they got snagged on, not the gun itself?

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #38 on:** October 26, 2009, 07:22:57 PM »

There were two patent issues.

One was stripper-clip feeding, including the charger loading slot on the rear receiver ring and the stripper clips themselves. That patent was held by Mauser since their small-ring Model 1893 rifle.

The other was the pointed spitzer bullet of the .30-03 cartridge, which shared many similarities with the 8x57 Mauser round.

seeker_two · « **Reply #39 on:** October 26, 2009, 08:17:42 PM »

Quote from: Gewehr98 on October 26, 2009, 12:32:04 PM

Chuck consulted with Krups and Oberndorf back in the day, setting them on the righteous path...

....as Bruce Lee and Arisaka-san chuckled.....

Stand_watie · « **Reply #40 on:** October 26, 2009, 09:11:24 PM »

Ermey was doing a horse-lancer-themed show the other day and either the guy practiced really hard for that one episode, or he's somewhat of a horseman already.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #41 on:** October 26, 2009, 09:35:04 PM »

Quote from: Gewehr98 on October 25, 2009, 11:00:51 AM

Those before the Gewehr98, yes.

Swedish Mauser, Spanish Mauser, Argentine Mauser, etc.

There are cock-on-opening kits for them, if one is so driven.

If there are cock-on-open conversion kits for the early Mausers, are there cock-on-close conversion kits for the 98 Mausers?

Having played with a cock-on-close Enfield a bunch, I can certainly agree that they're faster than the 98-style Mausers I've used (mostly my '03A3 and a friend's commercial Mauser). I think it'd be fun to get a nice sporterized 98 Mauser type rifle that's as fast and slick as those Enfields are.

I suppose a 1917 would be the easiest way to test this theory.

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #42 on:** October 26, 2009, 10:16:03 PM »

Quote

If there are cock-on-open conversion kits for the early Mausers, are there cock-on-close conversion kits for the 98 Mausers?

Eww. Just Eww. The cocking force required to open the bolt on a '98 Mauser is way down there in the noise level, and the speed on closing sans compressing the striker spring pretty much negates any advantage gained by easy bolt lift on a Small-Ring Mauser/U.S. Enfield/Arisaka. The Lee-Enfield gains additional speed from the bolt body guide rail design, rear locking lugs, rotating bolt head with it's own guide slot, and exceptionally simple extractor. Since there's less bolt face thrust from the lower-pressure rimmed .303 British round, one can do things like that with no adverse effect. Running an 8x57 or .30-06 in a Lee-Enfield action is a good way to have a permanent metallic tattoo. (Sitting here typing away with No5Mk1 JC on my lap, comparing it to a '98 Mauser action on the computer desk...)

BTW, the 1903 Springfield is not a '98 Mauser derivative, contrary to Errornet Mythology. If you don't believe me, you can even ask Jim Keenan. It's the bastard offspring of the Spanish '93 Mauser that surprised us in Cuba, and the previously-issued U.S. Krag.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #43 on:** October 27, 2009, 07:50:47 PM »

Well, ok then. I guess not.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #44 on:** October 27, 2009, 10:00:19 PM »

If you absolutely must defile a 98, go for the full-on abomination: convert it to .45 Auto.

If you must.

News:

Author Topic: History Channel -- Locked and Loaded (Read 18962 times)