View Full Version : Mauser action Winchester vs Remington
churchillburke
November 4, 2005, 05:07 PM
Does the Mauser action on the Winchester and Savage offer a significant advantage over the Remington action on the Model 700? Thanks.
Bowman28
November 4, 2005, 05:19 PM
The mauser action actions offers increased reliability, it's the only action I would ever actully trust my life to. But on a target rifle the 700 is the only way to go.
Jim Watson
November 4, 2005, 05:22 PM
Mauser action on Winchester and Savage?
You mean the non rotating controlled feed extractor?
Winchester's is good. Savage ain't got it.
joshua
November 6, 2005, 11:13 AM
A Mauser type extractor is the way to go if you want a more reliable follow up shot. You know when it boils down to Murphy's Law it will happen at the most unexpected time such as needing a second shot when hunting game that can bite, tear, smash or stomp you to death. I have seen, heard and read of brand R extractor breaking. If even those are just 1% of the rifles that came out of their plant then that is one too many. They need to redesign it to at least not so prone to breaking. josh
cracked butt
November 6, 2005, 09:27 PM
The only remington extractors I've heard of breaking were all a friend of a friend of a friend stories on the internet. Winchester and mauser extractors can break too, but then again you might get a glimpse of the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot before you see an extractor on any of these rifles fail.
The winchester and Mauser extractors do have an bit of an advantage of grabbing a bigger portion of the cartridge rim. Then again, if you rip a rim off a piece of brass, you are in just as much trouble if you have one of those fabled remington 700 extractor breakages.
The only advantage I see with a winchester or mauser extractor is that they don't have a spring loaded ejector which makes for nice bench shooting. The mauser has a fatal flaw that people overlook or are simply ignorant about- if the receiver rails and feed ramp on a mauser isn't exactly right, a mauser will jam up tight when you try to feed round nosed bullets. RN solid bullets are often used for dangerous game. So yo get your custom .458 winchester magnum mauser 98 built at a Joe Hacksaw's Smithshop for an upcoming hunt, you take it to the range, single feed the rounds and everything works fine so long as you are feeding from the RH side of the magazine. You fly to Africa with your shiny new magnum, load up the magazine, take a shot at something big, fast and dangerous, then poop your pants because the second round sitting on the lefthand side of the magazine jams the rifle up solid. At least with a Winchester or Remington, the extractor will snap over the case rim and are both push feeds at least until you close the bolt.
I remember seeing an article in the Safari Club International magazine a few years ago about this exact same scenario. The PH who wrote the article said he has only seen one rifle ever fail on a clinet and it was a Mauser that failed to feed a second shot.
I would choose in this order: Springfield 1903, Winchester, Remington, Mauser.
churchillburke
November 6, 2005, 09:54 PM
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=13813
Came across this earlier discussion on TFL re the relative merits of the Remington 700 vs Winchester Model 70. This is an outstanding discussion that helped me enormously.
churchillburke
November 6, 2005, 10:09 PM
For nearly all practical purposes there is no substantial advantage to the Winchester controlled round feed found on SOME of their models compared to the Remington push round feed. Some have argued that the controlled round feed offers a more definitive way of extracting the casing and therefore should be used exclusively when hunting dangerous game.
Others pointed out that the military uses the Remington push round feed in their sniper rifles and, again, for all practical reasons can be considered as reliable.
The Remington push round feed handles gas discharge better than the Winchester and provides slightly better lock up at the breech. These advantages are largely theoretical or imperceptible.
Bottom line: BOTH are excellent designs with inherent advantages and disadvanges. Neither is clearly superior in every respect. Gun design like all manufacturing entails trade offs. There is no PERFECT design.
joshua
November 6, 2005, 10:30 PM
If that is so then why is the Sako extractor option real popular with competitive shooters? Maybe it's been from experience by competitive shooters. They have been known to push the envelope in reloading their rounds to get that extra velocity/accuracy combination. Now we all know that certain powders will react with altitude/temperature and if your loads are are maximum pressures that change in temperature may just expand that brass a bit more needing the extra force in extraction. The Remington is popular in the accuracy world due to it's design. Do you really think someone came up with incorporating the Sako extractor design in the 700 because they know they can charge money for the service. Hmmmm... josh
Gewehr98
November 6, 2005, 11:05 PM
You're right. They never break. Ever.
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/9530/dsc069795aa.jpg
From this very recent thread right here on TFL:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186575
I suggest you reconsider your preference list at the tail end of your posting. Or did you not know that the Springfield 1903 is based largely on the 1893 Spanish Mauser action, with a few Krag bits thrown in for good measure?
Now, my dangerous game rifles are '98 Mauser actions, including my .45-70 Siamese Mauser. I'd much rather risk a stuck cartridge from a controlled-round-feed left-side/right-side hangup (kind of BS, it won't happen with proper smithing of the rails, anyway) than a push-feed rifle's double feed or a short-stroke non-feed, like the fellow below posted on another forum elsewhere:
I had a "short stroke" jam in a Rem 700 when shooting the biggest black bear I have ever taken. He was comin' for me at about 30 yards; he didn't have his ears pinned back, so to speak, but I wasn't about to wait any longer to find out his intentions. I put one 180-gr. .30-06 slug into him, which slowed him some, but he wasn't completely out for the count. In my multi-tasking frenzy (trying to chamber a round while squeezing my sphincter muscle really tight) I pulled the bolt back far enough to eject the empty shell but not all the way back to get behind the fresh one in the magazine. As I pushed the bolt forward, the friction of the bolt on the side of the cartridge in the magazine moved it forward to the point where it was trapped in an upward angle, back half in the magazine and front jammed on the under side of the receiver, just before the chamber. Keeping my eyes on the bear, at first I couldn't figure out just why I couldn't chamber a round. I looked down in a panic and, quickly pulling the bolt back, cleared the jammed round and chambered a new one. I gave Yogi another slug and all ended well for me, but it was a real eye opener. I think I was 52 at the time and would have uttered the already-mentioned quote, "It never happened to me before," even though I had used Remingtons on and off since I got my first one in the mid-60's, but that little experience changed my thinking. I now use my M70 more than any of my Remingtons, esp. when chasing something with a potentially high pucker factor.
CRF = considerably less pucker factor. Especially when there's something higher on the food chain looking for lunch, and you're on the menu. Further explanation of the benefits here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=163700
The Remington and post-'64 Winchester push-feed actions make wonderful target rifles, and are great for shooting Bambi, who won't grind your carcass into a bloody furrow if your first shot misses or angers him. Double rifles were one way to guarantee a quick follow-up shot. Controlled-round feed was another.
U.S. military snipers like the Remington because it's what Uncle Sam issues them, and oh, by the way, did I mention they make great target rifles? If Uncle Sam had a budgetary revelation and changed his GSA-approved mind to issue Winchester Model 70's with the claw extractors, it wouldn't be long before the military snipers would extoll the virtues of that system, too. I've seen it in my 20+ years of military service. You make what you're issued work for you, you don't get a choice in equipment. The modular Remington 700 works quite well for the military sniper purposes, and I doubt we'll ever hear about short stroke double feeds or non-feeds in the mainstream media. That would mean the sniper in question f*@%ed up... ;)
cracked butt
November 7, 2005, 12:08 AM
Well I guess there's a first time for seeing everything I guess. Sort of an eye opener.
I suggest you reconsider your preference list at the tail end of your posting. Or did you not know that the Springfield 1903 is based largely on the 1893 Spanish Mauser action, with a few Krag bits thrown in for good measure?
Except the '03 has a coned breech which takes care of any feed issues, Winchester Mod 70's more or less a mauser 98 with the same improvements. I'd still pick an '03 action over a model 70 because the extractor is made out of real honest to goodness spring steel, while its anyone's guess what kind of pot metal winchester uses in late model extractors. If it were a 'true' pre-64 action and not a replica pre-64 Winchester 'Classic' rifle, I'd pick that one in a heartbeat.
kind of BS, it won't happen with proper smithing of the rails, anyway)
True- but only with proper smithing or lots of luck.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.