rodteague

here you go: Carlson's mag extension

this is what you want, Nordic Components . Follow the fit guide and then select the appropriate nut and extension kit. Regards Rod

Glock 19 w/ extra mag Mikov Predator Auto Lever lock Surefire E2T-MV Tactician This is what I carry on my person every day for personal defense. My daily driver has another EDC.... The Zippo stays in the pocket of my M65 field jacket along with a Ranger Silva compass; which is always in the back seat of my truck. the 870 Tac14 and battle belt are covered by the M65. When tensions are high and riots are imminent, the shotgun and belt are replaced with my AR and load bearing vest/plate carrier. Depends on what Defcon we're on. Sorry for the edit....... But this what I carry every day Best regards Rod

Take all of it with a grain of salt; and beware, there are a lot of fakes. A barrel can be stamped to match a receiver at a later date; as well as proof marks. When I first got into mausers, there was a lot of that going on with M98's and K98's; as well as 03 Springfield's. Most were intentional chicanery and some, unintentionally misleading. Lot's of receivers were recycled post war by Mauser and given new life in the commercial market with matching serial numbers. Could have also been done by a smaller export company or a gunsmith; your rebore seems to suggest one of the scenario's. At the very least it may have started as an original commercial mauser as you suspect, but has received embellishments over the years. It's one of the reasons I honed in on the Swedish Mausers. The Swedes were very meticulous in the mfg of their rifles and subsequent, freakishly straight S/N's and proof marks. It's really hard to fake a Swede. All that aside it's a fine looking curio and relic, and tells a great story regarding gun ownership in post war Germany and Europe. What better historical document than an actual rifle from that era. FWIW, the truth is, the Elk won't know the difference, and that's all that really matters Good luck, I hope you get it figured out. Best Regards Rod

This ^^^ It also appeared to me..... to be a post WWI conversion. IIRC Imperial(WWI) and Nazi(WWII) markings on the side and top of the front receiver ring were generally removed (ground off) in order to export to other european countries; and to make them legal to own in post war Germany. Lot's of records were destroyed by Allied and Russian forces post WWII and unfortunately, many pre/post WWI military and commercial Mauser records were lost. If it had been a factory commercial German Mauser; the "Mauser" logo would have been stamped on top of the front ring. Commercial variants were tolerated and generally left in "virgin" state; but not always. Because there is nothing visible stamped on the top of the ring and on the left side of the receiver; it's a safe bet you have "probable" post WWI conversion. Looking thru a copy of "The Mauser Bolt Actions ....M91-M98... A Shop Manual" By Jerry Kuhnhausen, it dose appear to be a M98. All that being said, I have one question; Is the floor plate "hinged"? If it is hinged, according to Jerry Kuhnhausen, early commercial M98 Orberndorf sporters could be had with adjustable double set triggers, and the sporters had hinged floor plates. In your first pic, it appears the floor plate is not hinged; but it is difficult to determine. Hinged, could be a commercial Orberndorf sporter; not hinged, a post war M98 sporter conversion. That's all I've got. Hope this helps Regards Rod

I have to agree on all counts. I have been a big fan of the 6.5mm and see no downside to it's performance. FWIW when JC Garand developed the M1, the cartridge was initially a 7mm. From Wiki: Had MacArthur not insisted on keeping the .30 caliber; we might be arguing "how many angels can dance on the head of pin" regarding 7mm vs 6.5mm. Differences are slim at best. Not the case between 6.5 and .30 cal/300WM. The 6.5mm CM is vastly superior in most comparisons. Regards Rod

Let me first say, that my response is not only based on the things I have learned from Jeff Cooper's books and articles; but on my own practical application of field craft over the last 40 years or so. I began before I ever read a word of Cooper's. I embraced his idea's because my own triumphs and failures in the field, mirrored what I began to read in his penned experiences and ideas. In other words, Col. Cooper validated that I was moving in the right direction. So, ...... ...... I think he would have seriously considered them and may have concluded a few have merit. But, as long as weight and excessive magnification were not a issue. I'm not convinced he would embrace the current crop of red dot and holograph sights as a whole. The reason for a forward mounted fixed, low powered scope are multiple and varied.. Stripper clip use is one that is brought up frequently; but, was never a condition for a proper scout. The primary reason(s) for the forward mounted scout rifle scope are: 1. The scope is far enough forward that it does not obstruct your wider view of what is down range and to your periphery. There are reasons why we have sniper "teams". The shooter and spotter. The spotter keeps a wide field of view while the shooter is looking thru the narrow scope FOV. The spotter has to alert the shooter to abort or take the shot, depending on changing conditions around them. The shooter cannot always see what's evolving because his view is physically blocked by the scope. The scout is a singular entity and must fulfill both roles. 2. The forward scope readily accommodates the use of "both eyes open"; enhancing reason number 1. 3. A fixed power scope, forward or conventionally mounted, is inherently brighter, less complicated, lighter, and less prone to operator error than variable counter parts. 4. The forward mounted scope makes the rifle balance, and easier to grasp and carry in hand; while traversing extremely difficult terrain. This can not be understated. After reading most of Coopers commentaries regarding the general purpose rifle and it's evolution to the scout rifle, it becomes very apparent he places more value on the "handiness" element than any other. From my own personal experience this is unequivocally true. A rifle with a conventional, receiver mounted scope, is awkward in hand and difficult to manage. Particularly as the day lengthens, it only adds additional fatigue to the hands and arm as you are constantly switching it back and forth. I have never had that problem with my scout rifles. They are easy to grasp at the "balance" point, using the off hand. Arm and hand fatigue are rarely a problem by the end of the day. This is very important when you are by yourself and rationing food and water stocks. Increased work over the course of the day(no mater what form) requires a corresponding increase in caloric intake and hydration. Anything that can be done to mitigate the crescendo, is worth the effort. Your rifles, in hand ergonomics, is worth a critical assessment. Field craft 101. 5. The uncomplicated nature of a simple, forward, low mounted, low powered fixed magnification scope; does not impact practical accuracy, even at ranges beyond 200 yds. In fact, it enhances ones ability, provided good marksmanship skills are utilized. Ultimately it's not about the scope, but the rifleman's ability to make accurate, singular hits. If the red dot gives you the ability to embrace all five of these; then by all means use it. I personally do not see the need on a scout rifle; CQB rifle, yes. I am pragmatic by nature and generally regard two principles that guide me with personal safety and field craft. KISS and "If it ain't broke don't fix it". Best Regards Rod Edited for grammar/punctuation and additional clarity with regard to reason no. 4.

As an addendum to my earlier post(s) I am including scans of a article written by Jeff Cooper in a 1984 periodical, "The Gun Digest". It tracks nicely with my observations and experience. It is also telling of Cooper's flexibility in regard to what actually makes a "scout" rifle and it's purpose. A point also needs to be made regarding cartridge selection. At the time of this article, the 6.5-08(260 Remington) was being developed as a "wildcat" cartridge and was not commercially available. The 6.5 Creedmore wasn't even a glint in it's progenitors eye. These two have come into their own and are widely available; more so than the .243 and 7mm-08. They would be right up the Colonel's alley. Here is his article. If you have not been living under a rock the last several days, and witnessed the violence being perpetrated on our american society. You might see that, Jeff Cooper, in 1984 "resurrected" the Scout philosophy to fit the times. He saw this coming, and wanted American patriots and riflemen to be prepared. He chose his words very carefully; as should we. I mentioned his book "The Art of the Rifle", Cooper wrote and published the book before he developed the scout rifle concept; the perfection of the "general purpose rifle" discussed in the book. The current print editions include a last chapter on the Scout Rifle Concept. This, for your consumption and enlightenment. Patriotic Regards Rod

Good catch! Your RM7 chambered in 7mm-08 should be punching one hole groups at 50 yds! At 100-200yds you should expect groups around +/- 1". Thats if you are shooting from a bench rest. I do not have a rest so my 6.5x55 4 shot groups at 100yds are 1-1.5"(usually one flyer) At 200 yds they spread a little more; 2-2.5". I fatigue easily; I know, I'm a wuss. This using a 1.5x Burris scout scope. Floating your barrel as you have done and the 3-9x scope will tighten your groups considerably. As previously mentioned, letting your barrel cool between shots is also good advice. Breath and trigger control are paramount when not using a rest, and don't be in a hurry; take your time. I'm anxious to hear of your results. Aim small, hit small! Best regards Rod

The simpler the better for me; Streamlight Stylus Pro 100 lumens, EDC for general outdoor activities and work; Pelican 2360 200 lumens for around the house, and back up tactical EDC. Surefire Tactician E2T-MV 400 lumens. My "go to" EDC tactical light; best light I have ever owned, bar none. I have about 20 other "Tactical" lights I keep in a case for my carry permit students to play with. Some are older Surefire 6P halogens, and most are chinese crapola; examples of what not to buy. One of them is a light my wife bought for me as a Christmas stocking stuffer. She asked later if I liked the light; I said "I love it; I use it in every class as an example of what not to buy". Got the "stink eye" and a punch in the arm. LOL Regards Rod

Check the barrel inlet in the stock to be sure it's not putting uneven pressure on the barrel. To check, cut a 2" strip of notebook paper, loop it under the barrel in front of the fore end. Attempt to slide the paper between the barrel and channel. If it won't slide up the channel you have contact points that may effect your accuracy. It could be the wood itself; or over the years dirt and oil can pack down in the channel causing problems. Easy fix is to remove the barreled receiver from the stock and first clean; then sand the high spots using a short wooden dowel and a medium grit sand paper. Don't be too aggressive, but slowly clear the inlet so that at least 1/2 to 2/3's of the barrel is free floating and the NB paper slides easily between the barrel and the stock. Done this many times with my bolt guns and can make a big difference with the thinner tapered barrels. Best of luck Regards Rod

Jeez, I remember when we thought a 60 lumen halogen was a blaster!

Let's dig a little deeper into semi vs bolt action and cartridge selection. It has been proposed that there are semi-auto actions capable of meeting Coopers Scout rifle concept. As much as I would like to see a modern semi land squarely in the middle of the Scout definition; sadly there are still none capable. The first hurdle is weight. Once they are shortened to the 1 meter length and the receivers are robust enough to handle a intermediate cartridge, sighted and slung; they "ALL" are pigs weighing in at the 9 lb. range. Most bolt guns; struggle to get below 7.7 lbs, much less the nirvana of 6.6 lbs; sighted and slung. Below, is my unmolested 1952 Tula SKS, it weighs in at 9lbs; sighted and slung. I can shed the bayonet; add a ghost ring aperture and possibly get it close to 8 lbs; but I'm still handicapped by the 7.62x39 round which is 4 moa(on a good day) at 200 yards. That doesn't imply 7.62x39 can't be accurate, it just means it dose not meet the 2 moa criteria. The same can be said for the AKM (later variant of the AK47). The AK47 weighed in at a porky 9.5 lbs; the AKM at roughly 8 lbs. The AKM and it's variants have potential to make the upper end of weight (7.7 lbs); but it is still plagued by the 4 moa cartridge; and you will not have a telescopic sight The next semi is my AR-15; as you can see below I have it in Scout configuration. Sighted and slung, as pictured, it weighs a "porky" 8.3 lbs; 7.75 lbs. without the Burris scout scope. It also uses 5.56x45, which is highly accurate and a sub 1 moa round at 200 yds. Unfortunately, it's not capable of effectively incapacitating a 450 lb gorilla at 200 yds. Some AR's are capable of making weight; but the round is not up to the mission. Some may argue that there are many intermediate cartridges used in Eugene Stoners AR platform. This is true; however, they all are too portly and have no chance of making weight. The same can be said for all semi auto battle rifles utilizing a intermediate cartridge. EDIT: There appear to be some AR "type" rifles that seem to be sniffing the sub 8 lb range. The problem I see with the some of these "piston" rifles is their failure rates. Eugene Stoners direct impingement gas system is tried and true and has stood the test of time. There are many advocates for a piston driven AR but I am not one of them. They are prone to catastrophic failure and are not suited for "burst or full auto" rates of fire. Now we get into why Cooper was so adamant regarding a bolt gun. The best word to sum up his philosophy would be "conservation". Make your shot count as a rifleman; one shot, one kill. The next rifle pictured is my M1 Garand. It has no chance of ever making Scout rifle weight(10.5 lbs). The cartridge however, is 30-06. In a bolt action rifle it is a 2 moa round; however the long action handicaps the the weight criteria. I've seen it done; but at a cost most of us would not be willing to pay. Another common bolt action rifle many attempt to convert to Scout rifle status is the Enfield in .303. The rifle is certainly capable once lightened and trimmed to 1 meter length. The .303 is handicapped due to it's 3 moa at 200 yds. That being said it has a storied history of being a dangerous game cartridge, and certainly up to the task. There are some Enfields that have been converted to 7.62x51(.308). These rifles were referred to as "Jungle carbines". They make capable Scout's but are still plagued by weight. Few have ever been trimmed enough to get below 8 lbs. Below is one of my M96 Scout rifles. It is a Swedish Mauser chambered in 6.5x55. It is a 1 moa cartridge and can easily make weight( 7.7 lbs) if utilizing a lighter stock. Mine, sighted and slung as pictured, weighs 7.8 lbs.. My other M96 Scout weighs just at 8lbs. The M96 utilizes a intermediate cartridge on what is considered a medium receiver bolt action rifle. They are excellent starting points for building a fine Scout rifle. The 6.5x55 cartridge is a intermediate cartridge that is not based on the .308 family that Cooper preferred. It is however, an acceptable alternative. I do not generally stray too far from the Scout concept's 308 family of cartridges, but there are some exceptions. The 6.5 Creedmore is another example. It is an excellent cartridge that nearly every rifle maker world wide, offers several chamberings. It may possibly become the most versatile cartridge ever manufactured; and could supplant the .308 as king some day. JMHO The last rifle is my Ruger scout. It is my only Scout rifle that made weight right out of the box. That turned to fubar once I added the scout scope. LOL. I have neither the funds nor desire to fight it at this point. It's chambered in .308 and checks most of the boxes in the Scout Concept. 7.62x51(.308) is a 2 moa round and by far is the most popular intermediate cartridge world wide. Cooper was prophetic. The .308 family of cartridges, IMHO dosen't really have a dog in the bunch. The most popular, not in any particular order and not all inclusive: .243(6mm) sub moa @ 200 yds .260 Remington(6.5mm) sub moa @ 200 yds; arguably; the flattest shooting, most accurate intermediate/long range cartridge in the .308 family 7mm-08 1 moa(+/-) @ 200 yds; pretty darn close to the .260 but not quite there. .308(7.62x51) 2 moa @ 200 yds; the standard by which all of it's siblings are measured. Cooper was indeed brilliant. EDIT: This will be my last edit. After reading my post again, I thought it prudent to mention that Cooper was not opposed to riflemen utilizing various aspects of the Scout concept on other platforms. He referred to these as "pseudo-scouts". He owned and was quite fond of some of his pseudo's and even admired some lever action attempts. Lever actions and semi-autos can be viable scout type rifles, and should not be completely discounted. They can most certainly be legitimate examples of a pseudo Scout. So, as I see it, there are good options for building a legitimate Scout rifle. Long, medium and short action bolt rifles to start; but sadly, no semi auto's can make the list. Cartridges should stay in the intermediate range of the .308 family or similar ballistic equivalents i.e. 6.5mm CM, 6.5x55 Swede etc. Long action cartridges that have potential would include, but not be limited to: 30-06, .270, 7mm mauser etc. Weight of the action being the only hurdle. These are just thoughts and observations after nearly 2 decades of using the Scout concept in the field. I also highly recommend Jeff Coopers books, "To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Tell the Truth"; and "The Art of the Rifle". If you disagree with the Scout concept, and believe it is irrelevant in todays times; read the books and then come back and talk to me. Hope this helps a few of you to sort this out. Best regards Rod

I have always liked the Redhawks, finding a good used one and sending it to Bowen Customs is on my bucket list Regards Rod

Didn't mean to offend you; if your horse is trained and used to gun fire so be it. The size of the cartridge won't matter to it. I suggested a SA revolver; a lot of SASS riders shoot 38 special loaded down because it's easier to manage while on horse back. If you haven't already, you might try browsing their forum and see what they are shooting specifically. I was a member of SASS many years ago, but never fully embraced it. Best of luck to you. Regards Rod