Dont ask Ted a question you dont want his straight answer to. The following is from a post of his on Snipershide but its too good not to share here too. Also heres a few more pics from the recent photo shoot. -Patrick The best standard against which to evaluate a Mausingfield is an original Model 1898 Mauser. Theres none other. Nothing else was ever in the M98s class until now with the development of the Mausingfield, and yes, I know, thats saying a lot during this early stage, but the Mausingfield is a true Mauser derivative. The M98 was designed for use in conditions so awful, they are difficult to describe and impossible to fully appreciate unless you fought in the trenches of WWI. The M98 was the product of a 27 year evolutionary process during which Paul Mauser shaped his rifle after learning countless lesson taught on horrific battle fields. That counts for something. And if short comings in the Mausingfield design are discovered, I will address them, just as Mauser did. But I have significant advantages that Mauser did not. I have CAD and CAM systems at my disposal, some of the most sophisticated manufacturing equipment in existence, modern steel and heat treatment, a modern engineering education, and most importantly, I have Mausers work to look back on. I can pick it up where he left it, and yes, I believe that he left something for people like me. Good engineers know that theyre never really done. Since Mausers time, all manufacturers of bolt actions were either too stupid or arrogant to take the time to understand Mausers work or they the understood it simply resigned themselves and their work to the fact that Mausers are difficult and expensive to produce and therefore not suitable for their targeted market. The Remington M700 was designed so that it could be mass produced at low cost. The designers of it never set out to solve the problem statement Mauser was faced with. They solved a different problem and one that is every bit as valid, that is to design, produce, and market a bolt action rifle that nearly everyone could afford. And what was their pitch? You older guys will remember three rings of steel. Strength is all they had to go on as if a Mauser was not strong enough. The M700 was never a functional match for the Mauser. It wasnt intended to be. Oh, but the Remingtons are more accurate, some may say. Really? I once owned a custom hunting rifle built on an 09 Argentine Mauser in 280 Ackley that was easily a 1/2 MOA stick. The actions are not responsible for accuracy but they are responsible for everything else, which is really important if you want a rifle that will reliably function in adverse condition. And here is where I think things get really funny. Remember, the venerable Remington Model 700 was to be an affordable rifle of reasonable performance and in that regard, it has faithfully served countless shooters and hunters. Sincere kudos to Remington. So I have to ask all of those out there producing high end Remington clones? What the are you thinking? Did you wake up one day and think to yourself, Eureka! Ill knock off a Remington Model 700 and make it cost three time as much! Wow, great idea. And what did you do to improve upon it? Reduce the clearance between the bolt and the receiver so that theres room for only the Ebola virus and none for the dirt youll encounter in the field. Atta boy. Good job. My goal is simple. I want to make a real and substantive contribution to the state of the bolt action rifle art and I want you, the consumer to understand that so that when youre faced with the decision of what to buy, your choice will be clear. A friend once told me that big companies do some form of Good. Better. Best. and use profits to drive R&D and then let the technological innovation trickle down to the low end of the product line. To hell with that. I only want to do best. If you want the best, youll buy a Mausingfield, because I took what was previously the best, the Mauser 98, and built upon that.
Posted on: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 02:58:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015