Lack of proofs on Mauser Sporter

[sharps4590]

The "A. Strover - Nordhausen" Mauser sporter I ordered arrived Tuesday and it's a keeper. Before the rest of the weekend and next week gets goofy I wanted to post about it. Nice rifle, typical for the era, matted rib, butter knife bolt handle, double set triggers, octagon to round barrel, two leaf express type sights, very good to excellent condition and I don't believe it's seen much use. I'm a bit perplexed by the lack of proofs. The only stamps on the rifle are "7,7", the powder charge, a large S, a small s and two diamonds with a "k" inside them. Those do not coincide with any of the proof laws I'm familiar with.

I've seen the term "cigarette rifle" used from time to time. I assume that means a rifle a GI, or someone, had built after the war and before the proof houses were back up and running which was paid for with carton(s) of cigarettes or some other commodity? Given the lack of proofs and wear all I can think of is this might be a "cigarette rifle"? Or, would the Strover name in the rib negate that? I can see how a barrel that's ready to go might lay around for a while and be installed in an action at an opportune time so, maybe the Strover name has no bearing? I apologize for not having any pictures.....but I don't know if they'd do much good as those are all the stamps there is. No "BUG" stamps, no squashed bugs, no case length, no proof date...nothing I've come to expect on a pre-war rifle. Thoughts, comments, questions, answers?

Vic

[mike ford]

Vic,
You say it is a nice rifle "for the era" but you didn't ID the era. A lot depends on the era it was put together in. Post WW2 cigarettes wouldn't necessarily have all the features you described. On the other hand some pre WW1 rifles might have the bore diameter marked in mm, but no case length. I've noticed this on some rifles made near the time they made the changes, say 1911-12. It would be helpful to identify the general time frame, if you could post photos. I believe the two Ks are marks for the barrel maker. Have you slugged the barrel and made a chamber cast? I have a rifle that was rebored, rechambered in the US, that had the proof marks removed after that work, On the other hand, if that was the case with your rifle, it doesn't make sense that all weren't removed, unless it was rechambered to 8mm-06, by someone that knew what the proof marks were and left the 7,7. This is not likely. I believe Nordhausen is near Axel's home, maybe he has an idea.
Mike

[algmule]

Hello

Vic,

Small ring?
Serial 5140?

Also: apparently the Ströver establishment was a "member" of "des Reichsverbandes Deutscher Büchsenmacher, Waffen- und Munitionshändler e.V.", at least in 1930. This and what I posted in another recent thread is what I have on Ströver. I believe your rifle is earlier than 1930.
05.JPG
04.jpg

Kind regards
Peter

[sharps4590]

Thanks Mike, I'm not certain of the era. When I bought it and even until I received the rifle I assumed it was "between the wars". I don't have any pictures but the ad is still up on GI.

http://www.gunsinternational.com/gun...n_id=100870833

Regardless of what the ad says the groove diameter is as dead on .318 as it can be or I don't know how to slug a bore and read calipers. It's definitely 8 X 57. I didn't cast the chamber but using my 8 X 56 M/S dies I did cobble together and fire 3 rounds yesterday and the fired cases came out 8 X 57. I thought the two diamonds with the k's were probably the barrel maker but wasn't sure. I don't believe any proofs were ground or filed off as there is no evidence of anything being altered. I don't know of any reason it couldn't be earlier than I thought. I had it in my head it was "between the wars" until I saw the lack of familiar proofs. For what it's worth there is also no proof bullet weight and type, just the powder charge.

Peter, I think it's a small ring. The step where the barrel screws into the receiver is no more than 1/8 in. and maybe a little less, just from looking at it. The SN #, if that's what it is, is 4 digits, 81XX and all numbers match. It would make my grin a little bigger knowing it was pre-1930!

The reason I thought it might be a cigarette rifle is the lack of proofs and almost complete lack of bluing and stock wear. My thought was perhaps a GI had it made, brought it home and used it very little. Admittedly pretty thin evidence given my lack of knowledge of cigarette rifles. Whatever it is and whenever it was made doesn't matter in the long run, I'm just curious about the lack of proofs and get a bit of a kick knowing approximately when my firearms were made. The dies and brass should all be here Tuesday and once this week is finished some real fun will begin.

Vic

[mike ford]

Vic,
I thought something was familiar about this rifle, so I looked back at some, not too, old threads and found a discussion of another A. Stover rifle owned by Pete. His was a reworked WW1 Kar 98 small ring, with original( 8x57IS) barrel. In addition to the name, another similarity is Pete's rifle didn't have proper proof marks either. Axel opined that Pete's rifle was reworked during a post WW1 period of political turmoil when proof housed weren't fully in operation ( or maybe proof law enforcement wasn't very strict). Also Axel said ,in that case, that A. Stover was a firm that usually bought guns made " for the trade" and had the A. Stover name added ( a common practice). Your rifle is a large ring, but it lacks the locking screws in the trigger guard, which leads to a small question regarding the source of the action. If a Kar 98 trigger guard was used, why not just use the entire small ring action? On the outside chance that a Mauser Oberndorf action was used, there would be a Mauser serial number on the rear of the trigger guard. If the counterbores for locking screws were welded up, this could be seen on the inside of the trigger guard. Since the rifle has a civilian barrel, has a 7,7mm bore and your measurement shows .318" groove diameter, It was intended for 8x57I ammo. Whether it can use a larger bullet, or not, would depend on testing it. With that barrel, I suspect you will need to use .318" bullets, but you can make them anyway.
Mike

[sharps4590]

To be completely honest I don't know the difference between a small and large ring Mauser. I assumed, evidently wrongly, it has to do with the diameter of the receiver where the barrel screws in. To educate me, how does one know the difference?

I remember the discussion of Peter's rifle but that's about it, I don't recall any specific details. There is no S/N on the trigger guard and as I recall there was very few stamps on the bottom of the receiver.

Immediately or near post WWI makes more sense to me now than a cigarette rifle, thanks to your opinions. I thought the style too early but the lack of proofs and wear had me wondering.....and wandering...down the wrong path....

You guys have taught well! I didn't know if Strover actually made the rifle and did not credit it to him other than as the retailer. I assumed it was more than likely bought from the trade but wasn't sure. If I've learned anything it's that I don't know a heck of a lot more than I know!!!!

I already had a sizing die for cast bullets at .320, a couple molds and intend to test them first. Once I find the cast load I like...or that the rifle likes....jacketed bullet testing will begin.....maybe. I can swage down some of the 170 gr., 8mm bullets I have if I feel the need to go that route. I haven't tried the "bullet in the case neck" test but will.

Thanks again

Vic

[mike ford]

Vic,
Of course there will be some variation, but the receiver ring on a large ring Mauser will be about 1.410" and on a small ring, about 1.300". The easiest way to tell, without measuring, is that there will be a "step" between the ring and sidewall on a large ring, but a small ring will be even.
Mike

[Diz]

Mike, you must have been writing while I was messing with the picture. This is Sharp's rifle with the arrow pointing to the step. This is the way I always thought to figure it out but I am sure there are many variations. It is a very nice rifle and someone did a great job of checking the grip. I couldn't see if there was any on the fore end but I think the wood is better than it shows in the pictures. There is some nice fiddleback showing in the heel and butt. Good luck with it. Diz

Nordhausen-German-98-Mauser-8x57 redo.jpg

Here is the picture with an arrow pointing to the step.

[Axel E]

Vic, can you please post a photo of those "K in diamond" marks? Is that "diamond" open at the right corner? The triggerguard is highly modified at least. Maybe it Comes from a pre-98 military Mauser originally? The Suhl and Zella-Mehlis gunmakers never threw anything away that might be of some use later. On building sporting rifles they often mixed parts from different origins, just as custom gunmakers do today. The lack of regular proofmarks makes me believe the rifle was made in Suhl 1919 - 1922.

[sharps4590]

Mike, Diz, thank both of you for the lesson!! I've heard the two terms all my adult life but never asked. Diz is right, the checkering is well done and in remarkable condition. The wood, once I got some linseed oil on it, popped pretty nice, especially the forearm near the Schnabel and the butt as Diz mentioned. There's also a few knots in non-strategic places which always makes me grin. The forearm is not checkered.

Axel, thank you for your thoughts, unfortunately I am having some difficulty posting pictures and finding another hosting site since Photobucket went in the bucket. When things return to some semblance of normalcy around here I'll pull the rifle down again and check the diamonds. I like the idea of the rifle being that early.

Thanks to all!!

Vic

[sharps4590]

Things have more or less calmed down and Momma is home so all is well again. I tried two load in the rifle, both using a 200 gr. cast, gas checked bullet from an Accurate mold and cast of 50/50, lead/lino. The bullet I have is a bore rider and I hoped good things with it. I didn't have a .320 sizing die, it is .321. The bullet slips into a fired case mouth with just the least interference. I don't believe it's enough to cause any pressure difficulties but I wouldn't want it any tighter. I tried RE-7 and H-4895. After exchanging e-mails with Diz I agree with him the RE-7 charge was probably a little light. Consequently it was not remotely accurate. The H-4895 load...ahhhh....that is a nice one!!! It's always good to have one of your first loads out of the gate work nicely but it does take a bit of the fun out of it. I have a surfeit of IMR-4895 and need to dig around to see how it compares with H-4895. My feeble memory tells me they're very close and I think IMR is just a bit quicker.

[mike ford]

That sounds great. I think you are correct about IMR.
Mike