Waffen Honold Ulm .30-06 Sporter

[mike ford]

Axel,
Thanks for the explanation. As it happens, I brought one back, that had no proof marks. I never said anything about it, because I didn't want to get my friends into trouble. It seems now that it was ok.
Mike

[sharps4590]

There is no end to the learning. Axel, very interesting.

[mhutchinson]

Thanks for all the replies everyone.

I've got some work cut out for me with the stock. The comb is a bit high for me and the length of pull is too long so I'm gonna reshape it to look more like a typical Mauser guild rifle. The forend shrank significantly after installation so the glue joint needs to be redone. The grip cap and butt cap have cracks as well so I'm gonna try to repair them with epoxy. Hard to say how that will turn out but from what I've read it's the best option for repair. CA glue was my first thought but I worry that it is too brittle and will just crack again later.

Since this will be a hunting rifle I think I'll have to add a scope at some point. I'm gonna keep my eyes on ebay auctions and hopefully I can pick up an old Kahles, Zeiss, or Pecar. Something made of blued steel instead of aluminum. I have an old all-steel set of Weaver pivot mounts that I'm leaning towards using but I'm gonna wait and give it more thought before I commit to drilling any holes. Those German claw mounts sure are nice but I just don't know if I can justify the cost. Maybe if I can find an old set with the fitting already done but buying new ones and fitting them is probably out of the question since I can't do it all myself.

I'll be sure to post some pics when I get the work done.

[mike ford]

mhutchinson,
You might find a set of old claw mounts that were already fit to another rifle, scope combination, but it is highly unlikely to work with your rifle. Your Weaver pivot mounts are a viable option, but if you buy an old German scope, be sure to verify the diameter of the tube will work with your mounts. The seller should be requested to actually measure it. rather than guess.
Mike

[mhutchinson]

Update: After giving it some thought I decided I'm not gonna half-ass this rifle. What's a couple hundred extra dollars for a rifle that may be my primary hunting rifle for decades to come? So when I saw a fitted set of German claw mounts on the 'bay I snagged them. At $200 they're probably as expensive as the scope I'll end up using but what the hell. About a week later I saw a Jaeger side mount for a good price so I grabbed it as well, figuring I'll sell whichever mounting system I don't use for as much as I paid for it.

Here they are with two scopes I have waiting for a home on project rifles:
IMG_5070.jpg

Unfortunately I found out after receiving it that the Jaeger mount is not for a Mauser 98--the receiver bracket is too long and the front ring gets in the way. But it's still nice to get my hands on one and see how it works and feels. I don't think I can modify the bracket to fit a Mauser action so I'm gonna do some searching for a Mauser bracket, and if that doesn't work out I suppose I'll just sell the whole thing and commit to the claw mount system. I'd still like to see a proper side mount so that I can compare it to the claw mount side by side but we'll see. The claw mounts I bought will have the scope sitting a hair higher. I think the Jaeger mounts originally had ring height options and these rings must be either low or medium.

The Honold action is currently at the gunsmith having the crack in the front sight ramp repaired so I used the bolt from it on another action I had laying around to check out how each mount would fit. Unfortunately both mounts are still too low to clear the bolt handle. That thing really does stick up quite a bit when in the "up" position. Makes sense considering this rifle was made for iron sights.
IMG_5073.jpg
IMG_5071.jpg

I really don't like the idea of having the scope higher (and I doubt I'm gonna find an appropriate scope mount anyway) so my thought is to have the bolt handle altered slightly. As it is now, it must stick out quite a ways from the bolt itself because the handle isn't angled out away from the action much--it's closer to 90 degrees. So one idea is to have the bolt handle cut off, re-attached closer to the bolt body, and angled away from the action more so that it is still easy to grab. If I want to use the claw mounts the bolt handle really doesn't need much more clearance--it's pretty close. If I don't use the claw mounts it will only be because I found and decided on a Jaeger or Griffin and Howe side mount, both of which will probably require the same modification to the bolt handle.

Thoughts on the idea? Has anyone done anything similar to this?

[mike ford]

mhutchinson,
The links don't open up, "invalid link" comes up on the screen.
Mike

[mhutchinson]

Fixed! Thanks for the heads up.

[CoyoteJoe]

I am especially fond of set triggers but recognize they take some experience to use safely. You can get used to them in one trip to the rifle range, so you shouldn't be hesitant to do so.
Mike

Hahaha, that's what I thought too. I've used double set triggers on muzzleloaders for 60+ years and on a couple of single shot breech loaders as well. But when I raised my 6.5x52r staling rifle and the cross hairs settle behind the shoulder of a whitetail buck at 50 yards but I was thinking "he's gona jump and be gone any second now". Then I was thinking "why is there so much take-up in this trigger"? Then BAM, I fired the unset trigger. It only has a 3 pound pull unset so all worked out OK but I sure felt foolish.

[mike ford]

mhutchinson,
The clawmounts you have seem to be "contra einhakemontage"(?) type. I have a similar set on one of my rifles and they work fine, but I had to scrape the bases and one of the rings to line them up. This is a result of the receiver rings being "scrubbed" of original markings. It shouldn't be a major technical problem, just some hand work. Your bolt handle has already been modified, so you won't lose anything by modifying it again.
Mike

[mhutchinson]

mhutchinson,
The clawmounts you have seem to be "contra einhakemontage"(?) type. I have a similar set on one of my rifles and they work fine, but I had to scrape the bases and one of the rings to line them up. This is a result of the receiver rings being "scrubbed" of original markings. It shouldn't be a major technical problem, just some hand work. Your bolt handle has already been modified, so you won't lose anything by modifying it again.
Mike

These rings were sold as "Suhler Contra" but I couldn't find much info on a specific maker. They line up just fine right now but they may require some handwork to fit the curve of the receiver perfectly. The front ring on the Honold rifle has been milled down a bit so I'll have to check when I get it back from the gunsmith. Since I'm rebluing the entire rifle I'll probably throw these in and rust blue them as well if they end up getting used.

I still want to see a proper Jaeger side mount but I may have to give up on the idea if I can't find one in the near future. What it would come down to is which mount is the least obtrusive when using the iron sights. At first I liked the idea of having no scope mounts on top of the receiver--the clean appearance would make the iron sights easier to see clearly, I thought. But now I'm wondering if, with the Jaeger mount, that big bracket on the side of the receiver would block my field of view more and thus be more obtrusive.

[mhutchinson]

Hahaha, that's what I thought too. I've used double set triggers on muzzleloaders for 60+ years and on a couple of single shot breech loaders as well. But when I raised my 6.5x52r staling rifle and the cross hairs settle behind the shoulder of a whitetail buck at 50 yards but I was thinking "he's gona jump and be gone any second now". Then I was thinking "why is there so much take-up in this trigger"? Then BAM, I fired the unset trigger. It only has a 3 pound pull unset so all worked out OK but I sure felt foolish.

Ha I haven't shot this rifle yet but I definitely gave this issue some thought when playing around with it. The trigger pull when "un-set" on this rifle is light enough and crisp enough that I imagine I'll just use it that way most of the time. If it's a quick shot at less than 100 yards like most hunting situations seem to be I can't see myself going to the trouble of setting the trigger. When "set" the trigger pull is crazy light compared to anything else I've shot. I haven't tested the weight yet but it can't be more than one pound I bet.

[mike ford]

mhutchinson,
I thought I had posted the following comment before, but it seems not to have made it in. I have to remove the bolt in order to remove the scope from my rifle that has this type scope mounts. This is because the scope hits the bolt shroud when it is tipped backward to remove it. This is no problem at all, I only mention it so you won't think you installed them wrong.
Mike