Ed Kettner bolt action

[R. Marshall]

I have this posted on the DG Forum and I have had some good helpful replies but I thought I would go ahead and post it here a well. My friend that owns a gun shop picked this rifle up at a gun show from a older gentleman that thought it to be a 6.5X something possibly 6.5x57. But with limited markings It going to be a slug the bore and cast the chamber to find out for sure rifle.

[R. Marshall]

more pic's

[mike ford]

R.Marshall,
The guess of the caliber I gave you on the DG forum, on reflection, is likely in error. I read the number under the proof marks as 813 and guessed that is the proof date. If you check that number and it turns out to be 313 instead of 813, then it represents the bore diameter, expressed in gauge. If 313, then the bore diameter would be about 6.25mm, which could be a nominal 6.5mm cartridge, but closer to what we would consider to be 25 caliber. If the number is 313, then other number( 363 or 368) is likely a Mauser Oberndorf serial number, and since it is on a small ring action, it is likely one of the M96/98 transitional actions. If this is the case buy the rifle. To find the proper cartridge, it may require a chamber cast and "slugging" the barrel. It is worth noting that cartridges we would consider 6.5mm would have 6.5mm bore and 6.7mm grooves( about .264"), but it is not unheard of for a rifle to have a tight bore and be chambered for the larger bullet. There are other nominal 6.5mm cartridges the have the smaller bullet, but would rarely be found in this type action proofed for a steel jacketed bullet.
Mike

[R. Marshall]

Thanks for your help Mike.

[R. Marshall]

[R. Marshall]

UPDATE: It is a 6.5X57 MAUSER.

[R. Marshall]

so with the serial number being 368 this would date it to 1898?

[mike ford]

R Marshall,
There are gaps in the available records for rifles/actions from this era, Number 242 is shown as being from 1898; 950 is from 1899( this is an estimated date), and 356 is shown with a ?. Consequently we can only say, for sure, that it is from 1898-99. I think it is likely from 1898, but this cannot be established with certainty. I think Axel has previously evaluated this action as being from 1898/99 also.
Mike