Wow, gorgeous Kar98k!
I envy you. That is exactly what I would want my Kar98k to look like (once I buy one, that is).
I envy you. That is exactly what I would want my Kar98k to look like (once I buy one, that is).
-
-
I really like the stock.....It's gorgeous.....My only question, why does the cleaning rod go so far into the stock?.....Or is it a shorter rod?
....Bodes
Comment
-
K-98 sight hoods
Heres a rookie question,
Should all K-98's have a sight hood on them? I have seen period pictures with and without them.
PG-
Comment
-
Paul, No.....Pre-war and early war ones were not adapted to accept one.....However, IF they needed servicing or rebarreling, they would be upgraded with the front sight protector....Hope this helps.....BodesOriginally posted by Paul G View PostHeres a rookie question,
Should all K-98's have a sight hood on them? I have seen period pictures with and without them.
PG-Comment
-
Nice one!!!!
R.BlueComment
-
Hi Eric, beautiful gun! best wishes,
jeffLooking for a 30 '06 Chauchat magazine.Comment
-
I can see signs of rushed production on the barrel, I thought the 45 dated K-98s came without an bayonet mount.Comment
-
Not entirely- some byf45 rifles have bayonet mounts, even until the end. However, I see no markings on this stock at all- could just be the pictures. Stock should have Wa135 proof on the side, and some proofs on the bottom- depending on the variation (there are 2 known variations of full stocks on byf45 rifles that I know of, maybe 3 if you count the standard type found on byf44's). It does appear to have a short cleaning rod, or a relocated cleaning rod nut. I had one once that the lug was moved back on when they duffle cut it, and it looked exactly like that! Maybe not the case with this one.Originally posted by MikeW View PostComment
-
Thank You everyone for the comments, I greatly appreciate them. I will see about getting a picture of the short cleaning rod a little later. As for teh markings on the stock, they are there. I just couldn't get the camera to take the picture the way I wanted it to. Thanks again everyone for the comments.
EricI once flew in a B-17, B-24, & a B-25. Next, I want to fire an 88 round.Comment
-
All right, I had some time for some more pictures and here is the first one. Here is the short cleaning rod.I once flew in a B-17, B-24, & a B-25. Next, I want to fire an 88 round.Comment
-
Here is the last one. The markings on the stock are faint, but they are there. This is the best that I could do with my camera.I once flew in a B-17, B-24, & a B-25. Next, I want to fire an 88 round.Comment
-
Wow, that is a really sweet one.
Use the macro function on your camera and the closeups will be crisp.Comment
-
I know its not nice to critique a rifle but am I the only one who thinks there is something wrong with the rifle besides the cleaning rod?
No biggie as at least its not my wallet at stake...
Originally posted by Mike Steves View PostComment
-
No graf, you are not the only one. It shows nice, but there are things about the rifle that do not fit the normal patterns. I won't critique it here unless I am asked, and I have not been asked. Perhaps Eric would want to know my opinion, which is all it is- my opinion.Originally posted by graf View Post
And no, the term "anything goes late war" does not apply in this case- that is always used when something 1945 dated doesn't fit. All of the manufacturers had acceptance procedures they followed till the bitter end.Comment
-
Mike,Originally posted by Mike Steves View Post
Giving your opinion would be ok. I am curious to hear what you guys think.
EricI once flew in a B-17, B-24, & a B-25. Next, I want to fire an 88 round.Comment
Comment