The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Here you go.....PU on a Mauser

Thanks for that, it looks the business, not sure how they bridged the receiver as there is a step. easy enough to reform the base I suppose.
I wonder if it is central over the bore, or slightly offset. If I can find a cheap enough Yugoslavian or other I may try this.

Mauserbill wrote: I wonder if it is central over the bore, or slightly offset.

The ones I've seen have been just slightly offset.

I found this modern 'homage' to a field mod K98 with PEM done on a RC K98 in USA.





The owner stated he wanted attention to detail, on the basis that the chances are a German field armorer would only have taps for German thread size. This was the reason for the gunsmith using two K98 receiver screws to attach the mount.


Mount was shimmed similar to an original example used for reference that belongs to a USA K98 collector.


Slight offset shown here

with that minimal an offset, you would think they would just set the scope with a bit on cant to get it fully over the bore

bradaz11 wrote:with that minimal an offset, you would think they would just set the scope with a bit on cant to get it fully over the bore

The amount of error caused by the slight offset at the effective ranges of these rifles is next to nothing in the real world. Using math the difference is less than the group sizes at the same ranges. So the amount of error is less than the margin of error.

In the case of the offset to the left PSO-1 scope used on the Dragunov Russian snipers in the field would sometimes zero the scope so that the point of impact was to the left of the POA by the same amount as the offset, that way the line of sight/centre of the bore were parallel to infinity and the difference between POI/POA would only be around 25mm at any range.



If you were precision shooting that 25mm (or whatever the offset difference is) would be a problem but for centre mass on a man-sized target it isn't.

I just mean so you only have to worry about height, not height and windage.

bradaz11 wrote:I just mean so you only have to worry about height, not height and windage.

I would imagine that at the ranges they were engaging* the difference on a centre of mass target would be negligible so they didnt bother moving the scope over further.On a scoped Mosin, especially a PU the offset to the left also makes it easier to load loose rounds into the magazine as stripper clips can't be used, if the scope was directly over the bore it would make it a bit harder to load especially in a hurry as the first four rounds have to be pushed down into the magazine so they sit below the interrupter.

*Russian snipers on the Eastern Front during WW2 rarely engaged targets beyond 400m with 2-300m being more the norm.With the arrival of the Dragunov in 1963 a Russian sniper was trained in such a way that they rarely engaged a man-sized target beyond 8-900m....that said the longest single shot kill with a 7.62 round is still held by Sergeant Vladimir Ilyin of the 345th Independent Guards Airborne Regiment who killed a Mujahideen commander at a confirmed distance of 1350 meters during the Soviet-Afghan conflict.

After fiddling around with an mg42 on a lafette mount.
It was possible to make it shoot semi auto. I floated the idea of fixing a scope to see really how accurate it could be. I was laughed at! Would be interested to see if there is any pictures of scoped mg 42s

The Bundeswehr use a scoped MG3, which is basically a modernised MG42.....

snayperskaya wrote:The Bundeswehr use a scoped MG3, which is basically a modernised MG42.....

2013-04-26_JPW_Infantry-Symposium_03_IMG_90611.jpg

I was next to a GSG9 unit at Hahn using the range to zero and practice en-route to a big match in Hungary.

They were practicing with one of these. 20rd bursts - all into a head sized target at 100 metres.

Apparently a suicide bomber drill....................