does anyone still hunt with ww1 or ww2 rifles

[OntarioHunter]

I have recently been contemplating building a 375 H&H out of a Mauser but seems that project entails more than I can handle. Too few actions available and too much work required to make them fit a magnum cartridge. The shortage of gunsmiths to do the machining necessary is also a major hurtle. Converting a M1917 might be more doable but I've never been much enamored of them. I have a P14 junker available but that is a different can of worms. Unsure about the hardness of receiver. Apparently that varied almost gun to gun, year to year during the Great War. Same ugly gun as the 1917. Whittling off the hideous ears on the rear sight for both models is a major undertaking.

 

[buck23]

I bought 5 Turk Mausers back in the day for 19 bucks each and screwed on a Remington take off 270 barrel. Was a real easy conversion and shot a lot of game with it. I think the 375 would be difficult without a lot of effort. Standard 270/06/280/2506 all run real good plus cheap to shoot considering what that is anymore.

 

[std7mag]

If a Mauser contracted for the Weirmacht counts, my daughter is hunting with one.
Rebarreled from 8X57 Mauser to 7X57 Mauser.
And now wearing a purple Boyds AT-One stock.
( i'm sure i'm going to burn for that!)

 

[Tikka06]

Years ago when I was just a teenager, a group of us decided to do a drive the last day of deer camp. My uncle was packing a Garand as a driver and I stander with a Marlin. We swapped at his request not wanting to pack that M1 all over the mountain. I emptied the clip at young sow hog that came barreling past. I got her but couldn’t tell you with what shot. I still remember the clang of the clip ejecting.

 

[TheGrayRider]

M1 Garand, Korean War era, CMP. Love hunting with her, TheGrayRider.

 

[Don Fischer]

All my sons started on a Mauser 6.5x55 M96 known affectionately as the "Ugly Stick". When it was time to put my granddaughter behind it, it got a makeover. It is still at the gunsmith's becoming a flamed maple Supergrade clone.

Boy that bring's back memories. My first hunting rifle was a 6.5x55 Mauser 96 military job. Ugly as sin but my step father was not much of a gun man! Wish I still had that old goat!

 

[Don Fischer]

Haven’t pulled it out in years, but I started hunting with a Springfield 1917 Eddystone. I killed a number of deer and pronghorn with it.

My grandpa had put different iron sights on it than what it originally had, but it still has irons. One of these days I’m going to try and make it more original.

Oh boy. Think I read it was the Rem Mod 17? wa nothing more than the Enfield with the ears cut off. I never read much about the old Mod 17, 1903 hogs the air!

 

[Harrier]

I have recently been contemplating building a 375 H&H out of a Mauser but seems that project entails more than I can handle. Too few actions available and too much work required to make them fit a magnum cartridge. The shortage of gunsmiths to do the machining necessary is also a major hurtle. Converting a M1917 might be more doable but I've never been much enamored of them. I have a P14 junker available but that is a different can of worms. Unsure about the hardness of receiver. Apparently that varied almost gun to gun, year to year during the Great War. Same ugly gun as the 1917. Whittling off the hideous ears on the rear sight for both models is a major undertaking.

Have you thought about 9.3x62mm? Nearly the same ballistics as .375 and more Mauser-friendly. Finding ammo could be a chore though.

 

[bullbugle307]

Oh boy. Think I read it was the Rem Mod 17? wa nothing more than the Enfield with the ears cut off. I never read much about the old Mod 17, 1903 hogs the air!

Did a little looking and found some examples of it online. Here’s one. To this day my Dad thinks anything with a halfway decent trigger is a piece of crap because he got used to the trigger on one of these. It starts off lighter and then you can feel it get tighter when it gets closer to firing. He’s about the worst shot I’ve ever seen, and I think this rifle may have contributed to his flinching problem he swears he doesn’t have…

 

[OntarioHunter]

Did a little looking and found some examples of it online. Here’s one.

Very sturdy action and very accurate. I believe they held six 30-06 rounds in magazine (vs five for 1903 Springfield) because the P14 Enfield, which was the original design, was made for 303 British, a thicker rimmed cartridge. 1917 is a worthy candidate for building a custom gun. A few drawbacks: very heavy and ... ugly. Also cutting off those super hard steel rear sight ears is quite a chore. I'm told it will consume a couple of stone wheels on a power grinder. On the upside, the safety is on the side of the receiver and unlike Springfield and Mauser requires no modification for scope. Just have to get rid of those damn ears.

 

[bullbugle307]

Very sturdy action and very accurate. I believe they held six 30-06 rounds in magazine (vs five for 1903 Springfield) because the P14 Enfield, which was the original design, was made for 303 British, a thicker rimmed cartridge. 1917 is a worthy candidate for building a custom gun. A few drawbacks: very heavy and ... ugly. Also cutting off those super hard steel rear sight ears is quite a chore. I'm told it will consume a couple of stone wheels on a power grinder. On the upside, the safety is on the side of the receiver and unlike Springfield and Mauser requires no modification for scope. Just have to get rid of those damn ears.

It’s been years since I’ve shot it, but I think you’re right about the capacity.

 

[nhenry]

Very sturdy action and very accurate. I believe they held six 30-06 rounds in magazine (vs five for 1903 Springfield) because the P14 Enfield, which was the original design, was made for 303 British, a thicker rimmed cartridge. 1917 is a worthy candidate for building a custom gun. A few drawbacks: very heavy and ... ugly. Also cutting off those super hard steel rear sight ears is quite a chore. I'm told it will consume a couple of stone wheels on a power grinder. On the upside, the safety is on the side of the receiver and unlike Springfield and Mauser requires no modification for scope. Just have to get rid of those damn ears.

And there's a mod you can do to make it a c*ck on open* action. It's a drop in piece too.

 

[OntarioHunter]

And there's a mod you can do to make it a c*ck on close action. It's a drop in piece too.

Why would anyone want it? Cocking on closing was something the Brits came up with that supposedly allowed troops using the Enfield to fire faster than Mausers and Springfields that cocked on opening. Personally, I think it's BS. My mom's sporterized Mauser cocked on closing and I HATED it. Anyway, fast firing is not something that's terribly desirable when hunting. My Springfield c*cks on opening and it cycles very smoothly.

 

[nhenry]

Why would anyone want it? Cocking on closing was something the Brits came up with that supposedly allowed troops using the Enfield to fire faster than Mausers and Springfields that cocked on opening. Personally, I think it's BS. My mom's sporterized Mauser cocked on closing and I HATED it. Anyway, fast firing is not something that's terribly desirable when hunting. My Springfield c*cks on opening and it cycles very smoothly.

My bad, I meant c*ck on open, not close. Just a typo. The 1917 was a COC and the mod makes it a COO

 

[Flylo]

I still occasionally hunt with a 93 Mauser 7x57. Dad got it from the armory in Ogden in the sixties for 20$. We did a little sporterizing and the two of us have killed quite a few animals with it. He came up to Montana to join me on an antelope hunt a couple years ago so I thought it was only fitting to use it being it for sure would be our last hunt together.