Mauser M18 thoughts
- Thread starter Worthy130
- Start date
Sprocker101
Well-Known Member
I have one in .243 and really like it. Very accurate with home loads.
Hales Smut
Well-Known Member
I had them in my hands last year on a smallish game fair. Did like the bolt, nice and smooth. Never fired one.
Ive used them on the range a bit and was impressed, definitely robust if a bit basic in finish etc. but a good accurate working rifle at a good price. theres a few reviews around, like this one by Tim Pillbeam from Fieldsports Britain
It seems to get negative feedback for the fact you can't replace the barrel once its worn out (due to the way of fitting the barrel into the receiver) but tbh with a 243 you're going to putting a lot of rounds downrange before you need to worry and it'll give many years of practical service.
btw The Sauer 100 is a very similar rifle and might be worth a look/comparison to see which one fits best?
It seems to get negative feedback for the fact you can't replace the barrel once its worn out (due to the way of fitting the barrel into the receiver) but tbh with a 243 you're going to putting a lot of rounds downrange before you need to worry and it'll give many years of practical service.
btw The Sauer 100 is a very similar rifle and might be worth a look/comparison to see which one fits best?
Quarrybank
Well-Known Member
I have one in 243 and has done me well. Accurate and robust. Has a smooth bolt action and 3 stage safety which I like. Trigger is decent and can be adjusted easily to be pretty light. Overall a good working rifle that you don’t need to worry about getting scrapes and knocks on.
they are cracking rifles for the money
Stock is solid and much better than a lot of much more expensive factory synthetics
Double stack flush 5 round mag
Don't understand the issue with not being able to rebarrel
Who in their right mind is dropping a grand on a new barrel for a rifle that cost £5-700?
Look after it and it will outlive you in terms of round count
very few rifles die solely as a result of round count
RUST kills rifles
I have shot them in .243, 308 and 270
most recently we tested a customers rifle in 270 with 6 brands and weights of bullet
It was hard to determine which one was better than the next as they all shot well inside 1" with no allowance for barrel cooling
good trigger.
good stock
accurate
£2-300 cheaper than the nearest tikka
whats not to like
Stock is solid and much better than a lot of much more expensive factory synthetics
Double stack flush 5 round mag
Don't understand the issue with not being able to rebarrel
Who in their right mind is dropping a grand on a new barrel for a rifle that cost £5-700?
Look after it and it will outlive you in terms of round count
very few rifles die solely as a result of round count
RUST kills rifles
I have shot them in .243, 308 and 270
most recently we tested a customers rifle in 270 with 6 brands and weights of bullet
It was hard to determine which one was better than the next as they all shot well inside 1" with no allowance for barrel cooling
good trigger.
good stock
accurate
£2-300 cheaper than the nearest tikka
whats not to like
LeftHandGuy
Well-Known Member
No left hand option.
To throw my hat into the ring, I was looking at the Mauser M18 before deciding to buy a second-hand Tikka T3x at a similar price (approx £600).
A mate went ahead and bought a new M18, compared to my Tikka I'm glad I spent a bit more.
It comes down to what you want out of the rifle, if you want a custom stock, trigger and bolt handle upgrades, flush fit Sphur scope mounts etc. (all to be found in the Tikka aftermarket) then the Mauser is not for you.
A former VP of Remington Arms (Ryan Cleckner) and Hakkan Sphur (the guy who makes scope mounts) both use Tikka rifles for hunting; for guys in the industry who can get anything they want, and probably for free, that says a lot!
Nothing wrong with a cheap hunting rifle, in the USA you can spend $2-300 at a big box store and get a rifle, scope, ammo and accessories package that will take a deer. Most modern hunting rifles will do around 2 MOA or less, that class of accuracy was considered to be the top end less than 100 years ago.
Its down to the small UK market, tax, VAT etc that we land up paying near enough a grand for what the North Americans get for +/- $5-600.
A mate went ahead and bought a new M18, compared to my Tikka I'm glad I spent a bit more.
It comes down to what you want out of the rifle, if you want a custom stock, trigger and bolt handle upgrades, flush fit Sphur scope mounts etc. (all to be found in the Tikka aftermarket) then the Mauser is not for you.
A former VP of Remington Arms (Ryan Cleckner) and Hakkan Sphur (the guy who makes scope mounts) both use Tikka rifles for hunting; for guys in the industry who can get anything they want, and probably for free, that says a lot!
Nothing wrong with a cheap hunting rifle, in the USA you can spend $2-300 at a big box store and get a rifle, scope, ammo and accessories package that will take a deer. Most modern hunting rifles will do around 2 MOA or less, that class of accuracy was considered to be the top end less than 100 years ago.
Its down to the small UK market, tax, VAT etc that we land up paying near enough a grand for what the North Americans get for +/- $5-600.
Sounds like you've just described a howa, cheaper still lol
Heavier too...
Hales Smut
Well-Known Member
Fully agree here. I handled it on the game fair and the bolt was very smooth. Light weight rifle. Why bother a rebarrel? Getting a new rifle is less expensive.
If accuracy is that good, there is little else on the market wich is better.
I own a T3 in 223 with 8" twist. It's not "that" accurate . All the Brownings I tested where more accurate out of the box. ( 223 - 243 and 7x64 // A-bolt 2 , X-bolt and European )
Said that, the Tikka accounted for 14 foxes with 15 rounds in the first two months of the year and we are much more limited than the UK
No night shooting, not shooting from vehicle , etc......
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Those kind of people get incentives to use certain products so people think as you just have!
victormeldrew
Well-Known Member
I don't mean to be awkward or picky, but please expand on what you mean by " It's not "that" accurate " ref the Tikka.
My understanding is that all Tikka rifles are guaranteed under 1 moa.
Is your's outside 1 moa & if so by how much?
However, 14 out of 15 is pretty good.
The reason I ask is that a T3/T3X in .223 with 8" twist is on my wish list.
Thanks.
v
Any tikka that isnt shooting ragged holes just needs a change of ammo (assuming it isn't completely fecked!)
As to the aftermarket options, if you are considering triggers, stocks and various other upgrades you are no longer comparing a £6-700 rifle to a £6-700 rifle
by the time you drop £500 on a stock and £150-450 on a trigger on top of your £600 used Tikka you could have bought a Blaser R93 or a Sako 85
Tikka triggers dont need changing
neither do Mauser M18 triggers IMO
As to the aftermarket options, if you are considering triggers, stocks and various other upgrades you are no longer comparing a £6-700 rifle to a £6-700 rifle
by the time you drop £500 on a stock and £150-450 on a trigger on top of your £600 used Tikka you could have bought a Blaser R93 or a Sako 85
Tikka triggers dont need changing
neither do Mauser M18 triggers IMO
Hales Smut
Well-Known Member
It's a while ago that I did the test. Don't realy remeber the actual measurements of the groups.
Most Browning's , including my European 7x64 with Winchester 162 grain PowerPoints / factory) shoot true cloverleaf 3 shot groups at 100m.
This is not 1 single hole , but 3 holes almost touching.
The Tikka has always about 10-15 mm bewteen every hole. Would still make about 3 cm : 3 shot groups at 100m , but the diffrence was visible.
I am using Norma 40 grain v-max / factory, wich I could get cheap from a friend.
As I said 14 out of 15 , two of them at about 160/170m. So not bad.
They are almost gone. Just bought 4 boxes of Federal premium 55 grain BTHP. Will see of these perform better.
I have one in 243 and I’m happy with it. For the money they are a bargain when you consider that the sauer 100 is basically the same rifle but £300 more expensive (although no one in the gun shop will admit this).
i,ve owned a tikka before and the Mauser fits me better so I prefer it . Both have good triggers which are adjustable, the Mauser has a longer barrel which might be useful in 243, the tikka blueing is better but the Mauser magazine is
better .
also I think you can rebarrel the m18 but lika has already said , if you shoot a barrel out simply buy a new one .
i,ve owned a tikka before and the Mauser fits me better so I prefer it . Both have good triggers which are adjustable, the Mauser has a longer barrel which might be useful in 243, the tikka blueing is better but the Mauser magazine is
better .
also I think you can rebarrel the m18 but lika has already said , if you shoot a barrel out simply buy a new one .
Harry mac
Well-Known Member
I'd be interested to see the two rifles side by side to compare them and confirm or refute this rumour.
There are visible differences between the two, and the Sauer's barrel is (apparently) threaded into the action rather than a sweat/shrink fit.
I'm already a bit miffed as I bought the Sauer in .223; which I'm happy with, but about a fortnight later Mauser made the M18 available in .223 as well. With that £300 price difference!
Similar threads
