.458 WM Identity?

[Papa72]

I need help identifying the possible gunmaker of my .458 WM. I bought this rifle from a LGS in 2023 but the seller only surmised it was built in the 70’s. The rifle has a serial number, the number “372”, “.458 Winch”, and that’s all. It has a Bold trigger, 26” barrel, and the stock work is exceptional which leads me to believe it was not crafted by a gunsmith that occasionally sporterizes Mausers.
The original recoil pad was an old Pachmayr that had the “Old English” logo. I emailed the company for info on what year the logo was changed but received no response. As the original pad was hard, this leads me to believe the rifle was crafted earlier than the 70’s. Another odd observation is the original cocking piece has no slot for manual retraction, but was apparently made this way as there is no reduction in the diameter which would have resulted from grinding the slot flush. The cocking piece has a flat base so this action may be commercial (FN?). The receiver was never drilled and tapped, additionally.

Any ideas?

 

[Papa72]

 

[Papa72]

 

[Papa72]

Also, the bluing has started to “plum” on the bolt release and bolt shroud so perhaps the rifle was built in the early 60’s?

 

[Ontario Hunter]

That's an easy one to answer. It's a 98 Mauser, probably military sporterized. It has the stripper clip port, although I understand some of the big gun makers pulled these off the assembly line during the interwar years to build on when magnum actions were unobtanium. But they would be branded with company name. Yours still has military safety so I don't think it was put together by Interarms or BSA, etc. Those typically had a trigger block safety on side of receiver. This is definitely a standard length action modified to 458. The bolt shroud is rather rough looking which also leads me to think this was originally a military rifle someone dolled up. Curious that it has a nice remade bolt handle for scope relief but never tapped for a scope. Odd. I THINK the cocking piece is for commercial Mauser. Military ones typically had a cutout in the middle of the sear. Why, I do not know. Perhaps for thumb placement when reassembling the bolt?

I strongly suggest having a gunsmith check the headspace with go-no go gauges before shooting it. Nice rifle but some things don't add up.

 

[Papa72]

Sorry, I should have been more clear in OP. I am aware it is an M98, obviously. I don’t know if it is a commercial action or not ‘tho. The cocking piece makes me think possibly commercial.

I did a no-go gauge after purchase and the rifle is an excellent shooter. I did replace the flat cocking piece with the more common notched base one to facilitate installing a Timney low profile “Buehler type” safety lever as I prefer a two position lever to the 3 position flag one.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Sorry, I should have been more clear in OP. I am aware it is an M98, obviously. I don’t know if it is a commercial action or not ‘tho. The cocking piece makes me think possibly commercial.

I did a no-go gauge after purchase and the rifle is an excellent shooter. I did replace the flat cocking piece with the more common notched base one to facilitate installing a Timney low profile “Buehler type” safety lever as I prefer a two position lever to the 3 position flag one.

Interesting. So the flat cocking piece is for two-position trigger block safety (on side of receiver)? And you opted for the standard Timney trigger without trigger block safety (i.e. their "deluxe" model) which requires striker safety (e.g. Buhler style low profile or Winchester 3-position). You're saying the notched cocking piece is necessary for striker safeties? I was wondering what was the purpose of the notch.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I suspect yours is not a commercial action because 1) the machine marks on bolt shroud, 2) not a trigger block side safety, 3) the hump on stripper clip slot was not machined down. It looks to me like someone did a very nice job fixing up a military action. I suspect whoever did it simply ordered another bolt already dressed up. The owner (who very well could have been the one who sporterized the gun) liked the looks of the fancy bolt but didn't want a scope.

Did this gun have a trigger block side safety and you changed it to Buhler style? If it had a military safety, I'm curious why you had to change out the cocking piece? I did have to modify my military cocking piece substantially to get the same non-deluxe model Timney trigger to work, but modifications were to contact zone with trigger sear, nothing done to the military notch. Interesting.

 

[Papa72]

I have no idea why this cocking piece is flat, or exactly what purpose it serves. This trigger is a Bold trigger, as stated in the OP. Not Timney. The safety lever I installed to replaced the original 3-position military “flag” safety is mfg by Timney and is their low profile “Beuhler style” 2-position safety. As stated in the OP, the original cocking piece does not have a slot machined for manual retraction so I had to source a M98 one to facilitate installation of the Timney safety. The Timney safety locks the bolt handle in safe position so the cocking piece must be manually retracted and secured with a dime to disassemble the shroud from the bolt.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I have no idea why this cocking piece is flat, or exactly what purpose it serves. This trigger is a Bold trigger, as stated in the OP. Not Timney. The safety lever I installed to replaced the original 3-position military “flag” safety is mfg by Timney and is their low profile “Beuhler style” 2-position safety. As stated in the OP, the original cocking piece does not have a slot machined for manual retraction so I had to source a M98 one to facilitate installation of the Timney safety. The Timney safety locks the bolt handle in safe position so the cocking piece must be manually retracted and secured with a dime to disassemble the shroud from the bolt.

I've yet to encounter a Bold trigger. Have to do some research on those.

Can't fault you for replacing the military flag safety. They are cumbersome to disengage unless on position two (straight up) and then the bolt is unlocked = not good for field situations. Be aware that many Buhler style safeties do not SECURELY lock the bolt. More often than not I have encountered these where jiggling the bolt handle will unlock the bolt AND disengage the safety.

I have 3-position Model 70 style safety on my 98 Mauser so it can be locked in position two for disassembly. However, I often fumble, disengage the safety, and release the striker when bolt is out of the gun. I've never used the dime trick. Concerned about it slipping and scratching the bluing on bolt shroud. If necessary, I can recock the striker by simply engaging the cocking piece sear against the edge of workbench and push bolt down until I can lock the safety in position two. With only 2-position safety I can essentially do the same but lock striker back in full safe position. Then slide bolt back in to receiver past the bolt release and simply release Buhler safety to allow bolt to lock.

The notch I was referring to is in the flat bottom sear of cocking piece not the coin slot on the side. I'm still mystified about its purpose. The continuous flat bottomed sear design undoubtedly has the potential for much smoother cycling. Once the front of sear is in the tang slot as bolt is pushed forward, the bolt is locked on track. With the cutout in the sear, there's a potential for it to require realignment with the track once the bolt is moved forward past the sear cutout.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

The biggest concern I have about Buhler style safeties is they are NOT designed to be used WITHOUT a scope. With scope removed, the wing is sticking up unprotected and easily caught on brush or clothing (especially clothing) and inadvertantantly disengaged. This is a very significant issue, to the point that I will no longer carry my Springfield with a round in the chamber when scope is removed. For anyone wishing to have the option of switching from scope to iron sights in the field, especially for a dangerous game rifle, I definitely would not advise Buhler style scope relief safety. Too risky as those should be carried fully loaded. Either Model 70 style or trigger block style on side of receiver (e.g. Timney "deluxe") would be the safest choice. Sticking with military flag safety is also iron clad safe but won't work well (or at all) with a scope. And as I already indicated they are cumbersome to operate in any event. For someone wishing to have another option besides flag safety for iron sights, 2-position trigger block side safety is the safest option. Just make sure the bolt locks when on safe.

 

[Papa72]

Well, that’s your opinion.…and clearly an uneducated one. ANY safety can be disengaged. I, too, have read that some Buehler safeties could release if jiggled. This Timney will not, at least not without a hammer and doubtful even then. The coin is used in the gap between cocking piece and bolt shroud to hold it open AFTER the CP has been manually retracted via the slot/cartridge rim method…coin not used in the slot for retraction.

So…do you have anything else to offer re possible lineage of this 60’s-70’s rifle?

 

[rookhawk]

Have you pulled the stock to see if he marked his name under the forend? That's a common location.

I'd be looking for keys to where the work was done. If the parts are Parker Hale, UK, if the parts are custom fabricated, America.

It looks like a 1980s piece based upon the color of the blueing, the styling, and considering that if it was in the 60s or early 70s you could have just bought a used Win70 pre-64 supergrade in 458 for about the same cost as building a custom at the time.

 

[tward1604]

Is there a mark on top of the barrel just in front of the receiver? It looks like it in one of the photos.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Well, that’s your opinion.…and clearly an uneducated one. ANY safety can be disengaged. I, too, have read that some Buehler safeties could release if jiggled. This Timney will not, at least not without a hammer and doubtful even then. The coin is used in the gap between cocking piece and bolt shroud to hold it open AFTER the CP has been manually retracted via the slot/cartridge rim method…coin not used in the slot for retraction.

So…do you have anything else to offer re possible lineage of this 60’s-70’s rifle?

More than my opinion. It's been my experience with Buhler style wing safeties. Sixty years experience. Here is the safety of my 1962 modified Springfield with scope attached. Safety lever is tucked safely next to scope.

And here it is with scope detached.

I don't often choose to go scopeless (usually in bad weather or dangerous conditions) but I learned quickly that doing it with this style safety and a round in the chamber is a dangerous proposition. The third time I discovered my 06 with safety disengaged while scope was removed, I decided it would always be empty chamber while hunting ... even in grizzly country. At least until I can get another style safety.

Note the firing pin has been released in this photo. I didn't know it until just now. And I didn't do it! Some thick stuff in that drainage. Good thing the chamber was empty.

Check under the butt pad. Often times the maker will leave a name and date there or a note in the hollow space. Sometimes they hide emergency funds there too.

 

[Red Leg]

These custom "gunsmith" rifles can be real treasures. Were we all Germans, we would call them guild guns. I have a .270, .338, and .375 that were all built by unknown gumakers - probably in the US - and likely in the 1980's or early 90's. Each is of very high quality, and each would cost a small fortune to have them made by a custom gunmaker today to the same standard. The .270 is a particularly lovely thing, crafted to have the look and feel of a British big game rifle, but with lines and weight perfectly proportioned to the caliber.

I would do as @rookhawk suggests and see if there is any maker's information on the underside of the barrel. But assuming not, love it for the unique creation it is.

 

[Papa72]

Should have clarified in OP. Rifle was disassembled and there is no maker’s name on the metal’s underside.
There is a mark at the barrel/receiver junction:

 

[Ontario Hunter]

View attachment 621115View attachment 621116

Looks like the rifle serial number is 207 224. I'm thinking original serial # may have been obliterated on receiver when military crests, pitting, etc were polished off. Curious that stripper clip hump was also not removed. The barrel maker number is probably 372. Both were hand stamped (uneven alignment) so not from factory. I think the barrel maker's proof marks are next to 372. The brand on top ("FWW"?) probably indicates barrel and/or gunmaker.

Did you have the jewelling done? That looks VERY fresh. Nice work.