Vanitas
Sr Member
Since sitting down on my computer this afternoon I've probably written and rewritten this post about half a dozen times in an attempt to properly convey my thoughts and feelings, which was no easy task. But it was important to me that I take this quite seriously, so I think (I hope) that the end result reflects the very real consideration I gave this.
To begin with, I would just like to say that I do NOT believe in the value of simply tearing down the work and efforts of others, regardless of anything else. Given my 13 year presence on theRPF I would hope that people on this website trust me enough to know that I am not an individual prone to baseless complaining, unnecessary nitpicking, or worse, simply hating. What I express in this post post can and should most likely be written off as little more than my own personal opinion, and one that others may not agree with at that. This may even be a non-issue that I am simply blowing out of proportion.
But with that all being said, I feel that I have to levy some critique at Field Marshall's steel Mauser replicas, at least in their current incarnations.
To begin with, I am a repeat customer of Field Marshall (Chris), having now bought two of his steel C96 replicas, multiple Hensoldt replica scopes, and at least two ANH scope mounts from his website. I bring this up both so that I can attest to my familiarity with his product, but also to show that I have and am still willing to purchase from him in the future. The steel Mauser replica remains, at least to me, one of the crowning moments of theRPF and an enormous step forward for those of us wanting to make our own DL-44 replicas without using antique Mausers, the soft-cast Denix, or the ever-scarce MGCs. The very first steel C96 I bought from Field Marshall was from his first-generation run of Mausers, which to this day I still am finishing.
Recently I had purchased a second steel C96 from Chris with the intention of beginning a second Hero DL-44 soon afterward, and while the addition of the accurate 2813 serial number engraving is a much appreciated improvement all its own, some of the cuts and machining on the rest of the Mauser itself seem to be rather a regression in accuracy.
Most prominently, the receiver's internals appear to have been overmachined to the point where there are quite apparent holes in the trigger hole, something which was not the case in Field Marshall's older Mauser.
You can see that the inner channel was machined too far, which caused it to break through the wall of the trigger guard.
Compare this to the first-generation steel C96 that I have:
Secondly, the lower receiver's grip frame appears to have been similarly gouged along the flat. Compared to the older generation C96, which shows a seamless transition, the newer one has rather apparent gaping between the grip frame and the wooden grips as a result.
Once again, you can see how the first generation steel C96 has the upward sweep seamless and without overcut:
But what I think is unfortunately worse than either of those are the strange changes made to the slide/barrel assembly. Along the upper rails there are square mill marks that have notched along the underside creating an odd "stepped" effect, which after taking some measurements from my old Mauser, cannot be sanded down without making the rail shorter than it should be. This is NOT a case of not enough metal being taken off; if it was then I would have no problems with it:
The older steel C96 has no such oddity:
Moving higher up along the rails, the cuts to the tops of the rails has been changed quite drastically, and as far as I can tell, is no longer accurate to either the screen-used Hero prop or any other example C96 that I have seen. Rather than having a quarter-round sweep upwards, the back half of the slide assembly's rails have been deeply milled at harsh, 90 degree angles that create an odd cut-in appearance more akin to a Denix than a real Mauser.
This is another case of too much material having been taken off, and as far as I can tell is not something that can be corrected without welding additional material back on.
Compared to both the older one (correct transition):
And the Hero's:
Let me make it clear that were these issues oneoffs unique to my own C96, less obvious, or even simple things like deburring or smoothing then I would have absolutely no problem writing them off and fixing them myself. But after doing some research I can't help but come to the conclusion that this is a batchwide problem. Notably, I have since gone back and noticed the very same miscuts and issues in several of the more recent Hero builds as seen in some of Scott's never videos. You can see what I mean below:
The upper in Scott's video features the same flat, 90 degree overmilling on the upper as opposed to the quarter-round transition, as well as the cut-in notches at the very front of the upper's rails.
Along with the same internal overcut creating the holes in the trigger opening.
Perhaps I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but to me these issues just really bother me.
A lot.
And I really do feel bad about pointing out some of these flaws because I KNOW just how much work making these replica Mausers must be, and I really do have a ton of respect for Chris and everyone else involved. I sincerely hope that it's clear that I'm trying to come from a place of love, and wanting to see things be better.
If these issues are indeed a batch oddity then I would not only have no problems with paying for the return postage to Field Marshall, but ALSO covering Chris' own postage should he be willing to send me a replacement C96 once these tooling oddities have been addressed in the distant future. That is how much I really stand behind this.
Once again, I just want to say that I really do hope that I'm wrong and that these are not widespread issues with Field Marshall's current Mausers.
Chris has also done a lot for me as far as supplying me with replacement components that I've needed, and while I might be a returning customer of his I do fully acknowledge that he never had to help me out like he has. He's done so simply because I asked, which shows his integrity to me. All of that has helped me out a great deal, which is why I didn't want to make a thread like this lightly. I did and even still feel somewhat nervous that this all might be taken the wrong way, when all I am hoping for is to appeal to that same integrity to get some kind of answer for these changes, and maybe, see them fixed.
Thanks for reading all.
To begin with, I would just like to say that I do NOT believe in the value of simply tearing down the work and efforts of others, regardless of anything else. Given my 13 year presence on theRPF I would hope that people on this website trust me enough to know that I am not an individual prone to baseless complaining, unnecessary nitpicking, or worse, simply hating. What I express in this post post can and should most likely be written off as little more than my own personal opinion, and one that others may not agree with at that. This may even be a non-issue that I am simply blowing out of proportion.
But with that all being said, I feel that I have to levy some critique at Field Marshall's steel Mauser replicas, at least in their current incarnations.
To begin with, I am a repeat customer of Field Marshall (Chris), having now bought two of his steel C96 replicas, multiple Hensoldt replica scopes, and at least two ANH scope mounts from his website. I bring this up both so that I can attest to my familiarity with his product, but also to show that I have and am still willing to purchase from him in the future. The steel Mauser replica remains, at least to me, one of the crowning moments of theRPF and an enormous step forward for those of us wanting to make our own DL-44 replicas without using antique Mausers, the soft-cast Denix, or the ever-scarce MGCs. The very first steel C96 I bought from Field Marshall was from his first-generation run of Mausers, which to this day I still am finishing.
Recently I had purchased a second steel C96 from Chris with the intention of beginning a second Hero DL-44 soon afterward, and while the addition of the accurate 2813 serial number engraving is a much appreciated improvement all its own, some of the cuts and machining on the rest of the Mauser itself seem to be rather a regression in accuracy.
Most prominently, the receiver's internals appear to have been overmachined to the point where there are quite apparent holes in the trigger hole, something which was not the case in Field Marshall's older Mauser.
You can see that the inner channel was machined too far, which caused it to break through the wall of the trigger guard.
Compare this to the first-generation steel C96 that I have:
Secondly, the lower receiver's grip frame appears to have been similarly gouged along the flat. Compared to the older generation C96, which shows a seamless transition, the newer one has rather apparent gaping between the grip frame and the wooden grips as a result.
Once again, you can see how the first generation steel C96 has the upward sweep seamless and without overcut:
But what I think is unfortunately worse than either of those are the strange changes made to the slide/barrel assembly. Along the upper rails there are square mill marks that have notched along the underside creating an odd "stepped" effect, which after taking some measurements from my old Mauser, cannot be sanded down without making the rail shorter than it should be. This is NOT a case of not enough metal being taken off; if it was then I would have no problems with it:
The older steel C96 has no such oddity:
Moving higher up along the rails, the cuts to the tops of the rails has been changed quite drastically, and as far as I can tell, is no longer accurate to either the screen-used Hero prop or any other example C96 that I have seen. Rather than having a quarter-round sweep upwards, the back half of the slide assembly's rails have been deeply milled at harsh, 90 degree angles that create an odd cut-in appearance more akin to a Denix than a real Mauser.
This is another case of too much material having been taken off, and as far as I can tell is not something that can be corrected without welding additional material back on.
Compared to both the older one (correct transition):
And the Hero's:
Let me make it clear that were these issues oneoffs unique to my own C96, less obvious, or even simple things like deburring or smoothing then I would have absolutely no problem writing them off and fixing them myself. But after doing some research I can't help but come to the conclusion that this is a batchwide problem. Notably, I have since gone back and noticed the very same miscuts and issues in several of the more recent Hero builds as seen in some of Scott's never videos. You can see what I mean below:
The upper in Scott's video features the same flat, 90 degree overmilling on the upper as opposed to the quarter-round transition, as well as the cut-in notches at the very front of the upper's rails.
Along with the same internal overcut creating the holes in the trigger opening.
Perhaps I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but to me these issues just really bother me.
A lot.
And I really do feel bad about pointing out some of these flaws because I KNOW just how much work making these replica Mausers must be, and I really do have a ton of respect for Chris and everyone else involved. I sincerely hope that it's clear that I'm trying to come from a place of love, and wanting to see things be better.
If these issues are indeed a batch oddity then I would not only have no problems with paying for the return postage to Field Marshall, but ALSO covering Chris' own postage should he be willing to send me a replacement C96 once these tooling oddities have been addressed in the distant future. That is how much I really stand behind this.
Once again, I just want to say that I really do hope that I'm wrong and that these are not widespread issues with Field Marshall's current Mausers.
Chris has also done a lot for me as far as supplying me with replacement components that I've needed, and while I might be a returning customer of his I do fully acknowledge that he never had to help me out like he has. He's done so simply because I asked, which shows his integrity to me. All of that has helped me out a great deal, which is why I didn't want to make a thread like this lightly. I did and even still feel somewhat nervous that this all might be taken the wrong way, when all I am hoping for is to appeal to that same integrity to get some kind of answer for these changes, and maybe, see them fixed.
Thanks for reading all.
Last edited:
