Some folks out there may not know this. But during the few times when Germany was not picking a fight with the rest of the world.
Mauser was into making civilian sporting rifles. Which were fairly popular in the Former German Colonies in Africa.
Some being chambered in the 9.3x62mm. Which is comparable to the 375 H&H. But also in the more common 8×57. Which is no slouch of a round either for mid size game.
1888 pattern M/88 (left) parent cartridge alongside the 1903 pattern 7.92×57mm Mauser S Patrone.
———————————————
But once in awhile you will see one here in the USA. I have seen a couple of them over the years. But have not fired one yet.
One of the things that you will notice about the ones that have a scope on them. Is that they use a “claw scope mount”.
I have also been told that if you have one of these. Whatever you do. Do not lose it it! As each one is a hand built tool. That will never fit or work with another.
In closing, as you can see below. Mauser is back in the market with this.
The latest version M-12. I have seen & handled one but the price is stopping me for now!
2/22/2018 To All Patrons of the Range:
The range is tentatively scheduled to re-open for public use on April 2nd. Upon reopening, only centerfire and rimfire rifles will be permitted on the range. The Sheriff’s Office and Range Safety Officers are evaluating ways to resume pistol marksmanship in the following months, but no final decisions have been made.
CPRPC is also working on a schedule to resume classes and competitive matches in the near-term. As always, public and instructional use are secondary to law enforcement training needs, and hours of operation may be impacted from time to time. In the past the Sheriff’s Office staff have made every effort to accomodate public access and to schedule around posted public hours. This will continue to be the case going forward, but we cannot expect to avoid all scheduling conflicts.
Once the range opens, patrons will generally follow the same operational and safety procedures, but please do expect some changes. All reasonable efforts will be made to share this information and additional news on this website and social media. Both the Sheriff’s Office and the Club appreciate the patience shown while this much-needed building project came to pass.
For questions, please email info@coyotepointrpc.org or contact the Sheriff’s Office directly.
The Coyote Point Rifle Range, located in San Francisco Bay Area, within the boundaries of the Coyote Point Recreation Area in San Mateo, CA, is the home of the Coyote Point Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc., a California non-profit, public benefit corporation.
For more information about the Club’s Mission Statement, click on the “About” link at the top menu.
For information about Club Membership, click on the “Membership” link at the top menu.
The range began operation on September 19, 1962, hosting a contingent of 32 officers representing all the County’s police departments.
Today, the range is under the direction of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department. The Range is operated for public use by members of the Coyote Point Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc., who are Range Safety Officers. The range allows only .22 caliber rimfire pistols and any caliber rifles. Black Powder firearms are NOT permitted. It is open to the general public EVENINGS ONLY between the hours of 7:00 PM and 10:00 PMMondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. It is closed on all major holidays.
If we are having inclement weather, please call the range (650) 573-2557 to be sure that the range will be open. If you only get voicemail answer after 7pm this means that the range is closed.
Visit us at:
1601 Coyote Point Drive
San Mateo, CA 94401-1002
(650) 573-2557
Pistol and Rifle Matches at the Coyote Point Range
Matches are fun, there’s nothing to lose (except for a little piece of pride), and a lot to win in terms of friendship, camaraderie, and a good time at one of the most exciting sports there are.
Paper targets are craving for new holes, and the “X” rings are challenging us. Get ready, and come over!
Points are awarded to the first three winners of every match, provided there are at least five shooters competing. So, the more you win, the less you pay to participate in the next match.
For the schedule, please visit the Events page or download the PDF document.
It’s too hard to persuade people to willingly surrender the right to protect their own lives.Last week I wrote a long essay in The Atlantic that represented my best effort to explain “gun culture” to those who may be more hostile to gun rights than, say, the typical reader of National Review. I began by describing threats to my family and how a person’s decision to carry a weapon is often directly tied to personal experience of real danger. Today, my friend Bethany Mandel published a similar essay in the New York Times, describing how her mother once chased off an intruder with a gun and how she herself decided to buy a gun when her family was threatened during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The goals of both essays are simple: to destroy stereotypes and to explain that the individual decision to purchase and carry a gun isn’t rooted in some sort of strange gun fetish or Wild West swagger but rather in the fundamental desire (and right) to protect your loved ones from harm. If arguments for gun control don’t grapple with this reality, then they’re destined to fail.
Yet the responses to both essays have helped demonstrate why the Left keeps losing on guns. It simply can’t persuade a rational, reasonable adult who’s experienced a threat that they’re safer without effective means of self-defense. Indeed, the effort to make this case is so often rooted in condescension or ignorance that it’s deeply alienating.
First, there’s an odd argument that it’s somehow illegitimate to make a decision based on “fear.” Or — as one correspondent put it — “fear and paranoia.” This makes no sense. Americans make safety-based decisions all the time. Is it wrong to buckle a seatbelt because that’s a “fear-based” decision? Should you ride a motorcycle without a helmet just to show the world you’re not scared? Reasonable people take precautions in the face of real threats.
Next, you immediately hear that you’re foolish. That “you’re more likely to hurt yourself than defend yourself.” In other words, the gun is more dangerous to you and your family than it is to any given criminal. But if you’re speaking to a responsible, non-suicidal adult, then this argument is flat-out wrong. In fact, even when you include suicides in the analysis — and compare them to the best estimates of annual defensive gun use — you’ll find that law-abiding Americans use guns to defend themselves far more than they do to hurt themselves.
Moreover, another person’s irresponsibility is irrelevant to the existence of my fundamental liberties. I don’t surrender my free-speech rights because another person uses theirs to troll Twitter. I don’t surrender my right to free exercise of religion because another person joins a cult. I don’t surrender my inherent and unalienable right to self-defense because a man across town decides to kill himself.
Finally, if there’s a concession that in your circumstance it’s reasonable to own a gun, then critics will immediately tell you exactly what kind of gun you “need” for self-defense.
“Well, you don’t need a large-capacity magazine.”
“You don’t need an assault rifle.”
“Shotguns are best. You don’t need anything other than a pump-action 12 gauge.”
But these arguments fall apart the instant one considers the real world. If the most reasonably foreseeable threat is from a person with a semi-automatic handgun and a large-capacity magazine, then how is it possible that you “need” less? When the gun-control lobby tells gun-owners what they “need,” what they’re saying is that law-abiding citizens should be outgunned in their own homes.
John Locke described the right of self-defense as a ‘fundamental law of nature.’ It is an unalienable right every bit as essential to human liberty as the right to speak.
John Locke described the right of self-defense as a “fundamental law of nature.” It is an unalienable right every bit as essential to human liberty as the right to speak. Indeed, when a person experiences an actual threat, the need to exercise that right of self-defense becomes more immediately primal and deeply felt than any other constitutional right. You can’t speak when you’re dead. It’s hard to practice your religion when you’re in the ICU.
Faced with a generation of defeat in the gun debate, the Left is increasingly turning to one of its favorite weapons in the culture war, stigma. It’s mobilizing its tribe — including progressive corporations, Hollywood, and the mainstream media — to not just make policy arguments but also to shame and insult Americans who disagree. The goal is to make gun ownership culturally toxic.
But shame is weaker than love. Gun owners who’ve experienced a threat possess or carry a weapon because they love their families. Teachers who wish to carry a weapon at school do so because they love the kids under their care. These folks know that their responsible gun ownership makes their communities and families safer.
Why does the Left keep losing the gun debate? Because it’s hard to persuade any man or woman to surrender an unalienable right — especially when exercising that right helps preserve the most vital right of all, the right to live.
Of course I would never suggest that you contact these folks with your opinion about CNN’s vigorous fight to not protect our 2nd Amendment rights. Because that would be wrong!