Granted, I’m not familiar with how a Mauser .30-06 breaks down either, my experience with that caliber is my grand-dad’s Remington 721 that I inherited.
But on that gun, even if you remove the barrel, the wood stock aint fitting in a backpack.
(721 is super dangerous too! Can fire without touching the trigger. Mine has been fixed:
Yeah, I’m withholding my opinion on the breakdown capability until there’s sufficient information, even if that’s the “official theory”. I mean, even if the stock was cut down, it looks like the shortest barrel would have been 22 inches, but an “older” one looks like it would more likely have a 24 inch barrel. The rifle is reported to have been scoped, so it could have been cut short, no need for the front sight.
But someone who’d planned that well … would they have just left it in the woods? Instead of continuing to carry it with them still hidden in the backpack?
Granted, I’m not familiar with how a Mauser .30-06 breaks down either, my experience with that caliber is my grand-dad’s Remington 721 that I inherited.
But on that gun, even if you remove the barrel, the wood stock aint fitting in a backpack.
(721 is super dangerous too! Can fire without touching the trigger. Mine has been fixed:
https://youtu.be/NlzoMqtDUxs#t=3m54s)
Yeah, I’m withholding my opinion on the breakdown capability until there’s sufficient information, even if that’s the “official theory”. I mean, even if the stock was cut down, it looks like the shortest barrel would have been 22 inches, but an “older” one looks like it would more likely have a 24 inch barrel. The rifle is reported to have been scoped, so it could have been cut short, no need for the front sight.
But someone who’d planned that well … would they have just left it in the woods? Instead of continuing to carry it with them still hidden in the backpack?