Mannlicher M1888 cast bullet

[yulzari]

I have a M1888 unconverted black powder Mannlicher M1888. It suffered externally from being buried in an Austro Hungarian filthy dungeon for over 120 years ending up on the floor after the shelves above rotted and collapsed. Internally it is fine, good bore (barely used) and everything functions well after very, very extensive cleaning.

I am loading with 53 grains of 3f which leaves room for a tallow/wax wad with card disks front and rear. I can squeeze in up to 62 grains with great care but there only just room to seat a bullet and lubrication is all with black powder in a tight twist 8mm barrel.

The bullet I am using is the Lee 329-205 and a casting of the bore mouth shows that it seals on the rear bands into the groove and the front rides on the lands. This is supposed to be a suitable bullet. The dimensions of the bore are as per new production. This rifle was only in a soldiers hands for 2 years at the very most. Probably I have already fired more rounds through it than the Austro Hungarian Army.

However. Whilst the bullet holes on the target show no signs of tumbling (all perfectly circular) at 50 metres it has trouble finding a 200 metre target. I have experimented with a full 62 grains and that made no difference and it fouled up fast with no lubrication. I have tried hard and soft lead. I have even tried paper patching to ensure that the bullet engages the rifling and help scour the grooves. The patches fall a metre or two in front of the barrel in long strips where the rifling has cut into them.

The rear sights are raised 3 notches to compensate for the lesser charge which at least sprinkles the impacts evenly around the 200 metre target. That is the whole paper, not the black.

The barrel is perfect. The cartridges match all the advice (ex 7.92 cut down and formed). The sights are in good order. I am no great shot but better than this. Charges from 50 to 62 grains have been tried in 1.5 grain increments with no discernable effect.

Unless someone has some insight beyond mine then the finger points to the bullet. The original was a copper covered round nose of 244 grains. My Lee cast bullet is 205 grains which gives the same weight to powder ratio in my 53 grain load.

Now I am aware that the original black powder round of 1888 to 1890 was a solid pellet with an annular gap around the outside for flame propagation. Like the Lee Metford I assume that the purpose of the solid pellet was to control the combustion rate in a cartridge intended for future smokeless powder. Especially as it is possible to force the full service charge in using 3f powder so capacity was not the reason for the solid pellet which followed the Swiss army research. Equally like the Lee Metford, it was designed as a smokeless powder rifle but had to be introduced as a black powder rifle pending indigenous smokeless powder production.

The question is, can anyone recommend an alternative cast bullet that may better suit this rifle? The first of the straight pull military magazine rifles. How hard should the lead be? Given that it is a BP rifle is paper patching a suitable technique as an alternative to the copper jacket of the original?

I would try a smokeless powder as well but I cannot find reliable loads for these wedge lock rifles, Published loads tend to be for the later rotating lug M1890 and M1895 which are stronger. Somewhat like the Schmidt Rubin 1889 rifles which use the weaker GP90 round and are unsuitable for the later GP11 round which is the one in normal supply. By preference Vectan Tubal Tu3000.

[EDG]

Please state the name of the cartridge you are loading for clarity.

Do you have the actual land diameters and groove diameters of the barrel?

Have you pushed a soft lead bullet or fishing weight through the barrel to detect tight or loose areas.

Have you measured the water capacity of your fired cases?


You may be able to find low pressure smokeless data for a very similar round based on the water capacity. I can probably dig up something for you to try.

Given the cost of a Lee mold that does not seem to work, have you thought about a custom mold from one of the reputable suppliers.
Yes they might be a little more expensive but you can design the bullet for your rifle. And they might save you many trips to the range and a lot of time
experimenting with a mold that does not work.

Another cheap alternative is getting some .338 bullets from a member and size them to fit your rifle.

And finally if you want to try some jacketed .330-.331 BT spitzer bullets I have a few you can try if you are in the US.

You can also try a cast bullet specific lube and wiping the bore between each shot to see if fouling or leading is affecting your results.

IMR Trailboss is one alternative.

Another is extrapolation of the very light 8mm Rolling block loads.
With extrapolation you are taking some risk due to not having proven data.
If you are not familiar with creating your own data you might skip this.
Any first rounds might need to be fired by remote control.
Until you know how the ammo is going to behave take safety precautions like firing with a heavy leather mitt or glove on your trigger hand and keep the other hand protected by a barrier. Do not grasp the rifle with your off hand.
Cover the breech with some sort of scatter shield and borrow a full visor motor cycle helmet to shoot with.


http://dutchman.rebooty.com/GB8x58RD.html

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I assume you have verified from the rifle itself that you have the right bullet diameter. There have been so many rechamberings and rebarrellings with these rather similar rifles, and cartridge books so often copy each other's mistakes, that this is the only way to be sure. If it is, I like the .330-245-GC gas-check mould from www.neihandtools.com (http://www.neihandtools.com) which I used long ago for the Portuguese Guedes.

I don't know that Lee mould, but did you mean only the rear band is of groove diameter, and the others smaller? This is an arrangement I do not trust. Granular black powder may give the same terminal velocity as the original compressed pellet, but it would be at the expense of higher initial pressure. It would surely make sense to use the coarsest black powder you can get. It won't be too coarse for this application.

Smokeless is different. I am sure a safe and useful load for this rifle can be worked up, starting from really low charges. But you should nonetheless use fast rifle powder, to avoid the risk of a freak pressure wave. I don't think it is a really likely thing, but it can happen. I found Reloder 7 fine for the Guedes, with much less indented modern primers (in .348 Winchester brass) than we are used to seeing, when original black powder velocity of about 1740ft./sec. was obtained.

[yulzari]

The cartridge goes by so many names e.g 8x50R, 8x52R, 8mm Gewehr Patrone Scharfe 1888, .320 Swift, .320 King's Norton, .315 India. This is the very first original fresh off the Steyr production line in 1888, withdrawn for conversion to semi smokeless 2 years later but the conversion never took place. The lands and grooves exactly match the model specification. Never been anything other than a black powder M1888. Case size and capacity match the 1888 specifications. The action is perfectly strong enough for the purpose intended but the falling wedge is marginal for the later smokeless 8x50R rounds and loads for the same.

Given that the cartridge matches and the chamber and barrel are as they should be the only variable is the thing being pushed out of the bore. My means are limited, hence casting bullets from the copious lead I have in hand.

I am in France and the cost of a custom mould shipped would be more than the rifle. Vectan Tu3000 is readily available here, I have used it in my Snider and Martini Henry as well so it would fit all and is the fastest of it's range. I have also used the 1f BP I extract for the Snider and Martini Henry and that makes no difference. I am suspecting that there is a gas leakage past the base of my bullet that is randomly affecting it's flight on exiting the barrel. Hence the application of a paper patch to better seal it; to no avail. BP fouling is not an apparent problem. Nor should it as a BP magazine rifle intended for rapid fire of many magazine loads.

The barrel is a common enough item applying to all the Austrian and Hungarian rifles and still being used in WW2 so I hoped that someone would be familiar with one that has worked in a Steyr Mannlicher of this family.

Thank you for the offer of some jacketed bullets but I need to use cast for cost reasons. Beeswax/tallow is the cast bullet BP specific lubrication.

[martinibelgian]

Yoy didn't specify the alloy - I'd go for something hard, like WW+tin. And the Fg - 3Fg would be too fast. And in order to really check for accuracy, cllean the barrel between shots to get a benchmark - that would give you an idea if it is fouling related or not. If the bore is perfect, I'd definitely go for PP. Please also make a chamber cast of chamber/throat area - that might tell you a lot. Maybe that bullet is just 'hanging' there for the larger part, who nows? BP rifles tend to have a pretty long/generous throat to wich I would fit my bullet. And 100 CDN + shipping can get you a custom bullet mould, so that's not too bad...

[yulzari]

Thank you Gert. Ironically someone somewhere else has suggested I use pure or very soft lead! I revert to my default state of confused. I did a chamber cast (and muzzle cast) and all is as it should be. The bullets are snug in the throat. My hard lead is a mix of range scrap. $100CDN! The rifle cost barely more than that and my mould was 10€ at a village vide grenier. My cheap 1f leaves me with the same of 3(well sort of 2.5)f and I am 15% down on the service charge. If I could find a plausible IMR3031 load fit for the hinged wedge and not the later rotating head bolt then I would give that a try in Tu3000 which is a match for IMR3031. All I can find is for the rotating head bolt and too much for the hinged wedge M1888. To be fair to the rifle it was never designed for BP but that is what they had to use for the first 2 years.

Knowing that the bullet relied on upsetting to seal, next time I will do a slightly thicker paper patch, sacrificing some of my 1820's rag paper, with 10 rounds in a hard lead, 10 in soft and swab out with a baby wipe and dry between each. May even sacrifice some of my precious RFG size BP I keep for the Snider and Martini Henry and they work fine. Curse this modern post 1860's technology. Even the Chassepot is less trouble. It all went downhill after the Snider in my opinion..............

John

[EDG]

Cartridges of the World

for the 8X50R Austrian Mannlicher

227 grain bullet 45 grains of 3031 This load is supposed to be safe in the 1888 rifle.

If you think the base band is permitting blowby you can have the base band of the mold bored over size.

There are a lot of things that can be done but if you cannot measure what you have you are limited to guessing.

[martinibelgian]

The important bit is that the bullet is large enough - and in this case, a grease cookie (if you have enough room for it) might be useful. Pure lead? When you're getting accuracy at 50, and none at 200, my 1st thought would be too soft an alloy: long bullets, small calibre and lots of powder. FWIW, I once tried a barrel chambered in 8 x 60R Guedes, and yes - it was frustration all the way. Got good groups once in a while, but more often t han not next try was ho-hum...
If this is a.303 8mm, I still have that bullet mould available - but there your twist would be important, as it is pretty long/Heavy. FWIW - and ironically - lowering the charge might actually give you more fouling: More pressure gives a cleaner burn. If the pressure is kept high enough over the length of the barrel, that is...

[Ballistics in Scotland]

While Cartridges of the World does say that 3031 load should be safe in the M88, I consider it a bit risky, and at 2010ft./sec. you don't need quite that much.


Fred Datig, in his usually excellent books, exemplifies the unreliability of such things by giving extremely incorrect diameter measurements for the 8x50R case, while referring to the right DWM case number. In the DWM catalogue case 358 is described as Mannlicher M/88 Oesterreich, with head diameter is 12.55mm., or .494in., and bullet diameter 8.25mm., or about .325in. I generally trust DWM, who had the incentive of making vast amounts of money selling the thing. The use of a plain base .329 oe .330 bullet could well cause finning at the rear, and paper patching that same bullet would make it extremely tight.

All this begs the question why you are using 7.92mm cases. If that means the 7.92mm. Mauser round, it is rimless and the head diameter should be .469in. It probably isn't dangerous, but nearly, and could be a source of inaccuracy on the first firing.

Have you chronographed your loads? With the Portuguese Guedes I used a rather bad lot of 1980s black powder, which gave about 1200 ft./sec., and this did cause keyholing at 100 yards. When I use smokeless to equal the factory velocity (with coarse Rottweil granulated black powder) of just over 1700 ft./sec., the problem vanished up to the 200 yards which was the furthest I tried it. The Guedes twist is a little over 11in., which is slower than the M95 Mannlicher, and probably the M88. But if something is causing your velocity to be low, it could easily

[yulzari]

Finger trouble. The cases are 7.62x54R formed to 8x50R by a kind contact. DWM is probably right. The length wandered about through the permutations over the years in 8x50R, 8x52R, 8x53R, 8x56R but mine are 8x50R fire formed to my chamber first. 45 grains IMR 3031 does seem M1895 loading at best and strong for mine. I doubt if anyone within 100km even possesses a chronograph. Never seen one on my range.

Gert. You may be on to something with the low speed idea. The bullet at .329 should seal in the bore with a .327 groove diameter and even a thin airmail paper patch should ensure that ensure it and there is a wax/tallow wad sandwiched by card packed in with the BP.

I may have caused some confusion. I am firing at 50 metres. The target is a 200 metre target so that I can 'catch' the spread of hits at 50 metres. I have tried 100 metres to see if they stabilise after 50 metres but there is no improvement. Now I know that they are stable in that there is no evidence of tumbling as the entry holes are all round.

My best guess is that something is kicking the bullet off line on exiting the barrel and it stabilises on the new direction. It explains the symptoms but not the cause. I shall speak to the Memsahib about buying some Tu3000.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Ah yes, finger accidents happen to me from time to time.

Tumbling could be just about anything, but non-tumbling bullets give more information. If they are stringing out in one particular direction, or the group worsens as you go on firing, it is likely to be the rifle. If the 200 yard group is wider than four times the 50 yard one, i.e. the spread of bullets travelling in a trumpet-shaped stream, it is likely to be the bullet. Clearest of all comes if you are able to position a thin tissue screen so that long-range bullets pass through it at the high point in their trajectory. If you find bullets are, say, on the right of the group at mid-range and the left at full range, that is a bullet problem. Are you casting them really hot, on the verge of getting a frosted bullet surface, so that they take a completely sharp impression of the edges and any toolmarks in the mould? If the bullets have air cavities, they may be off-center.

Quite often the different lengths of cases are nominal. I have found 6.5x53R Mannlicher and 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer cases identical in length, and my 7.5x53.5 Swiss M1889, which I like better than all those confounded investment case and CNC machined things, chambers the (relatively) modern 7.5x55 case perfectly. I wouldn't like to risk it on another M1889 without careful examination, though.

[EDG]

>>>Quite often the different lengths of cases are nominal.<<<
The names of metric rounds are only NOMENCLATURE. The name tells you the intended cartridge but very little in terms of exact dimensions.

The 6.5X53R Dutch Mannlicher was also called the 6.5X53.5R Mannlicher mainly because it was closer to 53.5mm than it was to 53mm.

We have a lot of crappy reference material that we use when the real reference material is the original arsenal drawings.

An even better reference is original ammo and original unaltered rifles. They are physical testimony of what was in the original specifications and if you measure your own rifle you know its exact specifications.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Not many lengths are as inaccurately quoted as bore and bullet diameters, such as .44s and .38s which are actually considerably smaller. Sometimes it is done for historical reasons, such as the change from heel to inside lubricated bullets in the same case, and sometimes pure promotion.

An exception is the 7.7x60R, which is close to being one of the cartridges which are so rare as to be found in no reference work, ancient or modern. Frank Barnes in "Cartridges of the World" used to say was a single-shot or combination gun cartridge, but I know of no other specialized combination gun cartridge which had a modern bottlenecked shape, which a break-open gun doesn't need, in an age when many distrusted the bottlenecked shape. More convincing is that it was one of Professor Hebler's military experiments. But I've got mine, a sporting rifle on the straight-pull Mannlicher M95 action, which would be very valuable if I hadn't restored it from rusty metal parts. (Fortunately someone had coated the bore with something that turn into hard varnish, preserving it to perfection.)

All the cartridge books I know, including some very good ones, parrot one another in giving it a 2.49in. case length. But mine, on a chamber cast, is a fraction over 2.36in., and that is what 60mm. is. The latest edition of "Cartridges of the World" has, to my annoyance, moved many obsolete cartridges out into a CD "supplement", in order to make room for many which will die in the 2020s. But they seem at last, after my thirty years of readership, to have detected and solved the 7.7x60R dilemma by leaving it out altogether. They still give the .40-70WCF a shoulder diameter which is grossly different from Winchester's own drawings of the period.

[yulzari]

I suspect that many 'differences' are indeed just nomenclature to identify internal changes. A bit like the 75mm British 17 pounder anti tank round was supplemented by the reduced tank gun in 75mm which was named 77mm just to stop miss issue of ammunition to wrong units.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

In that example, yes certainly. But keeping the same name, as when calling the .421 Russian and Special rounds .44 while the .44 American was still on the market, could only increase the chance of confusion.