Printable View
Yesterday my 1908 Mannlicher/Schoenauer arrived and to my extreme delight the bore is "as new". The rest of the rifle is also quite nice. It is my Christmas present from my wife. A link for those who might wish to see it.
http://www.gunsinternational.com/gun...n_id=100770804
Having other M/S rifles I know the rotary magazine can be a bit persnickety regarding bullet length and nose profile. My question is does anyone have a .323 cast bullet they successfully use in the 1908, 8 X 56 M/S rifle?
I know somebody who did well with the NEI 36-220-GC, sized to .323. I only know of factory loads going up to 205gr., but it should certainly possible to get 2100ft./sec. with modern powders, and probably 2200. The bearing surface is long enough, and allows you to avoid lube grooves out in the open air.
It is a beautiful rifle - not cheap, but I can't think of a better way to spend money on a sporting rifle. It will recoil fairly heavily with full power loads, so watch out for cracks in the thin wood over that beautiful magazine. I've never had a close enough look at a 6.5x54 which had them, or a 9x56 which didn't. It is no big thing if caught early.
Pretty rifle. I have always liked the rotary magazine on those, never had one, but I do admire them.
I think I would start with one of the Loverin designs, but that is just a guess.
Robert
Ballistics, the crack was there, tiny and tight so it was an easy repair. I cannot believe this rifle has seen much use given its condition which was probably a salvation for the crack. I'll take a look at the NEI bullet. I have other NEI molds, old ones I bought years ago, and really like them. Thanks!
Mk, I'm a little familiar with the Loverin bullets and aren't they usually fairly short nosed? If this 8 X 56 is like my 6.5 X 54, 1903 it's going to want a rather long nosed bullet. 'Course I guess they could be seated out. And Butler, Mo....isn't that up in the sort of KC area?
Yeah I guess they are rather short nosed, maybe compare a factory round to drawings from Accurate or NOE?
Yes, Butler is about sixty miles or so south of KC.
Robert
forget the NEI molds.
ever since Walt died things have gone to hell.
I know NOE has a loverign design for the 8mms.
a lighter140gr and a heavier one for the longer throats.
Wow!! That is a sight to behold, congratulations.
Gorgeous rifle.
Mk, my oldest son is getting me two boxes of ammo for Christmas sand they are supposed to be here Saturday. I believe I'll see how they cycle then do as you suggest. They're only 170 gr. and I would prefer 200 but at least the dimension can be ascertained. CH-4D had the dies in stock and they are on the way also.
run, now that you mention it I have heard that. I've had such good results with Accurate I'll see what Tom has available.
corb & tim, thank you, gratefully it's even better in hand.
If you ever see the Mannlicher-Schoenauer Crack in a really bad state (and it might get you a bargain someday), unwaxed dental floss and alcohol may fetch out any dirt to let it glue closely together.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharps4590
Bullet ogives and chamber throats aren't always what people think. This picture shows the sort of bullet that sometimes evokes cries of doom when their use in the Mannlicher-Schoenauer is proposed - a commercial clone of the 140gr Swedish military bullet. But in a caliper set to land diameter, it is supported at almost exactly the same point as the Hornady 160gr. round-nose. They would have just the same free movement before engaging with the rifling. The part of the bullet that never touches metal doesn't change anything.
I couldnt be more jealous. Ive been scouring the gun shows for a good mannlicher in .308 since I got in the business. Bill Ruger ripped off their rotary mag for the .44 carbine, and the 10/22 because it was such a good design. Those rifles have such nice lines and they cycle like an old well used winchester. Man Im jealous! Ive seen many in 8x57 but very few in .308. Never shot one, Ive always wondered if they were accurate and if they kick the snot out of you. Again, Im jealous.
There's no fly's on the 8 X 57 and frankly I'd take that over the 308 hands down....but that's a matter of taste and there's no accounting for taste. With the 308 you'll be looking at a much later rifle than the 1908 and as far as I'm aware they are not the same action. Perhaps it's just me but the post war rifles with the different action where the rear receiver bridge is solid were never as smooth as the earlier rifles. Reports from guys I know who belong to the Mannlicher Collector's Assn. generally say the later rifles are more accurate. I suspect because they have a much more substantial recoil lug than the earlier rifles and obviously the wood isn't as soft around the lug, them not being so old. That said my 1903 in 6.5 is plenty accurate for hunting and shooting game out to 200 yards with the open sights. Obviously I have no idea about the 1908 as neither ammo nor loading components have not arrived. Given the bore condition I do expect good things. That said those same guys frequently report early rifles that shoot MOA.
As far as recoil, the 6.5 X 54 certainly isn't a problem and I doubt the 8 X 56 will be. The later rifles having a straighter stock and stocked with a scope in mind should handle the recoil better than the early rifles. I'm not particularly recoil sensitive until one gets into the 375 H&H class cartridges, and bigger, (they do take their toll on me!!!!), but I can't imagine any of the early, standard M/S chamberings or the later ones in higher pressure cartridges being what I would consider "hard kickers".
It appears Ballistics has much broader experience with the M/S rifles than me so hopefully he will chime in with his thoughts, opinions and experiences. Also, Ballistics, that is an excellent example of how the ogive actually determines COAL in the chamber. If a fella could get that through the head of some new handloaders it would save them a lot of confusion. Obviously what length the magazine will allow has to trump COAL unless a fella wants to use his magazine rifle as a single shot.
Many decades after Arthur Savage did it, and why they dropped the rotary magazine on the Savage 99 has always puzzled me. Actually the first Savage rotary magazine of 1895 preceded the Mannlicher-Schoenauer, and others besides Schoenauer (including Hugo Mannlicher himself) had made earlier rotary magazines in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by adanymous
So many people think von Mannlicher walked with God and produced his crowning achievement in the little carbine, that it is ironical that he designed almost no part of it. Steyr sued the German government for infringing his clip-loading box-magazine patent in their Commission 1888 military rifle, and part of the settlement was that Steyr got a production contract for it, and the use of its Schlegelmilch split-bridge bolt design thereafter. That is how Mannlicher's turnbolt rifles lost their early rear-positioned handle, which he probably copied from James Paris Lee. He died a year after the introduction of the 1903 sporting version, and probably never saw the little carbine version.
Here is mine. You simply press a bullet point into a hole, rotate the floorplate, and then the spool can also be removed without tools. Whether it offers any great advantage over the box magazine of the earlier 6.5x53R Mannlichers is debatable. But then it would be easier and cheaper to just snare your deer.
Attachment 181851
Here are the vulnerable stock sides. If I was restocking one, I think I would inlay glass cloth and resin inside them. I'd also do away with the takedown feature, which keys the receiver tang to a permanently screwed-in auxiliary tang.
Attachment 181852
Incidentally here is the website of Gibbs in NY State, who claim to still stock the Bausch and Lomb mounts and scopes. The mount ought to fit any other 1in. external adjustment scope, or 6mm. if you can do something about the rings. You should check in case they mean the post-1972 rifle, but I doubt it.
http://www.bauschandlombscopemounts....com/scopes.htm
I don't believe the recoil of any of the early Mannlicher-Schoenauers is excessive, just a strain on the woodwork. It is a light rifle, particularly 45cm. barrelled carbine. The post-1972 "Mannlicher-Schoenauers" bear about as much of a relationship to the genuine article as a 1960s Studebaker to the Studebaker Brothers' prairie schooners, except that horses won't do the same job, and the 1903 rifle will.
Very good point. I acquired a Savage 99 from a very large collector of them a few years back. I saw his display of at least a hundred 99s in every configuration and rarity possible and I happened to mention to the owner that I was enamored with them and if I could find a very nice 99 in .308 Id buy it on sight. Well he disappeared for a few min and came back with an absolutely pristine 1952 model (if I remember correctly) it appeared unfired. He said it was a spare in his collection and he was willing to sell it. I gave him $650 for it and have enjoyed it since. It no longer appears unfired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ballistics in Scotland
Its such an innovative gun for the time with the rotary mag, round counter and the cocked indicator. And it moves like a clock. Really a fine rifle.
Only M-S carbine I ever handled was in 8x56, had a really neat receiver sight that pivoted under spring pressure to allow the bolt to work. Can't recall if it was a Lyman or Redfield (this was 40 years ago) but it was really well made. Had a box of Western (IIRC) factory ammo given to me years ago loaded with a 200gr RN bullet. Sold it to a collector.
It is a remarkable thing, but even as easier ways of producing complex shapes in solid steel have become available - CNC machining, spark erosion, investment casting etc. - manufacturers have become more and more adverse to doing it.