Mannlichers....
- Thread starter Rob
- Start date
That is a beautiful rifle...I regret turning down a similar M-S carbine with a full length barrel rib...the guy wanted around $400-$500 for it..which at the time I thought was too much (it was a couple or three decades ago!) and I was into collecting Husqvarnas at the time. From the quick look I got on the video, it does seem to have a switch in front of the trigger guard, similar to the ones on the pre-war "English Sporting Pattern" takedowns. However, I have only owned one post-war M-S...a fullstock .270...never liked it and sold it at the earliest opportunity...since then I have stuck to pre-war M-S, so, if its indeed an early (straight bolt handle) post-war rifle I wouldn't know the details of its construction. But I would be curious about the purpose of the switch in front of the trigger guard. To me, it doesn't make sense to have a fullstock take-down, because there is no way to make the rifle shorter for transport. But maybe it is. He doesn't mention this feature in the video. Anyone more familiar with post-war M-S have any idea?
Last edited:
Good eyes Rob .. at 2:07 you can see the tang briefly and what appears to be an intersected joint - it sure looks like a takedown (might that also explain the neat little band containing the forward swivel?).. Very nice. I have a question for you Rob ... with your pre-war knowledge .. are pre-war 6.5 rifles the 53mm version or the 6.5x54mm case? I have been led to believe that the 6.5x54 was only introduced in 1950 carbines ... which would square with the video owners perception
(like he says -- there were lots of options in the catalogue!)
(like he says -- there were lots of options in the catalogue!)
Re: NO.....Pre-war 6.5s do vary a bit in actual bore diameter but not in case length. The pre-war 6.5x54 M-S is the standard 6.5x54 that you can still buy...6.5x53R is the rimmed version..same length but only measured to the top of the rim (which is where the myth of a 6.5x53 comes from I guess)...It gets confusing because the British called it one thing (.256 Mannlicher) and the Europeans had several different designations BUT THEY ARE ALL the very same cartridge. So basically a lot of different names for the same two cartridges. And the "6.5x54 was" DEFINITELY NOT "only introduced in 1950 carbines"...where did that piece of misinformation come from? The post-war rifles are inferior in everyway that I can think of ...except some slight improvement in the ability to mount a scope. Post-war M-S have wider stocks, are heavier, have simpler cheaper-to-make rotary magazines, and are nearly impossible to rebarrel.
probably from sources like 15th Edition of Gun Digest Book of Modern Gun Values 1900-Present; page 343. Model 1903 is described as 6.5x53 (5-shot rotary magazine discontinued in 1937). While in the same publication the M-S Model 1950 ..is shown as 6.5x54. I'm not defending it - just saying.
But it does square with one or two other comments on "the internet" and some Norma ammunition (both rimless) in 6.5x53 and 6.5x54 that one fellow apparently claimed to have and gave dimensions. .. so it piqued my curiosity and was wondering if you have a 1903 to check and see what markings it has...It might also explain the "excessive headspace" that Ken Waters complains about in both his M-S's in his "Pet Handloads" - is it possible there was a 6.5x53 with a longer shoulder ? ... this guy RonMerchant says that they were identical except for case length (http://iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8483)
Interesting - are you speaking of the Steyr Mannlichers or postwar Mannlicher Schonauer. The Steyr's certainly arent as nice as the Schonauer's but I dont think any of them are nearly impossible to rebarrel ... except maybe the SSG - why do you say that?
I dont think the 1950 is very different - if at all - from a pre-war M-S "Rifle" (as opposed to carbine)
BTW Rob .. if you've got some Model 1950's (post war) M-S you're looking to dump - please think of me - thanks!
I was writing about postwar Mannlicher Schoenauers, not Steyr-Mannlichers...and the post-war M-S do differ markedly from the pre-war rifles...including the way the barrel is fitted. When I have time I'll try to explain the way the post-war M-S barrels are fitted that makes them so difficult to rebarrel compared to the pre-war version.The 1950 Model may (may) have the barrel fitted like a pre-war gun, but all the other M-S up into the 1970's when production ceased, are very difficult to rebarrel because of their design.
Also...There is an article in an old RIFLE magazine that is an analysis of the many different (current and older) factory 6.5x54 cartridges, comparing their measurements. I'll dig it out and get the date and issue number posted on here.
Also...There is an article in an old RIFLE magazine that is an analysis of the many different (current and older) factory 6.5x54 cartridges, comparing their measurements. I'll dig it out and get the date and issue number posted on here.
Thanks Rob .. looking forward to the info .. the reason I had asked is (as you know) there is a pretty common misconception that Steyr Mannlichers are "impossible" to rebarrel because the barrels are pressed into the action rather than threaded. That is true ... but only on the SSG and its specific derivatives ...the others eg S, SL,L, Professional etc are all threaded in the traditional manner and the factory lists part numbers for the barrels. The SSG is unique and is easily distinguished by the significantly longer tenon .. in the SSG case the barrel and receiver are fitted up similar to an Anschutz target rifle (without the pins) - this is one of the reasons that it has a better than average capacity for accuracy. Of course so many "experts" consider this to be a case of cheapened design and possibly less durable -- so S-M has never made a big case out of this style of construction and generally remain silent about it....rather they let results speak for themselves.
I certainly look forward to hearing how the 1952, MC and MCA models of M-S (and even the 1950?) may be problematic to rebarrel.
thanks again
(I have many of the older Rifle and their sister magazines .. so I may have a copy --- I think Ken Waters contributed to these as well)
I certainly look forward to hearing how the 1952, MC and MCA models of M-S (and even the 1950?) may be problematic to rebarrel.
thanks again
(I have many of the older Rifle and their sister magazines .. so I may have a copy --- I think Ken Waters contributed to these as well)
RIFLE Number 145 Ja. Feb. 1993
Re: There is an article in an old RIFLE magazine that is an analysis of the many different (current and older) factory 6.5x54 cartridges, comparing their measurements. I'll dig it out and get the date and issue number posted on here.
Found it!....The 6.5 M-S article is in RIFLE magazine Number 145 Jan.-Feb. 1993. Its a five page article (p. 38 - 42) by David Webb titled Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5 x 54 mm Rimless Cartridge, with a full page chart that gives the cartridge case dimensions of 15 or more different factory produced 6.5 x 54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer rounds. He explains the history and reason for the variety of names for the same cartridge. Anyway, its worth a read. If you can't find this back issue I can fax you a copy, or mail you a photocopy.
Sincerely,
Rob
Re: There is an article in an old RIFLE magazine that is an analysis of the many different (current and older) factory 6.5x54 cartridges, comparing their measurements. I'll dig it out and get the date and issue number posted on here.
Found it!....The 6.5 M-S article is in RIFLE magazine Number 145 Jan.-Feb. 1993. Its a five page article (p. 38 - 42) by David Webb titled Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5 x 54 mm Rimless Cartridge, with a full page chart that gives the cartridge case dimensions of 15 or more different factory produced 6.5 x 54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer rounds. He explains the history and reason for the variety of names for the same cartridge. Anyway, its worth a read. If you can't find this back issue I can fax you a copy, or mail you a photocopy.
Sincerely,
Rob
I have a couple of very old boxes of Dominion ammunition for the "6.5mm MANN. SCHOEN."
On the top flap of the box it says:
"For use in rifles of Mannlicher-Schoenauer Model 1903 pattern. This calibre is also known as 6.5x53 M-Sch., 6.5x54 M-Sch. and 6.7mm M-Sch.
(then in French)
Important: Not interchangeable with any other type of 6.5mm ammunition."
So somewhere, at some point in time, some people/manufacturers also referred to the 6.5x54 as the 6.5x53
On the top flap of the box it says:
"For use in rifles of Mannlicher-Schoenauer Model 1903 pattern. This calibre is also known as 6.5x53 M-Sch., 6.5x54 M-Sch. and 6.7mm M-Sch.
(then in French)
Important: Not interchangeable with any other type of 6.5mm ammunition."
So somewhere, at some point in time, some people/manufacturers also referred to the 6.5x54 as the 6.5x53
The interesting thing about that ammo is that Dominion made their 160 gr RN bullet .262" diameter. I remember because I used them in several 6.5X55 rifles, and had to remove the expander ball from the sizing die to hold the bullet. They came in flat 50 packs, and the plastic tray could be used for a 22 Hornet case holder when reloading. 
It was still quite accurate, especially in a Norwegian-Krag I had for a while.
Ted
It was still quite accurate, especially in a Norwegian-Krag I had for a while.
Ted
loopydloop
CGN Regular
- Location
- South of the A/B line
I have an M 72 full stock in 30.06, love it.
