On another site we've been studying a photo of a turn-of-the-century Alaskan prospector carrying one of these smokepoles in sporter form, and there was some slight discussion of the cartridges/loadings suitable for these old rifles. There is general urban legend consensus that they are comparatively weaker than other rifles chambered for the 8x57 Mauser cartridge, no argument there.

My question is, have any of you actually seen any significant failure with this action, or actual evidence of such? How extensive was the damage, and what path did the failure mode take?

The famous Mannlicher-Schoenauer action has the same typical Mannlicher bolt design as the 1888 and it has proven to be quite strong with modern cartridges. It's my supposition that these earlier 1888 actions are strong enough for the originally-loaded 8x57 military-issue ammo, as evidenced by their extensive use as military rifles by several nations.

Logic and experience tend to tell me that the initial 1888 failure mode may often involve a longitudinal stretching of the receiver ring, thereby increasing headspace. Much the same failure mode as the small ring/large thread 1898 Mausers, at least that's my initial theory.

Has anyone here ever had any direct experience with any 1888 failures? Inquiring minds want to know the details...
Regards, Joe

JD,
I sent you a PM on a different subject.

Thanks Butch, I got it and replied. Regards, Joe

I think there is a lot of myth about the 88 Comission rifle and its relative weakness and I will try to explain why.

If you search long and hard enough you will find that Ludwig Lowe (he was a Jew) was the object of a political and anti-semitic smear campaign (surprise surprise- it is Germany right). The smear blamed Lowe for some of the rifles blowing up. Lowe finally won law suit for the libel. What caused the actual blowups I don't know but it was probably possibly related to double loading. Enough about the myths and the speculation about the blow ups.
I offer the following observations. Please rebut if you wish.

1. The action has basically a large ring small thread receiver viewed in Mauser terms.
The Mannlicher-Schoenauer has pretty much the same receiver less the large ring configuration.
I would not expect it to stretch as fast as a M-S.
2. The bolt is interchangable for the most part (excluding the ejector setup) with a Dutch M95 Mannlicher and a Mannlicher-Schoenauer. I have actually swapped the bolt bodies into the receivers for a fit check. I have never heard of the MS being inherently weak and it is basically the same design. Same trigger etc etc.
3. Yea there may be some gas hanlding differences compared to say a model 98 but that is not strength. Gas handling is important in the event of a case failure. Strength is important for every shot fired.
4. Some could point a finger at the skinny barrel as a failure point, however that barrel design is more a result of the stupid handguard design.
5. Since the manufacturing dates of M-98 Mausers and 88 Comission rifles overlap a little I think you would have to consider the rifles from that time period as equals metallurgically until you have actual data. My point is that no one considers the early M98s as a blow up hazard.

Talk to MAG over at gunboards. I think he probably knows the most about the 88. If he doesn't, he probably knows who does.

The boys over at cast boolits load for this rifle, might be a good place to ask.

The Turks used these long enough to update them, IIRC (?)

I recently bought a receiver, so actually shooting it is a ways off

I have a Haenel sporting rifle in the small bore 8mm. Nice rifle, about 1904 manufacture, with DST's and a lot of drop. It has a Lyman rotating peep on the left side of the receiver. Information I have states that they were proofed around 58,000Psi. Plenty strong enough, if you stay away from the .323" bullets.

Rich

I have one much like that, a little later in manufacture. It is actually proof marked for the .323 bullet. I don't remember the details, but when I was investigating, there were different proof marks for the .323 bullet loads, after the bullet was legalized for civilian use. I remember I was surprised that an 88 was used as the basis for a nice custom at such a late date, but I suspect there were a lot of nice ones floating around. Anyway, mine is proofed for a normal smokeless .323 load. I have fired surplus military rounds with no problem.

In 1958 I bought a beautiful engraved Haenel sporter on the 1888 Mannlicher-Haenel action, full integral rib, pop-up mounted-in-the-tang peep sight, exquisite full-length of the barrel stock, with all the other bells and whistles, including double-set triggers and horn trigger-guard. Being young and even dumber than now (if that's possible ), I had Micro-Sight up at 242 Harbor Boulevard, Belmont, Calif, re-chamber it for 8m/m-'06 and mount a scope on it. (Incidentally, that's where and when I first met the late Jay Postman, later of RCBS Customer Service fame. He was an "order-picker" at MicroSight back then.)

I had been reading too many articles in the gun rags of that day extolling the wonders of that "wildcat" cartridge...

Anyway, for whatever reasons, after that the trigger would not keep the striker back, and the gun got the nasty habit of going off with the bolt knob only turned part way down, and was very difficult to open after firing a round, whether the bolt was all the way down or not.

Checking it over as carefully as I knew how (which wasn't much knowledge), I finally decided the whole receiver was stretching as the bolt set-back, and that the result was that the set-triggers (which mounted on the lower tang) would change their relationship with the cocking piece sufficiently that about every third shot the gun would go off by itself as the bolt closed. Readjusting the triggers would then make it good for another couple of shots, but by the 4th or 5th one, maximum, it would become self-firing again.

I hasten to add that my assessment may not have been at all correct. But the action was very, very, soft and the bolt setback WAS severe. So, I traded the rifle to a collector who wanted it anyway...as a preventative measure to keep from blowing my fool head off when one of those cartridges fired with the bolt lugs less than half engaged.

I have been very careful never to buy another Haenel M1888 again since then, just in case it might have been a correct assessment and also in case it may have been typical of the receiver softness.

I can't really buy the theory of the entire receiver stretching. The area being stretched is relatively large. Since this was an 8mm-06 it would use standard headspace gauges. Did you ever gauge it? Did you ever think to put an original 88 trigger on the rifle?

Doesn't really matter whether you buy that conclusion or not. Wasn't and isn't your rifle.

Isn't my concern anymore either.

It didn't need a headspace gauge to see that the headspace was increasing. I could SEE that the bolt lugs were setting back in the locking recesses in the front receiver ring. It was that soft.

And as a "collector" wanted it anyhow, why would I start "de-customizing" it by putting a standard M-98 military trigger in it?

Anyway, I wanted good, working, double-set triggers, so I bought some Mannlicher-Schoenauers instead. THEY worked just fine.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Doesn't really matter whether you buy that conclusion or not. Wasn't and isn't your rifle.

Isn't my concern anymore either.

It didn't need a headspace gauge to see that the headspace was increasing. I could SEE that the bolt lugs were setting back in the locking recesses in the front receiver ring. It was that soft.

And as a "collector" wanted it anyhow, why would I start "de-customizing" it by putting a standard M-98 military trigger in it?

Anyway, I wanted good, working, double-set triggers, so I bought some Mannlicher-Schoenauers instead. THEY worked just fine.

You offered the opinion and I disagreed.
The trigger it is NOT an M98 trigger. The receiver mounting setup for the trigger is identical to a Mannlicher-Schoenauer.
You had already rechambered it and had a scope mounted. BTW how did the scope work out with the packet clips?
Then you use a reversible modification (the trigger change) as a basis for your preservation of its collector status and your side of the discussion.

&You just don't get it do you? I was reporting my experience with one of the rifles asked about. I was not asking for opinions about it. What you think or believe about it is totally irrelevant to that encounter, like it or don't. It was 54 years ago, and even I hesitate to rely on your assessment of a rifle you never saw, that long ago.

I must have misread your post, because I thought YOU were the one who asked why I didn't put a M98 trigger in it. Doesn't matter WHICH trigger would have worked as a replacement though, I chose NOT to replace it. So it never became a question of what would fit in place of the double-sets.

As far as my modifying it and then a collector wanting it, I don't try to explain why he even wanted it after it was rechambered as I don't know. But he did. and he liked double-set triggers, as did I when I was young and much less experienced. The scope was offset, just as the Garand scopes of the same era were.

Anyway, I was glad to be rid of it. I felt it was too soft to be safe, and I still think so. But I have the disadvantage of having actually owned, seen, and used it.