Printable View
I have what appears from all markings, dimensions etc. to be an 1895 Chilean Mauser Short Rifle. It has same crest, cartouche on stock, manufacturer marks on receiver, and Star of David under serial number on left side of stock, as my 1895 rifle. The only thing that doesn't appear correct is the sling swivels. They are on bottom, just like rifle, instead of side mounted, as they should be. Any ideas ? Could it just be a cut down version of the rifle ?
Could be. How about some photos? My vision is lousy beyond 3000 miles!Quote:
Originally Posted by dwilliams3
This is the short rifle next to my rifle. They are both Modelo 1895. The short rifle has all the same markings etc, bent down bolt handle, plugged bayonet hole, which are all correct for that model. Sling swivels are mounted on bottom instead of side.
Handguard and rear sight along with several other incorrect/missing features indicate it's a rifle cut down to roughly resemble a model 1895 cavalry carbine from a distance. Front sight looks like a model 98 with the blade in bass ackwards. Bolt handle has been modified to clear a scope. Is the receiver drilled and tapped for a mount?
As Vintage Hunter says...
It appears that you are somewhat confused about the short rifle and carbine. The carbine has a shorter barrel than the short rifle, and a different rear sight and handguard. My rifle has the exact dimensions of the short rifle model, not the carbine. The handguard and rear sight are correct for the model. The front sight is also correct.... not *** backwards. The bolt handle is turned down.... which is also correct for the short rifle, and no it has not been drilled for a scope mount. Everything matches the short rifle, except the sling swivels.
Dear Contributors,
I sense a certain tenseness in this conversation. Stay calm and look at the photos. May I suggest comparing them with the photos of Chilean rifles, short rifles, and carbines, in Ball, "Mauser Military Rifles of the World"?
- In which it may be seen that both the 1895 short rifle AND the 1895 carbine had protective "ears" around the foresight. That item is missing on the rifle we are examining.
- In which it may also be seen that the bolt handle was turned down on both types, but NOT scalloped out as on the on the rifle we are examining. It does indeed look lke a bolt handle fitted to clear a scope.
As the "ears" are missing, the foresight blade and block are exposed. The BLOCK appears to be correctly mounted, with the slope to the rear, but the BLADE is indeed reversed. The slope of the BLADE must be to the front, and the sharp vertical face towards the rear, i.e. the shooter's eye.
Furthermore: on the full-length rifle, the distance from middle band to front band is about 3 times the distance from front band to muzzle. ON the short rifle the ration is roughly 2 to 1. But on the carbines the ratio is approximately 1 to 1. These proportions are shown clearly on pp.74-76 of Ball (5th Ed.)
The ratios shown on the object under discussion appear to be closer to those of the carbine than the short rifle.
On the short rifle (p.75) the ratio of the distances: bolt handle to middle band / buttplate heel to bolt handle is about
65/61=1.065
On the carbine (p.76) the ratio is 74/71=1.042
On the object under discussion the ratio is 79/58=1.362, way off the ratios for carbine or short rifle, but the same as the ratio for the long rifle - as can be seen in the photo.
From the above it should now be clear why I tend to agree with Vintage Hunter - it appears to a cut-down rifle, not a carbine. And not a short rifle either. However, it might be a short rifle system mounted in a cut-down long rifle stock.
Of course, I could be wrong - but before deciding, please check out the observations made above.
Not a bit. Seen plenty of both over the years and can tell one from the other at 50 yards.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwilliams3
Maybe, but it's not a legit short rifle. Or carbine for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwilliams3
I beg to differ. The M95 rifle's rear sight is graduated to 2000 yds, the short rifle to 1400 yds. Therefore the short rifles rear sight unit, handguard and cut out in the handguard will be shorted than that of the long rifle. In the photo's you posted they appear to have the same dimensions, that of the long rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwilliams3
Sorry, but no it isn't. Not for a Model 95 anyway. The front sight block on your rifle is off a Model 98. Note the block on your rifle is rectangular in shape and has a ramped rear face, M95's had smaller, square front sight blocks. And the blade is indeed in backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwilliams3
Yes a turned down bolt handle is correct for the short rifle but your bolt handle is not as it left the factory. It's been modified to clear a scope and if I were a betting man I say it was made with a straight handle.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwilliams3
I'm assuming you mean cleaning rod hole and no it's not correct either. Chilean rifles, short rifles and carbines were all equipped with cleaning rods.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwilliams3
Another very good indicator that your rifle is indeed a cut down long rifle as Chilean shorty's and carbines had side mounted sling attachments.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwilliams3
The bolt knob does appear to be slightly swept to the rear of the action compared to other photographs, and the muzzle end doesn't have much (any?) of a chamfer on the outside edges.
Guys, please read the latest update of my previous contribution, which I submit explains your different viewpoints. Possibly!