1888 Commission Rifle

Hi all,

Just wanted to share with you all my latest acquisition. It is a 1888 Commission rifle. I am really not sure what to call this particular model as it is a bit odd.

When I bought it I kinda jumped on it quickly as I thought it was a 1888'S' rifle (the variant which the 1888/05s were made out of and is also fairly rare as most were converted to 88/05s or 88/14s). Due to some pictures that only showed the receiver and the whole rifle, and the fact that it used the mannlicher clips still I thought it was a simple decision.

Well I have it now, and it is a Turkish 'capture' rifle (wasn't advertised as one, however they didn't say it wasn't either), and it is a complete mismatch (only part that isn't is the barrel jacket and receiver). That all being said, I am still happy with it and I still paid a reasonable price for it.

Now for the questions. This particular rifle was at one point a 88/05 rifle, which was then reconverted back to using mannlicher clips, by removing the charger guide, and the round holder (magazine lip?) from the receiver. The Turkish, apparently much preferred the standard 88/05 configuration as they would rather have the rifles using the same stripper clips as their Mausers. Would this conversion have been done by the Turks or by someone after being sold on the civilian market? It doesn't make much sense for either to do so unless someone wanted a .323 bore rifle with the mannlicher clips, or the Turkish ran out of 88/05 parts in the rebuild process and converted this back to the original configuration because of that.

Also I know the barrel band isn't from this rifle originally, however I am interested in who the barrel band originally belonged to, so if someone would be able to identify the regimental markings that would be great.

Any opinions are welcome, now for some photos

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cem09db0-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0gy45e1n-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...adeikjry-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...x8qunalo-1.jpg
Sorry about the blurriness of the above picture, the intent is to show the cut in the receiver for the magazine round holder.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...os74huow-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

so if someone would be able to identify the regimental markings that would be great.

---

Done!

The marking on the band corresponds to the Prussian marking scheme as used 1872-1914
(see "Handbuch Deutscher Waffenstempel" p.108)

9.R.J.2.224 = 9th Reserve Jäger-Batallion, 2nd Company, weapon no. 224

First you are making conclusions based on wrong information . The S has nothing to do with bore size and it does not mean the rifle is a 88 s . Most 88 s rifle were made after the 88/05 conversion. The Turks did not capture any Gew-88 rifles . They were given to them by Germany as war aid from 1916 on and they later bought many more from the Czechs after the war . All the Turk rifles were 88/05 's , they had either the original German .321 groove bore barrels or .323 Czech made barrels . I have no idea who did that to the rifle , but since it is reblued I would think it was done over here , for what reason you could only guess . Maybe they had an old mag housing ? What is interesting is that you can see the old WELD marks where the charger guides used to be , so much for the guys who claimed they were riveted . A clearer photo would be great , but you should be able to tell in person that there is no rivet there .

The 'S' marking as I understand it denotes the adaptation of the Spitzer cartridge and the opening up of the throat of the chamber to try and avoid over pressure (and as such did have no effect on the barrel size). This one is a .323 bore (slugged) so I am good to go in that regard.

I always was told the 88'S' came before the 88/05 which was converted from the 88'S' configuration. Either way it doesn't matter too much, as it is neither (I plan on getting the 88 commission rifle book soon as these are interesting rifles, though their history is fairly convoluted).

The reason I have the capture in quotation marks is I am aware that they were not captured, rather received in aid (much like how most people call Finnish Mosin Nagants captures when realistically very few were actually captured, most being purchased from foreign nations or already in Finland before there separation). Also didn't Turkey receive 1888 Commission rifles from Austria as well, which were in the original 1888 pattern?

The whole section is cut out, likely because it interfered with the mannlicher clips insertion. It is odd to see, and it really does have me confused as to who would do it. I know its been in Turkey as the sight is Turkish, as is the bolt markings, however I have never heard of them converting a 88/05 to a 88S style configuration.

There are 3 main types of Gew-88 rifles , the most common is the Gew-88 -almost all of them will have the S stamp . There was no over pressure problem as the new S ammo was designed to be fired in the 88 , the bullet was .321 dia , the same as the groove size and the throat was already 3x longer from the old P-88 long rn bullet than needed for the much shorter S bullet . All the S means is the rifle was checked to make sure it would chamber the S round . Next was the 88/05 that had the guides for charger loading , a new made rear sight , a thumb notch for loading with the charger , the mag mods , and the receiver notch for the P-88 ammo to clear . The least common of the 3 was the Gew-88 S , it had the original rear sight modified for the S ammo and was marked on the stock . The 88/14 program was upgrade done as needed on what ever rifle type to make it as close to standard . The Turks never used any Gew-88 rifles , only 05's .

---------- Post added at 09:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 PM ----------

Also the book will be a waste of time as it was done with no hands on research and just reworks most of the incorrect information that is on the internet . Just like the rivets , like your rifle does not have .

So took the rifle out again to take a look at it, and apparently it was riveted not welded, you have to look closely with your eye to see the locations it was pinned on.

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...1&d=1454110310

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...2&d=1454110324

That is the circle left from the weld . The guides had holes in them that were filled with weld , the weld eats into the top of the receiver in a circle pattern . If it was a rivet , it would have fallen out when the top was cut off . The hole would go clean through the reciver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

The guides had holes in them that were filled with weld , the weld eats into the top of the receiver in a circle pattern

---

That's known as plug welding, but I don't believe its weld you're seeing. The technology to do this, especially on such a small scale, didn't exist back then. Besides, the spots are too perfectly round for that anyway. The rings around the edges suggest to me they are holes that have possibly been tapped/filled with screws and made off flush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

If it was a rivet , it would have fallen out when the top was cut off .

---

If they was bucked good they wouldn't. Rivets bodies can be a bugger to drive out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vintage hunter

That's known as plug welding, but I don't believe its weld you're seeing. The technology to do this, especially on such a small scale, didn't exist back then. Besides, the spots are too perfectly round for that anyway. The rings around the edges suggest to me they are holes that have possibly been tapped/filled with screws and made off flush.

---

Just goes to support what everyone has been told for years. I am still curious as to who made it/returned it to this configuration, however tomorrow I intend to shoot it, and depending on the result that will determine how long it sticks around for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vintage hunter

That's known as plug welding, but I don't believe its weld you're seeing. The technology to do this, especially on such a small scale, didn't exist back then. Besides, the spots are too perfectly round for that anyway. The rings around the edges suggest to me they are holes that have possibly been tapped/filled with screws and made off flush.

If they was bucked good they wouldn't. Rivets bodies can be a bugger to drive out.

---

They have not been " bucked good " as there is NO hole on the bottom . They are not screws as it is to thin in that area [ with no hole drilled through ] to get more than about 2 or 3 threads in a blind hole . If you look up welding used in the military in that time frame , it did exist . Also I have knocked the guides off a rifle and they are a weld . The weld was strongest in the hole in the guide [ which makes the circle on the receiver ] and pulled a little piece of the receiver with it, just like in his photo , plus someone cleaned the stop up before they blued it .

---------- Post added at 11:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

Just goes to support what everyone has been told for years. I am still curious as to who made it/returned it to this configuration, however tomorrow I intend to shoot it, and depending on the result that will determine how long it sticks around for.

---

Back to your original question , who made it and why . It was not mine as I rewelded the guide back on the rifle I worked with . All I can guess is someone tried to make a Gew-88 out of a 05 when Gew-88's were hard to find . If you understand how a rivet works and what a plug weld looks like , your rifle clearly disproves the rivet .

I'm going with "rivets" in this case. Not that I'm a full time riveter, anymore. Nor employed as a welder. But...


BTW, SMLE charger bridges are riveted assemblies. They look about the same when cut off nicely. Not so much when wrenched away!( would have more photos, but P'bucket is hardly working. Took about 20 minutes just to get to the tools album!)


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff089-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff023-1.jpg


Have a few 1888s and never thought the added charger guides were anything but riveted! But there may very well be welded examples out there as well.

---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------

And what's with the crazy rectangular cutout on the left receiver wall just forward of the bolt stop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

I'm going with "rivets" in this case. Not that I'm a full time riveter, anymore. Nor employed as a welder. But...


BTW, SMLE charger bridges are riveted assemblies. They look about the same when cut off nicely. Not so much when wrenched away!( would have more photos, but P'bucket is hardly working. Took about 20 minutes just to get to the tools album!)


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff089-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff023-1.jpg


Have a few 1888s and never thought the added charger guides were anything but riveted! But there may very well be welded examples out there as well.

---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------

And what's with the crazy rectangular cutout on the left receiver wall just forward of the bolt stop?

---

The cut out is what positioned the guides before they were welded . Explain how a rivet works in a blind hole .

Just to clear things up a bit, the "ears" on the 88/05 are RIVETED. This is well documented and for anyone who questions this I refer you to "A Collectors Guide to the German Gew. 88 "Commission" Rifle page 105. There is a later modification called the 88/14, which this particular rifle clearly is not, which had a different type of ear welded and shaped onto the receiver. These examples are now quite rare as it is suspected most were destroyed after WWII as part of the Treaty of Versaille. This modification was not one which was given to the Turks.

The "crazy rectangular cutout" is where the forward portion of the left side guide fits. For strength purposes of the guide, they cut it out rather than try to form it along the round surface. As the right side has no "height" to it, there is no need for a cutout of any type on the right.

Now I admit, I am one who is more apt to believe a book written by an expert who has researched these rifles over a period of years collaborating with many other knowledgeable people than one individual on the internet that messed with one so take this information as you will. It is however backed up by numerous sources on the internet for anyone who cares to believe such sources.

As for who removed them. It was not the Germans. There would be no reason for the Turks to have done so unless one of the ears was broken off and they had no means to repair it. This being the same for a post Turk owner.

The book is great by the way. Highly recommend it. Lots of information in there on how the rifles came about, all modifications done to them, the copycats, etc and at the end firing data comparing them to other similar rilfes. Tons of period photos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

The cut out is what positioned the guides before they were welded

---

As I understand it the milled slot was part of the magazine modification. It was done to allow the fitting of a cartridge retainer since the 88/05 upgrade no longer relied on an the bloc clip to hold the rounds in the magazine. Never came across any info that mentioned it being for charger guide location purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

Explain how a rivet works in a blind hole .

---

Why don't you tell us, seems you have all the answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

The book is great by the way. Highly recommend it. Lots of information in there on how the rifles came about, all modifications done to them, the copycats, etc and at the end firing data comparing them to other similar rilfes. Tons of period photos.

---

The book is already on the way and should be in on Tuesday or Wednesday along with my Mannlicher Military Rifles book. Should be a good go, I've been wanting those books for a while and finally broke down and got them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vintage hunter

As I understand it the milled slot was part of the magazine modification. It was done to allow the fitting of a cartridge retainer since the 88/05 upgrade no longer relied on an the bloc clip to hold the rounds in the magazine. Never came across any info that mentioned it being for charger guide location purposes. We are talking about a different cut .

Why don't you tell us, seems you have all the answers.

---

You missed the point . It can not be done . There is NO through hole , so it can not be a rivet .

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

Just to clear things up a bit, the "ears" on the 88/05 are RIVETED. This is well documented and for anyone who questions this I refer you to "A Collectors Guide to the German Gew. 88 "Commission" Rifle page 105. There is a later modification called the 88/14, which this particular rifle clearly is not, which had a different type of ear welded and shaped onto the receiver. These examples are now quite rare as it is suspected most were destroyed after WWII as part of the Treaty of Versaille. This modification was not one which was given to the Turks.

The "crazy rectangular cutout" is where the forward portion of the left side guide fits. For strength purposes of the guide, they cut it out rather than try to form it along the round surface. As the right side has no "height" to it, there is no need for a cutout of any type on the right.

Now I admit, I am one who is more apt to believe a book written by an expert who has researched these rifles over a period of years collaborating with many other knowledgeable people than one individual on the internet that messed with one so take this information as you will. It is however backed up by numerous sources on the internet for anyone who cares to believe such sources.

As for who removed them. It was not the Germans. There would be no reason for the Turks to have done so unless one of the ears was broken off and they had no means to repair it. This being the same for a post Turk owner.

The book is great by the way. Highly recommend it. Lots of information in there on how the rifles came about, all modifications done to them, the copycats, etc and at the end firing data comparing them to other similar rilfes. Tons of period photos.

---

It is not well documented . It is his opinion , done with no research other than using second hand internet info . He does not read German , he did not look at any original German documents . He owns no rifles . He is not an expert . There is a lot of incorrect information in his book . You are saying he is right , BUT all the original German military document are wrong ? He and his friends are the main source of all the incorrect information out there about Gew-88 rifles . I am amazed that the truth about the rivet is right in front of you and you can not see it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

We are talking about a different cut .

---

Yes, you're right. My mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

Explain how a rivet works in a blind hole .

---

While I have no direct knowledge on or experience in how rivets might work in a blind hole I do have a theory. The rivet is ''headless'' and the hole(s) in the part being attached would have to be countersunk. As the rivet was set the(possibly heated) portion inside the blind hole would expand tightly against the sides of the hole before the upper part upset enough to form a shop head in the countersunk holes of the part being attached. Again this is just a theory, but the attached photo's of Lee Enfield No.4&5 charger bridge rivets seem to support it. Photo's are of 3 rifles are from 3 different makers, 2 show through holes in the action body directly under the bridge on the right side but none show any signs whatsoever of holes on the left side. So, it would appear that rivets can be used in blind holes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

It is not well documented . It is his opinion , done with no research other than using second hand internet info . He does not read German , he did not look at any original German documents . He owns no rifles . He is not an expert . There is a lot of incorrect information in his book . You are saying he is right , BUT all the original German military document are wrong ? He and his friends are the main source of all the incorrect information out there about Gew-88 rifles

---

If all this is true and you have the necessary documentation to prove it why not write your own book and set the record straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

the original German military document

---

In the mean time while we're waiting for the book to come out how about provide a link to the above mentioned document detailing the charger guide attachment method, or better yet post a copy here. We'd all love to see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

I am amazed that the truth about the rivet is right in front of you and you can not see it .

---

Oh, I can see the truth just fine. It's on page 105. I can see the truth in the words of very experienced people who I know and trust. A few of these people are retired armorers for their nations military and they fixed and rebuilt these things for years. So yes, not too difficult to discern the truth here.

"In the mean time while we're waiting for the book to come out how about provide a link to the above mentioned document detailing the charger guide attachment method, or better yet post a copy here. We'd all love to see it."

I wouldn't hold my breath. Still waiting for similar Italian documents on the other thread.

BLIND RIBET (Blind hole fitting type) | Fastening Movie - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vintage hunter

In the mean time while we're waiting for the book to come out how about provide a link to the above mentioned document detailing the charger guide attachment method, or better yet post a copy here. We'd all love to see it.

---

Here's a photo I found of a brutally removed SMLE charger bridge in my collection:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tuff0101-1.jpg
Note the barely flared end of the rivet pulled from the action body. Would be about invisible...

Generally, on most SMLEs the heads and tails have been linished off so well you can't see the rivets at all. No.4 charger bridge rivets (if installed, i.e. those Fazackerly welded bridges which never had rivets) usually are easier to detect.

All this weighed on my mind so much I plumb forgot to look at my various 1888s with the added guides. Only photos I have are of the non-modded version. MAYBE, if I remember all the folderol we'll have more pictures this week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarPig1976

BLIND RIBET (Blind hole fitting type) | Fastening Movie - YouTube

---

You just posted what is known as a "pop " rivet . It clearly shows the TWO piece rivet and shaft . Since the 88 shows just 1 piece of metal , what you show has nothing to do with it .

---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

Here's a photo I found of a brutally removed SMLE charger bridge in my collection:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tuff0101-1.jpg
Note the barely flared end of the rivet pulled from the action body. Would be about invisible...

Generally, on most SMLEs the heads and tails have been linished off so well you can't see the rivets at all. No.4 charger bridge rivets (if installed, i.e. those Fazackerly welded bridges which never had rivets) usually are easier to detect.

All this weighed on my mind so much I plumb forgot to look at my various 1888s with the added guides. Only photos I have are of the non-modded version. MAYBE, if I remember all the folderol we'll have more pictures this week.

---

The rivets on Enfields are CLEARLY visible on the inside , SINCE there is a hole clean through the receiver . The Gew-88 is not visible on the inside [ since there is NO hole ] , BUT wait , why is it visible on the top !!! You can see the Enfield rivet head is LARGER than the shaft [ the 88 plug weld is the same size through out ] as that is how a rivet works . I can not wait to your next uninformed attempt to prove the impossible .

For those reading this that would like to know the truth . The problem started with people using second and third hand information , with bad translations . High school level German or internet translators . The ORIGINAL German armour's manual states the 05 guides were rivet welded , the old term for a plug weld as it was first used to replace/ repair rivets on ship boiler repairs . All they got out of that was rivet , and since they did not know how a rivet worked they did not know it could not be a rivet . The 1914 manual states how to tell a 05 from a 14 and names the differences . There is a list . One of which is the guides are electric welded on , not gas . The period German term does not translate well to modern English , so all the translators got out of that was " made from weld" . All the 14's were not destroyed , the book only says that since they do not know what a 14 is and can not find any of the type they made up . The one in the book was bought for a very high price and strangely matches the older wrong description and there are no others like it . ??? In reality the some of the listed 14 features are found on many Turk rifles , if you know what to look for . They got rid of some features as they were readily replaceable to make all the rifles the same , some where close enough it did not matter . So some people may want to learn the truth , some will just want to pass on bad information .

Bob, the rivet head on a GEW 88 commission rifle is roughly two times larger than the shaft. I looked.

Try #2. (Pirated wifi locked up for about thirty minutes!) Also, no heat affected zone which is a HUGE clue with welds. AND, the pin/rivet does go through, but can't get a good photo yet-need a tiny mirror. It's just hard to see after the tail end was cleaned up in the raceway. Also, a Post #6 photo shows a solder ring about the shaft of one of the rivet shanks.

Find me a bare receiver with guides and I'll happily do a cross sectional cut on the milling machine. Easy enough!

I don't disbelieve that some guides may have been welded on. I just have not seen it in person. No books, just visual inspections done over the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

need a tiny mirror.

---

How's this? Tiny enough? If not I've got a size smaller around here someplace. And it has some magnification to it, IIRC.

Should have some at the workshop. Will round up something in a day or three, if I remember. Used to see stripped actions when I went to gunshows. Would be willing to pay US$50 or so for something to cut up. Riveted looking and or welded or both. Would not be the first time to squander money just out of curiosity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

Would be willing to pay US$50 or so for something to cut up.

---

Have access to an x-ray machine? If it'll show internal flaws in welds it should be equally useful in solving this puzzle.

Could a magnaflux test reveal the composition of the attachment method? I would think a round pin/rivet would have a very well defined definition between original metal and the fastener, whereas a weld might look a bit more "organic". It's a speculation, someone with experience using that process might be better able to comment if it would yield conclusions.

The Commission rifle ear rivets have very crisp, well defined borders which can easily be seen on the exterior of the ears. I agree that a weld would have less clearly defined borders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vintage hunter

Have access to an x-ray machine? If it'll show internal flaws in welds it should be equally useful in solving this puzzle.

---

No, not that wouldn't cost as much or more. Same with magnaflux. The free stuff like that is not firearms friendly!

C&Rsenal on Youtube is doing the 88 series rifles now for anyone interested. Excellent X-ray views on how various weapons operate.
At 13:30 he mentions facts relevant to the discussion.

Primer 018: Gewehr 1888/05 - YouTube

Watched the whole video. Rather good. The "xray" views look computer generated. Didn't have time to figure out what source materials he was using, but it's mentioned that there's access somehow at the end of the vid.

Also, found some small mirrors, but no photos yet. Other thing going on, including match prep for this weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

Watched the whole video. Rather good. The "xray" views look computer generated.

---

I agree on both points.

I know it isn't a real X-ray....:rolleyes: but what else would you call it....:dunno:

If it helps any I was working from Storzs book. Which is fresher translated and very detailed but still used the term rivet I believe.

I just had the book 'German Gew. 88 "Commission Rifle"' by Paul S. Scarlata come in, and it does say they were riveted on. I only took a quick glance, however I hope to do a more detailed look later on.

So who has a scrap rifle and a band saw? We can get right to the bottom of this!

LOL.

Othais, Great job with the channel. No need for books anymore, we've got your video encyclopedia...:D
Seriously, your bringing the hobby and the history to a whole new level. Wish you great success. Chime in more often if you can find the time.:thup:

Thank you! I wish I had more time to browse but those animations are brutal on my schedule.

I would take Scarlata with a grain of salt. He plays pretty fast and loose and if it was written before he'll record it as fact.

Storz is awesome: German Military Rifles Volume 2: Dieter Storz: 9783902526564: Amazon.com: Books

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Othais

Thank you! I wish I had more time to browse but those animations are brutal on my schedule.

I would take Scarlata with a grain of salt. He plays pretty fast and loose and if it was written before he'll record it as fact.

Storz is awesome: German Military Rifles Volume 2: Dieter Storz: 9783902526564: Amazon.com: Books

---

Good to know, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

So who has a scrap rifle and a band saw? We can get right to the bottom of this!

LOL.

---

MAybe Anzac15 can help us out. He seems to come up with lots of local Milsurps. Maybe he knows someone who has old barreled actions or otherwise unserviceable 1888/05s that can be had for cheap. I could arrange pickup without shipping hassles.

Gotta say, since you lot have been at it, I've looked at mine a dozen times.
Sure looks like a weld job and silver soldered seam to me.

I get riveting and silver solder, but welding and solder? Now that's just weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

Sure looks like a weld job and silver soldered seam to me.

---

Post a pic or two, be interesting to see.

It's possible to solder over weld (though I can't figure why anyone would want to) but you're in for big problems trying to weld over solder or brazing.

Thats the pins that appear to be welded, the seam around the mating surfaces is where it appears to be silver soldered, it's just too neat a join to be just sitting there.

Mine does not appear to have anything holding it other than the rivets which look exactly like rivets. They are perfectly round with perfect joint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

Thats the pins that appear to be welded,

---

That's a good possibility but I tend to believe any welding would've been done as a repair to ''tighten up'' a guide where the rivets worked loose. Perhaps this is what led to the belief the guides were welded instead of riveted as mentioned in post 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

the seam around the mating surfaces is where it appears to be silver soldered.

---

I've looked at a good many close up photo's of 88/05 charger guides and I've yet to see anything that would suggest they were attached by any method other than riveting. Soldering generally leaves a tell tail bright ring at the joint and I've seen no evidence of it so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

too neat a join to be just sitting there.

---

Joints between parts with machined mating surfaces can be awful hard to see, especially 100+ years later when any minute gaps would've long since filled with fine crud and/or rust.

Another dull pommie day, so dragged the old girl out for a few pic's.........used a mirror in the bolt channel, so you can see both sides at once.
Attachment 69540Attachment 69541Attachment 69542Attachment 69543Attachment 69544Attachment 69545Attachment 69546Attachment 69547

These pic's are of another one(borrowed for a look, different again)
Attachment 69549Attachment 69548Attachment 69550

The top rifle you cannot see any rivet sign on the inside face, the outside marks are very faint. note the joint around the right side plate, one shot shows the soldered joint after I cleaned the crud off.
The second rifle you can see both sides of the rivets on both faces.

muffett, Your top rifle does look like something happened with it but it doesn't look like it would have after coming out of the conversion so it may have undergone some sort of repair after they became loose. The bottom rifle looks like it should, that's how mine looks.

Finally did some photos of an '88/'35:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...87oge4oi-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...u4rbuino-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...m23ifysa-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...29fifzqg-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...iflna16k-1.jpg

The rear rivets/headed pins weren't hard to see, but couldn't detect the front ones. Wondering now if the "rivets" are actually headed pins that were soldered in place rather than bucked to enlarge the tails in the raceway. Then through holes wouldn't be required. Have yet to do '88/'05 photos.