1894 Saddle ring Carbine

[Patrick Chadwick]

Jmoore, thanks once again for the right tip to get my late-night brain cells active.

Sorry all, I made a mistake. The 1892 was in caliber 7x57.

This IS the model 1891. Identical to the Argentine M1891. As to the "trick" for unloading, I think it should work as I already described for the 1892. As I have the Argentine Engineer's Carbine, I can confirm that a full load as for more modern rifles is not a good idea. It places a quite unnecessary strain on the rifle and your shoulder. These really are "Baby Mausers" - the shortest model that ever came from the factory. As they are not suitable for long-range shooting - the sight radius is hardly more than on a Thompson-Contender - why use a full load?

As far as one can apply such an adjective to a military rifle, they look cute, especially next to a '98 or my M1871.

Patrick

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[jmoore]

late-night brain cells active

Mmmm, it's hour 23 for me right now, so don't feel alone. A "fun" week, erf.

Mind you, it's 5 hours past my bedtime and it's only 20:11 loacl time...Time to go home!

So, just to get my mind straight, there is a 1891 SPANISH variant as well as Argentine? So confused...Will hit Olsen(?sp?) and a couplre of others before lights out.

[Patrick Chadwick]

So, just to get my mind straight, there is a 1891 SPANISH variant as well as Argentine?

Yes, if you look up the Spanish Model 1891 rifle in Ball (I have the 3rd Edition) it is mentioned in the text for the rifle as actually being produced in larger quantites. But no photo and no seperate text section. I only saw a picture of the 1892 carbine, and made an erroneous deduction, by assuming that there was a photo for every model. The latest edition of the book may be slightly different, of course.

It shows how one must always check and double-check! Reading the text on the 1891 and 1892 models, dead slowly this time, it seems that you would probably need to have them both in the hand and remove the bolt to tell the difference.

1891 or 1892? Whichever model, they are neat little rifles if you make up a load for max. 300 meters.

Patrick



P.S: It's also in Olsen, 3rd Edition, P.57 - text but no pic.

[jmoore]

I read a bit of W.H.B. Smith's Mauser Rifles and Pistols and an OLD edition of Olson's book. Neither have good illustrations of this carbine, really. But it seems it was called an 1890 for some reason by some and 1891 by others and it really is a 7,65mm. Apparently neither one was all that sure of the EXACT differences mechanically, just that the markings are country specific. A possible bolt shroud change is mentioned, but not illustrated or confirmed by Olson.

I've read the books, but the use of 7,65 by Spain was overlooked for all these years.
I've wanted a good 1889 Belgian rifle for years after having seen one in the 1970's, but nothing has turned up in front of me in all this time. Now that I've a bit more meat on my bone's one of these little carbines wouldn't be so bad either. Recoil management isn't so hard these days.

Thanks for the education, yardbird and Patrick!