Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am conducting some research for an upcoming article and would appreciate if I could get some feedback before it is published…


My research indicates the existence of the following 10,000 block serial prefixes: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L and M.

From the above serial prefixes there would therefore be the potential for 110,000 rifles and carbines. However, the literature only mentions the existence of contracts for 100,000 rifles and carbines. Model 1895’s were bought in 3 contracts. First contact with Loewe for 60,000 rifles and carbines in early 1895. Second Contract with Loewe, for 30,000 rifles and carbines in July of 1895. The third contract with Loewe for 10,000 rifles in September of 1895. Serial prefixes A – H are all Loewe while K – M are all DWM.


My first question would be: has anybody observed either an I or J serial prefix, or a prefix that is alphabetically higher than M?


Assuming that A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L and M prefixes are all there was, then there is a discrepancy of 10,000 between the contracts (100,000) and actual rifles (110,000). To part answer this question the literature does mention a further contract in 1901, but this is unanimously argued as a purchase for ‘98 Model Mausers. I think this wrong. 1901 is way too early for Chile to acquire the ’98 as Chile only seems to contract for the ’98 in 1911 and the order is for 37,000 Model 1912’s made by OWG of Austria. I alternatively propose this 1901 contract was a package deal that included the ‘missing’ 10,000 Model 1895’s. I am also aware that a few Chilean Model 1895’s have a stock cartouche bearing the date of ‘1902’.



My second question would be: does anybody have any more information on the ‘missing’ 10,000 rifles, or this 1901 contract or any other contracts for Model 1895's?
And the third and last question: Are those stocks with the 1902 dated cartouche exclusive to M prefix Model 1895’s?

Your help would be appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
854 Posts
We surveyed the 95 Chilean 15 years ago, or so....... Don't know where it is, maybe John W. has a copy? Don't recall if I/J series. I suggested to Colin that he go live in Chile(as he did Argentina) for a couple years and he gave me a dirty look......( I think his wife was Chilean, her grandfather was on the Chilean 1895 commission as I recall?)

OTOH my senior moments are running together.....

Jack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
As to the first question: handled about 8000 M1895 (rifles, carbines and short rifles) both Loewe and DWM. NO guns observed in the I or J block. Question 2: I posit that perhaps, just maybe, the missing 10,000 guns may be STEYR made. There is an example of a STEYR-made and marked Modelo Chileno 1895 short rifle. Question 3: can't recall for sure as stocks were not of interest UNLESS they were stamped 1898 on a DWM, thus making those antiques.I'd think "L" and "M" would have those stocks.
HTH,
Okrana
I am conducting some research for an upcoming article and would appreciate if I could get some feedback before it is published…


My research indicates the existence of the following 10,000 block serial prefixes: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L and M.

From the above serial prefixes there would therefore be the potential for 110,000 rifles and carbines. However, the literature only mentions the existence of contracts for 100,000 rifles and carbines. Model 1895’s were bought in 3 contracts. First contact with Loewe for 60,000 rifles and carbines in early 1895. Second Contract with Loewe, for 30,000 rifles and carbines in July of 1895. The third contract with Loewe for 10,000 rifles in September of 1895. Serial prefixes A – H are all Loewe while K – M are all DWM.


My first question would be: has anybody observed either an I or J serial prefix, or a prefix that is alphabetically higher than M?


Assuming that A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L and M prefixes are all there was, then there is a discrepancy of 10,000 between the contracts (100,000) and actual rifles (110,000). To part answer this question the literature does mention a further contract in 1901, but this is unanimously argued as a purchase for ‘98 Model Mausers. I think this wrong. 1901 is way too early for Chile to acquire the ’98 as Chile only seems to contract for the ’98 in 1911 and the order is for 37,000 Model 1912’s made by OWG of Austria. I alternatively propose this 1901 contract was a package deal that included the ‘missing’ 10,000 Model 1895’s. I am also aware that a few Chilean Model 1895’s have a stock cartouche bearing the date of ‘1902’.

View attachment 761085

My second question would be: does anybody have any more information on the ‘missing’ 10,000 rifles, or this 1901 contract or any other contracts for Model 1895's?
And the third and last question: Are those stocks with the 1902 dated cartouche exclusive to M prefix Model 1895’s?

Your help would be appreciated.
 

·
Diamond Bullet Member
Joined
·
1,970 Posts
We surveyed the 95 Chilean 15 years ago, or so....... Don't know where it is, maybe John W. has a copy? Don't recall if I/J series. I suggested to Colin that he go live in Chile(as he did Argentina) for a couple years and he gave me a dirty look......( I think his wife was Chilean, her grandfather was on the Chilean 1895 commission as I recall?)

OTOH my senior moments are running together.....

Jack
I'm 99% sure I kept a copy of that thread, I'll confirm & post tomorrow if available.

link to original thread: http://web.archive.org/web/20070415091440/http://gunboards.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=83831




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Thank you all very much for your replies.
John – I have a number of both primary and secondary sources. Please excuse me if I am being a bit coy, but would prefer to keep these to myself until I have verified my facts…
Okrana – In 1910, Chile placed an order OWG for spare parts for their Model 1895’s. They did this in part to modernise to the newer spritzer projectiles and to obtain a store of spare parts. This order included bolt parts, receivers (Thanks – I am aware of the existence of a ‘Steyr’ marked Model 1895), 26,000 barrels, 20,000 stocks and 30,000 new rear sights. So, any ‘Steyr’ marked receivers were only available 1910 or later
Have you ever noticed that on the ‘1902’ dated stocks, the Chilean Coat of Arms is almost identical (bar the circular surround) to that of the OWG manufactured Model 1912’s? This could support the contention that OWG, under the DWM conglomeration manufactured some or all of the L and M series of Model 1895’s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
854 Posts
As I recall, the only stock dates observed were 1895, 1898, 1902 plus some with a letter "code"(ME or MF?). Also as I recall, many rifles with what seemed to be original matching stocks had date/code that didn't make sense. I believe stocks were in a completely separate manufacturing line due to various reasons and would be received in batches at the factory, maybe even mixed up although for the most part dated close to rifle manufacture date. Again, as I recall, 1902 dated stocks were found on various series rifles and may be replacements numbered to the rifle. Bottom line, stocks should not be considered definitive......

As I recall, the survey got so mixed up that I decided we should have only surveyed ex-mint/unissued rifles as used rifles seemed to have strange stocks even if matching.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Nielsen, good luck on your work. The book THE GRAND ILLUSION: THE MYTH OF THE PRUSSIANIZATION OF THE CHILEAN ARMY by Sater and Herwig has a wealth of information re these topics. If you don't have one,get one!!!! I have not gone back and re-read it, but was not aware that OWG made spare receivers in 1910 for the 1895s. Would be interested in your source for specifically the assertion that receivers were made. Realizing that the following is purely a hypothesis, I would still consider the fact that the observed example of an 1895 by STEYR may be part of the "missing" 10,000. Observed sample is, IIRC, in the 53xx range. The ME and F has mystified me for some time.Perhaps they were 2 different subcontractors, supplying stocks to the gun factories. I just don't know.
Chilean arms acquisitions have been " interesting" throughout the years. Austrian,German,Danish,Spanish,Japanese,US...!!! And that is just in small arms.
HTH
Okrana
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
With all due respect, I find it curious that Sater and Herwig specifically identify with accepted nomenclature major components such as sight,barrels and bolts. Thus the term "locks" as referring to "receivers" seems not to follow their method of writing.It would also seem that receivers, being a major component, would be specifically mentioned, along with the barrels, sights,etc.
Absent any specific mention of receivers, I would repectfully have to disagree on your assertion that receivers were also sent by Steyr as replacement parts.
ATB,
Okrana
 

·
Diamond Member with Oak Leaves and Swords
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
What was the original German word used in the cited text that was translated as "lock"? There are a few words in "Worterbuch der Waffen technik" "DWJ, 2003) where "receiver" and "lock" have the same meaning in German.
Regards,
John
 

·
Diamond Member with Oak Leaves and Swords
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
Hi Jim,
I'm almost assuredly getting in over my head here...but "Sicherheit" is the German word for "safety" in a weapons context (see the DWM "Worterbuch"). A "safety lock" is "sicherung" or "sicherheitverschluss". The German language suffix "verschluss" means both "receiver" and "lock" in German.

Given the occasional translation errors we have seen in the past 20 years in arms books, ranging from the scatalogically embarrassing (in "Bonebone of the Wehrmacht") to the techncial blunder ("carbine" in Bagdonovic, "semi-automatic" in Sada, etc) ), researchers take a big risk in not having the support of the rare translators who have truly bilingual technical proficiency. Perhaps the issue here is that no one has accessed the original German documents which should have been cited by "The Grand Illusions" author?
Regards,
John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Very true John, to me, being German, "verschluss" was always synonymous with the American term "action" which incorporates both the receiver and the lockwork. Hence meaning both, if you follow the nuance of what I am saying. To my knowledge there is no separate term for lock in German, unless you feel "lock" and "receiver" are synonymous. A bit of a circular argument there. But then I'm not a technical translator either.

Then there is the definition of "verschluss" as per the "German Military Dictionary" as published by the US War department in 1944. I have a copy. According to them "verschluss" means " breechblock, breech mechanism, bolt mechanism, locking action, lock, shutter"

So... Based on my personal knowledge and the "German Military Dictionary" "verschluss" can mean either the receiver by itself to the complete receiver with all it's attendant parts or the "action"

I should also mention the other German term associated with "receiver" is the word "Hülse". I have seen it used in translations of the word "receiver" several times. The "German Military Dictionary" does translate it as "receiver" but only in reference to pistols. They also translate it as "case" or "cartridge case" which is the way I have always understood it. My personal belief is that it would be incorrect to use "Hülse" when referring to a rifle receiver.

How's that for a short answer.

Hey John hope all is well!
Hans
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I have requested a copy of the original source document that makes mention of ‘lock’. Once I have this, I will share… This document is in Spanish and not German. In a 1897 Chilean Army Manual for the use and care of the Model 1895, a Reciever is clearly marked as a Cajón (drawer or locker) and the Safety as a Seguro (safe, sure, secure, insurance, etc.) Thus, in the original document I am looking for mention of either Cajón or Seguro?

I also have a hypotosis for the ME and MF markings on the stocks. I am proposing the ME and MF division could have something to do with distinguishing rifles and/or carbines that were issued to either the Chilean Navy/Fleet (Militar Flota or MF) or the Military Academy (Militar Escuela or ME). We can all agreed that it was not uncommon for the different branches of those Militaries that used the Mauser, to distinguish their weapons through unique marks. According to British Admiralty Office records, the Chilean Navy, which had only recently adopted the Mannlicher in 1892, then adopted the Model 1895 Mauser in 1897. Furthermore, when the Chilean army reorganised in the 1890’s the Military Academy was likewise assigned a new prominence and was thus revitalised and reequipped. Thus, I hypothesise that stocks marked 1895, 1898 and 1902 were army rifles, MF were for the Navy and ME for the Military Academy. I would appreciate any feedback?



Regards

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Hello: It would be great to see the original Spanish description. As a fluent Spanish speaker, perhaps I can help,keeping in mind that the terminology may have changed due to the age of the documents and the different idioms or ways of speaking in different countries that use Spanish.I must raise some doubts, however, on your interesting hypothesis re M&F and M&E cartouches. In Spanish, one would say Flota Militar, not the other way around. Same with Escuela Militar. The name goes first then the adjective, the opposite of English.Further, more than likely if they were referring to the fleet, it would be FLOTA NAVAL (Naval Fleet). Lastly, since thousands of M&E stocks have been seen, it would seem that by sheer numbers, they must have had a HUGE Military School!! On the 2 Chilean Navy 1895s observed(one short rifle and one long rifle) naval provenance is established by the "anchor" on the receiver. If possible, the 2 samples will be looked at and check for M&E and M&F markings.
Ahhh,,,the mysteries of history!!
Okrana
I have requested a copy of the original source document that makes mention of ‘lock’. Once I have this, I will share… This document is in Spanish and not German. In a 1897 Chilean Army Manual for the use and care of the Model 1895, a Reciever is clearly marked as a Cajón (drawer or locker) and the Safety as a Seguro (safe, sure, secure, insurance, etc.) Thus, in the original document I am looking for mention of either Cajón or Seguro?

I also have a hypotosis for the ME and MF markings on the stocks. I am proposing the ME and MF division could have something to do with distinguishing rifles and/or carbines that were issued to either the Chilean Navy/Fleet (Militar Flota or MF) or the Military Academy (Militar Escuela or ME). We can all agreed that it was not uncommon for the different branches of those Militaries that used the Mauser, to distinguish their weapons through unique marks. According to British Admiralty Office records, the Chilean Navy, which had only recently adopted the Mannlicher in 1892, then adopted the Model 1895 Mauser in 1897. Furthermore, when the Chilean army reorganised in the 1890’s the Military Academy was likewise assigned a new prominence and was thus revitalised and reequipped. Thus, I hypothesise that stocks marked 1895, 1898 and 1902 were army rifles, MF were for the Navy and ME for the Military Academy. I would appreciate any feedback?



Regards

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Nielsen: further to the last message, please note:
1-Chile Navy L/R, mismatched stock and cartouche not really readable.
2-Chile Navy S/R, all match incl. stock, with stock being made by FAMAE marked in a shield FAMAE and under it CHILE S#
3-STEYR S/R mismatched stock also not really discernable markings on cartouche.
At one time I thought M&E and M&F might stand for MANUFACTURA FAMA(M E Famae manufacture) or MANUFACTURA EXTRANJERA(M F foreign manufacture. That idea, however, does not make sense for several reasons. I don't think FAMAE was in existence in the 1890s....the quality of FAMAE stock seen, while good in some cases, is not equal to the LOEWE/DWM stocks. lastly, it strains credulity that Chile would make the stocks, ship them across the world to then be installed on awaiting rifles, much less than the factory, who would be responsible for the COMPLETE product, would accept that.
And the search for knowledge, continues!
Okrana
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top