Help Identify Mannlicher- Schoenauer

The headstamp looks like it says ELEY 9mm MS but the 9 is very lightly stamped and unclear. The bullet is smaller then what I find listed. Would Eley have loaded a smaller diameter bullet?.
Bullet .348
Neck .374
Shoulder .427
Head .464
Rim .464
Case length 2.210

Thanks Bob

Am I readng that micrometer wrong. The bullet measurement seems to be 0.323" or there abouts - nominally 8 mm. It would seem to be an 8 x 56 Mannlicher Schönauer. Its been years since I have used a non-digital micrometer so perhaps I am misinterpreting the inch value shown?.

john Moss

I think that analog gauge is showing roughly .343, where it is two notches to the right of the 3 mark, plus the .23 from the roller.


Guess I was wrong. Can someone refresh my memory on micrometers and tell me the meaning of the figure “23” which is the closest marking in the vertical scale to the right of the horizontal scale showing 3+ millimeters? I took that to mean that the value of the total reading of both scales to be 0.323". I am evidently wrong, but puzzled by what seems to be a coincidence since the quoted figure of o.348" would seem to be too small to be a 9 mm Mannlicher Schönauer and two large to be an 8 mm MS. The headstamp’s caliber marking could be either an “8” or a “9”, since only the top loop of the figure is legible. To my knowledge, there is nothing inbetween the 8 mm and 9 mm MS cartridges in the Mannlicher line.

No challenge here to what has been said. I am simply admitting to confusion and unsure that I interpreted the micrometer marking correctly at all. Dealing with measuremens that differ by so little they are barely discernible by eye is difficult in itself for us old guys. God bless digital instruments.

John Moss

John M.

1 Like

From memory John. The 3 on the spindle would be .300, IF the rotating part is right on the line of the 3 AND on 0. The next mark is .325 (Rotating part once around.)
.325 + .023 is .348
two more marks would be .350
As far as I know!

1 Like

Each mark past the 3 = .025 and it is just short of the 2nd mark or .300 + .025 + .023= .348 It’s hard to read in the picture.
Dan is correct and a faster typer then I am

Measuring the bullet of a loaded cartridge just above the case mouth may give an innacurate measurement of the actual diameter due to crimp distortion, ogive profile, seating depth, &c. Actual bullet diameter of an Eley made 9x56 M-S should be .355’’.

1 Like

I would guess that Fede is right and the odd measurement is due to the ogive and the bullet is larger inside the case. I only have one so I don’t want to take it apart.
Thanks, Bob

Thanks guys. I am glad I never have to use a old-style micrometer again. I used one at our store for years, but it was a one of a kind in my seeing micrometers. As you measure, the actual diameter appeared in three little cut out “windows”. It was not digital - it was simply in a superior design. No mistakes with that one.

John M.

I used one of those micrometers that required some ‘interpretative skill’ for years; once I got my digital caliper, I was ruined. It certainly isn’t like riding a bike to switch back to @using the old one when my battery dies.

I agree that it reads 0.348" so the next logical question is when was the micrometer last calibrated, was the micrometer and round left sitting in the same temperature controlled room (20’C IIRC) before measurement was taken and finally, was there sufficient over-handling of either item to cause it to heat up enough to cause error? :)

Sorry - I simply couldn’t help myself.

1 Like

O.K., my turn here, you ARE talking about a .007" difference, yes?

That would be insignificant in my experience, and could be a slight variation in manufacturer of the bullet jacket, or- as Mayhem mentioned- a very slight calibration error, again, of insignificant value, no?

The micrometer reads 0 when closed and 1.00 when closed on a 1" standard so I think it should reed correct. I realize .007 is not very much and could be explained by bullet ogive
but if not I would not call it insignificant. It would be like shooting a 270 bullet in a 7mm.

I think in a temperture range between let’s say 15°C and some 30°C there shold not be such a big deviation in tolereance. As cztrouba pointed out if checked like he described everything should be fine with the meassurement. If you are uncertain if the micrometer is clean enough use a sheet of paper close the micrometer and pull the sheet outwards. That assures that the meassurement surface is clean. Something to consider is the force used when you screw the micrometer onto the part to meassure. newer micrometers have a kind of klutch which avoids a too high meassurement force. If not pressent you have to close the micrometer carefully.

Micrometers should be checked at specific measurements and not just 0 and 1". Wear will show up on the thread between the two end points and that is where error occurs. You should check with good quality gauge blocks and measure at 0.210", 0.420", 0.605", 0.815" and 1.000". Also remember that it is easy to overtighten a micrometer, which is why they put a ratchet mechanism on them. The item being measured should still be able to slide between the anvils.

Having said that, my initial comment was somewhat tongue in cheek.