Talk:Swedish Mauser

Place of origin

If it was the German Empire as the time-period clearly suggests, the flag should link there as well. Alternatively, the current flag of Germany should be presented in spite of the historical error that would represent. BP OMowe (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Expanding article

Saw this listed on the project page as needing expansion. I have some nice pictures of a mint M38 short rifle, which so far has been neglected in this article. I will add them. Mr.trooper —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

Swedish Mauser page

This entire article is so full of errors it needs a complete rewrite. As well, the name of the factory where these rifles were built is spelled out on the rifle itself: Gustaf not Gustav. Aside from that its a very poorly written and unresearched page. I may make an attempt to do this page but I just don't have the time at present. --DutchSwedishMauser (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give us some examples of the errors you've noticed? That way, other editors with a bit more time might be able to make a start on correcting them. --Commander Zulu (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The most repeated error is the misspelling of Gustaf. Then in the 2nd paragraph: "Both rifles were based on the Mauser action, but differed in being "cock-on-closing".." The problem is evident that the writer doesn't know anything about the subject matter. The 1896 action *is* a Mauser. It doesn't differ from anything. The writer's only other reference is the Lee-Enfield and K98k Mauser. Then: "The Model 1896 (M96) rifle (6,5 mm Gevär m/96) was adopted by Sweden on March 20, 1896,". No mention that production did not begin until 1898 for the m/96. And no mention at all of the 1895 Mauser Oberndorf carbine contract or the Swedish m/1894 carbines. Then: "The M96 remained in production until 1938, when it was replaced by the M38 Carbine." The m/96 ceased production in 1924. The m/38 is not a carbine, its a rifle, a gevär. Then: "A number of M96 rifles were officially converted to M38 configuration, and are known as M96/38 rifles, to differentiate them from as-manufactured M38 rifles. All M38 rifles were manufactured by Husqvarna". The 96-38 nominclature is American in origin. There was no distiction between the converted rifles and the purpose built Husqvarna rifles. Then: "successfully transformed by Carl Gustav Arsenal". Carl Gustafs stads Gevarsfaktori. The book cited is known to be so full of errors as to be nearly useless. "Crown Jewels: The Mauser in Sweden" by Dana Jones is the only worthwhile book on the subject (my name is in it as a contributor). The entire composition of this article is just utterly useless, I'm sorry to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DutchSwedishMauser (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In the sidebar: "Waffenfabrik Mauser AG". Should be Waffenfabrik Mauser Oberndorf a/n. Where it says "production history" and then "designed 1896". Designed is not production. Variants do not include the many variations of the 1894 carbine such as the 1901 school carbines, fortress carbines, gallery carbines, m/94 and m/94-14 differenciated. The stated muzzle velocity is incorrect for the m/96 rifle. The sights are "iron"?? Actually they're steel but the description should be square post front and U-notch rear with a stepped ladder for elevation. Are you understanding now the degree of error in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DutchSwedishMauser (talk • contribs) 16:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

An example of an outstanding presentation.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krag-J%C3%B8rgensen This is how the Swedish Mauser deserves to be presented. It should be used as a template for the Swede.DutchSwedishMauser (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DutchSwedishMauser (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Eary Swedish mausers manufactured by Loewe and DWM. IIRC Mauser manufactured no early "Mausers", but merely designed them

Eary Swedish mausers were manufactured by Loewe and DWM. IIRC Mauser manufactured no early "Mausers", but merely designed them. BTW, I personally own a '94 Swede carbine. Says "Ludwig Loewe on the receiver, not "Mauser". Outsidedog (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Is your Ludwig Loewe-manufactured M/94 Swedish carbine fitted with a unicorn-hide sling?

'Cause no-one else has ever seen any such beast. Care to provide a photo of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.176.129 (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Errors and Repetitive Errors & Eroneous Information

The argument over Ludwig Loewe & DWM made Swedish Mausers is bogus. Loewe & DWM did NOT manufacture any Swedish Mausers. Outsidedog-- please send photos to swede1894 (at) gmail.com and I will help straighten this issue out. Yes, I am an expert on the subject.

"high grade tool steel" - BOGUS. Never has there been a Mauser military rifle made with high grade tool steel or any kind of tool steel. All Mauser bolt rifles were manufactured using low carbon steel with additional additives then the receivers were case hardened, not heat treated.

"Mauser produced 12.000 m/1894 carbines between 1894 and 1896 and Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori 115.000 m/1894 carbines between 1895 and 1933"

This above is incorrect. Mauser Oberndorf carbines were produced ONLY in 1895. Gustaf carbines were produced only between 1898 and 1932, non inclusive.

(under the m/96 section) "Mauser produced 40,000 m/1896 long rifles between 1895 and 1899,"

The above is incorrect. Mauser Oberndorf m/96 rifles were produced only in 1899 and 1900. Mauser Oberndorf carbines were produced only in 1895. The number produced is also incorrect.

"Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori 475,000 m/1896 between 1899 and 1936"

The above is incorrect. Gustaf m/96 final production was right about at 512,000 rifles. Production ran 1898 to 1924. Anomalous numbered rifles have shown up but regular military production ceased in 1924.

Please whoever included this incorrect data CORRECT it. I will make attempts at editing the Swedish Mauser page on a regular basis. DutchSwedishMauser (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I added those production figures (from a source listed among references). If you provide references for your production figures and years of production I will be glad to change them, otherwise not. As for m/94 the Swedish Ministry of Defense ordered 12,185 m/94's from Mauser, 5,000 in 1894 and 7,185 in 1895, with deliveries in 1895 and 1896 (Source: Die leichten schwedischen Infanteriegewehre Armee und Heimwehr, Carsten Schinke, Journal-Verlag Schwendt GmbH, 1990). According to the same source production of the m/94 at Carl Gustafs started in 1896. According to Schinke the highest known serial number for m/96's made by Mauser is #59,940, made by Carl Gustafs #517,277 and made by Husqvarna #702,083. But highest serial number doesn't equal production numbers. In Schinke's book (which is in German BTW) you will find a long list of serial numbers that are known to have been used, listed per year, showing that many serial numbers were not used (such as at Carl Gustaf, where the last rifle made in 1910 had serial number 269,312 and the first made in 1911 had serial number 280,693). Allan Akbar (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I can add that the image in the infobox shows a m/1896 that beyond even a shadow of doubt was made in 1896 since it's the m/1896 that was shown to the King of Sweden-Norway when the m/1896 was approved in 1896. A rifle which according to the Swedish Army Museum, where the rifle can be found, was made by Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori. Which proves that Carl Gustafs made m/1896's before 1898 as you claim. Allan Akbar (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Schinke's production numbers are incorrect. My own serial number database started in 1999 shows your 1910-1911 numbers are wrong. Schinke's serial number listings were taken from observed rifles, not Gustaf factory records. Schinke's book is simply out of date. My serial number data is from owner reports to me. I am the researcher and I am the reference. You do not have the research background to have 1st hand knowledge of the subject matter. I am a listed contributor in Crown Jewels by Jones and Mauser Military Rifles of the World by Ball. You can take Schinke's book and throw it out in the street. Crown Jewels by Jones is the only accepted authority on Swedish Mausers by collectors and researchers. As for Mauser Oberndorf m/94 carbine production you will note 1895 serial numbers run from 2 to 11887 which account for 11,885 carbines. There were none manufactured in 1894 or 1896. Gustaf m/94 carbine production shows serial number 179 as 1898. That is the lowest number we have so far. There are none dated prior to 1898. See Jones page 145. http://dutchman.rebooty.com/96swede.html

Your inclusions of photos from the Swedish online museum are a welcomed addition to this page. But please cease including data from Schinke's book or Poyer's woeful publication. Both are very poor and out of date. Make the corrections using Crown Jewels or your 1st hand knowledge or don't add anything at all. DutchSwedishMauser (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you do the changes yourself since Wikipedia is an open encyclopaedia where anyone can make changes, as long as they have proper references. Besides, you are the one who should be registered as having made the changes to the page since I don't want to assume responsibility for your changes. As for the rest one of the things that I have learnt during my professional/academical life is that the real experts within any given field never personally claim to be experts, but let their published work do the talking. So I suggest you relax a bit if you want to be taken seriously... Allan Akbar (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous m/94 carbine information

In the m/94 carbine section: "(The preparatory production development at Carl Gustafs stads Gevärsfaktori found a place in history by being the event that caused Carl Edvard Johansson to invent gauge blocks)."

If the wiki page on gauge blocks had actually been read by the person who added the above sentence you would have seen this:

"Johansson was employed in 1888 as an armourer inspector by the state arsenal Carl Gustafs stads Gevärsfaktori [Carl Gustaf Stad's Rifle Factory] in the town of Eskilstuna, Sweden. He was concerned with the expensive tools for measuring parts for the Remington rifles then in production..."

The Remington rifles mentioned were rolling block rifles and had nothing to do with "preparatory production development" of m/94 Mauser carbines. Please remove the erroneous information. DutchSwedishMauser (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote that, it sure wasn't me. But I have removed it (it doesn't really belong in the article anyway...). Allan Akbar (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

UMMMM .... how incorrect can you manage to be in one short paragraph, DutchSwedishMauser? :-) Here are your errors: (1) I *have* read the information; in fact, I'm the one who contributed it to the gauge block article, with cited refs. (2) *You*, the one who complains about it not having been read, are the one who didn't read it. If you had read one sentence further than what you quoted, you would have learned that he was interested in metrology through the licensed Remingtons, AND THEN, as that article says in the very next sentence, "When Sweden adopted a tailored variant of the Mauser carbine in 1894, Johansson was very excited about the chance to study Mauser's methods of measuring, in preparation for production under license at Carl Gustaf (which began several years later)." His visit to Germany and train ride home were part of preparing for production development for Swedish manufacture of the licensed Mauser. (3) The information is *not* erroneous. It is true, per the cited refs. (4) Your comment here is the thing that is erroneous. (5) There's no right or wrong on the question of whether a brief mention of it *must be excluded* from this article ... it's just an interesting piece of historical cross-reference. I believe the forced exclusion is *entirely unnecessary*. The cross-reference is interesting, in a trivia-sidebar kind of way. Most normal readers enjoy trivia-sidebar-type tidbits here and there. It's why they put them in high-school and college textbooks. Some Wikipedians are obsessed with excluding that type of content. I think it's a pointless obsession, but I'm too busy to haggle about it in this case. Let the baby have his bottle ... But I just had to reply here—your whiny diatribe against what I allegedly hadn't read was so silly when *you* are the one who hadn't read what I not only read but also wrote ... with cited refs no less! Please look more carefully before accusing next time! Cheers, — ¾-10 02:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

6.5x55 ammunition on stripper clip

I photographed a stripper clip of 1976 Norma 6.5x55 surplus, can somebody add it to the Swedish Mauser Wiki?

Thanks!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:6.5x55mm_Swedish_surplus_ammunition,_produced_in_1976.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielnyc2006 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Blank Firing Adapters" that aren't

The "blank firing adapters" shown for the m/1896B and m/1938B rifles are safety devices, not BFAs as the term is normally used. As manually-operated repeating rifles, the Swedish Mausers do not use the gases produced on firing a blank cartridge to cycle the action of the rifle and load a new cartridge --- the function of BFAs in automatic and semiautomatic firearms --- instead these devices serve to break up the light wooden "bullet" used in the blank cartridge and prevent it causing injury to other soldiers in a training environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.108.53 (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There are several different types of blank-firing adaptors, as can be seen in the article about them, so the Swedish blank-firing adaptors for the m/96B and m/38B (with the Swedish designation lösskjutningsanordning, "blank-firing device") do indeed qualify as blank-firing adaptors. Thomas.W (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

There is no such a cartridge as 6.5x55mm. There are several cartridges of this dimension, but NONE of that name. A survey of the internet (2 goggle search pages) showed that 88% of references were about the 6.5×55mm Swedish Mauser cartridge with a few using 6.5×55mm Swede, and a similar number 6.5×55mm Swedish. This should be rectified.Digitallymade (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The pages name is also inaccurate: Swedish Mauser is what a dog, a sausage, a book title? Saying the M1894 Swedish Mauser would make sense or Swedish Mauser Rifles would be better. Swedish Mauser itself is inadequate.Digitallymade (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Digitallymade: Your addition of the {{disputed}} tag to this article because of a link to 6.5×55mm is just plain silly, you not getting your way in your attempts to move that article to another name does not in any way make the content of this article disputed, the link here simply points to whatever name the article about the cartridge has. And the name of this article, which covers all variants of Swedish Mausers, from the m/94 carbine to the m/41 sniper rifle, is the result of consensus among editors here, so if you want to change it you'll have to start a proper move discussion on the talk page. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

you should endeavor to be accurate. There's no such a thing as a 6.5×55mm cartridge. You've used that reference in several places so putting the tag at the top is easier than noting each one. I fully expect the page for 6.5×55mm Swedish Mauser will be properly named at some point. If you wait, and if you've referenced the correct name it will probably automatically change. The request to merge the page resulted because of the improper name which appeared to be a cartridge, not a rifle. Failing to name pages properly is a common fault with firearms based pages. Inaccuracy causes such problems. Digitallymade (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. Consensus among other editors here on en-WP is that there indeed is a cartridge that is commonly known as the "6.5x55mm", why is why the article has that name. You may have a different opinion, but unless you can convince other editors here that you're right, and get their support for a move, the name will stay the way it is. And the links will be the way they are. And the same goes for this article, consensus among editors here is that the Swedish Mauser rifles and carbines are commonly known as "Swedish Mauser", which is why this article has that name. See WP:COMMONNAME for what we go by when naming articles, but don't forget that this is an international English language encyclopaedia, not an American encyclopaedia, so pointing to 50 US handloading manuals and US magazines, without also looking at what names are used among international English speakers is not going to get you any support. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the ammunition for the swedish mauser there is quite comprehensive information available at the 6,5x55 page. And if the editors decide that their consent about the Name is more relevant than the designation used in Sweden, this is at least democratic. But there is a safety issue about the proper name of the thing Vitavuori of Finnland changed its reccomendations and loads considerably in the last years, not advising the popular N140 for the 6,5x55 Swedish Mauser any more. They now recommend N150, N160 for safety reasons. They also define loads for 6,5x55 SE or 6,5x55 SKAN with a maximum pressure of 3800 bar. This does not exceed the proof mark set for the Swedish Mauser, but Vitavuori avises, not to use these loads in the traditional skandinavian military rifle systems. In contrast to the 98 Mauser the Swedish Mauser has a lower tolerance regarding excessive chamber pressure and 6,5x55 loads or maybe cartriges made for a Tikka might spoil the day of someone, who shoots them in the Swedish Mauser. These safety issues about pushing the Swedish Mausers to maximum pressure occured in the last years, there are lots of older loading data around and pushing up the camber pressure in an m96 is tempting as this tends to improve accuracy. I know that most of this Info is tncluded in the 6,5x55 article, but as this ammo issue is most relevant for the Swedish Mauser, I think the readers of this article should be informed that a load/cartrige for a modern 6,5x55 Hunter or sniper might not becadvisable for a Swedish Mauser or Krag and that there might be a safety issue when pushing the chamber pressure, even when according to older loading data max. As Vitavuori divides between 6,5x55 Swedish Mauser (safe for the Swedish Mauser, Krag etc) and the 6,5x55 SE, 6,6x55 SKAN (For modern hunting/sport rifle constructions) It might make sense to reflect this in the article. Maybe a serios advice, that there is relevant and recent information about safe ammo for the swedish mauser in the 6,5x55 article will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enfield8 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Swedish Mauser used in easter rising?

I was a surprised, when I read that the Swedish Mauser was used in the easter rising. Sweden was neutral then and i wonder if there were any Swedish Mauseres available outside Sweden. Only the Luxemburg m/96s might have been available to Germany. But Germany had tried to smuggle captured Mosins into Ireland and failed. I could not find any reliable source about m/96 in Ireland. But I read about the Mauser c/96 „Broomhandle“ automatic pistol used in substantial numbers by the Irish. They definitely used the Mauser designed Gewehr 71, several other obsolete surplus Rifles and loads of different hunting rifles. But was there any Sewdish mauser? Maybe someone got carried away by the „96“ and „Mauser“ of the Mauser c/96? Enfield8 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Ludwig Loewe/DWM

I think „Mausers manufacturers“ does not descibe the company relations between Mauser and Ludwig Loewe /DWM properly. It reflects the misconception of Mauser as the biggest and most important small arms compamy of the German Empire. In fact the Mausers found it hard to sell their excellent designs and to finance the expansion of their company necessary to produce huge military orders. So Ludwig Loewe,who had excellent access to the german and varios foreign military markets and who was financially extremely viable, first became shareholder, then major shareholder of The Mauser company, Making it part of the DWM, which included several arms and ammunition companies in 1895. So I might suggest to call Ludwig Loewe/DWM the parent company of Mauser.. Enfield8 (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• This artice is about the Mauser design adopted by the Swedish Armed Forces in the 1890s only, not about Mauser and their relationship with DWM. And this talk page is for discussing this article only, not for discussions about other stuff (see WP:NOTFORUM), so any further irrelevant material posted here will be removed per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I am definitely discussing this article. Ludwig Loewe and DWM are mentioned as „Mauser Oberndorf‘s manufacturers“ who have produced spare parts for the Karabiner m/94. They were definitely not Mauser‘s manufacturers. In fact they as majority shsreholders decided, what they wanted to produce and what Mauser Oberndorf would produce.. So in this article Ludwig Loewe or DWM should rather be called Mauser‘s parent compamy., not its manufacturer. Enfield8 (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• The m/1894 carbines were designed by Mauser, and the initial batch was then produced by the Mauser factory in 1895, while some spare receivers were made by "Ludwig Loewe & Company", also in 1895. Two companies that from a legal standpoint were entirely separate entities at that time, since DWM wasn't founded until the year after, i.e. 1896. So no, DWM wasn't Mauser's "parent company" when the initial batch of carbines were made. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Come on, it was mot me, who wrote that Ludwig Loewe and DwM werde „Mauser‘s manufacturers. If there are DEM marked m/94 recievers atound, they were made ba mausers parent company, if they are marked Ludwig Loewe they were made earlier. But Mauser/Oberndorf had already been sold to Ludwig Loewe and Cie in 1887 by the Würzembergische Vereinsbank and Paul Mauser. In 1895 Ludwig Loewe was the Owner of Mauser Oberndorf. Paul Mauser was their emloye. They might have been amused id someone called them „Mauser‘s manufacturers. Enfield8 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• You have to differentiate between people and companies, Loewe being majority owner of both Mauserwerke and Ludwig Loewe & Company does not make LL&C the parent company of Mauserwerke. Mauser didn't have a parent company until the shares of both Mauser and a number of other companies were transferred to Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken, when that company was founded in 1896 (see that article). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I do differentiate. In 1887, when Ludwig Loewe and Cie bought Mauser, the Ludwig Loewe was dead. His brother Isidor was chairman of Ludwig Loewe and Cie. Not he, but the company bought Mauser. Enfield8 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The influence of Loewe and Cie, later DWM on Mauser can hardly be overestimated. The rise of Mauser to one of the biggest suppliers of firearms wordwide in the late 19th contire depended on the financial background and the excellent salesmanship of Loewe/DWM. Without this Muuser Oberndorf might not habe survived long enough to submit a design to the sewdish military. When the Würtembergische Vereinsbank decided to sell their majority share of Mauser Oberndorf to Ludwig Loewe and Cie, forcing Psul Mauser to sell his minority share too, this was a wise decision. Paul Mauser was an excellent designer, but after his brother Wilhelm had died in 1882, the company suffered from poor salesmanship and continuous financial problems. Ludwig Loewe and Cie sow the excellence of Paul Mauser as a designer. It was them, as new owners, who pushed the sales and fixed all the major contracts of the 1890s, including the swedish contracts. Enfield8 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Swedish Mauser

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Swedish Mauser's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Capie":

• From Lee–Enfield: Capie, David (2004). Under the Gun: The Small Arms Challenge in the Pacific. Wellington: Victoria University Press. pp. 66–67. ISBN 978-0-86473-453-2.
• From Heckler & Koch G3: Capie, David (2004). Under the Gun: The Small Arms Challenge in the Pacific. Wellington: Victoria University Press. pp. 63–65. ISBN 978-0-86473-453-2.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A translation from the 1977 Swedish Army Manual (SoldI Mtrl)

This covers m/96 and m/38 BP OMowe (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

1910 SWEDISH MAUSER

I HAVE A 1910 SWEDISH MAUSER. JV 270567.SEARCHING FOR MORE INFO ABOUT THIS RIFLE. ANY HELP WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU. 67.4.70.146 (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)