Belgian 1889/36 Sniper L227

One of my SOS finds, a sad lonely action sitting in a bin. I was surprised to see this still there Friday afternoon after as much activity as there was. I didn’t KNOW what it was, but I knew it was something.

The receiver itself is interesting. It does take a 1889/36 bolt, but does not appear modified. Vanderlinden mentions that some receivers were made new for 1889/36 rifles, so I suppose this one may have been purpose built. Everything is matching numbers and correctly Belgian marked.

Very little is known about these rifles, Vanderlinden has only a brief page. I’d welcome anyone who can contribute (@Absolut) to share what you know, known examples, etc.

Absolut said:

Took me until now to notice that the former front base was sitting in the middle of the receiver, whereas the few known have the front base at the rear end of the receiver ring, plus the maker inscription atop of the base. Maybe your rifle wasn't based on the 1889/35 action, but different (1889 configuration?) - the original scopes have different elevation markings and can be flipped over, makes only sense if you want to use them with two different rifles that for some reason need to have different elevation markings, and therefore are different too.

Looking forward to that post!

Click to expand...

The spacing on the front base makes sense to me. The 1889/36 action is shorter than the 1935, which is a standard length 98. That would space the base on the 1935 towards the rear.

I read through your other thread, thanks for sharing that!


Edited to add, now that I am looking further, there is no reason to have spaced the front base so far back on the 1935 receiver. The scope tube has plenty of room to move it further forward. The only thing that makes sense is that they wanted to keep the spacing the same between the 1889/36 and the 1935.

Originally I didn't notice that your rifle is a 1889 action, meaning a Mauser Small Ring action. That is highly interesting and would suggest a previously unknown sniper version. @Amberg may correct me, but this is the first Mauser small ring action sniper rifle that I am aware of (since it had turned out the Argentine 1891 are a hoax and the SOM scopes were fitted to M1909 Cavalry Carbines).

I'll measure the spacing between the bases of my Belgian 1935 sniper rifle and let you know. You then can compare that to the spacing of your bases. Will be interesting to know whether they remained the same or if they are different. The reason as to why to move the front base back on the receiver ring IMHO may be because they wanted the space on the receiver top to put the manufacturer markings there. But this is highly speculative.

Now, what is very interesting, the Belgian GAND scopes all feature an elevation disc that is marked on BOTH sides, with different settings. I'm borrowing the images from Laurent's website now. So one side is marked S.O. 30:

Whereas the other side is marked S.O. 89:


So far it at least to me remained a bit of a mystery as to why they would have different markings - now knowing that there must had been two different sniper variants, this now makes sense, if one was to use the very same scope on two different rifles. Maybe someone French speaking can chime in as to what S.O. may refer to? The 89 can possibly refer to (18)89 whereas 30 would refer to .. (19)30? Any chance the Belgians called it 1930 model instead of 1935?

Additionally to be noted: the S.O. 30 elevation markings go up to 12(00), whereas the S.O. 89 elevation markings only go up to 8(00) in approximately the same angle positions. Knowing the 1889 as well as 1935 rifle use the same 7,65mm round I can currently only think of different barrel length to give different trajectory? Or someone else an idea?

Could the dial be calibrated for different cartridges? It seems crazy to me that a sniper would change the disc depending on the ammo. That's the first thing that comes to my mind.

For example, attached is an original Chilean 1895 rifle rear sight calibrated for the round nose bullet on the left, and the new updated rear sight for the spitzer bullet on the right. Visually it is easy to see how much flatter shooting the new spitzer was!

That is another possibility. Did the Belgians introduce a new different load in 1930? And would a different load make such a difference that one rifle would fire 800 whereas with the new load 1200? Same goes out to the barrel length; could a longer barrel make such a big difference? Or another very wild thought; would they have had a different caliber at all?

@Dave Roberts if you have not seen this thread, would appreciate your input too.

Georg
I have nothing too add , I actually saw this thread and when I looked at the pics did not even notice it had same rear base as the Fusil Sniper .Once looking again I notice it right off . I have never known that there was another variant of the Fusil Sniper .
I wonder if the Rifle I found was a near impossibility to find , how hard might it be to find a complete example of this Small Ring Receiver Type Fusil .

The search is on !!!!!!!!!

I wish You much success with completion of your new project .

Dave Roberts said:

Georg
I have nothing too add , I actually saw this thread and when I looked at the pics did not even notice it had same rear base as the Fusil Sniper .Once looking again I notice it right off . I have never known that there was another variant of the Fusil Sniper .
I wonder if the Rifle I found was a near impossibility to find , how hard might it be to find a complete example of this Small Ring Receiver Type Fusil .

The search is on !!!!!!!!!

I wish You much success with completion of your new project .

Click to expand...

I can’t help but put it back together!

Keep me in mind if you find rings/appropriate scope.

Fal Grunt said:

I can’t help but put it back together!

Keep me in mind if you find rings/appropriate scope.

Click to expand...

Will do !!!!

This has the potential to be a fantastically cool restoration! Such an interesting find!