8x56 Mannlicher-Schönauer

The 8x56 Mannlicher-Schönauer (M-S) is a cartridge about which there are many questions and not enough answers – the main one being, why did it exist in the first place? When it was introduced in the Austrian Mannlicher Model 1908, its German cousin, the 8x57 Mauser, was reasonably well established, although still evolving. The two cartridges are ballistically and dimensionally almost identical and physically indistinguishable at more than four feet. Why not just chamber the 8x57?

Various theories have been offered, the most common being that Mannlicher simply wanted a cartridge with their name on it, but I think it lies in the nature of the rifle itself. Since the Model 1908 is the only production rifle in which the 8x56 M-S has ever been chambered, it makes sense to deal with rifle and cartridge together.

The Model 1908 is a member of the renowned family of Mannlicher rifles that began with the Model 1903 and lasted, with variations, for the next 70 years. In its first decade Mannlicher followed a pattern in which it matched models and cartridges. The 1903 was chambered for the 6.5x54 M-S, the 1905 in 9x56 M-S, the 1908 in 8x56 M-S, and the final one, the 1910, in 9.5x57. The reason was the rifle’s unique rotary magazine, designed by Otto Schönauer.

This was near the beginning of the era of smokeless powder and repeating rifles, and designing a workable magazine was every bit as challenging as the rifle action itself. Hence, Schönauer’s name is included even though the magazine was his sole contribution, just as James Paris Lee contributed the detachable box magazine to the British Lee-Enfield.

Schönauer’s rotary magazine is a beautiful piece of design and construction in which the spindle cradles the cartridge firmly and guides it into the chamber. Magazines are removable but not interchangeable, caliber-wise, from rifle to rifle. For this reason, any handload needs to resemble the old factory load to ensure the rifle works smoothly. Since no one loads factory 8x56 M-S and hasn’t been in this country for more than half a century, loading your own is your only recourse.

Early on, the Mannlicher was christened the “gentleman’s rifle,” partly because of its elegant styling and partly its immaculate workmanship. Werner von Alvensleben used a 1903 to cull more than a thousand Cape buffalo in Moçambique, placing his shots carefully. Margot Macomber used one carefully placed shot to dispatch her husband, Francis, in Ernest Hemingway’s famous short story, “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber” (Cosmopolitan magazine, September, 1936). Hemingway kept a 1903 aboard his fishing boat, the Pilar, and even mentioned one in A Farewell to Arms. The Mannlicher has a glittering resumé.

Since then, a near-cult has arisen, including a collectors’ association dedicated to the Mannlicher and its rare variations. So, assuming you have a 1908 that is factory original, you might want to shoot it but are not about to alter it in any way to do so. As a result, handloading becomes a back-to-front proposition wherein you search for a load that will put a bullet where you want it, using factory sights, and is a good enough game bullet to do the job when it gets there.

We’ll look at the problems one by one. First, magazines.

Magazines I’ve seen for the 8x56 M-S are much more tolerant than those for 6.5x54 M-S, but there are no absolute rules. What works in one may not work in another. My advice is to gather the bullets you might want to use, assemble some dummy rounds, experiment with seating depth, and see what will both feed and chamber in your rifle. Having done that, you then search for appropriate load data.

Next, brass. To give an idea of how close the 8x56 M-S is to the 8x57, in the 1920s, one of the ammunition companies – I believe it was C-I-L (Dominion) in Canada, but I can’t find the exact reference – offered ammunition that could be fired in either one. This is astonishing. To be small enough to fit the 8x56 M-S chamber, it would be loose in the 8x57, with attendant headspace questions. One can only conclude that pressures and velocities were extremely low.

Also, I don’t recall any mention of the two extant 8x57 bullet diameters (.318 and .323) which bedevil handloaders of early 8x57. Anyway, it shows how similar the brass is.

If it were just a matter of running 8x57 brass into a sizing die, life would be grand. But it ain’t.

The 8x56 M-S is slightly shorter to shoulder and mouth, which is corrected by sizing and trimming, but its diameter at the base is about five-thousandths smaller (.468 vs. .463), according to SAAMI specs.

In 1995, Ken Waters, in a “Pet Loads” article on the 8x56 M-S, dealt with this by using a shell holder that was slightly thinner, allowing the brass to be run deeper into the sizing die, essentially swaging it down by five thousandths. Then, trying different brands of 8x57, he found that one type was actually smaller at the base, allowing conversion with no special effort.

Waters concluded his article with a rather plaintive plea for someone to do a run of factory 8x56 M-S ammunition and solve the problem for all Mannlicher lovers, and his plea was not in vain. Around 2012, Quality Cartridge began listing 8x56 M-S, and it’s very good brass. As I write this, it’s out of stock at Graf’s, Midway and Quality Cartridge itself. At some future date, one hopes, it should become available.

Meanwhile, resizing 8x57 is still viable and actually easier than it used to be. Measuring different brands of 8x57, I found that Norma, Nosler, Hornady and some newish Winchester are identical in base diameter (.463 inches) to Quality Cartridge 8x56 M-S. How this squares with SAAMI specs, who knows?

I obtained my first Model 1908 before Quality Cartridge listed it, and my friend Bob Hayley produced a run of 8x56 M-S brass. He sized the bases using a rotary swage. Since then, I’ve used his brass for three 1908s and a 1905 (9x56) I obtained later; to make 9x56, all that’s necessary is to run it into the sizing die. Almost effortless.

Suitable 8mm bullets are easier.

Factory 8x56 M-S fired a 200- grain roundnosed bullet at 2,200 fps. (There are slight discrepancies in weight and velocity, depending on the company, but all are close.)

In Model 1903 6.5x54 M-S magazines, the bullet needs to be seated to an exact depth for correct overall length. The nose of the bullet needs to contact the ramp and cam the cartridge upwards before the body gets under the long detente, which holds the cartridges in place. If the cartridge is too short, or the bullet does not make contact correctly, it will jam. In one of my 6.5x54 M-Ss, this fit is so precise that even the radius of the roundnose makes a difference, but get the ammunition right, and it works fine. It’s just one of the Mannlicher’s charming idiosyncrasies.

Model 1908 8x56 M-S magazines are usually more forgiving, accepting bullets of different configurations and, hence, shorter cartridges. This flexibility is useful only up to a point. However, since the rifle’s factory open sights are regulated for original ammunition and are not easily adjustable.

Since the Model 1908 is an ideal short- to medium-range rifle for deer and similar game, out to a maximum of 200 yards with factory sights, I concentrated on bullets from 170 to 200 grains for jacketed bullets; I also tried some of Bob Hayley’s 215-grain cast bullets.

Hawk Bullets lists roundnosed 8mm bullets of 180, 200 and 220 grains, with jacket thicknesses of .030 and .035 inches. The 200-grain are custom orders, requiring a four-box (50) minimum. The thinner (.030) jackets should be ideal for hunting at 8x56 M-S velocity.

There are also bullet moulds from way back when that will cast lead at about the right weight, in the right configuration, with and without gas checks, so that’s another option.

Finally, the rifle’s sights. Mannlichers have open sights with one standing (100 meters) and one folding (200 meters) leaf. These are regulated to the trajectory of the original factory ammunition. In the case of the 8x56 M-S, this is a 200-grain roundnose at about 2,200 feet per second (fps).

At one time, Lyman made a receiver sight to fit the Mannlicher’s split bridge, and there were various scope mounts, mainly the expensive option of a custom claw mount. None of these is a realistic alternative now, even if one wanted to alter a rifle that has considerable collector value. I don’t say it can’t be done, only that I would not do it. Anyway, adding a scope detracts from the rifle’s wonderful handling qualities when prowling creek beds and the like.

Now for loading data.

There was very little specific data for the 8x56 M-S published even many years ago, and none at all today.

Most authorities simply recommended using 8x57 data and starting at the low end. Since most 8x57 data is pretty light anyway – some would say anemic – this is a safe bet. Ken Waters found that refashioned 8x56 M-S brass had a capacity of about 2.5 grains of water less than 8x57 brass, but that will vary depending on which brand you start with. Comparing factory Nosler 8x57 and Quality Cartridge 8x56 M-S, I found the 8x57 to have a greater capacity by 1.5 grains of water. That is less variation than I’ve found with cases of the same caliber from one maker to another.

With the Mannlicher, it’s always wise to start low. The action is strong, but if you get sticky cases, it does not have the same camming power as the Mauser 98, and its flat “butterknife” bolt handle doesn’t help.

As we’ve seen above, there are so many variables regarding cases, bullets and even rifle chambers – I know of at least one that was injudiciously reamed larger – that one can’t be too careful. If in doubt, do a chamber cast.

I worked primarily with Hawk 200s, Hornady 195s and cast 215s with gas checks.

Of the different powders tried, the one that delivered both accuracy and velocity was IMR-4064, closely followed by Vihtavuori N-150.

Because this project was largely one of experimentation at every level, I tested loads at 50 yards to see how they stacked up in terms of velocity and approximate point of impact vis-à-vis the sights. There is no point in creating loads that work well one way but not the other, especially in light of current shortages. The loads with Nosler and Speer bullets shown in the table were so far from the point of aim that they were not worth pursuing, but that’s just with one rifle.

By far, the best accuracy was obtained with Hornady 195-grain InterLocks. The rifle simply loved them, although at 2,247 fps they printed 3.3 inches high and slightly left at 50 yards. Varying the load to reduce velocity a bit at a time should bring the point of impact down, but according to Hornady’s trajectory calculations, the rifle would be almost dead on at 250 yards just as it sits. A happy coincidence, but I’ll take it.

The 215-grain cast bullet, at 1,330 fps ahead of 18 grains of A-5744, printed right to the point of aim at 50 yards, so that load is a keeper for things like armadillos and other undesirable targets of opportunity.

Results with the 200-grain Hawks were disappointing but also contradictory: two bullets touching and the third two inches away. (How many times have we all experienced that?) Windage-wise, however, the group was fine – no adjustment necessary – but in terms of elevation, it was two inches higher than the Hornadys. I’ll come back to the Hawks at some later date if the Hornadys don’t work out.

All of this may seem like a lot of trouble to end up with a rifle that basically duplicates the performance of my old Winchester 94 32 Special, but the thing about Mannlichers is that they are such a pleasure to use; you can’t just leave them sitting in the rack, now can you?