Gewehr 91 Erfurt 1893 1366 g

Joe Steen did help on some of the books (and many others), but you may be thinking of Jon Speed, he is the greatest and most resourceful collector in this field, he was Hans Lockhoven's close friend. His works are widely known and go far beyond Mike's and Bruce's endeavors, I doubt there was an author of merit that didn't rely on him in the last three decades (other that Storz).

Anyway, lets drop this grappling... it was unfortunate that this turned personal and thoughtless, but we all get caught up in such thoughtlessness at times... ernie or mag is well known for his aggressiveness and dogmatism, but his research has merit and nothing is gained by running a good researcher off.

I would welcome ernies observations if he cares to elaborate further, though I agree with Cyrus, one should not accept things at face value, too many researchers (and scientists, such as they exist today) are to confident of their certainties and often confuse observations with actual facts. Most "facts" are not facts, most things that pass for facts are open to interpretation, - history is full of such examples where opinions are masquerading as facts... all researchers should examine their assumptions and be careful in their certainties. I know from experience that what seem to be facts or "factually based observations" are often just opinions based upon a collection of facts.
 
I never said Steen was worthless , just that the article posted for reference had SOME mistakes and told what they were . Just because something is "published " does not mean it is any good . There was a Gew-88 book published that was full of errors , a lot of it's info was taken from internet posts , the shooting test was done with the wrong ammo with a barrowed rifle as he did not even own a Gew-88 , did not read German and so on . There was a two part article published in a major US magazine that was 70% wrong info including the meanings of the markings . You get a paper with a grade of 30 published ? The S round was longer than the P-88 round > I mean how can you get that wrong ? But that info is still being repeated . I do not know how many just really stupid Youtube videos there are out there about rifles . In this day and age that is where people go for info and are made stupid . Again I stated that shooting 1000's of rifles was one of the things that took up my time , NOT that I had 1000's of Gew-88 rifles NOR that it had anything to do with Gew-88 research . The German military never used anything they called a J round , that is a term used later to describe the civilian loading of the 8x57mm that was different than anything the military used . The S round is another thing that people have confused the dates on . They have mixed up the development date , patent date , testing date and adoption date . The last German military barrel and chamber was the 1896 1/2 Z barrel , every Gew-98 made had that barrel as it became standard after 1896 1/2 . The S round was made for that barrel But was designed to be able to be used in the early .321 barrel . The Germans used both rounds at the same time as testing was still going on about which one that wanted . Early Gew-98 rifles were sighted for P-88 ammo . If you read German well , have the original documents AND real rifles you can see just how some of the info mistakes were made . Bad translations , dated terms , poorly described technical terms . A good example is the stripper guides are riveted on . A dated term that translates poorly . Since you can clearly see they are not riveted , rivets do not work without a clean through hole , and you can see the flame cut of the torch used to weld . After see all of that I knocked one off of a 05 rifle and saw the weld . But it is still published in many sources that they are riveted . I feel that since I am a welder with 30 years of MIG , Tig , stick and gas experience and have installed 1000's of rivets of many types ,,,, I might know more about the subject than some who have never done that . But if some of you want to believe things that do not exist , can not be true or have been proven wrong just because you read it , fine . That is some of the reason the bad info stays and nobody learns anything new . It does get tiring to keep being told the S round is longer than the P-88 round , they used .318 groove barrels and other stuff at that level .
 
Ernie, in your opinion what is the best source for the Commission 88 in German service? Or is that answer more or less a combination of sources, most with some good info and some errors?
 
Nulle100 said:
Ernie, in your opinion what is the best source for the Commission 88 in German service? Or is that answer more or less a combination of sources, most with some good info and some errors?
Click to expand...
One thing I haven't heard mentioned is Storz. I thought he did a pretty fantastic job, though some areas are limited in his work.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
 
Just curious what Ernie's take is on the "best" source or if the best info is a composite of the available sources. For instance, Götz has 28 pages on the 88 rifle and cartridge, but how much of it reliable? At first reading about 25 years ago for me it seemed like gospel. After Ernie's comments, I'm curious. Admittedly, I haven't re-read the whole thing in many many years.
 
Thanks for taking the time to elaborate, Ernie. You are absolutely right that written evidence can only go so far, any serious comprehensive study should make use of examples, disassembled and dissected when possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top