Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mannlicher Schoenauer

I just acquired a M/S 1952 rifle in .30-06. All factory original except for the additon of a (rock hard) recoil pad which I promptly replaced. Excellent condition, no extra holes in the receiver. I plan on shooting it with the iron sights. However that's my problem. I can't find a load that shoots to the sights. Everything I have tried shoots extremely high. I've tried 150's, 165's, 180's. I have tried 180 and 200 factory ammo and they do the same thing. I've tried fast and I've tried slow. Just can't find the magic combination. Looking for a load that will shoot to sights (6 o'clock hold) at 100 yards. Maybe up to 1 1/2" high. Shooting wild hogs over feeder at known distance (100 yards). So what I'm asking is if anyone knows what load these guns were sighted for (designed for, regulated for) at the factory. They HAD to have used one particular load when the designed the leaf sights. Does anyone have any idea what that load might be? I would appreciate any information or suggestions. My next recourse would be to obtain a Griffin & Howe mount. Of course they want $775 for the mount and another $300+ to install it. My last recourse would be to take a file to current sight and deepen the notch until it sights in. Really don't want to do either. Would like to shoot it like it was originally designed.

Two thoughts occur to me. One, it may be the bedding - contact pushing the barrel up for example. It would be a fairly straightforward matter to pull the metal out of the stock and have a look. Is there screw into the underside of the barrel at mid-length, or a barrel band? They'd be other suspects.

Or of course you could change the foresight for a higher one.

My Pop owns 1952,1956, and MCA models in 30.06 and .270 and I have a 1903 6.5x54. None of them shoot the irons to point of aim at 100 yards. Like your rifle they all shoot high. I too tried handloads with different bullet weights/various speeds. The 1952 in .270 I put on a taller front sight. The MCA came with Redfield rings/bases so it was scoped with an older steel tube Weaver 2-7. The 1956, my Pop bought some Redfield reproduction bases from Watts Walnut. The 1956 rifle is factory drilled/tapped for the rear Redfield base so I only had to drill/tap for the front base on the Bridgeport. Just as an aside those short stiff barrels all shoot small groups.

My MS 1950 in 270 shot about 10 inches high at 100 yards. I just filed the rear sight notch until it shot POA with my favorite 150 gr. load, using a triangular file. Easy and done. This is a modification away from "original" that any Austrian would have done Day 1. If your eyes are good enough, I wouldn't drill it for a scope.

What GrouseChaser said. A lot of iron sights come from the factory needing modification.

Thanks M D. I was thinking about a cocking piece peep sight. I just haven't done it yet. But my 9X56 has a taller and easier to see sight. I just put a small dot of whiteout on the front sight bead. It helped on the 9mm. The 6.5 still needs to get to a smith. It has a chamber not marked "normal". That means in my case the 6.5x54 has too tight of a chamber, not the Austrian form of SAAMI. But they are old guns in the '05 and '08 range. I expect them to shoot and to need a bit of loading and maybe 'smithing to be shooters. And they will be shooters or be gone. Be Well. Rusty

At keast you can see your sights. I was trying to get my TC Strike ready for my son to use in CO next month, and the stock comb is so high (perfect with a scope) I can't get even close to low enough to look through the irons. Have seen the same thing with Contender MLs and Encores. WTF?

Bad stock design. It takes someone who cares about open/iron sight use to design a proper buttstock for a TC. Be Well. Rusty

My MS 1952 3006 shoots an inch high at 100 yds with 180 grain Remington corelocks. Slightly low with 220 grain Remington loads. I think they were set up for heavy bullets.

I also have a Paul Jaeger side mount. It's a nice setup for a MS rifle.

I have several M/ S.. the 1956 model with the big scalloped cheekpiece shoots or aims the best with irons.

If I remember ... the 1956 model in .243 like the 105 G Speer ( don't remember the powder offhand) the best .About 2" / 100 M.

My 1952 .257 R. shoots to the sights , but not as well. It is me, I cannot get behind it like I can with the 1956.

The rest are scoped.

If you were going to file the rear sight rather than get a higher front, then don't forget that it isn't just a matter of making the notch deeper, but you also have to file the top of the sight. This is because the top of the foresight aligns with the top of the rear sight.

Personally though, filing the rear sight is not something I'd do (or more accurately, not something I'd do again). It may just be me, but it is difficult to do a good job of it. If you know how high you are at 100, and know your sight radius, it is easy to calculate exactly how much higher the front needs to be. You can then go and get one or make one, or have one made, which is exactly that high, rather than cut and try and fart around with files.

FWIW these rifles were shot in at the factory, and supplied with a test target, so I'd first see if there was some other reason for the rifle shooting high. But that is just me. It could be as simple as them using a different load, or the way you "see" the sights.

Here is a challange for you ...find an origonal peep sight for it....they made one that was on a hinge that the bolt would swing it out of the way both directions and fall back in a detent ..all spring loaded both ways...it sounds hoakey but it's very precition made thing...I have only seen one ever...and the guy won't part with it...it's also on an 06..
My eyes is 257 Roberts and it came to me with a echo mount...since it was drilled I kept it and run a vintage Lyman scope with post..
It's a pretty sweet setup..

Lyman #36

Rustyzipper,

If you're seriously thinking about a cocking-piece aperture sight, you might consider one from www.mclaughlincustomfirearms.com. John does fantastic work.

Thanks M D. Be Well. Rusty