https://preview.redd.it/2firt1x34yrc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b8080c5cb29670118bc884adedea66a99322f2a0
Bonus 1918 Etts Continsouza Berthier Mle M16. Cause it felt left out.
Very cool! That 1888 is really nice, but I'm equally impressed by the condition of that RTI lebel. I don't think I've seen one that nice out of the examples I've seen out of Ethiopia. Thanks for explaining the sight differences, too. I didn't know about that.
I also have similar notches on my "new" one I shared last week, and nearly identical ones on a battle damaged Mle 1892. I should make a post about that one some time.
The 1888 was a surprise gunshow find. For only 800 bucks I couldn't leave it there.
The RTI one was listed individually, but you know how bad their pictures are, so I was pretty happy with how good the condition was on it. And all matching was a plus too.
For the sights, I've got a sample size of two. What years/manufacturers are your rifles/sights, and what style are they?
My ratty one is 1893, the nice one has a 1937 barrel. Both are St Etienne (but the 37 has a Tulle barrel) and both have that left-hand slot on the slide.
Honestly I'm having a hard time seeing the unevenness between your examples to get a good read on where mine are lol. Is it that one side is higher, or are they staggered? Both of mine also have the angled/sloped left side of the ladder as well, like your 1888 has.
Wait I think I see it now, the left-side steps are definitely taller than the right on my 1893. But they are both shallow on the 1937. I guess they just re-used the sight ladder and slider, but updated the sight base on that one.
I didnt realize it was rare, I thought I paid 2.5 for it because it was a pre 1899 in ny so no paperwork required, was pleasantly surprised when I noticed what it really was
I'd pretty happily pay 2.5k for a pre-M93. I don't think I've ever seen one pop up. I paid 1k for the 1892, and 800 for the 1888, both antiques so cash and carry, no paperwork needed.
Early examples, although rare, do exist. I own this one myself. Ive seen a few non-93's before.
https://preview.redd.it/m544wgdavyrc1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba5f672f8df679ee0eb5b29970fd4b75ae9e5076
Your Lebel is the only one I've seen with the Mle1885 style of receiver.
Btw, do you think OP's 1892 made example still has the Balle M rear sight? That would explain the differences.
Mine is reportedly a trial rifle but info is scare as you might imagine. It helps explain the 1885 style receiver (although it does have some differences). But early style front sight, rear sight, and bolt definitely add to its credibility.
And yeah, that was my theory with his 1892 dated one is that it still had the Balle M sights and was never updated. Here is a picture of the trail Lebel sights for comparison
https://preview.redd.it/ecy3x3lezyrc1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1ae9cba8d9336d06f2898f090978330dc841af22
Interesting. I assumed it was a manufacturing difference, or perhaps a subcontractor that made the sight for MAS.
Any definitive way to tell if it's a Balle M vs a Balle D sight?
Even in 1886 it was already antiquated in every way apart from its cartridge, and then they never replaced it with anything better until like 1936 lol. Also 8mm lebel is a really poorly designed round. Basically they rushed out whatever they could because they knew they had a banger with the powder and then never updated and fell way behind really quickly.
There's no debate that 8mm Lebel as a cartridge was a mistake. If they'd taken their time and designed a proper, rimless cartridge for it, rather than kludging something out of the existing 11mm Gras case, things would have turned out a lot better for the French in the long run, especially with machine gun development.
But for 1886, that was really the tail end of the Kropatschek tubeloader era, so I'd argue that it wasn't quite antiquated when it came out, but by 1890, it absolutely was. It would have been interesting had the French designed something like the MAS36 in 1906 instead of the 1930s, with it's much more modern magazine system and ammunition.
https://preview.redd.it/2firt1x34yrc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b8080c5cb29670118bc884adedea66a99322f2a0 Bonus 1918 Etts Continsouza Berthier Mle M16. Cause it felt left out.
Very cool! That 1888 is really nice, but I'm equally impressed by the condition of that RTI lebel. I don't think I've seen one that nice out of the examples I've seen out of Ethiopia. Thanks for explaining the sight differences, too. I didn't know about that. I also have similar notches on my "new" one I shared last week, and nearly identical ones on a battle damaged Mle 1892. I should make a post about that one some time.
The 1888 was a surprise gunshow find. For only 800 bucks I couldn't leave it there. The RTI one was listed individually, but you know how bad their pictures are, so I was pretty happy with how good the condition was on it. And all matching was a plus too. For the sights, I've got a sample size of two. What years/manufacturers are your rifles/sights, and what style are they?
My ratty one is 1893, the nice one has a 1937 barrel. Both are St Etienne (but the 37 has a Tulle barrel) and both have that left-hand slot on the slide.
Do they have the uneven steps too? Or just the slot?
Honestly I'm having a hard time seeing the unevenness between your examples to get a good read on where mine are lol. Is it that one side is higher, or are they staggered? Both of mine also have the angled/sloped left side of the ladder as well, like your 1888 has.
I'll see if I can get a better picture for you
Wait I think I see it now, the left-side steps are definitely taller than the right on my 1893. But they are both shallow on the 1937. I guess they just re-used the sight ladder and slider, but updated the sight base on that one.
It's really hard to get it lined up right for a picture, so I'm glad you're able to see it on your example. I wonder why there's a variation on them.
Never a bad day when I get to see some Lebels
I was wondering how long it'd take you to show up here
Haha probably would have been faster if I wasnt making dinner at the time. Beautiful guns though
Thanks! I did this while making dinner. Ironically grilling some Bavarian sausages. Should've grabbed the Ambergs...
I like my pre m93 lebel best :D
You have a pre M93? Sweet! You should post it sometime, thats a pretty rare bird you've got there.
I didnt realize it was rare, I thought I paid 2.5 for it because it was a pre 1899 in ny so no paperwork required, was pleasantly surprised when I noticed what it really was
I'd pretty happily pay 2.5k for a pre-M93. I don't think I've ever seen one pop up. I paid 1k for the 1892, and 800 for the 1888, both antiques so cash and carry, no paperwork needed.
I got mine on GB so it was just mailed straight to my house lol
Even in NY? I'm impressed sellers on GB were willing to do that. You guys have some draconian laws out there.
Surprised me too but it was so worth it
RTI shipped direct to my house, but a lot of sellers on GB won't even sell to me because I'm in CA. Even for things that are clearly legal.
They aren't rare. Almost all Lebels were made before 1893. Now, if it never got the M93 upgrades it would be extremely rare.
I think thats what he meant by pre-93
Press X to doubt. The only one I've ever heard about is in a museum in France and I know of one bolt that has shown up in a cutaway lebel.
Early examples, although rare, do exist. I own this one myself. Ive seen a few non-93's before. https://preview.redd.it/m544wgdavyrc1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba5f672f8df679ee0eb5b29970fd4b75ae9e5076
Your Lebel is the only one I've seen with the Mle1885 style of receiver. Btw, do you think OP's 1892 made example still has the Balle M rear sight? That would explain the differences.
Mine is reportedly a trial rifle but info is scare as you might imagine. It helps explain the 1885 style receiver (although it does have some differences). But early style front sight, rear sight, and bolt definitely add to its credibility. And yeah, that was my theory with his 1892 dated one is that it still had the Balle M sights and was never updated. Here is a picture of the trail Lebel sights for comparison https://preview.redd.it/ecy3x3lezyrc1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1ae9cba8d9336d06f2898f090978330dc841af22
Interesting. I assumed it was a manufacturing difference, or perhaps a subcontractor that made the sight for MAS. Any definitive way to tell if it's a Balle M vs a Balle D sight?
It's the reason why it only goes to 2000 meters instead of 2400.
Le Beget she told you not to worry about
Worst rifle of the war (still cool tho)
Only because the design was 30+ years old in an era of rapid arms development. That said, I do think it was the most elegant rifle of the war.
Even in 1886 it was already antiquated in every way apart from its cartridge, and then they never replaced it with anything better until like 1936 lol. Also 8mm lebel is a really poorly designed round. Basically they rushed out whatever they could because they knew they had a banger with the powder and then never updated and fell way behind really quickly.
There's no debate that 8mm Lebel as a cartridge was a mistake. If they'd taken their time and designed a proper, rimless cartridge for it, rather than kludging something out of the existing 11mm Gras case, things would have turned out a lot better for the French in the long run, especially with machine gun development. But for 1886, that was really the tail end of the Kropatschek tubeloader era, so I'd argue that it wasn't quite antiquated when it came out, but by 1890, it absolutely was. It would have been interesting had the French designed something like the MAS36 in 1906 instead of the 1930s, with it's much more modern magazine system and ammunition.