A caution about Type 99 Arisaka rifles

[Dutchman]

A friend gave me 20 empty cases of the middle type. He said they were 7.7x58 Arisaka cases of Norma make. Given the appearance I set them inbetween a .30-06 case and a 7.7x58 and the story became clear. Somebody put a .30-06 chambering reamer in a Type 99 chamber and fired 7.7x58 in it. It produced a perfectly fire-formed short neck .30-06 case.

Lots of Type 99 Arisaka were so treated so it behooves the shooter to pay attention and exercise due diligence in firing these guns. In this case it wasn't an unsafe action, though many similar sorts of circumstance it could be very unsafe to introduce mis-match ammo.

Dutch


Series 33

[725]

Good advise.

[Larry Gibson]

Numerous M1909 Argentine 7.65 Mausers were also rechambered to take 30-06 cases. They shot fine when 30-06 cases were loaded with .31 cal bullets. They also shot fine with 7.65 Argentine ammo with the extractor holding the case back so all that happens is the shoulder is blown forward fire forming the case. I suspect the same is what happens in the Type 99s. Not really any inherent danger, just something I also don't recommend.

[JRD]

Good post Dutchman. It's an example of something to look out for when you are into old rifles. Thank you sharing the picture.

[30calflash]

I ran across something similar, a type 99 chambered w an 06 reamer. The reason I checked is someone had converted it to a pseudo match rifle which got me thinking why and what if? It was equipped with a Lyman 48 rear and globe front sight. An empty 06 case fell right in.

[frkelly74]

I bought an arisaka Type 38 that was listed as being 257 Roberts. I got to test fire it first and it produces a 2 shot one hole group, but it was in the shape of an X. Two keyholes right on top of each other. Obviously to me, it was a 6.5X257 Roberts but the guy at the store had no idea what was going on. I was able to renegotiate the price and got a good rifle cheap that will shoot well but you have to make your own ammo for it. 6mm Rem brass seems to work better than 257 Roberts I think, Plus there was a cache of 6mm brass at a gun store that I got cheap already primed.

[abunaitoo]

I have two, very nice, 91 Argentine carbines, that some idiot has run a 308 reamer through it.
Shells come out with two shoulders.
I have shot both, and sad part is, they still shoot very well.
Such a waste.

[HumptyDumpty]

I have two, very nice, 91 Argentine carbines, that some idiot has run a 308 reamer through it.
Shells come out with two shoulders.
I have shot both, and sad part is, they still shoot very well.
Such a waste.

The coffee hasn't kicked in yet, so maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you can safely chamber and fire either round at this point, with deference to the pressure limitations of an 1891 action.

[Smoke4320]

Very interesting and again a caution to never assume the caliber you are told it is ..is what is is
so many mil surplus guns rechambered and many not marked as such/ marked correctly or marked at all

[Larry Gibson]

The coffee hasn't kicked in yet, so maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you can safely chamber and fire either round at this point, with deference to the pressure limitations of an 1891 action.

Can you quote me some authoritative source which actually gives the pressure limitations of the M91 Argentine Mauser action?

Yes, I have read for years that it was "designed for only 45,000 psi" or the M91 (93s/95s/96s, etc.) are "weak" actions or some such. Yet I find no actual reliable source on that. What i do find is Mauser designed the actions to safely contain the pressures of the cartridges of the day. The European pressure standards for the 7.65x53 Argentine Mauser cartridge is a PMAX [PMAX is the same as a SAAMI MAP] of 56,600 psi. Having pressure tested Belgian 7.65 milsurp, Argentine 7.65 milsurp and commercial 7.65 Argentine ammunition I have to say they all are closer to the PMAX than to the assumed "45,000" maximum I read about all the time.

The milsurp all ran 52 - 56,000 +/- psi. One lot of older Norma factory actually ran 66,000+ psi. The test rifle, a M91, didn't stutter with that load. I am, by no means, advocating loading the 7.65 Argentine up to that Norma level, even for a M1909 action. However, I do regularly load jacketed 7.65 Argentine for use in my own M91s and m1909 to 53 - 56,000 psi. I would also note that most 308W factory ammunition and particularly M80 ball I have pressure tested ar also in the mid 50,00 psi range. Also P.O. Ackley, who had endurance tested pressure wise numerous different actions had no problems with setting back M91 barrels and rechambering them to 308W. Additionally, the psi of any 308W fired in such rechambered M91s as abunaitoo's will give a lower psi due to fire forming of the case and the slightly larger expansion ration of the .312+ groove diameter barrel.

[WRideout]

Although it's not a milsurp, I own a Rem 722 that was given to me by my stepfather. It is marked 222 Rem, but was rechambered for 223 Rem; markings were never changed.

Wayne

[fixit]

All of this reminds me of the 1917 vintage 98 Mauser that I purchased from an lgs. It was listed as 7 mm Mauser, proved to be 8 mm. Good thing I didn't buy ammo on the same day! It took me the better part of two months to get 90 percent of the jacket fouling out of that one, but that's another story!

[Rich/WIS]

Watch sporterized M98's as well. A popular conversion was re-chambering to 8mm/06. Knew several people who had them and they may not have been stamped with the new caliber.

[Moleman-]

Can you quote me some authoritative source which actually gives the pressure limitations of the M91 Argentine Mauser action?

Yes, I have read for years that it was "designed for only 45,000 psi" or the M91 (93s/95s/96s, etc.) are "weak" actions or some such. Yet I find no actual reliable source on that. What i do find is Mauser designed the actions to safely contain the pressures of the cartridges of the day. The European pressure standards for the 7.65x53 Argentine Mauser cartridge is a PMAX [PMAX is the same as a SAAMI MAP] of 56,600 psi. Having pressure tested Belgian 7.65 milsurp, Argentine 7.65 milsurp and commercial 7.65 Argentine ammunition I have to say they all are closer to the PMAX than to the assumed "45,000" maximum I read about all the time.

The milsurp all ran 52 - 56,000 +/- psi. One lot of older Norma factory actually ran 66,000+ psi. The test rifle, a M91, didn't stutter with that load. I am, by no means, advocating loading the 7.65 Argentine up to that Norma level, even for a M1909 action. However, I do regularly load jacketed 7.65 Argentine for use in my own M91s and m1909 to 53 - 56,000 psi. I would also note that most 308W factory ammunition and particularly M80 ball I have pressure tested ar also in the mid 50,00 psi range. Also P.O. Ackley, who had endurance tested pressure wise numerous different actions had no problems with setting back M91 barrels and rechambering them to 308W. Additionally, the psi of any 308W fired in such rechambered M91s as abunaitoo's will give a lower psi due to fire forming of the case and the slightly larger expansion ration of the .312+ groove diameter barrel.

I have never seen anything official either, other than the recomendations. I'm aware of guys running some hotter cartridges and the actions seem to be holding up fine. I always thought that the recomendations were based off of gas handling. The bolt handle blocks the right bolt rail in the event of a case failure, but there is nothing other that the ejector blocking gas on the left rail on early 1891's without the winged style bolt sleeve. Pic of my 1891 action without the striker but with the early bolt sleeve on. You can see the white paper in front of the receiver looking down the left bolt rail. I replaced the bolt sleeve with the winged style which blocks off the left bolt rail like on 93 on mausers. Camera didn't want to take as well of a pic, but the winged bolt sleeve does block off any light running down the left rail.

[rbuck351]

I bought a sporterized M1917 expecting it to be a 30-06. A brush that should have been a good fit in the chamber barely touched. Turned out to be a 308 Norma. I was quite happy but glad I found out before firing it.

[Larry Gibson]

Moleman

Possibly they were based off the actions ability to handle gas escaping. Gas escaping was a major concern back in the early days of high pressure cartridge development. The 7.65 was the first of such cartridges developed for use in Mausers as a propriety cartridge. Cases splitting or otherwise letting go was fairly common back then until they developed the proper brass alloy and learned how to properly form and anneal them. Leakage of gas around the primer pocket was also a problem. However, once the manufacture of proper cases learned the problems went away. Before the problem was alleviated Mauser made several changes resulting in the winged bolt sleeve on M93s.

These days, with modern made commercial and cases formed from such (even milsurp 30-06 cases) split/ruptured case heads should not be a problem but it is definitely something to be mindful of. I've heard either of the gas problem as being related to the "strength" of the action. As I mentioned before I'm not advocating loading for them "hot" but I see no reason the cartridges cannot be loaded to the same pressure levels as the original cartridges (military) that were used in them.

Just another note; I have pressure tested a bit of commercial and milsurp 7mm ammunition and have found most of it, especially the Spanish made milsurp (PS), runs upwards into the 50,000 psi range and even into the low 60,000 psi range. Some DWM 1918 milsurp with the cupro-nickel 174 FMJRN bullets ran 54,500 psi. Not exactly the less than 45,000 psi we've been led to expect for those older "weak" SR Mausers. Chilean made (FAMAE) 7mm made for the M95s run 55,000 psi. Even US commercial 7mm runs 50,000 +/- psi. Some old Remington UMC loaded with 33.9 gr of what appeared to be Hercules Lightening #1 ran 57,000+ psi.

Still, we continue to hear the old SR Mausers were only designed/made for 45,000 psi.........

[TD1886]

Moleman

Possibly they were based off the actions ability to handle gas escaping. Gas escaping was a major concern back in the early days of high pressure cartridge development. The 7.65 was the first of such cartridges developed for use in Mausers as a propriety cartridge. Cases splitting or otherwise letting go was fairly common back then until they developed the proper brass alloy and learned how to properly form and anneal them. Leakage of gas around the primer pocket was also a problem. However, once the manufacture of proper cases learned the problems went away. Before the problem was alleviated Mauser made several changes resulting in the winged bolt sleeve on M93s.

These days, with modern made commercial and cases formed from such (even milsurp 30-06 cases) split/ruptured case heads should not be a problem but it is definitely something to be mindful of. I've heard either of the gas problem as being related to the "strength" of the action. As I mentioned before I'm not advocating loading for them "hot" but I see no reason the cartridges cannot be loaded to the same pressure levels as the original cartridges (military) that were used in them.

Just another note; I have pressure tested a bit of commercial and milsurp 7mm ammunition and have found most of it, especially the Spanish made milsurp (PS), runs upwards into the 50,000 psi range and even into the low 60,000 psi range. Some DWM 1918 milsurp with the cupro-nickel 174 FMJRN bullets ran 54,500 psi. Not exactly the less than 45,000 psi we've been led to expect for those older "weak" SR Mausers. Chilean made (FAMAE) 7mm made for the M95s run 55,000 psi. Even US commercial 7mm runs 50,000 +/- psi. Some old Remington UMC loaded with 33.9 gr of what appeared to be Hercules Lightening #1 ran 57,000+ psi.

Still, we continue to hear the old SR Mausers were only designed/made for 45,000 psi.........

Have you actually tested the original Argentine military ammo with the heavy roundnose bullet? Their is a different in pressure from lighter spitzer ammo designed for the Argentine 1909.

[Larry Gibson]

Have you actually tested the original Argentine military ammo with the heavy roundnose bullet? Their is a different in pressure from lighter spitzer ammo designed for the Argentine 1909.

No I have not tested the pressure of the original FMJRN military loads, have you? Or are you just assuming they were different? Also keep in mind when the 7.65 Argentine ammunition was adopted there were still many M91s still in service. The sights of the M91s were changed to follow the spitzer bullet trajectory which is proof they used the spitzer ammunition in the M91s. The Argentines didn't keep two different loads for the same cartridge because the same load was safe for use in both the M91 and the M1909s.

[Harter66]

The only issue I have with the 38&99 in the family is that they are a little bit fat in the bore ..... The Type 99 is closer to 7.92×57J than 7.7×58 , it has a .3165 groove . The Type 38 takes a .272 cast .

[TD1886]

No I have not tested the pressure of the original FMJRN military loads, have you? Or are you just assuming they were different? Also keep in mind when the 7.65 Argentine ammunition was adopted there were still many M91s still in service. The sights of the M91s were changed to follow the spitzer bullet trajectory which is proof they used the spitzer ammunition in the M91s. The Argentines didn't keep two different loads for the same cartridge because the same load was safe for use in both the M91 and the M1909s.

No I didn't have the original ammo and I wish I did. I did have quite a bit of the Argentine military ammo for the 1909 rifle. I think it was loaded with a 174 Spitzer bullet. My best friend also gave me a whole coffee can full of pulled 174 Spitzers.

I mention the difference in the ammo for a couple of reasons. The 1909 ammo I had I did fire from my 1891 Cavalry carbine and it was plenty hot and I don't mean to imply that it seemed that way because of the carbines lighter weight. That stuff actually hurt my shoulder! I would make an assumption that the original bullet being over 200 grains and roundnose maybe having a longer bearing surface then 1909 174 grain Spitzer Boatail that the loadings were different. Another thing I noticed on 1891's and 1909 is that the 91 had shallower grooves. Some people will tell you the 1909 ammo was loaded hotter because the 1909 is a stronger 98 action, but on the other side of the coin the 91 I believe has larger bolt lugs then the 98.

Yes it would have been a rare bird for you have had some original 1891 ammo, but I took a shot and asked if you tested any and of course you didn't. Thanks