1891 mauser guestions

[camaro1st]

ok i bought this 1891Mauser .243 from a friend and am trying to find out some info on it. What i have been able to find so far is that they was made with weak steel. Is this something true? i was thinking of letting my girl use it but if it dangerous then it will not get shot.
Also any ideas on a value would be helpful along with any suggestions on it.
637656376663767

[Reg]

Now that is one very nice looking old 91!! . One thing you might want to keep in mind is that even though it is nicely made it was still made a long time ago. It perhaps never should have been rebarreled to the 243 as it really is a 42,000 lb
action, 45,000 tops. P. O' Ackley and a few others rebarreled them in 243, and 308 back in the 60's and yes, they will take the pressure just as long as nothing goes wrong. a loose or blown primer, a incepiant head fracture, any number of things and you could wind up in a world of trouble. They don't handle loose gas as well as the 98's and a few others and they do not have the third or safety lug.
With that being said, I still would have no fear shooting it all day long but would handload for it and keep all the loads down in the 42,000 lb. or so range.
The 91's were very well made as far as workmanship goes, better perhaps than any military rifle before or since. About the only real drawback is the magazine, it is almost in the way dropping like it does below the stock line.
There have been several conversions in years past to make a shallow box magazine out of it. Generally you get one or at the most two shells in the magazine which should prove no problem but the couple I looked at still did have feeding issues, nothing serious but with the wrong bullet shape they would jam.
If someone ever works out a fool proof conversion for this, I would like to hear about it.
There again, neat rifle, shoot the heck out of it but I would keep the loads in a safe range.

[Dutchman]

That 1891 Mauser was manufactured in about 1892 judging from the lack of a magazine lock, plus the Ludwig Loewe company markings.

It was never a suitable rifle for a high pressure cartridge like the .243 Winchester. Generally speaking it is not a desirable cartridge conversion. Value would be subjective (and low).

It is not made with "weak steel". It is entirely strong and safe for the cartridge it was designed for, the 7.65x53 Mauser. The receiver/action has ZERO gas escape features. A ruptured cartridge case will most likely destroy the rifle and possibly injure the shooter and bystanders. It's just not a good rifle build by any standards.

When these rifles were imported in the 1950s and 1960s all sorts of things were done to make them sell faster. Despite the high quality of the original rifle they never really brought a high price because there were so many of them. In about 2000 I paid $100 each for two of these cherry '91 long rifles. What was done to your rifle does not make it more valuable. It makes it less valuable. These rifles are now 121 years old. They have value and collectibility in their original configuration only.

Very similar Swedish Experimental Trials fm/1892 rifle in 6.5x55. This rifle is worth about $3,000+.

http://images46.fotki.com/v284/photos/2/28344/157842/xm1-vi.jpg

http://images12.fotki.com/v213/photos/2/28344/157842/ArgentineMauser1891-vi.jpg

This was a commonly done chop job on 1891 Mausers, some of which were in "new" condition.

http://images16.fotki.com/v258/photos/2/28344/157842/91ArgentineWards01-vi.jpg
http://images61.fotki.com/v546/photos/2/28344/157842/91ArgentineWards02-vi.jpg

[.22-10-45]

Hello, camaro. Sounds like a nice cast-bullet only rifle! Those 6mm cast bullets are fun and accurate. I am shooting a 100gr. Ideal 245498 out of a Winchester-Lee straight pull sporter in 6mm Lee navy. Using IMR TrailBoss, it's like a .222 Rem. on steroids! 3/4" 50yd. groups using open buckhorn rear and German silver blade front.

[camaro1st]

Thanks guys sounds like I will have to get the daughter a different rifle. I don't want to chance her picking up a factory load and blowing it up. What are you refering to on it not being able to vent gases? Between the bolt and barrel?

[Dutchman]

What are you refering to on it not being able to vent gases? Between the bolt and barrel?

There's much more to gas escape features than just between the bolt and barrel. To really understand it you need to study the 1898 Mauser action and compare it to all the earlier models from 1871, 1871/84, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1893, 1895 and 1896. There's an entire universe of knowledge to be gained by that study that I can't do justice to in a few lines here.

Suffice to say that escaping gas can and has destroyed rifles to include shredding the stock and leaving lots of pieces of jagged steel that were once the receiver. They've killed people when the rifle grenades, blows apart because there's a massive gas leak of near 50,000 psi all at once with no place to go so things come apart. Real fast. And when it does this it's usually a couple inches in front of the shooter's face.

The most common rifles to have this happen are those that have been re-purposed like your 1891 Argentine. It was modified in a way that was not something the inventor designed it to be and is now considered foolish. An accident waiting to happen, you might say. Better safe than sorry, a smart man would think.

Dutch

[camaro1st]

ok i'm willing to learn. can you give me a nudge in that direction?

[Dutchman]

Ludwig Olsen's book: Mauser Bolt Rifles

best textbook on the subject.

Dutch

[leadman]

Your rifle could be rebarreled back to the original cartridge as barrels are available from time to time. Also something like the 300 Savage would be better than the 243.
If you are a handloader there is a wide range that the original cartridge can cover for different loads.
I have 2 of these, the first looked very similar to the picture Dutchman posted and the second is all original. I have shot the first one enough to be on my second barrel and it was a NOS from SARCO IIRC. It has taken elk, deer, javelina, rabbits, rocks, etc.
Plenty of molds are available and brass is also available or can be made from the 7 or 8X57, or 30-06 type cases.
Or do as stated and keep the loads on the mold side and enjoy it.

[Reg]

In addition to rebarreling to 300 Savage, the 35 Remington is also a excellent choice. Have used a 91 since 1962 in the original 7.65 as well as the other mentioned calibers. Killed a whole bunch of deer as well as a slew of smaller game. Good gun but you do have to keep it within its capabilities. Ever want to sell that stock,let me know.

[EDG]

Due to "Bolt Action Rifles" by Frank de Haas there is way too much emphasis on gas handling by the different actions. If that was the only criteria to judge actions probably all but the Savage 110 would be considered too dangerous to use. The fact is many very commonly used actions have no gas handling features and no one says a word about them. It only seems to come up with pre 98 Mausers.
Having seen a man's face after a 98 Mauser blow up and having blown primers in a 91 Mauser myself I think the emphasis on gas handling is pretty much a technical joke. Use sane loads and good brass to keep you safe.
If all the gas relief features are such a grand deal why don't people drill their bolts and actions full of holes? They don't do it because it is not really needed and it is more of a conversation issue than one of real safety.

[dualsport]

I had a blown primer on a '91/7.65mm. It blew the safety apart which became shrapnel. Otherwise the gun was ok. There was nowhere else for the escaping gas to go but out the bolt. How about rebarreling that beauty to .257 Roberts? IIRC that is a popular conversion for pre 98s. Correct me if I'm wrong, going on memory here.

[PS Paul]

Had a case rupture ina model '95 7x57 some time back. Excessive headspace was the casuse, NOT hot handloads. I kept 'em right around 42,000 always to be on the safe side. A few specks of powder tattooed on my face and some hot gas was about it. Had the headspace issue addressed and never happened since, but if I weren't wearing glasses, I might have been in trouble. That one incident alone proved to me that wearing glasses while shooting ALWAYS was/is a good idea.......

Otherwise, neat rifle! Love the old Mausers!

[copperlake]

[QUOTE=camaro1st;2109732]ok i bought this 1891Mauser .243 from a friend and am trying to find out some info on it. What i have been able to find so far is that they was made with weak steel. Is this something true? i was thinking of letting my girl use it but if it dangerous then it will not get shot.
Also any ideas on a value would be helpful along with any suggestions on it.

Pretty gun. Much of what has been said is true especially matters of gas handling. However, it does have a couple very 'modern' features: the cartridge head is completely surrounded by steel, and it also has a rotating extractor which went out of favor and now nearly every modern action (except Ruger) has the same. The head support makes failure less likely and thus more safe. Two cases of Paul Mauser being smarter than the average bear, or, if you wait long enough, what's out will be in.
If it was mine, this is what I'd do: I'd modify the bolt with a gas hole in the bolt head that would line up with a hole in the left receiver ring, just like a '93 Spanish mauser. Then, I'd drill three more holes along the bolt at 45 degrees from TDC spaced along the bolt. Those three holes is how a Weatherby Vanguard handles gas. The Vanguard has a guide rib just like '93, '94 and '95 mausers do, only on the opposite side rail. Another case of Paul's genius. This would make your '91 better, IMHO, in handling gas than the '98 except for the '98's the larger flange on the bolt shroud. That's what I'd do, but I'm a little nutty.

If you were to sell it, do it on GunBroker. I've seen some amazing things happen there. But the Dutchman is right, it's not worth what it might have been.

[copperlake]

dualsport, I'm interested in what exactly happened. Pardon me but I don't grasp and can't visualize what you are conveying. The safety came out of the bolt shroud?

Mark

[357maximum]

A blown primer in a Remington 700 can be very interesting too....trust me...the gun went back to the factory for a new bolt.

Not saying I would put a 243 on an 1891 argy, but if I had it I would handload it down to where I felt good about it and enjoy. I also might think about stamping the barrel "6mm Pipsqueak" so that if it does fall into ignorant hands it will at least garner some attention before it is shot and maybe not with a full house 243 that way.

[autofix4u]

That is a right fine looking rifle, I would be proud to have one like it.
As I have a 91 in 22 varmiter (22-250) that has hadd many hundreds of rounds put down the tube in the last 40 years, I say shoot it with proper handloads and good shooting glasses.
Just my view on things, take it for what it cost you.

[dualsport]

dualsport, I'm interested in what exactly happened. Pardon me but I don't grasp and can't visualize what you are conveying. The safety came out of the bolt shroud?

Mark

Upon firing the wing of the safety blew off and hit me in the arm. Powder and gasses escaped thru the bolt due to the pierced primer and hit me in the face. No serious harm done, but it wasn't funny either. It was a slightly bubba'd 1891 that had a nice Buehler aftermarket safety. I've shot hundreds of rounds thru it before that, both factory (Hornady) and handloads. Hunted with it too. It was a handload with a full power jacketed load. I don't really know why it happened or if I messed up. Now it wears an issue safety and is back in business but the wing won't clear a scope. My best guess is I created a headspace problem using the same brass for cast and jacketed loads unintentionally. There is no way a double charge of the slowish rifle powder could fit.

[MtGun44]

If you rebarrel in .30 Rem or .35 Rem the pressures that they were designed for
(and factory ammo is loaded to) is compatible with the design. Both are rimless,
so there will be less problems getting them to feed.

Neither is super common, but brass can be found and loaded readily and bore
diams are common and lots of molds and factory jbullets available.

Unfortunately, rebarreling is not cheap.

Bill

[dualsport]

Bear in mind aftermarket safeties for the '91 Argie are like hen's teeth, if you want a scope mounted on the action.

[gidgaf]

Mr Google, a pot of coffee, and a copy-and-paste twitch will do you good.
There WAS an issue of "old" versus "new" metal, in the original barrel. Which you don't have. The old won't say "old", but the new will say "n.m." The old actually wasn't bad, just folk were worried about extended firing of hot military ammo in the new smokeless formulations. And the new barrels were straighter. And a slightly bigger size.
The barrel screws into the 1891 receiver. It's that combination that is the issue. No matter the caliber of the barrel, it screws into a 120 year old part.
That's what worries me on mine. How many rounds over how many years until it just finally gives out? So far, so good ...
ANYway, there was another procedure for filing a little notch in the bottom of the bolt face to allow the primer gasses somewhere to go, by way of the magazine.
I'd ditto the 35 Remington, if cheap enough parts came your way.
But if you're too worried about it, just send it to me. ;+} I have a Kropat return I'd trade ya for.

[EDG]

The bottom of what bolt face???? The M91 bolt has a notch that will dump more gas to the side than any notch you can add.
You post is not very specific about which barrel you are referring to. It sounds like you are mixing the GEW 88 issues with the M91.



Mr Google, a pot of coffee, and a copy-and-paste twitch will do you good.
There WAS an issue of "old" versus "new" metal, in the original barrel. Which you don't have. The old won't say "old", but the new will say "n.m." The old actually wasn't bad, just folk were worried about extended firing of hot military ammo in the new smokeless formulations. And the new barrels were straighter. And a slightly bigger size.
The barrel screws into the 1891 receiver. It's that combination that is the issue. No matter the caliber of the barrel, it screws into a 120 year old part.
That's what worries me on mine. How many rounds over how many years until it just finally gives out? So far, so good ...
ANYway, there was another procedure for filing a little notch in the bottom of the bolt face to allow the primer gasses somewhere to go, by way of the magazine.
I'd ditto the 35 Remington, if cheap enough parts came your way.
But if you're too worried about it, just send it to me. ;+} I have a Kropat return I'd trade ya for.

[Coyote Chris]

The Dutchman is a very wise person, I think.....I shoot the 1871/84,(bp only) the 1891, the 1888 Comish rifle,The M95 Mann.the M95 Chilean, .303 Enfields, etc but he is entirely correct about what escaping gas can do. When I shoot my 1891 Argie, I use the very nice San Fransisco Non corrosive ammo but I down load it. I no longer have any 1909s in my collection which can handle the 56,000 psi ammo fine, but IIRC the 1891s original ammo pressure was close to 40,000 psi. And I never shoot without safety glasses. If someone gave me that .243 rifle, I would have a moral dillema on what to do with it. The last thing I would do would be to give it to my daughter....even if it were rebarreled back to its original cartridge. I am an old man who is capable of understanding the risks involved with milsurps. How badly do you want to take your daughter to the emergency room? There are plenty of nice hunting rifles out there for deer. Get her a nice pair of shooting glasses and a modern rifle. Me? I dont hunt anything but steel buffalos....but I am kinda fond of my eyes so I download anything that goes into my M95s, Commish rifle, and 1891. And I dont use smokeless in my 71/84 and Trapdoors Chris who saw what happened at Quigley when someone's wife blew up an old Ballard action shooting smokeless powder.
There's much more to gas escape features than just between the bolt and barrel. To really understand it you need to study the 1898 Mauser action and compare it to all the earlier models from 1871, 1871/84, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1893, 1895 and 1896. There's an entire universe of knowledge to be gained by that study that I can't do justice to in a few lines here.

Suffice to say that escaping gas can and has destroyed rifles to include shredding the stock and leaving lots of pieces of jagged steel that were once the receiver. They've killed people when the rifle grenades, blows apart because there's a massive gas leak of near 50,000 psi all at once with no place to go so things come apart. Real fast. And when it does this it's usually a couple inches in front of the shooter's face.

The most common rifles to have this happen are those that have been re-purposed like your 1891 Argentine. It was modified in a way that was not something the inventor designed it to be and is now considered foolish. An accident waiting to happen, you might say. Better safe than sorry, a smart man would think.

Dutch

[EDG]

>>The most common rifles to have this happen are those that have been re-purposed like your 1891 Argentine. It was modified in a way that was not something the inventor designed it to be and is now considered foolish.<<

The same exact thing can be said of any modified rifle where it is true or not. Many modern rifles have little more gas escape features than the model 1891. Take a look at a M700 Remington some time.

[Multigunner]

Seems like a "Hatcher Hole" would be called for.
Some older Mausers, not sure if the 91 is one of these, have the cocking piece held to the firing pin by threads rather than the lugs of the 98 firing pin. I suppose these could break off if the pin were driven back at high speed by gas venting into the firing pin opening in the breechface.

PS
The 91 was proof tested to 58,000 CUP.
I don't think the steel was particularly soft, but not of the strength of some later alloys. How well this steel handles metal fatigue from extended use I couldn't begin to guess.
Real blow up damage mostly comes from steel being brittle rather than soft.

[Larry Gibson]

Up front let me state I am not telling anyone to hot load this cartridge in the M91 or the M1906. There is no need for that as it performs very well at the level it was designed.

And speaking of the level it was designed for let us not confuse the 3900 Bar (which converts to 56,565 psi BTW) with the later CUP or the now used transducer/peizo psi figures. I have pressure tested numerous lots of 7.65 Argentine and even some 7.65 Belgian than all were pre WWII. The Argentines used the M91 and the M1909s at the same time pre WWII and did not have a different lower psi round for the M91s; they both used the same 7.65 ammunition. The 7.65 Argentine ammunition I have pressure tested (M43 Oehler with my M91) have all run in the 53,000 to 56,500 psi(M43) range. Norma and Hornady 7.65 Argentine ammunition are within that same psi range.

As to the ability of the gas handling I have to agree with EDG in post #11. Back in the late 1800s the technology of making cartridge cases was new and not yet fully understood or developed. There was a continual problem with case failures up through the early 1920’s before case making technology was fully understood. Thus the rifle designs of the day progressively had more features to handle case failures. Today case failures with factory or military ammunition are almost unheard of. However, case failure due to overloaded, improperly sized cases or over used cases is still a problem. That is the reason most firearm manufacturers caution against the use of “reloads”.

A comparison of today’s “modern” actions against the M91 Mauser actually shows little difference in their ability to handle escaping gas from a ruptured cartridge case. With properly loaded 7.65 cartridges (or other cartridges if rebarreled) the M91 (if still in good condition) will perform very well. This will be especially the case with cast bullet loads as they should be well under the 53K to 56K psi of milsurp and commercial factory loads. I suggest eye protection when shooting any rifle, handgun or any firearm regardless of the gas handling design features. In my younger years I have blown enough primers and even separated case heads in numerous old and “modern” actions to have learned the lesson that none of them handle the escaping gas well. We see enough destroyed “modern” actions to know that in the case of a catastrophic case failure (overload or S.E.E.) that the gas handling design features mean little.

Were I to own the Ops M91 rebarreled to .243W I would use starting to mid level manual loads with jacketed and seek accuracy in that range. I would be careful not to oversize the case if FL sizing and would prefer NSing. If using cast bullets then the cast bullet loads in Lyman’s manuals would be my guide. That M91 is a nice rifle and there is no reason not to shoot it in my opinion even in the .243W chambering.

I also have a M91 rebarreled to 35 Rem and it is a nice conversion but it does take some modification to the magazine for proper feeding. A short chambered .35 Whelen (a 35x57) is a better choice as it will have the cartridge length and taper to feed w/o any modification necessary. A standard 35 Rem barrel can be used and a 35 Whelen reamer used to short chamber for the 35x57 case. Regular 35 Whelen dies can also be simply shortened so there is not any expense for “custom” reamers or dies. Cases are easily formed from any ’06 head size and length case or from 8x57 cases. Since it is a wild cat it is up to you as the psi it is loaded to. For cast bullet data .358W data works very well.

Larry Gibson

[RustyReel]

Isn't the old 9x57 the same as a 35x57???? Or is it a .356 bullet??

[Larry Gibson]

Isn't the old 9x57 the same as a 35x57???? Or is it a .356 bullet??

Esentially the same but not interchangeable. The 35x57 will have a bit less case capacity because the case neck length is of '06 length instead of the 8x57 neck length of the 9x57. Probably a couple other small dimensional differences also such as shoulder angle, etc.

Both excellent cartridges, especially with cast bullets.

Larry Gibson

[deces]

Beautiful rifles guys, I wish my H&A 1889 looked as good as those. I have a question though, dose anyone know where I can find a muzzle cap that threads on the cleaning rod to service the firearm, or am I wrong in thinking this is the order of the item?

[Multigunner]

And speaking of the level it was designed for let us not confuse the 3900 Bar (which converts to 56,565 psi BTW) with the later CUP or the now used transducer/peizo psi figures.

What I've gone by was W W Greeners description of the German method of Proof Testing, which was basically the same as other Copper Unit of Pressure test guns in use in Europe at the time, and the "Metric Atmosphere" the Germans also used.
Of course they never intended for cartridges to be loaded to this pressure.
According to Greener the Germans used a special powder formulated to give the effect of a regular charge that was degraded by age in tropical conditions, the charge weight and volume being the same as the service charge.

The 5th edition Gun Digest Treasury gives the pressure as 4,000 Metric Atmospheres/58,800 PSI.

[Coyote Chris]

While I am a big fan of the 1891 and Loewe made guns in general, and have owned many, I cant remember much about the the original round specs for the 1891 vs the later Argie round and more specifically what the Argies did when they started making/buying 1909s, as far as using the new rounds in the old rifles....if someone knows, please tell us...while the quality of manufacture of the 1891, and of course many other Mauser rifles from the 1890s, is amazing, I personally know nothing about the state of metalurgy at the time in Germany, except two things I have heard. One, the Swede's steel was 20 years ahead of everyone else's (rumor) and two, the Springfield Armory didnt use pyrometers during heat treatment in the low numbered 03s and a number of guns turned out to have brittle receivers. (fact). So the question still remains....do you want to put 56,400 cups on an 1891 action? If the .243 gun was headspaced correctly, it is up to you if you want to shoot factory rounds or reload for it.

[copperlake]

I personally know nothing about the state of metalurgy at the time in Germany, except two things I have heard. One, the Swede's steel was 20 years ahead of everyone else's (rumor)

Coyote, you are correct in stating that you know nothing about the state of metalurgy around the time this firearm was made and so also speak for EVERYONE here commenting on the quality of this or that steel used in this or that action and what it may or may not be. I've read posts that state that Spanish Mausers are made of steel about the same grade steel as rebar. I got trashed and banned from GunBoards for taking a junk '96 Mauser and twisting it 90 degrees with an 8" Crescent wrench because that was 'impossible' to do! What's with them over there?

You have famous Toledo steel, Solingen steel, Krupp Stahl, Swedish steel so on and so forth. The only thing I've read about Swedish steels superiority that makes sense to me is that their ore was low in impurities. Visit page 36 in Ackley's handbook and view a model 70 win. with the top of the receiver missing. It has holes drilled in it for testing which "led to a judgement against the manufacturer". This was in 1966. I have a bias, that being, the things that you're liable, to read in the bible, they ain't necessarily so. And like Mr. Gibson, I'm not recommending anything.

[Multigunner]

Swedish Steel is made from a Magnetic Iron ore, which is identical to the best quality Iron ore found in the United States (that information found in "Bosworth on the Rifle). Similar deposits have been found in Brazil and they export this ore to China since Chinese Iron like Japanese Iron is full of impurities.
Spanish Iron ore is of low quality, which is why the Spanish developed very sophisticated methods of purifying the iron they used for gunmaking. Best quality Spanish steel is high grade despite the poor quality of the ore it came from.

Its not always easy to judge the steel by where the rifle was made, some gunmakers imported higher quality steel than was available locally.
The Japanese imported much of their steel and almost all the Iron ore used in making steel in the 19th and 20th centuries.

[copperlake]

Swedish Steel is made from a Magnetic Iron ore, which is identical to the best quality Iron ore found in the United States (that information found in "Bosworth on the Rifle).

Multi, very good addition to the discussion. So we have good basic components that produce two disparate outcomes: legendary Swedish mausers and Springfields that blow up. I know, I know, there are so many variables that make my statement only laughable. Nonetheless, it is that sort of failed logic that produces a mythic strength and an urban ledgend of weakness. Toledo steel is legend and so is the Arisaka, both from areas not blessed with premier resources.

[Larry Gibson]

The weaknesses and main problem of most of those actions was in the heat treatment (proper or not enough). Many Spanish actions are soft, many LSN '03 were brittle, etc. not the actual steel they were made of. Many Spanish actions will take 60K psi loads w/o lug set back and many LSN '03s won't shatter unless you smack'em with a hammer. BTW; It is easy to twist any reciever out of shape which is why proper placement of the action wrench and torque direction is important when rebarreling. Doing such is not necessarily a sign the action is weak.

Larry Gibson

[FAsmus]

Gentlemen;

Here are couple shots showing, first our firing line - my friend Daisy too.

67104

Next, me with my M1891 Argentine - The only mods to this rifle are sights.

67105

The bolt area on the M91 photograph looks weird because the fellow next to me has his tripod in exactly the wrong place.

Good morning,
Forrest