Fr7?

[tomme boy]

What would a all matching # carbine with a mirror bore and perfect wood be worth? I local dealer wants $400 for one. Comes with a bayo also. I'm thinking that is a little too much.

[Artful]

I wouldn't pay that especially after reading up on them.

FR7 rifles- Converted from M1933 short rifles/carbines and M1916 short rifles in the 1950s.

FR8 rifles- Converted from M43 short rifles in the 1950s.

Larry Gibson had a good write up on this for us. :bigsmyl2:[/i]

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?p=428029


manleyjt

NO comment as to how suitable a certain firearm is to a certain chambering but I would like to keep at the fore front of our minds that the three rounds are not one in the same.

Externally the dimensions are the same. Many think there is a difference between the 7.62 NATO and .308W based on chamber dimensions (headspace varience gets the biggest attention). Actual cartridge exterior dimensions are the same. Ever wonder why there are only .308W loading dies and no 7.62 NATO dies? The answer is because they are the same dimensionally.

@e also need to keep in mind the different working pressures for the 7.65x51 nato and the 308 win, 50K and 62K respectively. The 50K psi figure is not necessarily correct for the 7.62 NATO. The MAP (Maximum Average Pressure) for M59 and M62 is 50,000 psi. However the MAP for M80 can be from 45,000 to 65,000 psi depending on temperature. (TM 9-1305-200 dtd June 1961, Small Arms Ammuntion). Also the method of measuring 7.62 NATO pressures is with a gas peizo-electric transducer located at the case mouth. This method does not capture the peak preassure as high as other methods do. As I stated previously, my measurements of various types of 7.62 NATO pressures gives figures from 48-58,000 psi. The average for M80 type ball is in the 52-56,000 psi range which is above the 50,000 psi often quoted. I have yet to find any 7.62 NATO or .308W that comes close to the 62,000 MAP of the .308W. My testing has been out of 3 different rifles with 3 different twists. The 10" twist gives consistantly the highest pressure of the 3 rifles. There can be alot of difference in how the metalurgy reacts once you cross into the different regions of the stress/strain diagram or when calculation for thickwalled pressure vessels ( those calculations can be used for barrels of firearms according to my mechanics of materials professor, I am no expert so have to relay that on to someone who is).

Once again a reminder that 7.62x51, 308 win, and cetme round are not equal. even though they are very close in dimensional aspects.

I believe the CETME was loaded with lighter bulletts at a lower pressure/velocity to make automatic fire controllable in the model 58 CETME automatic rifle? Is that correct in the historical context? No it isn't. The CETME rifles were a redesign of the Stg44 rifle of German use in WWII. It had a delayed roller lock up and functioned fine with the intermediate 8.9 Kurz cartridge. When redesigned for use with the higher pressured and less tapered 7.62 NATO case the CETME rifle was quickly found, after fielding to their army, that the rifle would not reliably extract the cases during firing. The solution was the lower pressured cartridge with a lighter bullet that gave a lower recoil impulse. Hence the CETME cartridge was a stop gap cartridge simply to make the fielded CETME rifle reliable. The German engineers then discovered that fluting the chambers solved the extraction problem and all CETME rifles were recalled and the chambers fluted. The production of CETME ammuntion ceased at that time as it was no longer needed. That's why it's very hard to find actual CETME cartridges (anyone seen one?). The 7.62 NATO cartridge then once again became the standard cartridge for use in CETME rifles. CETME bullet was speced at 7.25 gram (approx 112 grain) at 760 m/s (approx 2493 fps) versus 7.62 nato at 9.5gram (approx 147 grain) at 840 m/s (approx 2756fps). The 7.62 nato has so many variants for bullet weight that it is mind boggling I chose to referenc ethe M80 service cartridge in my estimations above, but the range rather amazing. NATO requirements for 7.62 ball ammuntion are a bullet of 145-155 gr at nominal 2700-2750 fps from a 22" service rifle. That does give leeway to a lot of variations.

I hope that some of the above is correct as I had to dig into some of my reference books for it and as previously said there is some variation in the written specs.

Any corrections you have would be appreciated, I will try to make sure the above texts reflect what was the actual specs.

Larry Gibson

Your FR-7 was converted small ring 93/95's mausers for 7.62 Cetme cartridge a lower pressure version of 7.62x51 NATO but NOT the same spec's.

If you look on the rifle the caliber does say 7.62. It does NOT say 7.62 NATO. These rifle were made to shoot the 7.62 CETME round which was a slightly downloaded 7.62 Nato round. It was downloaded for two reasons. Firstly to make it safe to shoot in the small ring Mauser & CETME. The second reason was to make controllable full auto fire possible in the CETME. The CETME had real control problems with the NATO round on full auto during testing. Our own US ARMY also fielded ammo to try and make M14 on full auto more controlable in the end we just took out the selector switch.

Can you shoot 7.62 NATO and commercial 308 Win in this rifle, yes and no. You can't do it 100% safely and it is going to be hard on the rifle, very hard.

I know of stories of people that have run hundreds if not thousands of 308 win through their Spanish Mausers without a problem,
SAMCO the importer had HP White labs test to destruction
http://www.masterton.us/GAM1916_Article.gif

Keep in mind that Garry James was paid to write that infomercial and he was paid by the importer. People with a financial incentive are not going to be objective. Or have you never had a bad experience after bought something you saw in an advert?

Why would SAMCO spend so much time “proving” that these rifles are safe? Maybe it is because they have a deserved reputation for being defective.

SAMCO sent a number of M1916's to HP White. We don't know if the receivers tested were late model or early model. We don't know if the rifles were rebuilt from 1893's or were new M1916's.

but I also know of some that have had very bad experiences with escaping gasses when a case let go. :holysheep

This Swedish Mauser is the exact same action as a Spanish Mauser. Don’t know what happened here but there is a cracked receiver ring and blood on the ground. Obviously an over pressure event of some sort, and the shooter was not protected by this old action.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Blowups/M96Mauserblownup.jpg

Wear your shooting glasses for sure. Here's another take on it.

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/printthread.php?threadid=317683


Posted by Kenshi on September 26, 2011 15:15:

quote:Kenshi I'm not doubting you word and I appreciate the info, but can you show me any data where it states a Spanish mauser or FR7 can't handle the pressure of a 762X51 or a 308W? If it was designed to handle 45k psi, it shouldn't go kaboom at 50k psi. That would be a mighty small window of safety. If I shoot mine it will be with 762X51 so I don't really see a problem.



First let me say that in my past life I was an Aerospace Structural and Weapons design engineer, and a Reliability and Maintainability engineer for the Lockheed Skunk Works in Palmdale Ca. Additionally I am an A&P Mechanic, a Master Machinist, a Certified Welder, and a Gunsmith with over 30 years of experience. I designed and tested "things", including weapons, for the F117, F22, F35, and "others". I am a Bladesmith and a Blacksmith.

In my job as a Reliability and Maintainability engineer I was tasked to test many items under increasing stress and pressure until they failed. I learned to recognize the failure modes, point of failure, and what the failure trends would be, at times by just examining something. Examining a somethings design criteria, material selection, the design itself, and the metallurgy to decide what the point of failure and point of catastrophic failure would be is what l did for a living, and I did that very well and it made me a better design engineer because of it.

When speaking or writing of failures, material failure and catastrophic material failure are two distinct and separate failure categories and modes.

I agree that something with a designed operating pressure of 45kpsi should safely handle a 50kpsi operating pressure and this was no doubt a factor in the re-barrel and chambering of the M93/FR7 to 7.62 NATO by the Spanish Military Engineers as that is within the common minimum IRL designed engineering safety factor of a 20% over build.

Without access to the Mauser design notes I would have to err on the side of caution and "assume" a 20% engineering design tolerance is what was actually used. I do not think that one would see a "Kaboom" (catastrophic) failure with a 5kpsi over pressure as that is approximately 11% of the design pressure. There would be an increase in overall stress however and recognizing the simple fact that all stress in accumulative, it would definitely increase to some degree the failures seen. Whether or not that is acceptable depends on the criteria they used to evaluate the design and design changes and I (without the design notes they used in the modification) can not obviously "speak" to that.

The issue of soft receiver locking lugs and the bolt to receiver issue is a different one and is dependent of the metallurgy and elasticity and recovery limits of the metal and the forces (bolt thrust) being applied.

Bolt thrust is dependent on a number of variables which include; cartridge taper, surface area of the cartridge base, case lubrication, case adherence, and instantaneous chamber pressures. Between two cartridges of equal taper, no lubrication or adherence changes, and equal case base area it is a simple mater of multiplying cartridge base surface area by chamber pressure to get a bolt thrust value between the two.

SOOOO based totally on the foregoing is it OK to re barrel, chamber and shoot 7.62 NATO Spec (7.62x51mm Mil Spec) in a M93 Mauser action in good material shape? I would say yes it is OK based on the foregoing discussion.

Any and all .308 Winchester loadings? HELL NO!! What is the pressure of the specific .308 Win loading one wants to use? In absence of data one MUST assume a 62kpsi value. To do otherwise is moronic and begs the answer of just what Darwin award is one trying to win for their family to display?

Because 7.62 NATO "looks" like .308 Winchester they ARE the same and are interchangeable? If anyone want to talk specific MIL SPEC vs SAAMI spec we can do that, there is A LOT more here than just a pressure difference.

It should be very easy to see why there is a bolt set back issue with the M93 Mauser action and the .308 Winchester cartridge.

An action designed for 45kpsi handling 50kpsi and the relatively minor increases in bolt thrust is one thing. Being designed for 45kpsi and handling 62kpsi and a major tonnage increase in bolt thrust is entirely something else. Is a catastrophic failure of the action also possible under these conditions? Depending on the health of the action YES. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but next week? Being a firm believer in Murphys Laws of engineering, it is just a roll of the dice away at these levels of stress.

So you see the FR-7 is not a "safe" conversion, reason being, it's built on a small-ring mauser action not originally designed for the maximum pressures invloved, these actions can be identified in that they are typically "cock on closing" type, that is, the bolt fully cocks on the return stroke, you can feel the spring tension when it's doing this.

These actions also are not rated for that kind of pressure, and can develop what's known as "receiver lug setback" where the lugs on the bolt are literally slammed into the receiver with such force that they'll indent the receiver due to softer steels and increase the head space and you chance of brass failure and release of Very High Pressure gases aimed at the shooter!. :shock:

You want a .308 Mauser? Start with a m98 action (large ring action) these actions are much stronger, bolt is fully cocked upon lifting, bolt has 3 lugs on it(2 in front 1 in the rear, (a "saftey lug") not just 2, the receiver ring is a 1/8 larger than a small-ring action, pg 85 in Jerry Kuhnhausen's Book "The Mauser Bolt Actions, A shop manual Says this,


"MauserM91-M96 actions,even in fully serviceable or in as-new condition must not be rebarreled and chambered for,or fired with, higher pressure cartridges than the action was orginally made for. An example of stretching this rule is found in the arsenal rebarreling and chambering of M93/M95 small-ring Spanish Mauser actions to fire 7.62 CETME cartridge The M93/M95 actions used were orginally made for lower pressure 7x57 Mauser cartridges, After Conversion these rifles and carbines were redesignated as 1916 Models, at normal temperatures the 7.62mm CETME cartridge generates pressures in roughly the 41,500 -42,000 CUP range, in a correctly dimensioned chamber and bore,
To compound the problem above,a 7.62x51mmNATO (or .308 winchester) cartridge will chamber in a 1916 Model 7.62 CETME chamber However, a 7.62 NATO or a .308 Winchester cartridge can generate pressures of, or about 55.200 CUP. THIS PRESSURE RANGE IS DANGEROUS EVEN IN A WELL HEAT-TREATED GERMAN OR SWEDISH MADE SMALL RING M91-M96 MAUSER ACTION BUT, IN MY OPINION, CAN BE PARTICULARY DANGEROUS IN THE MUCH SOFTER SPANISH MADE ACTIONS, A lot of Spanish made M93-M95 Mausers are still around that are chambered for the 7x57 cartridge. Due to the known softness of the Spanish made Mauser actions and limited receiver/barrel thread bering area etc, most mfg's of 7x57 Mauser ammunition restrict operating pressure to as close to 37,000CUP as possible as a saftey factor...

So, there you have it, from the man himself...

And sorry if I got off track a little but I don't want any one hurt by unsafe conversions, weapons are best if used in their original caliber 7x57.

[Multigunner]

Long story short, The M-80 Ball cartridge and NATO interchangeable equivalent Ball cartridges push a 144-150 grain bullet at around 2,750 +/- a few fps. Average working pressure for this class of cartridge is 48,000 CUP.
This would be a hair higher than the pressure the model 1893 action was expected to handle on a regular basis, but if the rifle is in excellent condition its probably safe enough with this type of ammo, so long as the ammo itself is not defective as some surplus 7.62 NATO ammo on the market has proven to be.

When you get into the specialized cartridges like M118 special ball or long range ball, both average pressure and maximum deviation pressure goes up , well past the working pressure that the 1893 action was designed and manufactured to handle on a regular basis.

The 1893 when chambered in 7mm handles the cartridge very well with a reasonable margin of safety.
When chambered in 7.62 NATO and used with cartridges that generate no more pressure than M-80 ball the rifle works well but the margin of safety is greatly reduced.
When chambered for the 7.62 NATO and used with M118 or equivalent long range match grade .308 Winchester ammo, there's next to no margin of safety and even if nothing spectacular happens wear and tear on the action is likely to be greatly accelerated.

[Uncle Grinch]

A very good and detailed answer, especially for anyone who owns a small ring 7.62.

With descretion, they can be fun shooters, but caution is advised.

[Ed in North Texas]

Artful - I won't "quote" your excellent article, but would point out a couple of things:

1. Kuhnhausen is mistaken in claiming that the Spanish Model 1916 short rifle resulted from the conversion of the M93/95 rifles to 7.62. I've read that "fact" posted on Surplus Rifle too. Admittedly, Kuhnhausen making that statement might also have been a case of poor writing resulting in an erroneous statement, though the former seems more likely. The Model 1916 was an actual 7x57mm model with design approval for fielding in 1916. I've read some folks imply that the 1916 model was only produced by cutting short the barrels of 1893 rifles, but that would not account for all the rifles with receivers dated after '93 production stopped and 1916 production commenced. The "Guardia Civil" rifles were all converted to 7.62. And, according to a former officer in the Spanish armed forces (posting on the newsgroups years ago), the FR-7 (and FR-8) were intended to be active duty training rifles for the conversion to the CETME from the bolt rifles.

2. "Keep in mind that Garry James was paid to write that infomercial and he was paid by the importer." The statement that Gary James was paid by the importer (Samco Global Arms) is most likely a statement without proof (of course, if you have proof we'd all love to see it). That he was paid to write the article is beyond challenge. But payment directly from Samco is highly unlikely, which is what your statement alleges. If you intended to say that advertising paid his salary from Peterson Publications, that would be a primarily correct statement. Just being picky, but the truth matters.

[tomme boy]

First, I know for a fact that these can handle the Nato rnds. Thats not what I want this for anyway. It will be a cast boolit shooter only. And, Has anyone actually seen one of these blow up? I haven't. And are there any pictures of one that has? I have never seen any. Doesn't mean there aren't any. But show me one. Most of the time these are just internet rumors.

Oh and I had a Israeli Mauser in 308 years ago. Guess what? It was also stamped 7.62 Does that mean that is was also made for the CETME round as well?

Everyone talks about how unsafe these are and at the same same time, they will shoot a Mosin Nagant in 7.62x54 and not even think about it. There is NO protection built into one of these.

Kimber Of America used to build all kinds of high pressure cartridges on the Swede Action. If it can handle a 7mm Mag, I think they will handle the lowly cast boolit loads.

[leadhead]

I shoot cast in my 1916 all the time... nary a problem.
Denny

[Multigunner]

Kimber Of America used to build all kinds of high pressure cartridges on the Swede Action. If it can handle a 7mm Mag, I think they will handle the lowly cast boolit loads.
Only Kimber 7mm Magnum rifles built on a Mauser action I've found listed so far were built on the Czech VZ24 action, not a Swede 96 action.

I've no doubt that a 93/1916 action handles mild cast boolit loads just fine. That can be said of practically any rifle.

[Artful]

Artful - I won't "quote" your excellent article, but would point out a couple of things:

Feel free to critique - I am no expert just a gatherer of information - If your an expert please feel free to share your information...


1. Kuhnhausen is mistaken in claiming that the Spanish Model 1916 short rifle resulted from the conversion of the M93/95 rifles to 7.62. I've read that "fact" posted on Surplus Rifle too. Admittedly, Kuhnhausen making that statement might also have been a case of poor writing resulting in an erroneous statement, though the former seems more likely. The Model 1916 was an actual 7x57mm model with design approval for fielding in 1916. I've read some folks imply that the 1916 model was only produced by cutting short the barrels of 1893 rifles, but that would not account for all the rifles with receivers dated after '93 production stopped and 1916 production commenced. The "Guardia Civil" rifles were all converted to 7.62. And, according to a former officer in the Spanish armed forces (posting on the newsgroups years ago), the FR-7 (and FR-8) were intended to be active duty training rifles for the conversion to the CETME from the bolt rifles.

Links to information sources on FR-8 and FR-7...
http://zoneballistic.com/colinsballistics/fr-8.html
http://curioandrelicfirearmsforum.yuku.com/topic/6126#.UaPUHdK87bU
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?231314-Spanish-1916-mauser-questions
http://www.surplusrifle.com/1916guardiacivil/index.asp
http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/spanishinquisition/
http://masterton.us/Spanmauhome


2. "Keep in mind that Garry James was paid to write that infomercial and he was paid by the importer." The statement that Gary James was paid by the importer (Samco Global Arms) is most likely a statement without proof (of course, if you have proof we'd all love to see it). That he was paid to write the article is beyond challenge. But payment directly from Samco is highly unlikely, which is what your statement alleges. If you intended to say that advertising paid his salary from Peterson Publications, that would be a primarily correct statement. Just being picky, but the truth matters.


I appologize for my poorly written statement - I didn't intend to mislead about the publication business.
Let me say I was at one point an over 20 year subcriber to Guns & Ammo magazine - I found it entertaining and sometimes educational, but as I matured as a shooting enthusiast I noticed it NEVER had a negative review of any product within it's pages. I myself made friends with some gun writers who informed me that any negative elements were either cut entirely or the entire article was dropped from popular publications. If you remember Gun Tests arose out of this kind of blinded publication for the gun community. As for Garry James article - Samco Global Arms was a heavy advertiser with Peterson and they provided the weapons for the article and I'm sure had input into the acceptability for publication of said article. I would not have expected to see a check cut by Samco to Garry James directly as that's not how the system works, but there is a system in place per author's I have talked too. - If you have other information from author's who have written for Gun's and Ammo please relate your experiences.

[Artful]

First, I know for a fact that these can handle the Nato rnds. Thats not what I want this for anyway. It will be a cast boolit shooter only. And, Has anyone actually seen one of these blow up? I haven't. And are there any pictures of one that has? I have never seen any. Doesn't mean there aren't any. But show me one. Most of the time these are just internet rumors.

Pics of a KB'd FR7 Spanish Mauser
71758
71759
71760
71762
http://www.sksboards.com/smf/index.php?topic=32517.0

another interesting link
http://dutchman.rebooty.com/1895Chile.html

I think I'm done with this thread... I'll let the experts take over.

[Larry Gibson]

Nice pictures of the blown FR7 but the user was usign his own reloads and messed up. It was not done with 7.62 NATO or with facory .308W. We've seen similar "modern actions blown the same way due to "operator error". Actually considering probably what was done the old Mauser held together better than many "modern" actions.

Back to the OPs question. I'd think that $400 is a bit steep for the FR7 even at todays inflated prices. Perhaps a FR8 in excellent condition "might" be worth that much to some. Personally at todays inflated prices I'd offer $200 for it (hit the owner up with all the horror stories you've heard about how "unsafe" the FR7 is) and would hesitate to go $300 max for it and only then if I really wanted it.

It will be quite safe and a lot of fun with cast bullet loads BTW.

Larry Gibson

P.S.; Ed in North Texas is correct in the mistake in Kunhausen's Mauser book, there several others. Still it is a very good book, especialy the how to part, but it is not the "gospel" some take it for.

[Multigunner]

$400 is way too high for one of these rifles.
As for these and other pre WW1 designs converted to 7.62, these were stop gap measures and intended for pressures no higher than 7.62 NATO interchangeable Ball (M-80 or equivalent) not intended for any and all 7.62 NATO cartridges, or for the .308 Winchester sporting and target rounds though many of these (but not all) are safe enough in these rifles.
The conversions built on model 98 actions should be safe enough with any fresh high quality available 7.62X51 or .308, if the conversion is done properly and headspace is within safe limits (milspec for 7.62 NATO cases SAAMI for commercial .308 Winchester cases).
There's plenty of overlap in the .308 and 7.62 NATO.

Steel cased 7.62X51 ammo (Tula) has been blamed for injuries (vented gas and casing fragments rather than action failures) to shooters of the 2A Enfield rifles, with excessive headspace suspected as the main contributing factor. Some steel cases can't handle much stretching before letting go near the base.

With a front lug Mauser a split case can cause the receiver ring blow out as shown above, with a 2A or converted No.4 a split casehead can cause a shattered bolt head, and possibly a twisted bolt body.
If bolt head alone is damaged then the Enfield might be repairable, if the bolt body is twisted or warped the action is likely toast. Even a hard to retract bolt was grounds to condemn a complete action at proof testing.

So long as proper precautions are taken, Headspace within proper limits etc, and only fresh high quality ammo with working pressure no greater than 48,000 CUP is used the rifles in question should give good service.

Hand loading allows the shooter to control the quality of his ammunition, buying surplus ammo of unknown provenance can result in a wrecked rifle and probable injury to the shooter.
Using hot loaded factory ammo (.308 long range match, 7.62 long range special ball) the rifle was not intended to use can cause the same problems over time.

PS
While the Mosin Nagant is a very old design it also has massive locking lugs and a bolt handle that acts as a very substantial safety lug, plus it was designed from the beginning to use a very powerful cartridge if anything superior to the early 7.62 NATO. The capacious case also allows good velocity, with light or heavy bullets, with reasonable chamber pressures.
The 7.62 NATO case and COAL is kept short to function in autoloaders. When a heavier bullet is used it intrudes into the limited case capacity increasing pressures to maintain performance.

Also while seldom brought up, when first designed the 7.62 NATO and .308 were expected to be loaded using a limited range of double base powders which were expected to keep chamber pressures reasonably low. When other types of powders are used pressures may be higher for the same velocities.

[Artful]

I just googled for pictures of blown FR-7



PS
While the Mosin Nagant is a very old design it also has massive locking lugs and a bolt handle that acts as a very substantial safety lug, plus it was designed from the beginning to use a very powerful cartridge if anything superior to the early 7.62 NATO. The capacious case also allows good velocity, with light or heavy bullets, with reasonable chamber pressures.

fun with a Mosin Nagant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfiXFyIbOZw

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bzls73WH7w

[copperlake]

My 2cts: Gibson is correct about the FR-7 blow-up. Here is another version of the story: http://m14forum.com/foreign/135323-1891-argentine-mauser.html wherein a fellow named 'slamfire' goes on a little too much about how unsafe small ring mausers are. He has other posts on different forums with other pictures all showing overloaded (IMO) failures used to support his contentions. I do not know the particulars about this incident, but from experience I do know that the brass glaze visible on the action surfaces is not from any case rupture caused by normal pressure. Pressure has to be VERY high to atomize brass and turn it into spray paint.

I would liked to have seen that action just after it blew. It looks like the bolt was opened afterwards, probably as far as one could do it by hand. I doubt very much that it happened on firing. Of the three small ring actions I've blown up, it would have been impossible for the bolt to have left the action because of all the distortion in the aft part of the action. A safety lug, so to speak.

As far as the OP's worth question goes, I've seen them go for more on GunBroker. Depends on how bad a 'Jones' you have. Gibson gave you good advice, though.

[Multigunner]

Here's where my warnings about 7.62 NATO ammo from unknown or unreliable sources comes in.
When the 7.62 small ring Spanish mausers were first but on the market there were a number of catastrophic failures. The explanation at the time was that Santa Barbra 7.62 ammo sold along with these rifles included what appeared to be proof test cartridges that were mixed in with the Ball ammo. Pressures for the Proof test rounds was quoted at 68,000 lb but whether PSI or CUP was not made clear. At about the same time very defective 7.62 ammo from CBC showed up, resulting in dozens of product liability lawsuits due to destroyed 7.62 rifles of all types and shooter injuries.
Defective CBC branded ammo of other calibers has shown up, in .303 and .30 carbine IIRC.

Some propellants used to load the NATO cartridges produced by less well to do nations has proved to be subject to severe degradation in storage, especially in tropical conditions. Some may have been surplus powder once used to load obsolete mauser cartridges, and decades past its shelf life before being used.

[Ed in North Texas]

I appologize for my poorly written statement - I didn't intend to mislead about the publication business.
Let me say I was at one point an over 20 year subcriber to Guns & Ammo magazine - I found it entertaining and sometimes educational, but as I matured as a shooting enthusiast I noticed it NEVER had a negative review of any product within it's pages. I myself made friends with some gun writers who informed me that any negative elements were either cut entirely or the entire article was dropped from popular publications. If you remember Gun Tests arose out of this kind of blinded publication for the gun community. As for Garry James article - Samco Global Arms was a heavy advertiser with Peterson and they provided the weapons for the article and I'm sure had input into the acceptability for publication of said article. I would not have expected to see a check cut by Samco to Garry James directly as that's not how the system works, but there is a system in place per author's I have talked too. - If you have other information from author's who have written for Gun's and Ammo please relate your experiences.

Artful - I should have gone with my "feeling" that you were stating that the advertising paid and it just didn't come out that clearly.

As for the 1916 issue, I simply find Kuhnhausen wrong in stating that the Model 1916 was made from 1893/95 Mausers when they were converted to 7.62 NATO. I have a Model 1916, 7x57mm, produced at the Oviedo Armory with a 1921 date on the receiver. I'm fairly sure that many/most 1893 rifles were altered to 1916 configuration at some point. 29" barrels had mostly gone out of favor by 1916 or so. I don't believe any country was ordering new rifles with 29" barrels - except perhaps Germany picking up what numbers they could until the end of the War. In any event, the conversion to 7.62 was not the event which resulted in the Model 1916. Most likely Kuhnhausen simply misspoke, thinking of the "Guardia Civil" nomenclature (which I think did result from the conversion, for none of these rifles were issued to the Spanish Army) and conflating that with the M 1916.