M1916 Spanish Mausers

[dabsond]

Looking at purchasing one of these for shooting cast only. Any comments or experiences?

[dabsond]

Looking at purchasing one of these for shooting cast only. Any comments or experiences?
Forgot to mention these have been rechambered to .308

[MostlyLeverGuns]

Spain's version of the 7.62 x 51 was loaded to a lower pressure for their semi-auto rifles and the converted bolt guns that were previously 7 x 57. Most were 95 Mausers, though there might be some 98 Mausers out there. For cast bullet shooting should be fine, probably best not to fire a lot of full pressure 7.62 x 51 Nato
or .308 Winchester factory in the 95 Mauser types.

[gnoahhh]

In my experience, the 1916 Spanish Mausers are close to the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality. The above response is an excellent evaluation of their general utility when re-chambered to .308, IMO.

[Kraschenbirn]

For casual steel-bangin' and plinking out to 150M, it would be a tough call for me to pick between my M1916 Short Rifle (7.62x51) and my Marlin 1894 levergun (.44 Mag). The bore slugs to .3085 and the chamber is a bit on the 'generous' side but 25.5 gr. IMR 4198 under a Lee 312-155 (sized to .312) will produce 2"-3" 100M groups with issue sights. Last time out, I tagged the 8" gong at 200M four out of five shooting from the prone...using a 'guesstimated' holdover.

All the 1916 Short Rifles and Carbines are M95 actions but, once you get used to the 'cock-on-close' bolt, either is a pretty slick-handling piece and, even in 'as-issued' would make a dandy deer rifle. So far as the strength of the M95s, there have been several previous threads discussing the issue so I'm not going to try to recap all of them. While failures have been known to occur, many, many shooters have put many, many rounds of milsurp 7.62x51 (and 'modern' milsurp 7x57!) downrange through various configurations of the M95 without a glitch. That said, just remember that, even though they've been rebarreled/rearsenaled, the 'youngest' of these guns is over 75 years old, most likely served on one side or the other (or, possibly, both) during the Spanish Civil War, and therefore should be treated with caution so far as pressure levels. For an a 'cast only' gun, though, the M1916 Spanish in 7.62x51 would be an excellent choice.

So far as their quality, my experience is limited to only the few I've owned, shot, or handled and, for the most part, all have been up to acceptable 'milsurp' standards. My current M1916 was made at Oviedo in the early 1920s and rebarreled/rearsenaled in the early 1950s. All numbers match with no visible strike-overs or other obvious 'renumbering' and the well-fitted beechwood stock is somewhere between 'good' and 'very good' condition (no cracks, major gouges, or visible repairs). Metal finish is 80-90% and bluing quality is, easily, as good as that of my German-mfg Argentine Mausers. According to my references, though, there were a number of M1916s that were converted from M93s around the time of the Civil War (1936-39) as well as some guns assembled at Barcelona by the Republicans (they lost) during the war...while I've never run across one of these, quality is said to be borderline.

Bill

[lefty o]

perfect milsurp if you want to shoot cast. way too many people wanna hotrod em with jacketed .308's, and they just werent made for that.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

True story. Maybe not quite "on point", but general information. Back in about 1980 a fellow brought a 7x57mm Oviedo Mauser into my shop that had been given to him by his father-in-law. His complaint was that after firing, the bolt was difficult to open. He said that he had fired three rounds through it and after the last round had to beat the bolt open with a piece of wood. I put the rifle on my workbench and removed the bolt, no problem there. Then I stuck my finger into the receiver ring to see if there was some sort of debris or obstruction and was looking at the top of the receiver ring, and realized I was seeing something unsual, but it took me a few seconds to figure out exactly what it was that I was seeing. It was the color of my finger being viewed through several (six in total) cracks in the blued receiver ring that ran almost the full length of the receiver ring, and which were about 1/16" in width. It was an amazing sight. Obviously something bad had happened here, but I never did find out exactly what, as the customer proclaimed that he had fired only 7mm ammo in the rifle, the ammo also received from his father-in-law. I never saw the empties.

Naturally I admonished him to hang it on the wall with the firing pin removed. It was hard to arrive at any firm conclusions about the incident, but I speculated that: (1) It could be argued that the rifle was of inferior manufacture. (2) It could be argued that the rifle was of superior manufacture to have held together through whatever ordeal it had been subjected to, probably repeatedly. (3) That the customer's father-in-law didn't like him. I never encountered that situation again, but have always shied away from Oviedo-made rifles.

[blastit37]

1893 not 1895 for Spanish Mausers. 1895 Mausers have a 3rd smi-locking lug behind the receiver and use a round bolt face as opposed to the flat based on the 1893. Just to be technically correct.

[Larry Gibson]

And that "3rd smi-locking lug behind the receiver" is really an anti-bind bolt guide.

From the horse's mouth; CETME cartridges and the manuals which show use for 7.62 NATO spec ammunition.

My Oviedo 1928 had I don't know how many 7x57 barrels on it and is on it's 3rd barrel for me. I shot out 2 barrels (Star and ER Shaw) in .308W shooting mostly 7.63 US M80 ball. Current barrel is a set back new 2 groove '03A3 barrel chambered for my own cast bullet wild cat; the .308 CBC.

Larry Gibson

109351109352109353109354

[mikeym1a]

Another very interesting thread. I have one of the 1895 Chilean Mausers that I picked up from the local pawn shop, at a reasonable price. I bought mine for shooting paper patched cast loads. Haven't been able to shoot due to health issues, but am looking forward to it in the near future. mikey

[dh2]

I built a .338-06 on one I do not see where there would be a problem with one in .308 Win. there was a lot of them sporterized and re-barreled. I would not be afraid of it

[pworley1]

The 1916 Spanish mauser was built on the 1893 action, and they are not the best or the strongest of the mauser actions. They are however, built on a mauser action. I have shot milsurp 7.62 and cast in mine for years and never had a problem. Maybe I just got a good one, but I would take them all day for the $75.00 I paid for mine.

[tdoor4570]

I have a spanish 1916 and an FR-7 both built on 1893 actions. I hand load for both, I backed off the pressure to 7x57 specs and both shoot 150 gr.308 j word and cast into 1 in. groups at 100 meters with issue sights. looks like I got a couple of good ones.

[koger]

When I ran a shop full time, I bought these by the case, 12 at a time. Quality or receiver and heat treatment varies, rebored barrels were often oval bores, and chambers off center. I had about 30% of the ones I got that were junk. Had about the similare issues with 8MM 98 Turks, with barrels not on straight, bent or warped, though shiny inside, 40% or more had to be rebarreled after truing threads and recievers. I just don't go to the trouble of fooling with either one of these rifle make again. Just MHO!

[Multigunner]

The CETME 7.62 was downloaded because the CETME did not originally have the fluted chamber of the later HK rifles. Lower pressure allowed easier extraction.M80 Ball has an average working pressure of 48,000 CUP so its pressure is not much greater than that of the 7mm Mauser, even some DWM 7mm cartridges intended for use in 98 actioned rifles could be too much for the 93 and 95 actions.If a Spanish action is in very good to excellent mechanical condition it should hold up to M80 Ball but might not hold up to very many rounds of M118 Special ball.If I had one of these in 7.62 I'd use handloads only. No reason these would not hold up to sane Cast Boolit loads.If the bolt becomes a bit difficult to rotate after firing there may be serious set back inside the receiver ring. This can only get worse and either render the action unuseable or cause excessive headspace.

[WILCO]

Looking at purchasing one of these for shooting cast only. Any comments or experiences?



Link to article: http://www.masterton.us/GAM1916_Article.gif

Do the research. Purchase one and be happy. You won't regret it.

[Larry Gibson]

The CETME 7.62 was downloaded because the CETME did not originally have the fluted chamber of the later HK rifles. Lower pressure allowed easier extraction.M80 Ball has an average working pressure of 48,000 CUP so its pressure is not much greater than that of the 7mm Mauser, even some DWM 7mm cartridges intended for use in 98 actioned rifles could be too much for the 93 and 95 actions.If a Spanish action is in very good to excellent mechanical condition it should hold up to M80 Ball but might not hold up to very many rounds of M118 Special ball.If I had one of these in 7.62 I'd use handloads only. No reason these would not hold up to sane Cast Boolit loads.If the bolt becomes a bit difficult to rotate after firing there may be serious set back inside the receiver ring. This can only get worse and either render the action unuseable or cause excessive headspace.

+1 on multigunner's post. Having measured the psi of numerous milsurp 7x57 cartridges dating back to 1918 and numerous US and foreign 7.62 NATO M80 cartridges I found the 7x47 and M80 psi's to overlap, Surprisingly to many most commercial .308W also overlaps that milsurp psi range. However, M118 Special Ball is definitely loaded to higher psi and I do not recommend that in the FR7s, M1916s, M95s or any other SR Mauser rebarreled to 7.62 NATO.

Larry Gibson

[roverboy]

I've owned one of these for at least 20 years and have shot factory Federal 150 gr. ammo and lots of handloads with no problem at all. Its killed about 25 deer so far.

[John 242]

According to my research, Spanish-American War era 7x57 ammo as manufactured by the French and the Germans, had a average pressure between 48,000 to 50,000 CUP. This is according to testing conducted by US Army Ordnance after the Spanish-American War.
http://books.google.com/books?id=YgFHAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA179#v=onepage&q&f=false

Although I don't have a citation to back it up, I also understand that the proof loads were approximately 61,500 CUP (yes, CUP not PSI)


The CETME Rifles and Cartridges-

The CETME (Centro de Estudios Tecnicos de Materiales Especiales) rifle was a post-war development of the German StG 45(M) (also known as the Gerat 06) "Sturmgewehr" assault rifle. Ludwig Vorgrimler, a former employee of Mauser Werke, had been hired by the Spanish firm and the resulting design reflected the delayed blow-back system of operation that had originated during the war.

The CETME cartridge was a development of the 7.9x33. The Spanish modified the German cartridge and created the 7.92x40. Their intent, similar to the Germans, was to design an intermediate cartridge that would be controllable when fired from a fully-automatic, shoulder fired rifle. Several prototype CETME rifles were designed to fire the 7.92x40 and the German Government expressed some interest. However, with NATO's adoption of its 7.62 cartridge, the prospects of foreign sales came to an end.

The Spanish, with some coaxing by the German Bundesgrenzschutz, began working on a reduced power 7.62 cartridge that shared the same dimensions of the 7.62 NATO, but still maintained the control-ability of the 7.92x40. Thus in 1957, the lighter recoiling 7.62 CETME was developed for the select fire Model A "assault" rifle, which was adopted by the Spanish military (in small numbers?)

Improvements were made to the Model A, with input from Heckler & Koch, resulting in the adoption Model B in 1958 (also known as the Model 58). It could fire both the CETME and NATO cartridges by swapping out the bolt carrier group. In other words, the design was fully capable of handling the higher powered NATO cartridge. In January, 1959 a variation of the CETME rifle, chambered in 7.62 NATO, was adopted by the German Bundeswehr as the G-3.

Only six years later, in 1964, the Model C was adopted by the Spanish military. This rifle was designed to fire only the 7.62 NATO cartridge and there was no provision made to use the less powerful CETME round. The Model C and its variants would serve with the Spanish military until the adoption of the Model L, chambered in 5.56 NATO, during the 1980s.





http://personales.jet.es/rafa/e_spsteel_cetme.html
http://world.guns.ru/assault/sp/cetme-mod-a-b-195-c-e.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G3

[Larry Gibson]

Don't confuse the "CETME" cartridge developed from the 7.9x33 with the "CETME" cartridge actually used in the CETME rifles for a while with unfluted chambers. The original cartridge is a short cartridge that was not put into production or used other than in initial tests. The CETME rifle was modified before production to use the 7.62 NATO cartridge. The "CETME" cartridge used was simply a down loaded 7.62 NATO in the standard 7.62 NATO case so the CETME rifle w/o a fluted chamber would extract and function reliably. Once they figured out the fluted chambers would allow use of the full powered 7.62 NATO cartridge the 7.62 NATO "CETME" cartridge was discontinued, the CETME rifles recalled and the chambers fluted and all further production of CETME rifles had/have fluted chambers.

Larry Gibson

[John 242]

A great write up on the development of the CETME rifle and cartridge by poster "Perro Del Diablo" His posts continue over the three pages of the thread and he includes some source information. Unfortunately, in order to view the images you have to be a registered member (I am not) and I believe that the source material is in Spanish.

http://www.militaryfirearm.com/Forum/showthread.php?22541-Information-Request-on-CETME-Ammunition-Chamberings-and-Evolution-Towards-7-62-NATO

[Dutchman]

1893 not 1895 for Spanish Mausers. 1895 Mausers have a 3rd smi-locking lug behind the receiver


And that "3rd smi-locking lug behind the receiver" is really an anti-bind bolt guide.

Escuse' por favor esplain for to me senor.... No comprende'... anti-bind bolt guide?

http://images116.fotki.com/v700/photos/4/28344/8217713/95notch-vi.jpg

http://images61.fotki.com/v432/photos/4/28344/8217713/95notch2-vi.jpg

From Ludwig Olsen Mauser Bolt Rifles:

page 78: "Another feature of the Chilean Model 95 action was a shoulder on the receiver a few thousanths of an inch behind the bolt handle. The bolt handle would engage this shoulder and serve as a safety lug if the locking lugs would let go. Also, the side of the extractor contacts the shoulder when the bolt is retracted, and this helps reduce sideward bolt wobble."

Is this what thee speaketh of?

[Larry Gibson]

That is correct, thanks Dutch for explaining it better than I did.

Too bad you don't quote Hatcher as well or as complete.......:kidding: :bigsmyl2:

Larry Gibson

[Safeshot]

I would recommend going with a M98 Mauser and never looking back. It is a "safer" action and will always be worth more. The 8mm Mauser is good for cast bullets as well. Just my opinion.

[dabsond]

I have a k98 that i shoot cast out of. Just looking for something different.

[Multigunner]

According to my research, Spanish-American War era 7x57 ammo as manufactured by the French and the Germans, had a average pressure between 48,000 to 50,000 CUP. This is according to testing conducted by US Army Ordnance after the Spanish-American War.
http://books.google.com/books?id=YgF...page&q&f=false

Although I don't have a citation to back it up, I also understand that the proof loads were approximately 61,500 CUP (yes, CUP not PSI)


First off, thank you John for finding this book. I'm deep into studying early cartridge development.
Theres a lot to be found in official reports to Congressional commitees and to the Chief of Ordnance.

Not sure when the Springfield Arsenal switched to the copper crusher pressure guns. They continued well into smokeless powder days to use the older method that used a wedge shaped blade that was driven by a piston to cut a progressly deeper notch in a block of copper alloy as pressure in the chamber went up. I'll be reading your linked book intently.
The U S also ran some tests on the effects of greased cartridges on bolt thrust using the British base crusher guns to check their results.
The Germans normally proofed the 7mm and 8mm J rifles at 58,000 CUP, using the copper crusher gun developed by the French and later adopted by the US. The proof test pressure was expressed in metric atmospheres. This sometimes leads to confusion because the powder charge of the proof cartridge weighed the same as the service charge, but was of a powder formulated to mimic age and tropic climate degraded powder.

Early testing of the British .303 was also done using the French designed Copper Crusher gun.

The modern day British milspec proof test for the 7.62 NATO weapons is 75,000 CUP. They had used a much lower proof test pressure for No.4 rifles converted to 7.62 NATO. Those converted rifles must now be reproofed at the higher standard if they are to be used on NRA UK ranges with cartridges generating more than the 53,000 CUP maximum deviation pressure of M80 Ball which normally generates only 48,000 CUP.

The U S Army has a "HPT" (High Pressure Test) cartridge which is not a Proof test cartridge per se' ,it generates 64,000 to 68,000 CUP. I think these are for test firing repaired weapons or MGs after barrel swaps.

[357maximum]

I have a k98 that i shoot cast out of. Just looking for something different.

I like my 308 Spaniard Sporter with a peeper sight and Boyds stock. It is as accurate as I am without a scope and it just feels good to use it. I have shot a few factory REM j-words through it and it did not kill me dead, but I do not load it to full potential for the 308 case either. I call it my 307Rimless Rigby Rifle. It is just a fun gun to beat on rocks and steel with.

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l80/357maximum/308spaniard004_zps9c0f4eac.jpg (http://s93.photobucket.com/user/357maximum/media/308spaniard004_zps9c0f4eac.jpg.html)

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l80/357maximum/308spaniard003_zps3c9314bd.jpg (http://s93.photobucket.com/user/357maximum/media/308spaniard003_zps3c9314bd.jpg.html)

[Multigunner]

PS
To my last post. My edit buttons don't work so I'm correcting the following statement here.

The modern day British milspec proof test for the 7.62 NATO weapons is 75,000 CUP.

That should read 75,000 PSI EPVAT

[Larry Gibson]

PS
To my last post. My edit buttons don't work so I'm correcting the following statement here.


That should read 75,000 PSI EPVAT

And that PSI is with a transducer which is a lot different than the older CUP pressures also listed in your post. FYI only.

Larry Gibson

[Multigunner]

And that PSI is with a transducer which is a lot different than the older CUP pressures also listed in your post. FYI only.

I know, thats why I made the correction. PSI EPVAT figures are higher than corresponding CUP figures.
Theres no direct correlation between CUP and Transducer obtained PSI figures. For some cartridges like the .30 Carbine the figures are the same by either method. It gets confusing at times.
CUP pressures can also differ acording to where the vent for the piston is located in relation to the case body or case mouth. When the British used the CUP method in the late 19th-early 20th century the vent was located about halfway up the case body. Some locate the vent at the case mouth.
Only real way to compare pressures is if only one certain method is used.

[Larry Gibson]

Only real way to compare pressures is if only one certain method is used.

Exactly why I spent the $s to be able to measure pressures. Must be because I am "cheap", eh............

Larry Gibson

[WILCO]

Link to article: http://www.masterton.us/GAM1916_Article.gif

Do the research. Purchase one and be happy. You won't regret it.

I repeat myself for your benefit.