Spanish1916 308

[flinter62]

Just a heads up ! Check that reciever for Cracks!!! This was after I shot it with some light cast loads.Discovered this when i took apart to sporterize.Good thing i didn't use full power load who knows what might have happened or when.Anybody need parts? Flinter

[Buckshot]

"Anybody need parts? Flinter "

............A parts gun now, eh :-) One of the officers in the dept where my daughter works asked her to bring a 1917 Enfield sporter to me to check out. It wasn't a recent conversion. Had nice wood, and was wearing a Leupold scope. Just above the wood line in the action ring was a nice big crack. It was chambered in 340 Weatherby Mag, and he'd included a new box of ammo with it to try out.

After notifying him he asked me to remove and return the the scope and mount, and I could have the rifle. Since 45Nut is Enfield poor I gave the barrel to him, and stripped the rest of the rifle for parts. BTW, it was an Eddystone action.

.................Buckshot

[NoDakJak]

I rest my case! Neil

[Bret4207]

Good advice. Goes for ANY used gun, not just old ratty Mausers.

[Doug Bowser]

The 1916 Mauser was not made for use with .308 Win ammo. The max pressure for the rifle is about 44,000 psi. If you are lucky, the action will stretch and all you would get is a case head separation. Or maybe KA-BOOM!!!!!!!!!!

Doug Bowser

[bruce drake]

Flinter,

if the barrel is still in good condition (small ring I assume) put the 308 barrel on a Turk Mauser that is Large Ring in receiver size but is threaded for the Small Ring Mauser barrels. You'll have Large Ring safety and still be able to shoot your 7.62 NATO loads(please note I didn't say 308 Winchester)

Sorry to hear about the loss of the spanish reciever. Most Spanish Mausers I get I rebarrel back to 7mm. It's the original chambering the rifle was designed for and won't stress the rifle unduly.

Bruce

[Doc1]

I own a 1916 Spanish Short Rifle that was arsenal rechambered for 7.62x51 NATO. They were originally chambered for 7x57 Mauser. These old rifles are based on '93 pattern actions and were tested for safety with 7.62 by the Spaniards. Interestingly, the later FR-7 conversions were based on the same action. I think it's *pretty* safe rifle, but there are a few things to bear in mind...both good and bad.

* The '93 is a small ring two lug action. Doug Bowser is correct that it's basically a 44,000 PSI action and its gas safety leaves a bit to be desired when compared to an M98 action.
* The Spanish government did these conversion, not some backyard bubba and they were tested and designed to handle 7.62 Nato pressures of around 52,000 psi acceptably. .308 Win is NOT the same round and some .308 pressures can go much higher. Be warned!
* The Spaniards did not convert the 1916s to fire the lower-powered CETME round. It was designed for 7.62 NATO.
* I have a copy of the Original Gun Tests article and their reference to the HP White Laboratories tests of the 1916. They were tested to pressures of over 90,000 psi before failure.
* The 1916s and FR-7s were designed for rear eschelon troops while Spain was in the process of converting to the CETME as their MBR and one might suppose that they weren't expected to see very heavy use.
* I have fired (with certain safety protocols in place) very hot 7.62 in mine - as a test - without the slightest indication of trouble.

Having said these things, I consider the '93 action to be an iffy choice for 7.62. I really like my 1916 and think it's a well made and handy old carbine, but I reserve it for CB loads and mild(ish) jacketed hand loads. I just don't see any point in pushing ones luck. Besides, I have other, better and stronger .308s.

The Spanish FR-8 is a whole 'nother kettle of fish! That rifle, while very similar-looking to an FR-7, was converted to 7.62 NATO from Spanish Mauser M43 actions. The M43 was Spains' version of the K98 Mauser in the WWII era and was originally chambered in 7.92x57 (8mm Mauser).

I own an FR-8 and it is one of my favorite rifles. I have every confidence in its ability to handle 7.62 NATO OR any commercial .308 loads. The large ring M98 action is easily up to .308 pressures and in both my 1916 and FR-8 the chambers are surprisingly tight for .mil rifles and have no headspace issues. I have no idea if that's representative of the breed or if I just happened to luckily get a couple of tight examples!

I acquired both of these rifles from private sellers at different gun shows, the 1916 for $100 and the FR-8 for $200 and have no regrets about either.

As far as cracked receivers go, I think any old rifles should be checked out carefully before use, but I doubt if Spanish receivers are more liable to cracking than others. Some say that Spanish Mauser steel tends to be softer than other examples. I don't know if that's true, but would observe that softer steel should be less likely to crack than brittle steel. Soft steel might be more liable to stretch and cause headspace trouble, but I'd think catastrophic failures would be more likely with brittle receivers, like the problematic early production 1903 Springfields.

Best regards
Doc

[Uncle Grinch]

Flinter,

if the barrel is still in good condition (small ring I assume) put the 308 barrel on a Turk Mauser that is Large Ring in receiver size but is threaded for the Small Ring Mauser barrels. You'll have Large Ring safety and still be able to shoot your 7.62 NATO loads(please note I didn't say 308 Winchester)

Sorry to hear about the loss of the spanish reciever. Most Spanish Mausers I get I rebarrel back to 7mm. It's the original chambering the rifle was designed for and won't stress the rifle unduly.

Bruce

Bruce,

I like your idea and wonder why I never thought of robbing the barrel of my '93 Mauser for the '98 Turk action I have. My Spanish .308 has been sitting in my gun safe for many years without much use. I picked it up when they were fairly inexpensive, but never shot it much because I don't particularly care for the cock on closing action.

I want to build a .308 cast boolit rifle with peep sights, but want to keep it basically military style. This should be an affordable build as I have all the parts already.

Thanks for the idea!

Mike

[bruce drake]

Glad to help.

I've got almost same setup. A K. Kale/98 Turk Mauser action with a 26" Wilson Small Ring barrel in 308 Winchester. I've got Lyman Target sights installed and I shoot cast loads at 200yards with it at my local Highppower Rifle Matches. I find that the universal 13gr Unique pushing LEE's 155gr SKS Spitzer Gaschecked Bullet sized to .310 and lubed with LARS RED more than accurate for me.

Bruce

[Doug Bowser]

Quote Doc1

I own a 1916 Spanish Short Rifle that was arsenal rechambered for 7.62x51 NATO. They were originally chambered for 7x57 Mauser. These old rifles are based on '93 pattern actions and were tested for safety with 7.62 by the Spaniards. Interestingly, the later FR-7 conversions were based on the same action. I think it's *pretty* safe rifle, but there are a few things to bear in mind...both good and bad.

It is a misnomer that the Spanish Mauser rifles are rechambered for the 7.62x51 NATO. They are chambered for the dimensionally idetntical 7.62 CETME. The CETME round is loaded at about 45,000 PSI. I believe the FR-8 is OK for 7.62x51 NATO rounds but the FR-8 and the 1916 short rifle are not.

[Uncle Grinch]

Glad to help.

I've got almost same setup. A K. Kale/98 Turk Mauser action with a 26" Wilson Small Ring barrel in 308 Winchester. I've got Lyman Target sights installed and I shoot cast loads at 200yards with it at my local Highppower Rifle Matches. I find that the universal 13gr Unique pushing LEE's 155gr SKS Spitzer Gaschecked Bullet sized to .310 and lubed with LARS RED more than accurate for me.

Bruce


Sounds like a sweet set-up. I actually priced my K.Kale out using a commercial barrel with Lyman globe front sight and Williams FP rear. It was too expensive for my taste.

Mike

[bruce drake]

I did the work myself. Most expensive part was the barrel. Working on Mausers is pretty straightforward compared to other rifles. Savage rifles are the only rifle easier to mess with.

Bruce

[Larry Gibson]

Doug Bowser

"It is a misnomer that the Spanish Mauser rifles are rechambered for the 7.62x51 NATO. They are chambered for the dimensionally idetntical 7.62 CETME. The CETME round is loaded at about 45,000 PSI. I believe the FR-8 is OK for 7.62x51 NATO rounds but the FR-8 and the 1916 short rifle are not."

Doc1 is correct and you are incorrect. The Spanish manual for these rifle definately states they are for 7.62 NATO. The CETMA round was a stop gap round for the CETMEs to ensure reliable functioning. The Germans solved the dilema by fluting the chambers and the 7.62 CETMA round went away before the FR7, M1916s and the FR8s were made. The manua also says that the CETMA cartridge may be used.

For what it's worth when the Mausers were designed and manufactured by the Mauser brothers they did not deal in "psi" or "C.U.P.". They dealt in "atmospheres". The SR actions were designed to withstand service loads of 4,000+ atmospheres. A conversion shows 4000 atmosheres to be 58,700 psi. I've managed to pressure test 3 different lots of 7x57 milsurp ammunition made prior to 1950. All fo them have MAPs from 53,000 upo through 58,000 psi(M43).

Those of us with SRs in 7x57 have been blissfully blasing away with such milsurp amm under the misconception that it was 44-45,000 psi as we've always thought. FYI; All 7.62 NATO M80 ball that I have tested has had MAPs under 56,000 psi(M43). What you think your doing is many times not really what you are doing. I think the Spanish knew what they were doing when they rebarreled those rifles. However the owners of such rifles need to make their own choices on what to shoot in them.

Larry Gibson

[Bret4207]

* The '93 is a small ring two lug action. Doug Bowser is correct that it's basically a 44,000 PSI action and its gas safety leaves a bit to be desired when compared to an M98 action.


I've been seeing this for years. Long story short- If we're going to call the '98 a 3 lug action then I say it's actually a 4 lug and the '93/'95 are 3 luggers. Why? I have never seen a 98 where the 3rd lug actually bears consistently to act as a lug. Everyone I've ever taken the time to look at shows little if any actual bearing. So if you're going to call that a lug you may as well call the bolt handle a lug too, which makes 4 lugs, and gives the '93/'95 3 lugs. The 3rd lug in a 98 has always been called the "safety lug". That may well be what it was intended for, but I've never seen one that showed signs of bearing unless the bolt was lapped or set back enough to bear.

If anyone else has ever looked into this I'd be interested in seeing pics of 3rd lugs that bear from the maker.

[Bret4207]

Doug Bowser

"It is a misnomer that the Spanish Mauser rifles are rechambered for the 7.62x51 NATO. They are chambered for the dimensionally idetntical 7.62 CETME. The CETME round is loaded at about 45,000 PSI. I believe the FR-8 is OK for 7.62x51 NATO rounds but the FR-8 and the 1916 short rifle are not."

Doc1 is correct and you are incorrect. The Spanish manual for these rifle definately states they are for 7.62 NATO. The CETMA round was a stop gap round for the CETMEs to ensure reliable functioning. The Germans solved the dilema by fluting the chambers and the 7.62 CETMA round went away before the FR7, M1916s and the FR8s were made. The manua also says that the CETMA cartridge may be used.

For what it's worth when the Mausers were designed and manufactured by the Mauser brothers they did not deal in "psi" or "C.U.P.". They dealt in "atmospheres". The SR actions were designed to withstand service loads of 4,000+ atmospheres. A conversion shows 4000 atmosheres to be 58,700 psi. I've managed to pressure test 3 different lots of 7x57 milsurp ammunition made prior to 1950. All fo them have MAPs from 53,000 upo through 58,000 psi(M43).

Those of us with SRs in 7x57 have been blissfully blasing away with such milsurp amm under the misconception that it was 44-45,000 psi as we've always thought. FYI; All 7.62 NATO M80 ball that I have tested has had MAPs under 56,000 psi(M43). What you think your doing is many times not really what you are doing. I think the Spanish knew what they were doing when they rebarreled those rifles. However the owners of such rifles need to make their own choices on what to shoot in them.

Larry Gibson

I said the same thing on another board and was eviscerated by a somewhat well known gun writer. I love it.

[Doc1]

I've been seeing this for years. Long story short- If we're going to call the '98 a 3 lug action then I say it's actually a 4 lug and the '93/'95 are 3 luggers. Why? I have never seen a 98 where the 3rd lug actually bears consistently to act as a lug. Everyone I've ever taken the time to look at shows little if any actual bearing. So if you're going to call that a lug you may as well call the bolt handle a lug too, which makes 4 lugs, and gives the '93/'95 3 lugs. The 3rd lug in a 98 has always been called the "safety lug". That may well be what it was intended for, but I've never seen one that showed signs of bearing unless the bolt was lapped or set back enough to bear.

If anyone else has ever looked into this I'd be interested in seeing pics of 3rd lugs that bear from the maker.

Bret,

I understand this. You are of course correct that on an M98 action only two lugs are actually bearing surfaces and the third lug is a "safety" lug which should not bear on the receiver. I was only using the commonly accepted nomenclature for the M93 and 95 actions.

Nonetheless, I think the M98 actions are stronger and safer and their gas venting technology is of a higher standard. I only have two mausers in 7.62 NATO (though I own other .308 rifles); my 1916 and my FR8. My personal preference for shooting the hotter stuff is to use my FR8. Not only do I think it's a bit safer, but its peep sights are easier on these old eyes ;-)

FWIW, I think the 1916 rifles have an undeserved bad rep. I've read all the gunboard lore but have yet to see a real example of a cratered 1916. Somewhere on another thread is an example of a Swiss K31 that suffered catastrophic failure, yet the Swiss rifles enjoy a superb reputation. Go figure...

Larry Gibson,

Thank you for reinforcing my post. It's VERY interesting that you got those pressure results on surplus 7x57!

Best regards
Doc

[Larry Gibson]

Doc1

Actually I was just plumb amazed with the 7x57 pressures! I picked up a dandy little M95 Chilean that was sporterised some years back. It is in excellent condition with an excellent bore (22"). I further converted it to cock on opening and put a nice Redfield reciever sight on it. I pick up about 500-600 rounds of "PS 1950" 7x57 at the same gun show. I shot most of that up over the intervening years (154 FMJBY over 39 gr German type flake powder, 2442 fps with 3 moa). When I got the M43 Oehler PBL I installed a strain gauge on the little M95. Hornady Light magnum 139 SPBTs were running 2624 fps at 44,200 psi. The "classic" reload of the 175 Horndy RN over 4831 ran 2405 at 51,800 psi. I then tested the last 10 rounds of the PS 1950. It ran 2445 with a MAP of 59,400 psi! The high pressure peak was 61,500 psi! I've conducted further tests on 2 other lots of milsurp 7x57 as previously mentioned. I also am working up other loads.

I thought WOW! So much for 44-45,000 psi only! Actually the 44-45,000 psi was based on C.U.P. Current MAP (SAAMI) is 51,500 psi and C.I.P. (Eurpoes SAAMI) is 57,000 psi. Some will say that is for use in "modern" actions only but such is not the case. Those figures are MAPs for production ammuntion, some of which is expected to be shot in older SR actions.

Larry Gibson

BTW; regards the "safety lug", the "lug" behind the bolt handle on M95s is not a safety lug. It is actually a bolt guide to prevent the M95 bolts from binding like the M93s. Note how in keeps the bolt from being pushed too far to the right. Even if one were to think of it as a "safety lug" if you look at the size of it it sure isn't much for "safety". It is an anti bind bolt guide. Older literature on SRs point that out.

[Doc1]

Some readers might find this interesting.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/Jungesblut/Stuff/M1916GC6in.jpg

Best regards
Doc

[Bret4207]

BTW; regards the "safety lug", the "lug" behind the bolt handle on M95s is not a safety lug. It is actually a bolt guide to prevent the M95 bolts from binding like the M93s. Note how in keeps the bolt from being pushed too far to the right. Even if one were to think of it as a "safety lug" if you look at the size of it it sure isn't much for "safety". It is an anti bind bolt guide. Older literature on SRs point that out.

Larry I was referring to the bolt handle itself as the 3rd "lug". I know it isn't and hadn't even considered that little nub as a lug. I was just pointing out the oddity, to me at least, of the praise lavished on the 98 due to that 3rd "lug". To me the praise for the 98 should be on the metallurgy and heat treatment, not a dinky non-bearing "lug". I've no issue with any Mauser given sane loads and proper care. I own and shoot a '91, '93, '96, and several 98's both commercial and military. All have given me complete satisfaction within their capabilities. I think a lot of the "urban legend" surrounding the various Mausers has been juiced a bit through the years.

[Larry Gibson]

My bad Bret, I misunderstood. I've "enjoyed" a discusion or two regarding this topic on other Forums also.

Larry Gibson

[Dutchman]

The Mauser Bolt Actions
M91 through M98
A Shop Manual
by Jerry Kuhnhausen

page 8:

Most M93 Spanish rifles were converted to 7.9mm before, or during, WWII.
Many Spanish M93 short rifles and M95 carbines were later rebarreled and
chambered to fire the 7.62 CETME cartridge and were redesigned as 1916
Models. Large quantities of these M93/M95 to M1916 7.62 CETME conversions
have been imported into the U.S. and several other countries. The 7.62 CETME
cartridge generates a much lower gas pressure than the 7.62x51 NATO or
.308 Winchester cartridges. See caution on page 85.

page 85:

A slightly different subject having to do with chambers and cartridges is the
strength limitation of the small ring M91-96 Mauser actions and Spanish-made
small ring M93 and M95 Mauser actions in particular. Mauser M91~M96 actions,
even in fully serviceable or in as-new condition, must not be barreled and
chambered for, or fired with, higher pressure cartridges than the action
was originally made for. An example of stretching this rule is found in the
arsenal rebarreling and chambering of the M93/M95 small ring Spanish
Mauser actions to fire the 7.62mm CETME cartridge. The M93/M95 actions
used were originally made for lower pressure 7x57mm cartridge. 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 to 42,000 CUP range in a correctly
dimensioned chamber and bore.

To compound the above, a 7.62x51mm NATO (or .308 Winchester)
cartridge will chamber in a 1916 Model 7.62mm CETME chamber.
However, a 7.62mm NATO or .308 Winchester cartridge can generate
pressures of 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 particularly dangerous in
the much softer Spanish made actions. A lot of Spanish made M93
and M95 Mausers are still around that are chambered for the 7x57mm
cartridge. Due to the known softness of the Spanish made Mauser actions
and limited receiver/barrel thread bearing area, etc., most manufacturers
of 7x57 Mauser ammunition restrict operating pressures as close to
37,000 CUP as possible as a safety factor.
[end of quote]

[Doug Bowser]

Thank you Dutchman for clarifying basically what I said in my earlier post.

I once had an 1893 Spanish Mauser rifle in 7x57mm. The headspace checked out AOK. The locking lug recesses had set back so far that when it was fired with normal 7x57 ammo, you had to beat the action open to extract the cartridge. The idea that the Spanish Government knew what they were doing could get you hurt.






The Mauser Bolt Actions
M91 through M98
A Shop Manual
by Jerry Kuhnhausen

page 8:

Most M93 Spanish rifles were converted to 7.9mm before, or during, WWII.
Many Spanish M93 short rifles and M95 carbines were later rebarreled and
chambered to fire the 7.62 CETME cartridge and were redesigned as 1916
Models. Large quantities of these M93/M95 to M1916 7.62 CETME conversions
have been imported into the U.S. and several other countries. The 7.62 CETME
cartridge generates a much lower gas pressure than the 7.62x51 NATO or
.308 Winchester cartridges. See caution on page 85.

page 85:

A slightly different subject having to do with chambers and cartridges is the
strength limitation of the small ring M91-96 Mauser actions and Spanish-made
small ring M93 and M95 Mauser actions in particular. Mauser M91~M96 actions,
even in fully serviceable or in as-new condition, must not be barreled and
chambered for, or fired with, higher pressure cartridges than the action
was originally made for. An example of stretching this rule is found in the
arsenal rebarreling and chambering of the M93/M95 small ring Spanish
Mauser actions to fire the 7.62mm CETME cartridge. The M93/M95 actions
used were originally made for lower pressure 7x57mm cartridge. 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 to 42,000 CUP range in a correctly
dimensioned chamber and bore.

To compound the above, a 7.62x51mm NATO (or .308 Winchester)
cartridge will chamber in a 1916 Model 7.62mm CETME chamber.
However, a 7.62mm NATO or .308 Winchester cartridge can generate
pressures of 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 particularly dangerous in
the much softer Spanish made actions. A lot of Spanish made M93
and M95 Mausers are still around that are chambered for the 7x57mm
cartridge. Due to the known softness of the Spanish made Mauser actions
and limited receiver/barrel thread bearing area, etc., most manufacturers
of 7x57 Mauser ammunition restrict operating pressures as close to
37,000 CUP as possible as a safety factor.
[end of quote]

[Junior1942]

Re: high pressure surplus ammo. When I bought my Turk 38s I also bought a case of surplus Turk 8x57 ammo. Every 10th round or so gave me a smoked primer. Gas escaped from around the primers. No pierced primers, just leakage. I stopped firing the stuff and started pulling bullets and measuring. Powder charges varied 10%. Bullet diameters varied .003". Bullet weights varied 5 grs, IIRC. A bullet of the proper .323" diameter would be overweight due to the lead core protruding slightly at the base. So if a round happened to be both overcharged and loaded with an overweight bullet or over diameter bullet . . . look out!

In other words, my case of surplus ammo was no bargain, and yours might not be a bargain either.

[Bret4207]

Re the Kuhnhausen quotes- As much as I enjoy his books I have to say this: There has been so much misinformation, incorrectly drawn conclusions, plain wrong answers repeated over and over, and misunderstood interpretations through the years that I don't take anything as gospel unless it comes from a contemporary first hand source or some one like Ludwig Olsen. I've heard so much conflicting information, especially since the 'net became popular, that I hesitate to put any stock in any so called "correct" information. Just because something makes sense, seems logical and is backed by numerous claims from several sources doesn't mean it's true. In this case without having first hand access to Spanish factory paperwork detailing exactly what was done and why and when we're stuck with using common sense and a good dose of caution in dealing with these rifles. On CETME issue alone I've seen at least 3 or 4 different explainations and outlines of just what the whole story was. Same for the 7.5 Swiss, M-N rifles, the 32 Special, 44 Special, Carcanos, Arisakas, low numbered Springfields and Ross rifles.

My point is that while I agree the Spansih Mausers, along with the Argentine Mausers and most Mausers in general, tend to lean towards the soft side instead of brittle, that doens't mean they are "unsafe" when used properly. In the late 80's/early 90's the Kimber Rifle company kept afloat by taking Swede Mausers and sporterizing them in calibers like the 22-250! While I personally wouldn't use a '93/'95/'96 for a 22-250, 243, 308 or other similar cartridge I can't help but think of that ratty old '93 Spanish Mauser I've been using for 30 years with no issue at all. Mind you that particular rifle has digested a lot of Norma factory 7x57 ammo ( We had a bunch of it at the shop and no one else had a 7x57 hee,hee, hee!) without a hiccup. It loves 160 gr jacketed at 25-2600fps, kinda warm for a 7x57. No set back, no gas issues, fine accuracy, no cracks. OTH I have an '09 Argentine that is as soft as butter, that dented when it fell over in the rack, that has some set back you can feel working the bolt. Now the '09 is considered a fine action and the bottom metal alone used to bring a premium. I think is what has led me to take each rifle as an individual case and to use my best judgement in all cases.

This is just my opinon and worth just what you paid for it.

[Bob S]

Regardless of what all the American Scribes and Pharisees say, the original Spanish manual for the rifle very clearly states that the chambering is 7.62 NATO. And if I can find the darn thing I'll post a scan.

I'm not saying that I would fire 7.62 NATO or factory .308 in one (I would not), but clearly that was the Spanish intent. The Chileans intended their sleeved M1895 to fire 7.62 NATO, but I wouldn't fire any factory ammunition in one of those, either.

Resp'y,
Bob

[Larry Gibson]

I'll post it. I also heartily agree with Bret, Kuhnhausens books are nice but he obviously had a lawyer rewrite them to cover his butt. He in many instances rejects several conversions that have been done for years quite safely. He also is contrary to the older more comple Mauser publications. Like reloading manuals, I take his book as a decent reference but not as gospel.

The Spanish should have known what they were doing. Let us also remember that there wer German engineers running their armement programs back then. The CETME was designed and the manufacture suppervised by such German engineers. The CETME design was moved to Germany (when we allowed them to begin arms manufacture again after WWII) and became H&K rifle. Anyways below is posted the Spanish manual for the FR7/8 and the M1916. Note it says "7.62 NATO" on the cover. It does not say 7.62 CETME". Kuhnhausen was just reiterating urban legend.

If you hables espanol you can read that the rifles are to be used with 7.62 NATO. They also list the CETME cartridge in the manual as an "also can be used". That is from the horses mouth so to speak. I still leave it up to the owner of such a rifle to shoot what he thinks is appropriate but the manual and HP white's test are pretty conclusive about what the rifle is intended for.

Larry Gibson

[Dutchman]

It is disheartening to see otherwise intelligent shooters & handloaders throwing caution to the wind. I use that idiom because it fits well and because it provides an opposite to: err on the side of caution.

Two opposing perspectives. Which one will get you killed or maimed?

For those who are inexperienced or otherwise newbies to this world of vintage and antique firearms there can be only one prudent decision. Another good word: prudence. The opposite being imprudent. These are the core issues here. There is no sin in exercising caution. Cemeteries are full of people who dearly departed prematurely and failed to heed cautionary advise. Ask yourself, who will support my family?

Is this kind of caution justified? Do you feel lucky? (well, do ya....?).

There have been too many shooters killed when rifles let go. Some should have known better. Some didn't know better. Some were accidents. Some were accidents waiting to happen.

I've already had a visit from the Grim One. There is only one degree of dead. Laying on a gurney in the ER isn't the place to argue for life. Its the place to bid farewell to life. Most catastrophic firearms failures don't make it to the ER. They bleed to death at the shooting range.

The bottom line seems to be those imprudent newbies who want to shoot a three-O-eight but are too cheap to buy a safe rifle. So they buy the 1893/16 and read all about it on the internet. Lots of gamblers out there spurring on the newbies to take the chance [with their lives].

If you want a milsurp three-O-eight Mauser then make dang sure you get a 98 Mauser action like the Chilean Steyr 1912 Mauser. Strong and safe. Or an Israeli K98k or FN Israeli Mauser. Strong and safe.

1895 Chilean 7.62 Nato conversion:
http://dutchman.rebooty.com/1895Chile.html

Cautions on loading the Swedish rolling block - 8x58R Danish:
http://dutchman.rebooty.com/8x58rd.html

Be sure to send flowers for the grave of the ******* in Sweden who shot his rolling block with the wrong ammo. Took him 3 days to die.
http://dutchman.rebooty.com/RBfailure.html

Err on the side of caution.


Dutch

[Doc1]

Dutch,

I'm brand new here (but am - sigh - an old shooter) and certainly don't want to get off on the wrong foot, but I haven't seen anyone on this thread "throwing caution to the wind" or recommending anything dangerous. Those inferences are a bit on the insulting side, doncha think?

In fact, in my post I specifically said I reserve my 1916 for CBs and mild jacketed loads. Reading the thread, it looks like everyone else who "defended" the 1916s in any fashion did so with a large dollop of caution, i.e. suggesting light loads, extra care, etc. This is old iron of an old design and should be treated accordingly.

I will offer that over time I've seen a whole lot of erroneous information posted about the 1916 .308 conversions. I posted a link to the old Guns & Ammo test (with reference to the H.P White lab tests) and Larry Gibson posted the original Spanish manual. They all say 7.62 NATO. Period. End of story as far as the recurring myth about being chambered for the lower-pressure, prototype CETME round.

It's not dangerous or irresponsible to reference factual data.

You posted links to three different examples of catastrophic failures. Two of them weren't even .308s and one was a different .308 conversion. None were 1916 SRs. What - exactly - does this prove? Guns are dangerous, might explode and we should stop shooting?

Anything can be dangerous if used dangerously. Can we agree on that? I'm an old guy. I got here in part through luck and the grace of God...and in part through being safe ;-)

Best regards
Doc

[Larry Gibson]

Dutchman

Have heard the "doom and gloom" too many times. As Doc said anybody can be stupid and shoot the wrong ammo in the wrong rifle. I've seen examples of just about every kind of action old and new, strong and weak blown up by carelessness. I've yet to see anyone in or on a hospital guerney or bleed to death on a firing range from shooting a M1916 with the prescribed 7.62 NATO ammo. I have seen several dumb asses bleed a lot from shooting the wrong ammo (caliber or reload) through what are normally considered very strong actions.

No one here "threw caution to the wind". Not only did Doc make a cautionary statement but I made two of them, the last being "I still leave it up to the owner of such a rifle to shoot what he thinks is appropriate".

Doc is also correct that all we have done is post facts and I agree with Doc's "It's not dangerous or irresponsible to reference factual data." Your inference that to mention those facts is irresponsible is indeed insulting. And please, if you are going to 'doom and gloom" us again be so kind as to find something factual that pertains to the weapon/ammo under discussion.

Thanks for the other information provided hear though. This is just a discussion concerning these rifles and the myths and history surrounding them. Let's please keep it that way, ok?


Larry Gibson

[Dutchman]

I've yet to see anyone in or on a hospital guerney or bleed to death on a firing range from shooting a M1916 with the prescribed 7.62 NATO ammo.


Well this explains it. You haven't seen it so it's never happened. :roll:

This photo means nothing.

http://images32.fotki.com/v1091/photos/2/28344/1676633/pix517853500-vi.jpg

Dutch

[Larry Gibson]

Dutchman

I've seen that photo before and the shooter wasn't carried off on a guerney to the hospital. What he did do was shoot a very heavy over load in that rifle on purpose. I believe it was used in a series of "shoot to destruction tests" on numerous actions. Would you like to see some M70s, and M1A, a TIKKA, a M700, M1903s, a few M94 Winchesters and how about a Ruger that look pretty much the same?

If you'd read what I said, i.e. " shooting a M1916 with the prescribed 7.62 NATO ammo" since you quoted it you might want to try to come up with one that was damaged from "shooting the prescribed 7.62 NATO ammo" if you are really trying to make a point.

Is there really a need to go off on this tangent in an attempt to prove a point that we are all aware of? No one is saying to shoot the M1916/FR7 with 7.62 NATO ammo or .308W ammo in these rifles. We are just pointing out the facts surrounding these rifles. Ok?

Larry Gibson

[Bret4207]

Dutch- There is no reason at all to be insulting. We're offering thoughts and opinions here, not trying to change your mind and cetainly not insulting you. If you'll re-read the posts I think you'll find no one is endorsing the idea of using unsafe or even risky practices with any firearm. We're merely expressing a slightly different opinion than yours. In my case specifically I stated each rifle should be taken as an individual and best judgement should be used, that the vast amount of opinon intermixed with "facts" found on the web are suspect. I've seen Winchesters, Remingtons and Rugers, among others, that I would seriously question using at all. That doesn't give me a baseline to work from, does it?

Instead of insulting us I suggest you try to see the spirit the post was offered in and go from there.

[NoDakJak]

I have entered into this conversation previously and some may have recieved the impression that I am against the 93/95 Mausers. That is definetly a wrong conclusion. I have owned and fired at least two dozen of them. Most of them shot great but several of them did have locking lug setback and were only good for parts. Several years ago I read and old book that was written by a gentleman from New York that fought in the "Spanish Civil War". He stated that when he entered combat there was a definite shortage of rifles. Short cuts were being taken in manufacturing to enable more rifles for the front lines. He stated that the problems with blown up rifles were of large enough magnitude that new rifles were only being issued to new recruits with the older rifles being issued to proven veterans as they were considered more valuable. During the late fifties and early sixties I encountered several of the Spanish manufactured 93's that had what appeared to be inclusions forged into the reciever. It looked to my inexperienced eye to be carbon and I avoided them like the pague. I have never heard of a blow up problem with the German made rifles. A couple things must be kept in mind. It is doubtful if the Spanish sold anything other than second line and cull rifles at the same time they were rebarreling actions to 7.62 Nato. Also remember that the 7.62 conversions were for limited duty until they could complete the conversion to the CETME. It is doubtful if there will be many if any blowups with the 7.62 conversions but if some of the rifles could have setback with the 7x57 then it is certain that the problem would be excerbated with the higher pressures of the NATO cartridge. I have only used one Spanish 93 that is chambered to 7.62 and it is great with cast boolits. Neil

[Buckshot]

...............This has been gone over for ages. My friend Larry Gibson and I went roundy-round about it before. I too was of the opinion the M93's were altered for the Cetme cartridge ONLY. On the old, OLD Gunboards.com in the mid '90's this issue would pop up on occasion. It is without a doubt that the Spanish Government (if it was a good idea or not IS debateable) in fact did re-barrel and chamber these M93's to take the 7.62x51.

Just like the Chileans rebarreled or rebored and rifled 7mm Mauser barrels to 30 cal and then used soldered in 7.62x51 chambers, INTENDING for them to use the NATO round is true beyond a doubt. I have a 1895 Chilean action with '7.62' stamped on the bridge. Just as the Italians altered their Vetterli's for the 6.5mm cartridge, in all cases they were interim stop gap measures and not intended for front line units.

Our own government tried to do the same thing with the Trapdoor when the 30-40 was in the works. Due to the political situation at the time, and our isolation it appears they never tried or felt it necessary to suppliment 1903 rifles with the various Krags altered for the 30-'03 or later 30-'06 cartridge.

As several here have said (if the user were knowledgeable enough to even know the issues in question) it's up to the owner to decide if they'd consider it safe or not, once becoming aware of the alteration. I do not own any official government alterations, but if I did I would not fire 7.62x51 or 308 Win ammo in them. However I have personally altered a few small ring actions. One to 7.62x39. This cartridge shows pressures to and on occassion a bit over 52K.

My rifle has a .308" groove vs the cartridges normal .310/.311" size, so besides some reloading manuals blessings on these healthy loads, I would not reload to these levels by any means, nor do I shoot commercial 7.62x39 ammo in it. Another is a M95 Steyr converted to 30-40 Krag. I have no problem loading the cartridge to it's full potential for firing in a Krag and using it in the Steyr. But I have no intention of trying to make the 30-40 into a rimmed long necked 308, even though the action may handle it.

I suspect both the Chilean and Spanish looked at it, tested it and found it reliable enough, and sufficient for their intended use. Besides, they're governments and if one did blow up they'd hand out 500 peso's, say they're sorry and carry on. Apparently SAMCO was concerned enough to commision HP White Labs to give them a clean nill of health, so they also had a question about them.

Besides the small rings, I have a bunch of conflicting liturature on the LARGE rings that would raise your eyebrows. Some of it by such Mauser notables as Ludwig Olson, who over several years in various publications, provides conflicting information as to the suitability of the M98 action for such rounds as the 300 Win mag, or even the 30-'06. One such article was about the wide variance in heat treating, where a bunch of M98's wouldn't register AT ALL on the Rockwell 'C' scale. These were quality DWM produced M1909 Argentines and M1908 Brazilains.

I'm one of the sissies who won't shoot an old military unless it is in it's original cartridge, and in good enough condition to still handle it. My own concoctions are in lesser cartridges or loaded to be that way.

..................Buckshot

[scrapcan]

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.

we also need to keep in mind the different working pressures for the 7.65x51 nato and the 308 win, 50K and 62K respectively. 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? 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.

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]

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.

we 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

[scrapcan]

Larry,

Thanks for the clean up on my post. As I said I had to search high and low to get what I had in my previous post. I see the topic of 308 win vs 7.62x51 so much on forums and when talking to other shooters that I think it always bears merit to discuss whatever one can related to specifications. You have added to the informaiton on that front. I was looking for the TM doc you mentioned but I could not find my copy and did not want to take the leap on the net. So thanks again for the reference to the TM.

[Bret4207]

.
Besides the small rings, I have a bunch of conflicting liturature on the LARGE rings that would raise your eyebrows. Some of it by such Mauser notables as Ludwig Olson, who over several years in various publications, provides conflicting information as to the suitability of the M98 action for such rounds as the 300 Win mag, or even the 30-'06. One such article was about the wide variance in heat treating, where a bunch of M98's wouldn't register AT ALL on the Rockwell 'C' scale. These were quality DWM produced M1909 Argentines and M1908 Brazilains.

I'm one of the sissies who won't shoot an old military unless it is in it's original cartridge, and in good enough condition to still handle it. My own concoctions are in lesser cartridges or loaded to be that way.

..................Buckshot

I've got one of those soft '09 Argies. Beautimus rifle, soft as butter. It's going to be strictly a cast shooter if I ever get a stock for it. I trust my much older '91 Argie far more than the '09 despite the '98 improvements.