1891 mauser guestions

[gidgaf]

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

[EDG]

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

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

[Coyote Chris]

The Dutchman is a very wise person, I think.....I shoot the 1871/84,(bp only) the 1891, the 1888 Comish rifle,The M95 Mann.the M95 Chilean, .303 Enfields, etc but he is entirely correct about what escaping gas can do. When I shoot my 1891 Argie, I use the very nice San Fransisco Non corrosive ammo but I down load it. I no longer have any 1909s in my collection which can handle the 56,000 psi ammo fine, but IIRC the 1891s original ammo pressure was close to 40,000 psi. And I never shoot without safety glasses. If someone gave me that .243 rifle, I would have a moral dillema on what to do with it. The last thing I would do would be to give it to my daughter....even if it were rebarreled back to its original cartridge. I am an old man who is capable of understanding the risks involved with milsurps. How badly do you want to take your daughter to the emergency room? There are plenty of nice hunting rifles out there for deer. Get her a nice pair of shooting glasses and a modern rifle. Me? I dont hunt anything but steel buffalos....but I am kinda fond of my eyes so I download anything that goes into my M95s, Commish rifle, and 1891. And I dont use smokeless in my 71/84 and Trapdoors Chris who saw what happened at Quigley when someone's wife blew up an old Ballard action shooting smokeless powder.

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

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

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

Dutch

[EDG]

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

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

[Multigunner]

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

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

[Larry Gibson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Larry Gibson

[RustyReel]

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

[Larry Gibson]

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

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

Both excellent cartridges, especially with cast bullets.

Larry Gibson

[deces]

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

[Multigunner]

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

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

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

[Coyote Chris]

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

[copperlake]

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

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

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

[Multigunner]

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

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

[copperlake]

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

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

[Larry Gibson]

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

Larry Gibson

[FAsmus]

Gentlemen;

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



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



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

Good morning,
Forrest