M1916 Spanish Mausers

[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...ards-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?





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.......

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.

[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.