1916 Spanish Civil Guard Mauser

[0802]

Proud new owner of a Spanish 1916 Civil Guard Mauser rebarrelled into 7.62 NATO. Research tells me this is a small ring Mauser 93 action. I am aware of concerns regarding this action handling full strength 7.62 NATO loads, much less 308 Win. All the S/Ns match, bore is good, stock finish is pretty thin with a lot of nearly bare wood, not too many major dings/scratches in the wood, some rust and pitting on areas covered by wood (magazine well, barrel, etc.).

Any suggestions on this deal? Have heard it won't be a target shooter, which is OK. I planed to shoot cast out of it almost exclusively if not entirely and with concerns (well founded or not) about the action, I will keep to that plan.

I don't plan to sporterize it, but am considering refinishing the stock and maybe doing some work on the metal to protect the rusted areas. I'll see how it shoots before I commit any significant time or money to it though.

Generally, I know I'll reduce the collector value if I do much of anything to it, but does this it have enough collector value to even worry about that?

I'll post some pics when I get them taken.

Josh

[Andy_P]

The Spanish Mausers are well entrenched in Gun Folklore as to their inherent weakness, especially with 308 Win. I am not aware of any scientific tests, or even reliable anecdotal evidence to support that, but the belief that they should not be used with the ammo that the Spanish used in them remains.

Moot point anyways if you will be shooting cast at well below SAAMI specs for 308.

These are typically $150 guns in the condition you have described, so refinishing or other alterations aren't reducing its value a lot.

[NickSS]

I had a couple of them several years ago and found that one of them shot really well with cast. I used the Lyman 311291 bullet and around 10 gr of Unique for a fine 100 yard plinking load. The same load droped a buck deer in my front yard with a head shot from my bedroom window. I never thought that it would not safely shoot 308 ammo and fired hundreds of rounds of Military surplus through my rifle I reserved for jacketed slugs.

[NoDakJak]

0802 the quality on the 93 Spanish Mausers can be quite spotty. Many were produced during the Spanish Civil War during the 1930's and were famous for blowing up. By the same token there were many really good versions of the same rifle. I have owned many chambered for the 7x57 and a couple chambered for the 7.62x57. One thing that you must keep in mind is that the original Spanish 7.62 x 51 ammo was loaded to lower pressures than NATO spec due to the particular semi auto rifle that they were using. Most of the 93 Mausers that they converted were the best that they had but keep in mind that that they are definetly Model 93,s. It is improbable that factory loads will blow one up but the soft steel will allow locking lugs to batter and increase head space. I would advise keeping 7.62 X51 loads or 308 loads near the starting loads or alternately using normal 300 Savage loads. Perhaps I am prejiduced but I prefer the original 7x57 cartridge. Never the less, the 308, depending upon barrel quality can be a fantastic castboolit shooter. If the barrel is a bit rough and leads I advise to wrap the boolit in teflon thread tape and size to groove dimeter. Usually works great! Neil

[Bret4207]

NoDakJak- Do you have any actual verifired evidence to support this statement-"Many were produced during the Spanish Civil War during the 1930's and were famous for blowing up." I'm not trying to argue, but I've heard these rumours for decades and have yet to see any '91,'93,'95, '96 Mauser "blown up" without a reasonable explanation like barrel bstructions, stupid over loads, etc. There seems to be a lack of real evidence to support claims like this, the low number '03 Springfields "killing people" and the Candian Ross rifle shooting their bolts back into the shooters forehead. We put some other "truths" to rest here, I'm curious on this one. Lets not forget that Arisakas were considered unsafe to fire until Parker Ackley found out they were stronger than our vaunted '03!!!

[tom barthel]

Tests were made by JPL, I think. May have been by White labs. I'm not sure. I seem to recall the rifles were able to take pressures around 80,000 psi. I wouldn't try to push it to that level. I usually load my .308 down just a little. Saves wear and tare on the rifle. Also shoots better for me. I would GUESS since the Spanish chambered it for their cetme round (7.62 nato), it would probably be safe for factory ammo or, light reloads. It would still make a good truck or trunk gun. I seen to recall a story of a very expensive hunt years ago that was saved after the hunter's rifle was broken in a wreck. Another hunter had a surplus mauser and hunting ammo in his trunk. The guy took his elk with an 8mm. Always helps to have a spare. As for your rifle, I'd work up loads careful and get a recoil pad. Also do a computer search on proof tests for this rifle.

[twotrees]

The 93 Mauser was the first Rifle to use "Modern Metalergy" in it's design and heat treating.

That said, I built quite a few guns on that action and always kept them in the 250 Savage and 257 Roberts range.

If you keep your loads sane I would bet that it will work just fine.

You don't have the 3rd lug like a 98 on it, but if you get to needing that, your in Much Worse trouble.

Good Shooting

TwoTrees

[Larry Gibson]

The Spanish did not chamber the M1916s "for their CETME round". It was chambered for 7.62 NATO for which the Spanish had already adopted. The M1916s (FR7) and the FR8s were intended to use regular 7.62 NATO and the CETME cartridge, the Spanish manual of 1967 so states. The "CETME round" was a loaded down 7.62 NATO for the CETME rifle. The CETME rifles the Spanish used originally had unfluted chambers and would not reliably extract the cases of regular 7.62 NATO ammunition. The Spanish loaded the lower pressure cartridge for the CETME, not the FR7/FR8s. The German designers of the CETME finally solved the extraction problem by fluting the chambers.

Larry Gibson

[trooperdan]

As I recall, the CETME round used an aluminum core bullet of around 105 grains. It was very long for it's weight. Does anyone know of a source of a shooting quantity of this load? I'd like even a round or two for my collection!

[Larry Gibson]

trooperdan

Here is what the CETME cartridge is; if you can hable espnole or know someone who does it will give you the required info. You alo have to convert from metrics. I don't know of any actual ammo that might have been imported. Probably one the Spanish solved the extraction problem with the fluted chamber they no longer needed ny of the CETME ammo. They would have just used regular 7.62 NATO of which I've also attached their description of.

The attachments are cut off so if you want them PM me and we'll get them to you that way.

Larry Gibson

[badgeredd]

Tests were made by JPL, I think. May have been by White labs. I'm not sure. I seem to recall the rifles were able to take pressures around 80,000 psi..............................

The proof load for the 96 (according to Frank de Haas's book on bolt action rifles) whick is the same basic design was 66,000 psi breech pressure.

The one concern he mentions in the book is there is limited, or non existant gas venting in the action made by the Spanish. That said, he also states that the majority of the actions were well made but not quite as nicely as the German produced actions. He also recommends that one uses cartridges that develope less than 45,000 psi; those being suggested are 250-3000 Savage, 257 Roberts, 6.5x57 Mauser, 6.5x55, 7x57, 300 Savage, 7.65 Mauser, and 35 Remington. He also says that conversions were made to some cartridges including 308 Win (7.62 NATO) and he considered the action of "marginal strength". I have seen several rifles that were converted by military arsenals to 7.62 NATO and have to believe they were tested to be of adequate strength BUT I personally would feel a bit cautious of full house loads, particularly military surplus ammo. I have to believe that as a cast boolit rifle with the reduced pressures, they are perfectlt safe. Just my $.02!

[Andy_P]

NoDakJak- Do you have any actual verifired evidence to support this statement-"Many were produced during the Spanish Civil War during the 1930's and were famous for blowing up." I'm not trying to argue, but I've heard these rumours for decades and have yet to see any '91,'93,'95, '96 Mauser "blown up" without a reasonable explanation like barrel bstructions, stupid over loads, etc. There seems to be a lack of real evidence to support claims like this, the low number '03 Springfields "killing people" and the Candian Ross rifle shooting their bolts back into the shooters forehead. We put some other "truths" to rest here, I'm curious on this one. Lets not forget that Arisakas were considered unsafe to fire until Parker Ackley found out they were stronger than our vaunted '03!!!

This is the "Gun Folklore" to which I referred - based completely on hearsay embellished over time, the idea eventually morphs into "truth". Often if you push, it comes down to "read it posted somewhere" or "a friend knows a guy who heard a gunsmith talk about....".

I once tried to blow up a Carcano - you know, the design that is "unsafe". A full case of Unique behind a 160gr bullet destroyed the case, but the action stayed together - at almost 100K psi.

Sometimes admitted lack of proof is enough, others times it take proof to the contrary to change minds, but much of the time, people still cling to the legend.

[TCLouis]

Back when one could order cheap milsurp rifles thru the mail some people I know tried to blow them up, especially one like the cheap fragile Carcano. The first load they tried made it harder to open the weak action. They stepped it up to full power load and they said the fire emanetd from several locations.
The flimsy action was in place, the barrel was out two threads, when they finally got the bolt open, there was some of the cartridge case left welded to the bolt face and the rest was a brass plating throughout the action and barrel.

They were disappointed that such a weak action almost failed

[Buckshot]

...............Not only the Spaniards and their M93's but also the Chileans with their M95's, which are after all, small ring Mausers just like the Spanish versions were converted to 7.62x51 NATO. The 1895 differed only in a small upward projecting lug on the right side of the tang. The bolt handle reinforce drops in front of it. SInce there no longer remains any construction notes as to it's purpose, 2 thoughts seem to be popular explainations.

One is that it is in effect a 'Safety lug'. The other is that it is there to steady the bolt in it's full open position. Since ole P.P. Mauser seems to have designed the (93, 94, 95, 96, and 98) actions with combat clearances for the bolt the Steadying idea seems odd. Especially since it didn't appear on any other action, and small rings were made after the M98 came about. Also, if it was to be a Safety lug it's size and design seem as if it was there ONLY so they could say it had a safety lug, and nothing else. Kind of a feel good thing?

In the Chilean 1895 Mausers, quite a few of the original 7x57 barrels were removed and rebored and re-rifled. Since the Nato round wouldn't clean up the earlier 7x57 chamber, the chamber area was bored out. Then a steel insert containing the NATO chamber was inserted and soldered or brazed in place.

For photos of the work and others pertaining to this see:

http://www.rebooty.com/~dutchman/1895Chile.html

In my mind it all boils down to economics if you will. The Spanish and Chileans are not unique. Our Allin conversion of the tens of thousands of Civil War muzzle loaders is an example as is the British use of the Snider action for thier tens of thousands of muzzle loaders. I'm pretty sure that both the Spanish and Chilean conversions were stop gap measures to be used only so long as they had to be used, before being replaced.

So far as strength is concerned I have to believe that neither government was desirous of having their soldiers injured by their own firearms, and that sufficient tests were performed to show that while limited, the conversions were 'safe enough to suffice' until better could be procured.

So far as the Mauser action is concerned the model of 1898 is also suspect. However it has been re-barreled and chambered to such cartidges as the 308 Norma magnum, 300 and 338 Winchester, and 7mm Remington mag's. I have numerous articles and references to show that military M98's test all over the place so far as heat treatment is concerned and that many won't even register on the Rockwell 'C' scale.

Yet today you can buy a barrel for a M98 large ring Mauser action in some pretty high pressure chamberings. Nothing is ever said that you might wish to have the action checked by someone competant to determine correct heat treatment. Usually if anything is said, it's to have a competant gunsmith check it out. I know a couple competant gunsmiths but neither is a graduate metalurgical engineer. Nor so far as I know do they have test equipment for such.

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

[Bret4207]

I see many of us are of the same mind. I recently had 2 "discussions" where I was warned about a '93 and '98 Mauser beig "weak". One was over on the Practical Machinist BB where a gun writer I am familiar with took me to task for telling a guy to leave his 308x'93 alone and use factory level or lower ammo. Our old buddy Jumptrap chimed in and eviserated the gun writer in a most expedient fashion. Kudos to Jump!

The 2nd was here at "home'" where a member advised me not to use 308 ammo in my FR-8 as it was designed for low pressure rounds. Sheesh! And the differnec between a 308 and the 7.62 NATO has been determined to be...what? The NATO ammo is all over the board on pressure, COAL, buulet weight, etc.

Stuff like this drives me nuts.

[NoDakJak]

Bret: It has been many years now but at one time I read every thing that I could find on the Spanish Civil War history. A couple of the histories stated that during the stress of combat many rifles were turned out with questionable materials and workmanship similar to the last ditch rifles produced by the Japanese and Germans at the end of WW II. One author stated that several new rifles blew in his company including one that the soldier next to him was firing with fatal results. I have probably owned a couple dozen Model 93 and 95 rifles and have shot them extensively. By the same token I have seen and turned dow bying several Model 93's that had forging so bad that it appeared to be castings. Several had occlusions forged right into the reciever. I have never seen that on any other rifle.
In the 1960s or very early 70s ,Gun Digest ran an article on the CETME where Spain had adopted a lower pressure version of the 7.62x51 cartridge as their service round. I believe that the japanese did also. I have no doubt that the Spanish armorers selected the very best of the 93s for rebarreling while weeding out the junk. As I said, quality control was rather spotty depending on the pressures of demand. I don't really believe that the specimens selected for rebarreling to 7.62x51 are going to blow up. Didn't say that! I have seen some handle the increased pressure fine but by the same token both myself and my neighbor have had locking lugs set back with medium loads. The locking lugs tend to set back slowly and the bolt gets harder to unlock. The same thing can happen with warmed up 7x57 loads. I have no qualms whatever with the German made rifles but I certainly tiptoe around the Spanish made versions. Just remember that you are shooting an old rifle and don't push your luck. neil

[Bret4207]

I wonder if perhaps the "bad ones" have weeded themselves out over the years? Possible I suppose. I know what you mean about the lug set back. I have seen several '09 Argentine Mausers, German made, so soft they set back. Given choice between a soft and brittle receiver I'll take soft any day.

I've never seen a '93 or '95 exhibiting the conditions you describe. Hopefully I never will either. As with so many things I'm just curious whether the tales are fact or tales. Some stuff we'll never know!

[NoDakJak]

Back in the mid eighties I breifly owned a 95 that had been altered to singleshot and rebarreled to 2506 if you can believe such a thing. I naver had the nerve to try firing the danged thing and doubt if anyone else did either. That rifle floated around among the traders at the Rapid City gun shows for several years.
All of the bad 93s that I have observed were marked Oveido. There were quite a few of them on the market during the sixties and seventies. Most of the 93s and 95s that I have owned were fairly accurate but one 93 shot like no obsolete military rifle should. I used moderate loads of 4350 and the deer and antelope certainly couldn't tell the difference between it and my 3006. I gave it to #1 Grandson and he is still knocking deer down with it. Pretty good record for an old military rifle that is probably close to a hundred years old. Neil

[Larry Gibson]

Back in '68 I picked up an Oviedo M93 action for little of nothing. Since it was unaltered the assumption was it had seen action with at least 1 7.57 barrel and perhaps another. How many rounds had ever been fired through it is unknown. Since the internet and all the dire warnings against using it barreled for .308 Winchester was not yet to be I went ahead and did it. After all P.O. had done these conversions so I saw little problem. The action was D&T'd, bolt hammer forged and was converted to cock on opening all by myself. A Star 26" barrel was put on. I had access to lots of M80 7.62 so besides my own reloads I shot lots of that through the rifle. The first barrel was shot out in about 3 years. I then put a second Star Barrel on that action, again in .308 and proceeded to shoot that barrel out also. Around '82 I rebarreled that action with a new 2 groove '03A3 barrel set back and chambered to my .308 CBC for cast bullets. The rifle is still going strong.

I also know of many FR&s that have had quite a bit of 7.62 Nato shot through them without problems. Every known action has had its problems. I know of blown M70s, M700s, M98s, M77s, M94, etc. yet no one complains about those actions. I constantly read that Mauser designed his actions around the pressure level of the cartridge. Yet I've not seen any substantiated proof of that. What I have read is that Mauser designed and made his actions as strong as possible forseeing the pressures of newly developing smokeless powders.

While I don't advocate shooting magnum loads in M93/M95/M96s I have not found loading the cartridges to their safe potential to be a problem. I regularly load mine as such. As to the M1916/FR7s rebarreled by the Spanish to 7.62 they are intended to be safe when fired with standard 7.62 Nato ammuntion. Tests run By HP White laboratory have been done. Given the pressures of 7.62 Nato ammuntion and some .308 commercial ammunition that I've measured lately I would not hesitate to fire any of it in a M1916/FR7 in good condition.

Larry Gibson

[Junior1942]

I have a 1923 Oviedo M93 7x57 that is easily the most accurate 22 cal+ rifle I've ever fired--using a 2x pistol/scout scope, too!!! See http://www.castbullet.com/misc/m932.htm

I shoot the 154 Hornady to 2100 fps, and I go no higher.