[MXFun86]

1916 Spanish Mauser in .308w

Does anyone else have this rifle? Sick of half founded "facts" on the forums? This site will actually answer questions with facts founded in research. Not "A friend of my heard about this guy who new someone....."


http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting...tion/index.asp

[robocop10mm]

Facts? Small ring Mausers were chambered in calibers with lower SAAMI spec pressures than the current .308 round. Small ring Mausers lack the third lug of the large ring Mausers. A 1916 Spanish Mauser bolt is 75 - 90 years old.

Are they unsafe with .308 commercial ammo? Maybe, maybe not. Are they as unsafe as some would lead you to believe? I venture not. Some have said they were intended for the 7.62 X 51 CETME round that was loaded to much lower pressures than .308. I have seen nothing to support this claim.

FWIW, I would have the head space checked and bolt magnafluxed to insure it did not have any cracks invisible to the naked eye. I would shoot factory .308's sparingly. I would handloads that have been reduced about 2 grains.

I would do the same with any early 20th century military rifle, I have grown attached to my face and would prefer it stay in its current condition.

[Hawg]

I had one that was arsenal rechambered. The barrel near the muzzle was stamped 308. I shot a few boxes of Remington loads out of it but couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it.

[MXFun85]

Originally Posted by robocop10mm

Facts? Small ring Mausers were chambered in calibers with lower SAAMI spec pressures than the current .308 round. Small ring Mausers lack the third lug of the large ring Mausers. A 1916 Spanish Mauser bolt is 75 - 90 years old.

Are they unsafe with .308 commercial ammo? Maybe, maybe not. Are they as unsafe as some would lead you to believe? I venture not. Some have said they were intended for the 7.62 X 51 CETME round that was loaded to much lower pressures than .308. I have seen nothing to support this claim.

FWIW, I would have the head space checked and bolt magnafluxed to insure it did not have any cracks invisible to the naked eye. I would shoot factory .308's sparingly. I would handloads that have been reduced about 2 grains.

I would do the same with any early 20th century military rifle, I have grown attached to my face and would prefer it stay in its current condition.

Good points all around, but just a minor correction. The CETME round was 7.62x40 and was not what the rifles were originally designed to shoot. It was an experimental round at the time. Having the headspace checked is DEFF a must. Like I said, great points!

[robocop10mm]

The CETME A used a reduced 7.62 X 51 round with lighter bullet (I believe 125 gr). It was adopted by Spain in 1957. In 1959 the CETME B was adopted using the full power NATO cartridge. The very early experimental CETME rifles used a 7.92 X 40 CETME cartridge.

Some have said the FR-7 (small ring action) and guardia civil versions were made for this reduced "sub-NATO" round. I doubt this as I have never seen any documentation of this, merely conjecture.

Just be careful with any "antique" rifle, be it military or civilian.

[MXFun86]

That is the most important point made to date sir. No matter how much and one says it is or is not safe to shoot a round, it truly comes down to the actual rifle. Head spacing needs to be checked as we as checks for micro cracks. A firearm can be replaced, faces and limbs are a bit more difficult.

[sarge_257]

The Cetme round was made for a machine gun. Not a rifle. And was never chambered as such. The rifles of the M95 style chambered for the 7.61 x 51 round were made with higher grade modern steel and a stronger action than the old M95 rifles. They were properly proofed for that round. NOT for the .308 commercial round. The military round has a different proof pressure. I have one of the F8 Mausers in 7.61 x 51 and it shoots OK but not like a target rifle.
If you want to continue this thread I will research it more as I wrote an article on it a long time ago. I will see if I can find it.
Sarge

[jpattersonnh]

Ok, back to the original question. The 1916 uses a 1893 action. It is a small ring Mauser. Although safe for 7.62x51 Nato which has an operating pressure of 50,000psi it is not proofed for .308, 62,000psi. The original 7x57 barrels were re-bored for the 1916 and FR7, they were still proofed for 49,000 psi which is for 7x57. The 1916 is a slick little rifle w/ the correct ammo.

Sarge, can you clarify what M95? The M95, Model of 1895 Styer was 8x50 or 8x56r. I understand these were never converted to 7.62x51.

[Snakedriver]

I love any opportunity to post a picture of my 1916 Spanish Mauser. It's still in 7 X 57 and has fired many, many commercial & reloaded rounds. It's extremely accurate for such an old gun. I paid under $20 for it back in 1967 and I swear it looked brand new when I got it. For those who have one in .308, it sounds like 7.62 Nato rounds are safe, but not commercial .308 Win's.

[robocop10mm]

Originally Posted by sarge_257

The Cetme round was made for a machine gun. Not a rifle. And was never chambered as such. The rifles of the M95 style chambered for the 7.61 x 51 round were made with higher grade modern steel and a stronger action than the old M95 rifles. They were properly proofed for that round. NOT for the .308 commercial round. The military round has a different proof pressure. I have one of the F8 Mausers in 7.61 x 51 and it shoots OK but not like a target rifle.
If you want to continue this thread I will research it more as I wrote an article on it a long time ago. I will see if I can find it.
Sarge

The barrels may have been new (maybe rebored), but the actions were original rifles (7X57) converted to a new caliber. These rifles were certainly not "new" in the 50's.

I agree Snake, the NATO ammo is lower pressure than most .308 commercial.