Mauser Myths Debunked

Discussion in 'General Rifle Discussion' started by MXFun86, Jan 13, 2009.

  1. MXFun86

    MXFun86 New Member

    17
    0
    0
    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
     
  2. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    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.
     

  3. Hawg

    Hawg New Member

    1,505
    0
    0
    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.
     
  4. MXFun85

    MXFun85 New Member

    2
    0
    0
    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!
     
  5. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    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.
     
  6. MXFun86

    MXFun86 New Member

    17
    0
    0
    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.
     
  7. sarge_257

    sarge_257 New Member

    451
    0
    0
    The Mausers that were chambered for the 7.61 x 51

    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
     
  8. jpattersonnh

    jpattersonnh Active Member

    5,360
    3
    38
    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.
     
  9. Snakedriver

    Snakedriver New Member

    848
    0
    0
    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.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Nov 12, 2010
  10. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    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.
     
  11. patret

    patret New Member

    127
    0
    0
    I would never exceed 45000 lbs of chamber pressure in a Spanish Mauser. Spain has never designed a rifle in 308 NATO. They had a round of their own in 7.62mm. Please consult Small Arms of the world. This also includes the CETME which was imported and placed into a American receiver.

    Patret
     
  12. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    I disagree to some extent. The CETME Model B was designed around the 7.62 NATO round. They made a special bolt carrier to shoot the earlier low power 7.62 X 51 CETME round.

    Remember, there is no such thing as a ".308 NATO". It is 7.62 NATO or 7.62 X 51 NATO. I hate to be one of those nit pickers, but slight variations in nomenclature can mean large differences in performance and pressure. I would not want to cause someone injury because of imprecise verbiage.
     
  13. jpattersonnh

    jpattersonnh Active Member

    5,360
    3
    38
    I will disagree w/ this also. The FR8 is a large ring 98 action w/ a new 7.62x51 barrel. It is capable of handling commercial .308. It was designed using '98 large ring receivers and was to emulate the Cetme for training, sights and cartridge. Since 7x57 can have pressures up to 49000psi, the round the '93 action was designed for, were does 45000 come from??? It is PSI, not chamber pressure also. Not to nit pick.
     
  14. patret

    patret New Member

    127
    0
    0
    You mentioned a model 93 and model 95 action. The 7 by 57 Mauser in those actions are approved to 45000 lbs per Ken Waters and Small arms of the world.
    The information concerning the Spanish CITME is also in Small arms of the world.
    Thank you for your comments.

    patret
     
  15. sarge_257

    sarge_257 New Member

    451
    0
    0
    That would be the same as the Chilean Mdl. 95. Not the Mannlicher which was not made by Mauser.
     
  16. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 New Member

    413
    0
    0
    I too have read a lot of various things on the Net regarding our Spanish Ladies.
    I have no problem using both surplus 7.62X51 and commercial .308Win in my FR8 rifle. I do NOT subscribe to the old "soft Spanish steel" canard. I DO check my bolt lugs for setback often.
    My old M43 Mauser in 8X57 is dated in the 50's, as is the action of my FR8. The M43 I have been shooting since I bought it in 1976 - never seen any problems.
    My FR8 and M191 are more recent acquisitions - I check them often too. I load 7.62X51 for both - full power GI spec for the FR8 and CETME, and lower-pressure loads for the old M1916 - just to be safe. I keep the lighter loads marked specifically for the M1916.
    On another forum, a member in Spain with Spanish Army experience provided a translation of the Spanish manual for the CETME - it indicated they used 7.62X51, as made in Santa Barbara, Spain. This is NOT 'NATO' spec ammo, but then neither is the South African or the Australian ammo I have stocked and shot. All perform very similarly, and are of similar accuracy. I see little difference in POI between them - so their loading standards appear to be similar.
    I think much confusion comes from Century and other importers stamping these rifles as '.308' when they are NOT.

    My Spanish Mausers......
    (The M43 Airforce Model in the middle currently wears a shortened Brazilian '08 stock)

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2010