Model 1916 Spanish Mauser .308 CETME

[Gator Weiss]

1916 Small Ring Mauser, cock-on-close, carbine length, two lugs, no safety-lug other than bolt handle. Many with spruce stocks. Many surplused from Guardia-Civil-Police, most rebored from 7x57 to .308 CETME, receiver marked Oviedo. These are not "98" actions. The .308 CETME guns will chamber and fire 7.62x51 and .308 Winchester. There are many rumors about these guns, the question here is what is factual about shooting .308 Winch and 7.62x51 in these guns? I bought one out of shotgun news about 1986 and it was my coyote gun carried in my patrol car in rural Deputy Sheriff work. No scope, shot Korean 180 grain 7.62 out of it, and it was very easy to hit whatever I wanted out to about 200 yards. Never really shot much beyond 80 or 100. Ive had it stored for many years, want to get it out and shoot it again, but now I hear and sometimes read these rifles could be dangerous to shoot and that the bolts are too soft, etc. What is fact and what is fiction?

 

[.455_Hunter]

I am not a big fan of the FR-7 and other 1916 conversions. Factory .308/7.62 Nato is significantly higher pressure than 7x57mm. The FR-8 is fine since it's on a 98 action.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

My Dad has a 1916 Guardia Civil conversion. He shot hundreds of cheap Greek surplus back in the 90s through it without a catastrophic failure- but accuracy was only so-so.
Knowing what we know now, I wouldnt. I do love my FR8 though.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

The CETME 7.62x51 cartridge was loaded to a lower pressure than NATO spec using a lighter bullet (117 grain), so in the FR7 made from 1893-type actions you should handload accordingly with a reduced charge.

The fact that the Spanish themselves often used NATO ammo in these rifles doesn't mean it was a good idea -- according to Jerry Kuhnhausen's Mauser shop manual it is not uncommon to see setback in the receiver shoulders of these rifles

You could use some of the lighter 7x57 load data as a guide, or play it even safer and use a 30-30 class powder charge.

 

[Y-T71]

I have 2 of these 1916 rifles I bought from SAMCO in the early 90's.

One I shot occasionally using some SA surplus NATO (in the old brown plastic battle packs) and had no issues.

Then I shot less than 20 Remington "Core-Loks" (IIRC) and had to pound the bolt open with a 2x4.
Haven't shot that one since.

The other is unfired (by me) all these years.

I walked it around a gunshow about a year ago and the best offer I got was $100; because they're "unsafe".

I'd really like to figure out a way to convert them to 7.62x39 but decided to put together some light, cast bullet reloads with PC'd Lee 170gr FP and 2400 for a paper punching load instead.

Haven't gotten around to trying them yet.

*EDIT* Around the time I bought mine there was an article published in Guns and Ammo magazine that said theses rifles were tested by H.P. White laboratory and were declared fit for use.

My, admittedly limited experience, led me to conclude that other factors may be in play before deciding whether individual rifles are safe.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The 7.62 CETME ammo was downloaded to make the Spanish CETME battle rifle controllable on full auto. I have known semi-auto CETME rifle owners who shot 7.62x51 NATO and .308 Win ammo with no complaints.

That said, if I still owned my Spanish 7.62 M1916 bolt action, I'd probably reload .308 Win using 7mm Mauser data for it, even though I shot mine with 7.62x51 surplus and .308 Win ammos with no observable signs of trouble.

I have to stop and ask myself. If I still owned my 7mm 1895 Chilean Mauser, would I rebarrel it for .308 Winchester. Myself answers, no way.

 

[Slamfire]

Fan boys and influencers will blame you if your M1916 blows up in your face. They won't take any responsibility for their bad advice.












The original 7mm small ring rifles used a service 7mm round that averaged 3000 atmospheres (about 43,000 psia). When that 7mm barrel was removed, the receiver did not magically grow stronger.

What I can tell about the CETME round, was that it used a lighter bullet, at faster velocities than a 7.62 Nato round. Someone knows the operating pressure, but a 113 grain bullet going 2600 fps is probably a high 30K to 40K psia round.

This is what I have found on the CETME round. It is a garble of sources:


7.62×51mm CETME

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62×51mm_CETME


7.62×51mm CETME
Type Rifle
Place of origin Francoist Spain
Service history
In service 1955–1988
Used by Spain
Production history
Designer CETME
Designed 1953
Specifications
Parent case 7.62×51mm NATO
Case type Rimless, Bottleneck
Bullet diameter 7.82 mm (0.308 in)
Neck diameter 8.77 mm (0.345 in)
Shoulder diameter 11.53 mm (0.454 in)
Base diameter 11.94 mm (0.470 in)
Rim diameter 12.01 mm (0.473 in)
Rim thickness 1.27 mm (0.050 in)
Case length 51.18 mm (2.015 in)
Overall length 69.85 mm (2.750 in)
Primer type Large Rifle
Ballistic performance
Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy
113 grain FMJ 2,600 ft/s (790 m/s) 1695.81 ft⋅lbf


The 7.62×51mm CETME round is a variant of the 7.62×51mm NATO rifle cartridge with a plastic-cored lead bullet and a reduced propellant charge. The 7.62×51mm CETME is otherwise identical to the NATO standard. It was produced as a joint venture by the Spanish Government design and development establishment known as CETME (Centro de Estudios Técnicos de Materiales Especiales, or "Center for Technical Studies of Special Materials") and the German arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch.

Description

In 1954, in Ottawa (Canada), the NATO's Experts Commission approved the foreground of 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge. Three years later, it finalized the specifications required for this ammunition. Subsequently, in 1962, this rule was changed.

Spain, isolated from the international community, continued to use the 7.92×57mm Mauser. From 1953 prototype cartridges begin to take place in 7.62×51mm. In 1955 this caliber is adopted and soon began to be mass-produced for the new CETME rifle. This cartridge did not meet NATO standards and was called 7.62×51mm Spanish. In the '60s, quality improved and became known as 7.62×51mm NATO-SPANISH. Only after 1988 were cartridges produced in Spain known as NATO–REGULAR and met NATO specifications.

During the development of the CETME rifle, it was decided by CETME that their new weapon would be chambered in a .30-caliber rifle cartridge with a short case and lesser powder charge in order to increase the manageability of the rifle during full auto fire. The 7.92×33mm Kurz was the original basis, but the 7.92×41mm CETME M53 also known as the 7.92×40mm, a more powerful experimental cartridge loaded with an innovative extremely long aerodynamic lightweight projectile developed by CETME, was also tried.[1] This evolved into the 7.62×40mm CETME M53, which was identical aside from the smaller diameter bullet. Eventually[when?] they decided on a variant of the new 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge that they designated the 7.62×51mm CETME. The 7.62mm CETME had a lighter full-metal-jacketed, plastic-cored lead bullet with a reduced powder charge.

While designing the CETME Modelo B and under recommendation of Heckler & Koch, the decision was made that the updated version of the original CETME Modelo A would chamber the more powerful 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge. When the Modelo B was adopted by the Spanish military as the Modelo 58 in 1958, 7.62×51mm CETME was the standard rifle cartridge but a notable change occurred when Spanish Army officially made a move to the full-power 7.62×51mm NATO standard cartridge. This decision forced the CETME Model 58 to be internally reworked to accept the more powerful round. Marking this change, the revised rifle forms were designated CETME "Model C".[2]




7.62 X 51 SPANISH CETME
http://cartridgecollector.net/762-x-51-spanish-cetme


The 7.62×51mm CETME is a variant of the 7.62×51mm NATO with a plastic-cored lead bullet and a reduced propellant charge. It was produced as a joint venture by the Spanish Government design and development establishment known as CETME (Centro de Estudios Técnicos de Materiales Especiales, or "Center for Technical Studies of Special Materials") and the German arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch.

Aluminium Core

Doctor Günther Voss was a German engineer that came to Spain after WWII. While being a civil engineer, he also worked for the Spanish government. While working at CETME (Centro de Estudios Tecnicos de Materiales Especiales - Special Materials Technical Studies Center) on assault rifles he also invented different bullets. Some of them he patented, like the aluminium cored one for the then developing 7,92x40 CETME rifle, or the ‘spoon tips’ for the 4,6 x 36.


In September 1960 he wrote an article in the official Spanish Army journal, Ejército. Two years before, Spain had adopted the 7,62x51 caliber with a special light bullet and load for assault rifle use, but it seems that the army had set its eyes in the more powerful NATO cartridge adopted in Europe and the US. The article was titled “The unification of the infantry ammunition” and presented the following theories:


- The NATO round is too powerful and generates a heavier recoil. Its dispersion when fired in bursts is twice than that of the CETME light cartridge offering acceptable impact probabilities at relatively short distances only. The light CETME cartridge mentioned had the CSP-003 bullet, and the heavy one, the CSP-004. CSP stands for Cobre-Sintético-Plomo (Copper-Synthetic-Lead), and the number after the hyphen is the correlative number. The jacket was not copper but actually gilding metal (90/10 brass) and the synthetic plastic nose filler was black phenolic resin. Thus the assault rifle in NATO caliber cannot be a substitute for the light machine gun.


- The NATO cartridge has many drawbacks when used in a machine gun, because of the reduced bullet weight and inadequate bullet shape, in all probability the flat-based T65E3 bullet which had been tested at CETME. Because of this the NATO ballistics are sensibly worse than that of the 7,92 round with sS bullet. This inferiority shows especially at ranges exceeding 600 meters, precisely the range at which assault rifles are no longer useful. Thus the machine gun in 7,62 NATO caliber cannot be a substitute for the 7,92 mm machine gun.


According to Dr. Voss, the adoption of a new service round for the Spanish infantry should be made adopting the NATO cartridge as a basis, but with the advantages of the short assault rifle rounds and long machine gun rounds being developed in foreign countries. The high capacity of the NATO-CETME 7,62 x 51 case allows the use of flake powder manufactured in Spain. The smaller assault rifle rounds, as the NATO one, must be loaded with tubular or spheroidal powder that should be purchased abroad.


Rifles in 7,62 x 51 caliber are able to launch rifle grenades with 30 percent longer range than short-cartridge assault rifles. Plus, in case of an emergency, the CETME rifle can use the NATO ammunition as is. So the assault rifle problem is already fixed. The machine guns pose other problems because an improvement of the ballistics must be achieved. This can be done only by augmenting bullet length and weight, so only the case and the propellant charge from the NATO round have to be kept. But this is enough for allowing the use of this new improved ammunition along with the NATO cartridge in the same gun without any modification. The gun would be an Alfa machine gun adapted to the longer CSP-004 cartridge. Voss writes that Alfa machine guns modified for the new heavy cartridge (CSP-004) have been tested to reliably feed and fire standard 7,62 NATO rounds using original belts. Voss does not mention barrel twist rates, but the longer CSP-004 bullet should need a faster rifling than the NATO bullet. However, barrels with this faster rifling could use NATO bullets without problems. The existing Alfa machine guns need only a change of barrel and a lengthening of the feeding opening by some 2mm. In short, Dr. Voss proposed the following:


- Adoption of the 7,62 x 51 NATO caliber for infantry use.
- To keep the regulation 7,62 x 51 CETME light round (CSP-003) for assault rifle use.
- To adopt the 7,62 x 51 CETME heavy round (CSP-004) for machine gun use.
- In case of need, both the assault rifle and the machine gun can use the NATO cartridge without modifications to the gun or cartridge. (IAA Forum)



CETME Automatic Rifle | Military-Today.com
military-today.com


CETME Model B

Country of origin

Spain

Entered service 1958

Caliber 7.62 x 51 mm NATO

Weight 4.4 kg

Length 1 015 mm

Barrel length 450 mm

Muzzle velocity 840 m/s

Cyclic rate of fire 600 rpm

Practical rate of fire 30 - 90 rpm

Magazine capacity 5, 20, or 30 rounds

Sighting range

Range of effective fire 600 m


The CETME is an assault rifle manufactured in Spain, and named after the design team that created it (CETME being shorthand for "Centro de Estudios Técnicos de Materiales Especiales", meaning "Center for Technical Studies of Special Materials"). It was a groundbreaking weapon for its time, but has largely gone unnoticed both by the market, and even by many firearms historians.


Part of the reason for the CETME's obscurity is that it has been overshadowed by the Heckler & Koch G3 for most of its existence. Even though the G3 is actually a licensed copy of the CETME, there was comparatively little effort (and apparently little interest) in marketing the CETME abroad. As there was also less success in selling the CETME, and its development and evolution ended much sooner, it was inevitable that the G3 would gradually fill the power vacuum.


The lead architect of this rifle was German firearms designer Ludwig Vorgrimler, whose work included the development of the StG-45 assault rifle. While the war ended before the StG-45 could enter production, the design nonetheless intrigued the armed forces of several nations; one of these nations was Spain, whose government hired Vorgrimler in 1949 to develop a new rifle based on the StG-45's method of operation. Upon arrival in Spain, he helped form the CETME group, whose first project was the development of the eponymous CETME assault rifle. The first prototypes of the CETME rifle was completed in 1951, and chambered in the same 7.92x33 mm as the StG-44 and StG-45, simply because it was the only suitable military cartridge available in quantity at the time.


The 7.92 mm chambering was only a stopgap however, as it was originally envisioned that the production model would fire the similar 7.92x40 mm CETME round. This new chambering was more than simply 7 mm of additional casing length, however; it also fired a very long and streamlined copper-jacketed brass bullet, with an aluminum core and tip. While it was boasted that the 7.92x40 mm CETME round could penetrate a steel helmet at 1 000 m. It was a remarkable feat, even though contemporary military steel helmets were mostly meant to protect against falling debris. Actual live-fire testing proved that the very light and fast bullet was less lethal than anticipated. More importantly, it was also realized that the exotic projectile deformed significantly on impact, which made it illegal for military use under the Hague Convention. It was therefore decided to chamber the weapon in a more conventional cartridge, and a reduced-power 7.62x51 mm NATO round (dubbed 7.62 mm CETME) was selected.


Production of the CETME Model A began in 1956, and it was officially adopted by the Spanish Army in 1957. However, the Army was dissatisfied with the performance of the 7.62 mm CETME round, and asked the CETME group to develop a version chambered in the 7.62 mm NATO round. Work proceeded surprisingly quickly, considering the long development span of the weapon, resulting in the strengthened and more powerful CETME Model B 7.62 mm NATO. The Model B entered service in 1958, and was also adopted by the Spanish Air Force and Navy, becoming Spain's primary service rifle.


Development of the CETME rifle continued into the 1960s, eventually resulting in the Model C. Changes made to this weapon include a 4-distance diopter sight (for 100, 200, 300, and 400 meters -- the previous models had open leaf sights), a wooden grip (Models A and B had steel grips), a detachable bipod, an integral cleaning kit, a fluted chamber, and provisions for a telescopic sight. This rifle entered service with the Spanish Army in 1964, and by 1974 had also superseded the A & B models in the Navy and Air Force as well.


There was also an attempt to create a lightened Model C with plastic furniture and aluminum versions of various parts that had previously been made from steel. The Resulting Model E was short-lived in development, as it was soon discovered that its structural integrity was inadequate. Very few CETME Model E rifles were manufactured, and their operational use was very brief.


Model C production ended in 1974, but development still continued, resulting in the Model L by the early 1980s. This rifle was originally to be simply an otherwise ordinary CETME in a new 5.56 mm chambering, but so many changes were made to its layout and proportions that it became virtually a new rifle. However, the Model L ended up being problematic in operational service, and its tenure with the Spanish armed forces was brief. It is described on its own page. The data below is for a CETME Model C.


The CETME is highly unusual among assault rifles, in that it is blowback operated, rather than gas operated. The blowback system has largely been avoided in weapons firing full-power cartridges like 7.62 mm NATO (the blowback system being, after all, little more than a bolt carrier with a spring behind it), but a special innovation devised by Ludwig Vorgrimler was able to tame the recoil of the CETME. The addition of two locking rollers to the bolt carrier causes it to engage the sides of the receiver as the former travels the length of the latter, slowing the bolt carrier considerably. As a result, recoil energy from firing a round is dispersed through mechanical disadvantage, making the weapon much more controllable (to say nothing of being safer to fire) than if the bolt carrier was not slowed-down.


The delayed roller also had two unexpected benefits; it absorbed much of the recoil, and almost completely eliminated muzzle flip. As a result, the CETME's automatic fire is the most controllable of any 7.62 mm rifle, and its recoil is comparable to that of most 5.56 mm NATO assault rifles, making it one of the most accurate assault rifles (if not *the* most accurate) ever fielded.


The upper portion of the CETME is a housing containing the bolt carrier and charging rod. The housing for the charging rod is set above the barrel, deceptively giving the rifle the appearance of having a gas tube. The shape of the stock and pistol grip are similar to those of the StG-44 assault rifle, which highlights the CETME's German ancestry; though unlike the StG-44, the CETME has a wooden handguard as well. The magazine well is angular, with a sloped profile, much like that on the AK-47. The hooded front sight is mounted atop the bracket that holds the barrel and charging rod housing together, though the location of the rear sight varies depending on the model; the Model A and B have a rear sight mounted atop the receiver directly above the magazine well, while the Model C and later models have the rear sight mounted atop the back end of the receiver. The bracket that joins the barrel and receiver also holds the front sling swivel, on its underside. There are two rear sling swivels in recesses bored into each side of the stock, allowing the user to attach the sling to either side. A muzzle brake with four oval-shaped slots is fitted to the end of the barrel. The M1964 bayonet for the CETME rifle has an unfullered bolo blade, with a distinctive slight inverted curve on the cutting edge, and attaches by the barrel bracket by the base, and the muzzle via a loophole, in an inverted position. The "birdcage"-style muzzle brake allowed the CETME to launch rifle grenades, which typically required a special blank cartridge to launch them. There were also "bullet trap" grenades that could be launched using a standard rifle bullet, but it is unclear if any CETME user ever adopted them.


The buttstock, pistol grip, and foregrip of the CETME rifle are wooden, and carved from poplar. The receiver, trigger group housing, and detachable box magazine are made from stamped sheet steel. Aluminum magazines were developed as well. A canvas sling is usually issued with the weapon.


The fire selector is located at the top of the pistol grip, and has three settings; "T" (single shot), "S" (Safe), and "R" (Automatic fire). The charging handle is located well forward on the bold carrier housing, and is placed on the left side of the weapon. Consequently, it is preferable to fire the CETME from the right shoulder.


The sights on the Model C consist of a front post and a rear diopter, with range settings of 100, 200, 300, and 400 meters. The Model A & B versions had open leaf rear sights, which were found to be inadequate in operational use. The Model C is also capable of accepting a telescopic sight.


The standard magazine for the CETME has a 20-round capacity, but 5-round and 30-round magazines have been fielded as well. It will also accept magazines designed for the G3. Getting the magazine to catch properly when loading it into the magazine well usually requires some rough handling; experienced shooters often slap it in.


Production of the 7.62 mm CETME rifles ended in the mid-1970s. The total number manufactured is unknown, but likely exceeds 100 000. The CETME has been used by Chad, the Congolese Republic, France, Guatemala, Mauritania, Pakistan, Portugal, and Spain. It was also operated by West Germany, but was quickly superseded by the G3. Other nations have operated CETMEs in an evaluational capacity, including the US and the Netherlands, but did not officially adopt it.


Only a small number of 7.62 mm CETMEs are still in service with the Spanish armed forces, having been mostly replaced by the CETME Model L, with both these weapons being totally superseded in later years by the H&K G36. The remaining CETMEs are used primarily for drills, ceremonies, and utility purposes.


The operational status of the CETME in the other nations that have adopted it is unclear, but they are almost certainly no longer first-line weapons.


Variants


Prototype: The first prototype of the CETME rifle was more akin in appearance to the StG-45(M), and was had the unique chambering of 7.92x40 mm CETME. This round was designed to incapacitate personnel up to 100 m, and featured a brass projectile with an aluminum core, but its design was eventually determined to be contrary to the requirements of the Hague Conventions. Consequently, the production CETME Rifles were not chambered in this round.


Model A: This was the first production CETME rifle. It was similar to subsequent models, but was chambered in 7.62x51 mm CETME. The subsequent Model A1 introduced selective fire capability, while the Model A2 introduced a free-floating cocking handle, and a carrying handle. The Model As are approximately 15 mm shorter than Models B and C.


Model B: The Model B was reengineered to accommodate the more powerful 7.62x51 mm NATO round, and added a flash suppressor with a grenade-launching crown, an improved grip, an integrated bipod, and an improved carrying handle. It was procured by the Spanish Navy and Air Force, starting in 1958. The Model B is also known as the Model 58.


Model C: Model Cs were adopted by all branches of the Spanish military, starting in 1964. Changes include a 4-distance diopter sight (for 100, 200, 300, and 400 meters -- the previous models had open leaf sights), a wooden grip (Mods A and B had steel grips), a detachable bipod, an integral cleaning kit, a fluted chamber, and provisions for a telescopic sight.


Model D: This designation appears to have been skipped.


Model E: The Model E is extremely similar to the H&K G3, sporting plastic furniture, plastic magazines, a spinning rear sight, and an overall length increased by 15 mm. Its structural integrity proved unexpectedly poor, and the Model E was quickly discontinued.


Models F, G, H, I, and K: Again, these designations seem to have been skipped. It is unclear as to why.


Model L: The Model L was re-chambered in 5.56x45 mm NATO, and had composite furniture. It served in a fully-operational capacity with Spain for only 11 years.


C308: Civilian semi-auto only version of the CETME, re-manufactured in the US by Century Arms. This rifle has a reputation for inconsistent quality, with some owners and vendors finding that the parts of any single weapon sometimes come from multiple CETMEs, or even from G3s; the workmanship, performance, and reliability were similarly inconsistent, and sometimes extremely poor. Though significantly improved in quality later on, the Century Arms CETMEs have never outlived the poor reputation of their early days.


Related Weapons


Mauser StG-45(M): The StG-45(M) was a German attempt at producing a cheaper, simpler, lower-maintenance alternative to the ubiquitous StG-44. Did not enter production.


CEAM Modèle 1950: A French attempt at a further development of the StG-45(M), the Modèle 1950 was chambered in .30 Carbine, and was remarkably similar in appearance to the CETME. Did not enter production.


Heckler & Koch G3: The G3 is a licensed German copy of the CETME, with a number of alterations. Used by many nations.


Heckler & Koch HK33: Sometimes this weapon is referred as the G33. This is a further development of the G3 rifle, distinguished mainly by its new 5.56x45 mm NATO chambering. It was much more successful than the equivalent CETME Model L.


H&K MP5: The MP5 is a submachine gun. It is an evolution of the HK54, which itself was a G3 variant chambered in 9x19 mm Parabellum. Used by many nations.


Bofors AK4: The AK4 is a Swedish licensed copy of the G3. Used by Sweden and at least 3 other nations.


SIG SG 510: A Swiss-made assault rifle with the same operation as the CETME (though the two are largely unrelated). Used by Switzerland until 1990, and at least 4 other nations.


NOTE: The CETME Ameli machine gun and CETME C2 submachine gun, though also developed by CETME, are not physically related to the CETME rifle.


Article by BLACKTAIL


CETME modelo A assault rifle, chambered for the 7.62x51mm reduced load


The pictures did not copy, so if you want to see the original pictures that went with these articles, follow the links.

What I read from this material is the Spanish had a reduced power round, probably perfectly appropriate for the mid power round concepts that came out of WW2. The original CETME round probably was low enough pressure that not every 7mm bolt gun rebarreled in that cartridge would blow up in the face of a Soldier. But, if a few did, well, the decision makers probably have the same contempt for their work force as our Civil Servants do for their workforce. Our USMC Civil Servants let their Marines and their families guzzle poisonous water at Camp Lejeune for decades. So a few die, so what!

I think reduced loads in the 308 Win would be appropriate. I shot a 168 SMK with 39.0 grains IMR 4895 standing and sitting rapid fire, in NRA highpower competition, and it shot well.




based on the manuals I have, this has to be a high 30 Kpsia load, maybe tripping over to 40 Kpsia.

This is in a 26 inch Kreiger barrel, which is a tight barrel. The velocities are not too shabby

168 Nosler 39.0 grs AA2495, CAVIM 90 cases WLR
18 Aug 2002 T = 90 °F

Ave Vel = 2532
Std Dev = 20
ES = 84
Low = 2491
High = 2575
Number rds = 19

I am also going to say, I don't trust antique weapons, and neither should anyone. There are the denier fan boys, prove this, prove that. The thing is, they have no idea how to prove that any individual antique is structurally good, metallurgically correct prior to the thing blowing up in front of your face.

And then, to run antiques at pressure higher than they were originally built, that's stupid.

I got to talk this year, at a Regional, to a technical guy who consults for a major surplus importer and a major firearm manufacturer. His job is the technical analysis of the weapons that blew up and caused the lawsuits against his customers. Now I did not have a lot of time between targets, but I did ask if anyone had died in the cases his team investigated. No, no one died, but shooters lost eye sockets, one bolt went through a shooters jaw, before going through his shoulder. People lost hands, arm injuries, and probably some more nasty injuries I can't remember. And I am going to say, there is a good reason the deniers don't know of this: sealed court records. It is in no one's interest to educate the public about accidents. Liability lawyers want you to win a Darwin Award, that way, they get a case. You hurt yourself bad, really, really bad, and it leads to a big payout, that is a win-win for the lawyers. Besides, they know you would not listen anyway. Half the country believes COVID is a conspiracy theory. And manufacturers/importers are not interested in spreading bad product news that might deter customers.

Any way, do what ever you want.

 

[Ignition Override]

Too many people don’t know the difference between the old small-ring FR7

and the Large-ring, far —stronger— FR8.

Totally Aside from that, I couldn’t quite figure out a decent sight picture for my FR8 ( matching bolt/action). Otherwise it would have been worth keeping and was lots of fun.

The overall nice aperture --sights-- on my ‘HK-91 "clone" ’
PTR-91 rifles are probably what the FR8 (and the weak FR7) Should have had—-

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Too many people don’t know the difference between the old small-ring FR7

and the Large-ring, far —stronger— FR8.

Totally Aside from that, I couldn’t quite figure out a decent sight picture for my FR8 ( matching bolt/action). Otherwise it would have been worth keeping and was lots of fun.

The nice aperture sights on my ‘HK clone’
PTR-91 rifles are probably what the FR8 (and the weak FR7) Should have had—-

I actually think the FR7/8 rear sight is one of the best ever- as long as your thumb doesnt get caught between it and the bolt.....
I learned that the hard way, but only once!

 

[Y-T71]

...The fact that the Spanish themselves often used NATO ammo in these rifles doesn't mean it was a good idea --

...
Knowing what we know now, I wouldnt.

These 2 statements say it all in my opinion.

I was young and trusting when I was shooting my rifle (in fact, looking back, I've done a lot of stupid things in my younger days)

My "litmus test" these days is; "would I let my son shoot this?"

 

[Ignition Override]

Didn't the Spanish develop their weaker Version of NATO ammo due to the weakness of the FR7 (Not the FR8), as they waited on --development-- of the semi-auto CETME rifle (which later led to the G3 etc)?

I certainly don't know the story or this question would not be here.
Any aspect of even a tiny branch of the Mauser rifles' histories seems very complex, at least from skimming through a Huge book on the Mauser.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I've picked up four 1916 Mausers, two in 7mm and two in 7.62 CETME.
The 7mm rifles work fine with commercial ammo.
The 7.62 CETME are loaded down to Krag levels, with lighter bullets on the few occasions that I fired them.
I picked these old guns up while working on my Spanish Civil War collection.

 

[Slamfire]

Too many people don’t know the difference between the old small-ring FR7

and the Large-ring, far —stronger— FR8.

I am going to debate about the "far stronger" statement, as action strength is complicated. What is true, is that the M98 is a superior design to the small ring Mauser. The large ring Mauser has many safety features that are not in the small ring. If the firing pin breaks in a M98, if the bolt is out of battery, the firing pin will not hit the primer. The M98 has a safety lug on the bolt, a small ring bolt will blow out if the lugs shear. And I am aware of a case where a blown bolt from a small ring killed someone. T he old lugs sheared, probably due to fatigue, and the shooter died. But you do something stupid in a M98, at some level, it turns into shrapnel.

The story was, this modern Whitworth M98 Mauser was chambered for 270 Win and someone fired a 30-06 round. Big, badda, boom.




This was stated to be a modern FN Deluxe bolt, used in a factory rifle in 264 Win Mag.









Clearly the cartridge thrust of a belted magnum was too much and the shooter discovered the fatigue lifetime of the lugs. I am not going to state there was anything wrong with the metal or heat treatment, though there could be, but a belted magnum provides a lot more bolt thrust than an 8mm Mauser cartridge, and one should expect therefore, a shorter fatigue life. I wonder if the lug cracked before the barrel shot out, which is around 800 to 1000 rounds for 264 Win Magnums.

This is a new bolt. This happened in the standing stage of a NRA Highpower match and I got to take pictures after the relay was done. The shooter had brought a new M1a out, he had only sighted it prior to the match, and was firing military match ammunition. This is a new bolt, made from new materials. Either the materials were crap, or the heat treatment was crap. Whatever the cause, the lug cracked before 20 shots were fired standing. And it should have lasted 10000 rounds, at least.








The M98 has all sorts of gas protection features for the shooter, which you can claim make it "stronger" , but I would need an analysis to prove that makes the action stronger. But for certain, for less than receiver busting catastrophic events, that gas protection means the shooter won't loose an eyeball with the M98, whereas he probably would with a small ring.

I do know the M98 seats the cartridge head deep, and that does make for a "strong" action.

Mauser barrel: case supported just to extractor groove



M1903 barrel: sidewall of case out of chamber at extractor cut. It will require less pressure to blow the sidewall of a case in a M1903 barrel



case head support is also important in pistols







I don't know if a case in a small ring action is supported as well, or worse, than a M98. What you can be sure of, a torrent of hot gas,mixed with brass particles and powder particles will be coming down the receiver rails, the firing pin channel, under the bolt, directly into your eye, with a small ring Mauser.

But you look at the materials and lugs sizes, the small ring used the same materials, and the shear length in a small ring is the same as a M98. So from an absolute lug shearing perspective, they are about the same.

The material in a small ring was not made for, nor hardened to, 308 Win surface loading. This is a Swedish small ring, I believe chambered for 308 Win, and guess what, it blew. Now I don't have a failure analysis, but I am going to claim that the receiver seats set back, the case sidewall blew, and the receiver ring disappeared.



This is one of the risks of those old antique actions. Heat treating the things won't turn their crap steels into something great either. You cannot get the residual containments out of those old steels. Today with vacuum smelting, steels can be made much purer, the old stuff was Bessemer converter, air blown through, but it left the non oxidizable elements such as Ti, Cr, Cu, Ni, Ca, etc. A whole spectrum of crap that unpredictably screws with material properties, and none of it good.

Incidentally, modern steels should be better, and they are if properly made and heat treated. But if you want a surprise, go over to https://www.1911forum.com/ and search for slide cracking. All sorts of modern 1911's with slides cracked, or cracked off! Modern metallurgy is better, but it is not perfect!

I think the Rem M700 is a wonderfully safe action and it will stay together in incidents that will blow older actions to pieces.









The reason is the support Mike Walker gave to the case head



Patent for BREECH CLOSING CONSTRUCTION FOR FIREARMS 2,585,195

Merle H. Walker, lion, N. Y., assignor to Rem ington Arms Company, Inc., Bridgeport, Conn., a corporation of Delaware Application

Prior art firearms of the type employing fixed metallic ammunition have always been dependent upon the metallic cartridge case for securing obturation with the walls of the barrel chamber and preventing the rearward escape of gas from the barrel. As a result, the head of high intensity center-fire rifle cartridges has always been a massive chunk of brass of usually adequate strength to bridge over gaps between the end of the bolt and the chamber mouth, or clearance cuts for extractors, ejectors, and the like. However, in spite of this massive construction, the heads of cartridges, due to metallurgical deficiencies, barrel obstructions, or other difficulties, all too often fail in service, releasing white hot gas at pressures in excess of 50,000 pounds per square inch into the interior of the receiver. With some modern commercial and military rifles the effects of a burst head are disastrous, completely wrecking the action and seriously injuring or killing the shooter. One of the better known military rifles presents in alignment with the shooter's face a straight line passage down the left hand bolt lug guide groove, which, even though the receiver proper does not blow up, channels high pressure gas and fragments of the cartridge head into the location where they can do the most damage. It has been often, and truthfully, said that the Strength of most rifles is no greater than that of the head of the cartridges intended for use therein. The primary object of this invention is the provision of a firearm construction which is not thus dependent upon the strength of a cartridge head, ordinarily formed of a material of relatively low strength by comparison with the ferrous alloys used for the firearm structure.

Still, I am sure if I looked, I would find blown M700's. At some pressure level, the structure gives way...

If you are going to keep a nuclear razor in the house, make sure you keep it out of the hands of the grandchildren. And there goes the island.....

 

[R.W.Dale]

You are firing several thousand psi worth of pressure inches from your eyes in a rifle made from steel we would consider suitable for rebar today maintained by a nation that's experienced significant economic hardships over the decades.

Yes they are neat rifles. But what are you or anyone hoping to accomplish in 2022 shooting full power 308 in one where a vastly more accurate and safe bolt action can be bought for $300 or sometimes less from your local Walmart that day?

Either handload and download the rounds suitably (it will shoot just as well) or sell it to a collector willing to do so.

And no matter what ammo you shoot wear ANSI rated safety glasses

 

[hawg]

I had one and because I didn't know any better I shot a few boxes of Winchester .308 out of it. The thing wouldn't shoot for crap. I took it to my gunsmith for a new barrel. He was a master rifle builder and he told me the steel was soft and that eventually the bolt would start getting harder and harder to open until it wouldn't open with a hammer.

 

[35 Whelen]

I'm always amazed at how shooters can consistently find things to worry about. It's almost as if they get more enjoyment out of worrying about what might happen when they're shooting, than they do just shooting.
If one closely examines the "safety lug" of '98 Mausers, they'll find that in many cases they don't even make contact when the bolt is closed. For that matter, it's not uncommon in any military bolt rifle for one of the two main lugs to make greater contact than the other, or one to not make contact at all. That's one reason gunsmiths lap bolt lugs.
So there's something else to worry about.

35W

 

[hawg]

I shoot stuff that would make some of you crap your pants.

 

[trackskippy]

Too many people don’t know the difference between the old small-ring FR7

and the Large-ring, far —stronger— FR8.

Totally Aside from that, I couldn’t quite figure out a decent sight picture for my FR8 ( matching bolt/action). Otherwise it would have been worth keeping and was lots of fun.

The overall nice aperture --sights-- on my ‘HK-91 "clone" ’
PTR-91 rifles are probably what the FR8 (and the weak FR7) Should have had—-

I actually think the FR7/8 rear sight is one of the best ever- as long as your thumb doesnt get caught between it and the bolt.....
I learned that the hard way, but only once!

I always thought, and still do, that the sight system on the HK G3/9x series rifles is one, if not the best iron sights on a combat type rifle. The CETME/FR7/8's sights are basically just the predecessor to them and other than slight differences in design, work the same.

The main differences in design are the rear drum and how windage and elevation are applied. With the HK's, its done with the rear sight. With the CETME and FR's, its done with the front sight post.

HK explained the nuances of how to use them in their manuals. The "large" notch with the smaller "V" notch is your CQB/100m sight. For CQB, you use the whole large notch and the "globe" as the sight. For more precision, you used the small "V" in the bottom of the big notch and the post in the globe.

Using the peeps for the longer ranges, you basically use them as you would any other peep, but HK shows you having equal light around the globe, which always seemed a bit overboard and picky to me, but its what they showed. I always just focused on the post with good results.

This explains the rear sight settings for the CETME's and FR's...




Back when the FR's started coming in, we went with the FR8's. Just seemed to be the better way to go with the larger action and all the confusion being thrown around at the time. They were both cheap and plentiful then. The FR8's were going for a little over $100, and everyone in my circle of family and shooting friends got at least one. My kids first centerfire rifles were FR8's and we all still have them.

This is mine. For the most part, they were in probably fair to good shape as they came in, but not generally too bad. We were doing a lot of parkerizing back then, and redid mine and a couple of others.

 

[Slamfire]

If one closely examines the "safety lug" of '98 Mausers, they'll find that in many cases they don't even make contact when the bolt is closed. For that matter, it's not uncommon in any military bolt rifle for one of the two main lugs to make greater contact than the other, or one to not make contact at all. That's one reason gunsmiths lap bolt lugs. 35W

The Mauser, and Springfield M1903 safety lug should not touch the receiver, or be used as a structural member. There should be clearance between the lug and the receiver, such as you can see on this M1903



The whole purpose of the safety lug is to keep the bolt in the rifle when something bad happens up front.



Just imagine where that bolt would have gone, once the receiver ring disappeared.

This is a M1891 Argentine.




no safety lug, and the bolt handle does not turn down into a notch







The lugs crack off, or the receiver ring goes away, there is the potential for that bolt to leave the rifle. And this problem is not unique to old rifles. I am aware of two incidents with modern bolt actions where the bolt blew out. A shooter I know, was at OakRidge TN range and a shooter on the line had a "German" rifle with a pressed in locking insert in the receiver. He was shooting prone. The locking insert rotated and of course, lacking X Ray vision, the shooter could not see that. When the shooter fired the rifle, the lugs were resting on nothing, the bolt blew out, went through his shoulder, and my bud said, the bolt went back around 25 to 50 yards. My bud was unconcerned about the make and model of the rifle, he said it was one of those foreign rifles, I somehow think it was German.

At a Regional, I was talking to a fellow shooter about action design. He said So and So, down at the big end of the range, worked for Speer/Hornady/Sierra (I don't remember which) as a ballistician. So and So had some rare, but modern, German rifle on a rest and was testing it. He inserted a round, it had a pressed in insert, which rotated. Since So and So did not have X ray vision he could not see that the lugs were resting on nothing, and the bolt came out when the rifle was fired. I was told So and So had severe upper arm damage. It was lucky he was simply reaching over and pulling the trigger, for if his body was in line with the bolt, he might have had the bolt go through his torso.

I got home, googled the German rifle mentioned, it was so rare I found nothing. It probably did not last long, and all the court records are sealed. I really don't trust pressed in inserts. As a minimum, I want to see a mechanical device keeping the thing in place.

These actions, the bolt handle turns down into a notch. And that is why the bolt did not blow out.



nothing made by man, cannot be unmade by man

 

[Jim Watson]

The Mauser, and Springfield M1903 safety lug should not touch the receiver, or be used as a structural member.

Likewise the US Krag Jorgensen's bolt rib/safety lug does not contact the receiver bridge. But the Norwegian Krag's does. I don't know about the Danish Krag. Some of the old time gunsmiths, working with what they had, would lap in the lugs of a surplus Krag action so the safety lug would become a locking lug to hold in varmint loads like .25 Krag and .219 Improved Zipper.

My Neighbor the Gunsmith somehow came by one of those JP Sauer Model 90 rifles with the peculiar design of separate locking lugs rocking in and out of the bolt body as the handle was turned. When he looked at it closely and saw what was going on, he worried that they might not engage and him not be able to tell it. He never fired the rifle and eventually traded it off to somebody who trusted Old World Workmanship.

 

[Slamfire]

My Neighbor the Gunsmith somehow came by one of those JP Sauer Model 90 rifles with the peculiar design of separate locking lugs rocking in and out of the bolt body as the handle was turned. When he looked at it closely and saw what was going on, he worried that they might not engage and him not be able to tell it. He never fired the rifle and eventually traded it off to somebody who trusted Old World Workmanship.

You gotta to know when to walk away, and know when to run.