An FR-8 MIGHT blow up, but has one ever done so?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Yoda

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
615
Location
Florida, bouncing between Hurlburt Fld and MacDill
I think i've read just about everything published on whether you can use standard .308 in a Spanish FR-8, which is rated for NATO 7.62mm.

Some people say .308 will blow the gun up, and others say it will handle it just fine.

The question is, does anyone KNOW of an FR-8 that has blown up when using .308?

- - - Yoda
 
The FR-8 is built on the 3 lug Spanish Mauser action of 1943.

The FR-7 is built on the 2 lug Spanish Mauser action of 1893.


No kabooms that I've ever heard of.

M1916 tested by White Labs:


The M1916 is also built on the 1893 2 lug action and barreled in .308
 
the FR-8 is a 98' action. probably one of the strongest actions ever made and have often been rebored for some serious calibers like .300 win or .338. It can easily take any off the shelf .308

The FR-7 Is built on a 96' action that is made for lighter rounds such as the 7mm. It will handle the .308 just fine, but I would be very careful handloading it. The FR-7 should be used with spanish .308 cetme round which to my knowledge was not loaded as hot as the .308 nato round. You will probably be fine with .308 factory rounds, but stay away from the hot stuff.
 
Gelgoog said:
The FR-7 should be used with spanish .308 cetme round which to my knowledge was not loaded as hot as the .308 nato round.
There is no such cartridge.

7.62 Nato is not as hot as commercial .308 Winchester. Nato spec 7.62x51 is fine in the FR-7 and M1916 Mausers. Be careful with commercial .308 loadings.
 
There is no such cartridge.

It's a 7.62x51 case with a downloaded powder charge and a copper jacketed aluminum cored bullet. It's no different than 8x57 Mauser with different bullet weights and powder charges or .223 with different bullet weights and powder charges.

It's dimensionally identical to the 7.62x51 Nato / .308 Winchester and you can do the same all day long, if you make your own cartridges.

For it to be an actual different cartridge, it'd have to be - well - different.

Another thing to think about: When the Spaniards rearsenaled their 1893 Mausers into M1916 Guardia Civil Mausers in .308, the "7.62 Cetme" didn't exist. So let's hear that "these rearsenaled 1893 Mausers were designed for the 7.62 Cetme" theory again. . .

(or enlighten us as to which .308 load the M1916 Guardia Civil Mausers were meant for)
 
did I say they were designed for the round. I said they should be used with that round due to its lower pressure. I also said .308 factor should be fine. But please, if you insist on responding in a dickish way, here is the 411.

The common question seems to be, “Is it safe to shoot 7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester from an 1893 type rifle which has been rebarreled and” 7.62” stamped on the receiver ring? What about this mystery cartridge the 7.62 CETME?”

Let’s get this CETME cartridge debunked right now. The ORIGINAL cartridge (among a number of “prototypes”) was a 7.92 x 40mm round developed for the (then) experimental CETME rifle. It was then changed to a 7.62 x 51mm cartridge but at a lower pressure and lighter bullet then the 7.62 NATO. According to sources, this 7.62 CETME round was only used in two rifles, the CETME model A and B assault rifles. The 7.62 NATO is 7.62 x 51mm round also, but is loaded at a higher pressure and is still in use. The various re-worked rifles, including the FR7/8 and Guardia Civil, were ALL re-chambered in 7.62 NATO.

Recall we said earlier that Mauser upgraded his action designs, materials and heat treatment techniques to keep up with powder and cartridge developments? This may well be the most important thing we discuss about the 1893 action. The original cartridge for the 1893 is the 7 mm Mauser or 7 x 57. This cartridge was designed to have a breech pressure of no more then 46,000 cup. The 1893 action is designed within these parameters. Now, all actions are “proofed” with a high-pressure cartridge, often called a “Blue Pill”. However, they are not fed a steady diet of them. All Mauser actions have a bit of insurance built into them, they have to, however, they are not meant to push the envelope all the time.

The American ammo companies stay within that 46,000 cup ceiling for a good reason. I have many reloading manuals. The Speer Manual, specifically states the 1893 type actions should be limited to starting loads in 7 mm Mauser. Other loading manuals have 7mm Mauser loads in two sections; mild loads for military rifles, another section for commercials (Rugers, Winchesters etc).

In the 1950’s Spain rebarreled many 1893 types to the 7.62 NATO cartridge. Cartridges of the World, 5th Edition by Frank C. Barnes, DBI books, 1985, state the 7.62 NATO, M80 Ball, the standard rifle cartridge, has an average max pressure of 50,000 psi.

However, what about the .308 Winchester? In the book: Handloading, William C. Davis, NRA Publications, 1981, it states: “The commercial .308 Winchester is normally limited to a working pressure of about 52,000 cup, and the maximum average for commercial ammunition should not exceed 55,200 cup.”

Military rifles tend to have roomy chambers, usually crowding the high side of tolerance. Throats also tend to be on the long side. Both these factors translate into slightly reduced pressures. So, it seems that firing the 7.62 NATO round in an 1893 type that has been rebarreled and marked 7.62 NATO is safe. Let’s remember though, these are old rifles, some in excess of 100 years old. It would be wise to have the rifle completely inspected before firing. And, even then, a rifle, which appears perfect, will benefit greatly from reduced pressure hand loads.

No less of an authority then Frank de Haas, in his book Bolt Action Rifles 4th Expanded Edition, Krause Publications, 2003, states this about 1893 type actions: “I advise limiting the cartridge choice to those originally used, or to other cartridges within the following limits: any cartridge developing less then 45,000 psi breech pressure…I consider all of these actions…as having marginal strength and safety for the .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) cartridge.”

Notice de Hass states “marginal”, not dangerous. Again, this seems an admonition to proceed with caution, not a condemnation of the 1893 type.
 
Gelgoog said:
here is the 411.
It was then changed to a 7.62 x 51mm cartridge but at a lower pressure and lighter bullet then the 7.62 NATO.
Isn't that what I said?

The "7.62 Cetme" doesn't exist. It's just an underloaded lightweight 7.62 Nato round that has gained the mythical moniker among some of you.
 
Not that I know of; wanna be the first one on the block to have it happen? :p

Don't be dumb with handloads, and it seems that you should be fine.
 
I agree that a failure of a 98 action is unlikely with commercial .308 ammo, however if one wanted to be very cautious, and at the same time strive for authenticity, the low recoil .308 loadings offered by Remington would be a close approximation of the original 7.62 CETME.

gary
 
The "7.62 Cetme" doesn't exist. It's just an underloaded lightweight 7.62 Nato round that has gained the mythical moniker among some of you.

OK, so the 7.62 Cetme exists, but it's a loading, rather than a cartridge. Just state your case and be done with it. There's no need to be nasty about it.
 
Could we get some definitive clarification on this matter of .308 and 7.262 NATO.

I am building a Saiga .308 and don't want to ruin my weapon or be purchasing incorrect ammunition that is more expensive.
 
maskedman504 said:
Could we get some definitive clarification on this matter of .308 and 7.262 NATO.

I am building a Saiga .308 and don't want to ruin my weapon or be purchasing incorrect ammunition that is more expensive.
You'll be fine with either.

The topic here is 50+ year old actions that have been rebarreled for cartridges they weren't originally designed for.

Your .308 Saiga will happily ingest both milsurp and commercial ammo.
 
Additionally, I have looked at the FR-8 mauser and all this caliber equivocation has me worried.

I had been considering a :

Spanish Civil Guard M1916

I would just love to see some definitive information about these type rifles.
 
I would shoot 308 win all day long in a well made 96. But the Spanish FR-7 and the Spanish 1896 7X57 metal work is very poor. I have a Spanish 96 action that is so soft I use it for a paperweight. The FR8 as many have said are ok. But I think of them as nice wall hangers. Even turkish 98 actions are much better.
 
maskedman504 said:
Additionally, I have looked at the FR-8 mauser and all this caliber equivocation has me worried.

I had been considering a :

Spanish Civil Guard M1916

I would just love to see some definitive information about these type rifles.
lefteyedom said:
But the Spanish FR-7 and the Spanish 1896 7X57 metal work is very poor.
One more time, guys, (in case you missed it the first time):

 
I have a 1916 Spanish Mauser short rifle (restoring it, a new stock should arrive today) and this topic is one that I have looked at long and hard. Of course, for me its not so much of an issue as my 1916 (a 1922 Oviedo with Lange Vizier rear sight) is still chambered in the original 7x57. But, what I have learned is that the safety of .308 rechambering is a source of great debate. My thought after reading way too much on the issue is that you should be okay with commercial .308, but to be on the safer side 7.62 NATO is preferable, and downloading any .308/7.62 is a good idea. 7.62 CETME seems to be consistent with the type/power of load that was intended for the rifle.

The 1916 is a stronger rifle than many give credit for, but, not strong enough that I would push the envelope.
 
Yoda -

To answer your question, I am not aware of anyone shooting an FR-8 that has "blown up" by shooting commercial .308 ammo. As long as you're shooting normal loadings, you'll be safe for years and years. I wouldn't waste any more thought on the subject. Be careful with handloads though. But hot handloads can be dangerous in any gun, so that's not new information.

I'm not going to comment on the FR-7 because you didn't specifically ask.

But shoot all the commercial .308 you want out of the FR-8 and enjoy! I've been holding out for one of those rifles for a very long time!
 
There is no such cartridge.

It's a 7.62x51 case with a downloaded powder charge and a copper jacketed aluminum cored bullet. It's no different than 8x57 Mauser with different bullet weights and powder charges or .223 with different bullet weights and powder charges.

It's dimensionally identical to the 7.62x51 Nato / .308 Winchester and you can do the same all day long, if you make your own cartridges.

For it to be an actual different cartridge, it'd have to be - well - different.

By your reasoning, there is no such thing as the 7.62x51 NATO cartridge, since the .308 Winchester was introduced 2 years prior to the NATO round being adopted ... which would make 7.62x51 NATO one of your "mythical monikers". Silly, huh?

If the 7.62CETME "does not exist", then neither does the 7.62NATO.
 
I thought F.A. Cetme was only a maker name, a european Winchester company - like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top