Argentino Model 1891

[browningguy]

This is three shots at 100 yards, rested of course with my sporterized Argie, it's extremely consistant around .7-.85" 3 shot groups with the handload. I'm not sure how it would hold groups as the barrel heats though, nothing is bedded in the stock.



The peep sights are the only way I can shoot non-scoped rifles any more.

 

[Tokugawa]

That is one nice group!
Fat elk, I have heard that the 1891 rifles are partial to heavy long bullets. As far as a 7.62x39 conversion, I have also contemplated it, I think they both use a similar dia. bullet, of course the 39 is going to be way lighter. Haevenot looked at the case head dia. to see if the bolt face will work.

 

[fatelk]

If I convert mine to 7.62x39, I will use a new barrel. I used to work for a gunsmith and can still get free barrel work on rare occasion, as well as inexpensive takeoff barrels. I haven't really looked at the magazine to see if I can make it work reliably with the shorter round.
The bolt face for the 7.65 is slightly larger than required for the 7.62, but looks like it should work fine.
I think this conversion would make a very handy carbine.

 

[Slamfire]

OK I have an all matching high percentage (ground crest) 1891. Shot it and greased it up. Do not want to shoot it too much. Why?

The rifle was made in 1891 or there abouts. No matter how precise the metal work, beatiful the bluing, the metallurgy on that rifle is 1891. Without writing a history on metal development, let me say airplanes were 12 years in the future, the discovery of stainless steels about 20 years, in the mid 1890’s “nickel steel” was considered rocket science. I heard shock impact testing was not accepted until the 1910’s. The process controls and the quality of the steel in these rifles is too iffy to put my face behind it for an extended period of time.

A gun bud that I used to work with was at the range. He was given an 1895 Mauser to shoot. Do not remember if it was customized or stock, but he would not shoot a rusty dangerous thing. I do remember him showing me how he stuck his pinky in the chamber to see if there were any obstructions. He was real careful about risking his face, so I suspect the ammo was factory not reloads. On the first shot the receiver ring took off to parts unknown. The gist of it was the rifle looked fine, no corrosion, ammo was fine, the bore and chamber were not obstructed, and yet the receiver shattered. No injury to the shooter. If that metal had gone into his head we would not have been talking about it.

These things are old. So old that the metallurgy is suspect. Don’t shoot them, hang them on the wall. God save you if you get a bore obstruction or an overcharge.

 

[NDCent]

Wow, never heard this about poor quality metallurgy in these rifles before. I have owned one for over 40 years and shot it many hundreds of times. Ammunition was easily obtained back then, It was the first high power rifle I owned. Workmanship is outstanding, fit and finish the same. Mine is pristine condition, like the day it was manufactured, with the exception of the crest being ground. I'm sure you speak from an educated and much better knowledge base than I. However, I feel much safer with my cheek resting on the stock of this rifle over many in my collection of early made firearms. I may be carelessly naive but I still consider mine an occasional shooter, not a wall hanger.

 

[Slamfire]

These things are old. So old that the metallurgy is suspect. Don’t shoot them, hang them on the wall. God save you if you get a bore obstruction or an overcharge

Perhaps I was being overcautious, but I will stand by what I said about the metal quality of the era.

I have a M1891. I zero'd it and put it away. I will not shoot it with ammo that could be considered "hot".

Until you read about the history of metallurgy, you just don't know how little they knew in the 1890's. By the time you get into the 30's metals were well defined and understood.

Anyone remember the progression of the semiconductor revolution? Metal science progressed almost that fast from the 1890's through +WWI. The early stuff, metals and chips, are primitive.

Double and single heat treat Springfields were made from steels that today are used as rebar. As mentioned in another thread, WWI era M1911's were not even heat treated!

There is just not a lot of margin if something goes wrong in early guns.

Anyone remember that the rivets on the Titantic were substandard? Lots of slag in the metal? "three times more slag than occurs in modern wrought iron" This was in 1912.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html
http://dwb.unl.edu/teacher/nsf/c10/c10links/chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa022800a.htm
http://shipwrecks.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/metallurgy-of-the-rms-titanic/

This death trap was state of the art fourteen years after the M1891.

 

[Gelgoog]

^^^

Utter horse****. How often did you hear about these guns having critical failures? The 1891 Argentine Mauser has been a favorite amongst hunters around the world for almost 100 years now. The action is strong enough for handloading and can handle upwards of 60,000 PSI in common use and will start to have critical failures around 90,000 PSI.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Prvi Partizan ammo in 7.65 was going for $8.95/20 box at Aim Surplus.

That's what I paid too.

 

[rcmodel]

So old that the metallurgy is suspect. Don’t shoot them, hang them on the wall.

Good grief!

Apparently you have never seen one?

They are made far better then any of todays commercial sporting rifles.

They are perfectly safe for the caliber & pressures they were designed for.

rc

 

[Cosmoline]

Got confused by a zombie thread, but the 91 Argie is plenty strong. The 98 pattern offers some additional strength but that's a design aspect not a question of steel quality.

 

[rcmodel]

I thought we were talking about Argentine 91 Mauser's?

rc

 

[R.W.Dale]

I have owned and shot these rifles extensively and IMO the metallurgy is fine for any sane loadings.

BUT

I do STRONGLY urge people to not fire these rifles even ONCE without ANSI approved eye protection. These rifles do not offer the safety in gas handling and deflection from the shooters face in the event of a ruptured primer or case that the later Mauser designs do.

But then again you SHOULD always be wearing eye protection when shooting anything!

 

[Gelgoog]

I would be more worried about a mosin nagant or M1 garand blowing up in my face, then I would a 91 Argentine. I have had 6 Argentine mausers, and none of them have ever had any problems. The fact they they are over 100 years old and look as though they just arrived from the factory should be testament.

If your worried about poor metalurgy in mausers look at spanish mausers...those are about the only ones that may be suspect. The early contract mausers made by DWM and Ludwig are some of the finest made military rifles out there.

 

[Slamfire]

The action is strong enough for handloading and can handle upwards of 60,000 PSI in common use and will start to have critical failures around 90,000 PSI.

I have never seen these numbers in print. Where did you come up with these. ?

I would be more worried about a mosin nagant or M1 garand blowing up in my face, then I would a 91 Argentine

You consider a 91 Argentine safer than a Garand? What about a Garand makes you believe it will blow up in your face?

The fact they they are over 100 years old and look as though they just arrived from the factory should be testament

Let me finish this sentence: “should be testament that they have not been used in 110 years”

That is the only conclusion you can draw from a nice shiny antique. That it has not been used.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Any 1891 Argy in good condition is perfectly safe for shooting regularly. Simply condemning ANYTHING on the basis of it's age is #####(not wise)#####.

 

[Slamfire]

Good grief!

Apparently you have never seen one?

They are made far better then any of todays commercial sporting rifles.

They are perfectly safe for the caliber & pressures they were designed for.

To beat this dead horse further guys, let me say I know something about shooters. Most of you like old stuff. You like the history, you like the vintage design, and you hold historical objects in high esteem. So it aggravates you no end when someone criticizes your heritage.

But, older is not necessarily better.

The main source of the shooting communities information has been Gun Magazines and gunwriters. Every so often one of the magazines will run a vintage gun story, timed to help sales at Century Arms, or some other big importer.

So what do the shills say.You will read about the fine workmanship of these things. Check. They will describe the outstanding machine work. Check. You will read about the fine bluing. Check. And they will describe the very good accuracy you will get from a vintage gun. Check. They might also describe the vintage, often amusing design features of the things. Check.

But shill Gunwriters are at best French Majors. They can eat cake, but they don’t know how to bake a cake. They don’t know the difference between ultimate or yield, and the sure as heck don’t know nothing about the history of metallurgy.

That fine metal work, the beautiful finishes, the wonderful fit and finish are all paint hiding rotted wood. Or potentially rotted wood.

I am warning you guys because you are my guys, and I worry about you hard headed lunks hurting yourselves. :banghead:

So I am going to tell you that I have studied this topic, read and researched what I can, and the materials and process of that era are highly variable and greatly inferior to what we have today.

There are very few good detailed analyses of period metals. The third link leads you to a good one, unfortunately no pictures.

The only one I heard on action materials was on a M1909 Argentine. A metallurgist sent a detailed analysis to Ludwick Olsen. He summarized it something like “not metallurgically good material” Something short like that. What I would have given to read the full report.

Whenever I have read a metals analysis of the irons and carbon steels of that era, they are all “slag, impurities, low grade”. The Titanic analysis follows this trend, and the metals there are 21 years later. Just search for reviews on the Class C materials used in the 03 Springfields. Awful stuff. Springfield was unable to reheat the single heat treat receivers because of the carbon steels were just too varible in composition.

The design may be good, the workmanship great, but you should not trust the metals, and these old guns are iffy about margin.

This of course is my viewpoint. I have only one head and I don’t want to loose it or any fingers or eyes. And I don’t want you all to loose any non refundable body parts either.

That’s why I think they are best as wall hangers or shoot little and light.

Always wear your shooting glasses, new or old guns. Saved my eyes, twice.

 

[Cosmoline]

I am warning you guys because you are my guys, and I worry about you hard headed lunks hurting yourselves.

Well they've been in use for nearly 120 years now, and for several years since you first posted your concerns. Where are all these KBs?

 

[Gelgoog]

norma 7.65 arg. ammo is loaded to 52,000 psi.

Small ring mausers have been extensively tested for their strength.

http://img382.imageshack.us/i/3082pc6.jpg/

Maximum pressure 390.00 MPa (56,565 psi)

although critical failure usually happen at 70,000 +
I would not push a 1891 past commercial loadings, but they are perfectly fine for those. Do you honestly thing norma is going to release unsafe ammo for the only rifle it is intended for?

I have been shooting war surplus for years without even a gas leak or any indication of wear on my locking lugs to indicate a safety risk. The only real people at risk are reloaders who don't know what they are doing. When one of my 12 mausers blows up, I will let you know.

 

[Maj Dad]

Williams Gun Sight Co. had a "blueprint" for customizing mausers & other milsurp rifles, and a really nice one for 1891s. I know, because I bought a pre-1898 rifle through Shotgun News in 1977, and was going to convert it to the Williams Mannlicher configuration. I still have the literature somewhere - it is still a good outline for conversions - but something made me keep it stock. It is in excellent condition, shiny bore, nice finish & stock, and the ground crest is the only flaw. I bought one box of Norma 150 gr 7.65 at $22 (in 1977, no less), and decided reloading was indicated. I formed cases from 30-06, trimmed & chamfered, and off I went. Won a local NRA High Power Rifle match at the Flint River Gun Club in Manchester, GA, with modest loads of Hornady .313s & 4064 - ticked the good old boys off so badly they never got around to giving me the trophy

If you want to sell it, PM me - I like them.
Cheers,
George

 

[Slamfire]

norma 7.65 arg. ammo is loaded to 52,000 psi.Do you honestly thing norma is going to release unsafe ammo for the only rifle it is intended for?

Per "Mauser Bolt Rifles" by Ludwig Olson, the 7.65 Mauser maximum pressure was 42,660 psia.

Maybe liability laws are different in Sweden. I don't know. This is from Norma:

Today, Norma is the sole supplier of cases. Despite such early development, performance of the 7.65 in modern guns is practically indistinguishable from 308 Winchester ballistics. Interestingly, to the untrained eye, these two cases look very similar; however, similar is not identical and these rounds are not interchangeable. Obviously, with top loads, the 7.65 Argentine is useful for the same range of hunting applications, as is the 308 Winchester; however, due to continued use of potentially weaker rifles in this chambering, data listed here is significantly reduced and ballistics are therefore also limited.

Small ring mausers have been extensively tested for their strength.

http://img382.imageshack.us/i/3082pc6.jpg/

Maximum pressure 390.00 MPa (56,565 psi)

although critical failure usually happen at 70,000 +

Garry James did an outstanding job of shilling for the importer. He had to dispell all those rumors of "soft" Spanish receivers. He was paid to convince readers that these actions, even though they were Spanish, were perfectly safe. Gunwriters who accept payment for infomercials are not objective.

A M1916 Spanish is a much later action. They were built by Oviedo from 1916 to 1951, and Catulun from 1936 to 1939.

What I don't know is whether the 308 conversions in the article were made from selected actions. If I were in charge of the rebuild program I would have said, convert late model, best condition receivers. That way the receivers would have been made from the latest metals. This is just me. I know others who could care less, to them any injuries suffered by end users would have just been “their bad luck”.

Even if the receivers were not selected by date, any receiver selected, by virtue of use, would have gone through a weeding out process. After all poor receivers would have been discarded before rebarreling, and any receivers damaged in the conversion process would have been discarded.

Demanding a record of blown up or damaged Mausers is unreasonable as there is no law mandating such a thing. Nor is there funding. All you will read are voluntary postings by someone interested enough to take the time. I would hazard that for every posting there are a hundred, maybe a thousand incidents. Still, sometimes these posts appear.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?p=41975#post41975
Soft rerceivers

I bought a 93 Spanish Mauser that had been rebarreled To .257 Roberts. The bolt had been ruined by Bubba trying to make it cock on opening. I bought it for a song and got a another bolt from Springfield Sporters and had a smith set the headspace and turn down the handle. Within only about 20 rounds of factory ammunition the brass started to show signs of excessive pressure... the bolt had already set back that much. I finally sold the gun less the receiver for about half what I had in it.

Not all of the 93's are like that and there is no way to know what Bubba had subjected that receiver to before he put on the .257 barrel.

Instead of pressing me, to prove these actions are unsafe, the advocates of their use should prove that they are "safe".

Why are they safe?
__________________

 

[Maj Dad]

I've heard for too many years, from too many reliable sources (far too many to quote) that the 91/93/95/96 actions are not as strong or as robust (ergo, safe) as the later 98 Mauser & Mauser-types to believe for a minute that they are. I have a 91 that I shot with Norma ammo when I first got it ~1977, but after learning the pressures it generated, never again. Modest handloads were, and are fine for it and are exceptionally accurate (and I do use a little Argentine GI ball from my stash from time to time). I've killed deer with it, just for fun, and still like to drag it out to the range & let it exercise itself. It's an old soldier, and like this one, strenuous exercise is out of the question - sitting around the house or VFW shooting the breeze is in...

And having had a M1916 7mm I bought ~1969 that was a great shooter, I bought one of those 308s with all the propaganda included. After it wouldn't shoot worth a hoot or feed ammo worth a tinker's damn I sold it. I never did trust it with 308 factory/GI ammo anyway, and I'm kind of glad it's gone. If you want a full power rifle, don't put lipstick on pigs...

(I believe we're approaching equine asystole, sadly, as well)

 

[jimmyraythomason]

The only model that I would be leary of would be a Spanish M93. All of the rest,in good condition,using the round they were designed for are good to go.

 

[Flyboy73]

HOLY CRAP!!!!! My thread has come back to life.

But seriously I still have that rifle. I really like that sportier. But I did add a unaltered M91 to go next it in the safe.

Brion

 

[Slamfire]

This is a Swedish Mauser, don't know if it is a M38 or M96. Found the picture on my hard drive, don't know anything about the blow up.

But, here is a later action than a M1891 Argentine, a more modern design, the receiver ring is cracked and the extractor is blown off. It really looks like part or the right receiver ring is missing. These early low carbon, plain carbon steel actions tend to fragment, alloy steel receivers have more ductility.

I think the blood on the stock and on the ground shows how little shooter protection these early actions provide.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

don't know anything about the blow up.

which makes it irrelevent to the discussion. The wrong ammo could have been fired in it or an obstructed barrel. Without particulars,this photo doesn't contribute much and certainly doesn't prove that the action is weak.