• Vote Today!

    If you haven't already voted, please consider doing so.  

    This is THR so we won't tell you how we think you should vote, only that we think it's important that you make your voice heard.  

    Especially if you're jaded about the process.  Make the time.  Get it done.

Mauser model 1916

The topic of this particular version of the Spanish Mauser comes up quite frequently on this forum and several others. It is often a hot bed of debate and I'm sure it will be for a longtime to come. I'm of the opinion like many others. If you stay within the parameters of what the receiver was originally designed for then you should have no problem at all as long as it is in good shootable shape.

Here is my latest build in 257 Roberts. IMG_1564.jpg

Jeremy
 
Drama, drama, drama with a cup of speculation, a teaspoon of no firsthand experience and pinch of "you'll put your eye out with that thing!" and all stirred in with some Bobby Brady hall monitor. That's the paths these threads always take.

35W

And FYI mine has a gas port on the left side of the receiver.

Gas ports on small ring Mausers and M1903's are basically feel good features. Sure gas will vent, but the real gas venting occurs when a separated case head blows the receiver. These actions are dismal in that regard.

DhLC06h.jpeg


Old World craftsmanship at its best:

One on the left

iYVbfxR.jpeg


one on the right

2e5RJR5.jpeg


The plain carbon steels used in vintage military receivers do not have the margin that modern alloys have. A modern receiver will survive boo boo's that will positively blow apart a vintage military actions. Winchester M70's have the same awful cone breech of the M1903, and as such, is very poor about containing gas release, but this modern M70 held.


lwPlZLs.jpeg


X2FAko8.jpeg


I do consider the Savage M110 a stronger action, and one that protects the shooter better than a M70, or small ring Mauser, but given enough grit and determination, a home reloader can blow a Savage all to hell. Nothing made by man cannot be unmade by man.

e8uxGi0.jpeg


Yesterday at a local rifle match, I talked to a bud about the dangers of 1950's cars. No safety belts, steel dashboards guaranteed to crack your head like an egg shell, seats that would pull off the floor at low impact speeds, etc. As a kid, I was tossed from the back seat, to the front seat of the 1953 Ford as my Mom braked hard. Incidentally, the same happened to my sister, and she still talks about the cut on her head. Mom would have done stellar service as a Kamikaze as she was always an aggressive driver until when as a senior citizen, the state of Florida pulled her license! Bud mentioned an older relative who would not use the safety belts in his modern truck, and just ignored the beeping noise from the dash as he drove. Some people just have a higher threshold for risk.

I will advise for old, vintage military actions, don't load in excess of service rifle pressures, under no condition rebarrel the things in cartridges with wider case heads (like belted magnums) Wider case heads increase significantly the load on the lugs and receiver seats for the same chamber pressures. And always wear your shooting glasses.

It's drama until it happens in real life.
 
Right, right, right. And your photos don't prove or disprove anything.
Do an internet search for "bolt action rifle blow up pics" and you'll see Barrett's, Rugers, Remington's, Sako's, Weatherby's, Savages et al.
It always amazes me when evidence, such as H.P. White testing a batch of 1916's, is presented yet people still choose to believe some, faceless, self-appointed expert on an internet forum and their own feelings. But, that's our world today!

35W
 
It always amazes me when evidence, such as H.P. White testing a batch of 1916's, is presented yet people still choose to believe some, faceless, self-appointed expert on an internet forum and their own feelings. But, that's our world today!

35W

I wanted an M1903, could not find one, but I did find a National Ordnance M1903A3. This was back in the 1970's. According to Frank De Haas, in his book "Bolt Action Rifles", HP White tested a National Ordnance M1903A3 receiver and it passed with "flying colors". Based on that, I purchased that National Ordnance M1903A3. And in less than 100 rounds, it was extremely difficult to lift the bolt. I figured out the bolt was peening the receiver seats. I guess HP White did not test my rifle, nor any of the National Ordnance rifles that blew up. Like the one that blew up on this unhappy owner:

LleOdnC.jpeg


bENTYjp.jpeg



HP White was not certifying that all small ring Mausers, and all National Ordnance receivers, were good. HP White was not in charge of Quality Control of any factory, HP White tests one item, and people want that test to represent all items. However, times change, and quality changes. I remember a time when Boeing designed and built quality airplanes. Now the things are death traps. Period steels varied, period process equipment, who knows what they used, and period inspection techniques, does anyone know what they were doing on the factory floor? Vintage steels varied. Ole Joe remembered a 1930's National Geographic ad where Chrysler claimed you could drive 33, 000 miles before grinding your valves. Wow, is that not remarkable that an automobile owner could drive 33,000 miles before taking off the cylinder head off and grinding the engine valves? That's real metallurgy. Sure wish we had as good of steels as they had in the 1930's. (this is sarcasm) I did find a 1931 Chrysler Imperial owners manual on the web, and there is a section on valve grinding. The thing is, vintage steels, things made out of vintage steels are highly variable, and that increases the risk of vintage things coming apart.

I am not going to certify that all small ring Mausers were perfectly made in all respects, and therefore safe in all respects. Are you?

If a Spanish Mauser blows up, just who you going to sue? The nation of Spain? Better have good health insurance if you are injured, because the costs are all going to be on you.

I remember when a vehicle was considered worn out at 100,000 miles. Times have changed. I do remember when "blue printing" American engines was a practice, trying to hot rod a small block with the part tolerances all over the place would guarantee a rod through the engine block. And that period was decades after all these small ring Mausers were made.
 
Last edited:
I bought mine as the price was way too low to pass up (I believe I paid around $60 for it around 2010 IIRC). I didn't know at the time that some were swearing up and down that standard 7.62x51 NATO wasn't the best idea and .308 Winchester could be downright angerous. Something about the 1916 Spanish Guardia Civil Mauser missing safety lug or something. Being that I didn't plan on shooting this milsurp much or at all, it didn't concern me much. I did also find some Norma plastic training ammunition that launches a 10gr plastic slug to around 4000 fps, and at a much lower chamber pressure. They were also stupid cheap, so I bought 1k.

This combination makes the 1916 Spanish Mauser a blast at the range. Accuracy is good and these light bullets still make reactive targets... reactive, vaporizing 12oz cans and such.
It will still blast through 1/2" plywood board at 20' like nothing, but supposedly will peter out pretty quickly. The only issue is on occasion, the extractor fails to extract the spent cartridge from the chamber due to a slightly smaller rim diameter. Fortunately, they don't stick and can easily be extracted with a fingernail.

5166824716_42f18a0d88_h.jpg


5166825182_16398897ce_h.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have often wondered why after over a century of debate and the modern day internet and gun scribes on the pay roll of the firearm and ammunition manufactures cannot decide what color crap is when they publish their crap it all still stinks.

It isn't any trade secret that the old military war horses that become the topic of discussion and spins the original posters thread wildly into this direction of strengths and weakness of the blends of steels used over a century ago and the OP quits posting to the thread. What has been learned? Not a damn thing is the answer to that test. Because no where in the OP are there questions about steel strengths, discussion about other rifle models, blow up tests by the modern keyboard commandos and Youtube posters. Here is what the original poster asked for. The answer to that test is personal experience.
I recently acquired a Mauser 1916 chambered in .308. I'm still in the research and learning phase of getting to know this rifle. What I do know is that the bolt handle needs to be modified in order to put a scope on it. It's actually chambered for 7.62x51mm and was imported in massive numbers by SAMCO. I have fired one round through it so far. Not sure I'm going to keep it around long enough to use it as a project later down the line (maybe restocking it putting a new bent bolt handle on it and topping it off with a scope ect). Anyone have good/otherwise experiences or insights on this rifle?
I am no sleepy bee here and have given only a partial public answer as to the extent of what my personal experience is and that is for a very good reason. I will not make myself liable for someone else's mistakes. This is especially true when it comes to load data I personally use and the methods that I use when making one of these old war wagons useful again. There is nothing more frustrating than attempting to steer someone in the right direction when thread ultimately becomes a flame war.

I have one of these rifles that is in-fact chambered in the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge and is a SAMCO import rifle. The receiver was manufactured in 1946 at the Industrias de Guerra de Cataluña which is interesting because when it was originally barreled it would have been chambered for 7x57mm. The 7.62 x 51 cartridge didn't become the Nato standard cartridge until 1951. So my rifle receiver and barrel where Arsenal refit. But unfortunately I cannot prove that because when I started my project it was nothing more than a barrel and a receiver. Further-more I'd speculate that upon the arsenal re-fit it would've had the nomenclature as an FR7 again I cannot prove this theory because it didn't have the original furniture.
I have had a very good experience thus far with my rifle because I exclusively hand load for it. Keeping my hand loads at 300 savage pressure using published 308 Winchester load data so I don't destroy the rifle or hurt myself or others around me. I will not prove Darwin right.
Here she is and she received a new lease on life from a pile of mismatched parts. Presto my working mans 308 Winchester. 66380013913__036775E2-1A8F-41D0-9067-6B1E289EE13D.jpg
The Spanish modified 1000's of 1893 receivers to become training rifles and were issued in large #'s to the police during the transition period to the CETME rifle. The same was done to the 1898 large ring receivers manufactured by the Spanish and was given the nomenclature of FR8.

Jeremy
 
Last edited:
Another issue that comes up in discussion as it pertains to the Small Ring Mauser's in general is the published load data. While the discussion for the rifles of topic in this particular thread is .308 Winchester or 7.62x51mm Nato. So I will do my best here to stay on that topic. Most everyone who has any knowledge of the Small Ring family of Mauser's knows that it wasn't designed to be used with any chambering that exceeds 47,000 CUP or approximately 52,000 PSI. Now these are two entirely different units of measurement and shouldn't be confused but they are and I have been found guilty of doing that. In particular it happened when I was building my working mans 308 Winchester. Yes the very same rifle that I showed in my last post. Here is the data and reference that I almost got into trouble with and why. The picture is taken from the Lyman Reloading Handbook 49th edition. If you pay close attention to the 150 grain and the information both units of measurement are used. This isn't a problem with modern firearms but quickly becomes one using antique and vintage firearms such as the 1893 Mauser because not everyone pays close attention to the data or even really understands it.
The most common misconception comes in from the velocity/horse power junkies who think that every load that they push through their smoke poles has to be the highest possible to be the most accurate. That is further from the truth that the ammunition manufactures want the shooting public to believe. In this case the starting load is the most accurate. It isn't the most impressive by modern velocity claims of what the standard should be. But it is certainly more manageable recoil on the shoulder and easier to conserve the life of the rifles of this discussion.



IMG_1582.jpg IMG_1583.jpg

Jeremy
 
Last edited:
I have heard from several gunsmiths over the decades that Spanish Mausers are notorious for bolts setting back into the receiver over a long period of use. I owned a couple Spanish M1943s in 8mm and had no problem with them but that was 40 years ago. .308 seems a bit much for the M1916s. I guess the question could be approached by whether the European proof houses passed FR-7s and the examination of FR7s that have been used with modern .308 over a period of time looking for bolt set back into the receiver.

Just like shooting low number M1903s - those who want to will find a reason to, and those who don't, won't. I'm in the won't camp.
 
Back
Top