No difference except for the headstamp. I have a 95 Mauser conversion to 308 that was done in 1965. It handles anything I shoot. HOWEVER.......I reload for accuracy, not for max loads and max velocity. I don't shoot commercial ammo in this rifle as I have a 5 gal bucket of LC brass that I reload. The brass passes through a 308 resizing die with no problems. The chamber of this rifle is a minimum chamber too......chris3
Spainish m1916 MAuser 7.52 NATO vs 308 Win
- Thread starter mookiie
- Start date
- Status
Claymore1500
Member
I own a 1916 spanish mauser, I too have read all of the different theories on pressure, most, if not all of them tend to leave me with more questions than answers.
The one piece of seemingly sound advice I have read, is that if you hand load, you can go by the specs for a .300 savage round and you should be safe.
I have checked mine several times and found no problems, I have used factory .308win. (although not an enormous amount), knowing that there is no guarantee that any rifle is bullet proof (no pun intended), I have sidelined mine until I can get a rifle press to download my ammo.
The one piece of seemingly sound advice I have read, is that if you hand load, you can go by the specs for a .300 savage round and you should be safe.
I have checked mine several times and found no problems, I have used factory .308win. (although not an enormous amount), knowing that there is no guarantee that any rifle is bullet proof (no pun intended), I have sidelined mine until I can get a rifle press to download my ammo.
guyfromohio
Member
I have one made by Steyr and shoot .308. No problems.
Jim Watson
Member
Reloading for the 1916 and FR7 '95 action .308/7.62:
Lyman shows a starting .308 load of 43 gr IMR 4064 and a 150 gr JSP at 2645 fps and 41,100 CUP. This is lower pressure than 7x57 maximum and comparable velocity to a 7mm or .300 Savage. This is where I would be shooting a conversion.
Managed recoil. Does Remington SAY that "managed recoil" means lower pressure?
It need not if they are using near maximum loads of fast burning powder. That would reduce ejecta mass, give more consistent subload velocity, and save money. But not reduce chamber pressure. Like shotshells. People thing that Cheapmart promotional loads with light shot loads equals low pressure for their old guns. But it doesn't. These things are really pretty hot with top powder loads to drive the light shot load hard enough to cycle automatic shotguns.
Lyman shows a starting .308 load of 43 gr IMR 4064 and a 150 gr JSP at 2645 fps and 41,100 CUP. This is lower pressure than 7x57 maximum and comparable velocity to a 7mm or .300 Savage. This is where I would be shooting a conversion.
Managed recoil. Does Remington SAY that "managed recoil" means lower pressure?
It need not if they are using near maximum loads of fast burning powder. That would reduce ejecta mass, give more consistent subload velocity, and save money. But not reduce chamber pressure. Like shotshells. People thing that Cheapmart promotional loads with light shot loads equals low pressure for their old guns. But it doesn't. These things are really pretty hot with top powder loads to drive the light shot load hard enough to cycle automatic shotguns.
But of course age is a valid argument, if you have not read up on the technology of the era, you don't have an appreciation how primitive manufacturing technology was back then.
This was state of the art after your 1902 action was built
Swedish service rifle ammunition is not that hot.
Code:
[SIZE="3"]M38 Infantry Carbine 24" barrel
28-Oct-94 T ≈ 60 °F
143 gr 1986 Swedish Ball OAL 3.065" 47.4 grs powder average
Ave Vel = 2427
Std Dev = 22
ES = 62
Low = 2395
High = 2457
N = 10[/SIZE]These older rifles don’t have a lot of “shooter protection” features in them. The M98 is the absolute best in this regard but here the poster has a small ring Mauser. Just like the Swedish Mausers. These small ring Mausers don’t vent gas well, and because they are made from plain carbon steels, when things go seriously wrong, they frag.
I don’t know anything about the circumstances of this picture other than what you see. But it speaks volumes.
If I were to shoot 308 in one of these rifles, I would try this load. A 168 with 39.0 grains IMR 4895/H4895/AA2495. It is very accurate out to 200 yards, I think I shot it at 300 yards once but I decided I wanted more velocity incase of a wind shift. It pushes a 168 around 2450 fps.
A bud of mine told me of firing one round through a 7mm 1895 Mauser. He said the upper receiver ring took off for parts unknown.
Last edited:
35 Whelen
Member
Mookiie, I think the rest is up to you to decide. There's been some very compelling evidence that the rifles are good to go with modern ammo. I don't know how anyone could argue with the H. P. White Laboratory tests of the rifle(s), coupled with the fact that the importer/seller, whose very livelyhood is on the line, sells these rifles, even to this day, as .308 Winchesters.
But there will always be those who, no matter what evidence, facts and data they're presented, are going to see things their own way and form contrary opinions. That's OK, as they're entitled to their opinions.
I say enjoy your rifle and be prudent, watching for signs of headspace issues in the form of stretched brass and incipient head separation.
If over the next 20 years I find any problems with either of my military based .308's I'll certainly report it here.
Oh and one last thing, as someone else wisely mentioned, "Reduced Recoil" does NOT necessarily mean reduced pressure. As an ardent shooter of reduced loads in the form of cast bullets, I can tell you unhesitantly that the most accurate, consistent loads are assembled with light charges of fast burning powder, NOT by simply reducing the charges of "standard" rifle powders. As such, this type load, though yielding low velocity and recoil, can easily approach standard operating pressures. But don't trust me, consult the Lyman 49th edition manual as it's chock full of loads such as these.
35W
But there will always be those who, no matter what evidence, facts and data they're presented, are going to see things their own way and form contrary opinions. That's OK, as they're entitled to their opinions.
I say enjoy your rifle and be prudent, watching for signs of headspace issues in the form of stretched brass and incipient head separation.
If over the next 20 years I find any problems with either of my military based .308's I'll certainly report it here.
Oh and one last thing, as someone else wisely mentioned, "Reduced Recoil" does NOT necessarily mean reduced pressure. As an ardent shooter of reduced loads in the form of cast bullets, I can tell you unhesitantly that the most accurate, consistent loads are assembled with light charges of fast burning powder, NOT by simply reducing the charges of "standard" rifle powders. As such, this type load, though yielding low velocity and recoil, can easily approach standard operating pressures. But don't trust me, consult the Lyman 49th edition manual as it's chock full of loads such as these.
35W
Last edited:
Last edited:
R.W.Dale
Member
The op's rifle is a small ring Mauser.
I agree large ring is gtg.
I have a one of the "American eagle" Mauser rebuilds made on a large ring m43 Spanish action. After checking the headspace I have no qualms about shooting 308 or 7.62 through it all day long and do just that.
posted via tapatalk using android.
I have a 1912 Styer that was converted to 308/7.62 by re-barreling. I saw pics of 95 Chilean that had the 7x57 chamber reamed out and an insert soldered in, then re-bored, rifled and chambered to 7.62. That was a scarey sight, what happens when the solder melts? The pressure arguments are moot.
I've seen a lot of the small ring Mausers converted to .308/7.62x51. I'm not going to put my face next to one with a full power load. That said, I'm not going to be pushing the pressure max on anything I shoot. Just looking at the fit and finish of the Swedish mausers I would trust the metalurgy more that the Spanish ones. To me the Spanish Mausers look pretty rough.
The 1912 Steyr rifles that were converted are all 98/large rings and a whole different animal.
The 1912 Steyr rifles that were converted are all 98/large rings and a whole different animal.
Here is a pic of the conversion I mentioned in my above post. When i read about this conversion I pulled the barrel off one of the 1912 I had just to make sure of its conversion method. I have been looking for a 1916 7.62/308 to pull the barrel from to see if it was a re-barrel or a re-bore as shown in attached pic. I have heard of one issue with a 1916, but that was on the internet 2nd hand.
Attachments
BrocLuno
Member
So I'm guessing here, and we all know what that's worth - but if that chamber insert was made from modern nickel steel, it would actually add strength to the overall action. It is a bi-metal laminated structure at this point.
Solder won't melt until roughly 540*, so it's unlikely to ever get that hot in in a deer camp situation? In a prolonged fire fight, maybe. But I wouldn't want to be handling a bolt gun with a chamber area at 500* The mirage in the sights would mean you could not hit the next county
So, we generally don't like inserts as they can work loose, but that one seems to be reasonably well done. Would I shoot 50 rounds of commercial ammo in that one? Probably not. Would I tie it to a tree and test fire a load or two? You bet. And I'd look at the cases very carefully. If it looked OK, I might loan it out to someone I didn't like very much
Solder won't melt until roughly 540*, so it's unlikely to ever get that hot in in a deer camp situation? In a prolonged fire fight, maybe. But I wouldn't want to be handling a bolt gun with a chamber area at 500* The mirage in the sights would mean you could not hit the next county
So, we generally don't like inserts as they can work loose, but that one seems to be reasonably well done. Would I shoot 50 rounds of commercial ammo in that one? Probably not. Would I tie it to a tree and test fire a load or two? You bet. And I'd look at the cases very carefully. If it looked OK, I might loan it out to someone I didn't like very much
Last edited:
Ignition Override
Member
The information provided by 35 Whelen and RW Dale about the confusion between Spanish 7mm and the later, stronger 8mm Spanish Mausers duplicates what I learned last summer over several hours or searching.
Lots of people see or hear the word "Spanish Mauser", and based on their buddies' comments (or the 7.62 vs .308 dissertation at "Surplusrifle") after that, if they also hear the designations FR7 and FR8, it doesn't seem to register that they could be quite different.
One guy last summer posted a published chart which stated that converting from military CUP requires adding a factor of about 10,000, in order to equate to commercial psi.
Maybe some info I read is wrong, but more than a few people stated that NATO 7.62 is about 58,000 psi max., and max. commercial .308 is about 62,000 psi. max.
As for the strong actions of the Spanish 8mm Mauser, if they were built to a similar strength as the German or Czech 8mm Mauser action (note: some [other]Czechs were 7mm), then my FR8s are quite strong.
The commercial brass cases have been used over ten times using min. loads (41 gr. 4064), with no external/internal signs of deformity, and with the Field gauge, the matching bolts will Not turn, or turn just a tiny bit.
I never bought the nice FR8 in a Pensacola store last October because the bolt did not match, and did not then know that it could have been checked for lug contact.
Lots of people see or hear the word "Spanish Mauser", and based on their buddies' comments (or the 7.62 vs .308 dissertation at "Surplusrifle") after that, if they also hear the designations FR7 and FR8, it doesn't seem to register that they could be quite different.
One guy last summer posted a published chart which stated that converting from military CUP requires adding a factor of about 10,000, in order to equate to commercial psi.
Maybe some info I read is wrong, but more than a few people stated that NATO 7.62 is about 58,000 psi max., and max. commercial .308 is about 62,000 psi. max.
As for the strong actions of the Spanish 8mm Mauser, if they were built to a similar strength as the German or Czech 8mm Mauser action (note: some [other]Czechs were 7mm), then my FR8s are quite strong.
The commercial brass cases have been used over ten times using min. loads (41 gr. 4064), with no external/internal signs of deformity, and with the Field gauge, the matching bolts will Not turn, or turn just a tiny bit.
I never bought the nice FR8 in a Pensacola store last October because the bolt did not match, and did not then know that it could have been checked for lug contact.
Last edited:
35 Whelen
Member
That one guy would be wrong. There's no way to convert CUP to PSI or vice versa. Read the post by the Ballistic Engineer over at Surplus Rifle again. Very informative stuff.
35W
I'm no Mauser expert, but from my understanding the large ring Mausers have vents in them should something go wrong, whereas the small ring Mausers do not. So, if something does indeed go wrong, its not as likely to simply be some gas in the face. I know this has been alluded to, but I just want to make it clear for those who have a small ring Mauser and don't know.
If I had to use one of these rifles I'd certainly check the headspace at intervals. Even then, no guarantee there won't be a catastrophic failure (it is old metallurgy after all).
FWIW I believe that rifle with the blood on it took its owner's life, but I could be mistaken; try googling it.
If I had to use one of these rifles I'd certainly check the headspace at intervals. Even then, no guarantee there won't be a catastrophic failure (it is old metallurgy after all).
FWIW I believe that rifle with the blood on it took its owner's life, but I could be mistaken; try googling it.
R.W.Dale
Member
The guys over on sks boards mistakenly refer to this fr8 as an fr7 but none the less it shows that even the large ring Mauser can be destroyed.
I have no idea to the actual circumstances. I'm guessing a pistol powder handload or some of that funky ammo out of Pakistan
http://www.sksboards.com/smf/index.php?topic=32517.0
posted via tapatalk using android.
I have no idea to the actual circumstances. I'm guessing a pistol powder handload or some of that funky ammo out of Pakistan
http://www.sksboards.com/smf/index.php?topic=32517.0
posted via tapatalk using android.
Last edited:
According to what I have read on the web, a FR7 is built around the 1916 small ring mauser action. And this is a small ring mauser.
Would be very interesting to know what blew the case head. Fuzzy pictures but looks like the reminder of the case is in the chamber.
That proof house article, http://masterton.us/Gammo, it only tells you enough to make you want to buy one of these rifles.
We don't know the amount of yield, if if they measured yield in the White Lab tests, in the receivers under test. We don't know when these rifles started to develop headspace. All we read is that a 98 Kpsia blew the action. That is actually not a lot of load when you compare what modern steels can hold.
I really doubt that any of the Importers of these things are liable in the least from damages with these things. You hurt yourself, you go sue the Spanish government.
One of the philosophical issues with one shot tests is that you test one item and make an assumption that the rest of population is just like that one.
This is reasonable at the end of a production line, assuming your processes and procedures are under control. (Of course they are never under total control or you would not be performing lot testing!)
When you get into something like these old surplus rifles, they all have different histories, different stresses and strains in their lifetimes, different manufacturers, so taking the results of a one shot destructive test and applying it to the whole population is even more of a stretch.
Materials used in these old rifles were just awful. For those unfamiliar with the terms, the yeild point of steels is just when it starts to deform. Ultimate is when it breaks.
I made an assumption that the plain carbon steels the Spanish used in these Mausers is similiar to the plain carbon steels used by Springfield Armory.
I did a composition search and found AISI 1117-1118 steel, which is similar in composition to Springfield’s Armory Class C steel used in the 1903-1918 M1903 Springfields. I could not find something that was just carburized and quenched , which was the heat treatment, but I found data for 1 inch round AISI 1118 mock carburized, reheated to 1450 F, quenched, tempered. This is similar to the double heat treatment. The Ultimate strength is 103,000 psi, yield 59,300 psi, elongation at break 19%.
Around 1918 Springfield Armory started using a nickel steel, which was a cutting edge steel for the era. For something similar to WD2340 Nickel steel, I found one inch round AISI 4820. For that material, mock carburized, 1450 F reheat, water quench, the ultimate strength was 163,000 psi and the yield strength was 120,000 psi, elongation at break 15%.
Today’s receivers are usually made of 4140. For a 1 in round AISI 4140 Steel, normalized at 870°C (1600°F), reheated to 845°C (1550°F), oil quenched, 260°C (500°F) temper, ultimate strength 270,000 psi, yield 240,000 psi, elongation at break 11%
Would be very interesting to know what blew the case head. Fuzzy pictures but looks like the reminder of the case is in the chamber.
That proof house article, http://masterton.us/Gammo, it only tells you enough to make you want to buy one of these rifles.
We don't know the amount of yield, if if they measured yield in the White Lab tests, in the receivers under test. We don't know when these rifles started to develop headspace. All we read is that a 98 Kpsia blew the action. That is actually not a lot of load when you compare what modern steels can hold.
I really doubt that any of the Importers of these things are liable in the least from damages with these things. You hurt yourself, you go sue the Spanish government.
One of the philosophical issues with one shot tests is that you test one item and make an assumption that the rest of population is just like that one.
This is reasonable at the end of a production line, assuming your processes and procedures are under control. (Of course they are never under total control or you would not be performing lot testing!)
When you get into something like these old surplus rifles, they all have different histories, different stresses and strains in their lifetimes, different manufacturers, so taking the results of a one shot destructive test and applying it to the whole population is even more of a stretch.
Materials used in these old rifles were just awful. For those unfamiliar with the terms, the yeild point of steels is just when it starts to deform. Ultimate is when it breaks.
I made an assumption that the plain carbon steels the Spanish used in these Mausers is similiar to the plain carbon steels used by Springfield Armory.
I did a composition search and found AISI 1117-1118 steel, which is similar in composition to Springfield’s Armory Class C steel used in the 1903-1918 M1903 Springfields. I could not find something that was just carburized and quenched , which was the heat treatment, but I found data for 1 inch round AISI 1118 mock carburized, reheated to 1450 F, quenched, tempered. This is similar to the double heat treatment. The Ultimate strength is 103,000 psi, yield 59,300 psi, elongation at break 19%.
Around 1918 Springfield Armory started using a nickel steel, which was a cutting edge steel for the era. For something similar to WD2340 Nickel steel, I found one inch round AISI 4820. For that material, mock carburized, 1450 F reheat, water quench, the ultimate strength was 163,000 psi and the yield strength was 120,000 psi, elongation at break 15%.
Today’s receivers are usually made of 4140. For a 1 in round AISI 4140 Steel, normalized at 870°C (1600°F), reheated to 845°C (1550°F), oil quenched, 260°C (500°F) temper, ultimate strength 270,000 psi, yield 240,000 psi, elongation at break 11%
Last edited:
R.W.Dale
Member
I was mistaken
posted via tapatalk using android.
posted via tapatalk using android.
Last edited:
R.W.Dale
Member
I think you may be right on closer inspection
R.W.Dale
Member
I know this isn't addressing me but id like to comment none the less.
Firing any OLD rifle assumes a certain degree of risk. But to do so with loads that exceeds the original design by 20% is just asking for troubles. A design that in a safety careless age was deemed to have needed safety improvement.
I would shoot the gun. But I would check headspace every few outings. I would wear safety glasses and I would keep loads to 40k psi or less.
In short it would make a good trail boss cast bullet gun for me.
posted via tapatalk using android.
- Status
