Spanish mauser

Deadeyejedi

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
Messages
98
Location
Northeast
Was looking for advice on a recently purchased Spanish Mauser .my son bought the gun so I’m not up on all the details . I think it’s the 1916 short rifle . It was rechambered in the 50s to nato spec 7.62x 51 . He has ran a few rounds through it and it shoots pretty good .my question is wouldn’t it shoot the .308 round as well ? I’ve looked up ballistics and it seems to be about the same and I think that was the whole point of rechambering ? I have read where testing was done and had no I’ll effects shooting the slightly hotter .308 .
 
This has been a hot button topic over the years.

Many will tell you that the gun simply isn't strong enough for commercial .308 and possibly mil surplus 7.62x51 (claims of soft/inferior steel arise frequently)

I can only speak from my experience.

I have 2 of these rifles; one I've shot and one I haven't.

The shooter did fine with South African surplus but I needed to beat the bolt open with a hunk of 2x4 with commercial Remington 180 gr.

The general consensus is that these rifles were never meant for NATO spec or commercial/factory .308Win but rather an entirely "different" cartridge, the 7.62 CETME.

I would advise you and/or your son to do some searching and determine what you're comfortable with.

Myself? I've decided to load my own cast bullet loads using Lee's 170gr FP, powder coated over a 16-18 gr charge of Alliant 2400.

These are just paper punching l, fun (cheap) day at the range loads for me.

My personal goal (after nearly 30 years of ownership) is to figure out how to rechamber these for 7.62x39 but I'm not exactly 'actively' trying ;)

Hope this helps!

Here's the article from Guns & Ammo magazine that enticed me to buy all those years ago

ah6dKWS.jpg
 
Last edited:
This has been a hot button topic over the years.

Many will tell you that the gun simply isn't strong enough for commercial .308 and possibly mil surplus 7.62x51 (claims of soft/inferior steel arise frequently)

I can only speak from my experience.

I have 2 of these rifles; one I've shot and one I haven't.

The shooter did fine with South African surplus but I needed to beat the bolt open with a hunk of 2x4 with commercial Remington 180 gr.

The general consensus is that these rifles were never meant for NATO spec or commercial/factory .308Win but rather an entirely "different" cartridge, the 7.62 CETME.

I would advise you and/or your son to do some searching and determine what you're comfortable with.

Myself? I've decided to load my own cast bullet loads using Lee's 170gr FP, powder coated over a 16-18 gr charge of Alliant 2400.

These are just paper punching l, fun (cheap) day at the range loads for me.

My personal goal (after nearly 30 years of ownership) is to figure out how to rechamber these for 7.62x39 but I'm not exactly 'actively' trying ;)

Hope this helps!

Here's the article from Guns & Ammo magazine that enticed me to buy all those years ago

View attachment 1128913
Great info that’s what I was looking for thank you
 
I have one that was sporterized. I would not shoot hunting loads through it since it wasn’t designed for those higher pressure rounds. If you handload, you can make some milder rounds that will work just fine. :thumbup:

My only real issue with the overall shootability of these Mausers is the microscopic rear sight notch. Even when my vision was 20/15 I doubt that I could really use them to hit anything with confidence.

Stay safe.
 
I would definitely not shoot that with full pressure loads. I value my life,eyesight and fingers to much to take that risk.

I'll say that was the conclusion I reached.

Whether or not the strength was there, didn't matter, I didn't need power; I have other rifles for that.

Simply wasn't worth pushing the envelope since I had other options.

Agree, that's an awful lot of 'activity' only "inches" from your face.
 
Hodgdon's starting loads for .308 are about .300 Savage ballistics at 7mm pressures.
Lyman's starting loads are even a bit lighter.

The question now is whether the action is strong enough for regular use at its design pressure level.
 
This has been a hot button topic over the years.

I have sporterized 7 1893 Mauser actions so far. Only 1 of them that I have built has been chambered for .308 Win, aka 7.62 x 51 mm NATO. I will tell you this much. I hand load for it and keep the loads to 300 Savage pressures so I don't become a statistic of the KABOOM where did some of my body parts or rifle parts go? I messed up royally crowd.

When you can find a receiver that is in decent enough condition they make darn fine sporting rifles. Just be mindful of what you chamber them for there are limits to what pressures they can handle about 45,000 Psi is the accepted norm.
 
One should always realize that Gun Magazines make their profit from ads, not subscriptions. Therefore their recommendations are always tainted to please the advertiser.

The Spanish ring Mauser was built for the 7mm Mauser cartridge which operated at 3000 atmospheres pressure. All of the small ring cartridges, the 6.5 X 55, the 7 X 57 mm, and the German 8 X 57 mm service cartridge operated at 3,000 atmospheres, which is approximately 43,371 psia. By the time WW2 rolls around, the German service cartridge was 46,000 psia but no one has shown a pressure increase for the 6.5 and 7mm service cartridges.

No country builds rifles with the express desire to have them blow up in the faces of their users, and Militaries do know the structural limits of their weapons, and the good ones issue ammunition tailored to the weapon.

I am have not conducted serious research into Spanish conversions or their ammunition. But it is known that the Spanish had a less pressure version of the 7.62 Nato cartrige, the 7.62 X 51 CEMTE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62×51mm_CETME

Google translated this text from this web page:

http://www.municion.org/762x51/762x51Esp.htm

https://municion.org/

Spain, isolated from the international community, continues to use 7.92x57. Beginning in 1953, prototypes of cartridges began at 7'62 x 51. In 1955 this caliber was adopted and shortly after it began to be mass produced for the new CETME. It should be noted that this cartridge does not meet NATO standards and is called 7'62x51 Spanish. In the '60s, they improve quality and are renamed 7'62x51 NATO-SPANISH. CETME assault rifles models A and B could only fire these cartridges. Used with 7.62x51 standard NATOs deteriorated rapidly. Version C solved this incompatibility, and any weapon prepared for the NATO cartridge can be used in Spanish without problems. Only since 1988 the cartridges produced in Spain are referred to as NATO-ORDINARY and meet the specifications of this body.

The velocity of the 113 grain, plastic core bullet was 2600 fps is referenced here:

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/7.62×51mm_CETME.html

Needless to say, you don't need much pressure to push a 308 caliber 113 grain bullet to 2600 fps. Someone with a ballistic program could come up with pressure estimates.

I am going to claim that these 308 conversions were built to use the 308 CEMTE cartridge. And yet, once they reach our shores, who is exactly telling buyers not to use 65,000 psia commercial cartridges in the things?

There will always be the deniers, and I am sure one will roll around and claim "this is your opinion!!". I am of the opinion that these rifles can be reloaded for safely by keeping the pressures appropriate for the action. This is assuming no receiver seat set back, which would initially be noticeable by hard extraction, (assuming the receiver does not blow first!) or visible receiver cracks. I am of the opinion that the load I shot in NRA competition is low enough pressure that it could be used in one of these things, and I fired 168 Match with 39 grains IMR 4895/AA2495/H4895. This gave a velocity of 2532 fps out of a 26 inch barrel, never chronographed it in a shorter barrel. This is more powerful than a 7.62 X39 to put it in prospective.

Old military bolt guns were built in an era before processes existed to remove non oxidizable containment's from the steel. so period steels are always weaker and suspect compared to modern metallurgy. However, do a search for cracked slides of modern 1911's on 1911forum.com, and it becomes obvious that the perfection of modern steels is still a ways off!

And remember, these receivers and bolts have been through one lifetime, maybe more, and you don't really know the fatigue lifetime remaining in the things. These rifles were obviously rebuilt and refurbished as a war reserve, I understand some issued to Police. No one expected heavy usage, were only to be issued if Spain was in a desperate condition.

Take it easy on the thing and always wear your shooting glasses. If the case head blows, gas is going straight in your face, and eyes!
 
The general consensus is that these rifles were never meant for NATO spec or commercial/factory .308Win but rather an entirely "different" cartridge, the 7.62 CETME.

The original CETME cartridge was a very odd duck, and none of the rifles were ever developed specifically for it, other than the early prototype CETME's. Of course, anything re-chambered was never "meant" to be fired with 7.62X51mm or .308. As far as I know, aside from the CETME, only the FR-8 is/was specifically made to use 7.62 NATO, and even then the Spanish "MAY HAVE" , possibly, maybe, used a lighter pressure load. That I don't know. I don't know/remember if the FR6 was a re-chamber job, or purpose built rifle.

With any of the re-chambered rifles, I would load them down, or not fire off the shelf commercial ammo, or sell it/pass it on.
 
Long and short of it is that although .308 will chamber, its probably not advisable to shoot in that gun. Most people who look into it find that 7.62 NATO is fine, however. The debate has gone on since the 1980s and to my knowledge there are no reports of nato spec ammo blowing up a gun. Whether the guns were actually intended for 7.62 NATO or 7.62 CETME is an academic question that will probably never be settled.
 
Yep that is what I meant. I have a FR8. But, I shall check out the link and refresh my stale and rotting memory!

The FR8 was built on a full size large ring mauser. I know because I have one and was built at the La Coruna facility in the 1950's. These are good actions and okay for general use on modern cartridges.

I'd be weary of the FR7s and follow all advice for keeping 'em low powered.

D
 
I'd trust my FR8 with NATO ammo, but I prefer to roll my own, and a 150 grain FMJBT at 2600fps shoots accurately in mine. The No.5 Enfield, M44 Nagant, and The FR8 all shoot more accurately with reduced loads, no matter how much pressure they will stand. The "Jungle Carbine" and my M44 both shoot nice with the 123 grain bullet at 2700fps.
 
Look, the Spanish M98 were built out of the same materials, for cartridges of the same pressures, as the small ring Mausers. In print writers have been claiming miraculous properties for 98 Mausers, but they are there to push product.

The 98 Mauser is a superior action in terms of shooter protection, and safety features. These features did not make the steel stronger, and there no evidence the Spanish jacked the pressures for the 8mm Mauser or 7mm Mauser when they went large ring.

Just take it easy on these old antiques.
 
Look, the Spanish M98 were built out of the same materials, for cartridges of the same pressures, as the small ring Mausers. In print writers have been claiming miraculous properties for 98 Mausers, but they are there to push product.

The 98 Mauser is a superior action in terms of shooter protection, and safety features. These features did not make the steel stronger, and there no evidence the Spanish jacked the pressures for the 8mm Mauser or 7mm Mauser when they went large ring.

Just take it easy on these old antiques.

I’d take 1940s-50s M43/FR8 metallurgy any day over 1916 or 1893 era if it comes to weighing which has a greater margin of error. There were great strides in Western Europe and the USA in terms of steel purity in those decades and I have no reason to think that it wouldn’t also hold true in Spain at least to some extent. Also for what it’s worth the 98-style actions weren’t used in three years of nasty civil war with in some cases questionable arsenal reloads. But I do agree with you that both are 100% safe when fired with their original loads. The thorny question has always been, how much margin of error is there for some much more contemporary 7.62 loads with higher pressures.

That said, it’s my understanding that too-hot loads in one of these actions (of whichever generation) is far more likely to result in lug setback over time and eventual headspace issues, rather than an outright kaboom. Of course, if headspace becomes excessive and this is unnoticed, it could result in a case head separation, in which case the extra safety features of a 98-style action would be well appreciated by the shooter.

I think the biggest unspoken issue here honestly is that for years there’s been talk of “soft” Spanish steel, and dark hints as to why shooters should really prefer a gun not made in a Mediterranean country. When it comes to the Carcano this seems to be nonsense, they’re quite strong. But gunsmiths always preferred a Czech or German Mauser for a sporter conversion in the day and it’s hard to know today if that was because they were almost all 98s with the attendant advantages, or prejudice against lazy, siesta-taking Spaniards, or if there’s some basis in fact beyond an incident with someone’s Spanish 1893 that had been rechambered to some magnum of epic proportions.
 
I had a 22 long rifle cartridge go off between my thumb and forefinger when I was a kid. Trust me you don't want to risk a center fire rifle blowing up when you are shooting it.
 
Look, the Spanish M98 were built out of the same materials, for cartridges of the same pressures, as the small ring Mausers. In print writers have been claiming miraculous properties for 98 Mausers, but they are there to push product.
Where are the millions of victims of reciever blow up? Where are the destroyed actions? Only one I’ve ever seen blow up was done on purpose with a full case of pistol powder. I’ve been shooting hot 257 Roberts loads in several ‘93’s and ‘16’s. Never a problem. Stick to the cartridges it was intended for and have fun. Don’t make it a weatherby mag
The 98 Mauser is a superior action in terms of shooter protection, and safety features. These features did not make the steel stronger, and there no evidence the Spanish jacked the pressures for the 8mm Mauser or 7mm Mauser when they went large ring.

Just take it easy on these old antiques.
 
Back
Top