M1916 Spanish Mauser

M

Mosin-Marauder

New member
Just wondering, are these rifles safe to shoot? Most info states they are, just making sure. Id like to have one just to be able to shoot all the 7.62x51 NATO there is here, locally, mostly ZQI stuff. Theyre under $200 and I've been saving up some money.

Thanks for any help!

Regards,

-Mo.
 
There are a lot of scare stories - no, they don't blow up in a mushroom cloud and wipe out the county, but they tend to be soft. They are safe with the original 7x57 Mauser at about 40k psi. With 7.62 NATO at 50k psi and .308 Winchester at 55k+ psi, they can develop problems, like excess headspace, pretty rapidly. I would not recommend one for extended use, and also would have the headspace checked before buying.

Jim
 
My experience was the lug recesses in the action will recede (due to battering) to the point that the bolt will not open easily.At that point, the rifle is basically useless and not even suitable for a re-barrel.
I shot mine quite a bit and still have one in like new condition but I used starting load handloads(under 48k). They're nicer to shoot that way, too.
 
No, they are not "safe" to shoot 7.62x51 surplus.

They don't have the gas handling safety features found on an M98 based action, so in the event of a case head failure hot gasses could blind a shooter.

Small ring actions should be used in 7x57 and 6.5x55 with the traditional lower pressure loads for maximum safety.

The actions themselves are strong enough for the 308 rounds (Kimber did that run of M96 actions proofed to 308 levels) but the combination of soft steel on the Spanish 1916s and lack of gas handling safety features mean that you probably should avoid that particular rifle in that particular chambering.

Jimro
 
There are a lot of rifles out there that do not have as good gas handling as the 98 Mauser, but that hasn't kept Winchester from selling a lot of guns. (ref Frank DeHaas.)

Once upon a time, it was said that the Spanish Mauser conversions were meant for 7.62 CETME ammunition, Spanish GI 1958-1974 (Hogg & Weeks.) The CETME round was the same case as 7.62 NATO/.308 Win but lighter loaded. Handbook STARTING LOADS for .308 are close.
For some reason the Internet Community has concluded that this is not so, that the Spanish intended to use full power NATO ammo in them all along. I have not seen a reference for this change in position.

Either way, I figure that the conversions of 1916s, and rebuilds to FR7 and FR8 were meant for people who would not be doing a lot of shooting. Border guards, line of supply troops, etc. Not like American gun nuts who blast away every weekend as long as the cheap ammo holds out.
 
First off, velocity is not accuracy.

When 300 meter ISU was popular, so was the 308. At 300 meters you don't loose much with lower velocities. The Army determined that the 308 was most accurate at 2200 fps.

They had to beef that up a bit to get the action to work in gas guns (M14). The kept the velocity to about 2550 for match ammo.

Granted the trajectory of the 308 at the lower velocities isn't the best so they put these little knobs on the rear sight so you could move the impact up.

Same with wind bucking. Add a click or two more to adjust for wind drifting the bullet. No big deal.

Lets assume, what was posted is correct. The pre-98s are safe to 40,000 psi.

Lets take the Horn. 168 A-Max and load so we can get 2200 fps out of a 24 inch barrel. Quick-Load tells us the pressure would be about 32,600 psi.

Unless something is wrong, that would be save in any pre-98 mauser action.

Col. Whelen said "only accurate rifles are interesting", with that I agree 100%. But to have an accurate rifle, then you need accurate ammo. That normally means reloading.

You cant reload match ammo for what you can buy cheap surplus ammo, but what do you want, lots of misses or a few hits?

You can load 168s with New Win Brass and 4064 for about $1.29 a round. After the first firing then the price drops to about $.50-60 per round. A load that develops 31,000 psi is pretty easy on brass so you can get a lot more loads.

I use to shoot a lot of 1000 yards matches. Made a nice shooting 1000 yard model 70 target rifle. Super Accurate. But I also shot Service Rifle 1000 yard matches using M14/M1As. I still have a lot of my old score books. The best 1000 yard scores I've fired were with the Service rifle w/velocities around 2550 fps.

Lets assume you want to hunt with this rifle. Switch the 168s for 180s. Keeping the velocity to 2200 fps your pressure is going to jump to 36700 psi (still below the magic safe number of 40K). This round still develops enough energy to hunt elk size animals at normal hunting distances (300 yards).

Get your $200 dollar rifle, forget having to have hyper velocities. Load to 2200 fps, and you end up with a moderately priced rifle with excellent accuracy potential.

An added benefit is the low recoil you get with moderately loaded 308s.

Don't discard your dreams of a modest priced rifle because people tell you its unsafe to shoot at hyper velocities. I have a Model 70 Target Rifle built by the AMU, in 308. It will take some pretty hefty pressure. But I shoot for accuracy not velocity. Its more accurate and I can shoot it better because the recoil isn't a problem.

My thoughts on cheap surplus ammo. Yes you can shoot a lot of rounds because of the price, but you can also throw a lot of rocks pretty cheap to. I don't want volume, I want accuracy.
 
After re-reading I see the OP wants to shoot surplus ammo. Though not my game, lot of people do.

If that is the case, you can get the new Remington 783 for less then $300. It will shoot that ammo quite safely.

They are good rifles, my son got one in 270, and using my loads it shoots fairly well, using the same dope as my Model 70s.
 
The way I understand it, the 1916's were rebarreled or rebore, set back and rechambered to the 7.62 CETME cartridge which was of less power than the 7.62 NATO. The reason being the CETME assault rifle would/could not stand up to full power NATO ammo. Changes were made to the CETME rifle making NATO compatible and the converted 1916's placed on the market.
One can make them a bit more gas handling friendly by drilling a hole in the right side of the receiver ring and two holes in what would be the bottom of the bolt to allow some if not most of the gas to pass out. Not perfect but is a help. We did that on a few 93,95 and 96 Mausers people had covered to sporters when I worked for a gunsmith.
Paul B.
 
These rifles were chambered for the 7.62 NATO round.

Per the Manual of the Civil Guardia

261du2g.jpg
 
Here's another observation that may or may not be worthy of consideration. Some of the 1916 rifles I've handled had the front receiver ring cut back about 1 thread(0.10" +/-) to accommodate the re-chambering/re-boring of the original barrels. I noticed this when preparing to re-barrel a 1916 with a Swede 6.5x55 barrel and during an aborted swap of an A&B pre threaded .243 barrel. This may not be the normal circumstance but I still have the second specimen on a shelf somewhere.
This isn't likely to reduce the strength all that much but it is a factor.
 
There are a lot of rifles out there that do not have as good gas handling as the 98 Mauser, but that hasn't kept Winchester from selling a lot of guns. (ref Frank DeHaas.)

Once upon a time, it was said that the Spanish Mauser conversions were meant for 7.62 CETME ammunition, Spanish GI 1958-1974 (Hogg & Weeks.) The CETME round was the same case as 7.62 NATO/.308 Win but lighter loaded. Handbook STARTING LOADS for .308 are close.
For some reason the Internet Community has concluded that this is not so, that the Spanish intended to use full power NATO ammo in them all along. I have not seen a reference for this change in position.

Either way, I figure that the conversions of 1916s, and rebuilds to FR7 and FR8 were meant for people who would not be doing a lot of shooting. Border guards, line of supply troops, etc. Not like American gun nuts who blast away every weekend as long as the cheap ammo holds out.
Click to expand...

Very true, but Winchester steel doesn't seem to have the bolt lug setback problem of Spanish Oviedo steel.... :rolleyes: Lug setback leads to increased headspace leads to increase risk of case head separation, ask me how I know :D

And the Turks also rebarreled a lot of small ring Mausers to 8x57 with the understanding that some of them would eventually fail. But when you are fighting a war choices like that will be made.

The FR7 is a small ring, should only be loaded to small ring pressures. 7x57 or 6.5x55. The FR8 is a large ring, it can handle 7.62 NATO, but it always a good idea to check for lug setback when dealing with Spanish mauser rifles as heat treatment is never guaranteed to be uniform across a production run.

Jimro
 
Based on the uncertainty of the materials, the fact that these rifles were assembled in a period when people were cheap, and things were expensive, I would not buy one of them. I have read too many accounts of receiver or lug set back to have any faith in these Spanish rifles. The safety practices and customs of the period are different now, primarily because now people have decided their lives are important. The dominant Corporate Cultures that educate and lead us consider people to be as disposable as snot saturated Kleenex, but we the people have pushed back a bit on this. We were taught that proper etiquette after an accident was to die quickly and not be a burden on society. Since everyone believed this, it used to be that society did not put a lot of time or money into safety or safety devices. I recently went through the Indy 500 Musuem and met a race car driver from 1963. He pointed out that roll bars were not on the cars until 1953 or so, that drivers tended not to wear safety belts, full safety belts were not mandatory until the early 60's. He said driver fatality rate really decreased after everyone had to wear a harness. Duh! But before then, the public and driver attitudes about safety were contemptuous to say the least. ! Real men worked on tall buildings without safety harnesses. Sissies were scared of falling. If you fell, genetic selection was doing us all a favor by culling out the stupid and the infirm. Stupid ideas like this were the norm and society as a whole accepted them. I am of the opinion that these old rifles were considered an acceptable safety risk to Soldiers by the authorities who decided to convert them, but of course, these were not the guys using these rifles!

I would not want one of them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top