Turkish Mauser 8mmx57

[F. Guffey]

"Model 1938
The Turkish Republic updated their old rifles to a common configuration commonly know as the Model of 1938 and all in 8x57 Mauser. While actually starting the conversions in 1933 any rifle converted to this standard is commonly called Model 38. It appears that every rifle they had was converted to 8mm including Gew.88, Gew.98, 1893 and 1903."

I am sure your correct but as sure as I am of you being correct a year ago I had 45 Turkish Mausers, both types were 8mm57, one had the short action and the other used the long action. The short action had a cut out in the receiver ring. I did not find the cutout necessary and when using the receivers for builds the rifle looked better after filling the notch.

F. Guffey

 

[Jim Watson]

The problem with Turkish Mausers is first, they had a deal with Mauser to get the current model whenever they bought rifles; and second, they picked up a lot of rifles on side deals for German and Czech guns. The 1938 designation is to cover all the earlier stuff they converted to 8mm and faked up to look the same

Which is all the more reason to see pictures of the OP's rifle.

As to the receiver notch, were you loading to 7.92x57 Ss OAL? That is a long pointed bullet. A guy here ran into trouble with .30-06 GI FMJ in a Mauser that had been doing ok with hunting loads.

 

[LineStretcher]

Spent the day gently removing the remnants of the storage oil from the stock and the gunk from the metal. Much of the bluing is gone but I'm not sure if that was the previous owner or just wear.

It took an overnight soak in BoreTech copper remover and then several cleanings alternating between BoreTech copper and carbon remover. The bore is clean and shiny as it should be. A check with my borescope shows very little wear on the barrel. The original reamer marks are still in the throat but that may be due to a dull reamer so it's not a perfect measure of use. Typically they would be smoothed/polished out after a couple of hundred rounds. The lands are straight cut (not 5r) and are crisp. There is no cracking or erosion in the throat.

I magna fluxed the receiver and the bolt and there are no flaws or cracks.

I'm waiting for PTG to get back to me regarding Headspace gauges which will be the final check I need to make before I shoot it. I plan to shoot Federal 170gr Power-Shok since the tend to be loaded moderately and should perform well in the 1-12 Twist.

Once the stock was clean and free from as much of the storage oil that I could get off, I gave it 3 coats of Shellac inside and out. That is most likely what was used originally. It might have been lacquer or a spar varnish, I don't know for sure but the Shellac will do the job. I'll dull it down a little with 0000 steel wool once it is thoroughly dry.

 

[Jim Watson]

An 1893 for sure. Looks like it got the full treatment, even a pistol grip stock.
Markings match the 1936 style on the Turk site.

 

[F. Guffey]

Serial number across the rear receiver ring. Notch in the rear of the front receiver ring, I am convinced the rifle is not a model 38.

F. Guffey

 

[F. Guffey]

Someone should say something nice about the pictures, If I took a picture that large viewers would have trouble finding the rifle.

F. Guffey

 

[LineStretcher]

An 1893 for sure. Looks like it got the full treatment, even a pistol grip stock.
Markings match the 1936 style on the Turk site.

Yep, that site is a little old school but it has some of the most reliable and accurate information I've found yet. You have to understand that there it's really difficult to get 100% reliable info with these rifles because from what I understand, decisions were made in process that didn't always follow the rules.

During this period, the bolt was forward cocking and the middle position of the safety will allow the bolt to be opened while cocked. Some of todays rifles tout that as a feature but with this it was for disassembly reasons. The bolt shroud on this one does not have spring loaded retaining pin so if you have the safety in the disassembly position and you open the bolt, the shroud can flop over to one side and if that happened while carrying, it could unscrew and the entire firing pin assembly could fall out. I think that may have been what prompted them to add the pin later.

Forward cocking is also very inefficient if you're in a battle which is why I think they went to rear cocking on later versions.

I have no intention of making this into anything other than what it is. If the headspace checks good (CIP) then I'll put 20 rounds through it, clean it and hang it one the wall. If I ever decided to shoot it, it will be a plus knowing that it is safe to operate.

 

[F. Guffey]

I do not have one Mauser in 8mm57, even if I did one head space gage is the most unlikely gage to determine the length of the chamber. The reloader has an advantage, they have dies, presses and gages. All of my presses and dies have threads, the threads allow me to determine the length of the chamber from short chamber to chambers that are .010" longer than a field reject length.

Front and rear? Cock on open and cock on close? And then there is the safety with the 3 positions. If the reloader is going to remove the bolt and then reinstall the bolt into the receiver the reloader places the safety in the up position.

I am sure everyone understood what you meant but the bolt can not be installed into the receiver without the safety being installed in the middle position. There is just something about that cam effect with the firing mechanism without anything holding it back. It has to be held back with the safety and or the trigger.

And then there is the story about pulling the trigger and then releasing the safety; the rifle should not fire. I have a small box of safeties, I understand the numbers will not match but I take mismatch numbers over the rifle firing when I release the safety.

F. Guffey

 

[F. Guffey]

And then there is the raising of the flag 'safety' after working on the bolt. The firing pin assembly must be held back with the safety in the middle position. And that could be a finger mashing/cutting proposition.

F. Guffey

 

[44 AMP]

During this period, the bolt was forward cocking and the middle position of the safety will allow the bolt to be opened while cocked. Some of todays rifles tout that as a feature but with this it was for disassembly reasons. The bolt shroud on this one does not have spring loaded retaining pin so if you have the safety in the disassembly position and you open the bolt, the shroud can flop over to one side and if that happened while carrying, it could unscrew and the entire firing pin assembly could fall out. I think that may have been what prompted them to add the pin later.

The middle position of the safety (straight up) is a "feature" and its not just there for disassembly. It's also there to be the safety, and in the straight up position blocks the line of sight, so the shooter knows the safety is "on" And I think besides disassembly, the most common use of the middle position was to be able to unload the rifle with the safety ON.

yes, with the safety on and the bolt open, it can "flop" to the left. Usually doesn't unless something bumps it. Yes, it can be unscrewed, and there's probably someone who has had it happen, but generally, who carries the rifle with the bolt open and the safety on???

You can't close the bolt if it has flopped to the left, and if the rifle isn't cocked with the safety on, the shroud will not turn at all when the bolt is open. So during normal operation, I don't think its a serious issue. You may be right about it being why they added the detent feature when they designed the model 98, I don't know.

Forward cocking is also very inefficient if you're in a battle which is why I think they went to rear cocking on later versions.

You might consider it inefficient, but the British apparently didn't consider them inefficient enough to justify changing. They kept their cock on closing SMLE's (and their rimmed cartridge) through both world wars, only replacing them with self loading (semi and select fire) rifles in the 50s.

 

[F. Guffey]

Forward cocking is also very inefficient if you're in a battle which is why I think they went to rear cocking on later versions.

Went to rear cocking? You say 'they'; I do not know who they were/are. I will assume you are talking about the Turks. When it came to your rifle they did not have a choice, they had to use a cock on close bolt or nothing. In the beginning you thought your rifle was a large ring Mauser, Jim Watson and I had doubts.

F. Guffey

Front and rear? Cock on open and cock on close? And then there is the safety with the 3 positions. If the reloader is going to remove the bolt and then reinstall the bolt into the receiver the reloader places the safety in the up position.

It is by design: The firing pin assemble can not be taken apart with out the safety supporting the firing pin. The firing assemble must be able to rotate when removing from the bolt body.

One of the ugliest display of bad behavior I have ever witnessed was caused by the disassemble of a Mauser bolt. Anyhow, I told the smith to mail it to me and if I could not fix it I would send him another one.

F. Guffey

 

[Scorch]

You say 'they'; I do not know who they were/are.

Obviously that pesky old Paul Mauser. Cock on open was a feature of the Mauser 1898 design and not the 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, or 1896 Mausers? What was he thinking?

From the beginning, the OP did not know what he was getting or what it was. Rifles had the features they were designed with and operate within the parameters they were made for. Exceed those parameters and you are in trouble. I think this rifle is a "learning experience".

 

[F. Guffey]

From the beginning, the OP did not know what he was getting or what it was

He knew the year, from the year he was told what it 'was not'.

F. Guffey

 

[44 AMP]

If the headspace checks within limits, and if you believe Remington ammo is still good brass, get some of the core-lokt hunting ammo.

Can't say with certainty what is sold today, but a couple decades ago, when I was into 8mm Mausers, it was only about a buck more expensive than .30-30, and while not nearly as hot as European ammo, its decent, doesn't stress the old 93,95 actions and was a good source for decent reloadable brass.

 

[Mobuck]

Current domestic production 8x57 ammo is loaded light enough to be safe in most anything that doesn't have an obstructed bore.

 

[F. Guffey]

Current domestic production 8x57 ammo is loaded light enough to be safe in most anything that doesn't have an obstructed bore.

And then there is the remote chance a shooter will chamber an 8MM57 in a 30/06 chamber. With starting loads and the reduce pressure caused by the .127" clearance there it is not likely the rifle will be rendered scrap. BUT! Before the 8MM bullets clears the 30 Cal barrel the case will be wrecked. The case head could expand as much as .040". All of this while the case body is locked to the chamber.

Because I am the fan of form first and then fire I formed 200 30/06 cases to 8MM57 before I started. Advantage: It is possible to off set the length of the chamber with the length of the case. With close to .171" difference in length between the 8MM57 and 30/06 I did not believe there was any way I could miss if I knew the length of the 8MM57 chamber from the shoulder to the bolt face.

And then there was the, 'WHAT IF", What if the shoulder of the chamber was .127" ahead of the shoulder of the case when fired?

F. Guffey

 

[Jim Watson]

It apparently takes a heavy hand and far end of tolerances to cram an 8mm into a .30.
At nominal dimensions the neck is about a 9 thou interference fit.
This has been a scare story for a long time, but Hatcher only recorded one case in his compliation of demolished low number Springfields.

It is my understanding that it is not the "vacant" chamber but the neck "pinch" that is the danger. I have seen some .308s fired in "controlled feed" .30-06s that shot normally... until somebody noticed the empty blown out nearly straight.

A previous moderator on this board assured us that the 7.7mm Arisaka rifle was intentionally designed so that a desperate Jap could force a captured .30 cartridge into the chamber. I guess it would do for a quick seppuku.

 

[44 AMP]

A previous moderator on this board assured us that the 7.7mm Arisaka rifle was intentionally designed so that a desperate Jap could force a captured .30 cartridge into the chamber.

I have no idea who that was, but Moderators are only human and do make mistakes too. Still I have to wonder if it wasn't meant to be the other way around. You might be able to force a 7.7 Jap into a .30-06 chamber by hand, but I seriously doubt the reverse is true. Not by hand, anyway. Maybe with a big enough hammer....The 06 case about .2" longer and .12" wider at the critical area, indeed, the case spec drawings say the 06 is actually .001-.002 WIDER that the 7.7 in the case NECK. If you can compress a loaded round that much by hand, you're a much stronger man than I.

As to being "designed" to do it, that's bull. No one designs their military round to use anyone else's, especially that of an "enemy" you aren't at war with until years in the future.

Maybe you can find an Arisaka with a grossly oversized chamber and maybe you can cram an 06 into that one, but I believe its absolutely NOT designed to be possible.

 

[Jim Watson]

Debated at length in 2005
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186695&highlight=arisaka

I think Fitz was victim of an old wives' tale.

 

[F. Guffey]

A North Texas gun smith had a walk in customer with a rifle that was locked up; the shooter was going to sue everyone. He was going to sue the manufacturer of the rifle, the salesman that sold him the ammo, the manufacturer of the ammo and the salesman.

It took over 2 hours to get the bolt open. The case head was so flattened Remington 308W could not been seen on the case head. And then the smith asked to see the box of ammo and the receipt, it did not take him long to determine there was only one round missing from the box of 20. After the research he asked the shooter about the chamber in the rifle. The shooter insisted the rifle was a 308W. the smith then asked who owned the rifle.

The irate shooter claimed he volunteered to test the rifle for accuracy. It was at this time the smith informed the shooter he was one very luck man because the rifle with the stuck case was a 25/06 and he could forget suing anyone.

And then the guessing started; observers were betting on how long the bullet must have been when it left the barrel. I did not get involved because no one would believe how the 308W bullet got past the forcing cone.

It apparently takes a heavy hand and far end of tolerances to cram an 8mm into a .30.

And then there is the pinching of the neck you mentioned. It takes little effort and there is no way the end of the neck of the 8mm57 can get pinched when chambered in a 30/06 chamber unless we are talking about Bart B's firing pins.

He is the one that has firing pins that are so powerful that they drives the case, bullet and powder forward until the shoulder of the case strikes the shoulder of the chamber. I have given up on getting him to consider other alternative options.

And when it comes to verifying one of the 'other' North Texas guns smiths and I grew up within a mile of each other and attended school together for 9 years starting in 1952.

F. Guffey