Are Spanish Mausers Strong Enough For Reloading ?
Jeffrey Launius
Winchester. It says Oviedo, Spain M1916 unless that O might be a Q but i
can't tell for certain. Then it says Samco MIA Fl 308W . Does anyone know
how strong these actions are? I suppose that i could just use the 30-30
Winchester data for this thing if it cannot handle the modern 308 Winchester
loads. I bought this in a pawn shop because it looked like a nice little
knock around gun for $150.00 .
-----------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Portale
"Jeffrey Launius" <j...@ipa.net> wrote in message
news:apgnbb$qnu$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
308
> ...
Winchester
> ...
Walter J. Kuleck, Ph.D.
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 09:38:30 EDT
From: KYRIE...@aol.com
Subject: Re: Spanish Mauser in .308?
Hi Jon,
I suspect you referring to the "Guardia Civil Spanish Mauser - Cal.
.08
Win" SAMCO is offering.
Originally Spanish Model 1916 short rifles, these were converted by
the Spanish from Spanish 7x57 Mauser to the Spanish 7.62x51 CETME some
time after 1963. They are being advertised as chambered for the "7.62x51
NATO" and sometimes the ".308 Winchester" - neither claim is true.
The 7.62x51 CETME is not the same cartridge as either the 7.62x51
NATO or the .308 Winchester, but both the 7.62x51 NATO and the .308
Winchester will chamber in an M1916/Civil Guard rifle. I've seen a
number of M1916's destroyed by the use of .308 Winchester and 7.62x51
NATO.
These are good rifles for a hand loader who is prepared to duplicate
the 7.62x51 CETME (a 112 grain bullet at 2493 fps, with a maximum
chamber pressure of 42,000 CUP). For the shooter looking for a rifle in
which he can shoot either the 7.62x51 NATO or the .308 Winchester these
are a bad and potentially very dangerous choice.
To put this into context, here are Jerry Kuhnhausen's comments
regarding the M1916 conversions in his book "The Mauser M91~M98 Bolt
Actions, A Shop Manual":
"...Mauser M91~M95 actions, even in fully serviceable or in as-new
condition, must not be rebarrelled and chambered for, or fired with,
higher pressure cartridges than the action was originally made for. An
example of stretching this rule is found in the arsenal rebarrelling and
chambering of M93/M95 small ring Spanish Mauser actions to fire the 7.62
CETME cartridge...After conversion these rifles were redesigned as 1916
Models. At normal temperatures, the 7.62 CETME cartridge generates
pressures in roughly the 41,500-42,000 CUP range in a correctly
dimensioned chamber and bore."
Mr. Kuhnhausen goes on in the next paragraph to say;
"To compound the above, a 7.62x51 NATO (or a .308 Winchester) cartridge
will chamber in a 1916 Model 7.62 CETME chamber. However, a 7.62 NATO or
.308 Winchester cartridge can generate pressures of about 55,200 CUP.
THIS PRESSURE RANGE IS DANGEROUS EVEN IN A WELL HEAT TREATED GERMAN OR
SWEDISH MADE SMALL RING M91~M96 MAUSER ACTION BUT, IN MY OPINION, CAN BE
PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS IN THE MUCH SOFTER SPANISH MADE ACTIONS."
The section I have transcribed in caps is in bold faced type in the
original.
And here is a post concerning the failure of one of these rifles:
"SPANISH MAUSER ALERT!!!!
Posted By: b. carnal <baca...@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 8:26
p.m.
I know it should go without saying, but if you own a Spanish M1916
Mauser chambered in .308, DO NOT FIRE STANDARD .308 THROUGH IT!!!. i
came home last night to find my neighbor in my entry way and my wife
applying direct pressure to where his middle left fingers use to be and
cradling the phone talking to 911. I found his pressure point and about
20 minutes later the ambulance came. They couldn't find the pieces of
his fingers so they are a write off. His thumb had to be pinned because
the bones were shattered. The amputation was caused by his barrel and
breach catastrophically failing when firing factory ammo. The M1916 was
designed to fire a reduced charge .308 with a m/v of around 2200-2300
fps and a lower chamber pressure."
I hope all this helps some.
Best regards,
Kyrie
Moderator - Cruffler_Forum on Yahoo Groups
"The flame free C&R Forum."
Best regards,
Walt Kuleck
Author, "The AR-15 Complete Owner's Guide"
--available from http://www.fulton-armory.com/
--see the review in American Rifleman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Launius" <j...@ipa.net>
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 7:48 AM
Subject: Are Spanish Mausers Strong Enough For Reloading ?
# I have this rifle which i believe may be a Spanish Mauser. It is
a 308
# Winchester. It says Oviedo, Spain M1916 unless that O might be a Q but
i
# can't tell for certain. Then it says Samco MIA Fl 308W . Does anyone
know
# how strong these actions are? I suppose that i could just use the
30-30
# Winchester data for this thing if it cannot handle the modern 308
Winchester
# loads. I bought this in a pawn shop because it looked like a nice
little
# knock around gun for $150.00 .
#
Kenneth Coney
supposedly what Spain and Israel had in mind when they rebarreled them) for
practice and commercial .308 softpoints to take deer with no problems. The
biggest problem I find is the rear sight bounces out of what range notch it is
set on when firing. Too much gunk on the spring I think. I took a cheap
sporter stock and glass bedded it and get 2 to 3 inch 100 yard groups with
hunting ammo from a standing position, so with the thick brush and short ranges
around Northern VA and West VA mine is fine as a spare/loaner deer carbine and
has taken several.
Jeffrey Launius wrote:
> ...
Jeffrey Launius
"Jeffrey Launius" <j...@ipa.net> wrote in message
news:apgnbb$qnu$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
308
> ...
Winchester
> ...
http://www.samcoglobal.com/article.html
FBC3
okay.
Donald Merritt
If it has the third locking lug in the rear, unlike the spanish 95 mausers with
out that lug. the it is ok for 308 loads,
If not, then look out!!
Don Merritt
Jeffrey Launius wrote:
> ...
--
Donald Merritt
--
dmerit at quiknet dot com
(replace 'at' with @ and 'dot' with . to send me mail)
Kenneth Coney
that sells for under $100 is a serious threat to American gun makers and chain
store retailers. (Checking my bound book I see I paid Century $68 (includes
shipping) in 1985 for mine in VG/excellent condition and another $39 for a
sporter stock.) Remington and Winchester were hurt badly by the import as their
weapons sell for several hundreds and they had/have no way of competing unless
they can convince the American consumer that such a rifle should never be used.
As a consumer I am suspicious of the claims against the rifle as many of the
negative write ups come from people and publications whose income is dependent
on the continued good will of the American manufacturers. I seem to recall
something about White laboratories doing destruction tests on the rifles and not
finding a problem, but I lack a source. If someone has it and can post it, that
would be appreciated.
If the reports of the blow ups with factory ammo or surplus ammo is correct then
Century and SAMCO would be/are wide open for liability suits as they have
imported and sold thousands of them with no caveats to the consumer or other
dealers. As stated elsewhere I own and occasionally shoot one myself and have
had no problems. I would not advise using non-Nato spec ammo in it. Nor would
I use heavy bullets beyond the 169 grain class. In fact, I usually use 150 gr.
factory ammo in mine and have never reloaded for it. I would not advise any hot
reload in the 1893 or 1916 rifles. In fact I would go so far as to say never
shoot anything but factory 150 grain or military surplus ammo in it.
Incidentally the histories of the weapon as given by Kuleck might not be 100%
correct. The literature I received with mine stated that the 1916s had been
rebarrelled to 7.62mm NATO in anticipation of sales to Israel in 1966 - 69. If
true, Spain was well aware that the weapons would be used with NATO ammo, not
Cetme ammo. Even if only used for Spanish reserves, Spain had to consider that
someday one of their soldiers might be forced to fall back on NATO ammo. Smith
in Small Arms of the World states the rifles are being (its an old reference
text) chambered in 7.62 NATO, not CETME. Did Spain care that little about their
own soldiers that it issued weapons that might blow up, or did they think it
through and conduct tests and careful studies? Logic dictates they thought it
through. A response (in English) from a Spanish arsenal representative or
someone who had experience with these things during the 3 day war would be
appropriate.
Kuhnhausen refers to "the softer Spanish made actions," which puzzles me as my
impression was in 1893 and 1916 (when the carbine variant first made it's
appearance) the rifles were actually made by Mauser in Mauser owned plants and
sold to Spain. After World War II Spain made copies of the Mauser 98K called
the 1943. The 43 does have softer steel than an actual Mauser 98. The model 93
however is an actual Mauser as is the 1916 (a Mauser 93 with a shorter barrel).
Did Spain make non Mauser-sanctioned copies of the 93 and the 16?
The experience cited by carnal is interesting, but begs further forensic
questioning. Was it a rifle sold in VG original condition, or was it sold in
poor condition? Was it assembled from parts here in the US with possible head
space problems? What weight of bullet?
Caveat Emptor
"Walter J. Kuleck, Ph.D." wrote:
> ...
Kenneth Coney
is still valid and he is willing to respond.
"Walter J. Kuleck, Ph.D." wrote:
> ...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Coney
Donald Merritt wrote:
> ...
Derald Yancey
the spanish 95 mausers with out that lug. the it is ok for 308 loads,
If not, then look out!!"
Actually, that third lug isn't a locking lug. Under normal conditions
it doesn't even bear on the receiver. If the main lugs were set back a
bit, it might come into play as a locking lug, but as it normally
stands, it's nothing more than a placebo.
Insofar as I know (and I've done quite a bit of research) there are only
two documented cases of small-ring Mausers failing from overloads. One,
by White Laboratories, took the receiver to 98,000 lbs of pressure
before failure, and the other, less well documented, by a writer for one
of the gun magazines, blew the magazine out after loading a cartridge
with pistol powder. In neither case did the locking lugs fail, though
the rest of the receiver sustained some pretty impressive damage.
My interest was piqued when, after buying a '93, I read some rather
imaginative horror stories about how the lugs would shear off and the
bolt would fly back through my eye. I started reading the reports and
noticed that there were no documented cases of bolt failure, only vague
suggestions that, since the '98 was much stronger, the '93 must be much
weaker. I even went to the trouble of asking people around the web for
documented cases of failure. Still nothing.
Some say that they are made from old steel and therefore not as strong
as those made from newer alloys. Others say that since we don't know
how they were cared for over the years, we should be sceptical of their
strength. Still others are certain they must have some sort of cracks
or flaws that will show up as soon as you pull the trigger.
Balderdash! They're made of better steel than many of the Ultra-Whammy
Boom-Booms sold all across the country. As far as storage and possible
damage incurred over the years, that possibility is there, just as it is
with an '03-A3 or a Krag or a '98 Mauser.
If you're afraid to shoot it, then use it for a tomato stake. If you
don't garden, then send it to me-- I might put in a whole row of tomatos
next spring. Or, I might find another use for it. 8-)
****************************************************************
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is
worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to
fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his
personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free,
unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-- British author John Stuart Mill. "The Contest in America".
Blair Emory
I don't want to get into this pissing contest over who can imagine the
worst failure scenarios for the Spanish rifles, but suffice it to say, the
Mauser receivers were designed to use low grade steel , say about ASA 1018.
The M93 bolt is about the same dimensionally in the locking lug area as the
98 and the very few hardness measurements and chemical analyses I have seen
for the 93 and 98, suggest that something approximating ASA 1340, low
manganese steel was used. A very good choice in IMHO. Thus bolt lug failures
are not prevalent in these designs. I have never heard of one except for
accidental overloads or deliberate destructive tests. Though, with any part
that relies upon heat treatment for it's strength, manufacturing errors can
occur, but statistically, they should be no more prevalent for 93 actions
than for 98s.
The widespread conventional wisdom belief here, that somehow Spanish steel
is always inferior to US steel and that the Spanish are incapable of
producing anything of quality in the firearms field is silly. The Spanish
were making alloy steel sword blades while the rest of the world was just
learning how to cast pig iron. Anyone hear of the Toledo steel blades?
Thanks to Jeffery Launius for the Samco URL discussing the HP White tests
--
Cheers
Blair Emory PhD ME
"Derald Yancey" <yanc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:apkq5q$fta$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
Jeffrey Launius
then the rifle must be a good value. Here is the article for the one that
was looking for it . http://www.samcoglobal.com/article.html
KYRIEELLIS
<sup...@visuallink.com> writes:
[snip]
#Incidentally the histories of the weapon as given by Kuleck might not be 100%
#correct. The literature I received with mine stated that the 1916s had been
#rebarrelled to 7.62mm NATO in anticipation of sales to Israel in 1966 - 69.
Respectfully, those are false claims. There is no Israel connection to these
conversions.
#If true, Spain was well aware that the weapons would be used with NATO
# ammo, not Cetme ammo. Even if only used for Spanish reserves, Spain
# had to consider that someday one of their soldiers might be forced to fall
# back on NATO ammo.
No sir, that's something Spain never had to consider. At the time these
rifles were converted to 7.62x51 Spain was not a signatory to NATO nor had any
prospects of ever becoming a member of NATO.
#Smith in Small Arms of the World states the rifles are being (its an old
reference
#text) chambered in 7.62 NATO, not CETME.
It's a very old reference :-(
See the latest edition, and look closely at the ballistics. You will find
the cartridge called the "7.62x51 NATO" is the cartridge we are calling the
"7.62x51 CETME".
# Did Spain care that little about their own soldiers that it issued weapons
that
# might blow up, or did they think it through and conduct tests and careful
studies?
# Logic dictates they thought it through.
The Spanish Mausers are reasonably safe with the correct Spanish ammunition
- but that ammunition is not available outside of Spain.
A response (in English) from a Spanish arsenal representative or
#someone who had experience with these things during the 3 day war would be
#appropriate.
I'm afraid you'll never see this, as there were none of these Spanish rifles
involved in the Three-Day War. OTOH we have had a Spanish gentleman, Sr. Jaume
Canaves, share his experiences with the FR-8 while with the Spanish Army with
rec.gun'ers and confirm these rifles were used only with 7.62x51 CETME
#Kuhnhausen refers to "the softer Spanish made actions," which puzzles me as
#my impression was in 1893 and 1916 (when the carbine variant first made it's
#appearance) the rifles were actually made by Mauser in Mauser owned plants
#and sold to Spain.
No sir, that would be mistaken. Spain began production of the Model 1893
Mauser in Spain (at Oviedo, and La Coruna) shortly after 1900. Mauser and Loewe
made Spanish Model 1893's are quite rare and highly sought after by collectors.
# After World War II Spain made copies of the Mauser 98K called
#the 1943.
Production of the Spanish Modelo 1943 short rifle began in 1943 at Oviedo.
# The 43 does have softer steel than an actual Mauser 98. The model
#93 however is an actual Mauser as is the 1916 (a Mauser 93 with a shorter
#barrel). Did Spain make non Mauser-sanctioned copies of the 93 and the 16?
See above.
#The experience cited by carnal is interesting, but begs further forensic
#questioning. Was it a rifle sold in VG original condition, or was it sold in
#poor condition? Was it assembled from parts here in the US with possible
#head space problems? What weight of bullet?
According to my correspondence with the gentleman, it was as delivered by
SAMCO.
I can add to this my own experience of having been present when a commercial
.308 Winchester cartridge literally blew the barrel off of a Model 1916,
gravely injuring a bystander.
Originally Spanish Model 1916 short rifles, these rifles were converted by
the Spanish from Spanish 7x57 Mauser to the Spanish 7.62x51 CETME some time
after 1963. They are being advertised as chambered for the "7.62x51 NATO" and
sometimes the ".308 Winchester" - neither claim is true.
The 7.62x51 CETME is not the same cartridge as either the 7.62x51 NATO or
the .308 Winchester, but both the 7.62x51 NATO and the .308 Winchester will
chamber in an M1916/Civil Guard rifle. I've seen a number of M1916's destroyed
by the use of .308 Winchester and 7.62x51 NATO.
These are good rifles for a hand loader who is prepared to duplicate the
7.62x51 CETME (a 112 grain bullet at 2493 fps, with a maximum chamber pressure
of 42,000 CUP). For the shooter looking for a rifle in which he can shoot
either the 7.62x51 NATO or the .308 Winchester these are a bad choice.
Best regards,
Kyrie
Moderator - Cruffler_Forum on Yahoo Groups
"The flame free C&R Forum."
Moderator - Cruffler_Forum on Yahoo Groups
"The flame free C&R Forum."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cruffler_Forum
John Garand
<sup...@visuallink.com> WROTE:
#Incidentally the histories of the weapon as given by Kuleck might not be 100%
#correct. The literature I received with mine stated that the 1916s had been
#rebarrelled to 7.62mm NATO in anticipation of sales to Israel in 1966 - 69. If
#true, Spain was well aware that the weapons would be used with NATO ammo, not
#Cetme ammo. Even if only used for Spanish reserves, Spain had to consider that
#someday one of their soldiers might be forced to fall back on NATO ammo. Smith
#in Small Arms of the World states the rifles are being (its an old reference
#text) chambered in 7.62 NATO, not CETME. Did Spain care that little about their
#own soldiers that it issued weapons that might blow up, or did they think it
#through and conduct tests and careful studies? Logic dictates they thought it
#through. A response (in English) from a Spanish arsenal representative or
#someone who had experience with these things during the 3 day war would be
#appropriate.
IIRC at one point we had a post from a former Spanish Army ordinance
officer who stated that he had only observed 7.62 NATO in actual issue
to the troops. There followed some interesting information about
actual production dates of the lower pressure ammo vs. NATO spec ammo
(there was apparently some cross over with both in some production in
the very late 60s or early 70s IIRC. I know that Spain was producing
NATO spec ammo by 1972 as I had a couple of cases with that year of
production.
#
#Kuhnhausen refers to "the softer Spanish made actions," which puzzles me as my
#impression was in 1893 and 1916 (when the carbine variant first made it's
#appearance) the rifles were actually made by Mauser in Mauser owned plants and
#sold to Spain. After World War II Spain made copies of the Mauser 98K called
#the 1943. The 43 does have softer steel than an actual Mauser 98. The model 93
#however is an actual Mauser as is the 1916 (a Mauser 93 with a shorter barrel).
Most (or all) of these converted rifle actions are Oviedo arsenal
production. Last I knew, Mauser didn't run the Oviedo Arsenal for the
Spanish government - but I could be wrong. There certainly were some
significant number of 1893/95 rifles made for Spain by Mauser, but I
believe most, or all, of the 1916 carbines were made in Spain. Oh,
and not all the Model 43 actions are soft (and we won't get into how
Mauser type actions are surface hardened with a soft core, etc.). The
early production 1943 actions have been noted to be soft often enough
that it is probably safe to assume any pre 1950 action should be
restricted to nothing more than 8x57mm pressures and impulse (European
standard of about 58k psi, not US which is based on the safety of
firing a .323 bullet through a pre-1905 standard .318 bore). OTOH,
the later production actions have been reported to be the equal,
metallurgically, of the Mauser production actions.
In the event, the 1916 action probably would hold together even with
these over design-spec pressures. But any pre-98 type action (and, as
you have pointed out, the 1916 was made on the 93/95 type action)
simply doesn't have the gas handling capability of the later Model 98
action. If a case lets go, it will be a very lucky person who escapes
with no injury. For that reason alone, it would be foolish for a
person to attempt .308 maximum (or near maximum) level reloads in
these rifles. A person reloading for one of these rifles should also
make sure to closely examine their fired cases before reloading again,
with special care to checking for incipient splits and case
stretching.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Jaime Fischer
Garand" <Garand_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi
# #Kuhnhausen refers to "the softer Spanish made actions," which puzzles me as
# my
# #impression was in 1893 and 1916 (when the carbine variant first made it's
# #appearance) the rifles were actually made by Mauser in Mauser owned plants
# and
# #sold to Spain. After World War II Spain made copies of the Mauser 98K called
# #the 1943. The 43 does have softer steel than an actual Mauser 98. The model
# 93
# #however is an actual Mauser as is the 1916 (a Mauser 93 with a shorter
# barrel).
I think the real point is to determine if an action is _strong_ enough for a
given cartridge, and it has little to do with the _hardness/softness_ of
steel.
Some actions made with standard ordnance steels, if wrongly heat-treated,
are actually harder than needed, and thus become _brittle_.
There was an excellent article in an old Gun Digest issue ( forgot where I
put it now ) regarding common misconceptions about stongness in an action
and hardness of steels employed.
BTW,in my country ( Chile) our m95(Loewe-DWM) and m12(Steyr) 7x57 mausers,
were arsenal converted long ago to 7.62 NATO, and never heard fo any
troubles with this. I have owned several rifles of both models, converted
and in original chambering, and they perform flawless.
The only main complaint about this conversion here is that the fatter 7.62
cartridge fits the magazine very tight at 5 rounds, and we prefer to load
only 4 cartridges.
For me, I love the 5x57 mauser.
Regards
jaime
Jeffrey Launius
ammunition. I used 43 grains of IMR 3031, Federal 215 Magnum primer, and a
Remington 165 grain psp bullet. I am still alive and all limbs are still
intact. If all 1916 model Spanish Mausers could handle the above load that
i fired in mine then they can all most certainly handle the factory
ammunition. Thanks for all replies.
Jeff.
Blair Emory
news:aq3jn7$q9u$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
#
# I think the real point is to determine if an action is _strong_ enough for
a
# given cartridge, and it has little to do with the _hardness/softness_ of
# steel.
#
# Some actions made with standard ordnance steels, if wrongly heat-treated,
# are actually harder than needed, and thus become _brittle_.
#
#Snip
#
# jaime
#
While I generally agree with you Jaime, there is a direct correlation
between the hardness and strength of steel. That is assuming it is through
hardened rather than cased only. Thus the harder it is, the stronger it is,
but generally it is less ductile, i.e.., more brittle, which will be
detrimental in limit situations. For instance the US early Springfield's and
Eddystone Enfield's.
This whole argument is fueled by a few individuals who know little or
nothing about metallurgy and even less about mechanical design and strength
of materials, but read lots of gun rags and have vivid imaginations.
It really is not worth trying to confuse them with facts. Their minds are
made up and closed.
--
Cheers
Blair Emory PhD ME.
Ken Marsh
Jeffrey Launius <j...@ipa.net> wrote:
#had to get it to a 98,000 p.s.i. proof load before it finally blew up .
#http://www.samcoglobal.com/article.html
Ring burst strength and headspace growth leading to exposed case head
failure are two different things.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opt-out options are not an | Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net
acceptable excuse for Spam. | WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Marsh
KYRIEELLIS <kyrie...@aol.com> wrote:
#In article <apkq3h$fsk$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>, Kenneth Coney
#<sup...@visuallink.com> writes:
##Incidentally the histories of the weapon as given by Kuleck might not be 100%
##correct. The literature I received with mine stated that the 1916s had been
##rebarrelled to 7.62mm NATO in anticipation of sales to Israel in 1966 - 69.
# Respectfully, those are false claims. There is no Israel connection to these
#conversions.
I would concur. The bolt-action buying spree of what became the Israeli
nation was in the late 1940's, by 1966-69 they already had much better
weapons due to a concerted self-sufficiency program, not to mention a
contract with FN to make their FAL receivers.
# I can add to this my own experience of having been present when a commercial
#.308 Winchester cartridge literally blew the barrel off of a Model 1916,
#gravely injuring a bystander.
Ouch.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opt-out options are not an | Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net
acceptable excuse for Spam. | WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Marsh
Jaime Fischer <flam...@123456.cl> wrote:
#Some actions made with standard ordnance steels, if wrongly heat-treated,
#are actually harder than needed, and thus become _brittle_.
That would describe some early Springfield 1903's.
#There was an excellent article in an old Gun Digest issue ( forgot where I
#put it now ) regarding common misconceptions about stongness in an action
#and hardness of steels employed.
Yup. I haven't read the article, but there are a lot of people that
confuse burst strength (an issue with a single, over pressure cartridge)
versus headspace growth and the resultant blow-out of unsupported
cartridge brass at the head. The latter problem can happen with extended
use. The longer the headspace grows, the more and more likely it will
happen.
#BTW,in my country ( Chile) our m95(Loewe-DWM) and m12(Steyr) 7x57 mausers,
#were arsenal converted long ago to 7.62 NATO, and never heard fo any
#troubles with this.
You should get out more. Take a look at this:
http://www.geocities.com/swede94/1895.html
Now read this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6m8uil%24165%40xring.cs.umd.edu&output=gplain
The idea of a chamber insert to rechamber to 7.62NATO, or worse, the
higher pressure .308Winchester, is a bad idea. With continued use the
silver solder erodes and gas blow-back occurs. Catastrophic failure
can follow.
The 1895 was well-suited for its original chambering of 7x57mm.
#For me, I love the 5x57 mauser.
I suppose you mean 7x57. It is one of my favorites as well.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opt-out options are not an | Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net
acceptable excuse for Spam. | WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Marsh
I hope you don't just leave it at this...
Jeffrey Launius <j...@ipa.net> wrote:
# I finally fired my 1916 a few times with reloaded .308 Winchester
#ammunition. I used 43 grains of IMR 3031, Federal 215 Magnum primer, and a
#Remington 165 grain psp bullet. I am still alive and all limbs are still
#intact. If all 1916 model Spanish Mausers could handle the above load that
#i fired in mine then they can all most certainly handle the factory
#ammunition. Thanks for all replies.
Have you checked the headspace before and after your experiment? Do you
understand what happens when a brass case fails because of excessive
headspace?
There is more to proving a firearm then firing a proof load. The
headspace must be checked to make sure it hasn't grown significantly in
the process. Plenty of firearms will fire over-pressure loads. For a
while, that is.
I'll try again to describe what happens:
Each time you fire a Mauser with an over-spec pressure cartridge, the
locking lugs get set back some. See the pictures of such lugs at:
http://www.geocities.com/swede94/1895.html
This means the bolt sets back further and further over time. This
happens with ordinary ammo too, but it happens MUCH faster with modern
commercial .308 ammo.
With each firing, the brass cases grab at the neck and the body
stretches backwards. They grab at the neck because the brass is thinnest
there. The stretch backwards because of adhesion and this is the way
they were designed to work, to provide a gas seal and prevent venting.
Since the neck and shoulders grab, the case stretches most at the body
just ahead of the web.
If you full-length resize such a case, it will size mostly at the
thinner parts up front, but the body ahead of the web will be sized
down too. This is not good, because it will be work-hardened.
After several cycles, the area just ahead of the web gets very hard and
very thin. It may crack slightly or just show a bright ring. This is
called "incipient head space seperation" and you can find examples in
any reloading manual.
If the case is fired again, it will crack here. If the crack is above
the line of seal, nothing much happens except you'll have to find a
way to extract the top of the case when only the bottom ejects.
If it cracks below the line of seal, high pressure gas vents into the
action, blowing out the magazine downwards, blowing the ejector off the
bolt, cracking or shattering the stock, occasionally blowing the barrel
forward out of the action.
Tell me, how do you size your reloaded cartridges? Do you neck size or
full length size? In the case of an old Mauser (of any stripe), neck
sizing is the better method. The case is only stretched once and is
not subjected to work-hardening. If it doesn't have an incipient
seperation ring after that first firing, it can be used several more
times.
A lot of shooters can give the textbook definition of headspace, but
most do NOT understand the complex grab-and-stretch, front-to-back
action of the brass in a large chamber. Fewer (fortunately) have seen
what happens when overstressed brass gives out behind the web and
floods the action with high pressure gas.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opt-out options are not an | Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net
acceptable excuse for Spam. | WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Marsh
In article <apgnbb$qnu$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>,
Jeffrey Launius <j...@ipa.net> wrote:
# I have this rifle which i believe may be a Spanish Mauser. It is a 308
#Winchester.
No, it is not. The Spanish military never this commercial specification
for their military rifles. The 308 Win specs run at considerably higher
pressure than the 7.62 NATO. There is some debate as to whether this
rifle was even intended for NATO-spec ammo.
# It says Oviedo, Spain M1916 unless that O might be a Q but i
#can't tell for certain. Then it says Samco MIA Fl 308W .
This is stamped on the barrel or receiver by the importer as per the Gun
Control Act of 1968. It has nothing to do with the original manufacture
of the rifle.
# Does anyone know
#how strong these actions are? I suppose that i could just use the 30-30
#Winchester data for this thing if it cannot handle the modern 308 Winchester
#loads. I bought this in a pawn shop because it looked like a nice little
#knock around gun for $150.00 .
If I had one, I would run some headspace guages through it and find out
just how far out of spec it was (I doubt if it is still really tight).
Then, I would Partial-Full-Length size some strong new Lake City cases
which are available surplus now (not the used ones that have been run
though an M-60, though). I would Partial FL size them so they just
barely chambered (Not screwing the die down all the way causes a slight
increase in the shoulder height of the case). That way they would fit
tightly in the chamber compared to a SAAMI specs case. After that I
would just neck-size, as long as they still fit.
Then I would reload them to 40K-42K CUP and have fun, preferring bullets
with short bearing surfaces and moderate weights.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opt-out options are not an | Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net
acceptable excuse for Spam. | WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
J David Phillips
rechambering my 1907 Oviedo Mauser , that is currently 7.65, to possibly
..223? Maybe I'll just look at 257 roberts? What say you? I just don't
care for the 7.65, as brass is a little hard to come by, and the caliber
just doesn't match any other bullets I load. I could use a little
direction, as I have NO idea about metallurgy, ect. I would rather not go
where I don't belong. Thanks,
flmflam
A-1 Pawn & Jewelry
1925 S.E.Hwy 19
Crystal River, Florida, 34429
fax# 352-795-2093
px# 352-795-2777
flm...@tampabay.rr.com
"Blair Emory" <bbe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
# This whole argument is fueled by a few individuals who know little or
# nothing about metallurgy and even less about mechanical design and
strength
# of materials, but read lots of gun rags and have vivid imaginations.
Kenneth Coney
I am afraid most of us with the 308 1916s are going to keep on shooting them
till they burst or we die of old age waiting for it to happen.
Ken Marsh wrote:
> ...
Clark Magnuson
It sounds like you know more about steel than me, but a gunsmith and gun
store owner, Randy Ketchum, showed me a Spanish .308 Mauser. He said it
was very unusual in that it had bolt lugs / reciever interface so
dented the headspace was way to large to shoot.
I have shot Turkish Mausers at such high pressures the Lake City brass
has its primer pockets double in area, still no change in headspace.
I realize that these stories are alegorical, but what are Ackley's 18
destroyed bolt guns?
Clark
Ken Marsh
I've "been there/done that" a few times, so I'll comment.
J David Phillips <flm...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
# Well, all I can say is you guys are rapidly dampening my ideas for
#rechambering my 1907 Oviedo Mauser , that is currently 7.65, to possibly
#..223?
.223 is a pain, as the extractor doesn't reach the cartridge rim and
you need to find some way to build it up and hope it holds. I always
suggest .473" rim cartridges for Mauser conversions.
# Maybe I'll just look at 257 roberts? What say you?
I have a lovely .257 Roberts AI on a German-made Mauser rcvr that I
won't tell you how much total I've spent on. :) Performance and accuracy
is great. I load it to .257 Rob +P pressures and/or Sierra listed loads,
which means a range running up to standard .30-06 pressures, but not
over. With RL 19 and RL 22 some amazing performance is available at
moderate pressures and moderate powder charges.
I used an ER Shaw barrel and a slightly beat-up receiver. The gunsmith
made it look *excellent*... however, given what I've sunk into it,
I regret not using a smoother hand-lapped barrel and a nicer looking
receiver.
If I had had my own lathe and was slapping on barrels for grins, I
wouldn't sweat the basic components that much.
Just realize, whatever you build, will be worth WORLDS to you and
is worthless on the resale market. :^)
# I just don't
#care for the 7.65, as brass is a little hard to come by, and the caliber
#just doesn't match any other bullets I load.
Brass forming should be trivial, but I can appreciate not wanting to
stock a bunch of .311" bullets when you already have a bunch of .308"
lying around. If I reform I use Lake City, as it has no caliber stamp
and I always die the bottom with BC Brass Black.
# I could use a little
#direction, as I have NO idea about metallurgy, ect. I would rather not go
#where I don't belong. Thanks,
If you can do the work yourself, it changes the equation a lot. Still,
you are going to invest a *lot* of time and money into something that
will be a learning experience. You want to end up with something that
will last and be used a lot. There's a fellow here on rec.guns who
regrets building a customized Swede '94; it was very soft and wouldn't
hold headspace. Your 1907 might be worlds better or even worse.
Right now there are a lot of good, late-model German-made Mausers on
the market. If I were to build (yet another) Mauser sporter, I would
pick something pristine, late 1930's or early 1940's, and use that. The
difference is $150 versus $50 at the gun show. After that cost, add up
barrel cost, stock cost, time, time, and time, and you'll see it'll be
the cheapest $100 extra you ever spent.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opt-out options are not an | Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net
acceptable excuse for Spam. | WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Derald Yancey
If you look back up the thread aways, you'll find where I defended
(sorta) the Spanish Mauser. I did this because I own a '93 Turk, which
is a first cousin of the Spaniard.
Now, I honestly don't want to start an arguement. In fact, I'd like
to be able to settle this one if possible, so be kind to me, I'm trying
to learn.
After I bought my Mauser, I started hearing stories about bolt-lugs
shearing off, with the bolt flying back through the shooter's eye. I
was concerned enough that I bought a no-go gauge and started checking
the headspace frequently. I also started looking for any and all
documented cases of failure of Mauser receivers.
Granted, I shoot 8mm rather than .308 and the added .015 bore diameter
is evidently enough- along with some other things- to keep the pressures
down, but I still have not read any documented cases where otherwise
sound receivers or bolts have blown out with enough force to cause
injury. It may very well have happened... many times even, but it
hasn't been documented in any place I've looked.
I'm perfectly aware that I can be wrong (I've been married three times)
and if I'm wrong here, I'll be happy to admit it and jump on the other
band-wagon. But I need to see the proof. I know if my rifle were to
blow up, I'd take a picture of it. I assume (I know, assuming is risky)
other shooters would take similar pictures. Where are they? I e-mailed
Kyrie for whatever info he had and either the message didn't get through
or he's still accumulating data and will get back to me when he's done.
By the way, after three cases or so of surplus 8mm, the headspace of
my ol' '93 hasn't changed enough for me to notice. And it's still a 2
MOA shooter!
Derald
J David Phillips
own. When in doubt, I guess I should go to the 'master'. uh, duh. I
suppose I should keep P.O.'s books a little more handy. Thanks again,
flmflam
A-1 Pawn & Jewelry
1925 S.E.Hwy 19
Crystal River, Florida, 34429
fax# 352-795-2093
px# 352-795-2777
flm...@tampabay.rr.com
"Clark Magnuson" <cmag...@attbi.com> wrote in message
# I realize that these stories are alegorical, but what are Ackley's 18
# destroyed bolt guns?
# Clark
Blair Emory
in 308. The ones I have had were and are. It all depends on the particular
gun. The fact that there is a correlation between strength and hardness in
carbon steel is only relevant if you have taken hardness measurements and
know the dimensions..
I have seen 1916's that had the receiver ring ground noticeably thinner
during their restoration, I presume to remove deep pitting, and fitted with
used, surplus barrels, that look like re threaded Israeli large ring. The
receiver walls are so thin as to make me doubt that they are structurally
sound.
--
Cheers
Blair
"Clark Magnuson" <cmag...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:aq9lol$ads$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
FRANK
Yancey) wrote:
#Ken;
#
#If you look back up the thread aways, you'll find where I defended
#(sorta) the Spanish Mauser. I did this because I own a '93 Turk, which
#is a first cousin of the Spaniard.
#
#Now, I honestly don't want to start an arguement. In fact, I'd like
#to be able to settle this one if possible, so be kind to me, I'm trying
#to learn.
#
#After I bought my Mauser, I started hearing stories about bolt-lugs
#shearing off, with the bolt flying back through the shooter's eye. I
#was concerned enough that I bought a no-go gauge and started checking
#the headspace frequently. I also started looking for any and all
#documented cases of failure of Mauser receivers.
#
#Granted, I shoot 8mm rather than .308 and the added .015 bore diameter
#is evidently enough- along with some other things- to keep the pressures
#down, but I still have not read any documented cases where otherwise
#sound receivers or bolts have blown out with enough force to cause
#injury. It may very well have happened... many times even, but it
#hasn't been documented in any place I've looked.
A few points to consider: I agree that a 1893 small ring Mauser in
good condition with proper headspace is usually a strong action, as
the much quoted 90,000 something test seems to demonstrate. The
problem I see is that military 7.62x51 loads use strong cases, and
loads vary from 2250 fps for Portugese, to 2700+ for Lake City.
Commercial .308 ammo typically uses thinner cases, and the velocities
run all over the map. The reason all of this matters is that the 93
action has poor gas handling ability compared to the 1898 Mauser.
which in its military format has probably the best ability to handle a
case failure, along with most other modern actions. Cases can and do
fail. Your Turkish 93 was probably chambered in the european style,
which uses a long leade, (the distance from the chambered bullet to
the beginning of the rifiling) and this tends to lower chamber
pressures. I have no idea how the Spaniards chambered the 1916s. My
best guess is that a 1916 Spaniard in good condition, checked by a
knowledgeable gunsmith, is probably ok with Portugese military ammo,
but I would avoid commercial .308 and any reloads. I would also avoid
other NATO ammo unless I KNEW it was loaded in the 2250 fps range.
Frank
Carl Miller
# I am afraid most of us with the 308 1916s are going to keep on
# shooting them till they burst or we die of old age waiting for it to
# happen.
You've got one too, huh? Haven't shot mine in years. I'm starting to
become afraid to with all the horror stories here. I've only shot about
20 or so rounds thru it. You shoot yours often? Anyone else got one and
shoot it regularly?
--
Carl Miller
cmi...@trellis.net
---------
Using: OUI 1.9.2 Pro from http://www.ouisoft.com
Kenneth Coney
firearms. Have not found any yet, so I remain dubious of the blow up issue, and
yes, as Bambi time is approaching I promised to loan one during the season to a
visiting hunter and he picked the M1916 and he familiarization fired a box of 20
through it yesterday with no problem. BTW he likes it. With the sporter stock
it weighs in at about 7 pounds and is of handy length. He too hates the
bouncing Mauser sight (requires readjustment after every shot) but that is the
only complaint either of us have.
Carl Miller wrote:
> ...
Derald Yancey
Turk, which is a very close relative to the Spanish Mauser. But, as I
have also pointed out previously, I am willing to change my mind if
someone can show me documented evidence of a failure due to
commercial or surplus ammo.
So far, that hasn't happened. Instead, I see expert metallurgists (and
they may very well be 'experts') telling us about the imperfect
hardening which "may" have occurred, or the sloppy workmanship which
"might" cause some sort of failure.
I have repeatedly asked for any sort of documentation which might bear
out these claims. I've tried hard to maintain some sort of friendly
dialog with the detractors, and while the discussion hasn't turned
rancorous, it hasn't produced any proof of failure of small-ring
receivers from normal use. I am beginning to doubt there is any.
If, while firing Yugoslavian surplus through my '93 at the range, it
were to blow up on me, I'd certainly remark upon the occasion. If it
were a catastrophic failure and I didn't survive, I'm reasonably sure
the authorities would make some sort of report. The lack of any such
report leads me to believe there are a similar number of failures out
there.
I don't own a Spanish Mauser, but if I did, I'd buy a no-go gauge and
keep track of the headspace. If it ever showed signs of increasing
beyond what I consider safe, I'd have a gunsmith look at it.
As far as the gas-handling problems of the small-ring; bore a couple of
holes in the bolt to ventilate it and, if you're really worried, weld a
flange onto the shroud, similar to the one on the '98. If I can do
it, it sure ain't rocket science and anybody else can do it too.
Kenneth Coney
in the bolt to ventilate it and, if you're really worried, weld a flange onto
the shroud, similar to the one on the '98. If I can do
it, it sure ain't rocket science and anybody else can do it too."
A very valid point. The "great" safety feature of the Mauser 98 is just a 1/4"
(approx) hole in the bolt and a locking lug that normally bears on nothing and
only comes into play AFTER the other two bolts have begun to fail.
"I have repeatedly asked for any sort of documentation which might bear out
these claims. I've tried hard to maintain some sort of friendly dialog with the
detractors, and while the discussion hasn't turned rancorous, it hasn't produced
any proof of failure of small-ring receivers from normal use."
Similar experience. Long email letters speaking of metallurgy factors and an
alleged friend of a friend who years ago had an alleged blow up with commercial
ammo and who lost all of his fingers, but when I ask where the law suit was
filed and I am told, "what lawsuit?" Trust me. If a weapon sold to me by an
importer and certified by them as safe went to pieces as soon as it was fired
with commercial ammo, there would have been a suit. SAMCO, within reasonable
limitations (good condition, sane loads, etc.), stands by what they sold. See
their test report at http://www.samcoglobal.com/article.html. If, when we do
google searches on tort actions and wrongful or negligence and the words Samco
or Century and 1916, then we got back 50 or more responses, then maybe there
would be some credibility to the claims of the Spanish mausers being unsafe. So
far I haven't found a single real world properly documented case.
Derald Yancey wrote:
> ...
Derald Yancey
Probably the worst thing about communicating by e-mail is the inability
to look each other in the eye. Nonetheless, I believe Kyrie to be
honest and will take his story at face value. Quote marks indicate
portions of my message to him that he quoted for reference.
Hi Derald,
Thank you for your kind note, and please accept my
apologies for taking so long to get back to you - it's been a hectic
couple of weeks :-(
"Kyrie, I've been defending '93 Mausers for quite awhile, as you
may have noticed. Until now, the only documented cases of failure with
modern ammo have been when the rifles were intentionally overloaded. Now
you say you have personal information regarding such an event. If it
wouldn't be too much trouble, I'd like to get as much of the story as
you can give me."
That's easy enough to do, though it's something of an
ugly story. The incident occurred at a public range, and involved a
Spanish Model 1916 converted from the M93 7x57 cartridge to the 7.62x51
CETME by the Spanish. The owner was shooting commercial Winchester .308
Winchester, and the barrel was literally blown out of the receiver ring.
Through some odd happenstance the barrel went sideways across the
shooting line, and struck a bystander across the side of the head,
inflicting a depressed skull fracture.
As you can imagine, things got quite busy for a while.
The injured party's friends eventually got him into a car and to the
emergency room. I later heard he survived, but lost the sight in his
left eye. The rifle's owner was himself quite shaken by all this, but
unhurt physically.
I had a brief opportunity to examine the rifle, and it
appeared the receiver ring had stretched on the short axis, allowing the
barrel to skip the threads. I could screw the barrel back into the
receiver with just hand pressure. Other than that, the rifle appeared
undamaged - though if anyone were to fire another round in it the barrel
would likely have come off again.
"This past summer there was a story regarding a shooter (I
don't remember his name, but I believe he worked for SAMCO) who was
killed by a receiver failure brought on by an overload. Since I shoot a
'93 Turk fairly regularly, I'd certainly be interested to hear about any
problems others have had with these or related rifles."
Here I'd have to advise great caution. All of the pre-'98
Mausers were intended for cartridges with much lower average peak
chamber pressures than any ammunition produced today. As an example, the
Spanish Models 1892, 1893, 1895, 1896, and 1916 were all designed and
intended for use with the Model 93 7x57 cartridge. There are conflicting
sources concerning the Maximum Average Pressure (MAP) of this cartridge,
and the MAPs list vary from 33,000 psi to a little over 41,000 psi. My
own feeling is the MAP was likely in the high 30,000 psi range.
The M93 7x57 cartridge was replaced in 1905 by the M05
7x57 cartridge, and this cartridge had a MAP of about 46,000 psi. This
is the cartridge that made all the pre-1898 7x57 Mauser rifles obsolete,
and caused their replacement with the new (and much stronger) Model of
1898. Currently produced US commercial 7x57 ammunition has a MAP of
51,000 psi.
This same pattern of cartridge development occurred
with all the Mauser cartridges, including the 7.65 Belgium cartridge
(which is the cartridge for which your Model 1893 Turkish contract
Mauser was originally chambered) and the 8x57 Mauser (which is the
cartridge your '93 Turk is likely chambered for today).
I'll share some of my own background, entirely FWIW.
I've been a collector of firearms (primarily German, Spanish, and Czech)
for almost fifty years now, and spent a bit over twenty-five years as a
class 07 FFL (manufacturer of firearms other than destructive devices).
My specialty, before I retired in late 1998, was building custom rifles
and sporters, mostly on Mauser actions. I saw a great many pre-'98
Mausers brought to me for repair - damaged by using current production
commercial ammunition or military surplus ammunition.
That said, I hasten to add I'm nobody's nanny. People
are free to buy whatever firearms they please, and shoot in those
firearms whatever ammunition they choose. OTOH, I'd prefer that folks
knew the potential for problems, including injury and death, of firing
ammunition in these rifles for which the rifles were never intended.
Which is why I post on subjects like this - to pass on information.
After folks are informed the choices and their consequences are entirely
theirs.
I hope this helps some.
Warm regards,
Kyrie
Now I have at least one 'documented' case of catastrophic failure of a
small-ring Mauser. Still, I'd like a few more before I write them all
off.
The second thing that has happened brings all this a bit closer to home.
My wife went to a gun show over the weekend and brought back an
"Oberndorf 1896" marked Spanish Mauser in 7X57! It has the usual square
bolt-face and thumb cut-out on the left side of the receiver, but it
also has a Redfield peep-sight on the rear and a Williams ramp and bead
on the front. Hardly eligible for restoration but a fairly neat and
clean little rifle. Now, while I may not be putting my life on the line
when I post on this subject, I will be putting my wife on it. I suppose
I could paraphrase that old saying, "Greater love hath no man than that
he lay down his life for a friend," but she'd hit me.
Ken Marsh
I've seen remains of Mausers and spoken with folks who've had a few
blown out. No, I have no pictures. :(
In the case of 98's, usually the action is fine but the magazine plate,
extractor, wood, etc. is blown out. Usually it is not the action
strength per se that give out, but the brass that gives out. The action
might hold out while the gas blows out enough bits to blind you. In most
cases, simply wearing safety glasses is sufficient to protect you from
brass failure.
Bolt lugs shearing off in '98's or even '93's is very rare indeed. The
bolt is probably the strongest part of the whole system. Just check them
once per shooting session for cracks, and otherwise, fergetaboutit.
8mm with military chambering is indeed more safe than commercial .308.
It bleeds pressure fast due to a long throat and wider basal area of the
bullet.
All I'm saying about safety is this:
1.) if the headspace is long in ANY rifle, the brass may blow out, with
minor to catastrophic results, and
2.) if the headspace grows as you shoot, the loads you are using are too
hot for the rifle.
3.) Considering 1 and 2, find a way to monitor the headspace in your
rifle. That may mean buying a NOGO or FEILD gauge, or buying a
cartridge headspace comparator and dial calipers.
That's it. :)
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opt-out options are not an | Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net
acceptable excuse for Spam. | WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
KYRIEELLIS
<sup...@visuallink.com> writes:
# The "great" safety feature of the Mauser 98 is just a 1/4"
#(approx) hole in the bolt and a locking lug that normally bears on nothing
#and only comes into play AFTER the other two bolts have begun to fail.
Untrue. The Model 1989 receiver is much thicker than the M93~96 receiver,
has a more complex and stronger interior structure. The bolt/receiver design of
the M98, unlike the designs of the M93~96 bolt/actions, is designed to vent gas
away from the shooter and also to prevent the gas from getting into the stock
and turning it into a wooden grenade.
It terms of strength and safety, there is no comparison between the M98 and
the earlier designs.
Best regards,
Kyrie
Moderator - Cruffler_Forum on Yahoo Groups
"The flame free C&R Forum."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cruffler_Forum
KYRIEELLIS
<j...@ipa.net> writes:
# Since it did take a 98,000 p.s.i. proof load before it finally blew up
#then the rifle must be a good value. Here is the article for the one that
#was looking for it . http://www.samcoglobal.com/article.html
I'm sorry Jeffery, but this is completely wrong. The 98,000 psi was not a
proof load - it was a load intended to cause an ultimate failure, which it did.
The whole thing was just a publicity stunt to sell rifles, which it is doing.