Spanish Mauser FR-8 Range Report
Louis J.M
Now, I know some people here might get on my case for this; but I ran
commercial (Winchester 150 gr Super-X PowerPoint) ammo through my FR-8
today.
After doing a simple check by inserting a round into the bore and trying
to wiggle it, I could not, I figured if it says 308.Win on the box and
7.62 on the receiver, thats what it means.
Regardless of whether the FR-8 was designed to fire a proprietary round;
this is a very strong action. My main concern was the cartridge length.
Mind you, I had done my research, and spent a few hours reading past
discussions about this very issue, and other FR-8 owners' statements
back this up.
Whether or not the FR-8 was designed to shoot 7.62 x 51 NATO, the prototype
7.62 CETME cartridge, or commercial 308. Winchester ammunition; it handles
the latter without a hitch.
Some say, so I've read, that after firing commercial ammo through these
rifles, they were going to switch to 7.62 x 51 Nato or down load.
I completely understand why, if for nothing but to reduce the sharp punch
your shoulder receives each time you pull the trigger. Needless to say,
this rifle was designed to shoot 7.62 x 51 NATO, and thats what I'm going
to feed it.
The flash-hider also works like a charm, reducing the hot gasses escaping
out of FR-8's short barrel to a grey puff of gas. A guy shooting beside me
had a Bustmaster carbine with a Y-Compensator, and the blast was clearly
visible.
Was it accurate? My initial shots were flyers; I attribute this to flinching
- something I normally never do. Perhaps it was the sights - my last three
shots grouped around 4 1/2 at 50 yards. As this was just simple testing; I
just aligned the sights and let one go. I shot 13 rounds out of it, and my
shoulder still is sore.
A big suprise was the crowd it generated; everyone was wondering what the
hell it was. It looks like cross between an M1 Carbine and an M1A. What's
not to love?
Besides the recoil..
Louis J.M
.-~~-.____
/ | ' \ E-Mail: Lou...@worldnet.att.net
( ) O _ AIM : Zsinj
\_/-, ,----' // ----------------------------------------------------
==== ___// "Democracy, which is a charming form of government,
/ \-'~; /~~~(O) full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort
/ __/~| __/ | of equality to equals and unequals alike."
==(______| (_________| - Plato, The Republic. Book VIII 558
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can learn about rec.guns at http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/rec.guns
Ken Marsh
Louis J.M <Lou...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
#Whether or not the FR-8 was designed to shoot 7.62 x 51 NATO, the prototype
#7.62 CETME cartridge, or commercial 308. Winchester ammunition; it handles
#the latter without a hitch.
So, you measured headspace before and after and found no HS growth? No
one said it wouldn't FIRE 308Win ammo... for a while, anyway...
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Rebates: Making the big-box retail
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | experience as difficult as mailorder.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis J.M
# 7,62x51NATO is rated at 50,000 psi.
# This is what the FR-8 is designed for.
The FR-8 is designed for the 7.62 x 51 NATO, or the prototype CETME
round, but it chambers, fires, ejects, and projects 308.Win perfectly.
After the first shot; I inspected the chamber. There was no sign of
anything that could be attributed to headspacing problems.
Also after 13 rounds - there was little, if any carbon around the
chamber area to clean.
# .308 is rated at 66,000 psi - a full
# 30% higher rating than that for which
# the FR-8 is designed.
And you know this how?
Where in the 'design specifications' does it say that the FR-8 is
structually unable to handle 308. pressures?
Moreover; where did you see the 'design specifications'? Considering
even basic information on the FR-8 is scarce; a document on it's
history and design limitations would be a real treat.
# FR-8 original design is for 8mm which
# is something like 52,000 psi (not certain on
# this one).
8 x 57mm Mauser? The 8 x 57 was well into the 308.Win and 30-06 pressure
range IIRC.
# The numbers just add up to eventual disaster when
# using the .308 Win over time.
Perhaps. However there is little to convince me from shooting it that
this is the case.
I'm not saying its safe - after all, this is a rifle that has 1951 stamped
on the receiver; the metal is soft - but then again, so is the metal on the
M1 Garand, yet the FR-8 has more of it around the chamber area.
.-~~-.____ Louis J.M
/ | ' \
( ) O _ E-Mail: Lou...@Worldnet.att.net
\_/-, ,----' // AIM : Zsinj
==== ___// ----------------------------------------------------
/ \-'~; /~~~(O) "The more I study religions the more I am convinced
/ __/~| __/ | that man never worshipped anything but himself."
==(______| (_________| - Sir Richard F. Burton
Ken Marsh
Louis J.M <Lou...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
#After the first shot; I inspected the chamber. There was no sign of
#anything that could be attributed to headspacing problems.
Cool, you can identify a .005" slip in barrel/chamber position (relative
to the bolt face) by sight?
The tools to identify headspace problems are not that expensive- less
than $50 will do. Why don't you try one? Unfortunately your benchmark
measurement of "before" is already unavailable.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Rebates: Making the big-box retail
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | experience as difficult as mailorder.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dbco...@mail.ipass.net
Louis...
On 23 Jun 2001, at 2:59, Louis J.M wrote:
# Thanks for the E-Mail. I'd say the steel on the receiver was
# VERY elastic. You tap it with your finger, and it almost feels
# like hard rubber. It also has minute sparkles on it.
Better than brittle any day... at least if you keep a check on it you'll
have some forewarning of excess 'strain'... as in progressive head
space or other 'signs'...
Brittle can be (and usually is) completely unexpected and
catasprohic...
# An otherwise very interesting rifle; is there any way to
# extend the life beyond 2000 rounds? I'm also going to take
# some pictures of it.
Yes it is...
My take on it is... why would a sane peson want to beat themselves
up that bad... given it's recoil energy v weight, bolt action and steel
butt plate, shooting enough to worry too much about total rounds to
failure... frankly if you think it might (catastrophically) fail before it's
clear there are problems I'd say only shoot if occassionally jes fer
yuks...
A couple other items... you don't know how many rounds have
already been thru it... although I'm of the opinion most of these
were used for a lot of non-firing training, given the usual *very* crisp
bores regardless of extenal wear'n'tear... which is to say that the
majority of them have well used butt plates but lil used barrels which
tranlates into a lot of drill time v range time...
Personally I'd have no problem shooting one for however long it
'held up' using only 'mil-spec' 7.62 NATO ammo and keeping an eye
on things...
I ain't gonna find out however due to the recoil... and the muzzle
blast from the short barrel... I've reached the point in life where
those things have become a major issue... :(
It is as you noted... an interesting piece... given it's unique and
arcane features... the suppressor/bayo dealie, fake gas tube, and a
pretty nifty rotary adjustable rear sight...
db 'who's gotten wimpy in 's old age' cooper
db
#
#Robert Beard <pro...@aristotle.net> wrote:
#
## 7,62x51NATO is rated at 50,000 psi.
## This is what the FR-8 is designed for.
#
#The FR-8 is designed for the 7.62 x 51 NATO, or the prototype CETME
#round, but it chambers, fires, ejects, and projects 308.Win perfectly.
#
#After the first shot; I inspected the chamber. There was no sign of
#anything that could be attributed to headspacing problems.
#
#Also after 13 rounds - there was little, if any carbon around the
#chamber area to clean.
#
## .308 is rated at 66,000 psi - a full
## 30% higher rating than that for which
## the FR-8 is designed.
#
#And you know this how?
#
#Where in the 'design specifications' does it say that the FR-8 is
#structually unable to handle 308. pressures?
#
#Moreover; where did you see the 'design specifications'? Considering
#even basic information on the FR-8 is scarce; a document on it's
#history and design limitations would be a real treat.
#
## FR-8 original design is for 8mm which
## is something like 52,000 psi (not certain on
## this one).
#
#8 x 57mm Mauser? The 8 x 57 was well into the 308.Win and 30-06 pressure
#range IIRC.
#
## The numbers just add up to eventual disaster when
## using the .308 Win over time.
#
#Perhaps. However there is little to convince me from shooting it that
#this is the case.
#
#I'm not saying its safe - after all, this is a rifle that has 1951 stamped
#on the receiver; the metal is soft - but then again, so is the metal on the
#M1 Garand, yet the FR-8 has more of it around the chamber area.
Above experience represents way too samll a sample to conclude anything of
significance re the underlying topic...
IMO... 7.62 NATO (50k psi) probably ok (with all due respect to Kyrie and
others
who shudder even at that)... commercial .308 (60k psi) should be avoided (in
any quantity fer sure)...
KEY WORDS: Spainish Steel...
FWIW the term 'soft' as applied to the suitablility of steels is a very
relative
thing... 'soft' can be good... 'brittle' and/or low 'elastic limits' (the
term
'soft' could describe this condition, in a narrow sense...) are
problematic...
Numerous refs out there if you care to research them... 'specially now that
Google has put the earlier 'deja.news' archives dB back up...
OCTJMO, ICBW...
db
fl...@alaska.net
#After the first shot; I inspected the chamber. There was no sign of
#anything that could be attributed to headspacing problems...
And just what would you be able to see to tell you that there were
headspacing problems? Visually inspecting the fired cases could tell
you more....
#Also after 13 rounds - there was little, if any carbon around the
#chamber area to clean....
Nice for you, but completely immaterial to the subject at hand....the
safety of firing .308 ammunition in the rifle.
#8 x 57mm Mauser? The 8 x 57 was well into the 308.Win and 30-06 pressure
#range IIRC....
You don't recall correctly - kinda. This is where some of the
confusion on this topic stems. Commercial US 8x57 ammo is loaded to a
maximum of 37,000 cup, making it a low-powered cartridge. In Europe
things are different, with Norma ammo measuring 47,550 cup in NRA
tests. This is still below .308 Win pressures, which range from
48,590 cup to 50,880 cup in the same NRA source. Not that much
different when comparing actual ammo. Since the .30-06 is not a part
of the discussion, its inclusion here is irrelevant. Kinda like
mentioning the M1 Garand.... ;^)
#I'm not saying its safe - after all, this is a rifle that has 1951 stamped
#on the receiver; the metal is soft - but then again, so is the metal on the
#M1 Garand, yet the FR-8 has more of it around the chamber area.
Now the poster is doing what he criticized others for doing - stating
design specifications without any supporting data. "Soft" is a
relative word, and has no relevance to this discussion. Is the M1
metal 'soft' on the inside but with a surface hardening? What is its
'B' or 'C'-scale hardness? Is the hardness of the FR-8 known - on
Euro or US scales? Is the M-1 hardness more or less than the FR-8?
Are the hoop stresses the same for each firearm?
Obviously the FR-8 didn't blow up on the shooter, and it may never do
so. Is what he is doing any more hazardous than the gross overloading
practiced by some members of this board? I don't know, but I do know
that 20 years ago my industry used to kill and maim a lot of people.
Now that industry focuses on safe practices and level-headed thinking,
and deaths and major injuries have dropped by an order of magnitude.
Risk assessment should be a major part of the shooter's thinking ( we
are playing with deadly weapons afterall ). Is the risk of injury or
death using ammunition considered 'dangerous' by some worth the cost
savings or convenience of the cheap FR-8 and commercial ammo? I think
about an employee who lost an eye because he chose to ignore safety
policy, and usually err on the side of safety. To each his own, just
do not misrepresent the risk when talking to others.
Jay T
FrankV8
usual cracks in them?
Maggieandsean
Sean.
fl...@alaska.net
#Does anyone know any company on the Web that sells FR8s with stocks without the
#usual cracks in them?
It is not possible to find un-cracked FR-8 stocks, due to their owners
firing .308 ammo in them, fracturing the wood.....
;^)
Jay T
OEWG
<fl...@alaska.net> wrote in message news:9hcla9$9hq$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu...
# It is not possible to find un-cracked FR-8 stocks, due to their owners
# firing .308 ammo in them, fracturing the wood.....
A friend in Europe had one that had undergone proof testing, without any
adverse affects to anything other than a few Americans' credibility.
Cheers.
Colonel Denier
# Now, I know some people here might get on my case for this; but I ran
# commercial (Winchester 150 gr Super-X PowerPoint) ammo through my FR-8
# today.
This is not a flame, I genuinely want to know:
Why do people insist on firing ammunition in guns that were not
designed for it? Is the proper ammo really so hard to come by? Do
you really need that extra 200 or so fps?
Even if the gun never catastrophically fails, it almost certainly WILL
develop excessive headspace in short order with a continued diet of
.308 Win, and so become unsafe to shoot further.
Why risk ruining the gun just for convenience's sake? To prove a
point?
As some posters here say, the fact that .308 Winchester and 7.62x51
NATO are of the same size is an unfortunate coincidence. Would you
shoot .308 in a .30-06 rifle just because the cartridge will chamber?
fl...@alaska.net
#<fl...@alaska.net> wrote in message news:9hcla9$9hq$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu...
## It is not possible to find un-cracked FR-8 stocks, due to their owners
## firing .308 ammo in them, fracturing the wood.....
#A friend in Europe had one that had undergone proof testing, without any
#adverse affects to anything other than a few Americans' credibility.
Boy, some people just can't see a joke when they read it! ;^)
BTW, virtually all firearms undergo some kind of "proof testing" -
what matters is the pressures used in that testing. To what pressures
was your friend's rifle tested? A .308 sporting rifle may be "proof
tested" to 80,000 cup without damage, but that hardly means that it is
safe to use 80,000 cup ammo in it....
Jay T
Blair Emory
action. Any 98 action can withstand the bolt thrust of the .308 cartridge.
This is a simple fact. It was designed that way. Excess head space is a non
issue if the bolt is not annealed . The critical area is the barrel. The
Spanish are not a primitive, third world culture, which is just coming out
of the stone age. Seems to me that they ruled a good chunk of the known
world at one time. They can and do make fine steel. Does the name Toledo
steel mean anything? Thus I suspect they are capable of making a 4XXX
series steel that is adequate for barrels. It has been my observation over
my 70 years that countries put their best engineering effort into their
armaments, so why do you assume the would cheat on their rifles.
While I do not condone using the ammo in a gun that was not designed for it.
I would not, and do not hesitated to use .308 in 98 actions. Nor 300 Win
mag, 22 250, 270 etc. which are guns I have built on 98 actions. I even
shoot my not so factory handloads in them. .
OBTW people regularly do fire 308s in 30-06es with no ill effects. It is a
common screw up. I have seen it done several times.
--
Cheers
Blair
Edward F. Arnold
rebarreled to that hell-fire .308 Winchester cartridge, in the process of
being sporterized? I wonder why otherwise reputable suppliers like Brownells
and Midway would continue to sell .308 Winchester barrels _specifically_ for
the Mauser 98, KNOWING that the gun WILL develop excess headspace?
God, I'm tired of this drivel...
----------
In article <9hh816$jur$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, colone...@yahoo.com (Colonel
Denier) wrote:
# Even if the gun never catastrophically fails, it almost certainly WILL
# develop excessive headspace in short order with a continued diet of
# .308 Win, and so become unsafe to shoot further.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can learn about rec.guns at http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/rec.guns
Rec.guns supports MPFO rifle raffle - Win a Fulton Armory Tactical AR-15
carbine while protecting our RKBA! Click on www.direct-action.org
Colonel Denier
<efarn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
#Like all the thousands of 98 Mausers over the years that have been
#rebarreled to that hell-fire .308 Winchester cartridge, in the process of
#being sporterized? I wonder why otherwise reputable suppliers like Brownells
#and Midway would continue to sell .308 Winchester barrels _specifically_ for
#the Mauser 98, KNOWING that the gun WILL develop excess headspace?
#
#God, I'm tired of this drivel...
The issue I'm most concerned with are the Spanish Mausers, as they
have a reputation for haphazard metallurgy and/or heat-treating, and
have been converted from a lower pressure cartridge (7mm Mauser) to a
higher-pressure one (.308) and shot God knows how many times. I guess
my point is that by the time that rifle gets into our hands, it could
already have exceeded its useful life (ie, developed excessive
headspace.) So on these, I'd have to pass.
Regular good-ole K98's, VZ-24's, and such, I can't see where a problem
would arise, if re-barreled and headspaced by a competent gunsmith.
Blair Emory
1020 low carbon steel which is not heat treatable. They are case hardened in
wear areas only by most manufacturer, though Mauser Works did fully case
harden some of their commercial receivers in the 30's and 50's.
The 8X57 mm Mauser is a slightly lower pressure cartridge, in standard
loading, than the 7X57 mm cartridge. So why would a gun, converted from 8 mm
ie. VZ-24, be safer than one converted from 7 mm ie. M-43?
Are there reports that substantiate the assertion that the Spanish military
contract guns had haphazard metallurgy?
Some of their post war handguns surely did.
I'm not touting Spanish guns, just logic.
--
Cheers
Blair
fl...@alaska.net
#A couple of minor facts. Mauser receivers are made of something approaching
#1020 low carbon steel which is not heat treatable. They are case hardened in
#wear areas only by most manufacturer, though Mauser Works did fully case
#harden some of their commercial receivers in the 30's and 50's.....
And decades of abuse/use in sandy/dirty environs could have sworn this
surface hardening very thin, or not. [ Another major advantage goes
to modern through-hardened steel. ] Many M-98s turn up with locking
lug setback - was this due to firing a lot of the correct-pressured
ammo, or a little which was overloaded? Who knows the history of a
50+ year old rifle....
#...The 8X57 mm Mauser is a slightly lower pressure cartridge, in standard
#loading, than the 7X57 mm cartridge. So why would a gun, converted from 8 mm
#ie. VZ-24, be safer than one converted from 7 mm ie. M-43?...
Perhaps the facts got in the way here - the opposite of what is stated
above is true. As loaded by European ammo makers, the 8x57 generated
47,550 cup in NRA pressure tests. Waters notes in Pet Loads that
original 8x57JS military ammo generated "a shade less than 50,000"
cup. Speer #13 concurs.
On the other hand, the NRA states that 7x57 ammo was loaded to
"approximately 45,000" cup. Speer says 46,000. This puts the 8x57,
the more modern cartridge afterall, at a higher pressure than the 7x57
- though certainly not a lot higher. Does this help to answer the
question posed above?
#...I'm not touting Spanish guns, just logic.
But the touted logic is based on inaccurate data and is, well,
illogical! ;^)
Jay T
Blair Emory
books just cover standard loads.
In light of your revelation, let me rephrase the question..
"Why would a receiver designed to shoot a cartridge that generates
approximately 200 psi less bolt thrust (approx. 3%) be so inferior to the
other as to generate the fear and diatribes directed at the M - 43?".
I don't know anyone who would knowingly design with only a 3% safety factor
or for that matter, who can. This is not just logical but experience.
Note: I did not address condition.
Blair
BSME, MSME, MBA, PhD ENG.
Blair Emory
--
Cheers
Blair
fl...@alaska.net
#...."Why would a receiver designed to shoot a cartridge that generates
#approximately 200 psi less bolt thrust (approx. 3%) be so inferior to the
#other as to generate the fear and diatribes directed at the M - 43?"....
#Note: I did not address condition.....
But there was a very good reason why "I" addressed condition, since it
can play a very important role in answering the question above. While
the actual bolt thrust values were ca. 6255 lbs for the 7x57 and ca.
6789 lbs for the 8x57 ( a 9% difference ), that difference by itself
isn't an issue.
The original point of this thread ( lost for awhile ) was the safety
of using commercial .308 ammo in an FR-8. Lots of posts have pointed
out that it has been done safely - at least no on has owned up to
blowing an FR-8. Someone even suggested that because one particular
rifle was "proof tested" that it can safely take any .308 load. Wow.
No one has supplied the "proof load" pressure for the FR-8s, nor have
I seen data supporting the "fact" that it is as strong as any other
Mauser M98. Hmmm.
The one problem that cannot be overlooked is rifle condition and
history. Lots of use CAN wear the surface hardening in the locking
recesses thin, allowing bolt setback. [ Even military rifles have a
design life; there were not expected to last forever even with normal
use. ] And as engineers know, stress can be cummulative - excessive
bolt thrust with some steels can eventually lead to catastrophic
failure - Ackley even reported on this in his Handbooks. How can we
know that our particular FR-8 hasn't been overstressed in the past,
either by arsenel "proof loads" or by injudicious handloaders? Of
course the answer is we cannot know the true history of a 40+ year old
firearm built and used half a world away.
So it is possible that the firing of a commercial .308 cartridge in an
action designed for the 8x57 ( or for the 7x57 in the case of the FR-7
) could well be cause for "fear" or alarm. Like all decisions in
life, it is a matter of risk management: personally, I'll spend a few
more $$ on a modern rifle designed for a .308, rather than risk
problems with an FR-8. Or, I'll only shoot down-loaded ammo in the
FR-8. Others are invited to make their own decisions, but those
decisions must be based upon full disclosure of the potential risks.
An average posters with no mechanical firearms knowledge to insist
that it is perfectly safe to fire .308 ammo in any FR-8 borders on the
irresponsible, IMO.
Jay T
AB CDE FGHI JKL MNO BSPhD
OEWG
If anyone wants to buy me 10,000 rounds of .308 ammo, I'll check the
headspace & setback every 1,000 rounds with my Stoneypoint gauge & report
here. If I find a REALLY generous sponsor, we can buy a low end bolt rifle
like a Savage and compare the two of them every 1,000 rounds.
Randy
Ken Marsh
Blair Emory <bbe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
#In light of your revelation, let me rephrase the question..
OK.
#"Why would a receiver designed to shoot a cartridge that generates
#approximately 200 psi less bolt thrust (approx. 3%) be so inferior to the
#other as to generate the fear and diatribes directed at the M - 43?".
OK. The 8mm maintains that bolt thrust for a shorter period of time.
The expansion ratio is low, and military rifle barrels has an exceedingly
long and shallow lead (throat). That makes for a quick debulleting, a
delay in reaching peak pressure, and a quick drop in peak pressure.
Once rebarreled to a commerical barrel in 308Win (to answer an earlier
question), typical commercial chamberings/throatings are much closer, to
provide better accuracy. This maintains the pressure peak earlier and
longer. On top of that, the cartridge is loaded to a higher MAP (maximum
average pressure) to start with.
#I don't know anyone who would knowingly design with only a 3% safety factor
#or for that matter, who can. This is not just logical but experience.
#Note: I did not address condition.
OK, I will. Bring a headspace gauge with you to a gun show with the
$50-$125 Mauser tables. Try a few dozen and tell me what happens. These
rifles don't pass HS tests from common use WITH THEIR ORIGINAL
CARTRIDGE. That's not to say you can't find a few that pass, or buy one
in great condition that passes headspace for $150, with tens of millions
made there are still a lot of great ones out there. That haven't been
used as much.
I'm not ruling out using a Mauser for a modern rebarrel. I'm saying,
don't start with a worn FR-8 (or other suspect Spanish model) when you
can get a VZ-24 in good condition for a few more bucks. The extra cost
is nothing compared to the rebarreling labor charge.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Rebates: Making the big-box retail
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | experience as difficult as mailorder.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can learn about rec.guns at http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/rec.guns
The rec.guns readership flexed its muscle and showed Lowes what we can do
when we help gunowners organize. Let's show we can boot antigunners from
office too, by supporting MPFO's Rifle Raffle. Win a Fulton Armory AR-15
Tactical Carbine at the same time! Click on www.direct-action.org
Ken Marsh
In article <9he5q4$dk2$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, OEWG <OE...@ALLTEL.NET> wrote:
#A friend in Europe had one that had undergone proof testing, without any
#adverse affects to anything other than a few Americans' credibility.
Proof testing determines only that a gun has a certain burst strength in
a one-time test. Basically a hot load (called a "blue pill") is loaded
and if the gun doesn't come apart when fired, it passed. That's it.
The problem with FR-8's is that a steady diet of 308Win ammo, or even
some NATO military ammo will cause locking lug setback. This creates a
condition called excessive headspace, which allows shell casings to
stretch beyond their ability to hold and will cause 50,000+ PSI gas to
vent into the action, which does amazing things, like a) remove the
barrel, b) blow the extractor off and c) blow out the floorplate and d)
shatter the stock.
So, go ahead. Shoot the blue pill once and figure all is OK forever.
Don't come crying here, 500 rounds later, when you have to have the
extractor surgically removed from your cheekbone.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Rebates: Making the big-box retail
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | experience as difficult as mailorder.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can learn about rec.guns at http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/rec.guns
The rec.guns readership flexed its muscle and showed Lowes what we can do
Ken Marsh
Blair Emory <bbe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Excess head space is a non
#issue if the bolt is not annealed .
Please explain this statement.
Is what you're saying: It's OK to have excessive headspace? It's OK for
the case mouth to grip and the head of the case to stretch backwards to
the point that it seperates? And, it's OK if the seperation happens
before the point where the case seals against the chamber wall, and it's
OK if 50,000 PSI gas vents into the lug raceways, magazine, and receiver
ring? It's OK if the extractor blows off, the magazine floor plate blows
out the bottom, the stock is shatters, and in some cases, it's OK if the
barrel gets blown out of the receiver?
Is that what you're saying?
# The critical area is the barrel.
I would say, that if the locking lugs of the receiver and/or bolt are
set back, the strength of the barrel won't matter much as the strength
of the magazine, stock, extractor, and receiver ring will have to bear
the brunt of the case head blowout.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Rebates: Making the big-box retail
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | experience as difficult as mailorder.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can learn about rec.guns at http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/rec.guns
The rec.guns readership flexed its muscle and showed Lowes what we can do
Blair Emory
Read my post and try to understand before you make snide remarks. Then if
you do not understand, ask, don't tell.
I was speaking to the design strength of the 98 receiver. I assumed that any
damn fool would know to set the headspace when rebarreling an action.
As I said, I do not assess the condition of this mythical rifle. Of the
hundred or two Mausers I have bought over the years, it has been rare to
find one with matching bolt. So, would you logically expect to have the
proper head space? Why do you suppose we always warn people to check
headspace?
Your suppositions on the P/T curve are uninformed. Time is only relevant
while the elastic limit is exceeded, which it is not in a 308 or 300 win mag
commercial loading. I seriously doubt you will ever find a gun, except a
MG, that approaches the endurance limit. Creep happens over hours to years,
not milliseconds.
I doubt that you have made an exhaustive study of the cohort of military
barrels, to support your contention vz.. throating and pressure curves. Be
careful about parroting the stuff you read in gun magazines. I have only
checked two military barrels. These were a new Swede 6.5 and a new Spanish 7
mm. I reshaped these and built super light sporters with then. They had so
little
freebore (throat) that even at recommended loading, they gave excessive
pressure. The 7 mm, to the point of a blown primer. This would suggest that
you may not be right in your blanket assertions.
The bolt thrust for a 308 class cartridge at 60,000 psi is ~ 7000 pounds.
For a magnum class cartridge at 60000 psi, it is ~ 8400 pounds. This
requires a shear area of 0.12 and 0.14 sq. in. respectively, for 1015 carbon
steel with a yield of 60 ksi. Go measure the receiver locking lug engagement
shear area of a Mauser action. You may learn something. The Spanish did not
use wrought iron. I have many Spanish guns, Astras,
Stars, Llamas, Destroyer, etc. and find all to be adequate to
superior. In my 70 years I have found countries spend most of their money on
their armies and armament. Why do you assume Spain is an exception?
Steel does not age. If you are unable to asses the condition, then leave
conversions alone. A worn out VZ 24 is no better than a worn out M 43. Price
means nothing. I have built fine sporting rifles on $9 Chinese actions that
I had to weld up all the corrosion pits on and re-carburize. But then I
know how to evaluate them, design them and build them.
FWIW my doctorial thesis is titled "Non Stationary Random Fatigue of
Metals", I do know a little about this subject.
Period.
Blair
BSME, MSME, MBA, PhD ENG.
Ken Marsh
Blair Emory <bbe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
#Get real Ken.
Sure. Let's get real.
#Read my post and try to understand before you make snide remarks. Then if
#you do not understand, ask, don't tell.
I just re-read it, my reply answered your question and MORE, I'm sorry
if you see it as snide, it wasn't intended to be.
#I was speaking to the design strength of the 98 receiver. I assumed that any
#damn fool would know to set the headspace when rebarreling an action.
And I was speaking of headspace growth, so what is your problem?
#As I said, I do not assess the condition of this mythical rifle. Of the
#hundred or two Mausers I have bought over the years, it has been rare to
#find one with matching bolt. So, would you logically expect to have the
#proper head space? Why do you suppose we always warn people to check
#headspace?
It stands to reason that for every swapped-out bolt Mauser with
excessive headspace there's another with too-short headspace. But, it
just isn't so. There are tables and tables of the excessive h.s. variety
at gun shows for a reason. I'm not saying the design is horribly
flawed. If it was I wouldn't own any. I'm saying that stuff happens over
time.
#Your suppositions on the P/T curve are uninformed. Time is only relevant
#while the elastic limit is exceeded, which it is not in a 308 or 300 win mag
#commercial loading. I seriously doubt you will ever find a gun, except a
#MG, that approaches the endurance limit. Creep happens over hours to years,
#not milliseconds.
Your supposition that the elastic or yeild strength of the receiver or
lugs is the only important factor is uninformed. It is based on the
incorrect assumption that the firing pin is the only moving part and
produces the only impact in the system. This is the common gun-writer
fallacy of "it passed the blue pill it's good to go for a lifetime of
shooting". There's just too many other issues.
For example, there's an impact as the case head hits the bolt face, and
another as the bolt then moves from it's tail-up position (from spring
tension) before firing, to a straight-back position as the recoil lugs
settle from an angle to about 90 degrees. This creates vibrations
throughout the rifle that affect accuracy, but more importantly, there
are peening and thread settling issues that can get worse and worse over
time.
So, an old Mauser, even rebarreled, can pass the blue pill and still
develop excessive headspace over a few hundred shots (or less).
Then there's English versus German thread engagement.
#I doubt that you have made an exhaustive study of the cohort of military
#barrels, to support your contention vz.. throating and pressure curves.
This is not even debatable, read every single reloading reference on the
market and then ask what happens when you hold back the bullet harder on
a PROGRESSIVE BURN RATE POWDER. Comparing large bullet jumps (inches) to
less, the less bullet jump the more pressure. You're barking up the
wrong tree on this one. Frankly someone with your education should no
better then to argue such an unsupportable position.
Be
#careful about parroting the stuff you read in gun magazines.o
Oh that's a hoot. Look at my previous sentence.
I have only
#checked two military barrels. These were a new Swede 6.5 and a new Spanish 7
#mm. I reshaped these and built super light sporters with then. They had so
#little
#freebore (throat) that even at recommended loading, they gave excessive
#pressure. The 7 mm, to the point of a blown primer. This would suggest that
#you may not be right in your blanket assertions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "little freebore", if you mean short
bullet jump, that would support my contention. If not, there are SO MANY
reasons why your rifles didn't meet your expectations that freebore
cannot be isolated as a determining cause.
#The bolt thrust for a 308 class cartridge at 60,000 psi is ~ 7000 pounds.
#For a magnum class cartridge at 60000 psi, it is ~ 8400 pounds. This
#requires a shear area of 0.12 and 0.14 sq. in. respectively, for 1015 carbon
#steel with a yield of 60 ksi. Go measure the receiver locking lug engagement
#shear area of a Mauser action. You may learn something. The Spanish did not
#use wrought iron. I have many Spanish guns, Astras,
#Stars, Llamas, Destroyer, etc. and find all to be adequate to
#superior. In my 70 years I have found countries spend most of their money on
#their armies and armament. Why do you assume Spain is an exception?
A long history of Rockwell tests on Spanish Mausers finding them softer
then their German brethren.
#Steel does not age.
If not stressed beyond it's yeild strength, sure, but peen it, shake it,
mate 55 degree threads with 60 degree threads and then watch them settle
in, see what happens.
If you are unable to asses the condition, then leave
#conversions alone. A worn out VZ 24 is no better than a worn out M 43. Price
#means nothing. I have built fine sporting rifles on $9 Chinese actions that
#I had to weld up all the corrosion pits on and re-carburize. But then I
#know how to evaluate them, design them and build them.
#
#FWIW my doctorial thesis is titled "Non Stationary Random Fatigue of
#Metals", I do know a little about this subject.
#Period.
"Appeal to authority" is not considered a winning rhetorical gambit.
When you understand all the stresses and forces beyond simple hoop
stress and static bolt thrust in firing a rifle, then you'll be prepared
to understand why your argument is insufficient.
Ken
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Rebates: Making the big-box retail
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | experience as difficult as mailorder.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can learn about rec.guns at http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/rec.guns
Shoot the best, forget the rest. Win a Fulton Armory AR-15 Tactical
Carbine while rec.guns shows our strength supporting the RKBA.
Click on www.direct-action.org
Louis J.M
wrote:
# In article <%Dr77.18187$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
# Blair Emory <bbe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
# #Get real Ken.
#
# Sure. Let's get real.
#
# #Read my post and try to understand before you make snide remarks. Then if
# #you do not understand, ask, don't tell.
#
# I just re-read it, my reply answered your question and MORE, I'm sorry
# if you see it as snide, it wasn't intended to be.
#
# #I was speaking to the design strength of the 98 receiver. I assumed that any
# #damn fool would know to set the headspace when rebarreling an action.
Sorry to just budge in here, but can you tell me if this is a 98 or 93
action?
http://www.geocities.com/zsinjjm/BoltHandle.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/zsinjjm/MauserFR-8.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/zsinjjm/MauserFR-8Top.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/zsinjjm/MauserFR-82.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/zsinjjm/FR-8Front.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/zsinjjm/FR-8Lengthwise.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/zsinjjm/FR-8Bolt.jpg
# Your supposition that the elastic or yeild strength of the receiver or
# lugs is the only important factor is uninformed. It is based on the
# incorrect assumption that the firing pin is the only moving part and
# produces the only impact in the system. This is the common gun-writer
# fallacy of "it passed the blue pill it's good to go for a lifetime of
# shooting". There's just too many other issues.
# For example, there's an impact as the case head hits the bolt face, and
# another as the bolt then moves from it's tail-up position (from spring
# tension) before firing, to a straight-back position as the recoil lugs
# settle from an angle to about 90 degrees. This creates vibrations
# throughout the rifle that affect accuracy, but more importantly, there
# are peening and thread settling issues that can get worse and worse over
# time.
#
# So, an old Mauser, even rebarreled, can pass the blue pill and still
# develop excessive headspace over a few hundred shots (or less).
#
# Then there's English versus German thread engagement.
#
# #I doubt that you have made an exhaustive study of the cohort of military
# #barrels, to support your contention vz.. throating and pressure curves.
#
# This is not even debatable, read every single reloading reference on the
# market and then ask what happens when you hold back the bullet harder on
# a PROGRESSIVE BURN RATE POWDER. Comparing large bullet jumps (inches) to
# less, the less bullet jump the more pressure. You're barking up the
# wrong tree on this one. Frankly someone with your education should no
# better then to argue such an unsupportable position.
Wait a second, I admit that the metal on the top of the FR-8 is "soft",
but weren't the barrels made for the CETME project by Heckler & Koch?
And isn't the headspace area part of the barrel?
But this is what I don't understand. Allegedly, the FR-8 was designed to
shoot a downgraded version of the newly adopted 7.62 x 51 Nato, propelling
a bullet in the 125 gr range at around 2500 fps.
Now, this seems to me to have something to do with select-fire rifles. So
why would they incorporate this weaker cartridge into a bolt action rifle
with a five round box magazine?
# #The bolt thrust for a 308 class cartridge at 60,000 psi is ~ 7000 pounds.
# #For a magnum class cartridge at 60000 psi, it is ~ 8400 pounds. This
# #requires a shear area of 0.12 and 0.14 sq. in. respectively, for 1015 carbon
# #steel with a yield of 60 ksi. Go measure the receiver locking lug engagement
# #shear area of a Mauser action. You may learn something. The Spanish did not
# #use wrought iron. I have many Spanish guns, Astras,
# #Stars, Llamas, Destroyer, etc. and find all to be adequate to
# #superior. In my 70 years I have found countries spend most of their money on
# #their armies and armament. Why do you assume Spain is an exception?
If there was one thing I was pleasantly suprised about with this FR-8, it
was that it was a very high-quality rifle. For something that is 50 years
old, it's stood the test of time very well.
The FR-8 is the best-handling, coolest-looking Mauser of them all. It is a
very appealing mix of both new and old military design. I'm suprised someone
hasn't decided to build them again.
The rifle really is a unique collectable.
# A long history of Rockwell tests on Spanish Mausers finding them softer
# then their German brethren.
#
# #Steel does not age.
#
# If not stressed beyond it's yeild strength, sure, but peen it, shake it,
# mate 55 degree threads with 60 degree threads and then watch them settle
# in, see what happens.
#
# If you are unable to asses the condition, then leave
# #conversions alone. A worn out VZ 24 is no better than a worn out M 43. Price
# #means nothing. I have built fine sporting rifles on $9 Chinese actions that
# #I had to weld up all the corrosion pits on and re-carburize. But then I
# #know how to evaluate them, design them and build them.
# #
# #FWIW my doctorial thesis is titled "Non Stationary Random Fatigue of
# #Metals", I do know a little about this subject.
#
# #Period.
#
# "Appeal to authority" is not considered a winning rhetorical gambit.
# When you understand all the stresses and forces beyond simple hoop
# stress and static bolt thrust in firing a rifle, then you'll be prepared
# to understand why your argument is insufficient.
#
# Ken
So is it safe to shoot 308.Win out of an FR-8 or should I buy a case of
10 year old military surplus 7.62 x 51?
Louis J.M
.-~~-.____
/ | ' \ E-Mail: Lou...@worldnet.att.net
( ) O _ AIM : Zsinj
\_/-, ,----' // ----------------------------------------------------
==== ___// "Don't be superstitious: The camera doesn't steal a
/ \-'~; /~~~(O) piece of your soul every time it captures your image.
/ __/~| __/ | Just look at all those people on the TV."
==(______| (_________| - Lloyd Schumner
KYRIEELLIS
For the sake of clarity I've snipped out all the old postings to leave just
your questions.
In article <9kf6kb$a9p$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, "Louis J.M"
<Lou...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
#Sorry to just budge in here, but can you tell me if this is a 98 or 93
#action?
The FR-8's are conversions of the Model 1943 Spanish short rifle, which is a
M98 type design. A few FR-8's based on German military M98's are known to
exist.
#Wait a second, I admit that the metal on the top of the FR-8 is "soft",
#but weren't the barrels made for the CETME project by Heckler & Koch?
No sir, there is no evidence to indicate that. This is one of those urban
legends that seems to have been started by someone who noticed a G3 bayonet
would fit a FR-8, added two and two, and got five :-)
Also, there was no "CETME project by Heckler & Koch". CETME (Centro de
Estudios Tecnios de Materials Especiales) was the Spanish quasi-governmental
group tasked with development and testing of Spanish military firearms, and is
the group that designed the Spanish CETME Modelo 1958 assault rifle (the
Spanish Models "A", "B", and "C" are all variations of the Modelo 1958).
The Spanish government licensed H&K to make a variation of the Modelo 1958,
in 7.62x51 NATO, (the G3) for the German government - that's the H&K
connection.
#And isn't the headspace area part of the barrel?
Only in part. The headspace on the FR-8 is the distance between the bolt
face and the headspace datum line on the chamber's shoulder. This headspace can
lengthen and become excessive if there is wear or damage to the bolt face, the
locking lugs, the locking lug bearing surface in the actions receiver ring, the
chamber itself, or if the action ring stretches.
#But this is what I don't understand. Allegedly, the FR-8 was designed to
#shoot a downgraded version of the newly adopted 7.62 x 51 Nato, propelling
#a bullet in the 125 gr range at around 2500 fps.
Actually, no :-(
The 7.62x51 CETME cartridge (for which the FR-8, FR-7, and "Civil Guard"
M1916 rifles are chambered) is not a "downgraded" 7.62x51 NATO cartridge, and
is not related to the 7.62x51 NATO cartridge at all. It is a cartridge
developed from the WWII German 7.9x33 assault rifle cartridge, and its
developmental history look like this:
7.9x33 > 7.9x40 > 7.62x40 > 7.62x51.
The 7.62x51 CETME uses a 113 grain bullet propelled at 2493 FPS, with an
excessive (note "excessive" not "maximum") chamber pressure of 46,937 psi. In
essence, it is a 7.9x40 with a lengthened case and a shortened bullet -
ballistically it is pretty much identical to the 7.9x40, which was the design
goal for the cartridge.
#Now, this seems to me to have something to do with select-fire rifles. So
#why would they incorporate this weaker cartridge into a bolt action rifle
#with a five round box magazine?
They did so because Spain adopted the 7.62x51 CETME as their standard rifle
cartridge (they also adopted the 7.62x51 NATO as their standard machinegun
cartridge). Having done so, Spain then converted a number of obsolete (the
Model 1916's) and obsolescent (the Model 1943's) rifles to their new standard
rifle cartridge. This was pretty much a standard practice around the world;
Chile converted their Mausers to from 7x57 to 7.62x51 NATO, Argentina converted
a number of FN-49's from 7.65x54 to 7.62x51 NATO, Colombia converted their old
Mausers to 7.62x63, and so on.
#So is it safe to shoot 308.Win out of an FR-8 or should I buy a case of
#10 year old military surplus 7.62 x 51?
My standard response to this question, offered entirely FWIW, is this.
Originally Spanish Model 1943 short rifles, these were converted by the
Spanish from Spanish 8x57 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 a FR-8. I've seen a number of FR-8's destroyed by the use of .308
Winchester. Specific failures I've personally seen in FR-8's include excessive
headspace due to set back, damaged locking lugs, and receiver ring stretch on
the long axis. I've also seen FR-8's with action ring stretch on the short axis
sufficient for the barrel to be loose to the touch, and action cracking -
generally between 5 and 7 o'clock. I have seen no FR-8 barrel failures, only
action failures. Personal injuries were not common, but when they did occur
typically included one or more of the following; burns to the face, hands, and
arms, penetrating injuries to the off-hand arm due to stock fragments. Injuries
to bystanders mostly involved stock splinters.
I have not, to date, seen any destroyed by the 7.62x51 NATO. OTOH, another
dealer who sold a number of these has reported FR-8's sold by him were returned
with cracked receivers as a result of firing 7.62x51 NATO.
These are good rifles for a hand loader who is prepared to duplicate the
7.62x51 CETME (a 113 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.
Hope this helps!
Kyrie
fl...@alaska.net
#Sorry to just budge in here, but can you tell me if this is a 98 or 93
#action?http://www.geocities.com/zsinjjm/BoltHandle.jpg
#http://www.geocities.com/zsinjjm/MauserFR-8.jpg...
None of the listed links worked for me, so I cannot tell.
#Wait a second, I admit that the metal on the top of the FR-8 is "soft",
#but weren't the barrels made for the CETME project by Heckler & Koch?
#And isn't the headspace area part of the barrel?
Hmmm, the barrel is not the issue here - the soft bolt/receiver is.
Headspace is defined by both the barrel's chamber shoulder and the
bolt face. Excessive bolt thrust, that which exceeds the elastic
strength of the receiver/bolt metal, can alter headspace and effect
the safety of the rifle. A barrel can be blown out of a receiver
without damage, as photos in Ackley's books show.
#...Now, this seems to me to have something to do with select-fire rifles. So
#why would they incorporate this weaker cartridge into a bolt action rifle
#with a five round box magazine?
The FRs were designed as transitional 'familiarization' rifles, and as
such the Spanish simply modified what they had on hand. Was it a
sensible idea? Heck, was the M-1 Carbine a sensible idea? The
justifications have to be considered within the context of the times,
not through modern eyes.
#The FR-8 is the best-handling, coolest-looking Mauser of them all. It is a
#very appealing mix of both new and old military design. I'm suprised someone
#hasn't decided to build them again. The rifle really is a unique collectable.
Can't argue with that! I've debated buying another myself. I'll
probably wait too long and they'll all be gone....kinda like the Bolo
Mausers of the 1980s. :^(
Jay T