I just picked one up dirt cheap. Its a 8mm. Where can I find some good reading material about it. I know nothing about the 8mm cartridge. Most of what google found is sporterized ****. Now I need dies and brass too. And whats the difference between 8mm and 8x57? Ive got a lot to learn. Just could pass it up for the price.

Turns out the receiver is a large ring Navy. It does have the navy crest on it. He built this rifle himself. It is 8mm. Has Timney trigger set to 2.5 lbs. The stock and barrel is the 24/47. And it kicks like a damn mule with surplus ball ammo. For 100 bucks I couldnt pass it up. It also has a Simmons 3-9x40 on it. I will post pics soon.

Anyone see mention of a CETME Modelo A in 7.92x40 in that question??

I suggest you confirm 7.92X57 (8mm, 8X57)before you go any further.

Then post any information about markings on the receiver so we can determine the maker.

Load data may be somewhat determined by the manufacturer.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
I suggest you confirm 7.92X57 (8mm, 8X57)before you go any further.

Then post any information about markings on the receiver so we can determine the maker.

Load data may be somewhat determined by the manufacturer.

Yeah, it may be a Modelo A 7.92x40 experimental rifle.

Ok. The details. It was built on a large ring frame? It is chambered in 8mm. There are no import marks anywhere. It was re barreled. only numbers are 3961. It was a quick deal tonight. I got it from a detective who was on duty. He got a call while he was explaining everything to me. So I am waiting on a email with all the details. I am 100% positive it is 8mm. other than that, i dont know ****

ust got a text from him. the specs are...8mm Spanish air force receiver. Yugo 2447 barrel and stock. timney trigger.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Ok. The details. It was built on a large ring frame? It is chambered in 8mm. There are no import marks anywhere. It was re barreled. only numbers are 3961. It was a quick deal tonight. I got it from a detective who was on duty. He got a call while he was explaining everything to me. So I am waiting on a email with all the details. I am 100% positive it is 8mm. other than that, i dont know ****

ust got a text from him. the specs are...8mm Spanish air force receiver. Yugo 2447 barrel and stock. timney trigger.

Still no mention of a Modelo A 7.92x40 CETME.

Most "Spanish" Mausers were 7mm, not 8mm. The ones that I have seen were all small ring. The 8mm Mausers came in at least 2 flavors. I think that they were J & S designations, but I don't remember for sure. The later 8mm had a larger diameter bore than the early 8mm. It's a very bad idea to shoot big ammo in a small bore. Replacement barrels for Mausers are available in all sorts of calibers. Please measure & be sure of what you have before loading.

__________________

AFAIK, Spanish Mausers are 7x57 originally.

M47 or M48 (if memory serves correctly) Spanish Mausers were large ring M98s and in 8mm (8x57 or 7.9x57....same, same......). They were, are quite serviceable M98s.

Larry Gibson

According to "Mauser Military Rifles of the World", the only listing for an 8 mm Spanish Mauser is the Model 1943 Short Rifle, which seems to be nothing more than the typical re-worked German M98 variant.

How an Air Force receiver (which I thought was 7 mm, not 8 mm, please correct me if I'm wrong) and Yugo 24/47 stock and barrel came together is quite mysterioius.

By the way, Toooldtocare, to answer your question, the above mentioned book is probably the most authoritative military Mauser source.

AND...
many spanish Mausers were converted to 7.62Nato (AKA: 308win)
But since it has a new barrel...it could be anything ?
have you slugged the bore ? and it's somewhere around .323" ?
is that why you are sure it's 8mm ?


A Spanish Mauser could be 7x57 or 8x57 (7.92x57 JS) or 7.62x51 CETME. And if it's been rebarreled, then all bets are off. Better slug and chamber cast that barrel and find out.

If the barrel is indeed a 24/47, it'll be the larger bore (well after the switch to .323 in 1905....) But look for the "S" stamp near the chamber to verify anyways.....


Spain adopted the M43 mauser in 1943 of course , and from the beginning the M43's to include the M43 with the airforce 'crest' were all 7,92 caliber. Spain slowly backed away from 7mm caliber with the adoption of 8mm. There were many gew98's and standard modell rifles in hand form german assistance to franco during the spanish civil war.
The spanish never used the gew88 and hence never the '88 patronen' , only the S patrone and later the sS patrone ( light then heavy ball ) .
The M43's I have owned over the years varied in fit and finish and generally speaking their metal was generally soft , not the best heat treating nor alloy used. I have encountered more than a couple with lug setback in the receiver. The "switch" to the S patronen was in 1903 not 1905. Spanish rifles will not have an 'S' stamp...only the germans used that designation to show S patronen compliance.
__________________

M43 it is, my memory is "refreshed".....thanks.

7.62x51 CETME is also a 7.62 NATO chamber. Just a lighter load in the same case to facilitate extraction reliability in the original CETME rifles with unfluted chambers.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
M43 it is, my memory is "refreshed".....thanks.

7.62x51 CETME is also a 7.62 NATO chamber. Just a lighter load in the same case to facilitate extraction reliability in the original CETME rifles with unfluted chambers.

Larry Gibson

Oh finally, a mention of the CETME by the dumbass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Gibson View Post
M43 it is, my memory is "refreshed".....thanks.

7.62x51 CETME is also a 7.62 NATO chamber. Just a lighter load in the same case to facilitate extraction reliability in the original CETME rifles with unfluted chambers.

Larry Gibson
True. Thanks for the clarification Larry!

Some of those Spanish Model 95 and 1916's converted to FR-7's firing 7.62x51 would be best loaded with reduced cast loads for safety's sake.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Gibson View Post
M43 it is, my memory is "refreshed".....thanks.

7.62x51 CETME is also a 7.62 NATO chamber. Just a lighter load in the same case to facilitate extraction reliability in the original CETME rifles with unfluted chambers.

Larry Gibson
True. Thanks for the clarification Larry!

Some of those Spanish Model 95 and 1916's converted to FR-7's firing 7.62x51 would be best loaded with reduced cast loads for safety's sake.

Oh it will get a lot more clarification as it goes on... NOT!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Gibson View Post
7.62x51 CETME is also a 7.62 NATO chamber. Just a lighter load in the same case to facilitate extraction reliability in the original CETME rifles with unfluted chambers. Larry Gibson
Hmmm........... you can here anything on the internet, including this. The Cetme is basically a H&K 91. H&K sold Spain the equipment to produce the Cetme rifles, but they also furnished rifles before Spain got there production line going. I have seen many of those rifles marked as Cetmes that are clearly made by H&K. Those early H&K marked Cetme rifles that i've seen all have fluted chambers. Now why would H&K make a rifle designed and proved to work extremely well (as all H&K 91 fluted chambered rifles do) with an unfluted chamber that they knew wouldn't work right? How about a link confirming what you said.
__________________
45 2.1

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Gibson View Post
7.62x51 CETME is also a 7.62 NATO chamber. Just a lighter load in the same case to facilitate extraction reliability in the original CETME rifles with unfluted chambers. Larry Gibson
Hmmm........... you can here anything on the internet, including this. The Cetme is basically a H&K 91. H&K sold Spain the equipment to produce the Cetme rifles, but they also furnished rifles before Spain got there production line going. I have seen many of those rifles marked as Cetmes that are clearly made by H&K. Those early H&K marked Cetme rifles that i've seen all have fluted chambers. Now why would H&K make a rifle designed and proved to work extremely well (as all H&K 91 fluted chambered rifles do) with an unfluted chamber that they knew wouldn't work right? How about a link confirming what you said.
__________________
45 2.1

Ah, finally someone with some true knowledge!

From the man that wrote Assault Rifles Of The World:

45 2.1

Perhaps you should do some research other than on the internet, eh?

Fact is the CETME was in development before the HK91 (same engineers left Spain and went to HK). It was designed for other cartridges than the 7.62 NATA and was adopted to it. The original CETME 7.62 NATO rifles had unfluted chambers and extraction was a problem. The CETME cartridge was developed to use in such. At one time Spain issued 7.62 CETME ammo for use in rifles and 7.62 NATO for use in the SAWs in use. The former CETME German engineers now at HK discovered that fluting the chambers solved the extraction problem. Subsequently all the CETME’s in use had their chambers fluted or were rebarreled. Subsequent CETMEs all have fluted chambers as do all HK M91s.

7.62 CETME and 7.62 NATO were for use in the M1916s, FR7 and the FR8s rebarreled to “7.62”. Perhaps if you hable espanole you can read it from the horses mouth………instead of “on the internet”….

Wouldn’t your of this thread with a pi**ing contest with me be better served over o the AR forum? I have withdrawn from joe’s thread so you, he and gear have it to yourselves. Better to make your incorrect derogatory comments to/about me there don’t you think? No need for you to ruin another thread with such on the CBF is there?

Larry Gibson

All this copied off Wikipedia from the expert!

45 2.1

Additionally I know you've a heartburn with internet and written references (the 3 on ballistics you asked for, I gave and you then criticised among numerous other examples). I'm not one one to use Wikpedia as a reference unless the information is well referenced. Here is the actual facts, in brief, regarding by whom and when the CETME rifle was developed. You have it bacwards BTW; HK did not develop the GS but were licensed by CETME, of Spain, to produce it. Note the references at the end, they are very good ones and not of the "internet".

Also with a little further research on your part you will find why the chambers were fluted......it is just as I said also.

Larry Gibson

Vorgrimler was recruited to work for CETME in Spain. The French initially attempted to prevent him from leaving the country, but Vorgrimler and family were allowed to move to Madrid in September 1950. Once there, Vorgrimler went to work on a roller-delayed rifle chambered for the experimental 7.92x40mm cartridge. Former Rheinmetall engineers led by Hartmut Menneking already had a nine month head start on the gas-operated Modelo 1, but Vorgrimler and his team of former Mauser engineers had their own Modelo 2 prototype ready by December 1950. The Spanish government selected the Modelo 2 for continued development in July, 1952.[2]

[edit] CETME Modelo B

Beside the interest at home in Spain, the Modelo 2 attracted a lot of attention from the West German Border Guards (Bundesgrenzschutz), which sought a new service rifle. Not willing to accept a cartridge outside of the NATO specification, the Germans asked CETME to develop a 7.62 mm version of the rifle. Misunderstanding the German request, CETME developed a 7.62 mm version of the 7.92x40mm cartridge. The Germans then had to explain that they wanted a version chambered for the standard 7.62x51mm NATO. Instead, the resulting CETME Modelo A was chambered for the 7.62x51mm CETME cartridge, which had identical chamber dimensions but a reduced-power load compared to the standard NATO round. Further development of the rifle produced the CETME Modelo B, which had been "improved" with the help of Heckler & Koch, receiving several modifications including the ability to fire from a closed bolt in both semi-automatic and automatic firing modes, a new perforated sheet-metal handguard (the folding bipod had been the foregrip in previous models), improved ergonomics, and a slightly longer barrel with a rifle grenade launcher mount. In 1958, this rifle was introduced into service with the Spanish Army as the Modelo 58. For his efforts in developing the rifle, Vorgrimler was awarded the Encomienda de Alfonso X el Sabio.[2]

In 1956, the Bundesgrenzschutz canceled its planned procurement of the CETME rifles, adopting the FN FAL (G1) instead. However, the newly formed West German Army (Bundeswehr) now displayed interest and soon purchased a number of CETME rifles for further testing. The CETME, known as the Automatisches Gewehr G3, competed successfully against the SIG SG 510 (G2) and AR-10 (G4) to replace the previously favored G1 rifle. In January 1959, the Bundeswehr officially adopted the CETME rifle. The CETME design was licensed by the West German government, and production was transferred to German manufacturers, Heckler & Koch and Rheinmetall. Heckler & Koch would go on to develop an entire family of weapons based on the G3, including the HK33 rifle, HK21 machine gun, and MP5 submachinegun

References

1. a b Stevens, R. Blake (2006). Full Circle: A Treatise on Roller Locking. Collector Grade Publications. pp. 14–19. ISBN 0-88935-400-6.
2. ^ a b c d e Musgrave, Daniel D.; Thomas B. Nelson (1967). The world's assault rifles and automatic carbines. 2. T. B. N. Enterprises. p. 64.
3. ^ a b Walter, John (2006). Rifles of the World (3 ed.). Krause Publications. p. 82. ISBN 0-89689-241-7.
• Vorgrimler, Ludwig, Entwicklungsgeschichte CETME-Gewehr - Deutsches-Bundeswehrgewehr G3, 1977.
Larry Gibson

Quote:
Originally Posted by 45 2.1 View Post
How about a link confirming what you said.
Well Larry.... I see you still can't give what was asked for.... That would be a link......... not your very long posts.

You really need to NOT bring your battle to this forum. Either take it back to where it occured or DON'T POST IT HERE. Nobody cares what you've done elsewhere.
__________________
45 2.1

45 2.1

As usual someone else must do it for you........a link is; http://www.cruffler.com/review-july-00.html

Now, you asked for a "link", you got one so don't whine about it ok. You amaze me. On one hand you complain about information off the "internet", then you ask for a link to such I provide you with well documented references and you complain.........

BTW, regards "You really need to NOT bring your battle to this forum. Either take it back to where it occured or DON'T POST IT HERE. Nobody cares what you've done elsewhere." You're post #15 (your 1st post in this thread) started this. Suggest you take your own advise. You have your link, the facts are that you'e wrong. My point is well made, I'm done with you here.

Larry Gibson

This is where our more knowledge poster steps on Gibsons gonads?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Gibson View Post
M43 it is, my memory is "refreshed".....thanks.
7.62x51 CETME is also a 7.62 NATO chamber. Just a lighter load in the same case to facilitate extraction reliability in the original CETME rifles with unfluted chambers.
Larry Gibson
I noted your link: As usual someone else must do it for you........a link is; http://www.cruffler.com/review-july-00.html

I went and looked. It stated: Like all delayed blowback firearms, the chamber is fluted to aid in extraction. That is directly the opposite of what you stated in the quote above. That is what I queried about. I think, with all the browbeating you tried to do here, you owe me an apology, for that and being wrong.
__________________
45 2.1

A switch of tactics because his gonads are still hurting from the stepping on:

Back to the topic; if the spanish mauser is a M43 then it should be ok with regular 8x57 loads. I've had several of them over the years and, if the barrels are good they have all been good shooters, especially with cast. My own M43 was shot by me a lot with 8x57 loads, then I shot a 6mm remming ton barrel out I put on it and then a 6.5-280 barrel. Currently it is my 45 ACP though and still going strong.

Larry Gibson

45 2.1

Perhaps you missed the word "original" in what I said? The 7.62 CETME cartridge was then loaded with a lighter bullet and less psi for reliable extraction. They then found fluting the chambers allowed reliable extraction with the full powered 7.62 NATO cartridge.

You need to let it go.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
45 2.1

Perhaps you missed the word "original" in what I said? The 7.62 CETME cartridge was then loaded with a lighter bullet and less psi for reliable extraction. They then found fluting the chambers allowed reliable extraction with the full powered 7.62 NATO cartridge.

You need to let it go.

Larry Gibson

Perhaps Mr Gibson missed the original post!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Multigunner View Post
Larry is correct, and if you thought about it you'd realize that the above bolded statement is not correct because they did not word it properly.
For one thing it is in reference to the model C, not the previous models.
Here is his original statement:
7.62x51 CETME is also a 7.62 NATO chamber. Just a lighter load in the same case to facilitate extraction reliability in the original CETME rifles with unfluted chambers.

One, from reading the above would assume he is talking about the Cetme or Nato chamber.... not any other model. There is no paragraph change signifying another topic.... one sentence after another in the same paragraph. The statement and link he gave are both posts by him....... and contradict each other (whether or not they are true). He specifically mentions the Cetme/Nato chamber. One would think the same person who made the posts would reinforce what they say and cleary make a reference to some other model and caliber rifle clear, but that didn't happen... did it.
__________________
45 2.1

That's 24 posts joe.....you're talking to yourself now.......bad sign........but then morons do talk to themselves.........

Gibby, I thought you'd be happy I brought your closed thread over here. Now you and 45 2.1 can continue your argument. Try closing this one dude. I liked your comment, but yet you posted in it didn't you dumbass?

You dummies are wrong about the first 7.62x51 CETME and the 7.62 NATO rifle, it was the model B and it had fluted chambers from the get go. I'm still laughing at Cruffler's website. What a piss poor place for accurate reference.

Joe

The original Cetm in 7.62 NATO issued to Spanish troops had unfluted chambers. It would not function reliably so they developed the 7,62 CETME cartridge with the lighter weight bullet and less psi for it to function ( I have a quanity of original 7.62 CETME ammunition BTW). Once they figured out fluting the chambers made functioning reliable with full power 7.62 ammunition they recalled the fielded CETME rifles and fluted the chambers or rebarreled them (Remember we did a similar change in 1906 with the 1903 when changed from '06 ammo to '06 ammo). All later CETMEs M B & Cs had fluted cahmbers.

You can talk sideways about model #s all you want but it won't change the facts.

45 2.1 pissed and moaned about me getting information off the internet (like he and you don't ) so I gave him several very good published references. He then had the stupidity to criticise me for not providing a "link" to information on the interenet .....not only confusing but made him look stupid as usual. I supplied the Cruffler link as he requested. So if you want to continue looking stupid and moronic like 45 2.1 for criticising what you asked for then be my quest

BTW; other than your and 45 2.1s opinion where are your references supporting what you say is the specific reason the 7.62 CETMA cartridge was developed?

Larry Gibson

quote:

the NATO round CETME didn't have fluted chambers.

The 1st ones didn't and that's the fact......really burns your ass that you can't come up with something to really prove it wrong.......

I'll sit here and watch you make a bigger fool of yourself. You got the stage!

I have a spanish mauser in 308 winchester 7.62x51 nato..

Have not shot it in a long time i mounted peep sight on it when i belonged to the 44th infantry division DCM FORT DIX NJ..

I used it to qualify to purchase my M-1 Garande from the DCM.

last winter i did work on the stock and paint it Should have some pics in photo bucket will have to post them up, great shooting weapon i had alot of fun back then shooting this rifle.. their does not seem to be too many out their in this calibre..