All my gun life I've read or heard of the relative inferiority of Mauser 91s, 93s, 95s,96s ect. to the mod. 98 Mauser. Along with this was the warning not to chamber a modern day cartridge in one of them. I buy that!!!! Is or is not the 1916 cal.308 a reworked early 90s Mauser? This probably has been addressed before but I wasn't here.

The 1916's were small ring Mauser reworks. they are not suitable for the 7.62 Nato or .308 win.

"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach:
The 1916's were small ring Mauser reworks. they are not suitable for the 7.62 Nato or .308 win.

---

"

I guess, than, my question is why did some country chamber them to the 7.62x51 and hand them out to there military?

Also, if there is a real problem why are the American firearms officianados buying them up and using them?

And why hasn't some publication alerted us to the problem?

Does the great american greed factor come into play here somehow?

7.62x51CTME (I think thats right) is a low pressure round that just happens to have the same dimentions as the 7.62x51NATO. Only the loading pressure is different.
It was a short term thing, getting all your troops switched over to a new rifle and cartridge at the same time (esp. if you haven't finished the new rifle design yet) is very costly.

"[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tailgunner:
[QB]7.62x51CTME (I think thats right) is a low pressure round that just happens to have the same dimentions as the 7.62x51NATO."
I think there really are two rifles in quetion but the situations are the same. If we buy either one of the two and start fireing hot 7.62x51 or.308 ammo is there a problem? I bought 2 some time back and didn't receive any dissclaimer with them. Can anyone answer my questions 2 postings up? Do any of you gun smiths have the answers?
I'll tell you; I fired some Venesualian(?) ammo in one and the bolt handle became hard to lift. Am I posting this on the right forum?

Governments are never liable for their actions. Worse case is that taxpayers pick up the damages.

Look at the dimensional differences between large and small ring mausers. Not much left after rethreading a SR for LR barrel.

What more do you want? You've been told that they are small ring Mausers and not suited for .308 or 7.62 nato.

My understanding is that they were indeed designed to fire 7.62 CETME ammo. It is dimensionally the same as .308 or 7.62nato but was loaded with 110 grain bullets at low pressures.

How many of these rifles do you think they'd sell if the y advertised them as 7.62 CETME? Most of the suppliers selling surplus rifles in general have some sort of disclaimer stating that they are surplus.

"[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zach:
[QB]What more do you want? "
I was looking for a clearer understanding of a situation that I thought to be in violation of normal reasoning. Sorry, Zach, if I yanked your string

Samco Global, the largest seller of these rifles, had a test done by HP White labs. I believe they'll send you the test results if you ask, but I can't find the results on the web.

Here's an old GunsNAmmo article that mentions the test:

http://www.samcoglobal.com/article.html

The results appear favorable but you'll hear endless cries from keyboard commandos regarding test method, sample size, etc.

Also note that these rifles have been selling for years and years to those who don't know the difference between 7.62 CETME and the .308 Winchester ammo available at WalMart. One would like to assume that if they regularly failed when fired, Samco would either pull them from the market or at least require a "non-shooting statement" like Springfield Sporters used to with their questionable offerings.

Look at the available evidence regarding the safety of these rifles (or lack thereof) and draw your own conclusions.

Personally, I'm not afraid of them but don't have an interest in them either.

Sam B.
http://www.fireflyarms.com

I wonder how many Winchester M-70 pre-64 guns would survive 98,000 PSI!!!???

I have an old gunsmithing book that is adamant about the statement that there was no strong mausers prior to the model of 1898....

I'm not taking any sides on this but I'm also not going to build any rifles on pre'98 actions either.

Strength is only part of the equation. As Jack Belk has posted many times, the real safety issue in my mind is the pre-98's lack of adequate gas handling. Add to this the fact that spanish heat treatment left a lot to be desired and I have to ask why bother? Why risk it?

this is my way of deciding if a round should be fired in a military surplus firearm.

i look in Ludwig Olson's book about Mausers and i find the original military ammunition specification for the rifle in question. if the round i want to shoot exceeds the original military spec, then i deem it as unacceptable to shoot. the rifle was designed to shoot military ammunition forever. anything more potent is eventually gonna get you into trouble. watch out for re-chamberings and re-barrelings. just because a gunsmith has the skill to do it doesn't make it safe. i once saw a Marlin 336 gunsmithed from a 35 Rem to a 358 Win. talk about a dumb idea.....

anyway, if Olson's book says the Model 1916 was designed for the 7.62 NATO round, then you are completely safe regardless of the ring size.

my advice.....if you are shooting a 7x57 surplus rifle, for example, and you want more speed, buy a 280. if you are shooting a 8x57, for example, and you want more speed, buy a 8mm Mag. some rifles are meant to be mild, pleasant shooters and others are meant to bring tears to your eyes.

[ 11-17-2003, 21:03: Message edited by: bill smith ]

If we're talking about the FR-7, mine (c. 1989) definitely set the bolt back with NATO spec ball ammo or any commercial loads. Maybe later ones had better heat treating?

Thanks ,guys. Good thread and a lot of good info.I got what I was looking for.

Tiggertate,
I'm sure the bolt set back in one of my 1916s also.I bought the 2 almost 15 yrs. ago. I thought they were too good to be true than and now I'm certain.

I never felt this was a safety issue as much as it was unscrupulus importers sticking the shooting public with gear that turned itself into junk