Mosin-Nagant hex receiver

[Soundguy]

I was going to pick up a 1916 Spanish Mauser (converted to 7.62) in order to fill in the gap in my collection, since I didn't yet have a .308 bolt gun, but the "Is .308 safe to shoot in a 1916" controversy backed me off of it. There appears to be a voluminous amount of people on both sides of the aisle on that subject, and I have yet to see anybody actually offer up proof of a failed converted rifle as a result of shooting .308 in it. At the same time, I don't want to be the first! And now that I've got my FR-8, I'm settled.

My wife did find an old 7mm Spanish Mauser that she bought for me around last Christmas. I've fired it a few times and I really like it, as is.

Good luck and take care.

I don't think there should be any debate at all.

Look at it from a cartridge and chamber point of view.

7.62 cetme, 7.62x51, .308 win ALL have the same physical dimensions.

However, they are all designed around different pressures.

7.62 cetme is what those spanish mausers were chambered for.. but.. a .308 will sure 'fit' in there.

This goes back to the 308 / 762 and 556/223 issues.

you don't want to fire 556 in a 223 only chamber. 556 wil eat 223

you don't want to fire 308 in a 762 only chamber. 308 will eat both.

 

[rtimgray]

I'm not taking a side in that argument. There have been folks write dissertations on both sides of that, arguing that 7.62x51 and .308 have basically identical pressures because they are measured on different scales (SAAMI or CIP or CUP) and when they are directly compared, it comes down the individual loading of the round if they are more or less different or the same.

Several folks say there was a 7.62 Cetme round, while others say there isn't, that the "7.62 Cetme" is merely a loading variant of the 7.62x51, because everything else is the same. There are also pictures of cases of ammunition marked "7.62 Cetme", but I don't know if that qualifies as proof or not.

In the end, I think it's up to the individual shooter to determine what their tolerance for risk is. The 1916 Mausers that Samco sells were allegedly tested at a laboratory and withstood rounds loaded up to 90,000 psi before failure. There are copies of the article from Guns & Ammo (I think) floating around on the internet. Is this proof? I don't know - it's proof of that's what happened with those particular rifles. However, are they representative of all of them? Again, I don't know.

Lots of folks post that they have shot .308 out of them for years with no ill effects, and no one had actually shown proof that one has blown up (not like Glocks explode, anyway!). I'm not saying it hasn't or doesn't happen, I just haven't seen it.

I personally wouldn't fire .308 commercial out of a 1916 Mauser anyway (maybe I did take a side, after all!), but that's just my decision based on what I've read.

Good luck and take care.

 

[bcp]

I personally wouldn't fire .308 commercial out of a 1916 Mauser anyway (maybe I did take a side, after all!), but that's just my decision based on what I've read.

I wouldn't either, but Spain thought it was OK.

The instruction manual for the 1916 Mauser says 7.62 NATO.




Bruce

 

[rtimgray]

Samco (that it seems is still selling these 1916 Mausers) on their website calls them .308 Win, but then later in their description equates .308 Win to 7.62 NATO.

With as many of these rifles as are in circulation, and have doubtlessly been fired using .308, would it not be surprising that no one in our litigious society has had a failure and tried to sue the importer/seller? If they have, I can't find any record of it on the internet (doesn't mean it hasn't happened - it means I couldn't find it).

In my search for this information, I came across a couple of (gun) sites (no pun intended - ha-ha) where someone asked the same question I just posed above, and no one came forth with actual proof of failure.

I don't know, it's just a curiosity for me, mostly.

I still love the FR-8 though. I've got a sling and some other accessories on the way so I can really pimp it out...

Good luck and take care.

 

[paulharvey]

Looks like I finally got everything taken care of. Seller is shipping Saturday morning. I've still got to get the stock from friend (probably give him a 18 pack of Miller Lite for it). I've got to do Cub Scout camping trip next weekend with son, so it will probably be the weekend after next before I get to shoot it.

Those $240 Yugo M28/47? are starting to seem like a better deal then $259.99 M91/30's; better price, better rifle, probably main draw back is there isn't a lot of cheap and or new bulk 8mm Mauser running around.

 

[Soundguy]

Look at that 1916 mausers original design, chamber, cartridge and and lugs, and bolt ( gas handling)

A 98 it isn't.

I feel quite safe shooting converts Turk mausers ( to 8mm mauser )

The action is up to it.

Other actions to much more upsized cartridges?

I'll pass. I still need my face and eyes! And a cheek weld 3" away from a bolt lug and receiver ring that may or may not take one more prop load is nit my idea of fun.

I don't think anybody is saying they grenade on a couple shots. I think the fear is prolonged use, lug setback, growing headspace, itc.

Look at webley revolvers shaved for 45acp ( more available) at import.

You dont see too many blown up webbs, but you see sloppy ones . 45acp is pretty much a prop load in a 455 !

These guns handle it because of good design. Lee in mind the ages too.

You want to continually shoot proof loads in a 100 year old gun?

Wonder if there are any micro fractures? Winder if that receiver ring and bnl thread is 100% lil it was when built?

Did the previous owner shoot dangerous handloads through it?

 

[rtimgray]

Soundguy - the reasons you mention are excellent examples of why I wouldn't shoot .308 in a converted 1916 Mauser.

paulharvey - a couple of weeks ago, I ordered a "Gunsmith Special" Yugo 24/47 Mauser from J&G Sales for $130. It was the first time that I have ordered a GSS, so I wasn't sure what to expect. I ended up very well pleased. The gun was complete, covered in the usual cosmoline, but did have some rust on the barrel (the outside - once clean, the bore was bright and shiny). I spent a few hours cleaning and scrubbing and cleaning some more, and I finally got it cleaned well enough (to my satisfaction) to warrant some test firing. Once again, I was pleasantly surprised with the accuracy and smoothness of the action. No problems loading/feeding/firing/ejecting, and I can tell that the rifle is going to be more accurate than I am!! The stock is solid and in good shape, but it is cosmetically very poor, because it has big, black spots and smears on it that don't come off. They kind of look like oil stains, but I'm not sure. I haven't decided what I'm going to do about that...

Good luck and take care.

 

[paulharvey]

So, I received my barreled reciever, and then ordered a set of sights and just now installed them. Still lacking a stock, but a friend has one he said he'd give me. I've dropped several hints, but he said "I've got to go digging around for it", and I hate to say go dig for it.

Couple loose thoughts;
I should have ordered the M39 barrel on ebay for $115 and used my reciever; my $68 barreled reciever ended up more like $115 (shipping, FFL, background and tax) and had no sights, so that was another $20.
I have always read about how rough the barrels and receivers where machined like, but the 3 Mosin I've held have always been about equal to an Norinco SKS (fine on surface, mill marks on bottom where you can't see) but Dang, this barrel looks like a piece of 'all thread' the lathe work is so rough.

Edit: forgot to add the picture but doesn't look like I can edit it back in

 

[paulharvey]

Pictures







Don't know how well the pictures show it

Can't say people didn't tell me to just go buy a complete gun, and maybe I should have, but you know how that goes. Sure it's not the first or last time I went against good advice

 

[Soundguy]

Dirty cars go about as gas as clean ones, ugly guns shoot about the same . It was a numbers war for Russia. Gun looks and ergonomics were not in the equation, which is why their stocks were shaped lil longboat oars.