Spanish Mauser 1916/1893 in .308

[Allen]

This is probably a worn out question but I keep seeing remarks about being careful not to shoot 308 surplus ammo in a 1916 or converted 1893 Mauser. The reason being that the ammo may be loaded hotter for machine guns. Has anyone actually seen evidence of metal fatique or high pressure signs that would warrant these assumptions? I know the small ring receivers are not as strong as the large ring but still a Mauser action is among the strongest and best. Also, we are talking about a .308 Winchester round not a 375 or .458mag round that the large rings can handle. If true then what about name brand off the shelf 308 ammo such as Remington, Federal, etc..?

[kcw]

This is probably a worn out question but I keep seeing remarks about being careful not to shoot 308 surplus ammo in a 1916 or converted 1893 Mauser. The reason being that the ammo may be loaded hotter for machine guns. Has anyone actually seen evidence of metal fatique or high pressure signs that would warrant these assumptions? I know the small ring receivers are not as strong as the large ring but still a Mauser action is among the strongest and best. Also, we are talking about a .308 Winchester round not a 375 or .458mag round that the large rings can handle. If true then what about name brand off the shelf 308 ammo such as Remington, Federal, etc..?

My understanding is that the Spanish never intended the 1916 to be used with the 7.62 NATO round but rather with a low pressure round built on the 7.62 brass ( 7.62 CETME?)
That being said at least one importer had a random seletion of these rifles tested by White/Westinghouse Labs. I've got the article regarding the results of that testing around here someplace. As I recall, none of the tested rifles destructed (blew up) at pressures less than that seen in the standard U.S. 308 proof test.
I don't believe however that the primary concern with these rifles is that of them blowing up with factory ammo, but rather that of the bolt being set back into the receiver lugways, after many rounds of 308 being fired, due to relatively soft steel used in the receivers of some of these rifles. The possible danger factor being one of excessive headspace being created over time/useage.
My experience with this matter is that it's a "rifle to rifle" issue. My own 1916 will still doesn show indications of excessive headspace even though I've probably put a 1,000 rounds of 308/7.62 through it in the past 15 years.
I would only suggest that you never buy one without the piece first being inspected by a gunsmith as to headspace; and then having it looked at every so often thereafter.
Obviously the use of ammo having pressures outside that of factory specs isn't recommended.

[RED]

I bought a 93 Spanish Mauser that had been rebarreled To .257 Roberts. The bolt had been ruined by Bubba trying to make it cock on opening. I bought it for a song and got a another bolt from Springfield Sporters and had a smith set the headspace and turn down the handle. Within only about 20 rounds of factory ammunition the brass started to show signs of excessive pressure... the bolt had already set back that much. I finally sold the gun less the receiver for about half what I had in it.

Not all of the 93's are like that and there is no way to know what Bubba had subjected that receiver to before he put on the .257 barrel.

[joem]

I have a couple of these but since I reload all my ammo it's not a concern.

[slamfire]

Until you read about the history of metallurgy, you just don't know how little they knew in the 1890's. By the time you get into the 30's metals were well defined and understood.

Anyone remember the progression of the semiconductor revolution? Metal science progressed almost that fast from the 1890's through +WWI. The early stuff, metals and chips, are primitive.

Double and single heat treat Springfields were made from steels that today are used as rebar. WWI era M1911's were not even heat treated!

There is just not a lot of margin if something goes wrong in early guns. When these carbon steel receivers break, they frag.

Anyone remember that the rivets on the Titantic were substandard? Lots of slag in the metal? "three times more slag than occurs in modern wrought iron" This was in 1912.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...15titanic.html
http://dwb.unl.edu/teacher/nsf/c10/c.../aa022800a.htm
http://shipwrecks.wordpress.com/2008...e-rms-titanic/

There are very few good detailed analyses of period metals. The third link leads you to a good one, unfortunately no pictures.

The only one I heard on action materials was on a M1909 Argentine. A metallurgist sent a detailed analysis to Ludwig Olsen. Mr Olsen summarized it to something like “not metallurgically good material” Something short like that. What I would have given to read the full report.

Whenever I have read a metals analysis of the irons and carbon steels of that era, they are all “slag, impurities, low grade”. The Titanic analysis follows this trend, and the metals there are 19 years later. Just search for reviews on the Class C materials used in the 03 Springfields. Awful stuff. Springfield was unable to reheat the single heat treat receivers because of the carbon steels were just too variable in composition.

The design may be good, the workmanship great, but you should not trust the metals, and these old guns are iffy about margin.

This of course is my viewpoint. I have only one head and I don’t want to loose it or any fingers or eyes. And I don’t want anyone else to lose any non refundable body parts.

A M1916 Spanish was built over a long time period. They were built by Oviedo from 1916 to 1951, and Catulun from 1936 to 1939.

I don't know whether the M1916 308 conversions were made from selected late model actions.