Bought 3 Spanish Mausers

[pacrat]

15 hours ago, inthe10ring said:

Is Bob's tutorial in the mc archives?

IDK, it is definitely in the GUN TECH forum.  Mod on that one is Mike-Z1r

[pacrat]

15 hours ago, Dr.Hess said:

[1] ....  All the 1916's have a flat bottom bolt, 1893 style.  [2]  ....  They also all have a magazine release, but you need to use a bullet tip to operate it, if that's what you mean by a button.  Getting that to work, after it hasn't been used in a hundred years, can be a bit challenging, but plenty of penetrating oil and some hammering gets it going.

[3]  ...   The 7mm barrel has the original shoulder.  It has never been apart, from what I can tell, although if it is a Lowe manufacture, then the barrel is a replacement or cut down.  I already have the 2 7mm's I've been working on back in the wood, but one of them has the Mexican barrel that I turned the shoulder down and rechambered.  The 308 barrel I have in my hand has a shoulder of 3mm, 0.118".  I'll check the 308 rifle when I get it out, but I bet it will be similar.  The consensus is that the Spanish took the barrels off, bored (probably not much needed, as they were generally shot out and even if not only 8 thousandths plus the rifling needed to be removed,) rifled, then put back on.  The serial numbers of the barrels match the receivers in all the ones I've seen pics of, plus mine.  Mine has the Civil Guard crest, and the receiver looks polished there.  The Spanish made these conversions to adopt 308W/7.62 so that they could be in NATO.  Spain joined in 1982.  So, these conversions were probably in the late 70's, but I haven't seen any dates associated with the work.  The CETME was only a short duration thing for one rifle and never worked out for them.  It also had the same pressure ratings as the 7.62NATO, but lighter bullets for less recoil on full auto.

I'am sorry sir.  But you are laboring under the weight, of much intentionally disseminated  misinformation, on many aspects of the historical facts.  Concerning the decades long transition of original 7x57 1893s. Along with some "consensus".  That was fueled by the same unscrupulous importers, and heavy advertisers, in various Gun MAGAZINES back then.  Which BTW went totally against what CETME determined to be SAFE from an engineering standpoint. 

[1] ....  Only Loewe made 93 and 95 receivers, that had flat bottom bolts.  With DWM only utilizing remaining "in stock" receivers after merger.  95s mentioned are Spanish m95s, which are the very rare full stocked Spanish cavalry carbines.  Not the m95 Chilean rifles and carbines. Which have a slight difference to the receiver from 93s. Which were also made by Loewe then DWM.  Loewe only made 93s between Dec of 1893 and mid 1896.  2 1/2 yrs.  When Loewe ceased to exist.  Due to them merging their rifle and ammunition companies under the name DWM.  The LAST flat bottom bolt receivers were gone by the end of 1896 or early 1897.

So no, not all 1916s have flat bottom bolts.  Actually only a relatively small percentage of 93s and 1916s do.  Considering the long run of original 1916s made by the various Spanish armories under license.  Which have notoriously soft receivers due to known poor metallurgy and heat treatment shortcuts.  And the 20 yr. manufacturing span between end 1896 when DWM ran out of in stock Loewe receivers,  til 1916 and beyond.  

[2]  ....  Yes, they all have magazine releases.  But ONLY very early Loewe 93 rifles, had the "PUSH BUTTON" HINGED FLOOR PLATES.  Like this.  https://www.gunpartscorp.com/products/1044300 .  With the button on the right side of the trigger guard.  

[3]  ....  And beyond. to be continued.  Please measure the shoulder ring of the 1916-7.62 CETME barrel. It is a relevant factor to the discussion.  I don't know what 308 barrel you have in your hand.  Can't see that far.

Quote

The 308 barrel I have in my hand has a shoulder of 3mm, 0.118".  I'll check the 308 rifle when I get it out, but I bet it will be similar. 

 Cheers

[Dr.Hess]

I've not seen a push button bottom like that before.  That's pretty nice.

 

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing on the bolts.  I am calling these a flat bottom:

That's a 1916 on the left (note gas hole) and a Turk small ring on the right.  It is my understanding that all the Turkish small rings came from Germany.

This is not a flat bottom, from a Swedish small ring Mauser, as far as I can tell (came with some ebay stuff):

My Chilean Lowe made rifle is a 1895 model and has a round bolt face like the Swede, not flat bottomed like the 1893 design 1916 and Turk.

 

 

 

 

[pacrat]

Quote

My Chilean Lowe made rifle is a 1895 model and has a round bolt face like the Swede, not flat bottomed like the 1893 design 1916 and Turk.

Doc;  Yes when mentioning "flat bottom bolt faces" we are talking about the same thing. 

Very early Turk/Chilean, 93s made by Loewe,  Also had this feature.  Along with the same "guide rail" along the LH bolt race.  Turks predated Spain.  But Chilean 95s were only produced by Loewe for 1 1/2 yrs, up to and during, the  DWM merge.  DURING the merge transition period.  Some round receivers were marked as Loewe.  ...    Swedes were made in the Oberndorf German Armory, and in Sweden.  And never had flat bottom faces.  But I'm trying to stick with the Spanish 93s, because in and of themselves, are confusing enough.  Especially since Spain kept, and reworked, the same early Loewe 93s  for 70 yrs. from 1893 into the late 1950s, into early 1960s, with the last reincarnation into FR-7s.  Some of which also have flat bottom bolts.  

 

Another quick note on the Chilean 95,  If you check the right rear of your 95 receiver.  It LIKELY has a BUMP behind the bolt handle recess.  Acting as a safety feature if the bolt lugs failed.  If it is one of the much rarer flat bottoms.  It would not have the bolt catching safety bump.

ETA >>>>  I struck  the "Turks-Spain"  comment.  But left it in.  Because going from memory, I'm not 100% sure it is correct.  I know that both Turkey and Spain were shopping the experimental Md 92 under development at Loewe during that time.  But am not sure which was chicken or egg.

Edited December 22, 2023 by pacrat
correctness

[Dr.Hess]

Yes, my Chilean 95 has the third safety recess behind the bolt handle, and a round bolt face.  I have one more Chilean, but it is way in the back of the safe and would take me a half hour to dig out and put back.  It is quite interesting in that the name of a naval ship was written on the stock in red, there's battleship grey paint splotches on it, and the ship name, if you research it, was built in France for the Chilean navy around the turn of the 20th century.  The Chileans did not pay France for the ship when completed, so the French did not deliver and actually chained it to the dock and let it sit.  The two parties eventually came to an agreement and France let them have the ship.  The rifle is in excellent condition, which would be expected for a rifle from a ship.  It would have sat in the weapons locker it's whole life, only coming out occasionally, versus a ground pounder's rifle that would be beat to crap.  It matches everywhere except for the safety. 

[pacrat]

7 hours ago, Dr.Hess said:

Yes, my Chilean 95 has the third safety recess behind the bolt handle, and a round bolt face.  I have one more Chilean, but it is way in the back of the safe and would take me a half hour to dig out and put back.  It is quite interesting in that the name of a naval ship was written on the stock in red, there's battleship grey paint splotches on it, and the ship name, if you research it, was built in France for the Chilean navy around the turn of the 20th century.  The Chileans did not pay France for the ship when completed, so the French did not deliver and actually chained it to the dock and let it sit.  The two parties eventually came to an agreement and France let them have the ship.  The rifle is in excellent condition, which would be expected for a rifle from a ship.  It would have sat in the weapons locker it's whole life, only coming out occasionally, versus a ground pounder's rifle that would be beat to crap.  It matches everywhere except for the safety. 

If your other m95 happens to be on of the flat bottom Loewes, especially if it is an unmolested original carbine.  You have a valuable collector piece.

As to the "Turk-Spain" sentence I struck in last post.  Spain was the chicken. NOT THE TURKS.  According to this well vetted and researched site,  https://www.turkmauser.com/models.aspx .  Which I dug back out of ARCHIVES on the 'new"  Mausercentral.net site.  http://mausercentral.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=49

I'm operating here from memory.    Almost 2 decades ago, I spent 5 yrs,  researching and compiling well vetted and confirmed info files, on just the Spanish 93, and later variations, and arsenal reworks of same.  Due to the need of debunking, all the afore mentioned misinformation that had been disseminated by less than honest importers. Which I uploaded onto the original Mauser central site.  For public view and safekeeping.   WHICH WAS LOST, when the MC domain was ripped off in 2016.  And then my old computer crashed and died shortly there after.  So those files are gone.  And a lot of the websites from that time are now just dead holes.

 

Quote

 

1893

As soon as the Ottomans saw the Spanish Modelo of 1893, they placed an order for 201,00 rifles in the new configuration. Chambered for 7.65x53, it was virtually identical to the Spanish model, except for the magazine cutoff. Those that remained in Turkish hands were converted to 8mm in the 1930's.

 

 

[Dr.Hess]

Yeah, too bad that site got cyber-squatted.  Even the wayback machine doesn't have a copy of it up.  I suspect the squatters made them take it down.  We are very fortunate to have Richard working for us as our Tech Guy.  That wouldn't happen here.  He backs the site up regularly.  He even had to restore it once when the server got hacked and we lost everything.  All we lost was a few days of posts.

I'm going to have to dig that Turk 93 out.  I bought a Swedish stock, complete, as I "read on the internet, it must be true" that the Turk will fit.  We'll see.  Anyway, it has the cutout on the right of the receiver for the magazine cutoff, but when the Turks re-did it to 8mm, they took the parts off.  I have an extra SR Turk bolt.  It is flat on the bottom.  I must have close to ten M93 bolts, and all the Spanish ones are flat bottoms.  I have never seen a small ring Spanish bolt that is round.  The Chilean M95, yes, but not the 93's.

The Spanish wanted a new rifle.  Mausers were the latest high tech thing.  They asked Mauser for samples in 7.65.  Paul Mauser sent a letter saying that they should try the 7x57 round, as it was superior to the 7.65.  I saw a scan of the letter.  Should have saved it.  It's on gunboards somewhere, if you can find it.  The Spanish said OK, and that's how they wound up with 7x57.

Here is some stuff I did manage to save a copy of. 

My Spanish sucks.  However, I can speak Hospital Spanglish and Restaurante TexMex.  So, I can get you to drop your pants and bend over, or, bring me another beer.

Civil Guard description of the 7.62 M1916 rifles.  Note the cover specifically states 7.62 NATO and NOT CETME, transformed from 7mm. 

 

This page describes the rifle as being converted from old 7mm rifles:

So, per the 1967 manual from Spain, CETME didn't enter into it.  They made the rifles to shoot 7.62 NATO.

SAMCO testing the rifles:

 

 

[pacrat]

Quote

Civil Guard description of the 7.62 M1916 rifles.  Note the cover specifically states 7.62 NATO and NOT CETME, transformed from 7mm. <SNIP> ....  So, per the 1967 manual from Spain, CETME didn't enter into it.  They made the rifles to shoot 7.62 NATO. 

I suggest you read up on just how Spain made the long transitional road from 7mm bolt guns, to select fire 30 cal. battle rifles with HK also in the mix. With 8mm rifles in the mix from bolt to auto. One can never rightly say that "CETME didn't enter into it".  Once the entire story is told.  Based solely on bad info in a "User Manual".  Printed by [Spanish Rural Police].             https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62×51mm_CETME

Quote

 

The 7.62×51mm CETME round is a variant of the 7.62×51mm NATO rifle cartridge with a plastic-cored lead bullet and a reduced propellant charge. The 7.62×51mm CETME is otherwise identical to the NATO standard. It was produced as a joint venture by the Spanish Government design and development establishment known as CETME (Centro de Estudios Técnicos de Materiales Especiales, or "Center for Technical Studies of Special Materials") and the German arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch.  ,SNIP>

 

Spain, isolated from the international community, continued to use the 7.92×57mm Mauser. From 1953 prototype cartridges begin to take place in 7.62×51mm. In 1955 this caliber is adopted and soon began to be mass-produced for the new CETME rifle. This cartridge did not meet NATO standards and was called 7.62×51mm Spanish. In the '60s, quality improved and became known as 7.62×51mm NATO-SPANISH. Only after 1988 were cartridges produced in Spain known as NATO–REGULAR and met NATO specifications.

During the development of the CETME rifle, it was decided by CETME that their new weapon would be chambered in a .30-caliber rifle cartridge with a short case and lesser powder charge in order to increase the manageability of the rifle during full auto fire. The 7.92×33mm Kurz was the original basis, but the 7.92×41mm CETME M53 also known as the 7.92×40mm, a more powerful experimental cartridge loaded with an innovative extremely long aerodynamic lightweight projectile developed by CETME, was also tried.^[1] This evolved into the 7.62×40mm CETME M53, which was identical aside from the smaller diameter bullet. Eventually^[when?] they decided on a variant of the new 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge that they designated the 7.62×51mm CETME. The 7.62mm CETME had a lighter full-metal-jacketed, plastic-cored lead bullet with a reduced powder charge.

While designing the CETME Modelo B and under recommendation of Heckler & Koch, the decision was made that the updated version of the original CETME Modelo A would chamber the more powerful 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge. When the Modelo B was adopted by the Spanish military as the Modelo 58 in 1958, 7.62×51mm CETME was the standard rifle cartridge but a notable change occurred when Spanish Army officially made a move to the full-power 7.62×51mm NATO standard cartridge. This decision forced the CETME Model 58 to be internally reworked to accept the more powerful round. Marking this change, the revised rifle forms were designated CETME "Model C".^[2]

 

 

A previous thread from another forum listed on google under CETME searches. you might find interesting.  https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=984098  Which has this link which differss slightly from the other wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62×51mm_CETME

Quote

Spain, isolated from the international community, continued to use the 7.92×57mm Mauser. From 1953 prototype cartridges begin to take place in 7.62×51mm. In 1955 this caliber is adopted and soon began to be mass-produced for the new CETME rifle. This cartridge did not meet NATO standards and was called 7.62×51mm Spanish. In the '60s, quality improved and became known as 7.62×51mm NATO-SPANISH. Only after 1988 were cartridges produced in Spain known as NATO–REGULAR and met NATO specifications.

What the Spanish Internal agencies called NATO Cartridges were not up to ACTUAL NATO PRESSURE SPECS.

Some of which confusion is discussed in the above CalGuns thread.

[Dr.Hess]

If you want to believe wikipedia, then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FR7

specifically states that the FR7, a 1916 based rifle, was chambered for 7.62 NATO.

Your calguns thread says:

Cartridge pressures
7.62 CETME...........................42,000CUP {approx same pressure as the early slow powder, heavy RN cupronickle 7x57 ammo in 1893}
7x57....................................SAAMI 46,000 CUP
7.62x51................................51,000 psi
.308 Win...............................62,000 psi

So, the receiver can handle 46,000 CUP, as that was that SAAMI on the original round.  Converting that to PSI from

https://calculator.academy/cup-to-psi-calculator/

gives: 51,834 PSI, which is OVER what the 7.62x51 is.  So, by the calguns thread plus maffs, it is not over pressure for the receiver.

I agree that setback can be a problem, as it can in all bolt action guns, and especially if hot-rodded.  And, some receivers seem to be worse than others.  However, all the small rings I have taken apart, which is a small set, have not had any setback, even if the barrel was totally shot out.

 

Now, here is a gentleman with actual real test equipment that tested the original 7x57 loads, 308, 7.62 NATO and CETME.

https://www.go2gbo.com/threads/the-load-for-the-spanish-m-1916-7-62x51-mauser.299746/

Post #9, LMG says:

"I’ve found the actual measured pressures of milsurp 7x57, milsurp NATO specM80 ball and commercial .308W overlap so much it is almost impossible to say which one is loaded “hotter”.

...

As to 7.62 CETME ammunition, it is the common statement that it is “lower powered ammunition loaded for the FR7/FR8rifles”. Such is simply not true. The 7.62 CETME ammunition was loaded to ensure reliable functioning in CETME rifles pre fluted chamber. They used a lighter weight bullet and a faster burning powder to make the time/pressure curve quicker. That let the case contract prior to the extraction cycle starting. The measured psi(M43) of 1962 CETME ammunition produced in Spain runs 58,000 to 60,000 psi. Not exactly a reduced load. "

 

His experience shooting a 1916 in 308, thousands of rounds, burning out several barrels, is also interesting.  0.001" setback, after much inadvertent hotrodding at 64-69K PSI.

 

 

[Dr.Hess]

Also, if you look at the CIP page,

https://bobp.cip-bobp.org/de/tdcc_public

for 7x57, they give the maximum pressure (PTmax) as 3,900 BAR.  That is 56,564.72 PSI.

 

Translation of column headings:

PT max = average, maximum permissible gas pressure (bar)

PTc max = average, maximum permissible gas pressure, mech-electric. Transducer, conformal (bar)

PK = 1.15 Pmax = maximum permissible statistical individual value (bar)

P.E = 1.25 Pmax = average bombardment gas pressure (bar) M = location of the measuring point (mm)

EE = minimum bombardment energy (joules)

 

 

 

[Dr.Hess]

I was looking at my Mausers stacked up against the bench and I noticed that the one I bought a few years ago from JG Sales had a different bottom meta. than the others. I never really noticed it before, but with pacrat's description of the button thing, it started to click.  So, this one looks to be one with the side button, but it looks like when it was refurbished, they may have replaced the button so it doesn't move, just fixed:

The bottom metal matches the receiver.  But that button doesn't look like the buttons that stick out and move, unless it is just jammed in there.  And it appears to be blind, that is, nothing on the other side to push it out.  And you can see the hinge at the front.  Interesting.

 

[inthe10ring]

Put a little squirrel pee on that and push it in. It is designed to use a bullet to push with. I like to checker a 6-48 filister head screw to extend the button 

[Dr.Hess]

Huh.  I'll give it a try.  That rifle has given me fits.

[Dr.Hess]

So, took a bullet, OK, 8x57, but that's what was handy, pushed on the button.  Nothing.  Whacked the bullet with a hunk of 2x4.  Something moved.  Whacked again, and... the floor plate opened up.  I'm going with 94 years of crud in there.  Pushed it back together, pushed with just the bullet and the thing works like butter.  Woot!

[Jeremy]

Hello gents it has been a while since I chimed in here. This thread has turned out to be very interesting to say the least. I really like the historical documents that you have produced and displayed for all to see Doc. I have been hard at work on my own builds 3 as a matter of fact. Wouldn't you know it on the very same receivers that everyone here is talking about. The infamous 1893 receivers that gets everyones hair up in a dander. One is from the lot of 11 that I bought from Gun broker at the end of last July and I even post pics of the entire lot on my own post on this forum. It one of the fabled 93's that has the 1916 arsenal modifications the oval gas escape hole the left side the receiver and in the original bolt that I don't have but have made due with a straight handled turk bolt that I have forged and bent to a classic sporter look. 

The next plan for work is jeweling the bolt body, drilling and tapping the receiver for a scope and drilling a gas escape hole in the bolt body because it doesn't have one. While I suspect that this receiver is a spaniard I cant confirm that because the crest was ground off once upon a time.

The other 1893 receiver is a spaniard also made at the Oviedo arsenal in 1907 and is a survivor that didn't get any of the arsenal modifications of 1916. It is an import and had the Samco stamps on the barrel displaying the chambering I have decided to sporterize it too because it isn't #'s matching anywhere. That leads me to believe that it was probably a pile of parts thrown together and sold by Samco. 

The last action is a type 99 Arasaka that I finally completed piecing together a complete action and I bought a 338 Gibbs barrel yesterday which the receiver is more than capable of withstanding those pressures.

[Dr.Hess]

That's cool, Jeremy.  I remember when you got all those receivers.  Really nice job on bending the bolt handle, and a cool jig for jeweling. Yeah, that Arisaka should handle any center fire round made, from what I've read. 

I got all three (4 including the first one with the button) cleaned up.  The 8mm has massive head space problems, too much to fire a primer, the rest are shooting and not key holeing, so I'm calling them good.  Plans are to put a 7x57 barrel on the 8mm 98.  I put them all up and am taking a break on the gun projects.  I need to do a clutch job on my wife's Lotus Elise, no small task.  The clutch is sitting here in my shop with the car, I just need to get started on it.  My health issues have slowed me down quite considerably, so progress on everything is like swimming in molasses.  I did clean my 22 silencer today, using my ultrasonic cleaner and got it all reassembled with anti-seize.  I use a food grade high temp anti-seize on everything.

[Jeremy]

Thank you.

Here is a little FYI.

The jeweling jig in that photo was made from the same plans I got from the old Mauser central site before it went down. I finally got a membership to MC and have been posting on that site too as well as the hand loaders bench. I even posted the plans on the HB if you're interested. 

Here are some more pics of the before and during the process of forging and shaping the handle. I chose the pear shape for the knob because it gives the illusion of feeling and looking longer than it actually is. It is a serious understatement to say that you have to work fast during the forging process. It isn't for the faint of heart for those who have never done it.

There is quite a bit more involved than just heating and pounding away with a hammer and punch. Honestly that is the easy part. Fitting, shaping, filing, sanding, removing the scaling and sanding some more, fitting some more then polishing I feel is far more involved with the process. But it is rewarding when it works out.

Jeremy

 

[Dr.Hess]

Looks good.  Yes, a lot of work. Here is one I did about 10 years ago:

 

Next to an unmodified bolt:

In the rifle:

 

That one I cut the handle off the bolt, flipped it upside down and MIG welded it back onto the bolt, then bent it and ground it down to clear the scope.  I have a large ring bolt heat sink which sort of screws into a small ring bolt, and packed it all with Brownells' heat stop paste, which is wet dirt, near as I can tell.

[Jeremy]

That is a nice job. When I get the opportunity to buy myself a welding machine. I'll try my hand at welding a bolt handle on a bolt body and make myself the jig to do it. I have the material and means to make the jig. But too many other projects going on right now. So that will have to wait.

 

Jeremy

[Jeremy]

The receiver is now drilled and tapped, the bases are mounted with rings. I checked for trueness with the lapping bar. Yep I did it right the holes are straight well nearly perfect. I can take a sigh of relief. Next is bolt jeweling, installing the Dayton Traiser low profile safety that involves altering the bolt shroud. Then it will be time to blue all the metal and install the barrel then  marry it to the stock after the finish inletting. 

[Dr.Hess]

What scope bases are those?  Much nicer looking than the 1 piece things I use.

[Jeremy]

They are Leupold bases and Leupold medium height rings. Mauser small ring matte 51263.

[Dr.Hess]

Leupold, that would be why they look so much nicer than the cheap crap I use.  Did you use a jig tool to drill the holes?

[Jeremy]

This is the jig I used. It is made by Wheeler engineering and unfortunately it has been discontinued. The holes in the top of the jig uses drill bit and tap guide bushings to prevent the drill bit and tap from wandering. The key to success is sharp drill bits and taps. The most difficult part of the process is to break through the case hardening which chews up drill bits and they break if you aren't careful. 

[Dr.Hess]

That certainly looks to make it easier.  Does it work on both small and large rings?  I see an extra hole at the back.  "I've Read" that once you mark where the hole is going to go, file through the case hardening layer, then it will drill much easier.  I have a set of centering punches.  Might be able to whack one in the hole and make starting the drill bit easier.