Guardia Civil M1916 Spanish Mauser

[goodconcretecolor]

I have one of these Mausers and have been reading about their limitations with commercial 308 ammo. I shoot only handloads that shoot a 150 gr. bullet at about 2600 fps out of the 21 inch barrel. By my calculations with a Powley computer, this load yields about 45000 CUP. With a High BC bullet the load should be good for deer further than I should be shooting at them(300yds+). I have a B-Square mount with a 2x Simmons pistol scope and get 3 shot groups of 1.5" @100yds very consistently. The shots walk up and slightly to the right with each shot. The first two shots are always less than an inch apart. The third one onpens it up, high and to the right. A 308 nogo gauge can't be chambered so headspace is ok. It seems to me with a little work on the bedding and trigger, this rifle could be made into an economy Scout rifle and hunted with safely with mild handloads. I would love any thoughts you folks have.

[Almtnman]

I start off with my rifles having the trigger pull adjusted to either 3.5 or 3.25 pounds of trigger pull whichever is the easiest for the particular rifle. Then I have the barrel floated and see how it shoots. Most of the time, that is all that is needed. If the trigger adjustment and barrel floating still doesn't do it, then the action can be bedded.

[STexhunter]

Have one in 308 also, but, I don't get the groups you are.  Mine has a hole in the receiver ring for hot gases to escape should there be a need, does yours.  I have shot commerical ammo but mostly handloads thru this one.  Seems to handle them OK.  Check you bolt face and see if you are getting some pitting around the firing pen hole, where the primer hits the bolt face.  Mine has some and I'm wondering whether to retire it.  Good luck with the rifle and keep you loads on the light side.

[MR]

Here is a pic of a Chile 7.62 M95 conversion that I saw on a site years ago.  I don't know how others were converted.
A rebarrel should be OK except for the gas handling  I have always been afraid of M93 & M95's(Pre 98's)  converted to (7.62 what ever)
they weren’t  realy converted to shoot 308 or 7.62 NATO. The action may hold but what happens when the solder wears out.

mr

[Larry Gibson]

I have one of these Mausers and have been reading about their limitations with commercial 308 ammo. I shoot only handloads that shoot a 150 gr. bullet at about 2600 fps out of the 21 inch barrel. By my calculations with a Powley computer, this load yields about 45000 CUP. With a High BC bullet the load should be good for deer further than I should be shooting at them(300yds+). I have a B-Square mount with a 2x Simmons pistol scope and get 3 shot groups of 1.5" @100yds very consistently. The shots walk up and slightly to the right with each shot. The first two shots are always less than an inch apart. The third one onpens it up, high and to the right. A 308 nogo gauge can't be chambered so headspace is ok. It seems to me with a little work on the bedding and trigger, this rifle could be made into an economy Scout rifle and hunted with safely with mild handloads. I would love any thoughts you folks have.

Yes indeed it sounds like a little trigger work and corrections to the bedding are needed.  Your loads are fine and if they make you feel better no problem. FYI; the Guardia M1916 in 7.62 have new barrels not relined and are meant for 7.62 NATO spec ammo.  They were not designed around the "CETME cartridge" nor was that cartridge developed for use in the Guardia M1816.  Posted are the real Spanish Manual.  Also I will add that it is a myth that factory .308 Winchester ammo exceeds that of NATO spec 7.62.  The M1916 you have does make a decent "scout".  I've a M1916 action that has gone through it's original 7mm barrel (maybe more than one) and is on it's 3rd 7.62 NATO barrel.  The action has digested thousands of 7.62 NATO rounds and quite a few factory .308 Winchester rounds and equivelent handloads.  It also has been converted to cock on opening, another Kuhnhausen "no-no" with no ill effects.  Enjoy your rifle.

Larry Gibson

[goodconcretecolor]

Larry,
I am interested in the source of your information that the pressure difference between commercial .308win ammo and military 7.62mmNATO is a myth. Could you elaborate a bit?

[S.S.]

I bought one of the first ones of those rifles to be imported.
I wish that I still had the paperwork that came with it but that was
LONG ago! These were apparently not re-chambered for the 7.62x51 NATO
round, They were chambered for the 7.62x51 C.E.T.M.E. round. Same case
diminsions but different pressure and a lighter, longer alloy projectile. The importer even
brought in some of the ammo with them. It is strange looking stuff ? A long
and very sharply pointed bullet. The Nato round
was so much shorter that the original 7MM Mauser round that the weapon causes
a lot of feed problems (pressure is high for this weapon also). The CETME round
being much longer did not have these feed problems.
 I would not use anything with the NATO headstamp
in these rifles but 308 FMJ from Winchester or Remington works fine at their wimpier
pressure levels. If you reload, load the rounds to as long of an over all length
as you feel comfortable with and it helps the feed problem. I have found mine to be very accurate though.  I have read that some were actually rebarreled for standard 7.62x51 NATO so there
are probably both variation out there, CETME and NATO. I have even seen some with a grenade
launcher/Flare projector attached, Kinda wierd but neat looking.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry,
I am interested in the source of your information that the pressure difference between commercial .308win ammo and military 7.62mmNATO is a myth. Could you elaborate a bit?

Two sources; first is from published sources, i.e. SAAMI published data, data published by the manufacturers and NATO spec data as published in TMs (don't have the #s here, have them at home thogh and can give them to you later). First thing is to find SAAMI and manufacturer data listed in PSIs not CUPs as the military spec is in PSIs.  Note almost all SAAMI and manufacturer data for the .308 Winchester lists the "maximum allowable" psi's for the cartridge. The military acceptance for NATO spec 7.62 lists the "maximum allowable AVERAGE psi's".  "Maximum allowable pressure" and "maximum average pressure" are two different things. The 7.62 maximum average pressures are +/- 7,000 psi.  Thus if a 7.62 NATO cartridge has an average psi of 47,000 psi then the maximum allowable psi is 55,000 psi. That is right in line with the maximum psi listed for .308 Winchester (this is an example as the manufacturers list different maximums).  Second source is an Oehler M43 that measures pressure.  Testsfrom the same rifle conducted on the same day under the same conditions have shown that a  lot of factory .308 Winchester ammunition has less pressure than U.S. M80 ball.  I also have correspondance from a lab that tests ammuniton that reports the same.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

If anyone can hable Espanol you will read that the Spaniards intended the Guardia M1916, the FR7 and the FR8 to be used with bothe the CETME cartridge and 7.62 NATO cartridges. The original importer had HP White Lab test them and found no problems using 7.62 NATO. Many of them have "7.62 NATO" stamped on the side of the reciever as the cartridge to use.  The CETME cartridge was designed for the CETME rifle, a rifle designed by German engineers as a upgraded STG44 to fire the 7.62 NATO cartridge. The problem was at 7.62 pressures the case was still gripping the chamber during extraction and there were many malfunctions in the already fielded CETME rifles. The M1916, FR7 and FR8s were already fielded also and were working fine with 7.62 NATO ammunition. It was the CETME rifles that were having problems. The temporary solution for the CETME rifle was a lower pressured cartridge, i.e. the 7.62 CETME cartridge which is the same case as the 7.62 NATO but with a lighter bullet at lower pressure. Of course these Cetme cartridges shot ok in the M1916, FR7 and FR8 rifles also.  The final solution for the CETME rifles was a recall for rebarreling that had fluted chambers. The CETME design transitioned into the G1/G3 rifles of German manufacture.  This is all documented by the german engineers who designed the CETME rifle and is available in the internet and in other resource historical books. The CETME cartridge WAS NOT designed for the M1916, FR7 or FR8 rifles. Nor were those rifles made for the CETME cartridge.  The rifles came before the CETME cartridge. The M1916, FR7 and FR8 rifles were fully intended to be used with 7.62 NATO ammo as stated in the Spanish manual.

Whether anyone wants to shoot 7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester in their M1916, FR7 or FR8 is their choice. I just have to disagree with the mistaken concept that these actions, particularly SR Mauser actions, were "designed" for a weaker cartridge. They were not and that is another myth.

Larry Gibson

[S.S.]

The rifles were designed for 7mm Mauser ?
The 7.62x51 does operate at higher PSI. So the rifle was designed for a weaker cartridge.
Even the rifles that were rebarreled did not get new locking lugs on the bolts?
Those were the potential problems, not the stregnth of the barrel or receiver.
Irreguardless of all of the rumors and laboratories findings, I have only seen or heard of one of these rifles
coming apart. that could have been some sort of defect that was only in that particular rifle.
I use re-loads more to solve the feeding problem than for worries of over pressure.
the 7mm Mauser was a stout enough cartridge in it's own right that they would not have built a weak
action for it.

[Larry Gibson]

S. Sumner

"The rifles were designed for 7mm Mauser ?"

That is a common misbelief. In fact the Mauser bolt actions were a  continual redesign and upgrade from the M71 through the M98. Occuring at the same time was the transition from black powder cartridges to smokelss powder cartridges. The cartridge was designed to fit the action. There were already several other smokeless cartridges designed for Mauser actions (the 7.65 Belgian for instance) and at the time it was a national "propriatory" requirement to have their own cartridge. The limitation on pressure was due to the powders and cartridge cases available at the time, not by the strength of the actions. Pressure in particular was restricted by the metalurgy of the cases and the process for drawing and annealing. This had not been yet perfected and wouldn't be until the 1930s. In designing the Mauser actions Mauser made them as strong as possible for the time. With serious smokeless powder cartridge development under way do we really believe mauser designed his action "for only 45,000 psi"? Not hardly, he made them as strong as possible. Then do we think that as the steel and heat treating improved up during the development of the M98 that previous actions would be made with inferior methods and steels in the same plants? Not hardly. 

I to have seen actions come apart. Actually I've only seen 3 come apart but have observed many others that came apart. Most of them were actions much more "modern" tha M93s and reputed to be much stronger. One of them was a SR Mauser, a M96. It was a classic SEE that did it in. Most of the others were from not to smart alterations of the actions or not to smart reloading by the owner.  However let me address two problems with surplus Mausers. The first in particular deals with the Spanish M93. Some of these were not very well rebuilt, they are rather crude to say the least. It is difficult to say if the heat treating was checked during the rebuild. Many of these actions saw hard use and abuse during the Spanich Civil War including exposure to fire which may have adversely affected the heat treatment of the action and bolts. I do not use any action that obviously has been used and abused. Second of the 3 M93s with set back lugs I've pulled the barrels and inspected (one still with original 7mm barrel on and used with surplus ammo or equivelent reloads only and the other two to .257 Roberts)  had been "lapped" to smooth up the actions.  The case hardening is not very thick and the lapping obviouslly reduced it to a level where the lugs set back after numerous rounds were fired. Two were done by gunsmiths and the other was done by the owner.  Lapping can be done overdone on any action.  Is this the fault of the action? No it's not.  I have seen one FR7 (not an Oviedo action) in 7.62 that was very crude and appeared to me to have been abused in it's past. The owner brought it to me because the bolt was difficult to open. He was shooting a lreload using 147 gr bullets over a "data list" load of surplus powder. I believe the load was 2-3 gr over max for that powder, bullet, case combination. He said he was getting over 2900 fps over his Chrony with the short barreled FR7! The lugs were slightly set back, there was excessive swelling in the case head and the primers wer very flat of the fired cartridges.  I "advised" him to not go by "data" sheets for milsurp powders but to work up loads just like with loading manuals. I advised him to back off on the loads to less than 7.62 NATO loads but he is somewhat hard headed. He now shoots a normal 7.62 NATO load with that bullet/powder combination and surplus 7.62 without further problems. New and full length sized cases spring back so the bolt opens over the slight hump left by the set back.

Of course you may load to what ever level you desire and I for one am not going to advise against that. I shoot many thousands of reduced loads through my rifles (modern actioned ones to) because they are fun and do the job. Many who shoot these Spanish rifles prefer the reduced loads because they are indeed more pleasant to shoot.  Good shooting with yours.

Larry Gibson

[TrenchMud]

The 7.65x53 cartridge that was used in the Model 1891 Argentine and Belgian Mausers
was actually more powerful than the current 7.62x51 nato round. The 93 and 95 Mausers
were much improved over the 91's.. The 93s and 95s should have no problem handling 7.62x51
rounds. I have a 95 that was converted to 7.62x51 but it was done in Israel and not Spain.
It has the same feed problem but shoots exceptionally well accuracy wise. S.Sumner was right
in what he said about the Lugs being the concern and not the Barrel or receiver. This was due to poor heat treatment at some of the Spanish "Workshops" that finished some parts for the arsenal
Kind of like subcontractors I guess. But, I have never seen one of these converted rifles fail? I think most of the concern was unfounded. Much like the same kind of concerns over the US model 1917.
Probably a business competitor trying to make them look bad . As with any firearm, periodically check for signs of pressure problems and otherwise enjoy shooting them !

[Slamfire]

The problem with the pre 98s, and even the earlier WWI version of it is the lockin' lugs have a tendency to pound their seats hard enough to git some displacement. Once you've started down this path it just seems to accellerate. The headspace continues to grow, and the 93s in particular don't deal with escapin' gases very well.