Does anyone still use the old 7mm Mauser these days?

[LVSteve]

I agree, but what does that have to do with the FAL & it's intermediate 7mm - you lost me there.

Had NATO gone with the 7x49, then the US might have gone with the FAL or something similar, thus avoiding the expensive, though very good, M1A and the early M-16.

 

[alwslate]

This is the only 7X57 rifle that I have. I bought it at least forty years
ago at a gun show. It's an FN large ring 98 Mauser carbine made for
Venezuela and has the Venezuelan crest on the receiver ring. The
barrel is about 17.5" long and has an excellent bore despite the usual
dings on the outside of the gun. Some previous owner thoughtfully
put a thin coat of clear varnish on the metal to help protect it I guess.
Someday I may work up the ambition to remove it.

 

[M E Morrison]

Had NATO gone with the 7x49, then the US might have gone with the FAL or something similar, thus avoiding the expensive, though very good, M1A and the early M-16.

OK, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Art Doc]

I happen to think the 7x57 is just about the most perfect cartridge ever designed. I don't know why the 8x57 was even developed when the 7 is better and was already here. The .284" bullet has great BC in heavier weights and recoil is mild.

A few years ago some mail order outfit was selling military 7x57 dated 1970 at 6 cents per round. I think I bought 4,000 rounds. This is the most amazingly consistent ammo I have ever seen. Uses a 139 grain FMJ pointed BT at 2925 FPS. The maximum deviation I have observed over the chrono is 2 FPS. Yes, I said 2 FPS.

As a teenager I got a Model 95 Mauser but traded it away before shooting it. I picked up a Rolling Block but never fired it, either.

I have a pair of BRNO small ring 98 sporting rifles made in 1949. The F Model is only 5 numbers away from an identical rifle I had stolen in 1987.

My most recent 7x57 is this custom job.

I also have this #1.

 

[DWalt]

And you'd be wrong in both cases. The M93 & 95 were NOT intended for high intensity cartridges such as a .308. Also, the Swedes are limited to equivalent 6.5 x 55 loads. "Any load you can feed them" will cause you trouble, sooner or later.

Note that a very large number of the early German Model 1888 Commission rifles had slight modifications made to the chambers (opening the chamber neck up a little) during WWI allowing 8x57 JS military rounds with the 0.323" bullets to be used in them. Some were even used during WWII. And they held up fine, even with slightly undersized bores (0.318") for the "S" caliber bullet (there is an "S" stamped on the M88 receiver ring to show that the conversion was made). I have fired huge numbers of WWII 8mm military rounds through one of them I had once. I have fired a great number of top-end 6.5x55mm loads in both M94 and M96 Swede rifles with no damage whatsoever. I contend those rifles WILL handle anything you feed them safely.

 

[gregintenn]

I sporterized this old Spanish Mauser. I have less than $100 in the whole outfit with the magazine loaded. It's my rainy day deer rifle. After several bottles of solvent and several pounds of patches, I finally got the bore clean enough that it shoots well. It drops deer with the best of them.

 

[M E Morrison]

Note that a very large number of the early German Model 1888 Commission rifles had slight modifications made to the chambers (opening the chamber neck up a little) during WWI allowing 8x57 JS military rounds with the 0.323" bullets to be used in them. Some were even used during WWII. And they held up fine, even with slightly undersized bores (0.318") for the "S" caliber bullet (there is an "S" stamped on the M88 receiver ring to show that the conversion was made). I have fired huge numbers of WWII 8mm military rounds through one of them I had once. I have fired a great number of top-end 6.5x55mm loads in both M94 and M96 Swede rifles with no damage whatsoever. I contend those rifles WILL handle anything you feed them safely.

It's your face, so have at it. Just remember, you are in the minority with that opinion.

PS: did you give up on championing hot loads in the M93 & 95 Mausers?

 

[GatorFarmer]

Gator-

The possible roundabout history of your rifle was interesting, but not germane to the ammo questtion. The basic question is when was it made, and is it a M- 93 or an 1898 action?
.

'93 with the square bolt face...

Most discussions seem to focus on whether the Spanish made rifles had dubious steel and or heat treatment as well as to whether the .308 conversions are safe. My rifle was made in Germany sometime after 1896 and is unconverted. Some seem to think these are fine for CIP standard loads, but as is usual, no one seems to agree.

 

[alwslate]

I happen to think the 7x57 is just about the most perfect cartridge ever designed. I don't know why the 8x57 was even developed when the 7 is better and was already here. The .284" bullet has great BC in heavier weights and recoil is mild.

A few years ago some mail order outfit was selling military 7x57 dated 1970 at 6 cents per round. I think I bought 4,000 rounds. This is the most amazingly consistent ammo I have ever seen. Uses a 139 grain FMJ pointed BT at 2925 FPS. The maximum deviation I have observed over the chrono is 2 FPS. Yes, I said 2 FPS.

Beautiful rifles SP. Your custom rifles are beautiful and would
still be so had you chosen some other cartridge for them. You
don't know why the 8X57 was developed? Well Germany
didn't develop the 8X57 for us actually. The 7X57 better
and already here? Umm..not quite. The 8X57 was developed
in 1888 and introduced in the Commission rifle as part of the
general trend toward smaller bores and away from the larger
bore black powder cartridges. Some other countries had
already based cartridges on the 8mm bore size when Germany
developed the 8mm Mauser ctg. About a year later they went
a little smaller with the 7.65 Mauser ctg and then in 1892
they developed the even smaller 7X57 mm ctg. The popular
7X57 resulted in large rifle contracts for the Mauser Co.
When the 98 Mauser was designed the 8X57 ctg was well
established in Germany and there was no advantage to the
7X57 that would justify the cost and trouble of switching to
the smaller round. The 7X57 is a fine hunting ctg but when
both are loaded to their full potential the 8X57 simply over
powers it's little brother and is the better big game ctg.
If your surplus 7X57 ammo actually chronographs 2925 fps
with an ES of only 2 fps out of an actual rifle barrel it is
indeed remarkable, and remarkably hot!

 

[DWalt]

Allegedly, the Swedes proofed ALL of their 6.5mm rifles at 70,000 psi (although I have no idea how they knew it was 70,000 psi back in those days). By the way, does anyone know of a single instance of a German Mauser-type action "Blowing Up" or otherwise catastrophically failing due to inadequate strength? I have never heard of one. Aside from the early low number '03 Springfields, also basically a Mauser-type action, I doubt if there are any. And the Springfield failures for the most part have been attributed primarily to people trying to fire 8mm Mauser ammunition in them, with some indication that some lots of WWI military .30-'06 ammo also had defects leading to case head rupture. "Hatcher's Notebook" covers the whole Springfield low number receiver situation in great detail. The U. S. Army never pulled any of those rifles from service, so they must have felt that there really was no problem with the receivers themselves.

 

[LVSteve]

Most discussions seem to focus on whether the Spanish made rifles had dubious steel and or heat treatment as well as to whether the .308 conversions are safe. My rifle was made in Germany sometime after 1896 and is unconverted. Some seem to think these are fine for CIP standard loads, but as is usual, no one seems to agree.

I'm going to make some folk cross here, so brace yourselves.

IMHO much of the downer of foreign weapons is a due to plain ignorance of the facts and an unhealthy amount of Not Invented Here (NIH) being applied. In the first case, many in the US just can't get their heads around metric calibers. As for the second point, the default thinking is if it's not American made in a US caliber, it's dubious. Perfect example, the depth of rifling on Carcano rifles and its different sight picture. Those features are not wrong, just different. RTFM.

The soft Spanish steel theory has some merit in the cheap pistols made in small shops in the Eibar region. Some of those little .25 and 32 ACP pistols exhibit all kinds of odd peening from use, an indication of substandard steel. However, in their rifles, I have still yet to see a documented case where a Spanish weapon let go just because it was Spanish.

Do some have more headspace than is ideal? Sure, the FR-8s I have looked at seem to have been manufactured with 7.62 length chambers. Just load up with cheap steel ammo and keep banging away, I reckon.

 

[Fullmetaljacket]

I have an older FN Mauser Deluxe Sporter. It was chambered in .243 Win but I had it re-barreled to 7x57. Taken a few deer with it using Hornady 154 gr. RN. Great deer rifle, great caliber. It does not care for the lighter bullet weights but so far that has not been an issue...if I point it right their is meat in the freezer!

 

[alwslate]

Allegedly, the Swedes proofed ALL of their 6.5mm rifles at 70,000 psi (although I have no idea how they knew it was 70,000 psi back in those days). By the way, does anyone know of a single instance of a German Mauser-type action "Blowing Up" or otherwise catastrophically failing due to inadequate strength? I have never heard of one. Aside from the early low number '03 Springfields, also basically a Mauser-type action, I doubt if there are any. And the Springfield failures for the most part have been attributed primarily to people trying to fire 8mm Mauser ammunition in them, with some indication that some lots of WWI military .30-'06 ammo also had defects leading to case head rupture. "Hatcher's Notebook" covers the whole Springfield low number receiver situation in great detail. The U. S. Army never pulled any of those rifles from service, so they must have felt that there really was no problem with the receivers themselves.

Mike Venturino has written many articles for Handloader and
Rifle magazines over the last several years about domestic
and import mil surps. In one recent article, don't remember
which, he included a pic of a completely destroyed Swedish
Mauser and presented his theory as to why there have been
several unexplained cases of this happening. And yes the US
did pull 1903 receivers from service. And frankly your position
that there's no such thing as a weak bolt action is a bit hard
to understand.

 

[alwslate]

I'm going to make some folk cross here, so brace yourselves.

IMHO much of the downer of foreign weapons is a due to plain ignorance of the facts and an unhealthy amount of Not Invented Here (NIH) being applied. In the first case, many in the US just can't get their heads around metric calibers. As for the second point, the default thinking is if it's not American made in a US caliber, it's dubious. Perfect example, the depth of rifling on Carcano rifles and its different sight picture. Those features are not wrong, just different. RTFM.

The soft Spanish steel theory has some merit in the cheap pistols made in small shops in the Eibar region. Some of those little .25 and 32 ACP pistols exhibit all kinds of odd peening from use, an indication of substandard steel. However, in their rifles, I have still yet to see a documented case where a Spanish weapon let go just because it was Spanish.

Do some have more headspace than is ideal? Sure, the FR-8s I have looked at seem to have been manufactured with 7.62 length chambers. Just load up with cheap steel ammo and keep banging away, I reckon.

Steve instead of theorizing and repeatedly bashing American
thinking why don't you educate yourself a bit and get a copy
of the Kuhnhausen shop manual on Mauser rifles and learn
that there really is a difference in the metalurgy of some
guns made in different countries around the world? FR-8s
you have looked at? Do you really think your casual
observation trumps educated analysis? And metric calibers,
do you not understand that all bullets regardless of their
caliber designation are made and measured in thousands of
an inch? And Carcano rifles?? Overlooked treasures??? Must
be contagious because they seem to not be held in high
regard anywhere in the world. Seems like you have some
real animosity toward the US for some reason.

 

[DWalt]

Mike Venturino has written many articles for Handloader and
Rifle magazines over the last several years about domestic
and import mil surps. In one recent article, don't remember
which, he included a pic of a completely destroyed Swedish
Mauser and presented his theory as to why there have been
several unexplained cases of this happening. And yes the US
did pull 1903 receivers from service. And frankly your position
that there's no such thing as a weak bolt action is a bit hard
to understand.

The Swede blowups were blamed on propellant "detonation," as I remember, resulting from reloads allegedly having light charges of slow-burning propellant. It's called SEE (Secondary Explosion Effect). Since no one has been able to produce it on demand, in a lab or not, there is no acceptable answer as to why it happens. It could just as easily involve a double charge of a more rapidly burning propellant. In any event, the blowup was the fault of some characteristic of the ammunition, and not in any way the strength of the action. And according to Hatcher, the '03s were not pulled from service.

 

[M E Morrison]

Allegedly, the Swedes proofed ALL of their 6.5mm rifles at 70,000 psi (although I have no idea how they knew it was 70,000 psi back in those days). By the way, does anyone know of a single instance of a German Mauser-type action "Blowing Up" or otherwise catastrophically failing due to inadequate strength? I have never heard of one. Aside from the early low number '03 Springfields, also basically a Mauser-type action, I doubt if there are any. And the Springfield failures for the most part have been attributed primarily to people trying to fire 8mm Mauser ammunition in them, with some indication that some lots of WWI military .30-'06 ammo also had defects leading to case head rupture. "Hatcher's Notebook" covers the whole Springfield low number receiver situation in great detail. The U. S. Army never pulled any of those rifles from service, so they must have felt that there really was no problem with the receivers themselves.

Back in those days it was the copper crusher method.

 

[GatorFarmer]

I have read it quoted, and I do not remember the source, that an analysis of the steel used on some Spanish Mausers places it at about the quality of modern rebar. Was that the shop manual or another book on Mausers?

 

[SilentKnight]

I have a Mauser 66 in 7x64. It has a wonderful short action and is a carbine size rifle. Excellent for moving through the brush. Ammo usually has to be purchased on line as the caliber is very popular in Europe but few rifles made it to the US in this caliber. Accurate, fast on point, and light to carry.

 

[Cyrano]

There were several reasons why the low numbered Springfields let go. An 8mm round will do the trick, of course. However reading Hatcher's compilation of blow-ups, it's apparent that a lot were due to dipping the bullet in Mobil-lube, to decrease fouling from the cupro-nickle bullets in use at that time. Also some let go from WWI barrels that were heated to bump up the chamber section of the blank, rather than machine it. It saved time, which was important in WWI, but some of them were heated too much and the steel was burned. And when the barrel let go, it usually broke the receiver into which it was screwed. I seem to remember that some barrels had voids in the metal, and when they let go, they usually took the receiver with them.

Reading Hatcher, I'm surprised how few injuries or deaths resulted form low numbered receivers letting go.

The Army didn't replace the low numbered receivers as they had almost a million of them, (800,000 from Springfield, plus those from Rock Island, which number I don't remember). Army funding just didn't premit replacing that number of rifles in the 1920s, when the problem became apparent; this was the period when soldiers were promoted, but not paid at the higher rank because the funding was inadequate. I seem to remember after WWII, anyone having a low numbered rifle coudl turn it in to the Army and get a high numbered rifle in return.

 

[alwslate]

The Swede blowups were blamed on propellant "detonation," as I remember, resulting from reloads allegedly having light charges of slow-burning propellant. It's called SEE (Secondary Explosion Effect). Since no one has been able to produce it on demand, in a lab or not, there is no acceptable answer as to why it happens. It could just as easily involve a double charge of a more rapidly burning propellant. In any event, the blowup was the fault of some characteristic of the ammunition, and not in any way the strength of the action. And according to Hatcher, the '03s were not pulled from service.

Well according to Canfield the 03s were pulled from service.
Not immediately when the problems with the receivers being
brittle was first discovered and traced to faulty heat treating,
not 8mm ammo. The heat treating process was changed at
the serial numbers that are the dividing line between low
and high number. The receivers were not removed from
service by an immediate plan but happened as 03 rifles came
in for arsenal overhaul. Canfield says that all 03s coming in
that had low numbered receivers had the receivers removed
and scrapped and not reused. Naturally with this kind of
approach some receivers managed to avoid the scrap bin
and there are some still out there. Most in private hands no
doubt. I want to find the article about the blown up Swedes
because I don't remember what he said but he was refering
to recent blowups.