M1916 Spanish Mauser Carbine Cleaning Rod

[DWalt]

I have a Spanish M1916 carbine (in 7mm) less its original jointed cleaning rod. I already know that replacement rods are available on eBay and from several vendors, but I'd rather make my own - I have many steel rods of various lengths and diameters available that I can turn down if necessary. If anyone has such a rod, I'd like to know what its exact diameter is, its total length, just how far the retaining notch is from the rear end, and the diameter of the shaft in the notch. The main rod appears to be about 1/4" (6mm) in diameter from one of the YouTube videos I saw. No particular reason to post any replies here, unless you want to, but if anyone can provide the requested dimensions, I would greatly appreciate a PM. Thanks.

PS, that M1916 shoots a very tight group at 50 yards for a military rifle, around 1.5-2 inches. The bore is pristine.

 

[BigBill]

7mm Mauser at 50 yards take that baby to at least 100 yds. The 7mm mauser round is one of the flattest shooting rounds there is. Using a 125 yd zero the bullets path from the muzzle to 125 yards varies 1/2” to 3/4” if that. The military 7mm round was 174gr if I remember.

Spanish-Chilean - Liberty Tree Collectors

My first love is military guns, the 6,5 mm Swede and 7mm Mauser are my favorites.

 

[LVSteve]

I have a Spanish M1916 carbine (in 7mm) ....

Is it the true carbine with the 17" barrel, or a short rifle with the 22" tube? If the latter, seems like Liberty Tree have what you need for $23.

 

[DWalt]

Is it the true carbine with the 17" barrel, or a short rifle with the 22" tube? If the latter, seems like Liberty Tree have what you need for $23.

It is the carbine with the 17+" barrel, not the short rifle, which has, I think, a 21" barrel. I am aware that the original cleaning rods are available from several sources, I just like simple projects. There are some interesting stories about the M1916s. Franco ordered the original Spanish royal crests polished off the front receiver rings when he came to power, and mine is one of them, not a mark on it except for the SN. Also, much later, some M1916s were arsenal-converted to 7.62 NATO. I have yet to see one of those. Even though it has the small receiver ring, which many consider marginal in strength for higher pressure cartridges, Frank DeHaas' book on bolt action rifles states that the Spanish M93/M95/M1916 receivers are completely safe for use with the 7.62 NATO cartridge. As the M1916 carbine is so short and handy, it would make a good choice for carrying around in your car or pickup.

 

[LVSteve]

Also, much later, some M1916s were arsenal-converted to 7.62 NATO. I have yet to see one of those. Even though it has the small receiver ring, which many consider marginal in strength for higher pressure cartridges, Frank DeHaas' book on bolt action rifles states that the Spanish M93/M95/M1916 receivers are completely safe for use with the 7.62 NATO cartridge. As the M1916 carbine is so short and handy, it would make a good choice for carrying around in your car or pickup.

I have one of the 7.62 NATO conversions but I've never shot it. Some will tell you that you can't shoot .308 from one, but if it will take NATO, it will take .308. I explain why so many get it wrong here.

Rant: Another gun rag gets .308 vs 7.62 NATO wrong

 

[DWalt]

Actually, the NATO-standard (STANAG) pressure measurement method differs somewhat from the SAAMI method using a conformal piezo transducer. It takes pressures using a piezo gauge at the case mouth. Their respective chamber pressure readings are not the same for identical loads. The ancient copper crusher pressure method is entirely different from either and does not measure the same thing at all. Piezo gauges measure continuously and instantly. CUP is sort of a very (actually extremely) crude "average peak" pressure measurement. Sort of like measuring time with an atomic clock vs. a sundial. Regarding .308 vs 7.62 NATO, there is effectively very little difference and the two can be considered as being interchangeable. I doubt that any ammunition manufacturer in the civilized world today still uses the CUP method as it is so inferior in every way to the piezo gauge method.

 

[LVSteve]

I doubt that any ammunition manufacturer in the civilized world today still uses the CUP method as it is so inferior in every way to the piezo gauge method.

Indeed, but that didn't stop a gun magazine trotting out the myth for the umpteenth time in 2014.