Spanish Cav Carbine 7.62 Nato vs CETME

tokguy

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
93   0   0
Location
Buffalo Republic
I have one of what I assume is a Spanish reworked Carbine to 7.62. This is a 95 so I'm still scratching my head as to how to approach this... I'm assuming I have now added yet another cartridge to the fold.
These dawg's are meant for some Milquetoast loadings, IIRC? Like 120ish grains at 2600 fps sort of a thing?
Is there a safe middle ground between the 7.62 CETME & the 7.62 x 51?
From the looks of the wood behind the Tang some repair is in order & bedding to spread the recoil around a bit as well.
And of course an end cap, just for looks.
pN0VJwjh.jpg

U9Qa4lBh.jpg

WZHDA84h.jpg

wHhc8d5h.jpg

Back to the meat of it... how much can I realistically ramp up a CETME carbine to workable levels? I'm not into 'Hotrodding' low pressure cartridges... but 120gr at 2600 is like a racy M43...got to be able to race it up a touch I'm thinking.
 
tokguy - the CETME was a semi-auto (?) (full auto??) rifle that the Spanish were trying to make work - they ended up, for a period, creating "light loads" for it, that worked - cartridge is exactly same size as 7.62 NATO. See pictures of pamphlet from Spanish Guardia - who the "7.62" conversions were made for - do not have to read much Spanish (especially the pamphlet cover) to see they were converted to 7.62 NATO standard, not to 7.62 CETME, from what was called 7mm in those days - today we call that a 7x57. No doubt 7.62 CETME cartridges found their way to the Guardia - is perhaps where the story came from. Is of note perhaps, that in early days, "7.62" was referring to the 30-06, in many European countries. So, for sure is some confusion about what cartridge were the Spanish converting their 1893 and 1916 Mausers to use?

By the way, until recently, I also had a Chilean 1895 Mauser - the tang is fairly unique - is the only Mauser with a shoulder to support the closed bolt handle - what you are showing is not a "m95" - at least not as made for Chile. So far as I know, Spain had 1893 and 1916 models - I believe that I read that some Spanish 1916 were conversions from original 1893 rifles.

I have a "sporter" version of similar rifle to your pictures - same oblong vent hole, similar "7.62" stamping in front of that hole - can look at the barrel and see how they shortened the shoulder slightly to accommodate the reamer - barrel will no longer "fit" into the original inletting shoulders. I suppose some might have to be reminded that those rifles originally proofed for 7mm (7x57) of the day - I have read nothing about whether they were "re-proofed" to 7.62 NATO level, although I suspect it was somehow found to be appropriate enough for the Spanish Guardia to use.

I could not tell from your pictures, but the one here has the Guardia symbol on top of the front receiver ring, the four digit serial number on left side of the receiver starts with the letter "Z" , and then a different four digit serial number on the right side of the receiver front ring.

Spanish Guardia Manual cover.jpg

Spanish Guardia Manual page 5.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Spanish Guardia Manual cover.jpg
    Spanish Guardia Manual cover.jpg
    31.9 KB · Views: 420
  • Spanish Guardia Manual page 5.jpg
    Spanish Guardia Manual page 5.jpg
    53.2 KB · Views: 419
Last edited:
Thanks, the downside of the internet is that there is so much misinformation...enter the search wrong...down a wormhole.
I'll likely handload regardless... a 17.5" bbl is likely going to be a touch abusive to shoot... recoil doesn't bother me... but excessive muzzle blast is for the birds.
And, LoL...I can't read Spanish. So thanks for that as well.
 
I believe that is a 93 action, possibly Spanish made. Thing is, the 93 action is not as refined as the later 98 action, both from a strength and a gas handling perspective. Couple that with Spanish metallurgy vs German metallurgy, and I'd be inclined to load light for it. Mind you, I do that for all my 75 year old plus milsurps, but I'd be particularly cautious about this gun.
 
Last edited:
Flat bottom bolt...it is a 93 FYI...thanks for the suggestion on that.
And I've already put forth I'm going to go easy on it...just not CETME easy is all.
Regards
 
tokguy - I hope that my posting was about the same rifle!! Your barrel is shorter than this one!! Three pictures below of the one that is here - or at least what is left of it:

Should be able to see the oblong vent hole, the "CAL 7.62" with the "62" part underlined - the "Z" prefix on the serial number on the left side of receiver and on the barrel chamber area (more or less). I had installed a Weaver front scope base - that is covering 99% of the Guardia symbol that is stamped on top of that front ring.

9BDD6403-4A3E-49C4-9FFD-8BE87F89CE92_1_201_a.jpg

A view of right side of receiver front ring with a different 4 digit number. You can also see the "rib" in the middle of the left bolt lug channel:

857C2615-A134-4F22-A0A7-B14BAD8C4164_1_201_a.jpg

The bottom metal had "206" stamped on the tongue - that matches as last three digits of the "Z" prefix serial number - is also a floor plate with the same "206" stamped on it - not shown - likely you can see the block that was installed at front of magazine box to accommodate the shorter cartridge. This bolt also has a square bottom - although the handle has had someone's attention for use with a scope. There are no sights left, and I am sure this barrel has been sawed off - barrel is about 20 3/4" from muzzle to closed bolt face.

2E84DA8D-13A2-4F11-B125-AAFD1274FFE7_1_201_a.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 9BDD6403-4A3E-49C4-9FFD-8BE87F89CE92_1_201_a.jpg
    9BDD6403-4A3E-49C4-9FFD-8BE87F89CE92_1_201_a.jpg
    60.2 KB · Views: 409
  • 857C2615-A134-4F22-A0A7-B14BAD8C4164_1_201_a.jpg
    857C2615-A134-4F22-A0A7-B14BAD8C4164_1_201_a.jpg
    62.6 KB · Views: 407
  • 2E84DA8D-13A2-4F11-B125-AAFD1274FFE7_1_201_a.jpg
    2E84DA8D-13A2-4F11-B125-AAFD1274FFE7_1_201_a.jpg
    56 KB · Views: 406
Last edited:
My son got my Martini Enfield. This is sort of like it...factory fodder...err...maybe not?
The unburned powder would probably throw enough muzzle blast to blow your hat off. And it's a hundred and ...how many years old?
Maybe just take it easy on it.
Got a few like it. 2 Krag Jorgusens, a Peruvian 1891 & the aforementioned M-H.
Cool carbines...but you just can't run the pressure levels 'In the Red'... just..."No"
 
Loading with 300 savage data would be the perfect approach.

I had one. Muzzle blast was fierce. Different powders have different muzzle blast. Find the best for reduced blast.

It has to be a fast burn and a lighter pill. Trailboss is a soft 'sounding' powder...but I've heard that it can be 'Spikey' as far as pressure.
 
tokguy - I have never loaded for reduced muzzle blast - but perhaps you are assuming that "fast burn and lighter pill" is needed. I have read multiple times that all the powder that is going to burn, has been ignited after bullet has moved a couple inches in the barrel - so the "blast" is re-igniting powder gases, not powder, once that gas gets to mix with O2 in the air. Do not be afraid to try heavier bullets - like 180's. As stated, I never tried to do so - just do not let pre-conceptions hold you back from what might work?? I do not think bullet weight relates much to "breech" or "peak" pressure, but I could be in error on that. Lots of the older stuff - like 8x57, 303 British, even 30-03, 45-70 and 6.5x55 - originally had what we would today consider to be pretty heavy bullets, for the caliber.
 
Last edited:
In the early days of the interwebs, a workplace acquaintance first name Colin who lived and shot near Smiths Falls, had an FR-7 or 8 carbine. He was perplexed exactly as mentioned by the lack of good information on paper and the explosion (pardon the pun) of bad information on line. So, he wrote to the Spanish embassy and eventually had a good productive conversation with someone in Spain who understood firearms and pressures. Was it safe for him to shoot 7.62x51 NATO in the FR-8?

Yes. The Spaniards weren't stupid about their conversions, and all those CETME allusions were deadends. Colin self-published his findings on a cheesy personal webpage, circa 2002. The links rotted away and I've lost track of Colin. For the record, I fired .308 and 7.62x51 in my own FR-8. I'm still alive. I liked how it shot, and regret selling it (along with every other gun I've ever let out of my grasp).

Edit - FOUND IT!!! Good ol' Internet Wayback Machine and https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=4582 (Nothing on line ever quite disappears)

http://www.zoneballistic.com/colinsballistics/fr-8.html
 
Last edited:
tokguy - I have never loaded for reduced muzzle blast - but perhaps you are assuming that "fast burn and lighter pill" is needed. I have read multiple times that all the powder that is going to burn, has been ignited after bullet has moved a couple inches in the barrel - so the "blast" is re-igniting powder gases, not powder, once that gas gets to mix with O2 in the air. Do not be afraid to try heavier bullets - like 180's. As stated, I never tried to do so - just do not let pre-conceptions hold you back from what might work?? I do not think bullet weight relates much to "breech" or "peak" pressure, but I could be in error on that. Lots of the older stuff - like 8x57, 303 British, even 30-03, 45-70 and 6.5x55 - originally had what we would today consider to be pretty heavy bullets, for the caliber.

I would tend to retort with an experience from my first foray into Reloading.
Scored a Tokarev ( hence the name...doesn't really suit my character...one oft I suppose) and a set of carbide dies. FMJ bullets in 115 & 125 ( 128-130?), let me tell you...you leave a powder charge set for 115's and begin loading heavier bullets...you know it when you pull the trigger. Oh yeah...the difference is easy to feel. How do you have greatly increased recoil without higher pressure...everything is the same except bullet weight.
As far as burned or unburned... roll out the milsurps. Try the 91/30 and then try the M44... tell me there is no difference?
Not Salty about it...I appreciate your input on this forum... you are a well spoken gentleman IMO.
This phenomena is much more apparent with BP of course... but I am skeptical with smokeless as well.
Kinda like the duck analogy; It's louder, and has increased muzzle flash and recoil... it's not efficient. Ever pour on the coal with a straight pipe naturally aspirated Diesel? The increased smoke and noise are mindboggling...but you are making more power too.
My 2 cents...ain't worth much of course.
 
I can not completely reply to all your points - but consider - recoil that you experience is about the weight of projectile at its velocity, and weight of the gases at their velocity (much, much higher) going one way, and weight of rifle coming back at you. What you experience is also about time - a "short, sharp punch", or a longer drawn out push. Hence, I do not believe that felt recoil is a surrogate for breech pressure. We may differ on that. And, as you posted, my 2 cents is not likely worth much either ...

By the way - I suspect that the same powder charge with a heavier bullet, does create increased "peak pressure". I do note that most of my own loads increase in felt recoil as I increase bullet weight - 250 grain in 338 Win Mag versus 210 grain in same case - but was not the same load weight and I do not think was even the same powder.
 
Oh, some better read folks than we, will be along to straighten us out.
The M44 vs 91/30 puts the all the powder is burned argument to bed for me.
I don't snivel about recoil... but there is a huge difference between the 2...more than can be attributed to the M44 weighing less by virtue of it's shorter bbl.
The Mare's Leg's in 44 Mag really shines when you get tweaking loads...before that...you light up factory rounds at waist height... like having a 'Wee' on your ballcap.
 
I have an FR7 and use 300 Savage loads in it.

I'll avoid the debate about full power loads and just point out that at the time of conversion Spain was not a member of NATO, Spain was a poor country and the M93 conversions seem to be mostly for the Guardia Civil. The FR7 is a rare rifle, probably less than 10% of the number of FR8.
 
"what is the difference" - each cartridge will have a peak pressure rating - are different one to the other - entities like SAAMI in North America, and C.I.P set those pressure levels for ammo makers and for rifle makers to follow - SAAMI is a "voluntary" standard - sort of like a suggestion, whereas CIP standard in countries that adopt them - like Germany, are law, there. Many older cartridges - like 30-06, 6.5x55 - were in use long before those organizations existed, so original pressure levels likely developed by the militaries that used them. As I posted earlier, is a legal requirement in many European countries that a rifle be "proofed" at a government proof house - they will use one or two "overloads" - often 125% of normal rated pressure for that round - with no measurable permanent deformation allowed - to "prove" the rifle will last a life-time of normal service pressure - is required for every single firearm sold to a consumer in Europe - not a requirement in Canada or USA - we can screw any barrel on to any receiver, swap out to any random bolt that fits, ream out chamber to anything and sell it - often can call it "custom" - for whatever reason, "proofing" is not a requirement here, like it is in Europe. So Swede rifles initially made by Mauser in Germany, then made mostly by Carl Gustaf Arsenal in Sweden - during later part of 20th century, a commericial company named "Husqvarna" was also making hunting rifles, and for a time had military contracts with Swede military - all those rifles alleged to be made from steel from Swedish ore - which had some characteristics that were important at the time. All of those Swede rifles were proofed in Sweden, even though Sweden has not adopted CIP standards - they have their own standards, though - very similar, I am told.

I notice that you referred to 8mm Mauser - that is a name that SAAMI created - and set very low peak pressure limits - is most commonly sold in North America. European loading are much hotter - in the order of 200 fps faster or more for most bullet weights - but they distinguish between the 8x57I (or "J") and the 8x57IS (or "JS) - two different bullet diameters - first (older one) uses .318" bullets, second one uses .323" bullets. SAAMI's thinking, apparently, was that by creating a mild loading, and calling it 8mm Mauser, with .323" bullets, could be fired in a .318" groove barrel and not have the rifle blow up in the user's face.

So a STIGA or Husqvarna that is chambered in 30-06, 8x57JS, 9.3x57, etc. have all been "proofed" by the maker or the government, before they were sold to consumers. A big question for me is that I do not know whether the Spanish conversions of their M93 and M1916 were proofed or not - I do not know how the proofing was done, or by whom, or what marks to look for to show it was done. I do know from Britain examples, that a rifle suitable and acceptable for use in their military, still had to be "proofed" before it could be sold, as "surplus", to a civilian - maybe different standards, depending on intended use??

And some of it gets curious. I have a number of Swede m96 and m38 - they all will "fail" a headspace check with SAAMI headspace gauges - they will close on a SAAMI FIELD gauge. It turns out the gauges used by Sweden arsenal are longer than the dimension that USA SAAMI set - I do not know why they did that - 1960's apparently had much gunsmith work done in USA to "fix" the headspace on brand-new-from-Gustaf armoury rifles that Sweden sold off as surplus. I suppose there is merit in having one's chamber to same size as the commercial ammo to be used, but is still a bit of head scratcher to me why USA SAAMI would set different dimensions for 6.5x55 instead of using the same as Sweden was using for 30 odd years before SAAMI existed.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom