CETME Spanish FR8 questions
- Thread starter quattro93
- Start date
Fr8
$400 for a very good one. Less than 300 for most. 200 for a well used one. Nice compact 308 Milsurp. Designed for 7.62X51 ammo as opposed to 308. Most people recommend avoiding hotter 308 loads and sticking with 7.62X51 (7.62 Nato) ammo only. If you search the internet there are several websites on the topic.
$400 for a very good one. Less than 300 for most. 200 for a well used one. Nice compact 308 Milsurp. Designed for 7.62X51 ammo as opposed to 308. Most people recommend avoiding hotter 308 loads and sticking with 7.62X51 (7.62 Nato) ammo only. If you search the internet there are several websites on the topic.
Last edited:
The 7.62/.308 debate is pretty much bull......OSOK said:
The FR8 is built on a 98 action (large ring), plenty strong for .308 winchester.
The FR7 is built on a 96 action (small ring), also pleanty strong for .308 winchester, but not quite as strong as the 98 action.
Check out www.surplusrifle.com he has a good article on the 2 different models.
I've got an FR7 that I havn't shot since it was given to me because of the rumors about it being weak. On that site he states that this isn't true but says
So where can I get non-commercial non winchester ammo? I don't reload so I'd have to buy some, or just sell the thing. Owning a rifle that you never shoot is like kissing your step sister, frowned upon by society
So where can I get non-commercial non winchester ammo? I don't reload so I'd have to buy some, or just sell the thing. Owning a rifle that you never shoot is like kissing your step sister, frowned upon by society
I've seen several Swedish M96's converted to .308 target rifles as well. If I had an FR7 or 8 I would have no reservations of firing commercial .308 ammo through it. How many thousands of these are out there, right now, and people using .308 ammo in them? How many have you seen documented KB's of? There have been more Tikka's and Sako's commercial hunting rifle KB's in the last 2 years then FR7/8 in the last 50 years.......
Doc Sharptail
Regular
- Location
- Winnipeg, Manitoba
The Fr-7 and Fr-8 rifles were designed as a transition gun to the Cetme rifle, utilizing the 7.62 Cetme cartridge, not the Nato round. There is a difference in pressures generated by the 2 cartridges.
I have one of the Fr-8's that S.I.R. sold during the 80's. It seems to handle federal and remington factory ammo without a problem. I did, however, split the stock on it by shooting the yugoslav Prvi Partizan soft points in it- very hot stuff.
Your best bet would be to have a qualified gunsmith check the gun over before shooting it- he'll have the proper gauges for checking headspace. Expect to pay a modest fee for the inspection- the smith's time is worth money these days.
I'm not saying it's gonna blow up if you shoot it- the gunsmith's inspection is just playing it safe. I've gone this route with all my milsurps- much cheaper than finding and buying the headspace gauges and doing the work myself. I've been lucky that they all have been pronounced safe to shoot....
Regards,
Doc Sharptail
I have one of the Fr-8's that S.I.R. sold during the 80's. It seems to handle federal and remington factory ammo without a problem. I did, however, split the stock on it by shooting the yugoslav Prvi Partizan soft points in it- very hot stuff.
Your best bet would be to have a qualified gunsmith check the gun over before shooting it- he'll have the proper gauges for checking headspace. Expect to pay a modest fee for the inspection- the smith's time is worth money these days.
I'm not saying it's gonna blow up if you shoot it- the gunsmith's inspection is just playing it safe. I've gone this route with all my milsurps- much cheaper than finding and buying the headspace gauges and doing the work myself. I've been lucky that they all have been pronounced safe to shoot....
Regards,
Doc Sharptail
Doc Sharptail said:
The FR7 was built on existing 1916 7mm mauser actions that spain were using and the FR8 was built on 1943 8mm mauser actions that they were using. The actions are not newly manufactured.
http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/fr8/index.asp
http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/spanishinquisition/index.asp
As far as the CETME round, it never got into production. It was only chambered in a few experimental rifles.
Doc Sharptail
Regular
- Location
- Winnipeg, Manitoba
Hitzy said:
The quote you lifted from elsewhere proves little. "According to sources" - interesting that these "sources" are conveniently un-named. Unfortunately, even modern gun history lacks solid, authenticated factory/arsenal documentation to support arguments such as these. This is getting fairly removed from the original strength question, but I digress....
I have a few milsurps that were actually chambered for the nato round. The roll-stamps read "7.62 N", while the marking on my Fr-8 is simply "7.62". Splitting hairs? Maybe. Does the difference in roll stamps mean a whole lot? Probably not. I've read that the Fr-7 and Fr-8 were made up using new barrels, and not re-bores. I'm inclined to believe this one, as re-boring from 7x57 to 7.62N requires the use of a chamber sleeve- at least that's the way the Chileans did it.BTW- the M-1943 Spanish Mauser was 8x57- that one would be hard to re-bore to a smaller size like 7.62
And the point of all this is? That it will take a bit more than arguments such as these to convince me. Don't get me wrong- there's nothing personal in this at all. I've learned enough to realize that there are some questions in arms history that are unanswerable.
Regards,
Doc Sharptail
Last edited:
Who ever said they were rebored? The strength question comes from the different actions (bolt and receiver designs) used in the FR7 and FR8, not the barrels that are on them........
The misinformation that either the FR7 or FR8 was desinged for the mysterious 7.62CETME round is just that......it's a myth.
Doc Sharptail
Regular
- Location
- Winnipeg, Manitoba
Hitzy said:
LOL Hitzy- a good one. It's your un-credited quote that brought up re-chambering- not me. Unless you have got something better than what you've shown, I remain unconvinced that the Cetme round is a myth....
Regards,
Doc Sharptail
Doc Sharptail said:
Mabey reading comprehension isn't your strong point.......read the WHOLE article, I just quoted one relevant paragraph... http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/spanishinquisition/index.asp
The myth isn't the cetme round, it existed, as an experimental 7.92x40mm cartridge when the cetme rifle was being developed. The myth is that the FR7/8 were built to shoot this round. The round was never adopted by Spain, the cetme rifle was developed and adopted in 7.62NATO, although a reduced pressure version. All kinds of spanish mausers were reworked and rechambered (re-barreled so you don't get confused) to 7.62NATO. The reduced charge 7.62nato round the Cetme58 used was never called 7.62Cetme. In 1974 spain adopted the full power 7.62nato round and the CETME rifle was beefed up to handle this round, called the model C. The strength/safety issues with the FR7/8 are to do with the pressure of the parent cartridges these rifle actions were built for, not because they were developed solely for the reduced load 7.62 nato or the 7.92 cetme. They are just standard small/large ring mauser actions which have been adopted and chambered for various cartridges by dozens of different nations over the years. FYI the japanese used a reduced power 7.62nato cartridge for several years in their type 64 rifle so it's not unique to spain.....
Israeli mausers are just stamped 7.62 on the chamber, no "N", no "NATO", so by your "splitting hair" logic it must be for the mysterious 7.62CETME round........
Feel free to quote/link to your relevant sources on the history and development of the FR7/8 and Cetme rifles......
Doc Sharptail
Regular
- Location
- Winnipeg, Manitoba
Hitzy said:Mabey reading comprehension isn't your strong point.......read the WHOLE article, I just quoted one relevant paragraph... http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/spanishinquisition/index.asp
The myth isn't the cetme round, it existed, as an experimental 7.92x40mm cartridge when the cetme rifle was being developed. The myth is that the FR7/8 were built to shoot this round. The round was never adopted by Spain, the cetme rifle was developed and adopted in 7.62NATO, although a reduced pressure version. All kinds of spanish mausers were reworked and rechambered (re-barreled so you don't get confused) to 7.62NATO. The reduced charge 7.62nato round the Cetme58 used was never called 7.62Cetme. In 1974 spain adopted the full power 7.62nato round and the CETME rifle was beefed up to handle this round, called the model C. The strength/safety issues with the FR7/8 are to do with the pressure of the parent cartridges these rifle actions were built for, not because they were developed solely for the reduced load 7.62 nato or the 7.92 cetme. They are just standard small/large ring mauser actions which have been adopted and chambered for various cartridges by dozens of different nations over the years. FYI the japanese used a reduced power 7.62nato cartridge for several years in their type 64 rifle so it's not unique to spain.....
Israeli mausers are just stamped 7.62 on the chamber, no "N", no "NATO", so by your "splitting hair" logic it must be for the mysterious 7.62CETME round........
Feel free to quote/link to your relevant sources on the history and development of the FR7/8 and Cetme rifles......
This is the type of ambiguity that makes arguing arms history so pointless. There is a difference between re-barreling, and rechambering. Why would a rebarrelled gun have to be rechambered? Were the guns rebarelled to somethign different, and then rechambered yet again to the Nato round at some later date? I'm sorry, but quoting people who care not to reveal the source of their information won't cut it for me. Geez, Hitzy, I read it on the internet, so it must be true! Not.
If you want to argue roll-stamps, there's quite a few Mausers around in 30-06 that bear that 7.62 (without the N) roll stamp.
Unfortunately, there is not a lot in print on the Fr-7 and Fr-8 guns- Ball's Mauser book allocates them a whole 3 sentence paragraph.
My point is that these guns have so little factual documented history on them that anything is possible. To argue that they were/were not chambered for the Cetme round without some verifiable facts is unfair to say the least. I argue for neither- I'll keep an open mind on the subject.
Regards,
Doc Sharptail
Buy either one. They are great. I have an FR-8 and love it.
FWIW, Hitzy, I completely understood your post. But then again, I was an advanced student!
I also agree that the actions are more than strong enough for the 7.62 NATO cartridge.
Same type of discussions are discussed against Enfield's being rebarrelled to 7.62.
I fire my FR-8 and my various Enfields in 7.62, wihout a second thought.
LI
FWIW, Hitzy, I completely understood your post. But then again, I was an advanced student!
I also agree that the actions are more than strong enough for the 7.62 NATO cartridge.
Same type of discussions are discussed against Enfield's being rebarrelled to 7.62.
I fire my FR-8 and my various Enfields in 7.62, wihout a second thought.
LI
