Well Swedish steel has a much better reputation than Spanish steel...there is that.
Whether it is factual is another point...like the CETME legend that Potash put to bed? Legends and myth's tend to carry on past their best before date.
Spanish Cav Carbine 7.62 Nato vs CETME
- Thread starter tokguy
- Start date
Well Swedish steel has a much better reputation than Spanish steel...there is that.
Whether it is factual is another point...like the CETME legend that Potash put to bed? Legends and myth's tend to carry on past their best before date.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Steel making has advanced for sure! I think was a time when Spanish steel was considered very good - Toledo steel - likely from days of swords, etc. - not many in Europe were aware what Japanese blades of that era and before could do. I have read that Swedish iron ore has certain "contaminants" which turn out to be very desirable in making steel - was later into 20th century before industry was able to add stuff into steel to get what they wanted - previous to that, were sort of "hostage" to the quality of the ore that you got - Sweden reputed to have had VERY good ore for that old-time steel making process. No clue what quality of steel the made-in-Spain m93 or m1916 were made from - but my understanding is that Spain had centuries of experience making weapons from steel - no doubt different than the same rifles made-in-Germany - is much discussion that the Mauser design does not get its strength from tempering - is made to yield rather than to shatter - so is much "case hardening" used to make hard bearing and sliding surfaces, while the core metal tends to be low carbon and therefore "soft". I suspect is why proof testing is so significant for those.
Last edited:
In the "Textbook of Small Arms 1909" the Spanish Mauser has the highest pressure of any cartridge listed at 22.3 tons per square inch followed by the German 7.9x57 Patrone 88 at 21 tons per square inch.
The 30-06 is listed at 19.78, the 8x50R at 19.7, the 7.92x57 Patrone S at 17.5 and the 303 British at 15.5 tons per sq inch.
The 30-06 is listed at 19.78, the 8x50R at 19.7, the 7.92x57 Patrone S at 17.5 and the 303 British at 15.5 tons per sq inch.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
I was always curious about the proof markings on British rifles - often in "ton per square inch" - was not sure what that meant. I believe is a result of the British proofing process, like at Birmingham or London proof houses - was actually measuring the axial load - we would call that the "bolt load" or the "bolt thrust" - is not exactly the same as SAAMI concern about radial pressure, although I am sure the two have to be related somehow. British measuring systems also used "long ton" and "short ton" - I do not know which was used in their proofing testing - they are different to one another - so I have never figured out how to convert a British "ton per square inch" into "Pounds per square inch" (PSI) like we refer to more often. For sure, the "tons per square inch" were measured in a different place in the chamber, than what SAAMI specifies. And just to confuse even more, a lot of the USA military stuff reports in units of Copper Units of Pressure (CUP) which are a different again way of measuring and reporting pressure - all has to be related somehow, but I know that CUP in a 30-06 is not the same unit as CUP in a 7x57 ... A correspondent sent me a copy of a conversion worked out by a math guy to convert CUP to PSI, but is not a constant value - is not like converting pounds to kilograms, or converting miles to kilometers - has more "ciphering" involved to it.
I was never able to find out if the stamping on a British proof was saying the "approved" service pressure, or the actual "proofing pressure" that was used.
There is a table on Internet at http://kwk.us/pressures.html that purports to show the PSI and equivalent CUP values for various cartridges - showing both the USA SAAMI standard, and the European CIP standard for the same cartridges. Some are the same, some are not - sometimes PSI is bigger number than CUP, sometimes other way around. But I think the pressure is actually the same - PSI versus CUP - just a different way and different place to measure it - if the data source is true.
Last edited:
CUP and PSI as used by SAAMI are two different pressure measuring systems. In some calibers, the pressure sensor is at a different place, so the limit quoted for that place is different in the two systems. In some calibers the pressure is measured at the same place and the pressure limit is the same number.
308 is one of the calibers where the pressure point is different, and the limit for the CUP system is about 50,000 psi, measured the CUP way (measuring the compression of a lead or copper slug) or about 62,000 psi measured with a electronic transducer.
When I first started working in a lab, all we used was lead and copper crushers, and we called the results "psi". When some calibers started to get measured with transducers, we changed the nomenclature to "CUP" and "psi", so there was no confusion.
Unfortunately, the old paperwork still exists, where the pressures are all quoted as "psi" but they did not mention that this was using the CUP system. They did not specify, because, at that time, CUP was the only way pressure was measured and everyone knew what we were talking about.
The old military documents specified a 7.62x51 max pressure of 50,000 psi (with no mention that this was measured by the CUP system). This has caused the myth that military ammo is lower pressure. Not so. The max pressure for 7.62.51 is about 50,000 CUP or about 62,000 psi. Same pressure limits, just measured with different systems at different places.
Most 308 or 7.62 ammo is around 55,000 psi, although I have seen both 308 and 7.62 (Winchester Supreme and IVI ball) at around 62,000, and I have found some commercial 308 as low as 50,000 psi. (Norma)
As for the Spanish carbine and the FR7, I use a reduced pressure load. Not because of any weakness in the rifles (we used to use the small ring Mauser for 308 target rifles and fired hundreds of thousands of rounds in them with no problem) but because the old design does not handle gas from a blown case or primer very well. It tends to blow crap back into your eye.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
tokguy - I may have been in error on my Post #2 - I see on Internet that multiple auction listings are identifying what looks like yours, as a Model 1895 Spanish carbine. That does not exactly agree with what I thought that I had read in the reference books that I have - Mauser Military Rifles of the World, 5th edition (MMOTW) by Ball, or the books titled "Carvings in the Veldt - Vol. 1, 2, 3" writes by George. Will not be the first instance of a reference book in error - I have four books about USA M1917 rifles - they often quote from each other - but also will disagree with each other on some issues - like I would know which is correct, but if one is correct, the other ones can not be!!
On page 347 in MMROTW, Ball shows a Model 1893 rifle made for Spain in Germany, in 1895. It has "1895" stamped on the left side wall, but is a Model 1893 rifle. On page 350, he writes, "Despite the fact that many specimens bear earlier dates, the carbine model of the 1893 rifle was not approved until 1895, thus the Model 1895 designation." (I added the underlining) On p. 352, he has pictures of two varieties of those Spanish 1895 cavalry carbines - both made in Germany for Spain - one made in 1894 and one made in 1896 - they have details that are different. Besides the German made ones, was also some made in Spain at Fabrica des Armas in Oviedo - pictures showing crests from 1905 and 1928.
I think there were "blue prints" or "patterns" created in some years by Mauser - 1893, and 1898. Then they took on contracts to make arms for various countries - many countries specified a detail or two for their own needs - hence the "pattern" was sometimes tweaked for specific contracts. The arms tend to get the name of the year of the contract, (Brazil 1908, Argentine 1909) not the year of the pattern (both were 1898 patterns). So that 1895 Chile action that I received, had Swede 1896 markings on the sear and trigger in it - works perfectly - was from same pattern, but from very different contracts.
It might help to know that the Mauser company, with factories in Berlin and other places in Germany, was owned by Ludwig Loewe, at that time. He also owned the FN factory in Herstal, Belgium. In late 1896, he created a bigger consortium that included an ammo maker - it was known as DWM - Deutsche Waffen und Munitions, or similar - "German Arms and Ammo" as I understand it to mean in English.
From the pictures shown in MMROTW, the receiver tangs are different, than the 1895's made in Germany for Chile. So it appears the Spanish had an 1895 cavalry carbine, and so did Chile have an 1895 cavalry carbine - but not the same units.
I guess the "book" also suggests that some Spanish small ring were actually made in Germany, and identical were made in Spain - so goes to the idea of quality of steel used, machining, etc. Is similar with Argentina - some of their Model 1909 were made in Germany, some made in Argentina. Why the stampings get important to ID which version one is handling.
On page 347 in MMROTW, Ball shows a Model 1893 rifle made for Spain in Germany, in 1895. It has "1895" stamped on the left side wall, but is a Model 1893 rifle. On page 350, he writes, "Despite the fact that many specimens bear earlier dates, the carbine model of the 1893 rifle was not approved until 1895, thus the Model 1895 designation." (I added the underlining) On p. 352, he has pictures of two varieties of those Spanish 1895 cavalry carbines - both made in Germany for Spain - one made in 1894 and one made in 1896 - they have details that are different. Besides the German made ones, was also some made in Spain at Fabrica des Armas in Oviedo - pictures showing crests from 1905 and 1928.
I think there were "blue prints" or "patterns" created in some years by Mauser - 1893, and 1898. Then they took on contracts to make arms for various countries - many countries specified a detail or two for their own needs - hence the "pattern" was sometimes tweaked for specific contracts. The arms tend to get the name of the year of the contract, (Brazil 1908, Argentine 1909) not the year of the pattern (both were 1898 patterns). So that 1895 Chile action that I received, had Swede 1896 markings on the sear and trigger in it - works perfectly - was from same pattern, but from very different contracts.
It might help to know that the Mauser company, with factories in Berlin and other places in Germany, was owned by Ludwig Loewe, at that time. He also owned the FN factory in Herstal, Belgium. In late 1896, he created a bigger consortium that included an ammo maker - it was known as DWM - Deutsche Waffen und Munitions, or similar - "German Arms and Ammo" as I understand it to mean in English.
From the pictures shown in MMROTW, the receiver tangs are different, than the 1895's made in Germany for Chile. So it appears the Spanish had an 1895 cavalry carbine, and so did Chile have an 1895 cavalry carbine - but not the same units.
I guess the "book" also suggests that some Spanish small ring were actually made in Germany, and identical were made in Spain - so goes to the idea of quality of steel used, machining, etc. Is similar with Argentina - some of their Model 1909 were made in Germany, some made in Argentina. Why the stampings get important to ID which version one is handling.
Last edited:
Frank De Hass has a good writeup on the 93 and 95 designs. Among other things, the 95 action has a third locking lug behind the bolt. Also, from my own experience, all the german made actions were clearly identified by manufacturer on the left receiver rail.
Well, my son is still sleeping in the Bunkhouse...that's where the Gun Plumber stuff is. So this picture will have to suffice.
But I've a few German weapons...this doesn't seem excessively stamped like a German unit would likely be...I'm betting it's Spanish.
And the lack of Capture screws doesn't yell German made either...
But I've a few German weapons...this doesn't seem excessively stamped like a German unit would likely be...I'm betting it's Spanish.
And the lack of Capture screws doesn't yell German made either...
- Location
- Western Manitoba
You could be correct about the capture screws as a clue - but I was thinking more like a crest on top of the receiver ring (or lack of one), and perhaps words stamped into the left side receiver wall. You can see a funky symbol just below that front screw - if that trigger guard was original to that receiver - that symbol might be another clue where it came from - is likely a military "acceptance" marking by the country that used it. Was a lot of stuff mixed and matched over the years - since anything made to the same pattern likely fits to another, a trigger guard or other part may or may not actually have anything to do with the receiver that it is attached to. It becomes a bit more important when looking at pressure bearing parts - like barrel, receiver and bolt - I was able to screw a 1907 Paraguay barrel onto a 1895 Chilean Mauser - required a "breeching collar" because the barrel tenon threads not the same length - I do not recall if I could actually identify where the bolt came from - but all "fit", even though perhaps not all made at same place, or even to same contract.
Last edited:
It is numbers matching except the rear sight... so the floor plate is original to the carbine.
And I removed the stock...it is almost sans markings. That little 'Circle Crown' on the floorplate is Spanish.
Thanks for all the input guys...it is appreciated.
And I removed the stock...it is almost sans markings. That little 'Circle Crown' on the floorplate is Spanish.
Thanks for all the input guys...it is appreciated.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Seems to me that blown up example might be a Swede Model 94 - rear sight on barrel appears M94 Swede, etc. Does not say what cartridge the blow up is or used. Swede usually was 6.5x55; Spanish usually 7x57. Blown up rifle stock has a Monte Carlo and pistol grip - can see the inletting along stock does not match to the diameters on that barrel shown - so, at least that stock not original. Might be a hole showing on split part - for a cleaning rod - M94 had no cleaning rod, so maybe stock was once for an M96?? I think I see a "tilted" swede crown on the follower - that would be from Husqvarna maker - M94's would have been made in Germany by Mauser or by Carl Gustaf in Sweden - do not think Husqvarna ever made m94 - but m38 for sure - so could be another mis matched part. Not anything so far to do with blow up, though - just pieces showing that might not match together as original - which might mislead what that is/was.
Is curious to me why it is shown with safety flag in vertical position - that blocks any view of iron sights on a Mauser - can not fire like that, unless that safety sheared off internally or has been "worked over". I am not real sure if any Spanish rifles had the raised thumb piece on the cocking piece - but is pretty standard on cocking pieces for Swede m94, m96 and m38 - I could stand to be corrected on that. That cocking piece on blown up rifle is not the same as cocking piece on OP's first picture on this thread.
Is curious to me why it is shown with safety flag in vertical position - that blocks any view of iron sights on a Mauser - can not fire like that, unless that safety sheared off internally or has been "worked over". I am not real sure if any Spanish rifles had the raised thumb piece on the cocking piece - but is pretty standard on cocking pieces for Swede m94, m96 and m38 - I could stand to be corrected on that. That cocking piece on blown up rifle is not the same as cocking piece on OP's first picture on this thread.
Last edited:
Jeez, do I get a percentage of all the traffic over this rifle. I figure about .05 cents a word would be about right.
Pretty sure yours was 7 x 57. If that topic comes up...we can talk percentage of traffic...sound fair?
Dangit, guys, quite busting the "CETME Loading" myth. I might have to pay actual real money for my next FR7, instead of the "next to free" I got the last one for from a FUD who bought the BS and was too afraid to shoot it.
The Spanish 7.62 conversions are tanks. They're fantastic 7.62 NATO dispensers. My FR7 groups best with the South African (not quite "NATO" ) surplus I got ages ago, doesn't much care for the Hirtenberger, though. Not sure why. Mild hunting load .308 does "Ok", minute of coyote out to 200 yards with irons.
In general, nice, lightweight, "walking" guns, good for wandering around the prairie or bush.
The Spanish 7.62 conversions are tanks. They're fantastic 7.62 NATO dispensers. My FR7 groups best with the South African (not quite "NATO" ) surplus I got ages ago, doesn't much care for the Hirtenberger, though. Not sure why. Mild hunting load .308 does "Ok", minute of coyote out to 200 yards with irons.
In general, nice, lightweight, "walking" guns, good for wandering around the prairie or bush.
