Spanish FR7 and FR8

MiG25

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
69   0   0
Location
B.C.
anybody shooting/collecting these rifles?

i find them very interesting. while i don't think the quality is up to german standards, i think it is about on par with the yugo stuff.

one thing i really like about the FR7 is that it feeds loads using flat nosed bullets designed for the 30WCF without any problems.

i use 300 savage loading data in these rifles, mainly because it makes them much more pleasant to shoot.... shooting the FR8 with NATO ammo makes the better half cry and i find it gets old after a while. the load i am using now drives a 150 grain sierra to 2415fps. recoil is mild.

these rifles may be the last military modification of the mauser action and with the right ammo are very nice shooters.
 
Stevo said:
I quite liked my FR8, but sold it when creating my "Mauser-Free-Zone." ;)

It shot well and had a good little kick to it.:)

My FR7 had very, very little kick, so little that I figured the muzzle device was a brake. I only got rid of it because it was based on a M95 with 2 lugs and the FR8 was a M98 with the third lug...I wasn't really sure how strong the action was to handle 7.62 pressures.
 
"Very, very little kick."

Really? It's not a brake, it's just a flash suppressor, same type as on the G3. What type of ammo were you shooting?

Mine kicked quite strongly, not up to M44 standards, but certainly more than my No.4.
 
My FR7 had very, very little kick, so little that I figured the muzzle device was a brake. I only got rid of it because it was based on a M95 with 2 lugs and the FR8 was a M98 with the third lug...I wasn't really sure how strong the action was to handle 7.62 pressures.

Methinks this is another one of those myths that need to be debunked. Andy, do you have a spare FR7 you will be willing to sacrifice for the greater gods :D
 
f_soldaten04 said:
Methinks this is another one of those myths that need to be debunked. Andy, do you have a spare FR7 you will be willing to sacrifice for the greater gods :D

No reason to make it up...it was a light kicker. As I recall, I actually phoned the importer at the time and asked them if it was a muzzle brake.
It's not that I'm not susceptible to heavy recoil either, my Jungle Carbine has a most unpleasant kick for example, 5 rounds and I'm thinking of things I'd rather do.

It was some surplus 7.62 I had at the time, which was about 15 years ago, no idea what.
 
When these rifles were converted they were meant to use the 7.62 Cetme ctg a round identical to the 7.62 Nato in dimensiion but loaded much lighter, 130gr @2400fps vs 147gr @2800fps. Use of 7.62 NATO in FR7 is not recommended.
 
green said:
When these rifles were converted they were meant to use the 7.62 Cetme ctg a round identical to the 7.62 Nato in dimensiion but loaded much lighter, 130gr @2400fps vs 147gr @2800fps. Use of 7.62 NATO in FR7 is not recommended.

False. This is a myth.

Here's an excerpt from suplusrifles.com. More info can be found there.

Let’s discuss actions first. In the 50’s, Spain rebarreled many type 93 rifles from 7X57 to 7.62 NATO The 1893 action was fitted out for Spain as long rifles, short rifles and carbines. Although different model numbers may be assigned such as 1893, 1916, model 95 and Guardia Civil 1916 the action type is identical. Initial rifle production was carried out by Mauser and Ludwig Lowe in Germany, later the rifles were made under license in Spanish arsenals. While the German guns display better fit & finish, German and Spanish made guns are about equal in strength.

Recall we said earlier that Spain rebarreled many type 93 action guns to 7.62 in the 50’s? The 7X57 has a pressure of 46,000 lbs cup. The 1893 action is designed within these parameters. However, all actions are “proofed” with a high-pressure cartridge, often called a “Blue Pill”. That proof cartridge is far in excess of the 7X57’s pressure of 46,000 lbs. All Mauser actions have a fair bit of insurance built into them, they have to. However, they are not meant to push the envelope all the time with high-pressure rounds. Is the 7.62 NATO excessive for a type 93 action? No it’s not.

What is the pressure of the 7.62 NATO? Cartridges of the World, 5th Edition by Frank C. Barnes, DBI books, 1985, state the 7.62 NATO, M80 Ball, the standard rifle cartridge, has an average max pressure of 50,000 psi. The 50,000-psi of the 7.62 NATO is within the safety factor of a proper functioning type 93 action.


The Spanish FR-8, originally a 8X57 short rifle with a 98 type action, rebarreled in the 1950’s to 7.62 NATO

As we said before, military rifles tend to have roomy chambers, usually crowding the high side of tolerance. Throats also tend to be on the long side. Both these factors translate into slightly reduced pressures. This brings the 7.62 NATO’s 50,000 psi much closer to the 7X57’s 46,000 psi. So, it seems that firing the 7.62 NATO round in an 1893 type (in good condition), that has been rebarreled and marked 7.62 NATO is safe.

No less of an authority then Frank de Haas, in his book Bolt Action Rifles 4th Expanded Edition, Krause Publications, 2003, states this about 1893 type actions: “I advise limiting the cartridge choice to those originally used, or to other cartridges within the following limits: any cartridge developing less then 45,000 psi breech pressure…I consider all of these actions…as having marginal strength and safety for the .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) cartridge.”

Notice de Hass states “marginal”, not dangerous. Again, this seems an admonition to proceed with caution, not a condemnation of the 1893 type.

After WWII, Parker O. Ackley preformed “blow up tests” on military actions. In his book, Handbook for Shooters & Reloaders, Volume II, Plaza Publishing, 1966 he states: “It was found the Mauser actions to have a low carbon steel, and were heat treated by a carburizing process. This process is known to the layman as case hardening.”

The Mausers have a softer core to withstand the effects of impact, and case hardening on the outer surfaces to resist wear. Ackley had to put excessive overloads in the 1898 type to blow it up. However he did find excessive headspace began to develop before the action blew up. Ackley did not do a test on the 1893 type action, however, his comments about the way Mauser actions were built also applies to the 1893 types.
 
Last edited:
i don't think that the 98 is really stronger than the 93, the difference is the gas handling in the event of a ruptured case. not that i have experienced such an event in either rifle, so can't comment on how it actually works. the spanish 93's that i have seen have a gas vent in the left side of the receiver.

as to the third lug in the 98 and the "safety" lug on the chilean 95, has anyone ever heard of both front locking lugs shearing off and the bolt flying out of any mauser rifle?

so far i have only used NATO ball in the FR8, not in the FR7, i don't find the recoil unpleasant, it is the muzzle blast that gets to me. with the reloads that i have done, 150 grain bullet @ 2400fps, recoil is very mild, as is the muzzle blast.

as to the LE #5 jungle carbine, i have found that it is not the most pleasant gun to shoot.
 
green said:
When these rifles were converted they were meant to use the 7.62 Cetme ctg a round identical to the 7.62 Nato in dimensiion but loaded much lighter, 130gr @2400fps vs 147gr @2800fps. Use of 7.62 NATO in FR7 is not recommended.

D'Oh!! Now he tells me...so I was right to ditch it. I had the feeling it was underbuilt for that round...
 
Stevo said:
No Tom, it's not. It was converted for 7.62 Nato. Read my post above.

But Stevo...from your post...

<No less of an authority then Frank de Haas, in his book Bolt Action Rifles 4th Expanded Edition, Krause Publications, 2003, states this about 1893 type actions: “I advise limiting the cartridge choice to those originally used, or to other cartridges within the following limits: any cartridge developing less then 45,000 psi breech pressure…I consider all of these actions…as having marginal strength and safety for the .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) cartridge.”>

Sure, we can push our luck all we want by running that action at 110% +/- of what it was designed to do originally...that 45000psi part is similar to the story of putting the No 4 Enfield action through 7.62 pressures...it can be done but it's questionable whether it should be done. Why take a risk with your health when there so many other stronger actions around?
 
The 7mm actions were proofed at considerably higher pressures than 50,000 psi. They are strong enough.

Remember, the post I quoted uses .308 and 7.62 as the same cartridge. They are not. The pressures in .308 Win loadings can be significantly higher than the standard 7.62 Nato loading.

Check out the FR8 and CETME forum on Gunboards.com. There's a current thread on the strength of the FR7.

Edit: Link to gunboards thread.
 
Last edited:
Spain adopted the 7.62 NATO round in 1964 to replace the 7.62 Cetme. The FR rifles were converted in the late 50s to use the standard Spanish service ctg ,the 7.62 Cetme. As Mr deHaas says the M93 is Marginal for the 7.62 NATO ctg.
 
cantom said:
Sure, we can push our luck all we want by running that action at 110% +/- of what it was designed to do originally...that 45000psi part is similar to the story of putting the No 4 Enfield action through 7.62 pressures...it can be done but it's questionable whether it should be done. Why take a risk with your health when there so many other stronger actions around?

What about all the DCRA #4, 7.62 conversions?
 
If it can handle the 8mm Mauser it can handle the 7.62mm NATO.

The 8mm Mauser (going by Hodgdon's site) lists the 200gr loads at up to 49,000CUP. The 7.62x51mm NATO has a CUP rating of 52,000. Not that much of a difference, and sertianly not enough to cause the rifle to have "stresses" and lead to failer :)

Dimitri
 
Back
Top Bottom