When these carbon steel receivers break, they frag.Īnyone remember that the rivets on the Titantic were substandard? Lots of slag in the metal? 'three times more slag than occurs in modern wrought iron' This was in 1912.

There is just not a lot of margin if something goes wrong in early guns. WWI era M1911's were not even heat treated! The early stuff, metals and chips, are primitive.ĭouble and single heat treat Springfields were made from steels that today are used as rebar. By the time you get into the 30's metals were well defined and understood.Īnyone remember the progression of the semiconductor revolution? Metal science progressed almost that fast from the 1890's through +WWI. Until you read about the history of metallurgy, you just don't know how little they knew in the 1890's. Obviously the use of ammo having pressures outside that of factory specs isn't recommended.

I would only suggest that you never buy one without the piece first being inspected by a gunsmith as to headspace and then having it looked at every so often thereafter. My own 1916 will still doesn show indications of excessive headspace even though I've probably put a 1,000 rounds of 308/7.62 through it in the past 15 years. My experience with this matter is that it's a 'rifle to rifle' issue. The possible danger factor being one of excessive headspace being created over time/useage. I don't believe however that the primary concern with these rifles is that of them blowing up with factory ammo, but rather that of the bolt being set back into the receiver lugways, after many rounds of 308 being fired, due to relatively soft steel used in the receivers of some of these rifles. As I recall, none of the tested rifles destructed (blew up) at pressures less than that seen in the standard U.S.

I've got the article regarding the results of that testing around here someplace. That being said at least one importer had a random seletion of these rifles tested by White/Westinghouse Labs. If true then what about name brand off the shelf 308 ammo such as Remington, Federal, etc.? My understanding is that the Spanish never intended the 1916 to be used with the 7.62 NATO round but rather with a low pressure round built on the 7.62 brass ( 7.62 CETME?) 458mag round that the large rings can handle. Has anyone actually seen evidence of metal fatique or high pressure signs that would warrant these assumptions? I know the small ring receivers are not as strong as the large ring but still a Mauser action is among the strongest and best. The reason being that the ammo may be loaded hotter for machine guns. This is probably a worn out question but I keep seeing remarks about being careful not to shoot 308 surplus ammo in a 1916 or converted 1893 Mauser.

M1916 spanish mauser .308 parts