Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42
  1. #1
    stevestanfill is offline Aluminum
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    west tennessee
    Posts
    75

    Default Rebarreling a mauser 93

    has anyone changed a 1893 mauser to 7.62x39? I read a blog some where that the writer talked about changing a Spanish 93 mauser to 7.62x39. I have a 93 in .308 which is not safe to shoot I am told.
    How hard would it be to change over? Thanks in advance. Steve

  2. #2
    GGaskill is offline Stainless
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Chino [Flats], Ca SSR, USA
    Posts
    1,611

    Default

    Depends how the barrel is shaped at the breech end. You would have to set back the chamber so you could put a correct one in which means cutting off maybe a inch at the back and moving the threads forward. If the barrel has the normal Mauser style flange in front of the receiver, you will need a new barrel. If the barrel is contoured more like a sporting barrel, there is probably enough metal there to move the threads.

  3. #3
    deltaenterprizes is offline Hot Rolled
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Longview,TX
    Posts
    983

    Default

    I thought about using a take off barrel from a 30 cal to rechamber in 7.62 x 39.Gun Parts sold a conversion in the past,I waited too long and it is discontinued,but they still sell conversion kit for the mag. I will be picking up a rifle with the kit installed in a couple of days.

  4. #4
    Joe Kidd is offline Plastic
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Middle TN
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Regardless of what you've been told about 308 rounds in the M93 you have it only applies to some of the factory or military loaded ammunition you might run across. Properly handloaded it is more than safe and strong enough for shooting and hunting, as long as you use a little bit of good commen sense.
    Now, as to the 7.62x39 and the barrel you already have, well most liky yes you can rechamber it, but you should check out your rifling twist first and make sure its a good match up. However if you'd like to try things out first with an adapter or even use it as a long term conversion here's a link for you.
    http://www.mcace.com/adapters.htm
    Scroll down untill you find it under "adapter's".

    Best,

    JK

  5. #5
    stevestanfill is offline Aluminum
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    west tennessee
    Posts
    75

    Default Rebarreling a mauser 93

    Has anyone delt with mcace?

  6. #6
    huntinguy is offline Cast Iron
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    282

    Default

    What about rechambering to 300 savage? Lenght is close, pressure is close?

    Hmm. I guess the bore is diffrent... What about a 300 blown out to 7.62?

  7. #7
    abarnsley is offline Titanium
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Palmer, Alaska
    Posts
    2,789

    Default Mcace

    Local outfit, see them at some of the gunshows..
    Bought a couple adapters, they work,
    Nothing fancy...

    They even make a few they won't warrenty due to thin walls, Like 30-30 .30 Carbine.

  8. #8
    JohnnyBeaneSr is offline Plastic
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Seagrove NC
    Posts
    43

    Default If .308 is safe

    Quote Originally Posted by stevestanfill View Post
    has anyone changed a 1893 mauser to 7.62x39? I read a blog some where that the writer talked about changing a Spanish 93 mauser to 7.62x39. I have a 93 in .308 which is not safe to shoot I am told.
    How hard would it be to change over? Thanks in advance. Steve
    Take it to a gunsmith and have him or her to check the head space.
    Then ask hom or her this question.

    I have changed 2 mauser 98's fron their current calibers to a 7mm-08 and a 243.
    As long as it has the same bolt face it will work.

    But check with a gunsmith where ever you live to make sure.

  9. #9
    exblaster's Avatar
    exblaster is offline Plastic
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    S.W. Washington
    Posts
    34

    Default 308 to 7.62X39

    When converting to 7.62 mm X 39 the big problem was the extractor. You will have to build up and re machine the extractor or grind relief on the bolt head so the extractor will hook on the case head.

    Exblaster

  10. #10
    stevestanfill is offline Aluminum
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    west tennessee
    Posts
    75

    Default Rebarreling a mauser 93

    I have rebarreled a 98 to .243 and a savage 110 also to .243(easy). Going to 7.62 x 39 looks much more difficult, maybe more than I am up to. I know from past post that this is the place to goto for answers without being flamed. Steve

  11. #11
    JohnnyBeaneSr is offline Plastic
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Seagrove NC
    Posts
    43

    Thumbs up Rebarreling Mausers

    Quote Originally Posted by stevestanfill View Post
    I have rebarreled a 98 to .243 and a savage 110 also to .243(easy). Going to 7.62 x 39 looks much more difficult, maybe more than I am up to. I know from past post that this is the place to goto for answers without being flamed. Steve

    I did almost the same thing.

    I A Rebarreled a Mark X mauser 98 to 243
    And a Mauser 98 to 7mm-08
    And a Savage model 110 to 308

    The Savage 110 was the easyest to headspace.

    I have a couple Yugo mauser 48's I plan to barrel soon also.

  12. #12
    deltaenterprizes is offline Hot Rolled
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Longview,TX
    Posts
    983

    Default

    Picked up mine and it looks good.I ordered some Winchester FMJ ammo to test fire it and mounted the bases and rings for the scope.The bolt handle is going to hit the scope, even though it is bent from the factory, so it will have to be altered.Nice little gun,I hope it can hit the broad side af a barn from the inside!

  13. #13
    Bret4207 is offline Plastic
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    St Lawrence Valley
    Posts
    8

    Default

    If it's in good shape leave it in 308. The '93 and '95 may lack a few refinements of the '98 but they aren't "weak" if used with sane loads. My '93 in 7x57 has digested many stout loads with 160 gr bullets with no porblem. I wouldn't try to turn it into a 338 Superwhizbang tacitalelitemagnum but it's a good safe action.

  14. #14
    garyphansen is offline Titanium
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Traverse City, MI
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    "If it's in good shape leave it in 308. The '93 and '95 may lack a few refinements of the '98 but they aren't "weak" if used with sane loads. My '93 in 7x57 has digested many stout loads with 160 gr bullets with no porblem. I wouldn't try to turn it into a 338 Superwhizbang tacitalelitemagnum but it's a good safe action."

    Sure a 93 or 95 in good shape are safe for 7X57 mm, they after all were made for that cartridge. However, a .308 Winchester is not a 7X57mm and just because someone rebarreled a 93 or 95 to .308 and has fired hundreds of rounds with out failure DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS SAFE! The 98 has a much better system to handle a ruptured case plus the flange on the bolt shroud directs gas away from the shooters eyes. Not so with the 93 and 95. It is not worth risking you life or your sight.

    People have rebarreled those Russian Nangets to 30.06 and got away with firing a few rounds. That is even a more unsafe thing to do. Gary P. Hansen

  15. #15
    Bret4207 is offline Plastic
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    St Lawrence Valley
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Had a long reply and lost it. Short story- a fool can blow up ANY gun. The 93, 95 and 96 are safe used with sane loads.

  16. #16
    garyphansen is offline Titanium
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Traverse City, MI
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Bret4207:

    I have had a number of FFLs. I have written for, The American Rifleman, Guns & Ammo, Rifle, Guns, The Shooting Industry, Gun World, Gun Digest and others. A 93 or 95 in .308 is not safe to shoot even with factory loads. The action just was not designed for that type of presure. I am not the only gun writer who has said so. If I remember right even Mauser said it was not safe back in the 60s or 50s. The bolt will most likely "setback" causing excessive headspace and causing a problem opening the bold after fireing before the action or the bolt fails but you can not count on it. Every time a 308 is fired in a 93 or 95 the action or bolt is one round closer to failure because of work hardening. I say again, taking the chance is not worth your life or your eye sight. The 7X57 mm is a fine cartridge and is safe in those actions. Now, this is still a somewhat free country, you are free to disreguard my advice if you would like. Gary P. Hansen

  17. #17
    deltaenterprizes is offline Hot Rolled
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Longview,TX
    Posts
    983

    Default

    Frank de Hass has the same opion in his book "The Bolt Action Rifle".The 7.62x39 should not be a problem.

  18. #18
    Jumptrap is offline Plastic
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    greenup, ky.
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garyphansen View Post
    Bret4207:

    I have had a number of FFLs. I have written for, The American Rifleman, Guns & Ammo, Rifle, Guns, The Shooting Industry, Gun World, Gun Digest and others. A 93 or 95 in .308 is not safe to shoot even with factory loads. The action just was not designed for that type of presure. I am not the only gun writer who has said so. If I remember right even Mauser said it was not safe back in the 60s or 50s. The bolt will most likely "setback" causing excessive headspace and causing a problem opening the bold after fireing before the action or the bolt fails but you can not count on it. Every time a 308 is fired in a 93 or 95 the action or bolt is one round closer to failure because of work hardening. I say again, taking the chance is not worth your life or your eye sight. The 7X57 mm is a fine cartridge and is safe in those actions. Now, this is still a somewhat free country, you are free to disreguard my advice if you would like. Gary P. Hansen
    You have written for several gunrags....well bully for you! Then we in the audience are to assume that makes you authority? How many various examples of Paul Mauser's have you rebarreled and spent any time with? What empirical evidence do you have to support your claims...or are you simply repeating what you have read? I do not claim to be an expert...much less a 'gun writer', but I have spent many years with hands on experience dealing with practically any sporting arm made. While Mauser's 98 design incorporated superior gas deflection and venting, with the addition of a third safety lug, it is not inherently stronger than the previous designs. How so? First, when an action fails....it very rarely becomes a grenade, launching parts into the stratosphere. What does happen is the bolt lugs will set back, locking the action up, requiring a hammer to pound it open. Yes, it is wrecked beyond further use at this point, but it doesn't come apart. I would also like for you to show me a reference in print, that details a Mauser rifle bolt being propelled rearward into the shooters head. I'll give you six months to find one example..report back here and let us know what you found. The Mauser 93 and 95 actions possess more than enough strength to handle the 308.7.62 NATO cartridge. How many 93's I have seen rebarreled to 257 Roberts and then loaded to the ragged edge, is beyond my recounting, but let's say it's more than a few. I've knew a one of them that failed to deliver complete satisfaction to the owners...including me. I would choose a different action all together..including the Mauser 98, if I were going to build a rifle. But many folks out there still maintain a notion of building a 'custom' rifle using a military action, mainly because they can buy them cheap. Generally, they wind up with what looks like a hacked military rifle sitting in a bulbous replacement wood stock. One such custom rifle is generally all it takes to cure the dreamer of his fantasy. The Mosin-Nagant was mentioned. If any of you actually took the time to blow one them up, you'd never question their inherent strength, nor the strength of most any other action thereafter. I torture tested a MN action and it finally required 36.5 (thirty six point five) grains of Bullseye pistol powder under a military FMJ bullet to wreck the action. Yet, it didn't come apart. The cartridge head let go and the escaping gas took the extractor off and set the bolt lugs back. Previous to firing the 36.5 grain charge of Bullseye, I loaded 31.5 grains of Unique under an FMJ bullet and fired it with no ill effects whatsoever! Yes....the gun was in a vise and a scatter shield was around the action, the rifle fired remotely via a lanyard. Now grab your Powely computer and do some quick computations and come up with a PSI factor for those loads. They're off the scale, to say the least. Based on what I witnessed, I am satisfied you could load the case completely full of of 2400 under a 147 grain FMJ and shoot it all day. No, I am not endorsing that practice, I'm just saying that empirical evidence shows that it takes copious amounts of very fast pistol powder to cause the action to fail. Rfile actions that come unglued...like the early Springfields, were the result of improper heat treating as found in long investigations performed by Army and Springfield Armory. The other main cause is a barrel obstruction. If the headspace is correct, the likelihood of a 93 Mauser being unsafe with .308 ammunition is nil, at most.

  19. #19
    garyphansen is offline Titanium
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Traverse City, MI
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Jumptrap:

    Pardon me, I am sure that you know more about this than Frank De Hass, Ludric Olson, Myself, the NRA and the Mauser Factory. Please, feel free to shoot all the .308s in your 1893 Mauser that you want! You are most right, nothing bad IS LIKELY to happen and if it does isn't that what they have insurance for. A lot of people get along just fine with out eye sight.

    As for your low number Springfield, Please feel free to keep shooting that, also. I am sure that the Army overreacted when they recommended that they all be scrapped. After all there were only 68 accidents, none resulted in deaths and only nine were serious. Out of a million rifles what are the odds of it happening to you. There are other fools who still, to this day shoot their low number Springfields and others who will go on blasting away with their 93 Mauser in .308 .

    Gary P. Hansen

  20. #20
    garyphansen is offline Titanium
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Traverse City, MI
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Jumptrap:

    Sorry, you asked how many Mausers I have spent time with. I have only owned one 93, and two 98s, and four 1903 Springfields. However, I have done gunsmith work and or examined many hundreds of them. Gary P. Hansen

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •