Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Mausers and Military Rifles German made m1893

I have been kind of watching this Mauser that's been on the shelf of a local gun shop for about the last 6 months. It has been sporterized, so it's not worth a whole lot but it has kind of caught my interest. It is a model 1893, but it's not made in Spain. It is actually made in Germany according to the markings! I have always heard the Spanish m93s were week and made with poor metal. Could this actually be a diamond in the rough being German made and have a strong action? I've watched him drop the price on it twice and it's getting harder to leave it lol.

I wouldn't count on any Mauser 93 to be strong. 19th century metallurgy was 19th century metallurgy, and no amount of Teutonic magic can change that. Add to that the lack of the third bolt lug and smaller ring diameter compared to a 98 and you have an inherently weaker action.

They're strong enough for the round they were designed for (7x57), so if you want it as a novelty or collector then sure! If you want a project or a sporter build, I would look elsewhere.

Ditto. Not to mention what was probably the 98's biggest advantage over the 93 - the new improved bolt shroud which offered way better gas deflection from the shooter's eye in the event of a pierced primer, a real concern 123 years ago and worthy of a checkmark even today.

I shoot mine but don't load hot.

A caveat is in order I think. Designed for 7x57 yes, but a wise fella would adhere to the precept of relatively mild loads as found in American factory ammo through the ages (can't speak to how the factories are loading it now, nor can I speak to SAAMI specs - someone else can look it up, I'm in a lazy mood). They were decent guns but they sure weren't as strong as a Ruger/Remington/et al, and won't bear a helluva lot of hotrodding.

The 1893 Spanish Mauser was put on the world map by the transition to the modern era with most of the features of the 1898 world beater Mauser pattern. The staggered magazine of the '93 was a principal feature. I agree with every Post above concerning treating these old gals with respect in loadings, but also respect them for their smoothness of action and quality of construction. My understanding and belief that the Mauser Lowe editions were among the best quality. We drive our classic cars "with respect" and the same principle. We 'wumped' Spain in Cuba 'despite' rather than because of these superior tech models and went on to emulate the bit evolved "Mauser Pattern" in the Springfield '03.
My only example is, as you described, "sporterized". One matter to appreciate it, but to restore it... I'd not go very far economically. For me, its virtue is in its simplicity and quality as finest of its "era".
Just my take
Best!
John

Brownells used to offer aftermarket barrels for pre1898 Mauser rifles, in 250 Savage, 300 Savage, & 35 REM but no longer do so

So back when SAMCO was importing Spanish Mausers that had been converted to .308 Cetme and were subject to being shot with .308 Winchester they sent a bunch of them out to be tested to destruction at an independent laboratory. They all survived until the pressures were over 90k PSI. Some of them more like 100k PSI. You used to could find links to the test on Gunboards. And those were Spanish Mausers made in Spain.

Properly made Mausers don’t tend to fail catastrophically. Only the outer layer of steel is hardened while the inner steel remains soft. In the event of failure they tend to deform but not grenade. There were some problems with improper heat treating making them brittle with some Swedish Mausers.

The 98 has better gas handling, but that shouldn’t be as big of an issue with mkdern cases. Just shoot normal loads to avoid any lug setback and eventual headspace issues ansnyou should be fine.

I've got a "sporterized" 95 Mauser which is very similar to the 93. Mine was mfg in Berlin by Lowe and I believe they were one of the largest German mfgs of the 93. I've been shooting mine for over 30 years mostly with mild handloads with no problems. Before I started handloading I shot several boxes of American factory mfg.with no problems. From what I've read a few years back European 7x57 commercial ammo is a little hotter.

If you can confirm the 93's in safe and good shooting condition and the price is right you might want to give it a try. A lot of it depends on the quality of the existing sporterization. I agree with what gnoahhh and iskra said about restoration. That can get expensive quick. If you trust the dealer, the 93s good to go, you like the way it looks and the historical aspect of it why not. If you're looking for a deal on a pure hunting rifle you'd probably be better off with a commercial sporter and you could most likely find one for less than or not much more than the 93.

Would love to know your source for this "Fact".

I don’t know, it's pretty commonly known if you know much about Mausers that they’re hard on the outside and soft in the middle. I’ve been dicking around with them for thirty years, have at least twenty of them in various stripes, have forgotten a schitload about them. I used to haunt all the gunboards and could tell you whatever you wanted to know about them. I don’t recall ever seeing or reading about a Mauser that grenaded.

In his famous test to destruction tests, I don’t think Ackley got one to let loose catastrophically.

But hey, if you want to fight about it, by all means have at it.

I have on that has been sporterized by bubba before I bought it. It is currently in .300 Savage, with an old A&B barrel from Midway. I had a guy add a dogleg bolt handle, speed lock kit, Wolff heavy spring kit, Bold trigger, low swing safety, and Duracoat. I attempted to shape a Richard's Microfit laminate stock and bedded the barreled action into it.

I could kill a deer with it, but it won't win a shooting competition or beauty contest. I think I have maybe $400 in parts as most were scavenged off of forums and it cost me $50 out the door from the pawn shop to buy the ugly duckling (still no swan). The guy (retired) who screwed put the barreled action together was attending school at Trinidad for fun. It was a fun little rifle to put together on the cheap.

Guess I should have edited a little more clearly:


What's your source for this? Explain to me how steel without enough carbon to through harden can be brittle?

On Gunboards thry used to say that some of the early Swedish Mausers were improperly heat treated, heat treating being manual by eye and more of an art than a science in those days, until the Swedes got the hang of it.

If you want to argue the point, okay.

Well, again, if the base metal doesn't contain enough Carbon to harden, requiring the addition of carbon to the surface so it will harden, how do you get the soft inner core to harden enough to be brittle?

When Santa Barbara began production of their Commercial 98's they did heat treat by eyeball resulting is some receivers that were too hard. However, those receivers contained enough carbon to through harden unlike military Mausers. Santa Barbara, much like Springfield and their 1903's, did have heat treatment issues with their early production examples.

The Swedes, no.

Okay, whatever you say. You win.

I remember reading that same info. But it was about O3A3, not Mausers.

Oh, it’s definitely true with 1903s, not the A3 but low serial numbered 03s are known to be brittle. The cutoff on serial numbers is 800,000 I believe. Above that is fine. Lower than that is suspect.

The 'so-called' "low serial number Springfield Rifles classed as below Serial 800,000. Were determined by Springfield Armory investigations to have been produced of a grade of Carbon Steel sufficient to properly harden. The problem was that the "expert production armorers were using "visual" perceptions of redness coloration to determine "hardness" for further processing (quenching as I recall). "Visualization proven to be an inadequate measure. Literally "sunny days as backgrounds" proving to affect results of such observations dramatically different than "cloudy days". Pyrometers were used as validation instruments as the "constant" facto in these comparisons . The introduction of Pyrometers as routine part of manufacturing. Yet more. Springfield Armory to introduce "Double Heat Treating" a term and concept. The comparatively "softer" as factually more elastic "steel of the receiver core" and then a subsequent secondary heat treatment where receivers - as I recall - packed in charcoal as rich in carbon absorbed by the steel exposed and a finished product resulting in yet elastic core and a "surface" wear resistant hardened structure. All this info from my reading and recollections from "Hatcher's Notebook", a publication authored by Major General Julian Hatcher who had been involved with Springfield Armory and chronicling the Investigatory results. My memory from reading his book some half century ago with refreshers in reference to "product" more than "process".

Four generations of Springfield Rifle metals & heat treatment, across its nearly five decades of "production". Said "single treatment all of which became suspect characterized overheated receiver metal as termed "burned" and glass hardness to the point of "shock stressing" causing catastrophic failure. Such science and hearsay, lingering to date. A second type as described "Double Heat Treatment" as something of a quality if production-costly process which General Hatcher described as the epitome of Springfield steels & treatment. Next the depression era widely expanded use of use of Nickel Steel alloy as metal more expensive but of manufacturing process consequent to the "Cliff Fall of the World Depression Era to follow. Nickel Steel technically lacking some exotic "slickness quality" but my own notation as such difference between my Springfield rifles not perceived. The final 8600 WD Series said to be factually akin to commercially termed Chrome Moly alloyed Steel typically for gun use such as ASME Series 4140, or such close genre. Schools out! But precept of "steels of derived balance between hardness and ductility the point!

Back to "Mausers", my lesser understanding but 'perception' of the large quality private or State Armory manufacturers as having a single processed steel of "medium hardness properties as received and subject to some further processes as sufficient to provide the ductility - elastic qualities as well as the surface hardness to provide smooth functioning. I believe it's quite likely that within precepts of "quality manufacturers" exact specs likely varied according to availability of steel stocks comporting and economic factors of the Nations and their Armories 'affording' such basics in international competition. In all this, of course, quality of manufacture processes also integral both to 'smoothness precepts' and functional strength factors.

Final notion the very "evolution" of 'best era available of steels and manufacturing processes. The '93 Mausers of German manufacture as a 'generalization' as best 'era' quality products available. Yet such as 'balanced' by pressure curves of the ammo and max overload pressures such as occurring with bore obstructions of a century later "hot cartridge loads". Some folks intentionally or recklessly push 'the limits' in life. Mausers are no exception. But very much their relative simplicity of design, their track record of 'getting the job done' and ruggedness of conditions of the very job, other use, maintenance and stowage; all factors!

Mausers are a great breed of themselves. Other fine conventional rifles can be great as emulators even into the Twenty-First Century pinging on central Mauser turn-bolt core features.

Just another 'wordy-take; and here off top of head recollections as 'disclaimer' along with "unedited" cause it's late & bedtime!
Best!
John