Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Mausers and Military Rifles Santa Barbara's?

The thread on Herters got me to thinking of the different mausers that used to be advertised in the gun magazines. The Santa Barbara have always been considered less desirable. I'm curious about them, who made them, why they were less desirable and all.
I've owned a bunch of different mausers, mostly military and made over military, and Zastava's (military, MkX'xs, and Whitworths. I enjoyed them all.
Thanks
Bfly

Made in Spain.

I remember "the boys" who hung out around the wood stove at Bill DeVaux's gun shop in Norwich, VT, on Friday nights when I was a kid didn't think highly of them. My memory has faded a bit, but I seem to recall that they thought that QC was "spotty", too hit or miss to be trusted, particularly the heat treating. Probably mostly rumor, like a lot of the stuff that is posted on the 'net, but who knows for sure?

I hate to say it but there tended to be be a general bias towards all Spanish Mausers both military and commercial; I'm not saying it was deserved, just saying that was kind of the status quo so to speak back in the 60's and 70s. I'm sure some will come up with occurences of poor workmanship or sub-standard heat treat, but I don't think any QC today is perfect; certainly all manufacturers of Mausers stumbled sometimes since the late 1800s. I've done several Mauser projects over the years (the first being in 1964) some involving post-war "La Coruna" actions and the commercial Santa Barbara actions, and as far as I know they are still doing fine with no issues. I still have one of the Santa Barbaras with a Douglas 7x57 barrel from 1977 residing with a family member and it still does fine taking a deer or two every year.

Having said that, there's pot load of 98s from 1944-45 produced under German control in several countries (which amounted to forced/slave labor) and whose QC was not all that vigilant - and in many situations were purposedly sabotaged. This was not some hidden war secret that only recently surfaced, but pretty much common knowledge after the war - funny thing was that after this occurred you never heard anyone putting down German 98's as categorically being substandard or junk. I know that there's always been a heirarchy of desirables, such as the 09s, VZ-24s, etc. but over time these have become almost completely unavailable, so a better means than "old hearsay" is necessary to truly evaluate Mauser actions.

'16 Spanish Mauser with a Richard's Wolverine Apache Golden stock and a 6.5x55 Numrich sporter barrel and Timney trigger.




1944 '98 Mauser with a Richard's Wolverine Black Walnut stock and a Lyman aperture sight and a Dayton Traister trigger set in 8x57.






the '16 Spanish was given to my youngest son. he use a 120gr Nosler BT and IMR4350 going around 2750fps. 1 - 1 1/2" at 100 yards (5 shots/bench) is good enuff for deer.

the '98 Mauser is mine. i use a 170gr Speer semi SP and IMR4350 going 2500fps. 1 1/2 - 2" at 100 yards (5 shots/bench) will kill deer too.

This issue comes up regularly in differing formats but the same essential question of What's alleged as potentially wrong with it and the cause.

Essentially, "improper heat treating". Ironically rather same "problem" as the Model 1903 Springfield so-called Low serial number rifles. Amounting to something less than 800,000 by serial number. Below such number, some number of Springfield rifle receivers termed "burned" as over heated to point of "brittleness" and susceptible to explosive metal failure in manner of hardened shrapnel. The result of "experienced technicians deemed able to visually judge proper hardness achieved by visual interpreting of "redness glow". Later determined capable of being considerably out of acceptable bounds after introducing "Pyrometers" which 'should have been used'. Problem solved, at expense of said "Low Number Springfield rifles retired to "Reserve" Status. No way to adjudge which rifles were defective short of "destructive testing" nor remedial recovery, contrary to aftermarket scrap purchaser claims.

The above offered same symptoms in exact contrast of the deficiency of the Spanish manufactured rifle receivers, as by inadequate heat treatment, deemed left too soft. Results of so-called "bolt set back rather like walking on wet concrete. Not the explosive failure but of softness quality leaving critical "pressure structures" susceptible of distortion-failure. The same factories producing Spanish military bolt action rifles, also in latter eras produced sporting rifles under trade names including prominently "Santa Barbara". Where the American military acted in abundance of caution, the Spanish government evidently just kept cranking out firearms as failed for stretching of metal over time, not the catastrophic "explosive effect" failures of the Springfield. "Deniable credibility of failure claims attributable to "wear", etc. The poor quality persisted. By the nineteen fifties era, the British Firm "Birmingham Small Arms" (BSA) engaged in the purchase of Santa Barbara genre actions by whatever trade names, for its own variety of sporting rifles. These BSA rifles were of the Mauser Model 98 genre and not to be confused with a subsequent "mid fifties era" BSA 'homegrown' entirely new action design 'presumably' made in BSA or British contracted factories.

It seems the story 'true'. The extent to which the numbers of "soft receiver" rifles actually moved into civilian commerce, unknown. But the probability of significant numbers of military and civilian 'product' over time, appearing significant. Where a 'known problem' appears to have decades gone "unaddressed", the very quality issue and veracity of manufacturer(s) making the question of "rumor" to "fact" ratio less worth messing with. Just for many knowledgeable sports folks to reject the lot! My personal approach. This situation doesn't impugn the relatively small nuber of visually quite different "mauser pattern" rifles BSA undertook to manufacture subsequent. A genre failed not for quality but for marketing efforts, distributorship deficits and production facilities/costs as net of "more expensive to produce & market than "sales returns". Notably into a market overloaded with milsurps at fractional prices of any new competition in the States!

A long answer for a short question, but as "Googling", perhaps this 'old theme' revisited will perhaps 'stick'.

As ever, my disclaimer standard...
Just my take!
Best!
John

Just a question. Would a Rockwell hardness test of the receivers tell the owner whether the receiver was soft or hard ??

kwg