"
As the 7 X 57 came on the scene in the 1890s in rifles like the 1893 Mauser it could definitely be souped up a bit, depending on what the rifle is that will be used."
I'm of the opinion that those 1893, 1895 and 1896 Mausers are not quit as weak as has been claimed. I read somewhere that a few years back someone had some of them tested to 100 KSPI without any problems with pressure. I think it was the H.P. White Laboritories that did the test.
The only drawback to them is if one blows a primer or has a case head separation, partial or full, that they do not handle escaping gas well. In other words you's get a snootfull of gas in the face. The only guns of that period I would not shoot, and that goes even with the weak factory stuff are the Remington Rolling Blocks sold to some South American countries back in the day.
I'm basing this on articles I've read that were written back in the 1930s. Some of the writers back then were affiliated with companies like Winchester and Reminton. Cheap surplus 93 and 95 Mausers were qiute common especially into the early 1950s when new guns were still hard to get after WW2. Those cheap military rifles of all kinds took a deep bite into profits of Winchester and Remington back then so it would not surprise me at all that they were behind all the negative stuff about those "old weak Mausers".
Think about it. Would a country are its soldiers with a weak gun that could fail at any time?
Nor am I advocating one should load uber hot loads in one of those rifles. Should one do so, they do it at their own risk. I just contend that they may not be as weak as some would have you believe.
Paul B.
