Gunboards Forums banner

Turk 7.92x57

5K views 72 replies 13 participants last post by  Jeremy2171 
#1 ·
Anyone pull the bullets and reduce the powder charge? I'm considering it, as one bandolier opened up a substantial crack in the wrist of my Turk 03/30. Plus the recoil is awfull.
 
#2 ·
I’ve done it but don’t recall the specifics. I think it averaged 46 to 50 grains when pulled and I ended up using around 40 when I reloaded. My batch had some bad primers though also so I just ended up pulling and using the bullets and trashing the rest.
 
#4 ·
That ammo made me a lot of money repairing machineguns and semi's. We tested a bunch of it of different dates in a K98 which has a shorter barrel then the turk rifles it was intended for. We got chronograph readings running from 1600fps all the way up to 3400fps. No rhyme or reason to the variation and there was a lot of variation. The variation included all headstamp dates from 40-43. This tells me that there is something really wrong with that ammo that you can't just fix by dumping a few grains of powder. Guys will say its ok in bolt actions but for me its not worth fooling with. Good luck with your experiments

Frank
 
#5 ·
I have just a few hundred rounds of 1952 Turk left. This Winter when bored I pulled the bullets and reloaded all with 44 grains of original powder. Original charge averaged around 47-48 grains and was a case full.

Shot good before, shoots good now.

Wrist cracks are usually the result of bad inletting (contact at the receiver tang) and or loose action screws. Can’t remember blaming ammo.
 
#8 · (Edited)
I posted this some time back, but it may be helpful here:

Turkish 8x57 ammo fired in my stock 1938 Turk produced some interesting data for you fellow Turk shooters. The ammo came in the 70 rnd. bandoleers with 154 gr. bullets and 47.5 gr. of flake powder. This gave 2950 fps in that long barrel.

I pulled bullets and reloaded the cases with 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, and 45 gr. of the flake powder.
I fired 5 rounds of each, as well as 5 rounds of full-power loads (47.5 gr.)and chronographed them.
I shot from the bench at targets 50 yards away on a cold (32) and windy day (today) at targets with 1 inch bulls using a 6 o’clock hold.

Here are the velocities (rounded to nearest 10’) and the size and locations of the groups in relation to the bull (all using the same hold).

Powder charge Velocity Group size Location

47.5 2980 1.0” 3.5” low center

45 2770 1.75” 1.0” low .5” left

43 2700 1.75” .5” high 1.0” left

41 2610 1.50" 1.5" high 2.0" left

39 2510 1.50" 3.0" high 1.5" left

37 2410 2.00” 4.5” high 2.5” left

35 2300 .75” 5.5” high 4.7” left

Sure was interesting to see where the groups went and why.
 
#9 ·
We had a very, very large amount of turk dated from 30s to 52. All shot well in Bolt action rifles. Only 1942 had seriously split necks and duds. The 52 was the best all around. All but the last case of 52 is now gone. Had over 25K rounds, all from Century and bought at a ridiculously low price- shipped!! They had a "spin the discount" wheel at the 2003 (?) SHOT show and due to free beer i bought the limit. Recall UPS hating me for a while. I would NEVER recommend it in semi -autos and know of some Hakims and G43s that had severe issues. Heard an M-1 garand converted to 8mm really had a problem!!

Curious to hear if anyone has had problems with turk in 1893s?
 
#11 ·
I think the issue with the 1893/33 is more of a safety concern due to the designs lack of gas venting capability in case of a rupture. I've never heard of one blowing up from Turkish ammo. I can attest to the the lack of venting capability. Had a neck split while shooting light reloads and the resulting gas went into my face.
 
#12 ·
I just pulled some 1950 Turk ammo down and decreased the powder charge. The factory charge was 48 grains, and I decreased it to 45 grains, reloading it into boxer primed brass.

The funny thing was when I test fired them. Through a long-barreled Turk Mauser rifle, unaltered ammo velocity was 2900fps. I only clocked a couple rounds. I then clocked 4 rounds with the decreased charge in boxer brass- 2850 to 2900 fps. That seemed really weird to me. I'm guessing it has something to do with the variances in the boxer brass and primers. I expected a 3gr decrease to lower the velocity more than that.

Before I shoot them through my FN49, I'll have to do more loading, and lower them more than that.
 
#14 ·
Yes, I understand. I was just expecting a bit more of a difference. I would never swap bullet and powder over into new cases without decreasing and checking the load first, and this illustrates that. It looks to me that putting the full charge into fresh boxer cases could have been quite dangerous.
 
#16 ·
You make a good point: chamber pressure is less relevant than port pressure, in these guns.

At one time I had an over abundance of old surplus 4831. I carefully worked up a load for my M1 Garand. Yes, I know, that’s a big no-no, but I did it by port pressure and ejection pattern, and it was a light load. Velocity (and chamber pressure) were low, but port pressure and ejection patterns were right. I didn’t use that load long though, because I didn’t like it. I went back to full loads with tried and true 4895.

If I find a load I like and decide to use in the FN49, I’ll be smart about it.
 
#18 ·
I did some more tinkering and came up with a load that works very nicely in the FN49. I dialed it back to a velocity of around 2700 fps in the shorter barrel. They function nicely, eject not too far, and the brass looks like it was fired in a bolt action. Accuracy is nothing to brag about, but it is old surplus.
 
#21 ·
I don't know about the OP, but I have very specific reasons for doing what I have done. I have a large quantity of Turk Mauser ammo. The unaltered ammo will be used in bolt-action Turkish Mausers. Some of this ammo from one tin had cracked necks. I went through the whole tin and picked out each round with cracked necks/loose bullets, resulting in a few hundred rounds of unusable ammo. This is the ammo that I have reduced and loaded into fresh boxer primed brass, for some safe, non-corrosive ammo for the FN49. I do know what I'm doing and am confident that this ammunition will be safe and reliable in this old rifle.

I will never, never fire unaltered Turk (or '50s Yugo) ammo in this rifle (ever again). I fired some of each back in the day, a couple decades ago when both types were cheap and plentiful and it wasn't yet common knowledge that they were damaging to semi-autos. I've had this rifle for over 30 years and have no intention of damaging it.

I'm not sure why you guys are focusing on blowing up rifles with full-power Turk ammo, as the whole point of this thread is downloading it. Sure, we could just trash this old ammo and buy new, but we all might have different economic circumstances, and place different levels of value on our time. I think it's a perfectly legitimate discussion to have, and if done carefully can be perfectly safe.
 
#27 ·
The biggest issue with Turk ammo is the brittle brass.

Put it in new brass and it's fine for gas guns.

https://youtu.be/vX39uxaxjyI
Despite ALL the evidence to the contrary, developed from YEARS of experience from Hundreds or thousands of shooters, you STILL choose to believe this?

More power to you, but I don't plan on buying any of your used semi-auto rifles in 8mm. I learned MY lesson a bout tn years ago.
 
#24 ·
Interesting video. It contradicts what I've heard about Turk ammo, other than the fact that it is hot (3200fps is smoking hot, in my opinion).

I'm quite comfortable with by backed-off load at just over 2700 fps. It was actually pleasant to shoot. Going from full loads in a bolt action, to the reduced loads in the FN49, I could have shot it all day. The up side is that it's easier on the shoulder, easier on the gun, easier on the brass, and I don't have to tear it down completely to clean the whole gas system afterwards.

I've shot a number of different years of Turk ammo. I had a bunch of '47 at one point, and LOTS of cracked brass. I had a case of '38 without a single cracked neck. The recent batch I picked all the cracks out of was '50. Nearly 300 had cracked necks, but I shot a fair amount of the uncracked ammo from the same lot, and zero cracked on firing. The fired brass looked just as nice and clean as new ammo.

Call me picky, but I won't shoot cracked ammo any more, not knowingly at least. I know that cracked case necks aren't anything really dangerous, but I've gotten more picky as I get older.
 
#25 ·
“It contradicts what I've heard about Turk ammo“...well if you heard it was not good in gas semi autos? Still valid.

The guy modified his rifle with a smaller gas port...he used the bullets and powder to make a new cartridge. So we have a modified rifle NOT shooting Turk ammo but a reload with some Turk components.

Maybe it is the laboratory scientist in me. But he was not shooting “Turk Ammo” in a issue milsurp rifle. I also wonder if his Chronny had been calibrated recently.
 
#26 ·
Not really... nothing wrong with modifying a G43....unless you condone shooting them without modifications.

It was turk powder and projectile loaded into new brass no adjustments... because as stated... brittle brass.

Then it was shot against other 8mm milsurp and the bolt didn't move any faster which indicates it's not a slow powder and that the port pressures are similar.

That kinda disproves that it's unsafe for gas guns.
 
#34 ·
All I know is that I did have some damage to my FN49 close to 20 years ago, with Turk ammo, and it wasn't a case head failure. Maybe a brittle old gun that would have had several parts break anyhow? I don't know. All I do know is that there is no way I will shoot full power Turk ammo in it ever again.

That, and numerous stories over the years of guns damaged and shooter injured. Maybe all those stories are fake or mistaken; I can't tell for sure because I wasn't there. They're just that- stories.

BUT- my personal experience combined with a lot of stories equals a preponderance of evidence. That's enough for me. I won't do it.
 
#39 ·
I'm confused here. I have never once heard of Turk ammo letting go with a cracked case head. I have heard and experienced many, many times cracked necks, but cracked necks are very different from cracked heads. Case necks are supposed to be soft, to hold the bullet and seal the chamber. The case head needs to be hard and tough, to contain the pressure. Metallurgically, these are two very different things. Cracked necks happen when the brass at the neck isn't soft enough, and aren't usually a big deal. A case head failure typically happens due to defects in the case head itself, or the case head being too soft, and is a very big deal. I wasn't aware of case head failures being a problem with Turk ammo, only brittle necks.

I ask sincerely, because I could well be out of the loop on this. Ammolab, have you heard of case head failures with Turk ammo?
 
#40 ·
What happens is the brass itself is brittle and no longer elastic. So when it obturates in the chamber as the pressure builds up it doesn't return to it's smaller state as the pressure decreases.

This can give you heavy bolt lift as the brass is still contacting the chamber walls. In a bolt gun this isn't much of an issue...
In a gas gun (or MG) and the bolt begins to move before the case has "let go" of the chamber...something has to give. Usually it's the extractor pulling the case head and it tearing open in that location and the remaining pressure in the barrel/chamber vents into the action.



New brass that is still "elastic" cures this issue and it's once again safe for gas guns/MGs.
 
#41 ·
That's the first I've heard of that, though I can't quite agree with your assessment of "brittle brass" being the entire cause. If you want to run ammo that clocks 3200 fps through your vintage rifles, that's your call. I won't do it. I've been called foolhardy before, but that just seems foolish to me.
 
#49 ·
No offense intended, but I don't know you. You might be a legitimate metallurgist who has scientifically tested Turk brass to determine it's degree of "brittleness", or you might be just some guy making assumptions. I don't know, so you'll have to excuse me for not taking your word for it. When you go against a widely accepted explanation and common knowledge, and set yourself up as having all the answers such that everyone else is wrong, you need to have an exceptional degree of evidence. You haven't convinced me. I just see a guy telling me how he's right and all the experts are wrong.

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. It's been interesting considering it, and thank you for your input and that photo. I remain unconvinced though. I will never run full power Turk ammo through my FN49. If I'm going to go to the effort of pulling and reloading surplus ammo, decreasing the powder charge to a more reasonable velocity for these old guns is a no-brainer, for me.

By the way, I wouldn't dismiss the 3200fps velocity as "just a little over spec". To be honest that dismissal weakens your argument. As a long-time reloader, I know that 250fps over a full load is a substantial overload. A little scary actually. The rifle will probably hold up OK for a while, as it's likely within the safety margin, but it is very concerning, definitely not "just a little over".
 
#50 ·
When you go against a widely accepted explanation and common knowledge... ...all the experts are wrong.
Well the widely accepted explanation and "common knowledge" don't hold water under scrutiny.

What "experts"?


Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. It's been interesting considering it, and thank you for your input and that photo. I remain unconvinced though. I will never run full power Turk ammo through my FN49. If I'm going to go to the effort of pulling and reloading surplus ammo, decreasing the powder charge to a more reasonable velocity for these old guns is a no-brainer, for me.

By the way, I wouldn't dismiss the 3200fps velocity as "just a little over spec". To be honest that dismissal weakens your argument. As a long-time reloader, I know that 250fps over a full load is a substantial overload. A little scary actually. The rifle will probably hold up OK for a while, as it's likely within the safety margin, but it is very concerning, definitely not "just a little over".
3200 is easily attainable with handloads and within spec. according to quickload. The 3200 is only about 5% above what the WW1 spec is. US M2 ball loads have this much variance as well so no real concern there either.

Gotta look at it with facts not feelings. That gets you every time...

You never said what you broke in your FN49
 
#51 · (Edited)
Like I told a former co-worker one time, who thought he was the smartest guy in the room and always won every argument; sometimes when people stop talking to you it doesn't necessarily mean you've won the argument, but rather that everyone else has decided that you're so arrogant and full of it that there's no point in any further discussion.

It's clear to me that you don't understand nearly so much as you think you do, and are arrogantly defending an indefensible position. Anyone who advocates overloading 70+ year old rifles the way you are deserves to be ignored.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top