quote:

Originally posted by Turtlewolf:
I also here stories of Swedish Mausers being weak and stretching and or failing if used with loads of more than about 45k PSI.
Thankyou

quote:

if the M96 action could be considered strong enough for the 9.3x62mm round?

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
There's no flies on the 9.3 x 57, either. Fine round that's easy to shoot well and has enough thump for bears.

quote:

I do not handload

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

I do not handload

Heavens to mergetroid....there no better time than now to start!!!!

The only difference between the 9.3 X 57 and the 9.3 X 62 is a few yards of range.....and the moose you have there in Canada won't know the difference.

Use this opportunity to learn to reload....it's a marvelous way to express one's insanity!

quote:

Oh that reminds me, the .303 Savage is another reason to start handloading

quote:

Originally posted by Turtlewolf:
Don't forget the .303 Savage was unique because of the 190 grain .311 bullet in a .308 bore, it's almost horrible to think of rebarreling to .30-30 or .32 special but I can understand from an ease of use standpoint. The .303 Savage is also the first cartridge I ever heard of going through a moose end to end at about 125 yards, but that shot happened before my birth even if it did come from a credible fellow who was short on words.
Cheers

quote:

The issue isn't the design but what steel and how it was treated.

quote:

Originally posted by SlamFire:

quote:

The issue isn't the design but what steel and how it was treated.

Absolutely correct.

If you study the history of metallurgy, things were incredibly primitive prior to 1900. Every analysis I have read of early plain carbon steels indicates high slag and impurities. Really messy stuff showing inconsistencies in the process controls. The world goes not go from black /white to color at the turn of the century, but metal knowledge is becoming more mature up to 1920. Process control is also improving but I don’t consider pre WW1 metallurgy as anything but middle primitive. This is still the plain carbon steel era, alloy steels are just appearing out of the laboratory and into mechanical items. Late 20’s actions are going to be better from a process improvement outlook, things from 1930’s to 1940 are going to be very good. All of these Swedish military actions were made from plain carbon steels, but just due to the advancement of process control and measurement advances, later actions are more likely to be stronger than early actions. .

In the 1969 Gun Digest, John Amber reveals comparison tensile testing data that Ruger conducted on its M77. The M77 bolt is made from 4140. Ruger tested Mauser (I assume 98 Mauser) bolts and Springfield bolts. John Amber does not state if the 03 bolts were Class C plain carbon or the nickel steel bolts. Regards, these military bolt were ¼ to ½ as strong as the M77 bolt.

So, when you are dealing with old military rifles made at least a century ago, made out of plain carbon steels, in primitive process control conditions, it does not make sense to hot rod one of these actions. While the machining is wonderful, the metal and heat treatment is always suspect. When these plain carbon receivers go, they tend to frag.

And there is the gas handling capability of these old actions. The M98 Mauser is the best, it really protects the shooter. Earlier actions are not so good. Even later actions, such as the 03, are poor, and just awful in comparison to the great M98.



Still, it is your head , so it all comes up to risk tolerance. If you are the sort who drives 100 mph on bald tires with one tire only being held on by two lug nuts, (and I met the guy) putting your one and only head behind one of these things might seem acceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
Avoid all m96 rebuild by and marked by STIGA, as they had the terrible idea of lengthening the magasine forvard, removing ramp material.
Dont rebuild a m96 to longer COL than designed for.
Never use optimistic handloads on any CRF rifle, as they have no usable casehead support.
Dooing so will result in what the former post shows.
This is not a matter of steelquality, but a lousy design, making a mediocre overload transform into a handgrenade, basically because of the lack of caseheadsupport.

I have tortured multiple m96 by fiering optimistic 460wea , with presure enoug to leave the primer ratteling, without anny sighns of problems on the action. Then later deliberatly blowing the same action using a 6,5x55 with underloaded partition nosler and slowburning powder. When the casehead lets go, most CRF lets go, resulting in split stocks and boulged out magasines and destroyed boltstop.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
www.forums.accuratereloading.c...=287103131#287103131

quote:

Originally posted by ColoradoMatt:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
www.forums.accuratereloading.c...=287103131#287103131

redo your link. It doesn't go anywhere.

quote:

Iam looking at the 1969 aritcle right now it says springfeild and mauser bolts sheared there lugs at between 19000 and 29000 psi of static load the77 took at least 40000psi to damage the lugs but did shear them off

quote:

If the 96 action will take the pounding that a 308 dishes out in competitive shooting there should be no basis to the idea that it is unsuitable for other "modern" higher pressure cartridges

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Turtlwolf you mentioned you didn't have the space to reload at the present. Have you considered the LEE hand press? I know it's not as good as bench set up press, but at least your could reload. Set up a powder scale on a solid table and use powder scoop to throw charges, or weigh them all out.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
If you're talking about the Spanish FR-7 308 NATO, I had one of those. It had the AR-15 style flash hider and an under-barrel bayonet lug that looked like a big gas tube.

I think they were converted from 7x57 for the Civil Guard when NATO adopted the 7.62x51. They had a special low pressure 308 round loaded especially for use in those guns, not full-house NATO spec. Caused a lot of grief here when they began to import them. Wish I'd kept mine.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
What I can tell you is that loads like the 6.5x55 are found in load books at a lesser pressure than a 98 action in deference to the M-96 actions.

Good grief, if you are currently using a 303 savage then just get one of those 96 actions and go moose hunting with a 6.5X55... Problem solved..

A 96 is a strong action but they typically have a lower SAAMI rating for a reason. If you really want to build it though then handloading is the answer. Otherwise you wont have a clue if it is safe or not until it goes BANG!!

I have a 308 that in their infinite wisdom NATo built on a Spanish ,93 action. No problem, I just use 300 savage data.

quote:

Originally posted by saskgunowner:
Turtlewolf:

I have a M-96 based action rifle in 9.3x62mm. It was originally 9.3x57mm and rechambered. AFAIC they are safe to shoot, just don't try to push the envelope and make it a 9.3x62 magnum. My loads run 286 grain bullets between 2,200-2,300 fps and I feel this to be plenty fast enough without straining the rifle.