I am looking at a Husqvarna in 9.3x62. It is apparently based on a Model 96 and was rechambered to 9.3x62. The barrel appears to be original with marking for 9.3 and now is stamped "x62". The shop carrying it believes it was previously 9.3x55, but I would think the original caliber was 9.3x57. The magazine has not been modified. Is this a problem? Will there be issues using 9.3x62 in the shorter magazine? Is it possible to lengthen the magazine box? If so, how involved is that? The price might be right if the fix isn't too involved.

Thanks for any info.

Hi, Whilst this may not answer your question it might help. The CIP max OAL for;
9.3x57 is 3.189 inches,
9.3x63 is 3.291 inches,
ie the x62 is about 1/10 of an inch longer than the x57.
I don't know of a 9.3x55 but that doesn't mean there wasn't one. There was a 9.3x53 based on the 7.62x53R but I doubt such a chamber could modified to x62.

Why not ask the dealer the measure the length of the magazine box if it's 3.3 or more then all is fine, less than that, then consider opening the box.

In addition, be advised that high intensity loads in the Husky are not advisable. Stick with conservative loads and approach max's with care. Kudude

Never heard of a 9,3x55, but I am dead certain that Husquarna never made any rifle so chambered. They used the 57 and 62, the first only in M96 versions. I really doubt anyone would rechamber without cycling rounds through the action, but do so yourself and be convinced.

The notion from kudude, is an old nursery story.
Very common, and I am not putting kudude down, but real testing shows that the 96 actions are very strong. Their gas-escaping is not as good as a M98, but about on par with the Winchester M70.

Bent,

I am not talking about Norma factory, but handloads which are +P. The 96 gas handling system isn't quite as good as the 98; however, many models of that mark have gas escape holes added. On the other hand, if memory serves, the '96 does not have the third (rear) lug. Most importantly, the metallurgy of weapons that could be included in this model isn't as advanced as those made after WWI. I try to restrict my 56,000psi loads to rifles made after WWI, ie, the 1930's forward (excluding late 40's German production.) Kudude

All of the Huskies in 9.3 x 57 were post WW I. I think they started in '26 but I am probably off a little. And Bent, not to pick nits but there a re lot of Husky '98 9.3 x 57 rifles out there, built on contract FN actions. I bet you knew that and just had a senior moment, lol?.

The first Model 46 Huskies were all 9.3 x 57 and marked 9.3 on the barrel with no case length designator and it is not uncommon to see them rechambered to 9.3 x 62. Since the 9.3 x 62 is designed to operate at 45,000 psi, the '96 will handle it, no problemo.

Later in that era (just after WW II) Husqvarna chambered the same action in 220 Swift which we all know runs way over 45,000 psi so I think its safe to say your 9.3 is perfectly fine. And while the third lug is missing, the left lug is larger in shear area than a '98 left lug plus the shear area of the third lug so the net strength of the primary locking lugs of a '96 are substantially stronger than the primary locking lugs of a '98 (assuming equal metalurgy which is reasonable in post WW I Swedish arms). Who'da thought?

I have a Stiga (sort of like the Swedish Garcia) 9.3 x 62 rifle assembled from '96 parts and sold as new. Judging from the stock design, I'd say it was late 30s to early post WW II. I call it my Art Deco rifle. The magazine has been lengthened by cuttting and extending the nose like a Mk X .375 and the feed ramp has been widened.

I don't know that all that is essential but mine feeds like a dream.

Hi,

The Husqvarna model 46, caliber 9,3x57 was introduced in 1927, based on the Mauser m/94 action. (damned close tiggertate )

In 1937 Husqvarna introduced the model 146 in caliber 9,3x57, based on FN mauser 98 actions and model 246 (Hva 'best gun', only 227 made) in caliber 9,3x62

In 1941, the import of FN Mauser actions ceased and Hva started to make new rifles based on the Mauser m/94 action and the m/38 action -'improved' m/96 actions. These models was called;

46A -9,3x57
46AN -9,3x62
46B - 6,5x55

In 1944 Husqvarna introduced the 640 series, based on new imported FN Mauser 98 actions.

Thanks to all for the replies.

quote:

The first Model 46 Huskies were all 9.3 x 57 and marked 9.3 on the barrel with no case length designator and it is not uncommon to see them rechambered to 9.3 x 62.

This is how the rifle is marked plus the stamped 62. Thanks for the info.

The magazine is just a little shorter than a S&B 285 grn cartridge the dealer is using as a reference. The rifle will only take one cartridge in the magazine and still be able to chmaber it, so the magzine will have to be stretched out. I still might buy this rifle, but I'd like to know a rough cost on lengthening the magazine - does anyone have a ballpark? I'm sure it might make more sense dollars and cents wise to buy a new CZ 550, but I really like the looks of this Husky, especially the round knob pistol grip.

Thanks

If you just want it to work without any cost, saw the nose off the magazine box and see if the mag well is long enough like that. You can use the magazine mortise like the front of the box; and rasp it a little longer if you have to. I had to do that with Sunny Hill bottom metal for a 375 MK X once because no one made drop box metal for the Whitworth/Interarms magnum actions. That rifle has been working for 20 years now without a hitch.

Make your vertical cut as soon as the sides become parallel and then saw from the front back to that cut flush with the bottom metal. It is invisible until you take the gun apart.

I just got a 9.3x57 Husqvarna rechambered to 9.3x62. It works just fine.

As soon as I get pics it will be for sale.

The 9.3 x 57 Huskies that were built on contract FN '98 actions all have boxes sized for the 30-06 so they work like a champ on the 9.3 x 62. Its only the small ring '96 (94? 93? my brain hurts!) boxes that all came sized for the 6.5 x 55, 8 x 57 and 9.3 x 57 that won't hold the 9.3 x 62 without mods, FWTW.

I always wondered why the Swedes never chambered that series for the 7 x 57, considering it's popularity. I guess they figured the 6.5 x 55 filled that slot...

7x57 is non existant in Sweden, 8x57 is aboundant just like 6,5x55.

Best regards Chris in Sweden.

quote:

Originally posted by kudude:
Bent,

I am not talking about Norma factory, but handloads which are +P. The 96 gas handling system isn't quite as good as the 98; however, many models of that mark have gas escape holes added. On the other hand, if memory serves, the '96 does not have the third (rear) lug. Most importantly, the metallurgy of weapons that could be included in this model isn't as advanced as those made after WWI. I try to restrict my 56,000psi loads to rifles made after WWI, ie, the 1930's forward (excluding late 40's German production.) Kudude

Yea, this is the acepted "truth", and I believed the same until I saw tests made by our member "jørgen", who owns the Schültz&Larsen factory.
Shows theese swedes had remarkably good steel, handling preassures far above their proof marks.
I wish he could translate this test to english and post it here.
He actually chambered one in .460 Weatherby, and did some heavy +P loadings in it.
The gas handeling system is not as good as on the M98, but about on par with the Win Mod 70...

Cheers,

Lots of those Huskys in 9.3x57 have been rechambered to 9.3x62. I wouldn't have one but if you load them mildly they will work...

Huskys also made some 98 Mausers in 9.3x62 and that is a great rifle, but they are sometimes hard to find these days.

Bent,

As the owner of a couple of 6.5 Swedes built on those actions, I'm glad to know that. The 9.3's were probably built before a couple of those Huskies (one is an 1899). These are beautiful rifles and a joy to play with and shoot. Kudude