I am considering a custom to be built on the M96 platform for a lighter weight rifle in 7x57. Any downside to this?

ive got 2 96 huskys, 1 in 9.3x57 and another in 6,5x55,,,, both light trim low recoil rifles... only downside i see is getting used to the cock-on-closing...but you can change that with a dayton-traiser kit, too...

There is a pretty one at

www.edlapourgunsmithing.com

under custom rifles, 1896 Oberndorf Mauser in 6.5x57.

Great action! I've got 2, both are Oberndorf-made and dated 1895. One is currently a 270 WCF with bench-modified 1909 bottom metal and Wisner/Lapour 3-position safety, the other is an unmodified military rifle held in reserve for a future project. Probably the strongest of all the pre-1898 models.
Regards, Joe

that is my next project , another one that i do not need

I went with a single piece scope mount on my Carl G.. Wish I had gone with two piece.

No down sides. There are a very nice action. I have had several in 6.5x55.

Here's one that I did a couple years ago Husqvarna from the 1940's with the solid left side, Gentry 3 position safety, Pac Nor Super Match Ultra light barrel at 23", 257 Roberts, cock on open kit, Timney trigger, Warne rings Weaver steel bases, Leupold 3-9 compact and I reshaped the old Husky stock and bedded it until I can afford premium wood on it. The gun is astoundingly accurate and carries and handles like a dream I love it!

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
Great action! I've got 2, both are Oberndorf-made and dated 1895. One is currently a 270 WCF with bench-modified 1909 bottom metal and Wisner/Lapour 3-position safety, the other is an unmodified military rifle held in reserve for a future project. Probably the strongest of all the pre-1898 models.
Regards, Joe

I too, hold these little actions in high regard..but a 270? I would think the 6.5 x 55 would be a safer choice. Tom Burgess claimed the 270 will peak above 70,000PSI, but explained the "peak" is too rapid and falls off so rapid that the metal does not have a chance to react...would this be your reasoning?

Personally, if someone wanted me to apply this conversion in my shop...I'd be too busy that day.

I am thinking of running 55 kpsi 7x57 loads so I assume all would be OK?

Snellstrom,
Did you make the table your rifle is on? Neat old treadle sewingmachine base.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Snellstrom,
Did you make the table your rifle is on? Neat old treadle sewingmachine base.

It is an old Singer sewing machine treadle and a piece of bowling alley for a top.

quote:

Originally posted by Boxhead:
I am thinking of running 55 kpsi 7x57 loads so I assume all would be OK?

When these little rifles were first imported here back in the late '50s, a number were rechambered to 264WM by adventurous smiths. I DID hear of one blowup (actually more of a stretching) when the wrong powder was used in reloading.

I personally wouldn't consider a larger case head on these rifles but have been using various forms of the earlier small-rings for many years with no problems, in cartridges from the 22-250 up to the 35 Whelen. If you think the 270 WCF has some pressure spikes, just try the 243 WCF!

As in any softer action, IMO all Mausers and especially the small rings should have MINIMUM headspace. This avoids or at least minimizes the battering and lug setback sometimes encountered.
Regards, Joe

quote:

I reshaped the old Husky stock and bedded it until I can afford premium wood on it.

While I love the look of premium wood as much as the next guy, I wouldn't touch that rifle. Great workmanship can stand on it's own. I love everything that rifle is.

That wood is just fine, for a hunting rifle. It will accumulate a few dings over the years, and each will tie you to a time and place. Besides, you can remember shaping it every time you pick it up or even look at it.
That, to me, has the makings of a "heritage rifle."

Fine rifle.

Rich

Thanks Walnut and Idaho Sharpshooter your comments are appreciated.
I love that rifle just as it is. Every time I get "serious" about finding a classy piece of walnut for it I can't seem to "pull the trigger" on the deal because I do have an attachment to the work I put into it.
My kids will have this rifle someday and it is already collecting some honest hunting dings and nicks as well as collecting a bunch of game.
Thanks again for the nice comments.

First rifle I ever "built" was a M96. Bought the rifle for under $100. Had a good "coin" on the stock that showed it to have good accuracy potential.



I converted it to cock on open, welded on a butter knife bolt handle that I made out odf a real stainless steel butter knife!
Winchester M70 type safety, drilled and taped for scope mounts I made myself, turned my own muzzle brake, jewelled the bolt and bolt release and chered the front of the bolt release, cheap tupperware stock and it is one sweet little, very accurate rifle.
When I built this rifle over 15 years ago, I had never done any gunsmithing. Bought books and taught myself. I couldn't even spell lathe, nevermind operate one! But I learned so much doing this rifle.







All the work was done on a $1000, 3 in 1 Smithy Lathe/Mill............

More pictures here:
http://public.fotki.com/Rberta...things-that-go-bang/

BUT......

Be careful

http://castboolits.gunloads.co...wthread.php?t=110702