Has anyone seen these rifles? Some of them are model 96s and for pretty high pressure cartridges. Do you think they are safe? http://www.sarcoinc.com/guns12-12.html

The Husqvarnas originally built for those rounds on the 96 pattern actions were designed for those pressures and are safe. You might find that some older military actions are too soft but in general the Swedes fine for the purpose.

People make a big deal about no third lug and gas handling but Remington, Winchester, Savage et al lack a third lug, too. Never stopped anyone from pulling the trigger on one, I bet.

It is generally reported that the 96 Swedes were made with some of the best steel ever used in a mauser action. While I don't know if I would do it (I have built a number of 96 based customs in milder calibers), my personal opinion is that I don't see a lot of benefit of the 98 over the 96, assuming metallurgy is equal. I will go so far as say that I would definitely trust a good 96 much more than a post 1941 98. I have never been convinced that the third lug thing is of much importance. Locking lug area appears to be adequate. As to small vs large ring, I have never understood that one. You have to depend on the barrel diameter at the breech to contain the pressure, since it is just screwed into the action. From a design standpoint, the front rings job is really only to hold the barrel firmly. The od of even a small ring at the breech is the same as a number of modern commercial rifles, so as long as a good modern barrel is used, there should be no difference.

One thing I have always found amusing is that people will rant and rave about small rings but the holy grail of mauser bases for a custom rifle is the G33/40, a WWII small ring with lightening (read that weakening0 cuts in the action.

Several years ago when Model 96's started coming in bunches, I remember that Kimber marketed these through retailers in a synthetic stocked sporter rebarreled to 308.

As to the ones you show, I would have no problem using one of them. I certainly wouldn't load it to 70,000 psi, but then neither would I load a new Remington 700 to that level.

quote:

One thing I have always found amusing is that people will rant and rave about small rings but the holy grail of mauser bases for a custom rifle is the G33/40, a WWII small ring with lightening (read that weakening0 cuts in the action.

The difference is that the G33/40 is a small ring 98

quote:

Several years ago when Model 96's started coming in bunches, I remember that Kimber marketed these through retailers in a synthetic stocked sporter rebarreled to 308.

Yes, and I saw more than a few of these with considerable setback.

I ordered one in 8x57 with the Orbendorf type bolt. It should be here any day and I cant wait to get my hands on it.

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:

quote:

One thing I have always found amusing is that people will rant and rave about small rings but the holy grail of mauser bases for a custom rifle is the G33/40, a WWII small ring with lightening (read that weakening0 cuts in the action.

The difference is that the G33/40 is a small ring 98

quote:

Several years ago when Model 96's started coming in bunches, I remember that Kimber marketed these through retailers in a synthetic stocked sporter rebarreled to 308.

Yes, and I saw more than a few of these with considerable setback.

Setback is a function of metal hardness, not design. When properly hardened, a 96 will do anything a 98 can do. In fact, there is substantially more shear area on a 96 on the primary locking lugs.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
When properly hardened, a 96 will do anything a 98 can do.

Except protect you from gas as well.

Everyone always focuses on the strength issue. While the 96s can be strong actions they don't have the gas handling capacity that the 98 does. In my mind that makes them less suited for high pressure cartridges.

The fact that the Kimbers exhibit setback when chambered in cartridges like the .308 makes me want the gas handling of the 98 even more. I'd much rather be behind the wheel of a 98 than a 96 when a case lets go.

It's all relative. A 96 handles gas as well as 4 or 5 commercial actions that no one questions. It's called the Rifleman's Theory of Relativity (RTR). Rifleman ruminate about the irrelevant and/or relevant largerly to rationalize budget increases. I know I do. That said, I'm as happy with a 96 as a 98 mostly because I'm a dinosaur who likes old technology. I also like all that mass hurtling toward the primer. I just KNOW that sucker's gonna get smacked hard enough to go BANG. What ever rocks your boat is fine with me; I've either been there or I'm heading there eventually .

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
It's all relative. A 96 handles gas as well as 4 or 5 commercial actions that no one questions. It's called the Rifleman's Theory of Relativity (RTR). Rifleman ruminate about the irrelevant and/or relevant largerly to rationalize budget increases. I know I do. That said, I'm as happy with a 96 as a 98 mostly because I'm a dinosaur who likes old technology. I also like all that mass hurtling toward the primer. I just KNOW that sucker's gonna get smacked hard enough to go BANG. What ever rocks your boat is fine with me; I've either been there or I'm heading there eventually .

pre-64 M70
Mannlicher Schoenauer

That's two, what are the other 2-3
I've got a Mannlicher Schoenauer that I truely love But, I wear glasses when I shoot it.

Terry

I find it odd that a 52K CUP round like the 308 causes lug set back in a gun which was factory tested with a proof load going above 60K CUP, 59-65 IIRC

Do you think that it would take fewer proof loads to produce set back than standard 308 loads? If so, how many? What might be a good guess about the relative numbers of these loads fired in a Kimber with setback?

I've heard that some of the Kimbers were pretty bad but I think they were all stripped military actions. The commercial Husky's were purpose-built for the calibers in question and are still shooting 60 to 80 years later.

This thread motivated me to go into my library and do some reading. I referenced "Bolt Action Rifles" by Frank de Haas.

Concerning Swedish 96's ONLY:

"In addition to the deep thumb notch and guide rib, the M96 had more gas escape holes. One small hole was located behind the extractor collar. directing any escaping gases to the left and into the lug raceway. A second hole is forward of the extractor collar., visible when the bolt is locked, just behind the reciever ring above the extractor. Another smaller hole was bored through the front of the extractor under the extractor hook. The gas escape holes made these Swedish actions safer than any of the pre-98 Mausers."

" Of all pre-98 mauser actions, the Swedish-made M94s and M96s are considered the best. Some experts believe that the Swedes used a better steel for their bolts and recievers. Yhis well may be true for the high quality of Swedish steel is well known. Their actions were also as well made and finished as the German actions. The Swedish-made actions were proofed with a load developing 66,000 psi breech pressure.

Back on topic of this thread, the above is safe for any commercial 6.5x55 ammo. I am uncomfortable as this shifted to the .308, not that I think these actions are unsafe with commercial 308 ammo, but military surplus 7.62 throws a wildcard into this mix that I cannot define, some of the surplus ammo has more pressure thn the commercial 308. And as soon as it was chambered for the 308 somebody would try using cheap ammo. Saami spec's on the 308 is 62,000 psi, using the breech tests from the above of 66,000 this is under but the margin is small. Back on the 6.5x55 its SAAMI specs are 46,000 CUP, way under the 66,000 psi the actions were tested to. If I had to use one of these actions on a modern 30 cal, I would look at using the 30-06 before the 308, it is 60,000 psi SAAMI not much reduction in pressure from the 308 but the differnce of 2000 psi cannot be ignored.

I don't have the CUP to psi converter handy but one cup is less than one psi.

In short using a Swedish 96 for a 6.5x55 is both safe ( keeping in mind that the action does not gas vent quite as well as more modern actions ) and practicle for this application. It should be remembered that many of these M96's were factory chambered in 6.5x55.

If I was looking to build a 308 I would look for a different action, but this thread is about the 6.5x55. Interesting is I would consider a 358 Winchester on this action.

Does anyone have any valid figures on the number of people injured/killed, by rifles blowing up or cases coming loose, each year?

Not a rhetorical question, I’m actually interested in the figures because common sense tells me if the number was significant the anti-gun people would be all over it and you would see the stories on the news like you do every time there is a hunting accident.

Rick,

I would like to see that also, I don't think it is readily avai;ible though. The government lumps their stats together into firearm related deaths, and it is hard to figure out the difference between a murder and a hunting accident, much less this sub category.

It is funny listening to all this discussion of blowups and safety. In my almost 40 years of shooting sports the only two rifles I have ever had issue with was a 22 LR which nowbody even mentions( still have a small powder mark on my face after 30 years ) and a M1 clone carbine in 30 cal. Both of these are low pressure rounds, these are my only problems to date. I did have an 1909 Argentine, that set back the lugs, but it wasn't shoot but a couple of rounds and it went back to the gunsmith for complete rework and heat treating, and since has been corrected.

I have gotten more cautious with pressure over the years, and if I error nowdays it is on the side of caution and safety, but my experience has been more problems with low pressure rounds, than a well thought out high pressure action and cartridge combination. I will mention that both of my problems with pressure issues were with auto loaders not bolt actions. This is just my personal experience and it is a small sampling of this problem. Another item I didn't mention is literally dozens of blown primers ( blackened and pierced ) I have safely experienced in various rifles over the years, I can't count them all but all the rifles did what they were designed to do, and safely handled these. These actions were old Model 70's, mauser 98's, remington 700's, and even on my Springfield.

Based on my real world experiences old 22 LR's make me more nervous than modern center-fire actions. There were a lot of poorly made 22's manufactured and because it is a 22 and low pressure that is OK. 24000 cup in a poorly designed action is just a dangerous particulaly factoring in the gas handling of some of these rifles.

schromf,

I believe the figures do exist and if they were significant they would be used against gun ownership at every chance.

I used to subscribe to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, and I know they broke down the deaths and injuries pretty well, when it came to those that happened during the commission of a crime. Cops, and anti-gun people hated those reports because in many large cities most of their cops were killed and wounded with either their own gun or another cops gun taken by bad guys...or cops shooting other cops.

In fact, I read once that the only “legally possessed†machine gun that has ever been used in a crime was an incident where a cop murdered a neighbor with his departments Thompson.

Without getting too far off on the topic, I would assume that the actual incidents of bolt action rifles blowing up, while they do happen, are very rare in the overall picture.

As to the varying pressures of the .308 and 6.5x55, we need to be real sure we are talking apples & apples. (Not saying we aren't, just saying we need to be sure we are...)

The 66,000 lb. proof loads...is that 66,000 CUP, or 66,000 lbs as measured by a strain gauge? the two are entirely different. 66,000 CUP would likely equate to well over 70,000 lbs on a strain gauge, wouldn't it?

Also, "blue pill" or "proof" loads are commonly loaded to 30% or more pressure than the intended regular operating pressures. A 66,000 CUP proof load would be appropriate for a cartridge and firearm intended to regularly work at about 46,200 CUP, I suspect. And, 46,200 CUP actually translates into the high 50,000's in strain gauge pressure, I believe.

Now that's the way I understand it off the top of my head. Anybody wanta do the actual conversions?

quote:

Without getting too far off on the topic, I would assume that the actual incidents of bolt action rifles blowing up, while they do happen, are very rare in the overall picture.

I agree, the press would have a field day with it, and while it does happen I think its rare.

Back on topic, I still like the Swede 96's, incidently I checked my Gun Values book, the Husky Hi-power which was this action was factory chambered in 270 Win, I have also seen factory Carl Gustofs in 30-06.

I have never heard of a factory Husky or a CG blowing up, if someone has fill us in but this is an old fishermans tale in my mind, these are safe, modern manufactured rifles, chambered in modern cartridges. I guess the fiction keeps the prices down on these, which isn't all a bad thing I suppose. I am not saying that its impossible one of this has blown up over the years, but my first inclination would be to see what else was wrong, like wrong ammo etc, before I suspected action failure.

CG and Husky were Finland and Sweden's version of the pre 64 Model 70 here in the US. The were good solid working rifles.

That's why I don't argue too loudly about this. I've gotten some pretty nice guns for $250-400.

quote:

The 66,000 lb. proof loads...is that 66,000 CUP, or 66,000 lbs as measured by a strain gauge?

The 66000 I cited was PSI, the book didn't elaborate on instrumentation used. Here is a comparision table:

Comparison of Pressure Specifications Between Copper Crusher and Piezo
SAAMI Specifications for .308 Win.

Max Average Pressure Max Probable
Lot Mean Max Probable
Sample Mean
Copper Units of Pressure (CUP) 52,000 53,300 55,300
PSI (Piezo/Strain gauge) 62,000 63,600 66,000

That didn't paste well try looking here:

http://www.steyrscout.org/intballi.htm

I'm reminded of a quote by Roy Dunlop in his book "MODERN GUNSMITHING

"There are no strong mausers prior to the introduction of the 1898 model"

He infers that the term strong means that the action should be used for modern cartridges such as the .270 Win, .25-06 etc.

Certainly these prior actions functioned well with the lower pressured cartridges of the era but I'll never understand anyone making a custom rifle from a '96 when the '98s are so cheap and plentiful. I certainly wouldn't do it.

The thread started with a question whether the factory Husqvarnas made on 96 actions in higher pressure rounds were safe, not about custom rifles.

To each their own but I never had anyone pick up one of my Model 46s and not like it. A good early one is very close to a pre-war Oberndorf in fit, finish and handling qualities.

I sometimes wonder if all these rifles know that they are supposed to blow up...obviuously they must NOT!

quote:

The thread started with a question whether the factory Husqvarnas made on 96 actions in higher pressure rounds were safe, not about custom rifles

You think a '96 Mauser in 9.3 X 62 isn't a custom rifle?

Can anyone seriouly believe that in 1896 or through 1938 that the Swede's used Piezo or Strain gages? I kinda doubt it. Proof loads were not at 66K psi! I submit the proof loads ranged from 59 to 65K CUP which would be considerably more than 66K psi.

quote:

Originally posted by lonniemike:
Can anyone seriouly believe that in 1896 or through 1938 that the Swede's used Piezo or Strain gages? I kinda doubt it. Proof loads were not at 66K psi! I submit the proof loads ranged from 59 to 65K CUP which would be considerably more than 66K psi.

So whats the explanation for lug set back when chambered for the .308win?

Terry

quote:

Can anyone seriouly believe that in 1896 or through 1938 that the Swede's used Piezo or Strain gages? I kinda doubt it. Proof loads were not at 66K psi! I submit the proof loads ranged from 59 to 65K CUP which would be considerably more than 66K psi.

Let me be very clear for safeties sake, The numbers I quoted above are for post war Swedes ONLY. To get exact after 1948 to end of production. Anything older and as far as I am concerned we aren't talking the same action.

Don't use these numbers on PRE-WAR 96 actions!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

The thread started with a question whether the factory Husqvarnas made on 96 actions in higher pressure rounds were safe, not about custom rifles

You think a '96 Mauser in 9.3 X 62 isn't a custom rifle?

I know it's not because I own one manufactured by Stiga in Sweden. Very common rifle there.

Tiggertate,

There is a factory chambered 9.3x62 on Sarco's website.

There is also a factory chambered Husky M96 in 270 Win.

If it wasn't drilled and tapped I'd jump on it. They made about 250 Model 46s in that caliber. A lot of the 9.3 x 57s were reamed to 9.3 x 62 later so you have to be sure which you're getting

So whats the explanation for lug set back when chambered for the .308win?

Terry[/QUOTE]

---------------------------------------

Could be several things, I'd guess.

1. The .308 loads were not factory standard loads, but somebody's handloads?

2. Different barrels produce different pressures, as do different chambers in similar barrels. Is not highly unusual to encounter a variation of at least 6,000 p.s.i. when firing one lot of ammo in barrels and chambers which APPEAR identical.

3. Perhaps either the chamber or the cartridges as used in the .308 produced the equivalent of excessive headspace...giving the case head a "running start" before slamming into the bolt face?

4. Some combo of the above?

Those are just a few possibilities; are probably a dozen or so other potential causes when taken either separately or cumulatively.

Thanks for the responses guys!

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:

quote:

Originally posted by lonniemike:
Can anyone seriouly believe that in 1896 or through 1938 that the Swede's used Piezo or Strain gages? I kinda doubt it. Proof loads were not at 66K psi! I submit the proof loads ranged from 59 to 65K CUP which would be considerably more than 66K psi.

So whats the explanation for lug set back when chambered for the .308win?

Terry

It is possible that those set back lugs might have something to do with hot ammo. It can be found in large quantities under "millsurp".

There is no question that there is a built in cushion reguarding SAAMI and these old actions, which is not a bad thing. Ive got a Spanish '93 that was altered to 7.62 NATO and then someone marked the bbl 308 Win. I still havent fired it. When and if I ever do it will be basically held to 300 Savage pressures which are SAAMI limits for that particular action, but Im sure the 96'es are stronger than that one.

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:

The difference is that the G33/40 is a small ring 98

Meaning what? That it has a shroud that protects your eye from gases when it gives way and flys to pieces? Explain please.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:

quote:

Originally posted by lonniemike:
Can anyone seriouly believe that in 1896 or through 1938 that the Swede's used Piezo or Strain gages? I kinda doubt it. Proof loads were not at 66K psi! I submit the proof loads ranged from 59 to 65K CUP which would be considerably more than 66K psi.

So whats the explanation for lug set back when chambered for the .308win?

Terry

It is possible that those set back lugs might have something to do with hot ammo. It can be found in large quantities under "millsurp".

There is no question that there is a built in cushion reguarding SAAMI and these old actions, which is not a bad thing. Ive got a Spanish '93 that was altered to 7.62 NATO and then someone marked the bbl 308 Win. I still havent fired it. When and if I ever do it will be basically held to 300 Savage pressures which are SAAMI limits for that particular action, but Im sure the 96'es are stronger than that one.

Its much more likely that the military Swedes were heat treated to a mil spec that accomodated the needs of 6.5 x 55 mil spec ammo while the commercial actions were treated to a spec for commercial ammo at higher pressures. Why this is difficulkt to comprehend escapes me. Set-back is a function of hardness, not action design.

quote:

Originally posted by schromf:
Tiggertate,

There is a factory chambered 9.3x62 on Sarco's website.

There is also a factory chambered Husky M96 in 270 Win.

That .270 is NOT a 96 action. The picture is mis-labeled. It is the 1600 or HVA action which is a modern small ring mauser 98 type action. This is the action used from the mid 1950's to the early 1970's on Husqvarna commercial rifles.