I see a post below concerning this action; what would any of you consider chambering a custom/semi-custom rifle in using a '93-5, given the usual concerns over strength, gas deflection, etc.

And, same question if the action was shortened.

I like them, quite trim and handsome.

Thx.

The 93 -95s vary wildly in workmanship.
I suspect in materials some also.

Gas issues are totally over rated.
If you are sane with the round chambered and with handloads there is little draw back safety wise.

Most people do not like cock on closing.
That and the stigma of it not being a 98 kills any resale value.
If you never intend to sell it you will be ok given sane loading practice.

I wouldn't.

If I decided to do it I would go with the original chambering, 7x57. Shortened? Probably the 250-3000.

SAAMI max avg pressure 7x57, 46,000 CUP
" " " " 250-3000, 45,000 CUP

But then again, I don't think I'd ever build a custom based on '93-5. I'd go with a '96.

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
If I decided to do it I would go with the original chambering, 7x57. Shortened? Probably the 250-3000.

SAAMI max avg pressure 7x57, 46,000 CUP
" " " " 250-3000, 45,000 CUP

But then again, I don't think I'd ever build a custom based on '93-5. I'd go with a '96.

Let's include the '96 in the mix.

quote:

Originally posted by tin can:

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
If I decided to do it I would go with the original chambering, 7x57. Shortened? Probably the 250-3000.

SAAMI max avg pressure 7x57, 46,000 CUP
" " " " 250-3000, 45,000 CUP

But then again, I don't think I'd ever build a custom based on '93-5. I'd go with a '96.

Let's include the '96 in the mix.

94 is basically the same as a 96.

The 96s were made a late as 1943 I think.
I have one made by Husqvarna in 1942.

Basically all the low pressure cartridges. 6.5X55, 7X57, 8X57, .257 Roberts. Even a Garand safe .30-06 would be fine a touch hot but fine.

But you could with some moderate to major work also include .30-30 win, .30-40 Krag .303 Brit, 7.65 Arg, .45-70. The only thing at that point would be how large a cartridge can you stuff in the mag so long as you stayed under the MAP of 47,000 CUP.

FWIW, I have converted intermediate-length 1898 bolts to work in 1895 receivers and then barreled them for such cartridges as the 22-250 and 280 Rem with absolutely no problems. Have also barreled an 1894 Swede to 270 Win with no problems.

To my untrained but experienced view, the metallurgy of the various early Mausers appears to be largely the same regardless of model. IOW the steel of the small-ring 1894/96s and 1895s appears to be the same steel or equivalent to the steel of the pre-WW1 1898s. Bolt lugs are the same size but the 98 lugs are set further back on the bolt body and so are stronger, also earlier pre-98 actions have no internal C-ring and so the 98 receivers are somewhat stronger from that standpoint.

When comparing action strengths, please consider this: a belted magnum case produces 20% more thrust to the bolt lugs than an '06-size case. If a 98 is perfectly safe with a belted magnum AND EVEN LARGER(!?) then logic should tell us that a smaller case producing 20% less thrust should be worth trying in the smaller actions, even if loaded to the same pressures.

However like many if not most early 98s, the small-ring actions are somewhat subject to lug setback if not headspaced properly i.e. snugly.
Regards, Joe

Joe
My 1891 in .220 Swift is head spaced at the bare friggin minimum. That rifle was chambered in 7.65 Arg and we had this discussion before. The 7.65 Arg is not too far off a .308 Win or a .30-06 of the time i.e. Garand safe.

I don't have a problem building one of my rifles to modern specs but I can't recommend that to anyone due to my lack of experience with the actions in question.

The gas handling of the 93 ect. Mauser is
not a great danger today. The Springfield 03, and the early 70 winchester were made the same
way. In fact the 03 was a knock off of the 93.
Having said that they are a 100 year old
somewhat clunky with a long slow fireing pin
drop. Putting a lot of money in one is not
unlike guilding a turd.

kc, the Swift is perhaps the ideal cartridge for these little actions since it produces ~9% LESS bolt thrust than other common '06-size cartridges loaded to the same pressure. Plus, it'll usually feed just fine through the original single-stack magazine.

For a relatively quick-n-easy upgrade to the original long-fall striker, simply substitute the striker assembly from an 1895 Mauser and use one of the aftermarket upcock conversions made for the 1895. The 1895 firing pin nose is too long for the 91 bolt and so must be cut back slightly to fit, but it's a 10-minute alteration using a small grinding wheel.

On my last 1891 conversion I cut the rear of the 1895 bolt sleeve forward to match the dimensions of the 1898 bolt sleeve and then used a safety made for the 98. After I shortened the rear of the striker assembly to match the shorter bolt sleeve, I found that the alteration slimmed the look of the action as well as reducing the lock time of the now-lighter striker. Here's a pic of the 1891 sporter with the striker in the cocked position.

Rifle shot into .75 MOA with no load development so I figure that the lock time is at least OK even with the ~10% slowdown/less accuracy caused by the DSTs.
Regards, Joe