I have a 6.5 swede on a 96 action that I really like. It's time for a re barrel, and I'm thinking 338 06.
Any thoughts ?

Sure would not be my first choice. The 338-06 was designed for 63000psi. Mag box length?

If you like the 6.5 swede leave it alone and find a M98

Thanks

Thing is, I like the rifle, the fit and look of it, but the barrel is tired, and there is some noise in Scandinavia about the 6,5 being a bit light and possibly being banned for some species. I don't have an issue with that, but want to keep the rifle with all its scratches and memories. I used it when I lived in South Africa and couldn't give it up now. A 7x57 would do ?

Just put a new 6.5 barrel on it and enjoy giving your old friend a new life !

quote:

Just put a new 6.5 barrel on it and enjoy giving your old friend a new life

A 140 in the 6.5 compared to a 140gr 7x57. The 6.5 gives up maybe 100fps. What will know the difference?

If you must go bigger, why not 8x57?

quote:

Or a 9.3x62

If you want something heavier that would be my choice. Just don't load hotter than factory and you should be fine. There has been a lot of 9.3x57s that are now 9.3x62.

Thanks all. My knowledge of cartridge pressure and what would fit in a 96 action is non existent. Re barreling to 6,5 swede would be the closest to my heart if the law doesn't change. I mentioned 338 06 because I have a hankering in that direction, but I am in no way fixed on that idea, and brought up the idea of 7x57, because that caliber makes the proposed new minimum, if any of the rumours are true. I would be most interested to know which calibers are in fact suitable to the 96 action and how broad my choices are.
Thanks for sharing wisdom and experience

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:

quote:

Or a 9.3x62

If you want something heavier that would be my choice. Just don't load hotter than factory and you should be fine. There has been a lot of 9.3x57s that are now 9.3x62.

9,3x62 is a high pressure cartridge. I think the Europeans load it to 57,000 PSI which is way over what older small rings with poor steel are listed for. 9,3x57 is loaded to 44,000 PSI in Europe and North America.

quote:

9,3x62 is a high pressure cartridge. I think the Europeans load it to 57,000 PSI which is way over what older small rings with poor steel are listed for. 9,3x57 is loaded to 44,000 PSI in Europe and North America

Looking to learn something. I "thought" the 6.5 swede and 9.3x62 were both loaded to a 55-57,000 max.

I may need to seriously change my thinking if a M96 isn't safe to 55,000.

Slow down guys and review the facts; go easy on the emotion and drama.

From my VHITAVOURI MANUAL;
9.2X62 MAX. CIP PRESSURE; 49300 PSI.
Right or wrong, I have seen many 96s in it.

Seems like CIP is around 49-51,000 and SAAMI is more 56-57,000. CUP in the 46000. Seems like the references I find online can't all say the same thing. But, I keep seeing the Swede in the same range.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I didn't even see your question; the answer is that you definitely don't want to remove any metal from a 96 feed ramp.
The 96 mag box is 3.240 in length.

That's why I suggested the 8x57. The above suggestion of 9.3x57 also takes the length into consideration. I was going to mention .338 Federal because its length would also fit the 96 action quite well but it is one of the higher pressure cartridges.

You can find some pressure data on the SAAMI.ORG link that might answer your pressure questions.

QL lists the 6.5x55 at 55114 psi, many of the x57 and 9.3x62 at 56565 psi and the 338-06 at 65,000 psi.

You can ALWAYS adjust the COAL to fit the mag by picking the bullet length and/or just seating to fit the mag.

Personally I wouldn't go much over 6.5 Swede pressures in the M96 whatever cartridge I would picked to be on the safe side, and load whatever one you pick to the pressure limits of the RECEIVER and NOT the cartridge.

Lothar Walther might fit a barrel for you so check their link...

I WOULDN'T DO A 338-06A on the M96, but you could do a 338-08, 358 Win, 9.3x75 or 62, 375 JDJ without much trouble, or a wildcat on the x57 case keeping in mind the above admonitions, but unless you like reloading I would pick a commercially available factory caliber for economy all across the board.

Check surplusrifle.com as it has lots of good information on military rifles and other goodies.

Luck

It was a debate of a ban of lead in ammo 10 years ago (then 6,5*55 had been classed down) but it was then and is not mentioned today.
6,5*55 works for everthing in sweden and is a good allround, practice and small game round too. 8*57 would be a prefect fit if you want too change a good moose and boar round.

Thanks all.
Nordic2. If it's true that the noise about the 6,5 is just that, noise....well then my baby gets a new tube in 6,5 and I am most pleased.
Interesting discussion nonetheless

No ban of 6,6*55 in the horizon now. Antihunting people will find new ways to make attack hunters so we must be ready to defend our way of life.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:

quote:

9,3x62 is a high pressure cartridge. I think the Europeans load it to 57,000 PSI which is way over what older small rings with poor steel are listed for. 9,3x57 is loaded to 44,000 PSI in Europe and North America

Looking to learn something. I "thought" the 6.5 swede and 9.3x62 were both loaded to a 55-57,000 max.

I may need to seriously change my thinking if a M96 isn't safe to 55,000.

The Commission Internationale Permanente lists the 9,3x62 as 3900 BAR which is 56,564 PSI. The small rings which were made from older, poorer steel (most surplus older military) are rated to 45,000 PSI. If memory serves, all of the *****x57 Gomderschmogen Whatchabeen Callunum series are loaded to 45,000 and are safe in all those actions. Or at least they used to be.

The non military small rings like the FN Browning, Zastava and HVA (Husqvarna) are perfectly safe up to 10,000 PSI of bolt thrust (not chamber pressure). That equates to any commercial cartridge built on the 30-06 case head size and smaller that is held under 60,000 PSI.


http://www.cip-bobp.org/homolo...abical-en-page69.pdf

Thanks.

From Wiki for the 6.5x55


Maximum pressure (C.I.P.)
380.0 MPa (55,110 psi)

Maximum pressure (SAAMI)
351.6 MPa (51,000 psi)


Soooooooo I think I'm so confused that I won't recommend anything for the M96.

Must be why I build normally on the 98.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:
Thanks.

From Wiki for the 6.5x55


Maximum pressure (C.I.P.)
380.0 MPa (55,110 psi)

Maximum pressure (SAAMI)
351.6 MPa (51,000 psi)


Soooooooo I think I'm so confused that I won't recommend anything for the M96.

Must be why I build normally on the 98.

Yeah it's one of those grey area deals where the manufacturers haphazardly ignore the rules of thumb lain down by their predecessors and throw caution to the wind until there is a problem. Most of those old small ring actions will handle the 55,000 PSI with ease and not come apart. The receiver ring on all bolt actions is nothing more than a safety ring. It's primary objective is to provide lineal strength to keep the cartridge seated against the breech face. Not give radial strength to the chamber area as some might think. Well it does if the barrel swells, but by then it's already to late and you have damaged the barrel anyway.

The reason they say not to go over 45,000 PSI is because of the poor steel and heat treatment. Shooting high pressure rounds in rifles of this era will eventually set back the lugs from the repeated pounding. After several thousand or sometimes several hundred rounds the gun will develop excessive headspace. In days gone by they used to mark some of the ammo as being: (safe for older military rifles). I can't say if they still continue the practice or not.

Also, when they say that a cartridge is safe to 55,000 PSI they are indicating that the cartridge design, not the firearms that they are fired in is safe to this pressure. They will show other cartridges like the pistol cartridges and shotgun cartridges rated to far less. The design of these cartridges simply won't handle higher pressures safely. Even though some of the guns they are used in can handle substantially more. There are also high pressure exceptions to this rule too. I believe the 338 Lapua brass was specially hardened so that it could handle 65,000 PSI so it could generate pressures high enough to keep the bullets supersonic to 1000 yards. The brass doesn't last long but it serves the purpose.

I stole this from Wiki:

European rifle makers including Blaser, CZ, Sauer & Sohn, Steyr and Mauser Jagdwaffen GmbH offer sporting rifles chambered for this cartridge, as does the Finnish arms manufacturer SAKO/Tikka, while ammunition manufacturers such as Norma, Lapua, Prvi Partizan, RUAG Ammotec and Hornady offer loadings of the 6.5×55mm round that are designed for use only in modern hunting rifles that can tolerate higher chamber pressures. According to the Finnish powder manufacturer Vihtavuori modern 380.00 MPa (55,114 psi) Pmax piezo pressure loadings should never be used in older military rifles like the Krag-Jørgensen or Swedish Mauser.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5%C3%9755mm

Stiga of Sweden sold a lot of 96s in 9.3 x 62 and even 30-06 & 270. As unlikely as it would seem, they opened them from the front and spot welded a magazine box extension. Jens Poulsen says they had a lot of issues and I can believe that in 270 but I have one in 9.3 x 62 that I feel very safe with.

Like was said above, CIP for 6.5 x 55 is 55,100 psi and SAMMI is 51,000. But you can't fault anyone for being conservative when it comes to this topic. The problem with the 338-06 is you'll have to trust manuals for the true pressure in your gun which is something of a crap shoot without instrumentation.

These argument's also point up not only the fact of confusion between CIP, PSI and CUP AND the fact that many leave off the pressure designation when posting, and using "Memory" which is usually not quite up to the task.

Then...NOT designating approx. build dates on military...an M96 is an M96 and a M98 is a M98 no matter WHEN it was built...VERY problematic.

Of my two M96 Gustafs Swedes, one was built in 1903 and one in 1915...yet it's designated an M96 1896 Mauser. German Military M98's built pre and early war were beautifully made and anyone wanting to can check out the values of those early specimens can check the auction and antiques sites.

When Germany was being handed their breakfast the workmanship AND metallurgy was sagging considerably and the weapons were being built in other countries under German control and brutality with slave labor and sabotaged whenever possible were being produced with various modifications to increase production...JUST THE SAME as our 1903 and later M1 Garand's.

That's the problem of speaking in generalities...it never quite works and confusion reign's supreme.

Any one wanting an M96 converted to a higher pressure cartridge and wishing to pay the freight can have the receiver/bolt tested for quality and re-heat treated...which hardly, if ever, happens.

Anyone interested in the M96 and the 6.5x55 and conversions, might read the COMPLETE 6.5x55 Wiki article paying special attention to the proofing load pressure, WHERE/WHEN/WHY that particular caliber/case size was chosen and noting the different MAX pressures for CIP and SAAMI...AND the proofing load pressures.

THEN...read the descriptions for each pressure designation/system and include CUP while your at it and WHY the difficulty in trying to exchange pressures from one to the other.

Those few minutes of reading will be greater served in understanding ballistics than the same time used perusing forum posts.

There is always more to meet the eye when thinking about conversions, than actually MEETS THE EYE.

Luck

CUP TO PSI...-17902 + (1.516 X CUP)
-17902 + (1.516 x 41492 CUP) = 44999.9 PSI

PSI to CUP...(PSI +17902)/1.516...
(45000psi + 17902)/1.516= 41492 CUP

Your formula works just as well.

I doubt that many rifles that were found to be sabotaged or "mis-assembled" stayed that way and those that were involved or thought involved in the activity didn't survive either. How many ways are there to cause a rifle to mis-fire. Sabotage was know to occur at many points and how long ago did all this happen, or who really cared after the war and subsequent rebuilding process.

CIP to CUP to PSI gets a but more complicated due to the different ways of arriving at the pressure number...piezo electric vs copper crusher etc.

Ductility, malleability, hardening, deforming etc all are factors mostly misused and misunderstood by the average gunner.

A "soft" receiver isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as the receiver metal has the ability to withstand proof loads or higher without deforming. As you know hardening beyond a certain point makes a receive dangerous in that it fractures more readily at stress riser point and comes apart catastrophically rather than just bending or deforming.

I have NO idea just what the specific metallurgical specs are for the M96 and I don't think very many on this or any other forum has either...as I allude to many times, there is a ton of dis-information, mis-information and mis-understanding that constantly gets cycled around forums.

Absence of destruction doesn't mean destruction isn't absent.

Pressures are all APPROXIMATIONS within a statistical range and average and is used to provide a relative safety margin...no such thing as "absolute" (in the mathematical sense) pressures, only pressure within a specific standard deviation around the average...

It's up to the individual to wade through all the muck and decide what is and what isn't safe using what came before and a good Weegee board.

Luck

There were rumors of problems with lug setback on the M96 Sweedes that Kimber re-barreled to .308 a few years back. I don't know if there was verification, or just worry about that possibility. Did anyone actually see one of the M96 Kimbers 308's with problems?

quote:

Originally posted by RogerR:
There were rumors of problems with lug setback on the M96 Sweedes that Kimber re-barreled to .308 a few years back. I don't know if there was verification, or just worry about that possibility. Did anyone actually see one of the M96 Kimbers 308's with problems?

I know the ones you speak of. I saw one at a gun show some years back and thought it was some Kimber haters sick idea of a joke. It was nothing more than a 96 Swede that had been rebarreled with what looked like a 4 groove Walther/Lothar barrel, wing safety and all planted into very stylish Tonka-Toy plastic, Ramline stock. It was stamped Kimber and when I asked the owner about it he swore it was a genuine Kimber rifle and figured that justified the $800 tag he had on it.

Later on I learned that kimber had bought up a bunch of 96s and ran off a batch of them. Why, I will never know. There is nothing wrong with the old 96s, but just buying a bunch of them and chopping them into cheap sporting rifles to make $50 per unit makes no sense to me.

I have seen old 96s set back with bad headspace from being over worked with hand loads. So, I have no doubt that some of the ones Kimber put lipstick on will eventually suffer the same fate from running high pressure 308s.

quote:

Originally posted by RogerR:
There were rumors of problems with lug setback on the M96 Sweedes that Kimber re-barreled to .308 a few years back. I don't know if there was verification, or just worry about that possibility. Did anyone actually see one of the M96 Kimbers 308's with problems?

I've seen several of these. The school used to have some on hand to show students.

I'm not sure the setback was caused by any deficiencies in the steel or heat treatment. More likely the piss poor job Kimber did assembling the rifles. Most had the front of the top lug contacting the breechface. The assembler probably mistook this resistance for headspace being good when in reality it was too generous. This likely led to the setback from the bolt lugs repeatedly slamming into the lug seats.

While I wouldn't personally chamber a 96 in .308 win or any other high pressure cartridge, I did own a swede chambered in .308. Headspace always remained the same.

I have a Husqvarna 96 (M46) in 9,3x62. I'll be shooting it for quite some time to come.

Just out of curiossity
How manny of those M96 has all your eksperts really handled, or rebuild????
Have you ever done any strengthcalculations, Static strength test, or blowuptest on those actions ?????

A funny thing is that Norma for manny years used 96 actions on most presuretestbarrels, in most standardcalibers. But on the other side, they might not have known better, as they didnt have acces to the internet at that time.

There has ben rebuild tons of m96 in cal 308win, manny has ben prooftested in Germany in the 80th and 90th.

A known problem was a habit introduced in the Swedish military, where they started to ajust headspace (when rebarreling) by owertorquing the barrel/action thread
I have seen several, where this owertorquing has ekspanded the barrelnut more than 0.02"

Just out of ignorance or curiossity i once tested a relativ soft Carl Gustaf version of the m96, by installing a 460 Weatherby barrel on it. This barrel was chambered with a 460 reamer with a 458win frebore, so it delivered an "interesting" presure. (at least the casehead ekspanded about .015" when fiered). The funny thing was that after 5 rounds ther was no increase in headspace.
Her we are talking about 75.000psi++ in a case with more than 50% larger internal presurearea.

Manny years ago i actually did a lot of static test on a lot of recieverdesigns, and if Alsheimer hasn't mixed my data, then the 10 different m96 actions showed Yield from 10-12 metric tons of load, and rupture form 12-14 metric tons.
Military m98 gave readings Yield from 8-13metric ton and rupture from 9-16 ton.
Civil FN mauser Yield from 13-15 and´rupture from 14-18 ton
On wersions where the feedramp has ben opened up to handle longer or wider cases i found reductions op to 40%
That was on Stiga rebuild m96 in 30.06 and FN mausers rebuild to 375 HH.

But please dont belive anny of this, as it is not werified by VIKI or annywhere else on the net

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:


Just out of ignorance or curiossity i once tested a relativ soft Carl Gustaf version of the m96, by installing a 460 Weatherby barrel on it. This barrel was chambered with a 460 reamer with a 458win frebore, so it delivered an "interesting" presure. (at least the casehead ekspanded about .015" when fiered). The funny thing was that after 5 rounds ther was no increase in headspace.
Her we are talking about 75.000psi++ in a case with more than 50% larger internal presurearea.

OH MY !

A 460 in a small ring Mauser is quite impressive. I don't think even Hatcher tried that! Wonder how the numbers work for that?


A 460 cartridge at the base measures .582 inch in diameter.

A small ring Mauser measures .980 OD over the threads.

Single depth of 12 TPI 55 Whitworth is 0.0534 inch so the double depth of thread is .1068 inch.

So, OD minus the double depth, .980 - .1068 = .8732 minor diameter of the chamber.

Now we subtract the diameter of the cartridge case .8732 - .582 = .2912

Then we take .2912 ÷ 2 = a wall thickness of .1456 or, just over 1/8th inch. 9/64ths actually.

That's as thin as a number 2 couture barrel at the muzzle.

I ain't shooting it. The numbers indicate that the barrel should go downrange LOL ! ! ! !



ADD NOTE:

Just going on curiosity. The bolt thrust on a 7x57 Mauser is 7,907 pounds. The bolt thrust on a 460 Weatherby is 14,631 pounds. All most double.

The barrelthread on that is not that far away from what was used on the first Weatherby based on S & L actions, her they used 1.023" 14W threads.

Then also remember the support from the recieverring

Well now. There is a reason why action designs have pressure ratings and with the 96 we have 100 years of history to base them on. But people often do things that are not particularly too smart. Remington chambers the Ultramags in their 700s. That doesn't mean its right. Or smart. It just means that they are willing to take the risk. I prefer to leave the 700 action to the Standard Belted mags that it was designed for just as I prefer to leave the old 96 actions to the low pressure cartridges that they were made to handle. You can make a Volkswagen Beetle go 200 miles per hour if you're so inclined. It's not exactly economical, safe or even smart but you can do it. For a while at least.

Basically i agre with you. in most you say.
But where does those socalled presureratings come from.
Are they based on assumptions, and old faritales, told by old storytellers, or are they based on hard facts, as calculations, static test and deliberat blowuptest.

Well, look at it this way. The ammunition makers produce special ammo that is designed to be shot in low pressure actions like the 96. They even advertise the fact and some ammunition is indeed marked and advertised that it should not be used in certain firearms. The makers of reloading components do the same thing and offer loads for low pressure and high pressure actions.

These companies have teams of engineers and millions of dollars at their disposal for testing purposes. They recognize that these actions are low pressure because of exhaustive testing. They don't go to the bar and ask everyone what they think or look to the Accurate Reloader to see what we think. They don't care what we think because they have millions of dollars and teams of engineers to test everything. I don't have millions of dollars or teams of engineers so I, for one, am inclined to except their findings. Despite what the people in the taverns or the posters on the Accurate Reloader forum may feel.

Pretty funny, that Norma, the only Swedish ammo mfg. dont load specially for the m96.
But on the other hand, they probably dont know nothing about those rifles, as they never loaded manny millions of rounds used in the manny thousind of rifles of that type, both used for hunting and target.
Funny that Norma, the Swedish ammomfg. used those actions on their testbarrels up to at least 2005.
Probably they never read on the internet.

I honnestly dont think anny of the other ammo mfg, actually made anny tests. But for a "cover ass" policy they warn about annything they ever heard rumors about.

I actually doo have a bit of contact to a few ammo mfg. and none except Norma has ever done anny tests on Swedish M96. No matter how manny millions they have.

Please Refer to some direct results, and not just rumors and hearsay.

PS doesn't most mfgs write that their ammo is only to be used in modern firearms in god condition. If so that rules out a few rifles

quote:

rumors and hearsay

Yeah OK. In the future when I need information that is not rumors and hearsay I will come here and ask, instead of looking to the Firearms and ammunition manufacturers and the gunsmithing schools.

It does however sadden me to learn that Norma has been forced to use technology dating back to 1896 for the last 110 years and could not afford proper, modern testing equipment until 10 years ago. Perhaps if we took up a collection and sent it to them it might help?

Norma was not forced to use them. They used them because they knew what they were dooing, and had expiernced those recievers as both strong and verry reliable. The funny thing is that on manny of the testbarrels with m96 actions, ther were verry modern piesto presureequibments costing more than an ordinary familycar. so i really dont think they used the m96 out of powerty.
But more based on manny years of real expirience.
It might be of interest that there was over 700.000 of those rifles in use in Sweden.

And from rebuilding more than 14.000 of those, i might have a verry limmited knowledge about the real strength and weeknesses of those actions.
Actually i have performed a few strengthtest and blowuptests. And from those tests, i find the major problem the CRF issue, with the lack of caseheadsupport, as on most other Mauserdesigns. Under practical test with standard calibers there is verry limmited differens in what presure leads to total blowup.

The safety question with these actions is the
gas handling of blown case heads. This was a problem in the early days, not so much now.
In fact the Springfield and the Mod 70 Winchester share the same problem.
The Springfield was a mix of Krag and 93
Mauser (no 98 Mauser involved.
The Winchester breeching followed the Springfield, probably due to cost.

True;.
No doubt the 96 Swedes are strong; I still limit them to 45K psi cartridges. Even though in Sweden they build 460 Weatherbys on them.
Another factor, if it means anything to anyone, is that the 96s do not have a safety lug of any sort. The only 91/93 derivative that has anything but the two front lugs is the Chilean 95.
Winchester used the weak, cone breech on the 54/70 Rifles as it was thought to promote smooth feeding. Mauser proved that wrong, but most everything we changed from the Mauser design made it worse.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
True;.
No doubt the 96 Swedes are strong; I still limit them to 45K psi cartridges. Even though in Sweden they build 460 Weatherbys on them.
Another factor, if it means anything to anyone, is that the 96s do not have a safety lug of any sort. The only 91/93 derivative that has anything but the two front lugs is the Chilean 95.
Winchester used the weak, cone breech on the 54/70 Rifles as it was thought to promote smooth feeding. Mauser proved that wrong, but most everything we changed from the Mauser design made it worse.

Cone breech feeds much easier--

out of the last 10 rifle fails I have seen 9 were Mausers