What is the difference? I am/was (depends on how this question gets answered) building a 9.3x62. I have a large ring action, but can pick up a small ring action for low $$$ which is already barreled to 9.3 with a Douglas barrel. Which action large/small is a better project gun for the 9.3?

Thanks for the input.

Brian

It depends...exactly what actions are you considering? There are high quality and low quality actions in each configuration. Some small ring actions would be perfectly suitable for a 9.3X62 but some would not. The same could be said about large ring actions. All in all, my preference would be for a large ring action just because I think the 9.3X62 needs a little heft. I'd save the high quality small ring actions for a lighter rifle.

Though many have done it, I wouldn't build a 9.3x62 on a small ring action. Unless of course, it was a small ring 98. Big distinction there.

quote:

Originally posted by ForrestB:
All in all, my preference would be for a large ring action just because I think the 9.3X62 needs a little heft. I'd save the high quality small ring actions for a lighter rifle.

Agreement is easy here...it's dead on!

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:
Though many have done it, I wouldn't build a 9.3x62 on a small ring action. Unless of course, it was a small ring 98. Big distinction there.

The small ring is already built, it is a buy and fly situation. Both of the actions in question are 98's. Thanks for the replies guys. I guess I should just stick with building the large ring action.

Brian

If you can pick up the small ring 98 that is already Douglas barreled in 9.3x62 I'd say go for it, nothing wrong with that and completely capable. No reason you can't build a lightweight or trim 98 9.3x62 what would be wrong with that?
There are a lot of small rings that I wouldn't do a 9.3 on but the 98 small ring is decidedly a candidate for the project.
Good luck and have fun with it.
I wish I could have found that small ring 98 when I was collecting parts for my 9.3, I went intead with a commercial 98 large ring and a 20" lightweight barrel to make my lightweight 9.3x62.

No, it depends on which M98 small ring it is. There are very good ones, and there are very bad ones. You have not given us enough information to help you make an informed decision.

Can you find out exactly what model small ring 98 it is?

Marc - it is a m98 polish mauser small ring action. Is that what you were looking for? I may not be asking the seller the correct questions. Thanks,
Brian

Edited in - the large ring action that I have is a Husqvarna (if that makes a difference).

Whoops, maybe I am mistaken.

Marc which 98 small rings were the bad ones ?

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
Whoops, maybe I am mistaken.

Marc which 98 small rings were the bad ones ?

The ones that are small ring on the outside, but, use large ring threads making the receiver ring very thin. I think they are Amberg Gew98 actions. I may be wrong.

Rojelio

THe KAR's, not to be confused with the K98 or 98K, are the small ring, large thread. They had problems with them in the field and I think production was stopped even before WWI ended. Rings would stretch and sometimes crack. The ones I have seen were made at Erfurt, but I don't know where else they were made.

The Polish action should be a good one.

well, can you pick up a small ring 98, or 96 in 9,3

the one sarco brought in (look under the barrel at the muzzle or on the trigger loop for SARCO or SARCOINC to be machine engraved) could be either 96 or 98, and could have started as a x62 or x57.

jeffe

The only one I know who has done any testing science-like on this, is our friend Jørgen of the danish company Schultz&Larsen.

Of this testing he concluded that surplus m98's can be by rule weaker than m96's, but that small ring/large thread is a real bad combination, much weaker than the rest.

I hope he will contribute to this thread, after seeing his testing, I have no problems using a 94 Mauser for big boomers. He made a .460 Wea'by on a M96 with no problems.

It is all a matter of the actions condition and metallurgy, and by so I must agree with Forrest B, there are good and bad ones of both kinds.