Is it possible to make M93-96 Mauser actions safer by drilling extra gas vent holes in the receiver ring and bolt, installing a flange on the bolt sleeve/M70 sleeve replacement and notching the bolt handle into the receiver? It seems to me that is what Ruger did with the M77. It is a dead ringer for for a M96 Swede with the aforementioned modifications. Of course after paying for all of this you probably could have bought a new Ruger or any other factory model for that matter(unless you do the work yourself). But, this is just an academic question.

Hi Bobster,

I don't know if it does make it safer but drilling larger and an additional gas hole in the port side of the bolt will not hurt a M96 action. I have two commercial Husqvarnas built on M96 actions that have a vent hole twice as large as the Swedish Mauser vent hole on the port side behind the extractor retaining band and a second vent hole the same size as the Swede in front of the band even with the first one. So the HVA sporter rifles have two holes with one twice as large as the Swedish Mauser using the same action but neither hole is near as large as the 98 venting. Never be as safe as the 98 as it is missing the third lug even after improving the gas venting.

Hope that make s sense,

Tom

[ 11-11-2003, 03:56: Message edited by: TomH ]

These guns will never be as safe, since they were generally softer steel, with less metal in the action.

Now for my soapbox. I do not (never have and never will) believe the third lug does anything of real value for safety. I say this for a couple of reasons. First, I have a pretty extensive collection of technical gun stuff, and in no case I can remember where a mauser was blown did the bolt come out. Due to the nonbrittle design, lugs bent until something else let go, but the lugs never did. I think the most recent case I read about was some destructive testing done by Terry Wieland in Gray's Sporting Journal. Secondly, from a practical standpoint, the third lug is not bedded in. Mechanically, it can do nothing until the front lugs let go. Once they do, and the bolt gets a running start, I think the dynamics of the system would shear the back lug. While the third safety lug was added as a backup, I not sure it has ever been needed. Does anyone have any documented reference where this happened?

The third lug saves your eyes once headspace reaches dangerous levels.......it turns it into a three lug rifle at about .025 set back.

This was in the days of '93s and '95s that suddenly shed their lugs after many thousands of abuses.....it's said the Mexican army stored rifles and bolts seperate and never bothered to match them up once they were assigned to unit level...

The third lug is pretty much a redundancy with modern steels and heat treatments.

I'm sorry to disagree a bit here, but I think it is a mistake to put the '96 swede in the same class w/ the '93 & '95s.

Yes, they are all "small ring" mausers, but the metalurgy of the swede is vastly superior to the other two. Does that mean we should "hot-rod" it? No, but it is capable of safely handling significantly more cartridge than the 93-95 (45,000).

In fact, when Sweden switched to the 7.62 NATO round for the military, they didn't hesitate to rebarrel a host of '96 (or '38) actions to this caliber. Never did they have a single failure w/ these rifles. Of course, they weren't loading this w/ the hottest .308 load in the manual in hopes of bagging a moose. They were target loads; accuracy was the goal, which in most rifles (especially of earlier manufacture) occurred in "moderate" pressure range.

Now, I'm kind of a play it safe guy. I had a 1901 manufacture '96 in excellent condition that I sporterized for my wife (mis-matched numbers on stock, butt-plate, etc). I sent it off and had the action re-heat-treated. Yet, I wouldn't hesitate to rebarrel it to 6.5x.284 or 6.5x57, etc.

If you have any of the old "Rifle" magazines from the '60s & '70s you'll read a great many articles on how the swede has been marred more by the reputation of softness (from the '93-95) than any real problems of its own.

FWIW about 6-7 years ago Kimber bought up a bunch of Swedes and sporterized them. They offered the gun in .243 & .308 besides the 6.5x55.

Rob

[ 11-11-2003, 17:05: Message edited by: Recoil Rob ]

Yes and the samples of those kimbers I've seen were junk.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zach:
Yes and the samples of those kimbers I've seen were junk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What does that have to do with the topic or question? "

The poster's statement that Kimber offered rifles based on the 96 action in the high pressure cartridges mentioned implies that they are safe.

Perhaps I should have said, Ford sold the Pinto. Just because a compnay offers a product for sale does not necessarily mean that the product is safe or should be sold as-is.

What does your question have to do with the topic??? Did I hurt your feelings because you own one of these junk Kimbers? Sorry.

I've found it a good policy to NEVER hold up as an example of *good* a factory made or arsenal reconditioned gun.

Winchester made the Model 11. Remington made the Nylon 66. The Spanish arsenal rebarrelled LaCoruna '98s to 308. Everybody seems to have done some bad things at one time or another. That doesn't mean all are bad but it certainly DOES mean that all aren't good.

93s and 95s are limited by design, metallugy, and heat-treat. They CAN'T be made safe for high pressure ammo. Period.

Actually the one I have in 6.5 is a great gun for the $250 I paid. I topped it with a Weaver 3x10 and it's my bad weather / loaner / backup gun. Shoots into an inch with Rem. factory ammo. On the 6.5's they turned down the original barrels.

Never saw a rebarreled one.

Rob

"I do, however remember reading an endorsement by (I believe it was) Underwriter's Labratory who claimed to have thoroughly tested the actions to (as I recall) 100,000 PSI and found them entirely safe for the .308."

Remember, at this time in history most heat-treating was dependant on the eye of the worker.....and the lighting conditions at the time he was looking. Just because ONE action held up to some tough test does NOT mean the design, metalurgy and heat-treat is good across the whole production of that model. It isn't.

How much are *your* eyes worth??

I've *arranged* the failure of enough actions to know the difference between moden (post 98) and early Mausers is VERY large. The difference in safety is MUCH larger than the difference in prices.

Mr Belk , Spanish arsenal rework , La Coru�a M 43 to .308 and it's OK ( Called FR 8 ) , and Oviedos M 95 to .308 ( Called FR 7 ) , and this is NOT OK for high pressure rounds , but please don't confuse La Coru�a with Oviedo , different cities , different rifles

Daniel

jeez, I better get rid of all the old Mausers I have. They're just a bomb waiting to go off in my face, whew, that was close. - Dan

Daniel M---

I wouldn't trust a M-43 LaCaruna any further than I could throw the machine the made it.

I know they're a M-98 but the quality is way down the scale and heat-treat is a matter of some conjecture. I have a receiver (pieces) somewhere that was Rc-59 inside and out!

I just love the type that say, "I ain't never had no problems with my XXXXX yet so it got's ta be ok!"

Yet, they have little or no knowledge of what the real issues at hand are.

I guess ignorance truely is bliss, especially when it kills you.