9.3x57/62 rifling styles

BeaverMeat

BeaverMeat

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
331   0   1
Location
Nanaimo, B.C.
While inspecting my second Husqvarna 146 I notice that they have two different rifling styles. One is 4 groove, and the other is 6 groove. I haven't determined the twist yet and I will be slugging them shortly.

What are specifications of both rifling styles, and what are the benefits or disadvantages of each style?
 
I'm thinking one is cut rifling and the other is button or hammered. So a manufacturing changeover.
 
My 146 9.3x57, from I believe, 1939, has 6-groove rifling. Grooves are roughly twice the width of the lands. My 9.3x62 from 1952 has four groove, with very wide lands, almost the same width as the grooves.
 
Yes they started the hammering process after WWII.
They also sometimes used the older rifling machines to supply the high demand days.
 
9.3mauser said:
My 146 9.3x57, from I believe, 1939, has 6-groove rifling. Grooves are roughly twice the width of the lands. My 9.3x62 from 1952 has four groove, with very wide lands, almost the same width as the grooves.
Click to expand...

Both of my rifles are 3###x serials dated to 1940/41 acording to skydevaaben.com. So they're cut barrels. Oddly my earlier serial is 4-groove and my later is 6-groove.

Baribal said:
Yes they started the hammering process after WWII.
They also sometimes used the older rifling machines to supply the high demand days.
Click to expand...

Ok that makes sense I suppose. But I'm all about details. Which riffling is better suited to a certain application? Built weight, length, muzzle velocity... Etc, etc.
 
Honestly, I have tried most of the available bullets in 9.3 and I can't tell any difference betwen the two styles.
 
Baribal said:
Honestly, I have tried most of the available bullets in 9.3 and I can't tell any difference betwen the two styles.
Click to expand...

I have done some research and came to the same conclusion. Can't help but be detail oriented.

The reason I ask is to find which rifling is better suited in a shorter barrel. I have come to the confusion that the 4 grove style will be optimum by a slight degree.
 
BeaverMeat said:
I have done some research and came to the same conclusion. Can't help but be detail oriented.

The reason I ask is to find which rifling is better suited in a shorter barrel. I have come to the confusion that the 4 grove style will be optimum by a slight degree.
Click to expand...

The difference would likely be theoretical more than anything measureable.
 
jethunter said:
Theoretically.
Click to expand...

Yup.

"Theoretically speaking". The four groves will cause increased bullet deformation. This also creates larger "fins" in the jacket. On the upside muzzle velocity is higher (slightly... very, very slightly) because of increased friction. The six grooves in the other hand has less bullet deformation, but less friction that equates to slower velocities.

But I think this comes from an artillery stand-point more so. In a 9.3x62 chambered small arm I don't think it really matters much.

If I were to get technical (which I am). I would shorten the four grove barrel so I can squeeze as much velocity out as possible. Even if it's 5 fps. :)
 
BeaverMeat said:
Yup.

"Theoretically speaking". The four groves will cause increased bullet deformation. This also creates larger "fins" in the jacket. On the upside muzzle velocity is higher (slightly... very, very slightly) because of increased friction. The six grooves in the other hand has less bullet deformation, but less friction that equates to slower velocities.

But I think this comes from an artillery stand-point more so. In a 9.3x62 chambered small arm I don't think it really matters much.

If I were to get technical (which I am). I would shorten the four grove barrel so I can squeeze as much velocity out as possible. Even if it's 5 fps. :)
Click to expand...

Did you say you are going to shorten the barrel to get more velocity? That's a very interesting concept, technically speaking. :)
 
jethunter said:
Did you say you are going to shorten the barrel to get more velocity? That's a very interesting concept, technically speaking. :)
Click to expand...

Methodologically... To accomplish this feat of physics I will go hunting at sea level. lol

Seriously now, that's not my point. I'm just getting into extreme detail of which barrel; if I choose to do so, shorten.
 
BeaverMeat said:
Methodologically... To accomplish this feat of physics I will go hunting at sea level. lol

Seriously now, that's not my point. I'm just getting into extreme detail of which barrel; if I choose to do so, shorten.
Click to expand...

I think you just proved that sometimes extreme detail just confuses a situation that doesn't need it. Because although I don't claim to tbe highly technical, I'm fairly certain that the velocity will not increase if you shorten either one of those barrels.
 
jethunter said:
I think you just proved that sometimes extreme detail just confuses a situation that doesn't need it. Because although I don't claim to tbe highly technical, I'm fairly certain that the velocity will not increase if you shorten either one of those barrels.
Click to expand...

Were did I say shortening a barrel increases velocity, exactly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom