Mauser 96 action and modern higher pressure loads
- Thread starter pacobillie
- Start date
Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
Baribal - Do you know the story behind that pic? Might be very useful.
I respectfully disagree with many on this thread, that action should be limited to 46000 cpu pressure, it is not a '98. Folk's health is at risk here, don't take a chance with this, there are plenty of newer. stronger actions for the Mag. calibers.
Hmm. Wonder why the Europeans manage to use high pressure European metric (6x55, 6x57,7x57, 8x57,8x60,9x57,9.3x57,9.3x62) in their 96 actioned rifles? Must be that magic European pixie dust I guess. Use a little common sense and an action in good shape and there shouldn't be problems. Again, factory pressures or equivalent, gun in good nick, etc. - dan
This is not about "hotrodding the rifle" but rather about which set of load data, is the correct one for a Mauser 96 rifle in good condition, between the traditional load data, and the data for the modern rifle actions. Many have expressed the view that the Mauser 96 is a strong action and that the traditional load data is rather "meek" because of the existence of weaker actions such as the Krag-Jorgensen.
Although I do appreciate the wisdom of staying on the safe side when in doubt, I have also read many times that the Mauser 96 could be safely loaded beyond 46000 CUP. Hence, the question.
I've always understood that the Mauser 96 is not a "weak" or "weaker" action than the 98. The problem is gas venting in case of case failure.
This makes me wonder why the bolt and or receiver can't be drilled the same as the 98. Anyone know whether this has been successfully done?
This makes me wonder why the bolt and or receiver can't be drilled the same as the 98. Anyone know whether this has been successfully done?
rodagra,
It's the way it handles, or rather does not handle gas rushing past the cocking piece of the bolt in the event of a case failure, that is the big concern. The 98 has an extra-large flange to deflect gas, while the earlier models do not.
Ted
It's the way it handles, or rather does not handle gas rushing past the cocking piece of the bolt in the event of a case failure, that is the big concern. The 98 has an extra-large flange to deflect gas, while the earlier models do not.
Ted
Thanks Ted,
So I presume drilling the bolt body itself wouldn't do the job by itself. Not that it worries me personally because I think the factory loads are more than satisfactory: Pleasant to shoot and very accurate at around 2600 fps with a 140 grain bullet.
I got 4 boxes of Igman loads with my Guntech modified 96, and those are the loads I plan on duplicating with handloads. So far I've been close and a tad over with several powders, and they all shoot well.
Well, it would redirect the gasses somewhat, so in that way it would help. This was a mod that used to get done on sporterized P14/M17 rifles back in the day too. Again, it isn't that 96 actions are "weak", they are not. But they don't handle gasses as well as the 98 design in case of catastrophic failure. That's the difference some people just don't get. Does it make the 96 a more "dangerous" to use gun? Only when you blow it up. FWIW - dan
burnt_servo
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- right in the middle of b.c.
from what i understand , high pressure in a 96 action leads to lug setback .
lug setback equals a increase in headspace .
a increase in headspace can lead to a ruptured case head .
a ruptured case head can push gasses back at the shooter and the 96 action isn't very good a dealing with these gases in a safe manner .
with that said , alot of 96's are rechambered to 308 .
myself personally , i'll load up to max 6.5x55 pressure levels , but not more . this leaves a bit of a safety margin as there is a fair amount of difference between 6.5x55 pressure levels and 308 pressure levels .
the 6.5x55 also has a fairly heavy taper to the case . this causes more pressure to be put on the locking lugs and can cause cause head seperation .
the straighter case of the 308 coulld be one of the reasons many of these actions have been operated without incident at the higher 308 pressures .
lug setback equals a increase in headspace .
a increase in headspace can lead to a ruptured case head .
a ruptured case head can push gasses back at the shooter and the 96 action isn't very good a dealing with these gases in a safe manner .
with that said , alot of 96's are rechambered to 308 .
myself personally , i'll load up to max 6.5x55 pressure levels , but not more . this leaves a bit of a safety margin as there is a fair amount of difference between 6.5x55 pressure levels and 308 pressure levels .
the 6.5x55 also has a fairly heavy taper to the case . this causes more pressure to be put on the locking lugs and can cause cause head seperation .
the straighter case of the 308 coulld be one of the reasons many of these actions have been operated without incident at the higher 308 pressures .
"high pressure in a 96 action leads to lug setback .
lug setback equals a increase in headspace"
Does it in any other rifle too. - dan
lug setback equals a increase in headspace"
Does it in any other rifle too. - dan
....and increased headspace may lead to case head failure..
Northman,
This rifle was subject to SEE, using a "start-up" load of IMR 4831 with a "not deep enough" seated bullet. You can see a very similar failure on page 141 orf the Norma Manual. They can repeat the process almost at will (they (Norma) might be those best understanding SEE process; they also can explain it in words p. 149 of their Manual).
Excessive heaspace and / or pressure can cause a very similar effect.
Here is what a "catastrophic case head failure" looks like - the one wich blew the action.
I must say that I totally DISAGREE with the idea of the M/94/96/38 NOT being weaker than the M/98; The more material = more strenght. It's plain physics.
Also, as I pointed out many times in the past; we can't compare two actions if the steel used is not the same; most modern actions are made of Chrome-Molybdenum steel while the old time Mausers were made of soft, low carbon steel with hardened (case hardening - usually less than 0.008" in depth) outside surfaces, hence, lug set back is part of the safety factor Mauser used (ductility) in his design.
Mauser designed his actions over soft core material so they tear in big chunks (or create lug set-back, increasing headspace) instead of "exploding" in thousand of shrapnels like glass (this happened many times un gun history, depending on material / heat treatment used).
The steel used today have much higher tensile strenght / yield point than the 1020/1030 low carbon familly of steel used for the Mausers; for the same amount of steel, they have more "built-in" strenght, wich is by itself the safety factor.
While an action may resist without signs for a time, there is no way to know if we're not playing iin the safety factor zone. You sure can run a motor at 5000 RPM for some time, but we all know it wont last as long as when it's run at, say, 2300 RPM..
We have to rely on those who designed and tested these actions. That's why I wouldn't use an action with higher pressures than the calibers originally chambered by THE MANUFACTURER, - not a packager or a refurbisher (say Stiga, Vapen-Depoten) - Add to this that Sweden is NOT part of the CIP nor SAAMI, so there's no way to know how and "if" these "repackages" were correctly tested. There are many ways they may (and, acutally have) use to lower the pressure of a round (leade, large bores etc...)...
The MAXIMUM AVERAGE PRESSURE used by HVA with the M/38 (brand new "commercial" action, not ex-military) was 56 500 PSI (390 MPa - 8X57 and 9.3X62).
Northman,
This rifle was subject to SEE, using a "start-up" load of IMR 4831 with a "not deep enough" seated bullet. You can see a very similar failure on page 141 orf the Norma Manual. They can repeat the process almost at will (they (Norma) might be those best understanding SEE process; they also can explain it in words p. 149 of their Manual).
Excessive heaspace and / or pressure can cause a very similar effect.
Here is what a "catastrophic case head failure" looks like - the one wich blew the action.
I must say that I totally DISAGREE with the idea of the M/94/96/38 NOT being weaker than the M/98; The more material = more strenght. It's plain physics.
Also, as I pointed out many times in the past; we can't compare two actions if the steel used is not the same; most modern actions are made of Chrome-Molybdenum steel while the old time Mausers were made of soft, low carbon steel with hardened (case hardening - usually less than 0.008" in depth) outside surfaces, hence, lug set back is part of the safety factor Mauser used (ductility) in his design.
Mauser designed his actions over soft core material so they tear in big chunks (or create lug set-back, increasing headspace) instead of "exploding" in thousand of shrapnels like glass (this happened many times un gun history, depending on material / heat treatment used).
The steel used today have much higher tensile strenght / yield point than the 1020/1030 low carbon familly of steel used for the Mausers; for the same amount of steel, they have more "built-in" strenght, wich is by itself the safety factor.
While an action may resist without signs for a time, there is no way to know if we're not playing iin the safety factor zone. You sure can run a motor at 5000 RPM for some time, but we all know it wont last as long as when it's run at, say, 2300 RPM..
We have to rely on those who designed and tested these actions. That's why I wouldn't use an action with higher pressures than the calibers originally chambered by THE MANUFACTURER, - not a packager or a refurbisher (say Stiga, Vapen-Depoten) - Add to this that Sweden is NOT part of the CIP nor SAAMI, so there's no way to know how and "if" these "repackages" were correctly tested. There are many ways they may (and, acutally have) use to lower the pressure of a round (leade, large bores etc...)...
The MAXIMUM AVERAGE PRESSURE used by HVA with the M/38 (brand new "commercial" action, not ex-military) was 56 500 PSI (390 MPa - 8X57 and 9.3X62).
Excellent explanation, Baribal.
I agree that the 98 Mauser has to be stronger, as well as the most important benefit, the gas handling design. As you know, I have loaded a lot for both the 9.3X62 and the '57 over the past 30 some years. I always kept my old 9.3X62 with its little Zeiss Zielklein at factory levels, while feeling quite comfortable loading the pair of Turkish Mauser 9.3X57s that Bevan King built for me to '62 factory levels.
Ted
I agree that the 98 Mauser has to be stronger, as well as the most important benefit, the gas handling design. As you know, I have loaded a lot for both the 9.3X62 and the '57 over the past 30 some years. I always kept my old 9.3X62 with its little Zeiss Zielklein at factory levels, while feeling quite comfortable loading the pair of Turkish Mauser 9.3X57s that Bevan King built for me to '62 factory levels.
Ted
"I must say that I totally DISAGREE with the idea of the M/94/96/38 NOT being weaker than the M/98; The more material = more strenght. It's plain physics".
Yet not all 98's are large ring. Do they blow up easily as well? No? How about the commercial 96 based rifles? Good, bad, maybe? - dan
Yet not all 98's are large ring. Do they blow up easily as well? No? How about the commercial 96 based rifles? Good, bad, maybe? - dan
Hi Dan,
You raise a very interesting point. Years ago, I had a small ring 98, that had a large ring thread. It was not a Model 33-40, but I can't remember what model it was. What I do remember is that there was not a lot of metal thickness in the receiver ring!
Rock Chucker on here bought it from me to build a lightweight 7X57 or 280 Rem, and may still have it.
Ted
You raise a very interesting point. Years ago, I had a small ring 98, that had a large ring thread. It was not a Model 33-40, but I can't remember what model it was. What I do remember is that there was not a lot of metal thickness in the receiver ring!
Rock Chucker on here bought it from me to build a lightweight 7X57 or 280 Rem, and may still have it.
Ted
Last edited:
That's what I'm talking about. A blanket "98's are much stronger then 96's and can be loaded to...." doesn't work. Which 96 or 98 is it? When was it made and where? War time conditions or peacetime conditions? LR/SR, commercial/military, etc, etc, etc.
Is it wise to rechamber a made in 1894 Swedish Mauser to 7mm RUM and then load 10% over max? Nope it's not. Is it reasonable to take a Model 96 made in the 30's and rechamber it to 260 and then use factory ammo or equivalent pressure handloads in it? Yes, I believe it is. Thousands have been used that way, and only a few have had catastrophic failures (just like the 98, or Model 70 or Rem 700). Most of which could most likely be explained by "adventures in handloading". There are just so many variables, that you really need to look at these questions in light of the individual firearm and components, and the experience of the reloader. - dan
Is it wise to rechamber a made in 1894 Swedish Mauser to 7mm RUM and then load 10% over max? Nope it's not. Is it reasonable to take a Model 96 made in the 30's and rechamber it to 260 and then use factory ammo or equivalent pressure handloads in it? Yes, I believe it is. Thousands have been used that way, and only a few have had catastrophic failures (just like the 98, or Model 70 or Rem 700). Most of which could most likely be explained by "adventures in handloading". There are just so many variables, that you really need to look at these questions in light of the individual firearm and components, and the experience of the reloader. - dan
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
There are more than a few factory '96 actioned Huskys on Tradeex for sale.
Cat
Cat
Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
Thanks Baribal.
BTW, I had on near failure with another rifle of mine (modern Remington in 375 RUM - locked up tight, but did NOT have an excessive powder charge) using this same powder. It can be a ##### to ignite properly in large quantities, and I never use it in large cases anymore.
