10.75x68 mauser

If you read French, older Malfatti Manuals had load data; not the 6th edition as I just saw. Gheerbrant's Manuals do have the entry.
 
it's funny how this mauser has a poor reputation in africa for the big five. aside from the really big stuff you would think it would be good. i would also think, with handloaded 400 grain bullets it certainly should be very effective since it would be a 90 percent 400/450. i personally think it would be a cool cartridge historically, especially if one wanted a trio of mausers (7x57, 9.3x63 and the 10.75x68). Neat!
 
The 10.75x68 achieved a poor reputation mainly due to the poor penetrating bullets of the day and how light the grain weights were (I think a 347 gr projectile?). It would be my guess today that with better powders and modern heavy bullets, like the 400-grainers you're considering, it would essentially equal, or come close to, the .404 Jeffery which was designed to replicate the .450/400 in a bolt action repeater. Not sure I know of load data but I'll see what I can find in Boddington's book about it.
 
Loyalist84 said:
The 10.75x68 achieved a poor reputation mainly due to the poor penetrating bullets of the day and how light the grain weights were (I think a 347 gr projectile?). It would be my guess today that with better powders and modern heavy bullets, like the 400-grainers you're considering, it would essentially equal, or come close to, the .404 Jeffery which was designed to replicate the .450/400 in a bolt action repeater. Not sure I know of load data but I'll see what I can find in Boddington's book about it.
Click to expand...

If the rifle would take the pressure. That is a concern.
 
This cartridge unfortunately suffered in popularity due to the criticisms of it by John “Pondoro” Taylor in his writings. While there were problems with it in his day, particularly poor penetration, these problems were almost certainly due to poorly designed German soft point bullets. Taylor himself claimed that its sectional density was too low, but he had no problems with other cartridges with similar sectional densities so that explanation for his dislike of it isn’t particularly logical. With modern bullets and powders it is a very capable cartridge at relatively close ranges. I wouldn’t go out of my way to build one because brass is so scarce and there are what I believe to be better options available, but if I found a good one for the right price I’d definitely buy it.
 
Meroh said:
If the rifle would take the pressure. That is a concern.
Click to expand...

In a good bolt gun like a 98 Mauser you can safely get similar ballistics to the original.404 Jeffery loads. I think I have the loading data somewhere, I’ll see if I can find it.
 
Loyalist84 said:
The 10.75x68 achieved a poor reputation mainly due to the poor penetrating bullets of the day and how light the grain weights were (I think a 347 gr projectile?). It would be my guess today that with better powders and modern heavy bullets, like the 400-grainers you're considering, it would essentially equal, or come close to, the .404 Jeffery which was designed to replicate the .450/400 in a bolt action repeater. Not sure I know of load data but I'll see what I can find in Boddington's book about it.
Click to expand...

it was that bullet that was creating reptitive accidents and with elephant it was a one way ticket ...

i do not know if as of today the 400 gr will work this is a small cartridge ... woodleigh make a very good bullet in 347 grains but a 350 grains 375hh will fit the bill as well ... time changes.
 
If anyone ever wanders across an original Sporting Mauser in this calibre....I will make it worth your while with a nice finders fee
 
seems the varget become an interesting option again. the 401 grains i d like to see the coal there is a chance of not fitting in a regular the reason of the 347 grains limitation in the old days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom