9.3X62 chambering and reboring?

Josquin,

I think you misinterpreted what was explained on Gunboard.com.
What was discussed there was the used of "very" hot loads for the X62 in a M96 action. Whatever some may say, the M96 was never intended or designed to handle rounds with a MAP over 55 000 PSI (the 6.5X55 military MAP spec is 47 000 PSI) and some of these are chambered with caliber reaching the 62 000 PSI (today). What many people don't understand is that lots of commercial calibers/loads (ex; 30-06 Sprg, .308 Win etc) are different than the original military (and even commercial) loads. Today it is well accepted that the M96 and it's variants should be treated as per all the other pre-98 actions.
If you stay within the specified (CIP, 57 000 PSI) MAP for the X62, there is not problem using the 9.3X62 in a M96, but if you'd like to reach sky limits with hot loads, you better invest your money in something more modern designed for cartridges reaching 63 000 PSI MAP (like the Cz, the Remchester and most of the "modern" designs (and alloys). If you stay within the same specs as factory loads for the X62, there will be no problem using it.
If you want to read more about the strenght of the M96, read the following on page #4, from a reknown (a summity) Mauser researcher/collector, Mr Larry Ellis; http://www.frombearcreek.com/nonfiction/m_monthly/vol_2/ED9VOL2.pdf

Below are two of my own guns; one in X62, model 649 (M96) and the other being a model 46 (not the AN but it's the same action). You can clearly see the difference between the M96 (w/ thumb notch) and the M94/96/38 "commercial", with a solid wall (last of the M96/38 production - after 1944, before 1948), for a short period of time, then replaced by the FN M98 "C-Type" (between 1947 to 1951 - also called "military type M98") itself replaced by the M 98 "H-Type" (also called "commercial M98", from 1951 to about 1953 but some were produced even later). All these actions were bearing the 640 series name, and share the same stock design (long forend, flat bottom)

comparatifmod46vsmod6491a.jpg


comparatifmod46vsmod6492a_1.jpg


I hope this clarifies the situation of the M94/96/38....
 
Last edited:
Baribal,

Thanks for this further clarification. I think I was correct, then, when I said that "I imagine that with the original factory loads they [ie an M96 action] would be just fine but maybe a bit iffy with our modern propensity for hot handloads."

If I had had my x57 rechambered, I would have avoided loading it to the gills. Presumably it would have been OK with loads equiv. to the Norma factory load of a 286gn @ 2360. One might be able to push a 250gn to about 2500 or just under. In any case, should I ever have a Cape Buff in my sights, I will make sure I have a M98-actioned x62 (or a .375.)

:) Stuart
 
buckbrush said:
stainless barrel? I believe it was a barrel of different steel with higher strength steel.
Click to expand...

The book Husqvarna Jaktvapen 1870-1977 says the 46AN "pipmaterialet var Svenst Nickelstal Antioxid" which translates to english as: barrel material was Swedish stainless steel.
 
Last edited:
Why not? said:
Wait a minute, the rifle I had didn't have a stainless barrel.

Now I am really confused!

Ted
Click to expand...

The only 46AN i ever laid eyes on had a blue coloured barrel. The book says it was stainless but i didn't exactly do a chemical analysis of the steel. Maybe a different process to colour the barrel or what, i don't know. Some of the high grade side by side Husqvarna shotguns also used stainless steel barrels which were blue in colour.

Yours could have been a model 649, as Baribel has pointed out. The 649 did NOT use stainless barrels.
 
Last edited:
Why not? said:
Mine must have been the 46AN. There was no thumb cutout on the reciver rail. Would that be it?

Now I am really kicking myself for selling it!

Ted
Click to expand...

It could have been a 46AN or a model 649. You should be able to tell which it was by the serial number. Serial number range for the 46AN was 1001-1228. Serial number range for the 649 was 90,001-92,859; and 92,901-97,736.
 
Last edited:
The 46 AN barrel was not technically Stainless Steel, but a SpecialStähl or NickelStähl, wich is a Molybden/Nickel steel alloy (compared to carbon steel standard). These were the first high alloy Swedish steel, but were not yet Stainless Steel, and that's why they were blued (Nickel Steel was quite a technical advance in the pre-WWII era). They were clearly identified "Antioxyd" stamped on the barrel, the receiver being the standard carbon steel. Trade Ex got at least two of these over the years.

Jethunter,
The reality is a little bit less than that. Over the years, most of the factory loads I've measured in many rifles showed lower velocities than the annoounced one, means, about 2280/2325fps for a 285 grainer and about 2400/2450fps for a 250 grainer. That's always with a 600mm barrel, quite tight (0.366in). The 270 grains bullets usually give around 2350/2415 fps.
'Not many critters that can resist to that, though.

What can come to mind is the cost of rechambering the rifle vs a new rifle (especially if you have to buy the rifle). Also, does it worth proceeding such work on a collector item? One can easily find say a Tikka chambered for the 9.3X62 for less than 800.00 $. If not in a hurry, and like me, a fan of controlled feed systems, the new Sako M85 will come to you in about one year delay. A Cz in X62 is usually readily availlable here, to....
 
Last edited:
Baribal said:
The 46 AN barrel was not technically Stainless Steel, but a SpecialStähl or NickelStähl, wich is a Molybden/Nickel steel alloy (compared to carbon steel standard). These were the first high alloy Swedish steel, but were not yet Stainless Steel, and that's why they were blued (Nickel Steel was quite a technical advance in the pre-WWII era). They were clearly identified "Antioxyd" stamped on the barrel, the receiver being the standard carbon steel. Trade Ex got at least two of these over the years.

Jethunter,
The reality is a little bit less than that. Over the years, most of the factory loads I've measured in many rifles showed lower velocities than the annoounced one, means, about 2280/2325fps for a 285 grainer and about 2400/2450fps for a 250 grainer. That's always with a 600mm barrel, quite tight (0.366in). The 270 grains bullets usually give around 2350/2415 fps.
'Not many critters that can resist to that, though.

What can come to mind is the cost of rechambering the rifle vs a new rifle (especially if you have to buy the rifle). Also, does it worth proceeding such work on a collector item? One can easily find say a Tikka chambered for the 9.3X62 for less than 800.00 $. If not in a hurry, and like me, a fan of controlled feed systems, the new Sako M85 will come to you in about one year delay. A Cz in X62 is usually readily availlable here, to....
Click to expand...

Baribal,
I didn't suggest altering a Husky 9.3x57 to x62, in fact I am mildly suggesting just the opposite. I like both my big bore Husqvarnas just the way God intended them - 9.3x57.

My reason for involvement was because it had been suggested that the "model 46 was factory chambered for 9.3x62" in one of the posts. I felt this statement is not entirely correct and certainly not the best way to obtain a 9.3x62 rifle, so i wanted to set the record straight regarding the model 46 and 9.3x62. But i really don't lose any sleep over it. I'll see you back at GB.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, Jethunter, you were not concerned about the second part of the post...
I should have write Josquin.

But yes, the 46AN was (only) chambered in X62 and the two I've been able to carafully look at had not set back nor any perceptible damages (except what Bubba worked on it!).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom