9.3x62 Fans ?

MauserMike said:
Mauser 98? I wouldn't want to overload one of the many M96's chambered in this size.
Click to expand...

Not even just any Mauser 98. From what I was told some of the early prewar 98's did not get as good a heat treat as the later ones. Some can be brittle or even too soft. I am thinking the Santa Barbara actions, like Parker Hale etc. The comercial stuff or even the Later HVA actions too. If anyone more versed in this can speak up please do. Getting a bit off topic here though.

Mike is right though, you don't want to use this theory in the 96 'sporters'
in 9,3x57 or 62. Still suprises me they were made in 270 Win and 308s. I have heard so much back and forth on the 96 and what it can take for sure it makes me all the more wary.
 
Wasnt' it PO Ackley that tested 96's and declared them as some of the toughest in some of his "blowup tests" ?

Personally I do believe .308 winchester is a little stiff for a 96 action . Im not too worried about lower pressure cartridges like 9.3x62 , 57 (but still would not hot rod them) . Ive also owned 96's in 6.5x55 and 30-06 .

Ill quote something I found to be quite interesting, interpret as you like..

" In the February 2001 issue of RifleShooter magazine, gunwriter Terry Wieland reported about a load to destruction test he conducted with a Swedish M-96 Mauser. Starting at 37-grains IMR-3031 he increased the loads one grain at a time. The cases started exhibiting the clear signs of excessive pressure from 41-grains upwards, and at 47-grains the action finally blew. One would however have to blow quite a number of M-96 actions up under controlled conditions before any valid conclusions can be made.

Actual pressure generated naturally also depends on numerous factors such as actual case capacity, chamber dimensions, bullet seating and bullet style, bore condition, primers, propellant lot characteristics, atmospheric conditions and a number of other factors, but one can take a calculated guess that 41-grains generated around 68,000 psi and 47-grains somewhere in the region of about a 100,000 psi. "
 
Last edited:
Nope. The Jap arisaka's are the ones that couldn't be wrecked with the type 38/6.5 #1 and the type99 #2 in 7.7mm.............Harold
 
I know the 96 was not the strongest, I just know PO looked upon it favorably and not necessarily as a weak action. Noted that the Gas handling is not as good as a 98 but its not necessarily that bad either. I wont even get in the 3rd recoil lug question since most modern actions dont' even have it.
 
Last edited:
From the Norma site:

7x57 w/156gr max load 2651
280 Rem w/ " " 2815

9,3x57 w/ 232gr max load 2379
9,3x62 w/ " " 2690

I suspect the 9,3x57 is held back a bit to keep the pressure down for the M96. Had they all been 98's I would bet the numbers would be more in line with my theory. Doing a quick search for saami pressure values of the two I could only find the x57 in a M96 action being 43,500PSI. But in a M98 there was mention of pressures up to 51,000psi or 46,000cup. Of course gathering data this way does not make it oaky to go all willy nilly and blow your head off but it again would reflect in a perfect world loaded to capacity that little cartridge could do alot of buisness, approximately.........maybe even within 150fps of the grand old x62.
 
Actually, Noel, the low 9.3X57 pressure thing is more a small shoulder affair than the low pressure actions it may have been loaded in. The cartridge was never standardized, so the chambers varies a lot from one rifle to the other, a bit like wildcats.

The pressure used by Norma is quite conservative, though. Same thing happened to the 9X57, wich under CIP is kept at 2800 bar (40610 PSI).
Remington, when they wanted to introduce their .350 RM, decided after a lot of trials, to go with a belted brass, to avoid headspce issues.

What we, reloaders and shooters, don't realize is that the published MAP is never the working pressure, most of the ammo makers have settled for 85% of the MAP as a "standard" load.
This can be seen in the revised P.O. Ackley Vol. II, where he published Norma"s own testings. Their loads are still very similar today.

The CIP MAP for the 8X57IS is 3900 bar, or more or less 57 000 PSI. This have nothing to do with the anemic loads of the Remchester SAAMI dummy rounds. The MAX WORKING PRESSURE for MILITARY loads was a tad under 47 000 PSI.
Under CIP the 6.5X55 SE is loaded to 3800 bar, wich is 55 000 PSI. Now, if you take 85% of the 55 000 PSI, you reach the military (working pressure) of 46 750 PSI (not CUP). Same for the .308 Win; 85% of 60 000 PSI is 51 000 PSI, wich is loaded to 50 000 PSI (working pressure) under NATO and US ARMY (for reference, see Small Calibers, US Army tm43-0001-27 wich I can provide to you). But in this case, like for the "modern" '06, some american ammunitions are loaded to a bit more than that.
Now, the 9.3X62 CIP MAP is 3900 bar, too (same as 8X57IS).

Also, there is a material thing regarding the Mausers. They are known to be made of an equivalent low carbon steel as our SAE 1025, for the M/94, while the M/98 are known to be made of something closer to the SAE 1035.
They all have a relatively soft core, normally around HRC 32 or close. The outside is case hardened, in the early days by cementation for erosion resistance.

For more infos, I suggest reading the following books;
P.O. Ackley, Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders, Vol. II
Jerry Kuhnhausen, "The Mauser Bolt Action - M/91 through M98 - A Shop Manual
Frank DeHaas - Bolt Action Rifles
Mauser Monthly - Edition 2 Volume 2 p. 7 (by Kirye Ellis) March 1997
Mauser Monthly - Edition 3 Volume 2 bottom of page 5 (by Kirye Ellis) April 1997
Mauser Monthly - Edition 8 Volume 2, bottom of page 1, September 1997 - This article is a retranscription of an answer from Rifle Magazine's Editor, on wich, I too, disagree with.
Then, Mauser Monthly, - Edition 9 Volume 2 - p. 4 - October 1997 - the arguments against the previous post from Rifle Magazine assumptions by Larry Ellis.
You can find the Mauser Monthly (Mauser collector's communauty before Internet became so big) at; h ttp://frombearcreek.com/ click on the left side "non-fiction" than roll down to "Mauser Monthly".

And for CIP's TDCC (complete specs) go to h ttp://www.cip-bp.org/index.php?id=accueil then click on TDCC. These are the "now free" tables for the CIP specs. P/M me if you can't access it.
 
Last edited:
Here is a tidbit and I quote " The 9.3x62mm was developed around 1905 by Berlin gunmaker Otto Bock, who designed it to fit into the Model 1898 Mauser bolt-action rifle. African hunters and settlers often chose military rifles for their reliability and low cost, but governments fearful of colonial rebellions often banned them and their ammunition. The 9.3x62mm was never a military cartridge and never had this problem. Mausers in 9.3x62mm were inexpensive and reliable, so their popularity in Africa grew quickly. "
 
Get back to those days when hunting was nothing but a "gentleman affair".
Survival hunting was, most of the time, outlawed. Still, in Europe, you can see hunters with a tie and clean boots, showing how "upper middle class" this activity was / is still hence the proliferation of higher grade firearms in the Old Continent.
Since the settlers were going deeper and deeper into the bush, the need for protection and hunting gears, better than those aneamic black powder guns was needed.
Otto Bock was a gunsmith/gunmaker who got gentlemen farmers as clients, and they wanted cheap stuff (well, in 1905 a M/98 was not so "cheap") to provide to their employees. Remember that then, the "real thing" in Africa was a big bored double rifle (well, it still is).
After France introduced the first smokeless cartridge, the Germans followed quite rapidly and adapted their 8X57I. This new type of propellant produced pressures wich were easier to mate than black powder.
The period between 1898 and 1905 saw a lot of what we call today wildcats, because Genrmany was seeking for a replacement for the old 8X57I and a lot of gunsmiths got involved into trials.
While the 9.3X62 was not a military trial, it came out of the same enthusiasm for new cartridges.
There was a great amount of 9 and 9.3mm calibers born in those days, in Switzerland, Austria Scandinavia and Germany (mostly for wild boar hunting).

You can think of the 9.3X62 as being a 9.3X30-06/Ackley Improved.
Ackley really liked the '06 case because the neck was so long, compared to European cases, he felt this extra length should be use to get more capacity, because, in fact what you really need is a neck having a length of one time the diameter of the bullet. As a skilled gunsmith of Euro tradition, Otto Bock already thought about that.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for stepping in with all that info Baribal.
That is the kind of info I try to pass along but your fingertips are much better at typing than mine are.


Here is a tidbit and I quote " The 9.3x62mm was developed around 1905 by Berlin gunmaker Otto Bock, who designed it to fit into the Model 1898 Mauser bolt-action rifle. African hunters and settlers often chose military rifles for their reliability and low cost, but governments fearful of colonial rebellions often banned them and their ammunition. The 9.3x62mm was never a military cartridge and never had this problem. Mausers in 9.3x62mm were inexpensive and reliable, so their popularity in Africa grew quickly. "
Click to expand...

This is the biggest reason it was used so much more than the 375H&H.
The rifles were affordable because they did not need to be magnum length of heavily modified to wedge that long case in and the ammunition could be had by the local farmer, not just the rich Bloke on safari.
 
Last edited:
And yet, according to Finn Aagaard(Handloader #199), the .375 H&H was partially responsible for the demise of the 9.3X62 as a common hunting cartridge in parts of Africa. Fortunately, it remained popular in Europe.

When the Kenya Game Department, in its wisdom, declared in 1958 that henceforth the .375 H&H would be the minimum cartridge permitted for use on dangerous game, it stipulated that experienced hunters who were wont to use the 9.3x62 might continue to do so. Some of them stayed with their 9.3s for awhile, but the gun stores began importing affordable Winchester Model 70 rifles chambered to .375 H&H, and that cartridge had within a few years almost totally supplanted the 9.3x62mm among resident hunters.
Click to expand...
 
Mauser98 said:
And yet, according to Finn Aagaard(Handloader #199), the .375 H&H was partially responsible for the demise of the 9.3X62 as a common hunting cartridge in parts of Africa. Fortunately, it remained popular in Europe.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, interesting how that was in 1958 though. I wonder if that was partly due to the fact Winchester and possibly Remington were building the 375's that a blue collar could afford?
Just a thought.....

Finn Aagaard was my favorite writer. R.I.P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom