Marstar Swedish 8mm surplus ammo

Anyone try out the tracers? I have a few. I hear they don't light up. The one I pulled weighed 172.5 grains and was undersided at .319
Doesn't sound like it's even worth reloading, more of a collector's item.
45 grains of the swedish powder should do?
 
I loaded up 10 tracers but have not had the chance to try them out
When I pulled the tracer rounds I noticed that the powder was sticking to the inside of the cases and were somewhat "clumpy" as opposed to the normal rounds
Not sure why? the dates on the tracers was 1940 and the date on the belted ammo was 41
there was only like two tracers out of the ten that didn't have the sticking clumping powder
 
How much powder did you put behind them?
Due to the undersized bullets you will notice the crimp looks a bit rough, and probably let some moisture in. I noticed the same thing with the ones I pulled that had cracked necks. I pulled those first as they just came out by fingers, maybe 50 of so out of the 1250 I bought.
 
Andy said:
That's a Standard Action Mauser in 8X57 - the most common rifle that's been rechambered to 8X63. Needs to feed ammo at 3.340", so it might require some minor feed ramp work, but that's likely it.
Click to expand...

You folks are more up on this cartridge than I am - I ran across this article last night and thought you may be interested in it - its from this site:

https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/german-98k-rifle-in-israeli-service/

Swedish examples

In 1939, just before the start of WWII, Sweden purchased 5,000 98k rifles from Germany. They were designated m/39 and were issued to heavy machine gun teams as a backup weapon. For whatever reason, the Swedish army did not like the 7.92x57mm Mauser cartridge and several months after the 98k buy, they were rechambered to the 8.2x63mm Patron m/32 cartridge. This round was similar length but with the casing bottlenecked up to a much bigger (12.2mm) diameter, resulting in an extremely powerful cartridge with very high muzzle velocity on the bullet.

The rechambered rifles were designated Gevår m/40. Sweden intended that they might give infantrymen a chance against tankettes, which had been in vogue in the 1930s and were (erroneously) predicted to play a major role in future wars.

gevarm40orig.jpg


(The hated Gevår m/40 in it’s original form, with muzzle brake.)

The m/40 was not successful. The recoil was massive; beyond being painful it was actually causing collarbone and shoulder injuries. A muzzle brake was installed to rein in the kick but it was still stout; similar to a .300 Magnum. The muzzle brake (which often cracked) added a new problem in that the report of each shot was partially concentrated back towards the soldier, causing hearing injuries. It also left a telltale “puff” looking back from downrange. The m/40’s front sight was a clever graduated blade operated by a thumbwheel, but unfortunately it tended to freeze up in the arctic. Because of the new cartridge’s size, only four could safely be loaded. However there was no mechanical stop and the soldier had to remember not to put five in the stripper.

After WWII, Sweden wanted to get rid of the hated m/40 and found a willing customer in Israel, which bought a few thousand after the 1948 War of Independence. In the early 1950s, these were mostly allocated for reserve units, or kibbutz self-defense. The m/40s were among the first candidates for rechambering in the late 1950s. Besides the caliber change, the front sight was changed to a normal 98k style, the muzzle brake eliminated, and the bayonet boss changed to accept the German design or it’s Israeli facsimile. After the rechambering, the ex-Swedish rifles were pretty much the same as a regular 98k and were not specially designated by the Israelis.
 
Use data for IMR-4064. 48.0 grs is still a mild load. Another approach is 2700 fps or a full case, whichever comes first.
 
Last edited:
There's a decent amount of fact interspersed with conjecture (a nice way to say "nonsense") in that article. My main objection has to do with the supposed recoil and that the rifle was hated by the troops. A book like "Crown Jewels" would cite sources, or base what is written on an examination of a rifle.

This illustrates how myths become fact for some people:

- the rifle has a brake, therefore recoil is horrific;
- therefore serious injuries resulted;
- therefore troops hated it; and
- therefore Sweden sold them off.

The recoil force is easily calculated and is similar to a 30-06 with heavy bullets. Having shot many unbraked rounds, that's my assessment as well.



Chas said:
You folks are more up on this cartridge than I am - I ran across this article last night and thought you may be interested in it - its from this site:

https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/german-98k-rifle-in-israeli-service/

Swedish examples

In 1939, just before the start of WWII, Sweden purchased 5,000 98k rifles from Germany. They were designated m/39 and were issued to heavy machine gun teams as a backup weapon. For whatever reason, the Swedish army did not like the 7.92x57mm Mauser cartridge and several months after the 98k buy, they were rechambered to the 8.2x63mm Patron m/32 cartridge. This round was similar length but with the casing bottlenecked up to a much bigger (12.2mm) diameter, resulting in an extremely powerful cartridge with very high muzzle velocity on the bullet.

The rechambered rifles were designated Gevår m/40. Sweden intended that they might give infantrymen a chance against tankettes, which had been in vogue in the 1930s and were (erroneously) predicted to play a major role in future wars.

gevarm40orig.jpg


(The hated Gevår m/40 in it’s original form, with muzzle brake.)

The m/40 was not successful. The recoil was massive; beyond being painful it was actually causing collarbone and shoulder injuries. A muzzle brake was installed to rein in the kick but it was still stout; similar to a .300 Magnum. The muzzle brake (which often cracked) added a new problem in that the report of each shot was partially concentrated back towards the soldier, causing hearing injuries. It also left a telltale “puff” looking back from downrange. The m/40’s front sight was a clever graduated blade operated by a thumbwheel, but unfortunately it tended to freeze up in the arctic. Because of the new cartridge’s size, only four could safely be loaded. However there was no mechanical stop and the soldier had to remember not to put five in the stripper.

After WWII, Sweden wanted to get rid of the hated m/40 and found a willing customer in Israel, which bought a few thousand after the 1948 War of Independence. In the early 1950s, these were mostly allocated for reserve units, or kibbutz self-defense. The m/40s were among the first candidates for rechambering in the late 1950s. Besides the caliber change, the front sight was changed to a normal 98k style, the muzzle brake eliminated, and the bayonet boss changed to accept the German design or it’s Israeli facsimile. After the rechambering, the ex-Swedish rifles were pretty much the same as a regular 98k and were not specially designated by the Israelis.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
On the K98 I rechambered to accept the 8mmSwede, the recoil was substantial with factory loaded ammo.

I'm recoil shy so maybe it was just me but I found the 30-06 loaded with 220 grain bullets to similar velocities to be just as unpleasant to shoot.

The Standard K98, as built by Germany has a magazine box that is to short to accept the rounds without some modification. I used a Belgian action that was purpose built for the 30-06. The action wasn't longer, just an extended mag well, modified ramp and a cut out at the back of the receiver ring, very similar to the Norwegian modifications.

My first though was to build a clone of the Swede conversion so I could shoot the thousands of rounds I had on hand. In the end, recoil overcame that desire and I ended up selling the barrel/reamer/remaining rounds.

By the way, ballistics were almost identical to the 8mm Gibbs.

TURF THE LIBERALS IN 2019

Liberals really like POOR people, they're making more of them every day

If you can't vote CPC, stay at home in protest
 
While there's some interesting info in that article, I find the mistakes, and hearsay/opinions detract from it.

I loaded 5 of those tracers with 43 grains of powder.
Bullets are super long, even when loaded at max COL.
Tried 45 in one, and I could hear the powder crunch..... Maybe I should have tapped the case on the bench a few times before seating bullet. No matter, for these plinkers it should be fine.
I wonder if they are reported as time x, because they are the kind that don't light up till after 100 meters or something like that.
 
How could the recoil be so bad, basically an extra 20 grains of bullet over the regular sS load.

I'd bet the Steyr M95 carbine has more recoil and it aint bad.
 
MiG25 said:
How could the recoil be so bad, basically an extra 20 grains of bullet over the regular sS load.

I'd bet the Steyr M95 carbine has more recoil and it aint bad.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine the extra 10ish grains of powder on top of the extra bullet weight might have something to do with it... On that note though, anybody have any load data for the m95 using this powder?
 
MiG25 said:
How could the recoil be so bad, basically an extra 20 grains of bullet over the regular sS load.

I'd bet the Steyr M95 carbine has more recoil and it aint bad.
Click to expand...

Not a reloader, are you? You will feel increased recoil by increasing the bullet weight over an identical charge.
And Steyr M95 isn't bad, though I've only shot 8 x 57 in an M95. Was pushing 175 gr pills ahead of 50 grains of 4064 this afternoon, brisk through a K98...but nothing to dread.
Recoil is a state of mind, that and getting your *ss to a position to absorb it. Seated at a bench is not a good way to handle brisk milsurp loads.
IMO of course
 
8X63 Tracer Ammo

Volhv said:
While there's some interesting info in that article, I find the mistakes, and hearsay/opinions detract from it.

I loaded 5 of those tracers with 43 grains of powder.
Bullets are super long, even when loaded at max COL.
Tried 45 in one, and I could hear the powder crunch..... Maybe I should have tapped the case on the bench a few times before seating bullet. No matter, for these plinkers it should be fine.
I wonder if they are reported as time x, because they are the kind that don't light up till after 100 meters or something like that.
Click to expand...

Py2xxHM.jpg

0cnyK9b.jpg

muXtief.jpg


I pulled the bullet from a round of Tracer Ammo dated 20 May, 1941 from a pack of 10 (I can't believe I didn't do that until now).

It yielded:

- a 173.7 gr spitzer flat-base bullet that is 1.540" long. The Ball Ammo has a spitzer boat-tail bullet that weighs approximately 218.0 grs and is 1.480" long;
- 56.4 grs of a flake powder that looks the same as pulled from the Ball Ammo. The Ball Ammo contains approximately 54.0 grs of flake powder.

It would be interesting to section a Tracer Bullet, but I'm naturally reluctant to do so.
 
Last edited:
matthunt101 said:
I'd imagine the extra 10ish grains of powder on top of the extra bullet weight might have something to do with it... On that note though, anybody have any load data for the m95 using this powder?
Click to expand...

There are 220 gr 30-06 loads that use more powder. No one suggests that a 9lb 30-06 is going to cause physical injury.

In the 8x56r M95, personally would start at 40gr and go higher or lower according to the sights, faster shots higher. The 1938 dirty bird stuff is pushing 2400fps from the short barrel but shoots high.

I would bet a beer that the M95 has more recoil than the Swedish M40.
 
TheWhole9Yards said:
Collet puller works!
Click to expand...

Great video. When I tried that, some worked first try, others took additional attempts and some just wouldn't work.

The "destructive" method I mentioned and that was also used by "sledge" is still faster (total time from start to bullet, powder and empty brass in three separate containers) and costs nothing. The downside of course is that the brass is damaged (if someone wanted to use it).
 
Andy said:
Great video. When I tried that, some worked first try, others took additional attempts and some just wouldn't work.

The "destructive" method I mentioned and that was also used by "sledge" is still faster (total time from start to bullet, powder and empty brass in three separate containers) and costs nothing. The downside of course is that the brass is damaged (if someone wanted to use it).
Click to expand...

I don't see why anyone would want to save the brass anyway. I find the collet puller is hit or miss on every caliber I've pulled, especially surplus ammo. Sometimes it take a couple tries like you mentioned to "get a grip".
 
If one wanted to remove the primers hydraulically, you would need the case neck to be in good shape. So you can recycle them.
I tried it out to 2 or 3, primers aren't staked in place, so they pop out quite easy. Ruins the primers, as the water washes away some of the compound.
 
Volhv said:
If one wanted to remove the primers hydraulically, you would need the case neck to be in good shape. So you can recycle them.
I tried it out to 2 or 3, primers aren't staked in place, so they pop out quite easy. Ruins the primers, as the water washes away some of the compound.
Click to expand...

Good points.

The salvaging of the brass is the part that is most challenging I think. If you buy it to rechamber a rifle and shoot, then it's a non-issue, but for salvage, you can't send primed brass to the recycler. Even if they went into the trash, you're still getting bullets and powder for very cheap, but I can't bring myself to do that. I refuse to deprime thousands of rounds using the hydraulic method.......... Soaking in water or oil has been shown to be temporary and thus ineffective. "Cooking" them shows the most promise IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom