Mauser 96 action and modern higher pressure loads

Northman,
It is a known fact that low density charges (accepted as less than 85%) of most slow burning powders in large for caliber powder chambers can possibly produce SEE. Just keep the desity over 85% (respecting the manual, of course) and evereything should be fine.

Once again, I did not say the M/94/96/38 are not good actions, I just say that no one can fight against physic laws.
As far as I'm concerned, the OP called for "HIGHER MODERN PRESSURES", wich, for me anyways, are from 62 000 PSI to about 74 000 PSI and agree it or not, I still believe the M/94/96/38 is a poor choice for that purpose.
Even the proud FN commercial M/98 will show signs of abuse under intensive use of hot magnum loads. I have seen a few with headspace issues.

Also, pre 98 where made of an equivalent of pure, low carbon steel, almost pure iron, very close to SAE 1020. All the M/98 (including the small rings) were made of steel of equivalence between SAE 1032 to 1035 plus keeping all the safety features of the Large ring design (except the large ring, of course).

SAE 1020 have a normalized max tensile strenght of about 67 000 lbs/sq. in. and a yield point of 43 000 lbs/sq. in.

Normalized SAE 1035 have a tensile strenght of 87 000 lbs/sq. in. and a yield point of 54 000 lbs/sq. in.

Modern guns, made of normalized Cro-Mo (AISI 4140) steel have a minimum tensile strenght of 148 000 lbs/sq. in. and a yield point of 95 000 lbs/sq. in. (in annealed condition (1500 F), it's still 95 000 #/sq.in Tensile and 60 500 #/sq.in. at yield point)

Under proper heat treatment modern steel is way above the old stuff when it comes to strenght. SAE 1020 can't be made any better than the above numbers by any means, while the SAE 1035 can be imporoved a bit.
To answer the OP question, my call is for a good, modern action, made of either SS 416 or Cro-Mo. Yours may be different, but I'm not the guy standing besides you.
 
I sort of agree Baribel, but with the caveat that it really depends on when the action was built and by whom. A 96 or 98 built in the 19th century will not be anywhere near as strong as one built between the wars, or even shortly after, as they were still manufacturing them at that time. The steel improved, as did the processes. - dan
 
The other caveat is the use of non-destructive examination as a tool to improve material integrity. Perhaps some of the 96 "rebuilders" used NDE to screen the donor actions for the higher pressure cartridges, similar to the 308 LE rebuilds.
However, given that Husqvarna did not use their commercial actions for higher pressure rounds is quite telling. Too bad no one is around today that could shed some light on this.
It should be noted that the factor of safety in rifles is quite low compared to other components - say 1.5 compared to 4 for an ASME VIII designed propane tank. When you get to that low, you have to know what you're doing!
 
No, your post was clear, and we understood your point. Our point is, however, that the commercial Husqvarna Improved Mauser sporters are all small ring actions chambered for very high pressure cartridges.

Ted
 
Well - And those actions were likely made with low-alloy steel, better design tools, and more sophisticated QA. Many modern firearm manufacturers exploit the properties of the high UTS 4140 steels by designing to very high stress levels, perhaps 2X what was done with case hardened carbon steels of 100 years ago. The net result is less material for a given chamber pressure.
I was just looking at the bolt lug area on my Tikka 695 - looks to be about half what the 96 action has... If I get ambitious, I'll make the effort to measure the receiver walls for comparison!
 
Actually, the 1640 - wich where those factory-made in Magnum calibers - were built in a time period when HVA used Nickel Steel for the tubes (barrels, sort of 2340) and it is not clear if they used this alloy or something else (also, Sandvik at that time period was already making the 4140). We know how strong a P14/M17 (when properly heat treated) is compared to a Mauser 98 and it used a very close match to AISI/SAE 2340, as did the second generation of Springfields.

While a spin-off of the M/94/96/38, the 1640 is a different story, in the same bag as Brno 21H/22F kind.
 
Last edited:
BTW, Dan, id'like to bring this point; the M/94/96/38 are known to be some of the most stable, material / hardness / heat treatment wise, because they were not made under war pressure nor did they saw action (Sweden was Neutral in both WW - except for the Winter War, but it's marginal) and the fact that Sweden have their own, almost purest in the world, iron ore. There may be a very slight material difference between the Oberndorf and CG/HVA - made actions, but if so, it's marginal. Some Swedish sources say there may be some of the early HVA-made M/38 wich are a bit brittle, but it dos not seems to be documented.
 
Good points B, and I have not seen the HVA brittleness connection in print before. I have some pics somewhere from the 2009 Gun Digest of a lovely 96 Mauser custom in Mannlicher stock/style that is drop dead gorgeous. They can be made into beautiful sporters (anathema to the surplus crowd I know, but keep in mind that bubba is who makes unmodified surplus rifles worth something, otherwise they would be a glut on the market, lol). Anyway, maybe I can figure out how to scan those pics and post them. - dan
 
Baribal said:
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).
Click to expand...

Then why does Norma limit the 9.3x57 pressures to 43,500 PSI?

Baribal said:
Also, pre 98 where made of an equivalent of pure, low carbon steel, almost pure iron, very close to SAE 1020. SAE 1020 have a normalized max tensile strenght of about 67 000 lbs/sq. in. and a yield point of 43 000 lbs/sq. in.
Click to expand...

So the commercial actiom M/96 are made out of SAE 1020 - right? If so, and they have yield point of 43,000 PSI, then why would the 9.3x57 be loaded to higher pressure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom