My new (to me) 9.3x57! - Need thoughts/opinions

Ok, I just want to get some things clear to me and I thought some pictures might help.

Here is once-fired reloads using 48.1 BL-C(2). I was told this was a minimum load.

IMGP0653.jpg


Here's a pair of once-fired old Norma 232gr hollow points.

IMGP0654.jpg


Obviously the backing out isn't as obvious on the factory loads. However, one of my reloads did end up doing this

IMGP0656.jpg


I'm not a grizzled veteran gun nut/reloader...but it looks bad...(in case the picture isn't clear, it looks like it cratered the primer)

On the receipt for the headspace from the gunsmith it says,
"-Excessive head space! Closes easily on a NO GO. 10 thousand + gap.
-Not an easy fix. Barrel not easily set back due to inletting and front screw locations
-You can fireform and neck size only"
I then asked if it was safe to fire and initially he said no, but he said if I fire-formed all my cases first, neck-sized only and kept the loads near minimum I should be alright. However, he said the rifle is already showing signs of excessive wear, I guess this means the rifle won't last as long? He recommended that I return it.

From where I'm looking now I have 3 options:

1) Shoot it as is. Fireform my brass, neck-size only and keep my loads low, and I'll be able to shoot it for ~10 years (what the other guy at the 'smith said). However, some here think that the low pressure caused by the minimum load could be causing the primers to back out and increasing the load would prevent this (but would be going against what the 'smith said). I think though that I'll be one of those people who are always worrying about it...

2) Return it to Tradeex and have them ship me another gun with proper headspace.

3) Sell it and use the money to buy another gun.

I know many of you are saying "KEEP IT!", and it is a beautiful rifle...but I'm not sure what to do and I'm just looking for some thoughts.
 
Last edited:
I would be keeping it and simply neck sizing and segregating brass. Also, there is little reason to stick to light loads once the brass is fireformed. Your primers sure look like a low pressure issue, was the brass also sooty and black around the neck and shoulder? I would try loading a series of single rounds working up to a max load 0.5gr at a time (using your already fireformed brass) and see how the primers respond to increasing charges.

Mark
 
Cory;

If the headspace have been over the No Go by 0.010" , then the FIELD gauge would have easily closed on it. Now, wich gauges the "smith" used? I'd be very curious to know what / how they checked it.
And mostly, I can't see how they could determine this rifle will last for about 10 years or so.... based on what?
With the 9.3X57 rifles the headspace issues usually are from a incorrectly replaced barrel and / or very rarely (I still have to see it by myself) by lug setback and / or wear... So, based on that, how can someone say how long the rifle will last????

For ethical and liability reasons, you CAN'T resell a rifle by knowing (or even suspecting) it has excessive headspace without at least telling the buyer... bet a buyer will never give the full price for such a rifle, even if it's only suspicion.
If you feel unsafe with the rifle, send it back to TEC, they will either reimburse you or send you another one.

But still, to me, these cases (except maybe the one with pierced primer) seems just nomral for a 9.3X57 that need fireforming (at the Norma loading pressures (43 500 PSI), it often takes 4 or 5 firings before conforming to the chamber..., but again, there is NO CIP specs for the 9.3X57).

mmattockx,
A lot, if not most 9.3X57 rifles have quite tight necks and very often, even at low pressure, the shoulder does not show any sooting.
 
WOW, major chubby for this rifle! Personally id like it with a nicely worked butterknife bolt handle, and a rear peep sight, love the wood love the finish....youve got me scanning tradex
 
I'd try a few rounds of partially resized, with 51 - 52 grains of BL-C2, and see if that fixes things.

Otherwise, maybe it should be rechambered to 9.3x62.

Whatever happens, I'm sure you'll love how this rifle works for you once you get it tweaked.
 
Regarding the rechambering to 9.3x62, will the M96 mag accomodate the longer cartridge? I see the x62 is still an OAL of 3.29", so less than the max 30-06 length of 3.340".

Mark
 
That's correct, the standard M/94/96/38 magazine (same as used for the 9.3X57) is about 82 mm long (3.228") while the same magazine for a M/649 (9.3X62) measures 83 mm (3.280")... see comparative picture below - at the front of the magazine.

P1010004-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Factory 9.3X62 ammo fits a standard magazine. The cartridge was specifically designed to fit '57 magazines.

I have seen three 57s that were rechambered by Tradex and ammo fits the mag. The receiver rails and feed ramp do have to be tweaked to feed smoothly, however.

Ted
 
For most loads, with new cases, at "normal pressure".

Originally Posted by Why not?
Factory 9.3X62 ammo fits a standard magazine. The cartridge was specifically desiugned to do so.

Ted
Click to expand...

Ted,
I wouldn't say so. See below; it's a Czech factory loaded 9.3X62 round, measuring 3.280" over a M46 (9.3X57) magazine. Norma factory loads would fit, though, as their longer loaded rounds are 3.228", but even then, it might be quite tight and won't properly feed.

P1010001.jpg
 
If you load a 9.3x62 up to max. safe pressure loads and fire them in a 46 or46A, the recoil is a little to much for this old Pussy. It is much heavier and sharper than my 9 lb .375 H+H.

There is some good Swedish rifle info at this website.

http://forums.gunboards.com/forumdisplay.php?50-Swedish-Civilian-amp-Sporting-Firearms
 
I had a model 46 rechambered from 9.3x57 to 9.3x62 no problem.

I cannot comment on "all" factory 9.3x62 working in it just fine, but the three brands that my gunsmith had in stock all cycled perfectly in my rechambered rifle.

My handloads are set to 3.229" and function smooth as butter (still a small amount of wiggle room in mag).

And they're not watered down due to being 0.061" shorter than maximum either.

I have not found that shortening the max COL by 0.061" does squat to this cartridge, particularly since the heavy bullets in this caliber all tend to be either round nose or partial round nose (hence shorter), and all the really pointy bullets are the lighter ones (hence shorter again). Until someone comes up with a 300+ grain VLD boattail in 9.3mm, I'm comfortable saying that 3.229" in a Mauser 96 action is just fine for the 9.3x62.

I would think that the number of factory Mauser 96's chambered in 9.3x62 out there would have stopped any arguments about this action/cartridge combination being poor from starting in the first place.

Besides my rechambered 9.3x62, I've got another factory original husqvarna in 9.2x62, and yes, it's also built on a commercial Mauser 96 action.
 
Last edited:
For years I carried a Husqvarna factory 9.3X62 with an old Zeiss Zeiklein scope. It was on a 46 action, had a 23 3/4 " barrel, and the scope was mounted up with a first generation Redfield mount.

I shot the largest moose I ever took with that rifle, and many big bears using the 286 gr Norma PP Dual Core bullet at 2350 fps. The workmanship was flawless, and it fed like a fat boy at a buffet. :) Sold it to a guy up here who just had to have it after he shouldered it and took a look through the scope.

Since then, I have personally handled three rifles that were rechambered from 57 to 62. All three of them needed their feed ramps polished and the rails ground, but none had the magazines altered. They work fine with everything the guys have used, RWS, Norma, S&B, Lapua, and SAKO.

Ted
 
Well, seems we had / have different experiences on this. I don't want to start a fight but even some of my M/649 (genuine 9.3X62 on a "commercial" M/38 actions) wont take some commercially loaded ammunition (PPU 285 grainer is one of them).
All of my M/649 (this also includes the two 46AN I had in my hands) had their magazine opened up at Husqvarna factory.
The M/46 and M/46A (based in the M/94 in 9.3X57, of course) I have owned (several) have the standard military magazine, wich is at least 1mm shorter than the modified ones (as pictured on the previous page) of the M/649.
 
Last edited:
Cory, is it possible the smith used 8x57 guages?
The shoulder on the cases I have reformed were all back too far. Maybe he figured they were close enough??? Just a thought, as you wouldn't think many smiths have the 9,3x57 guages where 8x57 was quite common.
 
Noel said:
Cory, is it possible the smith used 8x57 guages?
The shoulder on the cases I have reformed were all back too far. Maybe he figured they were close enough??? Just a thought, as you wouldn't think many smiths have the 9,3x57 guages where 8x57 was quite common.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that he used 8x57 Gauges. He said they would work.

Regardless, the rifle's on its way to it's new home to be turned into a x62. Was it the right decision? I don't know...but I was told I have first dibbs if he ever wants to sell it :cool:

I just placed an order with Tradeex for a "replacement" x57. It's obviously not as nice at this one was, but I think if I put a bit of work into it (and spend more than I should :rolleyes:) it should turn out to be a decent rifle.

http://www.shop.tradeexcanada.com/content/5971-husqvarna-sporter-93x57
 
Well that is a good chance why the guage read more clearance than it might really have. All the 8x57 brass I have to neck up to 375 and then back down to 9,3 to get a false shoulder.
If you were using 8x57 brass for your loads that could have been your problem.

And as far as getting a replacement as nice as yours I know where there is one you'd have one heck of a time one upping and its right under your nose.
;)

:evil:
 
Noel said:
Well that is a good chance why the guage read more clearance than it might really have. All the 8x57 brass I have to neck up to 375 and then back down to 9,3 to get a false shoulder.
If you were using 8x57 brass for your loads that could have been your problem.
Click to expand...

I did think of that, but he said that with the amount of clearance it had, it was still excessive.

I was also using Norma 9.3x57 brass, so would eliminate that variable. But that's interesting about the 8x57 brass, I never thought of that. So if I'm interested in using 8x57, I'd have to neck size up to the .375 first...hmm...

Noel said:
And as far as getting a replacement as nice as yours I know where there is one you'd have one heck of a time one upping and its right under your nose.
;)

:evil:
Click to expand...

It's not under my nose anymore, it's sitting lonely at the post office :runaway: I also like a good project though ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom