Swede M96 Action Strenght

Pathfinder

Pathfinder

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
124   0   0
Location
Northeast Ontario
As far as I know the action is described to have a 46,000 psi service level.

I would be curious to know how strong this action really is since the swedes (Huskavarna, Stiga and Falon) Made sporters in 30.06 and 270 win, etc which run at higher pressures.

Im pretty sure that these were not blowing up and they were not used stictly by handloaders who used minimum loads only.

comments appreciated.
 
The Swedes had no problems setting up these rifles for a variety of cartridges. The CG63 target rifles in 7.62x51 are based on M96 actions.
Norwegian Krags have been rebarrelled in .308 and .243, and they were originally intended for the same 6.5x55 cartridge.
Keep in mind that the action was not designed to be at its structural limit when used with the 6.5 cartridge. Is there any evidence that the action was intended to have a 46,000 psi service level? Incidentally, it is highly unlikely that 46,000psi is a relevant pressure. Modern pressure levels can be obtained using psi. For decades pressure levels were measured in cup (copper units of pressure), which do not translate directly to psi. 46,000psi would be equivalent to a much lower cup number. Observed pressure level will depend on the method used to obtain the reading, and where the measurement was obtained - middle of the cartridge, throat area, etc.
There are a number of factors determining the safety of an action for a given cartridge. Ability to withstand the backthrust loading is one, ability to handle the release of gas in the event of a case failure is another.
The M98 action is considered to be stronger than the M96, not so much because of greater locking area, superior materials (no real improvement in these areas) but because of superior gas handling capabilities.
 
tiriaq said:
Is there any evidence that the action was intended to have a 46,000 psi service level?
Click to expand...

I havent found any real evidence, hence why Im trying to debunk these "theories" which are more hearesay than anything else. I was also told that a Small ring Mauser should not be used to chamber 30.06, another load of BS....

The reason for my factfinding is because I acquired a M96 in 30.06 and I plan to reload for it as long as the headspace checks out, of course I will start at minimum.

Anyway, I think tiriaq summed things up pretty well. I think the 96 will be just fine the 30.06.

thanks.
 
Yes Tiriaq summed it up very nicely.

There are those who will tell you that without that important third locking lug, you're just asking for it and if you go above the supposed design pressure you'll get it for sure. In fact the 30/06 has a smaller casehead than the 6.5x55, so the 30/06 will deliver less bolt thrust than the 6.5x55 at similar pressures. I'd be unconcerned running 30/06 at SAAMI pressures in that action safety-wise aside from its inferior gas handling abilities as compared to the M98. I'd still choose an M98 any day for other reasons, such as much shorter lock-time, aftermarket parts availability (barrels, triggers, stocks...), etc.
 
Had my Husqvarna M38 in to be drilled and tapped the other day -- the front of the receiver was so hard that the smith dulled 2 brand new cobalt drill bits on it. Hardest receiver he'd ever seen.

M96 was designed for the 6.5x55 which is rated at 46,000cup not psi.

It is interesting to note that the M98 was originally chambered in 8x57 which is also a low pressure cartridge.

There is a lot of hearsay and not a lot of factual data when it comes to the M96... maybe someone needs to take a vacation in Sweden and find out the true limits. I'm sure its been tested a ton there.

Baindoor
 
Last edited:
Been to Sweden several times, but I rarely got past matters relating to attractive blonde women and horribly expensive beer. (~10 CAD per bottle in a bar)
I think its fair to say that all of these early mauser actions were designed to fairly low stress levels compared to contemporary firearms - and relatively high factors of safety. For good reason, as the analytical skills at the time were rudimentary, and there we no methods of non destructive examination available - excepting the proof firing. To their credit, they we able to make good steel compared to what was available at the time, and what is available today. One could argue that many metallurgical advances were due to military development at the turn of the century.
The risk in shooting these older firearms relates to flaws within the forgings, and the unknown history of the rifle. Shooting these rifles at greater stress intensities increases the risk of these flaws causing a failure, albeit at a fairly low probability.
As noted above, the 6.5 Swede cartridge is slightly larger in dia than the 30 cal cartridges, which tends to offset the higher pressure vis backthrust, and to a lesser degree hoop stress. The other consideration - perhaps these conversions were radiographed (x rayed) the way the Lee Enfield 308 conversions were done back in the 50's. This would offer the same level of integrity, or more, in comparison the modern designs.
 
Last edited:
Not that I'm advocating finding the limits of the M96 action, but the reloading data that I have on 6.5x55 says the pressure limits are based upon the caution that the cartridge may be fired in other possibly weaker actions for which the 6.5x55 was chambered.
 
Current CIP maximum pressures for the 6.5x55 are 380 MPa (55,100 psi). Certainly brisk enough.But if you note one of the improvements Mauser made in the M-98 over the M-93/96,was a larger ring on the receiver.
 
downwindtracker2 said:
Current CIP maximum pressures for the 6.5x55 are 380 MPa (55,100 psi). Certainly brisk enough.But if you note one of the improvements Mauser made in the M-98 over the M-93/96,was a larger ring on the receiver.
Click to expand...

I believe the Mauser 98 was made with a small ring as well as the large ring and two thread sizes... approximately 1 inch and 1.100 inches ...

The ring size didn't contribute much to the strength factor...
 
Rembo said:
isn't the Husqvarna HVA action a small ring '98 variant?
Click to expand...

The Husqvarna small ring (Model 1600, etc) is an adaptation of the M96 Swede.. The upgrades include the addition of a third lug(ala 98), moving the ejector slot so it doesn't split one of the locking lugs, different extractor, flanged bolt sleeve and a bolt sleeve lock(ala 98). It doesn't have the c-ring of the 98 and is lacking other details that are found on the M98 - but is a pretty nice action.
 
As for strength of the 96 Swede action: as someone else already stated; there's a lot of 'hear-say' and no actual facts! Fact is: Swedish 'Sandvik Steels' have always had and still have a very high reputation in the world.
The 96/38 Swedes were some of the very first rifles I owned & hunted with. I'm a gunmaker by trade myself and several years ago, wyle working in my own workshop/business back in NZ, a customer brought in a well used HVA-featherweight rifle he would like to have re-brl'ed to .338-06? He was concerned about the strength of the action and asked if I had any suggestions to determine the strength? I suggested the following: I'll try 'blowing-up' this old & worn .30-06 'commercial' HVA-rifle of yours (not the old 'tie to the tree-method' but from a proper fixed bench-position on the local range) simmulating ordinary 'overloads' with normal rifle-powders as you could encouter while reloading yourself? I'll supply all the reloading components you supply your rifle: he agreed to it! I proceeded; other then locking up the bolt every time, combined with the occasional sign of starting 'melt-down' of the cardtridge base into the bolthead at a couple of occasions; I can't tell I was really succesfull at it! Getting tired of pulling the brl. every time and clean-up the mess, I gave up in the end! No doubt; a charge of pistol/shotgun powder would have been the 'icing on the cake'? No doubt; it would have been for any action, regardless of manufacture/strenth/quality of the action! Mind you; it was unclear to me at the time if the action concerned was a re-worked 'military' or later manufacture 'commercial' action? Still: after this experiment it was save to say to the customer that this action could easily withstand .338-06 pressures or even the smaller bore, but even higher pressure curves of the .270 Win. One could say: there's a lot of 'hogwash' floating around surrounding the 96/38 Swedes with no real evidence to back these claims!
 
A recent edition of "Handloader" (an excellent publication for the most part), fed the myth when a well-known commercial gun maker by the name of "Sisk" claimed that an unfired Swede M96 action displayed bolt lug setback on the first firing! Fortunately he mentionned that he sold actions that would not do this, and provided his contact info should you want to purchase from him.

Sisk (and Barnsness) then teamed up and created a completely redundant wildcat (aren't they all?) called the 9.3 SB (I prefer the 9.3 BS). Simply a 350 Rem Mag necked up all the way to 9.3mm (0.366"). Subsequent issues tout it as Messiah of cartidges. What's next, a 312 Win?

All to say that they are still polluted with bias towards their advertizers, so beware.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom