This fellow did a lot of work to compile a lot of information on Swede rifles.
http://dutchman.rebooty.com
Swede steel was considered to be superior back in the late 1800s, because of the natural presence of nickel, and other elements in the ore used to make it.
The big issue around 1900 was heat treating, which wasn't done with optical pyrometers or other instruments. It all depended on the human eyes of the person doing the heat treatment and the light conditions at the time.
PO Ackley found the early 96s were plenty strong enough for their intended use, which included being used under harsh conditions.
He tested both the US and Norwegian Krags as well as the different variants of Mausers. The best was the Japanese type 38 Arisaka. They had to weld a steel rod into the muzzle and use a full case of 2400 pistol powder to cause a catastrophic failure, which blew the barrel and melted the brass. The action was fine.
The next strongest action was the US Krag and Norwegian Krag. The early rifles which didn't go through the reheat process imposed on many of those rifles later, when optical pyrometers became an industry standard tool. The later re heat treated Krags didn't stand up as well.
I'm not going to go much further because it would require a book length article. Suffice to say, Mr Ackley didn't exactly use scientific methodology or instruments during his testing as it was mainly for his own personal use.
My sported 96, chambered for the 6mm Remington is dated 1943 and marked Husqvarna. It was one of the non matching rifles that came into Canada later. Before doing the conversion on this rifle, it was Brinnell hardness tested and magnafluxed to find any cracks. It was a while ago and I don't know where I put the info but the hardness of this action was comparable to that of a Ruger 77, which is basically a small ring Mauser.
My receiver has had a hole drilled into the left side of the receiver ring, to help expel gasses and particles from a blown primer.
The trigger was replaced with an adjustable pull weight, after market type and a #### on opening kit, with a low swing safety. I really like this rifle. The barrel was a Remington take off and shoots very well at close to factory velocities.
Kimber supposedly built just around 30,000 sporting rifles, chambered for modern cartridges, on these actions.
MY RIFLE IS OK. Another rifle may not be. It's your choice and responsibility to do the proper checks on the action you choose to build a rifle on. Personally, I would choose a later date or even one of the commercial receivers that were made up. The commercial receivers were made from the same steel as the military receivers.
I would say that the heat treatment of the later rifles "might" be better than earlier rifles, or at the very least, a bit more trustworthy. The craftsmen really knew their stuff in the early 1900s and were dealing with much more random issues than those 50 years later.
http://dutchman.rebooty.com
Swede steel was considered to be superior back in the late 1800s, because of the natural presence of nickel, and other elements in the ore used to make it.
The big issue around 1900 was heat treating, which wasn't done with optical pyrometers or other instruments. It all depended on the human eyes of the person doing the heat treatment and the light conditions at the time.
PO Ackley found the early 96s were plenty strong enough for their intended use, which included being used under harsh conditions.
He tested both the US and Norwegian Krags as well as the different variants of Mausers. The best was the Japanese type 38 Arisaka. They had to weld a steel rod into the muzzle and use a full case of 2400 pistol powder to cause a catastrophic failure, which blew the barrel and melted the brass. The action was fine.
The next strongest action was the US Krag and Norwegian Krag. The early rifles which didn't go through the reheat process imposed on many of those rifles later, when optical pyrometers became an industry standard tool. The later re heat treated Krags didn't stand up as well.
I'm not going to go much further because it would require a book length article. Suffice to say, Mr Ackley didn't exactly use scientific methodology or instruments during his testing as it was mainly for his own personal use.
My sported 96, chambered for the 6mm Remington is dated 1943 and marked Husqvarna. It was one of the non matching rifles that came into Canada later. Before doing the conversion on this rifle, it was Brinnell hardness tested and magnafluxed to find any cracks. It was a while ago and I don't know where I put the info but the hardness of this action was comparable to that of a Ruger 77, which is basically a small ring Mauser.
My receiver has had a hole drilled into the left side of the receiver ring, to help expel gasses and particles from a blown primer.
The trigger was replaced with an adjustable pull weight, after market type and a #### on opening kit, with a low swing safety. I really like this rifle. The barrel was a Remington take off and shoots very well at close to factory velocities.
Kimber supposedly built just around 30,000 sporting rifles, chambered for modern cartridges, on these actions.
MY RIFLE IS OK. Another rifle may not be. It's your choice and responsibility to do the proper checks on the action you choose to build a rifle on. Personally, I would choose a later date or even one of the commercial receivers that were made up. The commercial receivers were made from the same steel as the military receivers.
I would say that the heat treatment of the later rifles "might" be better than earlier rifles, or at the very least, a bit more trustworthy. The craftsmen really knew their stuff in the early 1900s and were dealing with much more random issues than those 50 years later.
