TE53...Very nice. My M96 dated 1916 is 37 rifles later than yours (376466) and looks to be mahogany also. I posted mine a couple years ago and most agreed it is mahogany and being it's so close to yours it seems possible.
My rifle is one year older than yours, but I am convinced it is Mahogany. I took a sample from under the butt plate (ouch!!) but have yet to send to wood lab.
Dutchman, I found a publication about Swede wood import tariffs in the early 1900s that says there was a "tax" or tariff on wood imports to Sweden, in 1914 it was 20%, that could be one reason for the absence of tropical hardwood stocks before that date. The paper stops at 1915 period and I can't tell if the tariff was lifted or not. There may have been war-time shortages that favored imported wood, despite local production. Somewhere in there the economics changed and tropical wood became usable (or a boat-load washed up ashore-- torpedoed). I will send the paper to you in PM.
I noticed when I took my m96 1915 wood sample that the wood is pretty brittle. I've worked lots of hardwoods before. Mahogany is fairly light, and likely not as strong as the beech, walnut and elm stocks used by Sweden then. It may be that this was a short-lived experiment that failed to pan out. I doubt it was as sturdy as the local hardwoods in the hands of young recruits. Lovely and fine to work as the wood is...those northern hardwoods with dense winter rings are strong and sturdy.
This Gov't site provides the information you need. I used a 1/2" x 1/4" x 3/16" chip split from the barrel channel next to a lightening cut. 3/16" is the thickness of the chip. I can't see that this location would harm the stock strength at all. You could also cut a plug from the butt end if you prefer...
It took 13 weeks for the response, as you can see from the letter.