Ackely's tests certainly are interesting, instructive and entertaining, but in no way can be said to be comprehensive or even scientific. For example, loads tested among the various actions are not identical and were not even pressure tested and thus actual pressure comparisons cannot be made. In addition, due to differences in production and heat treatment used among the various makers and under varying wartime conditions, I would not personally be comfortable pushing the envelope on the basis of a couple actions blow up. For example, witness the differences between the Rem and Rem/Eddy 1917's. these were two factories making the same action. What is to say that two different production runs of Arisakas or more to the point, husky's or CG's don't possess widely divergent strengths.
When it comes to the 9.3x62, I would think prudence and the desire to preserve one's face would encourage very careful loading {read; downloading} of 640 series rifles when built on 94 actions or 94 strengthened actions. Whether FN 98's used in 640-series rifles are actually stronger is unknown to me but certainly they possess a third safety lug and vastly better gas handling features not found on a 94/640-type. I'm willing to concede that some modern actions can handle loads generating better than 2300 fps with 285 grain bullets, but if it was my rifle and my face at stake I would not push the 640.
As has been noted by Pettson regarding catastrophic destructions of 6.5 96's a while back, lug shear in a 94/96 can be devastating where the same shear in a 98 has a much better chance of not being, due to the third lug and better gas handling. Herr Mauser thought the same thing and didn't add those safety features just for smiles and giggles.
