Gunboards Forums banner

YOUR Favorite 9.3x62 {x62!} Loads!!

52K views 49 replies 13 participants last post by  z1r 
#1 ·
Yup, what are your favorites??

Make sure to mention the rifle, as I know we have some "short-96-action" HVA's represented here. If you can, give us the weight of the rifle {all up, i.e. with scope or however it is set up for hunting.}

If you don't want to state specific powder charges, give us the bullet, OAL or any other info you can, like chronographed speeds.

Also, how do you rate the recoil compared to a .30-06 for example...?

Bring 'em on...! :)
 
#2 · (Edited)
Date: April 2005
Cartridge: 9.3x62
Firearm: CZ 550 American
Scope: Leupold VX-II 1-4x
Case Make: Graf
Barrel Length: 23.6"
Rifle weight with scope: about 8.75 lb

IMHO, I believe the following loads should be restricted to rifles based on a 98 action or modern production rifles.

-------------------------------------------------
Bullet: Woodleigh RN
Bullet Weight: 286 gr
Powder: RL-15
Powder Weight: 58.0 gr
Case Make: Graf
Primer: WLR
C.O.L.: 3.30"

Chrono Summary
Average Velocity: 2,393 fps
Average Energy: 3,638 ft lb
High Velocity: 2,410 fps
Low Velocity: 2,372 fps
Extreme Spread: 38 fps
Standard Deviation: 12 fps

-------------------------------------------------
Bullet: Prvi Partizan
Bullet Weight: 285 gr
Powder: RL-15
Powder Weight: 59.0 gr
Case Make: Graf
Primer: WLR
C.O.L.: 3.30"

Chrono Summary
Average Velocity: 2,407 fps
Average Energy: 3,667 ft lb
High Velocity: 2,423 fps
Low Velocity: 2,390 fps
Extreme Spread: 33 fps
Standard Deviation: 12 fps

-------------------------------------------------
Bullet: Nosler Partition
Bullet Weight: 286 gr
Powder: RL-15
Powder Weight: 57.0 gr
Case Make: Graf
Primer: WLR
C.O.L.: 3.34"

ChronoSummary
Average Velocity: 2,356 fps
Average Energy: 3,526 ft lb
High Velocity: 2,375 fps
Low Velocity: 2,335 fps
Extreme Spread: 40 fps
Standard Deviation: 11 fps

-------------------------------------------------

Some load data I compiled back when I was working up loads for my rifle:




Also, how do you rate the recoil compared to a .30-06 for example...?

While the recoil in total ft lb is greater than my Ruger M77 MkII in .30-06, of course, I find the recoil of my CZ 550 to be a relatively slow, gentle push. I think the velocity/rate of the recoil is slower, or spread out more over time, due to the relatively lower muzzle velocities. I've found cartridges such as a .300 Weatherby give more of a sharp, very quick jab to the shoulder. My Ruger M77 Magnum in .375 H&H (which weighs about 10.5 lb with scope) firing a 300 gr bullet at around 2500 fps has distinctly more recoil than my 9.3x62. That's one of the reasons that I really like the moderate medium bores such as my .35 Whelen and 9.3x62.

Cheers!
-Bob F .
 
#3 ·
I don't have any load data to share just yet as I have not had my 98 actioned 9.3x62 that long. Shooting it with Prvi factory loads I think it is a blast to shoot. To me it is more of a strong push and not the snap you get with some other rifles like a 30-06. My 3 1/2" 12 gauge 835 Mossberg puts it to shame in the recoil department and it has a rubber recoil pad. I love my 9.3x62 so much I would like to have another one that is already D&T so I could be more effective with in at range. I think you could effectively thump Whitetail at 300 yards with that rifle if you could hit them.

Smokepole50
 
#5 ·
two categories of x62's

First, THANKS for the great info Bob!

Bob's note above makes me curious as to the need for two levels of 9.3x62 loads similar to the "tiers" of loads used in .45-70's.

The 96 action guns may be strong enough, I do not know, but the need to more deeply seat bullets crowds powder capacity a bit at the least.

Assuming there are some reading but not posting, I'd be interested in finding out what Swedish 9.3x62's are actually being used with what loads?
 
#6 ·
Is there a standard amount needed to reduce the load when using 30-06 brass to make the cases as opposed to 'real' 9.3x62mm brass, or just load from the same charts (with suitable reduction and work up as with any new load/components)?
>
Also, (new to me, but maybe not to those who are more familiar with the round), I saw a chambering reamer offered in this caliber based on the 30-06 case head size. Rechambering or new chamberings with it would set aside any worry of the slightly undersize '06 case head causing a problem I guess. Wouldn't a new set of reloading dies also be in order?
 
#7 ·
more questions...



Following on the questions here:

What MAKE is Graf's brass?? Is it merely Prvi Partizan? How does it hold up?

Has anyone miked the base of Graf's versus say, regular {Rem, Win, etc} .30-06 brass?

Bob Faucett: Have you used '06 brass? You list yourself using Graf's, but the chart shows some of the gunwriters using RP, etc brass which I assume to be '06?

As for the question above about a reamer, I personally would steer clear of any reamer that might negate the use of regular factory ammo.

Has anyone ever done a chamber cast of a HVA 9.3x62?

Finally, we read of HVA x57's being rechambered to x62. Was that done with a reamer that opened up the cartridge base area of the chamber also, or just moved the shoulder forward? Reason I ask is of course, if the case head area wasn't expanded, the same scenario would in effect exist that is referred to by ktr above.
 
#9 · (Edited)
Hi to you all,

Bob, what permitted you getting these load charges is the OAL, wich is, for CIP 83.6 mm. The results you got are right on the spot (see attached charts, made from your 3rd load, usinng 57 gr (or a Load Density of 89%) of Rl15, 286 gr Partition for 3.340 OAL) regarding the simulation I conducted for this. Interchanging the brass is then critical, because not all the brass have the same capacity in grains of water. I saw plenty of weird stuff regarding the 9.3X62, many loads are way too high in velocity and charge as an exemple; the 66 grains of RL 15 with the 286 gr Partition is 112.1 % of load density at the OAL showed; 3.340 inches... I think, and it's my personal thinking, that we should stick to realistic, actual loads printed in recent loading manuals (even there, there are some very funny cases). CIP's maximum MAP pressure for the X62 is 3900 bar (56,500 PSI) and most commercial cases are running around 77 grains of water of capactiy, while the X64 wich have much more case capacity (88 grains of water) works at a much higher pressure (4400 bar, of 64 000 PSI), so, in my mind, I would never compare those two rounds.
Loads are really a matter of the general conditions of a certain rifle, but if one stays within the pressure limits of the CIP code, no-one should have problem. SAAMI allowed different pressures points for certain calibers, but, to my knowledge, CIP never did because their loads are, most of the time, already quite healthy, while SAAMI iare very conservative (8X57, 6.5X55 and others). The first pic is chamber pressure vs charge, second one is chamber vs load density and the third is muzzle velocity vs load density. If you look at the results Bob got vs the load tables from others (that Bob brang to us) you will see what is reality and what is pure fiction. Whatyou see showing 56.1 grains of RL15 is what the program set as the most efficient load. Don't forget the OAl used for this simulation is 3.340, but max CIP is 3.300 and MAX for M96 is 3.260 inches. Last pic is the key, charge vs load density.
 
#10 ·
Baribal, I was waiting for you to weigh in!

The trouble with this cartridge is that I hear of incredible velocities being generated, but I cannot verify them as fact, such as 2500-2600 fps with 286 grain bullets.

IF such loads are safely obtainable, which frankly, I doubt, they must be running at incredible pressures, pressures that the 96-type actions shouldn't be subjected to, at the very least because of poor gas handling features.

Baribal, what model is your Husqvarna 9.3x62? Have you got a picture of it?
 
#12 ·
The trouble with this cartridge is that I hear of incredible velocities being generated, but I cannot verify them as fact, such as 2500-2600 fps with 286 grain bullets.

IF such loads are safely obtainable, which frankly, I doubt, they must be running at incredible pressures, pressures that the 96-type actions shouldn't be subjected to, at the very least because of poor gas handling features.
LeeSpeed,

Scroll back up and look at the loading data from John Barsness that I posted. He states that the loads were pressure tested and all are under 60,000 PSI. (I don't know where he pressure tested the loads, and it's not stated in the article, but I know from other articles by him that he lives close to Ramshot Powder's headquarters and has used their pressure lab in the past.)

One of the loads he lists is a 286 gr Nosler Partition with 66.0 grs of Ramshot Big Game powder at 2495 fps. But, I agree that 2600 fps with a 286 gr bullet is probably not attainable within safe pressures limits. 2600+ fps with 250 gr bullets seems to be no problem, however.

BUT, I agree with you that such loads should probably NOT be used in a model 96 action. If I had a 9.3x62 on a model 96 action I would probably drop the RL-15 powder charge down until I reached about 2250 fps with a 286 gr bullet. BTW, 2250 fps is the spec velocity for the 9.3x62 with a 286 gr bullet listed in my 1936 Kynoch/ICI catalog reprint.

Regardless, I'm happy running my CZ in 9.3x62 with 286 gr bullets at around 2400 fps (give or take a little). The recoil level is pleasant to shoot and it's very effective on game. I've got a .375 H&H if I want more velocity.

Cheers!
-Bob F.
 
#11 ·
Lee, you're too curious

I'll post some pic later, I don't have good light for now. It's a 649, M96 (or, if you want a M38) action. I got it in "AS NEW" condition, almost unissued. You know, the main limitations for velocity is case capacity and suitable powders. Because of it's mid-size brass and capacity, the very slow end burning powders can't be used. I too, and since a long time (that's what you were looking at, isn't it?) have lots of doubts regarding those velocities. So, I tried the best I can to reach the sky (but safely) with all the rifles I could find. It did not happen. Not even with a Blaser. You know, today we want the best out of our tubes, so we think we can beat science. But it's no more alchemia, it's real science wich is applied to our guns. And whatever one can say, the part of science used in guns did not evoluate as fast as we think. In fact, it's almost at the same point than when P. Mauser was designing the M98. Metallurgy, machining and testing have made their way, but not ballistics.
Now, anyone having a M96 in good shape can expect as much as factory loads can deliver without a problem. What I can suggest is to buy some factory loaded ammunitions and shoot it with a chronograph. Then, try to duplicate it, or at least to get close to it.
 
#13 ·
The Sakop 9.3x62 brass fired in a new Styer bolt rifle mesured .472" head X .454" shoudler and had a capacity of 78gr. water.
; .454" shoudler is pretty much standard for most Ackley cases on the '06 and others. I made the brass for my 9.3x62 by necking down my cses to take the smaller bullet, loading them up and fireforming. The shoulder angle changed very little, and defintely wasn't 17 degrees- maybe 30.
; Most people don't realize the 9.3x62 is virtually an Improved design with minial body taper. It can be loaded as such and is not restricted to 1922 levels of performance.
; Speer goes to some length to show this with their data on the 270gr., and even then, their loads are quite soft, for the most part. Now, individual rifles will show different pressure with otherwise identical loadings, so one hould know what one is doing.
; My 24.5" 98 Sporter 9.3x62 delivered 2,518fps with 286gr. and 2,675fps with 270gr. Speers. It would do this only with BLC2 and these loads were safe to shoot in the summer time. LeeSpeed's rifle delivered some 80fps or so lower velocity than mine did for the same loads. Chronographs are wonderful tools for use in developing ammo.
 
#14 · (Edited)
Lee these loads are safe in my CZ 550 and my husky 1951 FN 98 /heym barreled 9.3x62
I am not advocating you use them especially in a 96 but I have worked them up to this level and they are safe with no pressure signs and multiple reloadings on the same cases with tight primer pockets in my rifles . Velocities are over my F1 and pro chrono at 15 feet and before some one jumps in with the sky is falling standard don't push it past its 1906 load level response or it does its best work at 2300 fps remember you asked!
Graff case Fed 210 primer
65.0 RL 15 Nosler 250 bt 2700 fps ,
63.0 RL 15 Speer 270 2550 fps
60.0 RL 15 Nosler 286 partiton 2460 fps
all velocities were recorded in a cz 550 medium , I have pushed them harder but these are the loads I have settled on in my rifle. All deliver sub moa accuracy in my cz 550, I'm still fine tuning loads for my hunting FN and have settled on a slightly less powerful load with the PP286 for my douglas barreled , iron sighted (work) husky 98 FN defense rifle 59.0 RL 15, manageable recoil and a quick second shot are more important than velocity/trajectory in this rifle.

So do with it as you will and just remember what works for me may not work for you.

 
#15 ·
OK- here's my favourite loads for the 9.3x62; My rifle was a M98 Sporter with side panels, I don't know what it's maker's name was.
: From my notes:- 24th March 1992 - no primer noted- probably CCI250
::60.0gr. W748 - fireforming WW'06 brass - 270 Speer- 2,268fps
::58.0gr. IMR4064 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""" - """"""""""""""- 2,300fps
::58.0gr. IMR4064 RWS 9.3x62 brass - """"""""""""""- 2,417fps
::60.0gr. IMR4064""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" - """"""""""""""- 2,489fps
:
:24/APR/1988 - Nore I started at 56.0gr. at 2,100fps and owrked up from there, slowly.
: 63.5gr. W760 - Fed 215 Normal 286gr. Yellow tip 2,332fps - 2.125" for 5 shots factory iron sights - 100 meters.
: 64.0gr. W760 - CCI250 - Speer 250gr. Spitzer - 2,372fps too slow, didn't accuracy test.
: 25/4/88 - 60.0gr. H322 - CCI200 - Speer 250gr. Spitzer - 2,610fps - 5 shots - 1,786" factory iron sights - 100 meters.
: 27/4/88 - 68.0gr. BLC2 - CCI200 - 2,588fps - es-33.7fps SD -11.7 - 1.40- 3 shots, .890"- 3 shots - 100 meters. Went up to 70.0gr. but didn't get any readings- too dark.
:
: 22 May 1992
: 65.0gr. BLC2 - 286gr. Norma Yel. plastic tip - CCI200 RWS case- 2,519fps av. accuracy- 1.27"to 1.45" for 4 shot groups. Safe max load in my rifle.
; 68.0gr. BLC2 - 270gr. Speer CCI 200 - CCI200 - RWS case - 2,675fps - average - bit warm for hot weather, dropped to 67.0gr.- still averaged 2,550fps in '06 brass, 2,600fps in RWS cases. 1.2" to 1.6" for 5 shot groups.
: Hodgdon data from 2007 shows 65.0gr. BLC2 with 270 Speer for 2,575fps.
: My rifle consistantly gave lower velocities/lower pressure that Speer's data showed.
; W30/06 brass had a couple grains greater capacity than RWS brassl, showing RWS brass was considerably thicker. Strength would depend on heat treatment - but RWS brass in other calibres shows greater strength, ie:8x68S.
; Model 96 Mausers have successfully been re-chambered to 6.5x68 as well as .264 Winchester magnum with no apparent ill effects. They seem to handle pressure identically to M98's. Their gas handling ports aren't as sofisticated as the M98's, however are still better than any American action. I, for one, am not afraid of my M96 Actions. My 6.5x55, a brand new unfired Carl G. of 1912, trimmed to 22" bl. runs 2,960fps with 129gr. Horandy's without any pressure signs and less case head expansion than Norma factory 156's. I also get 2,875fps with 140gr. Hornady and Speers.
 
#16 ·
tak so mycket!

Well, sometimes stirring the pot brings up the best chunks!

Thanks for all the posts fellows.

Much is made of the amazing killing power represented in the 6.5x55 catridge, killing power it just doesn't look like it should produce.

I am beginning to see why the same is said about the 9.3x62, a notch above, obviously.

I hunted for many years with a SAKO .375, and read of the essentially identical killing power represented in the 9.3x62 with reports from Scandinavia on elg and hjort and of course with excellent results told about use in Africa on all sorts of game. Your loads sort of take the "voodoo" out of it. A well-constructed 285 grain 9.3 bullet running at 2400-2500 is simply going to be the field equal of trditional loads in the .375.

I guess I stand corrected.

By the way, recoil of the 285/2400-2500 fps loads has got to be stiff in typical guns. Must be grim in a light HVA 98-action 640-series rifle...
 
#18 ·
Thanks for sharing Daryl, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only guy who thinks this cartridge is loaded soft by the manufacturers. Have you used the 270 speer on game at those velocities and if so how did it hold up? A friend and I have done some penetration/stress testing with the 286 PP bullets and have found them to be pretty tough, I'll take some pics of the next round and post them up if there is any interest, just havent used the speers for anything but paper yet.
 
#19 · (Edited)
No - never got to use the 9.3x62 for hunting. I was in the process of re-chambering and bead blasting it when it got absorbed into an ex-friend's (lathe location) divorce & it ended up on the floor of a flooded basement for a year in the locked house. The barreled action completely rotted out inside and out.
; I will be using the 270's in the 9.3x57, although I may cup-point them slightly to initiate expansion.
: At this time, I think the 9.3x57 wil make a nice, mild guide gun. At about 2,200fps, the 270's should work OK at the lower velcoties for deep penetration when needed, and for game back-up, a cup-pointed 270 should work just bingo on moose.
: My bro uses 250's in his M94 .356 with 250gr. Hornady's with flattened noses. So far, at only 2,150fps, they drop wounded moose pretty much instantly.
; Course, as with anything, you have to hit them right.
: Edited- Dave- you're right, the 9.3x62, to me, just 'craves' to loaded to it's potential. Since it has the same case capacity as my current .375/06IMP, at 78gr. water (or H380-less messy), it is absolutely amazing what it will do. I am currently putting 235gr. Speers out at 2,845fps from the blown '06 case, along with 225gr. Hornady spire points at 2,875fps, same load. To cut down on my bullet stock, I decided I needed the 235's or 225's for deer and the 300gr. for normal hunting or guiding. I'm putting Interlock 300's out at 2,470fps with the 300gr. Interbonds duplicating the velcoity and point of impact, along with the 3/4" groups at 100 meters. The 9.3x62 'should' be capable of these .375" ballistics as there isn't much difference in the expansion ratios top make a change there.
; I do find it interesting that many people seem to hold to old 'unstable' smokeless powder ballistics of the teens and 20's when loading the same rounds today. Too- some feel because a ctg. was loaded to X pressure in the 20's, it should be loaded to the same pressure levels today, even though powders available today don't have the same problems - develop better energy per grain - and my biggest beef - some feel the M98 & the M96 to be inferior actions. How many .270's, etc. were chambered up in M98's, not to mention the .338's, etc, all with working pressure normally in the 63,000PSI range. Why, with brass every bit as strong, can we not load the old slow movers to the same pressure levels as more modern rounds?
; Nice pictures, btw - could have been taken around here, 4 years ago.
 
#20 · (Edited)
About military Mauser action strenght, I strongly recommend the reading of the very interesting books; "Mauser Bolt Action Rifles" from Ludwig Olsen (some stuff related to the content of the book http://www.rawles.to/Mauser_FAQ.html) and also Kent's "German 7,9 Military Ammunition" to have an idea of proof-testing that was done on these Mausers. The June-July 2007 Vol. 42, No. 3 issue of Handloader also scratches the subject. Everyone seems to forget these actions are made for a specific cartridge and not the inverse.

That you can do something does not mean it's right doing it. It seems that the notion of MAP is not really understood by lots of reloaders.
I think it's our north american distortion of the reality that pushes people to increase the pressure of those very efficient cartridges and actions. A little like transforming a Freightliner or a Mack into a racer.
 
#21 ·
Some other good reading on the military actions and pressure is in P.O. Ackley's Handbooks 1 and 2. These dwelve into his blow-up tests etc and sruprisingly enough, the strongest action he's ever tested of any action. It's not what you'd think. Loads that blew the rings off other actions, gave normal pressure signs in this particular military action.
: His writing covers case design and it's effects on bolt thrust, barrel strength etc. I am surprised when I hear that some people don't have them. I've had both copies since 1972.
 
#22 · (Edited)
I'm sorry to have to say that, but whatever respect I have for Ackley, many of his statements were contested by reknown scientist and researchers. While he might have been the sharpcat of his days, the knowledge evolves even in that field (gunsmithing). Mauser researchers have come to very different conclusions than Mr. Ackley (who was not a scientist) after having in hands REAL DOCUMENTS from the Mauser Werke factory. A good example here, by the well respected Larry Ellis from the Mauser Mothly; http://www.frombearcreek.com/nonfiction/m_monthly/vol_2/ED9VOL2.pdf

Then, again and again, one can do whatever he wants, it's not my business.
 
#23 ·
640's, etc...

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.
 
#46 ·
Regards the 9.3x62 et all

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.
What I never hear discussed: is the effect heat has on a gun. If you trust the actuarial stats the insurance companies use, many guns are "lost" in home fires. The fact is that some of these actions are salvaged and re-stocked. Then they are sold without alerting the buyer that the gun may not retain even half of its original strength. Beware!
 
#24 ·
sé le viè - very interesting - so neither of you would use a military mauser or comercial mauser action for modern rounds?
: Are all those M98's sold comercially in .308Win., time bombs? - I've never heard of any of them blowing up over 35 years of shooting them. I have heard of Remintons and Winchesters blowing, though. So far, I've never stretched the lugs, on the bolt or in the action - maybe I'm playing with fire, maybe not.
: My very first match rilfe had a VZ 98 action, barreled and chambered in the 'full bore' ie:.308. Far as I know, that action is still going strong after 35 years as a .308 or whatever it's barreled to now.
: The first rifle gift I made to my brother was a Mauser 98 in .30/06. It did very well on long range deer with 150gr. at 3,100fps.
 
#25 ·
Daryl,
Large Rings are different than Small Rings, and this is well said, documented and widely accepted. FNH sold their latest "H" type action to Weatherby (first sold through Sako). I think you misread our point here.
There is one of our compatriote who shot a Turk Mauser 98 with a round loaded to 67 000 PSI, he didn't even know it, "cause he never got a pressure sign and he is still alive today. Yoiu must agree that such a situation leaves very little edge for error. An accident happens fast and it's not our goal to encourage potentially dangerous situations. As I said, I don't mean it's not possible to do it, I say it can be done at one's own risks.
 
#26 ·
94. not 98

Daryl, I am not saying a 98 isn't capable of handling .308. 270, etc rounds.

To the contrary, I'm saying that I wouldn't feel comfortable feeding a 94 action type a steady diet of rounds loaded to the highest working pressures commonly used with 98's.

As for Ackely, his books are very interesting and his blowup tests were in my opinion very entertaining but I sure wish he used a "standardized" cartridge and identical load progression in demonstrating the strengths of the actions. It would have given a much better picture of just how comparable are the actions he tested and might also give a modern experimenter a procedure to follow if he cared to test other actions. this assuming pressure testing of the ammunition used.

As for HVA's, de Haas has mentioned the extreme hardness of some he tested. Whether that was merely surface carburizing or a situation of hardness all the way through the action I am not certain. If it was the latter it is possible, possible, that some might reflect similar properties to those exhibited by some Eddystone and Springfield actions. Again, if that is the case, a failure might not be noticed in lug setback but rather in catastrophic disintegration of the action without much or any warning or if only the bolt was effected, lug shear. In the case of the former, a third lug might not matter much. In the case of the latter, it might matter a lot, as mentioned a while back regarding some instances of lug shear in military 94/96/38's.

I am really not trying to paint a picture of 94 action types being smoking hand grenades, only pointing out their design antiquity and my own personal preference to hold that action type to pressures lower than what I might be comfortable shooting in a modern action. I do so with my own M46 in 9.3x57 and would do same with a 9.3x62 in the same action type. If another fellow wants to shoot heavier loads in his own 46/640 all the power to him.
 
#27 ·
I personally wouldn't feed a perfect condition 95, 93 or 96 the same as I would a good 98 either. I also definitely wouldn't limit myself to 38,000CUP when Norma themselves load it to 47,000CUP. Since Husky chambered some 96's for the '06, what pressure did they have in mind?
 
#28 ·
Since Husky chambered some 96's for the '06, what pressure did they have in mind?
Seriously, this is a really good question.

Another good question is what pressure did Herr Mauser have in mind when he added a third lug and some big gaping gas ports on the bolt...? :D
 
#29 · (Edited)
As far as I know, HVA never barreled any M96 in 30-06.. Stiga did and so did others. And I think they "normalized" (slow cooling heat treatment - also called re-tempering) all the receivers before doing so, just like BSA and others did with M-17 and P14s. Also, as I said before, MAP is not an absolute reading; most of the commercial manufacturers, for evident reasons, load their ammos to about 85% of the said MAP and sometimes even lower (and it's good either for CIP and SAAMI standards).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top