There are so many things said about the strength of these actions but I remember reading an artical on just how strong they are. Evidently P.O.Ackley did some destructive research on these as well as many more actions. If memory serves me correctly weak was not a term that was used. Yes there is the absence of a safety lug and I don't want to mislead anybody in thinking this is an action that should be used to build a wildcat on but used for the caliber in which these rifles were chambered for they should be safe. Stiga even chambered the 30-06 in these rifles. If anyone has seen one come apart under normal use I'd like to know. I do handload and by the very nature of handloading caution should be the order of the day. Does anybody have acess to the P.O.Ackley info or where I could find it? Now before I hear from the Remchester crowd I know there are other options but I am a springfield, mauser buff and enjoy the history and craftsmenship of yesterdays rifles. Ther are so many good deals to be had in the old 96,husky, and swedes chambered for cartriges like 9.3x57,9.3x64,6.5x55,8x57,7x57 all of which can take down game or shoot as accuratly as anything produced today.Again I would like to hear if anyone has had a negative experiance with these rifles.
model 96 mauser strength
- Thread starter lynxsnare
- Start date
- Status
There are so many things said about the strength of these actions but I remember reading an artical on just how strong they are. Evidently P.O.Ackley did some destructive research on these as well as many more actions. If memory serves me correctly weak was not a term that was used. Yes there is the absence of a safety lug and I don't want to mislead anybody in thinking this is an action that should be used to build a wildcat on but used for the caliber in which these rifles were chambered for they should be safe. Stiga even chambered the 30-06 in these rifles. If anyone has seen one come apart under normal use I'd like to know. I do handload and by the very nature of handloading caution should be the order of the day. Does anybody have acess to the P.O.Ackley info or where I could find it? Now before I hear from the Remchester crowd I know there are other options but I am a springfield, mauser buff and enjoy the history and craftsmenship of yesterdays rifles. Ther are so many good deals to be had in the old 96,husky, and swedes chambered for cartriges like 9.3x57,9.3x64,6.5x55,8x57,7x57 all of which can take down game or shoot as accuratly as anything produced today.Again I would like to hear if anyone has had a negative experiance with these rifles.
rbernie
Contributing Member
The '95 (e.g. Chilean) and '96 (e.g. Swedish) were the evolutionary endings to the small-ring Mauser design that began (IIRC) in 1888. in 1898, Paul Mauser moved to a larger receiver ring configuration, with increased safety features such as a third bolt lug. The increase in receiver ring diameter and barrel shank diameter of the '98 design allowed him to accommodate greater variability in metallurgy and heat treatments and still maintain appropriate safety margins.
I have handloaded a Chilean '95 7x57 with pretty warm loads, and survived the effort without issue. In fact, I took down my first deer with that rifle. However, there was/is no doubt that alloy consistency and heat treatment was highly variable in the late 1800s and my efforts at hot-rodding the 7x57 in that rifle was somewhat ill-advised.
The biggest complaints with the Mauser designs in general (both large ring and small) have been the lack of forced ammo-to-bore concentricity (dictated by the flat boltface required to enable the CRF), the slow striker lock times, and the somewhat sloppy bolt throw. Many folk, myself included, are more than willing to accept these traits in exchange for the robustness of the Mauser design.
I just wouldn't expect that a small-ring Mauser will be as appropriate for modern high-pressure rounds as would a large-ring of equivalent qualiy.
I have handloaded a Chilean '95 7x57 with pretty warm loads, and survived the effort without issue. In fact, I took down my first deer with that rifle. However, there was/is no doubt that alloy consistency and heat treatment was highly variable in the late 1800s and my efforts at hot-rodding the 7x57 in that rifle was somewhat ill-advised.
The biggest complaints with the Mauser designs in general (both large ring and small) have been the lack of forced ammo-to-bore concentricity (dictated by the flat boltface required to enable the CRF), the slow striker lock times, and the somewhat sloppy bolt throw. Many folk, myself included, are more than willing to accept these traits in exchange for the robustness of the Mauser design.
I just wouldn't expect that a small-ring Mauser will be as appropriate for modern high-pressure rounds as would a large-ring of equivalent qualiy.
Lynx,
Not a negative experience, but I have a sporterized 6.5 X 55 on a Husky 38 action and I load it warm - 140 grainers @ 2700-ish chronod.
Bolt isn't stiff, primers okay. Been shooting that load for years. No issues. Accurate as all get out.
Not a negative experience, but I have a sporterized 6.5 X 55 on a Husky 38 action and I load it warm - 140 grainers @ 2700-ish chronod.
Bolt isn't stiff, primers okay. Been shooting that load for years. No issues. Accurate as all get out.
Thanks for the comments. I do think the actions are strong but the gas venting issue well, that is where caution is advised can't argue that. In all the years I've been shooting and reloading I've never had a pierced primer not that it couldn't happen and after saying that.... if anyone knows more info on the P.O. Ackley tests please let me know.
wlewisiii
Member
Look for a copy of "The Mauser M91 through M98 Bolt Actions A Shop Manual" by Jerry Kuhnhausen if you want to understand what a Mauser can and can't do.
dirtyjim
Member
the later husky built 96's are built with modern steels and heat treating and are considered as strong as anything on the market. husky chambered them in just about anything that they coult fit in them including 30-06 and 270
Carl N. Brown
Member
Weren't all Mauser 1896 "Swedish" Mauser rifles built by Mauser using steel supplied by the Swedes?
I don't have a high regard of the safety of these pre WW1 rifles. The metallurgy of the period stinks, regardless of how wonderful the machining.
The main source of the shooting communities information has been Gun Magazines and gunwriters. Every so often one of the magazines will run a vintage gun story, timed to help sales at Century Arms, or some other big importer.
So what do the shills say? You will read about the fine workmanship of these things. Check. They will describe the outstanding machine work. Check. You will read about the fine bluing. Check. And they will describe the very good accuracy you will get from a vintage gun. Check. They might also describe the vintage, often amusing design features of the things. Check.
But shill Gunwriters are at best French Majors. They can eat cake, but they don’t know how to bake a cake. They don’t know the difference between ultimate or yield, and the sure as heck don’t know nothing about the history of metallurgy.
That fine metal work, the beautiful finishes, the wonderful fit and finish are all paint hiding rotted wood. Or potentially rotted wood.
Until you read about the history of metallurgy, you just don't know how little they knew in 1890, 1900, 1910, or up to 1920. By the time you get into the 30's metals were well defined and understood.
Anyone remember the progression of the semiconductor revolution? Metal science progressed almost that fast from the 1890's through +WWI. The early stuff, metals and chips, are primitive.
Double and single heat treat Springfields were made from steels that today are used as rebar. As mentioned in another thread, WWI era M1911's were not even heat treated!
There is just not a lot of margin if something goes wrong in early guns.
Anyone remember that the rivets on the Titantic were substandard? Lots of slag in the metal? "three times more slag than occurs in modern wrought iron" This was in 1912.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html
http://shipwrecks.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/metallurgy-of-the-rms-titanic/
I was surprised to read something negative about old actions in the popular press. According to an article written by John Haviland, in the June-July 2007 issue of Rifle magazine, a custom rifle maker built a custom rifle on a M1896 action only to find that the receiver metal was so soft that lugs set back into the receiver first time he fired it.
I assume one shot increased the headspace so much that further shootings were deemed undesirable.
Rifle Magazine , “6.5 X 55 Swedish Mauser, June-July 2007, author John Haviland. Pg 69.
http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/hl247partial.pdf
The warnings to keep the pressures down on those older actions is probably due to the variblity of the things.
Old guns can let go in ways that are terminal to the shooter.
Mr. Glen de Ruiter was fireforming brass in his 6mm lee-navy straight pull 1895. Apparently he worked at SARCO and liked these antique rifles.
Bethlehem Township, PA 1 July 2002
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/printthread.php?threadid=43726
I consider the M1898 Mauser to be as safe an action as ever designed. In fact built of modern materials I consider it the best action ever designed. But I do not consider WW1 and earlier M1898 actions to be all that strong due to the materials.
And when you get to pre 1900, that is the beginning of metallurgical science. The metallurgy of the period is primitive.
M1903 Springfields are built from materials that today are used as rebar. Heat treated the stuff had a yeild of 60 Kpsia. Modern 4140 has yeild strengths around 250 Kpsia. Modern steels should have less slag, less impurties just due to improved process control
The closer you get to WWII the better the technology. I would have no problems building a custom rifle around a 1930’s action, maybe some hesitancy about a 20’s action. I don’t have any metallurgical data to back this up, but it comes from a general feel for the technology of the day expressed in technical literature that I have reviewed.
Not only is the metallurgy suspect on these old actions, they don’t have the shooter protection features of later actions. And when they blow, they tend to fragment.
All I know about this incident is what you see in the picture. But it speaks volumes about how poorly these actions protect the shooter.
The main source of the shooting communities information has been Gun Magazines and gunwriters. Every so often one of the magazines will run a vintage gun story, timed to help sales at Century Arms, or some other big importer.
So what do the shills say? You will read about the fine workmanship of these things. Check. They will describe the outstanding machine work. Check. You will read about the fine bluing. Check. And they will describe the very good accuracy you will get from a vintage gun. Check. They might also describe the vintage, often amusing design features of the things. Check.
But shill Gunwriters are at best French Majors. They can eat cake, but they don’t know how to bake a cake. They don’t know the difference between ultimate or yield, and the sure as heck don’t know nothing about the history of metallurgy.
That fine metal work, the beautiful finishes, the wonderful fit and finish are all paint hiding rotted wood. Or potentially rotted wood.
Until you read about the history of metallurgy, you just don't know how little they knew in 1890, 1900, 1910, or up to 1920. By the time you get into the 30's metals were well defined and understood.
Anyone remember the progression of the semiconductor revolution? Metal science progressed almost that fast from the 1890's through +WWI. The early stuff, metals and chips, are primitive.
Double and single heat treat Springfields were made from steels that today are used as rebar. As mentioned in another thread, WWI era M1911's were not even heat treated!
There is just not a lot of margin if something goes wrong in early guns.
Anyone remember that the rivets on the Titantic were substandard? Lots of slag in the metal? "three times more slag than occurs in modern wrought iron" This was in 1912.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html
http://shipwrecks.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/metallurgy-of-the-rms-titanic/
I was surprised to read something negative about old actions in the popular press. According to an article written by John Haviland, in the June-July 2007 issue of Rifle magazine, a custom rifle maker built a custom rifle on a M1896 action only to find that the receiver metal was so soft that lugs set back into the receiver first time he fired it.
I assume one shot increased the headspace so much that further shootings were deemed undesirable.
Rifle Magazine , “6.5 X 55 Swedish Mauser, June-July 2007, author John Haviland. Pg 69.
http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/hl247partial.pdf
The warnings to keep the pressures down on those older actions is probably due to the variblity of the things.
Old guns can let go in ways that are terminal to the shooter.
Mr. Glen de Ruiter was fireforming brass in his 6mm lee-navy straight pull 1895. Apparently he worked at SARCO and liked these antique rifles.
Bethlehem Township, PA 1 July 2002
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/printthread.php?threadid=43726
.
I consider the M1898 Mauser to be as safe an action as ever designed. In fact built of modern materials I consider it the best action ever designed. But I do not consider WW1 and earlier M1898 actions to be all that strong due to the materials.
And when you get to pre 1900, that is the beginning of metallurgical science. The metallurgy of the period is primitive.
M1903 Springfields are built from materials that today are used as rebar. Heat treated the stuff had a yeild of 60 Kpsia. Modern 4140 has yeild strengths around 250 Kpsia. Modern steels should have less slag, less impurties just due to improved process control
The closer you get to WWII the better the technology. I would have no problems building a custom rifle around a 1930’s action, maybe some hesitancy about a 20’s action. I don’t have any metallurgical data to back this up, but it comes from a general feel for the technology of the day expressed in technical literature that I have reviewed.
Not only is the metallurgy suspect on these old actions, they don’t have the shooter protection features of later actions. And when they blow, they tend to fragment.
All I know about this incident is what you see in the picture. But it speaks volumes about how poorly these actions protect the shooter.
dirtyjim
Member
the huskys 96's were not built in the 1800 they were built from the 1940's up, they were also built as commercial sporting rifles.
their gas handling is no worse than a winchester model 70
their gas handling is no worse than a winchester model 70
It's great that you appreciate those old rifles. Then shoot them with the ammo they were meant for, loads in the 40K cup range like 7x57, 6.5x55.
If you want to shoot loads at modern pressures, use a modern rifle.
According to Luwig Olson, in a Handloader or Rifle Magazine article, the Swedes used the same plain carbon steels throughout production. His quote was "found them so satisfactory" that the Swedes decided not to change. What that tells me the Swedes were hidebound, like Springfield Armory which in 1916 forbid potential manufacturers the use of nickel steels in M1903's.
Later plain carbon steels may have had less slag and impurtities than WW1 era stuff, it was still plain carbon steel.
Go to MatWeb and look at the differences in yeild, tensile and elongation for heat treated 1030 steel and 4140. The materials properties make a big difference.
Paul Mauser's M98 is the safetest action ever made, he really encorporated a lot of shooter protection features. When designers cheapen actions by straying from Paul Mauser's design features, shooter protection and reliability suffer. I consider the M70 an inferior action to the M98.
M70's gas handling sucks, there is no other word for it. Pierce a primer and gas is coming straight down the firing pin shaft into your eye. Late production New Haven and the FN actions at least added an extension on the bolt shroud to block gas coming down the left rail. Pre 64's, stuff is coming out the left side of the receiver.
But at least the things are made of modern alloy steels. When someone puts an overcharge in the things, they bend a lot more than plain carbon steels.
The magic words for this whole exercise are, pistol powder in a rifle caliber and overcharge while loading. These reloader stupids have no bearing on the design/materials of any given rifle. Sure, there are some failures due to faults in construction but the overall designs are sound. It is when you exceed the design specifications you have kabooms. That is not the rifle's fault.
When I was at Trinidad, I observed an effort to blow up an Enfield No1 mk3. The end result was the bolt was frozen in the reciever. Nothing blew up. Many people over the years have reported that the Enfield design was a weak one, BS.
All the metallurgy theroy in the world can't dispute that millions and millions of these so called poor constructed rifles worked just fine, and continue to do so....chris3
When I was at Trinidad, I observed an effort to blow up an Enfield No1 mk3. The end result was the bolt was frozen in the reciever. Nothing blew up. Many people over the years have reported that the Enfield design was a weak one, BS.
All the metallurgy theroy in the world can't dispute that millions and millions of these so called poor constructed rifles worked just fine, and continue to do so....chris3
Imperial Guardsman
Member
My Swiss 96/11 built in 1906 hasn't given me any problems yet and it's 105 years old! Certainly you shouldn't "go crazy" with your reloading on these older weapons, but they can handel what they were designed for.
Cal-gun Fan
Member
How does the strength of a Mauser action compare with that of an M91/30 action? I would find it hard to believe that it would be stronger. More accurate, sure, but I would doubt that it would be stronger.
Accuracy depends on the individual rifle and the ability of the shooter. Most of my Mosin Nagants are equal or better in the accuracy dept than the 98 Mausers I have. In all the years I have been shooting I have only heard of one MN rifle blowing up. I don't know if the ammo was surplus or reloads. There was a flaw in the receiver which started the failure. I don't know what year it was made...chris3
vaupet
Member
@slamfire1 : the rifle in your pic is clairly a M96, not a lee-navy, right?
do you have any info about how it blew to pieces like that?
I love my 1909 carl-gustav, which was rebarreled by swedisch armorers in the 50ies (barrel with threading for blanks).
Do you know if they did any testing or changing during this operation? I would imagine that swedisch army armorers in the 50ies didn't take chanches when working on old rifles.
txs
Peter
do you have any info about how it blew to pieces like that?
I love my 1909 carl-gustav, which was rebarreled by swedisch armorers in the 50ies (barrel with threading for blanks).
Do you know if they did any testing or changing during this operation? I would imagine that swedisch army armorers in the 50ies didn't take chanches when working on old rifles.
txs
Peter
Yes the picture is of a M1896, the death was from a Navy Lee.
Wish I knew more about the M96 accident. I just use it as an object lesson in shooter protection features and the brittleness of plain carbon steel.
I have images of single heat treat Springfields that are much worse.
Check for proof marks. I do not know Swedish proof laws. Depending on the country, rebarreled rifles have to be re proofed. If your rifle was rebarreled by the Swedish military and reproofed, it should be good to go, assuming no one did anything stupid to it since then.
The US does not have proof requirements. US importers of surplus military rifles have no proof or safety requirements to meet before selling these rifles to citizens. Which is OK by me as I will accept the risk. I examined the surplus rifles I purchased, looking for overall condition, signs of wear, bore condition, matching serial numbers. I have checked the headspace on most of my surplus rifles. Since I have 6.5 Swede gages I have checked all of mine. Only one was slightly out of spec. I have set that aside. Having visited a couple of importers, they generally check headspace though there is no requirement to do so. None of the importers I talked to function tested their firearms. The CMP gages gas cylinders and critical parts on the Garands they sell, and they used to function fire them. Don’t know what they do now.
If you are concerned about the condition of your arm you should have a gunsmith inspect the thing. As long as you are firing ammunition that the weapon was designed to use, you should be OK. That is 6.5 Swede with a M96 action. Reloads are an entirely different matter and people in the US blow up firearms all the time with reloads.
I think very highly of the 6.5 Swede cartridge, and you are not limited to surplus rifles to find a good rifle in that cartridge.
Last edited:
dirtyjim
Member
i've seen the story on that m96 somewhere & i'll try to find it.
its been several years since i read it and i don't remember the details on it.
i've also seen pictures of two mosins, one was purposely destroyed and one was a hex receiver that split at the inner ring.
the one that was done intentionally was rechambered to 300wsm and given some healthy reloads till it locked up. it never actually came apart.
the hex receiver that split at the inner ring looked like it had been cracked for a long time before it came apart and the guy didn't even know anything was wrong till he tried to chamber another round. i would guess the problem on this rifle was the barrel shank was slightly to long and cracked the receiver at the inner ring when it was torqued in place.
split mosin
its been several years since i read it and i don't remember the details on it.
i've also seen pictures of two mosins, one was purposely destroyed and one was a hex receiver that split at the inner ring.
the one that was done intentionally was rechambered to 300wsm and given some healthy reloads till it locked up. it never actually came apart.
the hex receiver that split at the inner ring looked like it had been cracked for a long time before it came apart and the guy didn't even know anything was wrong till he tried to chamber another round. i would guess the problem on this rifle was the barrel shank was slightly to long and cracked the receiver at the inner ring when it was torqued in place.
split mosin
El Mariachi
Member
At the risk of sounding like an idiot, would it behoove me to get this '49 Husqvarna 8 x 57 I just bought checked for head space/defects before I take her for a spin next week? Though I bought it off of Gunbroker (from a gentlemen in another state) it turns out the seller used to live right near me, and knew my parents----so I trust him. Regardless, the 8mm Mauser round looks huuuuge, and I would kinda like to keep both of my eyes on my face.....instead of in a Mason jar.....
The metalurgy of the "old" mausers seem to be called into question as to the quality of the action. As always I'm sure there are mistakes in manufacturing. What is "plain carbon steel"To me, as a welding engineering technologist of over 20 yrs plain carbon would refer to an A36 steel which is to mild to recieve much of a heat treatment. A medium carbon steel can, and its properties can be quite desireable. A high carbon can as well, however if the wrong treatment is used in any of these steels a disaster will happen at some time. Weather the steel stretches to failure or shatters in failure there is still a failure. There is nothing wrong with carbon steel as long as there is enough carbon to be heat treatable and the proper heat treatment was used for that steel. Yes, there were single heat treated springfields that failed and it has been documented and because of that all of mine are over 800,000 serial #. I don't for one minute think that my 1903 in 308 Norma Mag is made from the same material as re-bar. Re-bar by those of us in construction is thought of to be in general a substandard material (however they have better grades of that today too, some even in stainless) with carbon deposits etc. But I would think machinability would be horrible and getting an old swede,springfield,or enfield to look as good as they do would not be obtainable. Ask a machinist what happens when he hits a carbon deposit Usually machining is done then the heat treatment takes place. The heat treatment give the steel its toughness. If you know of "soft" actions I would say they missed this step or the wrong heat treatment took place.I can't think of a better testing ground for a firearm than a military not to mention a war. This brings us to design.... and thats for another thread.
- Status
