Results 1 to 43 of 43
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,245

    Default YOUR Favorite 9.3x62 {x62!} Loads!!

    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...!
    Formerly LeeSpeed; I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth...and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary...I believe in the Holy Spirit...the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Houston, Texas USA
    Posts
    20

    Default

    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 .
    Last edited by BFaucett; 01-31-2008 at 11:35 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    247

    Default

    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Houston, Texas USA
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Some load data from the article "Medium Mediums" by John Barsness in the December-January 2008 issue (#250) of Handloader magazine:


    From the article: An asterisk (*) denotes a “deer load,” somewhat reduced in velocity from maximum, and has a point of impact almost exactly the same as loads marked with two asterisks (**).

    Cheers!
    -Bob F.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,245

    Default 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?
    Formerly LeeSpeed; I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth...and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary...I believe in the Holy Spirit...the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    461

    Default

    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. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,245

    Default more questions...

    Quote Originally Posted by ktr View Post
    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?
    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.
    Formerly LeeSpeed; I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth...and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary...I believe in the Holy Spirit...the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Houston, Texas USA
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeeSpeed View Post
    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?
    No, I've never used .30-06 brass to make 9.3x62 cases. Of course, I've read magazine articles where others have done it. Yes, the R-P brass listed in my chart above was .30-06 brass used to make 9.3x62 cases by the authors listed (Finn Aagaard and Steve Gash). When I acquired my CZ 550 rifle back in 2005, 9.3x62 brass was easily available via the Internet so I never bothered with converting .30-06 cases.


    Quote Originally Posted by LeeSpeed View Post
    Has anyone miked the base of Graf's versus say, regular {Rem, Win, etc} .30-06 brass?
    I've never measured it before now but your question made me curious so I just measured some. This is from new, unfired brass. I just measured two cases of each cartridge.

    W-W .30-06 - base diameter .464"

    Graf 9.3x62 - base diameter .473"

    I don't have any other brands of either on hand to measure. But, just based on this small sample, it would seem that making 9.3x62 cases out of .30-06 brass may not be such a good idea. I've read where the base dimension spec for the 9.3x62 is slightly larger than the .30-06 but I had just never measured actual cases until just now.


    Here's some cartridge drawings for comparison. (I assume these are Max spec dimensions shown in the drawings).








    Drawings courtesy of http://stevespages.com/page8d.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by LeeSpeed View Post
    What MAKE is Graf's brass?? Is it merely Prvi Partizan? How does it hold up?
    I've read different things on different forums but I never have seen a post IMHO that authoritatively stated the manufacturer of Graf's brass. My GUESS would be Prvi, since Graf's sells their bullets and loaded ammunition but that's just my guess. I've been very happy with the Graf 9.3x62 brass. I've reloaded cases up to fives times with no problems. (I generally don't reload rifle brass more than five or six times.)

    I hope this has been of some help......

    Cheers!
    -Bob f.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Winterland, Canada
    Posts
    1,711

    Default

    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.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Chamber pressure vs charge1.jpg   chamber pressure vs load density1.jpg   muzzle velocity vs load density1.jpg   charge vs load density.jpg  
    Last edited by Baribal; 02-02-2008 at 09:30 PM. Reason: missed charge vs load density
    Coagula / Solve

    Baribal; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baribal

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    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?
    Formerly LeeSpeed; I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth...and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary...I believe in the Holy Spirit...the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Winterland, Canada
    Posts
    1,711

    Default 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.
    Coagula / Solve

    Baribal; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baribal

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Houston, Texas USA
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeeSpeed View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    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. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Chilliwack BC
    Posts
    29

    Default

    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.

    Last edited by dopeydave; 02-08-2008 at 03:03 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    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.
    Daryl

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,245

    Default 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...
    Formerly LeeSpeed; I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth...and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary...I believe in the Holy Spirit...the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    As many people put too much stock in fpe- the 286gr. at 2,519fps developes 4,031 of those sedusive foot pounds. The 270gr. at 2,675fps, on the other hand puts out 4,291:eek: fpe.
    Daryl

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Chilliwack BC
    Posts
    29

    Default

    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. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Daryl S; 02-09-2008 at 01:44 PM.
    Daryl

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Winterland, Canada
    Posts
    1,711

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Baribal; 02-09-2008 at 06:20 PM.
    Coagula / Solve

    Baribal; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baribal

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    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.
    Daryl

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Winterland, Canada
    Posts
    1,711

    Default

    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/nonfict..._2/ED9VOL2.pdf

    Then, again and again, one can do whatever he wants, it's not my business.
    Last edited by Baribal; 02-10-2008 at 10:50 AM.
    Coagula / Solve

    Baribal; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baribal

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,245

    Default 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.
    Formerly LeeSpeed; I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth...and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary...I believe in the Holy Spirit...the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    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.
    Daryl

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Winterland, Canada
    Posts
    1,711

    Default

    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.
    Coagula / Solve

    Baribal; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baribal

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,245

    Default 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.
    Formerly LeeSpeed; I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth...and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary...I believe in the Holy Spirit...the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    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?
    Daryl

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daryl S View Post
    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
    Formerly LeeSpeed; I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth...and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary...I believe in the Holy Spirit...the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Winterland, Canada
    Posts
    1,711

    Default

    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).
    Last edited by Baribal; 02-10-2008 at 10:10 PM.
    Coagula / Solve

    Baribal; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baribal

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Baribal, you are correct. Husqvarna never chambered the 94-96 in .30-06. The only factory chamberings were 6.5x55, 8x57, 9.3x57, and 9.3x62.
    Steve

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    Points taken guys.
    : About that third lug and gas ports, well, there were actions of similar 'pressure' design from other countries that lacked both. The 98 is the only twin front lug action I'm aware of that has that third lug. As far as being useful, I've never seen it, not that that means it hasn't happened, just that I've never heard of it doing anything but being there. Gas ports and such are good selling points for a maker to show a government official who knows nothing of rifles- sounds good is what I'm getting at.
    ; The Springfield actions early and newly made along with all the other modern actions lack the gas ports of the 98, and are no better than the m96 in handling escaping gas.
    ; If you want to see an action that you can't blow the bolt out of, look no further than the Lee Enfield, in any of it's post WW1 guises & even the #3. We tried to blow the bolts on a few and failed. We got a bolt to bend using a case full of bullseye and a bullet plugged barrel, but the action held and so did the barrel. Care to guess at the pressure? Not that that has anything to do with the Mausers.
    Last edited by Daryl S; 02-11-2008 at 12:42 AM. Reason: spelling, etc.
    Daryl

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Add the 03 Springfield to the list of twin front lug actions with a third safety lug, just a copy of Mauser design anyway. The Mannlicher military bolt actions including the Schoenauer system all use the bolt handle base/guide rib as a safety lug against the wall of the right side of the receiver. Just as large and heavy or more so than the 3rd lug of the 98. Plenty of designs with a third lug. The bolt shroud design of the 98 has to be considered a definate plus with the deflection flange should a cartridge case let go and the gas make back that far to the shooters face and eyes. Even the 1902 New Model Mannlichers had that. Something the pre 98 Mausers lack, but the thumb cut of the military actions would probably release most of the problem at that point coming along the left side lug raceway. The '03s cone shaped barrel breech doesn't support the cartridge base as well as a Mauser and is a presumed weak spot when it comes to a rupture. When one does happen, all the gas pressure needs to go somewhere and the gas ports no matter what rifle usually point it into the magazine and/or the bolt race ways. The Lee Enfield however uses the gas ports on the left side of the receiver opposite the bolt head. The great advantage of the rimmed cartridge, flat faced bolt and near complete encircled case head makes a very strong breech. The small extractor cut in the barrel has a matching relieved cut in the receiver on the right should a failure occur there. Many Military L/E rifle bolts only engage on one lug, or just barely onto the second. Some setback occurs to correct the situation through use. Headspace expands as a result, but is easiest of the lot to correct with the separate bolt head. L/E are strong, but do have limits. The gas handling abilitys are limited by the very small ports and the action does have it's strength limits too. I've have seen them blown but that prooves nothing. Anything can be destroyed. Ackley did alot of the blow 'em up tests on different military rifles after WW2 and came to the conclusion that the Arisaka was the strongest of the lot. There hasn't been a run on custom built sporting rifles on Arisaka actions just yet but it's an entertaining read.
    BTW I do personally rate my Lee Sporting rifles right up there with anything else I own. One is in 400/350 and it handles it just fine.
    This has been a great thread with interesting views and information.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Winterland, Canada
    Posts
    1,711

    Default

    Daryl,
    The problem with such a forum, is that everyone can read this thread and it may put some weird ideas in disturbed minds. Also, while the Lee-Enfields are with no doubt good and proven actions, I've seen actions blown with standard (even mild US loaded) ammunitions because of too much headspace. Most of us, Canadians, have at least one Lee-Enfield in the safe, but how many of them have good headspace settings?...

    Now, back to the subject of this thread, Lee, here's my 649, pics are so, so. It is the post-WWII type with no-thumb notch, and was in mint condition (read, almost new) when I got it. Just a little bit of oil on the stock and here she goes moose hunting.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails M96(M38) commerciale 9.jpg   M96(M38) commercial9b.jpg   M96(M38) commercial9.jpg  
    Last edited by Baribal; 02-11-2008 at 11:53 AM.
    Coagula / Solve

    Baribal; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baribal

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Thumbs up

    Baribal - very nice. They sure look good without the thumb-cut, don't they. I couldn't see in the photo, but is the rear bridge without the clip slot? It would be rather superfluous.
    The old addage that if one does not understand what headspace is and how to control it/correct it, one has no business handloading, comes to mind.
    : My brand new, but used of course, 9.3x57 is case in point. It has too much headspace to shoot with any brass (factory ammo) one wishes to reload. The headspace isnt bad enough to create ignition problems - probably - but is severe enough to require proper case care for the first loading' and firing to move the shoudler to where it should be. The thread on "oversize chambers" comes to mind.
    : I concurr that some readers of threads might do some foolish things, but isn't that the natural order of selection in progress? Sorry - couldn't resist that. You are correct, we should be careful how we word posts.
    Daryl

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Winterland, Canada
    Posts
    1,711

    Default

    Daryl,

    Actually, they kept the clip notch... really don't know why, but it's good with me; even if that size of clip is a bit scarce (I have some left here - sorry, for my personal use!) I like loading the lady with clips... it makes it a fast moose and bear slayer...

    As for natural selection, I must agree... (lol!) - But, that is, we tend to forget that the NET is an opened window....
    Coagula / Solve

    Baribal; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baribal

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Chilliwack BC
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Here's a link to an article over on the realguns site, Joe posted some of the loads he developed for a 20 1/2" barreled cz 550 fullstock in 9.3x62, add another 75-100fps for the extra 3" of barrel in my rifles and the numbers with the RL-15 loads are what I have experienced as well.
    http://www.realguns.com/loads/93x62mm.htm
    http://www.realguns.com/archives/152.htm
    http://www.realguns.com/archives/153.htm

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,245

    Default There it is!!

    Thanks for posting, Baribal!

    I had an 8x57 in the exact same configuration. The solid wall action is really a unique action in its own right. Looks like you replaced the bead front sight with a post?
    Formerly LeeSpeed; I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth...and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary...I believe in the Holy Spirit...the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Winterland, Canada
    Posts
    1,711

    Default Not Me!

    Lee,

    it's untouched, anyways, by me but looks like an original to me, seen the condition of the rifle. The only thing I removed is the hood over the front sight (the "big" type) because it was flipping up in a "pling" sound after three shots (light rifle - great recoil).
    Coagula / Solve

    Baribal; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baribal

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    Baribal - are the clips for the 9.3x62 the same as those for the 6.5x55?
    : I noticed my pile of .308 clips from Canadian Military ammo(DCRA
    ) works just fine with the 9.3x57, as they should.
    : I-too liked using the clips with the 6.5, which is why I used a B-square mount on the rear sight. The 6.5 just had too much usable range to be restricted to irons. Then I sold it to my moose hunting buddy for his daughter - he got the last 2 clips I had for the 6.5.
    Daryl

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Winterland, Canada
    Posts
    1,711

    Default IVI clip don't work for me

    Daryl,

    IVI clip (7.62X51) doens't work neither does the 8X57 clips. It has to be the 6.5 clip... that's why I kept mine... I, too, don't have no more M96/38 6.5, I am now using my Tikka HB Varmint 65X55 for taget (and varmint/scavenger) shooting.
    Coagula / Solve

    Baribal; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baribal

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,245

    Default clips

    Regular 8x57 Mauser clips work fine in my M46. The are loose and sloppy and do not fit, but feed like corn thru a goose.

    I just drop them in and drive the cartridges into the magazine with four fingers of my right hand. I have found various rifle magazines take cliploaded rounds differently, some easier and some more difficultly, but my 46 with the wrong-sized clips gobble them up.
    Formerly LeeSpeed; I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth...and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary...I believe in the Holy Spirit...the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    Last evening, I found one more 6.5 clip. I didn't know I had 3. Guess I'll have to give that one to Keith, or maybe keep it as I may get another 9.3x62. Although, with the .375/06IMP, I've already got a fast 9.3.
    Daryl

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    247

    Default

    Samco has 6.5x55 clips, brand new, 40 in a box for $14.00 US........

    Smokepole50

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •