Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    21

    Default New M96 Swedish Sporter, with pics

    A rather huffy guy in the Swedish Military forum suggested I look here, so this is a repost.
    At a gun show today, looking for something interesting, and found a Swedish Mauser, in very nice shape. It has all matching numbers, an excellent bore, and nice wood. And at $150, the price was right. Of course, the problem was that it has been sporterized. The stock has been cut and refinished, and the barrel has been shortened. Whoever did this actually made a pretty good job if it, the stock looks nice, and the barrel was given a well done target crown. It should shoot very well.

    I say should, but when I took it to the range, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. I actually had to get to within 15 yards to hit the paper. That's absurd. The clear problem is that the aftermarket front sight is badly matched to the original rear sight. Additionally, the shortened barrel means an even shorter sight radius.

    Anyone have any ideas on how to correct the sights? I'm thinking a dioptor sight mounted on the rear of the receiver makes the most sense, but I'm open to suggestions.
    Last edited by Scubaguy10; 05-04-2008 at 12:31 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    454

    Default

    There's not renough info to diagnose your problem. Where on the paper were the bullets impacting? Hi, low, to the right? How large a group did it shoot at 15 yds? If elevation is the issue you should have more than enough in the military rear sight. That Remington takeoff sight is darn near the same height as the issue sight.

    A receiver or diopter sight would no doubt be more accurate than tradtional open sights but may not be necessary to get this rig shooting.

    Tell us more and perhaps we can get it into shape.



    That crown looks like it was done with a hacksaw, file, and brass ball or screw.
    Last edited by z1r; 05-05-2008 at 09:39 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Well, I tried to boresight it this morning, by eye, and the sights don't look to be that far off. I drifted the front a little and it seems close. I'll shoot it again, at 25 yds, with the target on a big piece of cardboard, and see if I can get a handle on it. If the crown is badly done, it'll shoot like shit no matter what. I could always have it recrowned, I guess.

    This gun had a perfect looking action, with all matching numbers. I never would have sporterized it, but I figured for the money it was worth it. If I decide it's not a keeper, I can get my money out of it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    385

    Default scubaguy--

    can you send me a pm--looks like yours isn't set up? Thanks mauserdoc

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    The crown looks fine as does the rifle.
    : When I shortened my 29" barrel to 22" and re-finished it's used stock to a schnable forend on my new unfired M96 barreled action, I merely used an RCBS case chamfer tool for crowning. I've done a few rifles over the last 35 years with this method and have become somewhat proficient at it.
    : Front sight height is of primary importance. Youys appears to be a bit high. I suggest you measure the rear notch at the lowest setting and mount the front sight accordingly.
    : I measured up my rear sight height above the bore and put a ramp with front sight blade at the same height. This proved perfect for the gun, merely raising the military rear one knotch or depressing it for various bullet weights from 120gr. to 160gr. All test loads with various bullet weights shot individual 1 1/2" groups using the irons at 100 meters - with eveything going into a 3" circle. The sight radious is just fine.
    : The new owner put a barrel mounted scope in the rifle and reports all the ammo I gave him, with bullets from 120gr. to 160, shoots 3/4" or better. The man is an accomplished shot.
    Last edited by Daryl S; 05-05-2008 at 12:11 PM. Reason: edit- spelling & removal of load data
    Daryl

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Cascade Mts, Washington State
    Posts
    4,503

    Default

    yea IMHO its the crown. i just got a k98 with a bulged barrel and prior to barrel replacment, tried it out and got the same results. id sure try a professonal 'target crown' job.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by solman View Post
    yea IMHO its the crown. i just got a k98 with a bulged barrel and prior to barrel replacment, tried it out and got the same results. id sure try a professonal 'target crown' job.
    The crown in this rifle was performed with a lathe, or a pilot guided hand tool. That is visible. The 'type' of crown in this rifle is the second best for a match rifle, being much better than any 'factory' military or comercial 'reamed cone' crown. In my most mumble opinion
    Solman - since your barrel was bulged, the innacuracy was due to that, not the crown - unless it was the crown that was bulged, although with a military rifle, most crowns are broach cut and many not squar with the bore's axis. This rifle has a'curned' crown and therefore is done correctly.

    Of course, if done with a Brownells tool but a ham-fist, it may not be square with the world and therefore be at fault. It appears OK.
    Daryl

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    Scuba- you made no reference to where it is shooting and that there was a mis-match between the sights. Does this mean it was shooting high or low or off to one side or the other?
    Daryl

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Are the groups large or is it shooting reasonable groups to someplace other than where you wish it were? Very different problems.

    Bullet throwing is a pretty dynamic affair and boresighting is only slightly useful at times.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daryl S View Post
    The crown in this rifle was performed with a lathe, or a pilot guided hand tool. That is visible. The 'type' of crown in this rifle is the second best for a match rifle, being much better than any 'factory' military or comercial 'reamed cone' crown. In my most mumble opinion
    Solman - since your barrel was bulged, the innacuracy was due to that, not the crown - unless it was the crown that was bulged, although with a military rifle, most crowns are broach cut and many not squar with the bore's axis. This rifle has a'curned' crown and therefore is done correctly.

    Of course, if done with a Brownells tool but a ham-fist, it may not be square with the world and therefore be at fault. It appears OK.
    How did you determine how the crown was cut? Look at the muzzle end of the barrel. If someone took the time to cut that crown with a lathe then they most likely would have also faced off the muzzle with a lathe. You would not seem the marks on the muzle that are visible now were it done in a lathe. The marks would be circular. Also, note that the crown is concave, not angled. More evidence that a brass ball or screw head was used.

    Of course what is more important is the question that we've both asked, where are the groups hitting relative to the point of aim? And, are they groups or patterns? Without this bit of info it is impossible to offer useful advice.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by z1r View Post
    How did you determine how the crown was cut? Look at the muzzle end of the barrel. If someone took the time to cut that crown with a lathe then they most likely would have also faced off the muzzle with a lathe. You would not seem the marks on the muzle that are visible now were it done in a lathe. The marks would be circular. Also, note that the crown is concave, not angled. More evidence that a brass ball or screw head was used.

    Of course what is more important is the question that we've both asked, where are the groups hitting relative to the point of aim? And, are they groups or patterns? Without this bit of info it is impossible to offer useful advice.
    ; Different monitors show different things, sometimes. When I blow the picture up on mine, I see a muzzle that wasn't perfectly faced, but almost. I also see a 'target-type' crown, not a concave crown. The angled cut stops, then runs flat to the bore as in most 'old style' target crowns. I use this 'type' of crown on some rifles, but am fully capable of crowning perfectly using only an RCBS chamber tool as I indicated above. Regarless of how the crown was made, it appears good enough that it should shoot reasonable well.
    ; Yes - the important question is where is it shooting and are the groups it's shooting, good groups? This is information we are still without and an informed answer cannot be given without it. We are taking for granted the owner is capable of shooting good groups and has good form. I have never had an iron sighted rifle that was off target at 50 yards & most are on somewhere at 100 even.
    Last edited by Daryl S; 05-08-2008 at 07:14 AM.
    Daryl

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Well, I need to get aout to the range again with this thing. The first time I shot it , at 15 yards or so, it appeared to be about 8-10" low and 6" or so to the left. I was shooting offhand, so ceertainly not as stable as a bench.

    I may not be the best shot in the world, but on a bench rest, I can certainly keep an iron sighted rifle on the paper at 100 yards, so I don't think its me.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scubaguy10 View Post
    Well, I need to get aout to the range again with this thing. The first time I shot it , at 15 yards or so, it appeared to be about 8-10" low and 6" or so to the left. I was shooting offhand, so ceertainly not as stable as a bench.

    I may not be the best shot in the world, but on a bench rest, I can certainly keep an iron sighted rifle on the paper at 100 yards, so I don't think its me.
    You and the rifle may both be shooting fine, but it may need sight adjustments. This is why I asked about group size. An inch group ten feet from the point of aim is neither the rifle or the shooters fault. A ten inch group scattered around point of aim is either a rifle or shooter issue that sight adjustment will not help. Even fixed sights have to be adjusted on rifles.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    785

    Default

    15 yards and 6" left? Wow! A simple sight change can fix the vertical and help with the horizontal as well, but 6" to the side at 15 yards is a lot.

    Is the front sight in the middle of the barrel, ie; mounted straight? Perhaps the barrel is bent if the sight is straight?

    More shooting will tell. Without making a sight height change, raise the front sight in the rear notch when aiming untill the bullets strike in the centre at about 25 yards. A 25 yard zero will represent about 1" to 2" high at 100 yards with irons. Make a note on there the rear sight bisects the front sight and that's the sight height you need - if you understand what I'm saying. That is, raise the front sight, but aim with the rear blade level with the bull, the front`s beat or blade sitting above the bull. The other way is to keep raising the rear sight in it's notches until you get a zero at 25 yards. If you can live with that, then don't change the front sight. Windage is by drifting the sight.
    : Due to you're getting a group, this means it's just the sights and/or barrel out of alignment problem.
    Last edited by Daryl S; 05-09-2008 at 12:48 PM.
    Daryl

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Western Canada
    Posts
    235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scubaguy10 View Post
    Well, I need to get aout to the range again with this thing. The first time I shot it , at 15 yards or so, it appeared to be about 8-10" low and 6" or so to the left. I was shooting offhand, so ceertainly not as stable as a bench.

    I may not be the best shot in the world, but on a bench rest, I can certainly keep an iron sighted rifle on the paper at 100 yards, so I don't think its me.
    I think you are right that the first thing you need to do is get back to the range and get a better idea of how far out this rifle really is. Try a 4'x4' piece of cardboard with a 1 inch dot in the middle set up at 25 yds, from a good rest. Do this and you have a stable basis to start diagnosing the problem.

    Others have given you some good advice. Also, if the front sight was installed incorrectly it may be offset radially with the rear sight, which may cause you to cant the rifle slightly as you aim. If this condition is present it might account for at least some of the trouble as well. A competent gunsmith would have ensured proper alignment with the rear sight before fixing the front sight in place. You can check it roughly by leveling the rifle using a torpedo level on the rear sight, and then observing if the front sight looks to be true vertical or not.
    Last edited by jethunter; 05-09-2008 at 04:46 PM.

Posting Permissions

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