A very underrated rifle (Pic's)

[TwoRivers]

Husqvarna produced M96-actioned sporting rifles in all the calibers mentioned by Grumpy, also 8x57S. 9.3x57 was a mainstay for a long time. Some of the receivers were without the thumb slot. Also, on these sporters the cocking piece is usually shortened, and without lug. I remember seeing them in the mid-sixties for slightly under $100.

When I find my Husqvarna book, (more books than shelf space), I should have more info.

[Grumpy]

It was the early `50s ( 1953 I think ) that they swapped from using the FN M98 action to the new 1600 although I suspect there were FN actioned rifles built after 1953. Post war and prior to the adoption of the FN action they used M96 based rifles for their 640 series - not the same as the later FN actioned 640s. Husqvarna seems to have been quite adaptable and I have little doubt that they would build what was asked for throughout a great deal of the `50s. After all, there were huge numbers of M96s available and the FN M98 actions wouldn`t have been used-up before the introduction of the 1600. Although we tend to accept dates as being rigidly fixed I`m absolutely certain that in very many cases, they were actually nothing like as rigid as the texts suggest - and I`m talking about a great many more gunmakers than just Husqvarna.
There were a great many M98s - including Interarms marketed Zastavas - that were modified to accept the .375 H&H. That has an OAL of 91 mm - 6mm longer than the 30-06. I`m not suggesting that just because the M98 can be persuaded to accept the .375 H&H that automatically means that the M96 could be modified to take the 30-06 but they must have done something. As is often the case, `where there`s a will, there`s a way`.

[timmy]

There were a great many M98s - including the Interarms built Zastavas - that were modified to accept the .375 H&H. That has an OAL of 91 mm - 6mm longer than the 30-06. I`m not suggesting that just because the M98 can be persuaded to accept the .375 H&H that automatically means that the M96 could be modified to take the 30-06 but they must have done something. As is often the case, `where there`s a will, there`s a way`.

This is quite true. Roy Weatherby was one who did this modification on his early guns, before the Mark V was developed. The material, quite logically, was removed from the back of the feed ramp in order to accomplish this. The feed ramp is the same material that provides support for the lower locking lug of the bolt when the gun is fired. The result of this could be, especially with hot loads, a failure of the upper locking lug as the lower one set back in the action.

Regarding the M96, remember that the M98 has a third, or safety, locking lug under the bolt, which the M96 does not have. Also, the M96 was made for cartridges operating in the 45,000 range, where the M98 works with 50,000+ cartridges. This is not to imply that the M96 will blow up when used with cartridges like the 308, which will pass through the magazine cut out and do operate at 50,000+, but it does note that this is one more point where the receiver is being asked to do something it wasn't designed to do.

When Husqvarna made up the HVA 1600 action, they incorporated a number of M98 features: the receiver is more or less M98, not M96 length, it has a third safety locking lug, like the M98, and it has the 1/2" striker travel of the M98, rathe than the 1" striker travel of the M96. Unlike the M96 and like the M98, it also cocks on opening, rather than on closing.

The 1600 is a small ring action and the barrel seats against the front of the receiver ring, which is the way the M96 is designed; i.e., it doesn't have an internal ring that the barrel seats against like the M98.

But to your point, yes, the M98 was lengthened to accept the longer 300/375 H&H rounds, and yes, it did work, but it was not a unqualified success. Handling such cartridges is what the Mauser Magnum and later Brevex copy of the Mauser magnum actions where intended for.

[Grumpy]

Yes, but for many years no-one built a magnum Mauser action hence the modification of standard M98s. Mauser ceased production of their magnum actions well before WWII, FN had ceased produced of their magnum Mauser action in the `50s and the French Brevex was only built for a few short years starting around 1954.
Roy Weatherby used FN, magnum Brevex and a left-handed M98 action that I know nothing about, the Matthieu.
C.I.P. max pressure rating for the 6.5x55 is 55,100 psi. SAAMI is 51,000 psi. As a comparison, C.I.P. Max pressure for the 8x57 is 56,560 psi - SAAMI is 35,000 psi ................. Ignoring the SAAMI `nanny state` rating, the actual difference is 1,460 psi which is VERY little. I suspect that the pressure standard you quote is CUP because 46,000 CUP `corresponds` with 51,000 psi ( modern measurement ) as per the 7x57.
Even allowing for the M96 action being stronger than people, generally, give it credit for, I was surprised to learn the following : "Chub Eastman said and I quote, "I was fortunate enough to get a tour of the Norma Facility. More than 80 percent of the actions used in the company's ballistics lab were the same Model 96 Mausers that were imported into the U.S.. I guess this speaks to the strength of the Model 96." That was from an issue of Guns & Ammo, November 2006 or 2007.

[Grumpy]

Ah, that`s interesting; Reading the Wikipedia entry for the Weatherby MK V it states : " Beginning in 1949 Weatherby began building his rifles around the FN Belgian Mauser action. In 1955 Schultz & Larson actions were added to the mix while adding the Mathieu left handed action to his rifle action line up. With the addition of the large capacity .378 Weatherby Magnum a new action type was warranted so the Brevex Magnum Mauser action was added. A little later the FN Sako Mauser actions were added to action types used by Weatherby to build his rifles.[1]"
From that I take it that the Mathieu action was not necessarily an M98 type.
The S&L action must have been the 54J because the successor S&L 60 was introduced 1957, the same year as the Weatherby MK V appeared.
Just as an aside, my, much later, S&L 30-06 used an FN M98 action ......

[timmy]

This may end up being a somewhat lengthy post -- I hope those reading who are interested and taking part will do me the favor of going through this post to the end.

First of all, to Grumpy and Two Rivers: I was wrong - Swede M96 actions were available commercially in .270 and 30-06. I am still not convinced that Husqvarna offered them, but at least the firm of Stiga did offer them, and there may be others, as well. This point is nothing I would quibble over.

Moving on, I would note that, as regards strength, the Spanish did rechamber their M93 type rifles, originally in 7x57mm, to 7.62x51 NATO. Other commercial firms seem to have done the same.

Regarding pressures, there are so many ways to measure this, given differing European and US standards and means of measurement, but my positions are based on these premise that I hold: Taking the 6.5x55mm as a baseline, 30-06 runs about 11% more pressure, and 308 would run about 16% more. 270 would run even a little hotter, at more than 20% hotter than the 6.5x55's pressure, but still considerably less than 6.5x55s proof load.

This would tend to indicate that the Spanish, in rechambering their M93-like actions, are still safe, being less than the proof load level. (I consider 7x57 as being similar in pressure to the 6.5x55.)

Now, I would also like to mention that "strength" is not the same thing as "safe" when it comes to evaluating bolt action rifles. The M96 is strong, and perhaps strong enough to handle hotter loads like the 308, being a little stronger than the M93, but much closer to the M93 in strength than it is to the M98.

Second, I will note that, getting the M96 to accept a 270 or 30-06 will require opening up the magazine opening in the bottom of the M96 receiver. Note:


A factory 30-06 round in an M96

Here is a visual description of the relative overall length of rounds:


l to r: 9.3x62 -- 30-06 -- 8x57 -- 6.5x55 -- 308

From this, it can be seen that if one is not a reloader and can seat bullets deeper than standard overall length, something has to give, and that something is the feed ramp, which supports the lower locking lug when the bolt is closed.

M96s are simply not as strong as the M98. The M98 has a longer receiver ring, giving a longer threaded section in the ring in which the barrel threads, and they have in internal ring, which also strengthens this critical part of the action. Large ring M98s also have more metal thickness to the ring, as well.

M96s do fail when overstressed. I think these following pictures speak for themselves, in the type of failures they display:







This last picture is especially interesting, as locking lug failure is a different matter from receiver failure, like the first two. Of course, it is granted that we don't know the loads that were used in these cases, but it does seem to me that enough problems with M96s are reported, to constitute more of a problem than just idiot reloaders. Also, the last picture gives me the impression of lengthening the receiver magazine cutout (Although that isn't the case here -- we see the round was 6.5x55, so this was likely a hot load). The lower lug sets back because it is not supported, making the upper one take on most of the job. It cracks and returns all of the stress to the lower one, and we have bolt failure.

Apparently, from what I read, such problems are not unknown in Sweden, where the M96 is still used in numbers.

Now, regarding my earlier statement, making a distinction between strength of an action versus the safety of an action, here's the difference:

The strength of an action has to do with the receiver to resist failure under the stress of firing.

The safety of an action is related to how well it keeps the shooter safe if a case was to fail -- it has to do with routing of high pressure gasses away from the shooter, in case a primer is pierced or a case head fails.

In this matter, an M96 is not stellar. By contrast, an M98 is better than just about anything else out there. The M98 bolt has generous ports that vent gasses into the left raceway in case a primer is pierced, and gasses enter the firing pin hole in the bolt face.

The M98 (at least, the ones that have not felt the unfortunate hands of "stylists" who insist on "streamlining" the bolt sleeve) also seals off the back of the action totally by having an interlocking flange on the front of the bolt sleeve.

The M96, already pushed toward the limits of designed pressures, does not have these provisions that make it particularly safe. I will grant, many other actions seem lacking in this department as well. It is a matter of consideration to me, having been behind an 03 Springfield twice, when cases let loose, and that was not a pleasant experience in either case. If I had not been wearing glasses, I could well have lost an eye in both instances.

As a matter of trivia, it seems that Kimber, in an effort to keep the company afloat, bought numbers of surplus Swedish rifles, sporterized them, and sold them. These retained the original barrels in 6.5x55.

I am not aware of M96 actions being made in Sweden after the early 1940s.

I'm still studying these issues and may have more to say in the future, which I will attach to this thread.

[TwoRivers]

From that I take it that the Mathieu action was not necessarily an M98 type.
The S&L action must have been the 54J because the successor S&L 60 was introduced 1957, the same year as the Weatherby MK V appeared.
Just as an aside, my, much later, S&L 30-06 used an FN M98 action ......

Grumpy: Correct on the first one. Not an M98 type. Ditto on the S&L used by Weatherby, the M54J.

[Grumpy]

Timmy I absolutely accept your distinction between strength and safety and also that the M96 action is not as strong as the M98. The only point I was making is that the M96 is stronger than most people allow. Obviously, being less strong than the M98 the margin for error is also less and therefore failures are bound to occur more often when abuses take place. A distinction should be made between the M96 and the other small ring Mausers, especially the M94 ( the other Swedish Mauser ) as they definitely are not as strong as the M96.
The first failure shown is one that I`ve seen many times and, on one of the one of the sites it is shown, there is a thread concerning the relative strength of Mauser actions with and without the thumb cut-out. One of the contributors makes the very good point that rigidity is not the same as strength - which is something else that should be remembered.
Two-rivers, your firearms library must be quite astonishing. Nowhere online have I been able to find confirmatory evidence regarding either the S&L action used by Roy Weatherby or the nature of the Mathieu action - left-handed or otherwise.
As a further aside, having mentioned the M94 above, Vikram and I were discussing the delightful little M94 carbine a couple of weeks or so ago and I found this photograph that indicates just how dinky the M94 was ....... although it should be remembered that although small it was still 950mm - 37.4 inches - long and therefore this soldier must be VERY tall - scroll down to find the gentleman concerned wearing camo gear and clutching his M94 : http://www.gotavapen.se/gota/artiklar/r ... les_se.htm

[timmy]

Grumpy: you are right about the thumb cut and rigidity. One important distinction I'd like to mention here has to do with the gun and its purpose: The M96, like all the rest of these military actions, was not made as a sporting arm. It was designed as a military arm and, like the others, was used to a greater or lesser degree as a sporting arm. I think people get a bit off-base when they start categorizing these weapons as "junk," because they don't fit a use other than that for which they were intended. (I'm not referring to us here -- nobody said that in this thread. It's just that such talk comes up often in gun circles, unfortunately.)

Having said this, th eM96 has that short thread at the breech of the barrel and the thumb cutout, both of which work against hanging a heavy barrel on the end of it. It all works fine for what it was designed to do, however.

For the Mathieu action (and many others), get yourself a copy of Frank ee Haas's Bolt Action Rifles -- it's very common and is a great, handy quick reference to all kinds of actions. de Haas used to contribute to American Rifleman for many years.

I had one of those carbines, just like what you picture, except it had a Lyman receiver peep sight on it. It is another one of those rifles that I never should have gotten rid of, and over which I tend to mourn, when I think about it (like an old Krag). Oh, well, we grow too soon old and too late smart, as the saying goes.

[TwoRivers]

The Matthieu action was a two-lug action with a "Sako" extractor and plunger-in-bolface ejector. Safety was on the left side of the closed bolt shroud, not unlike the one on the "21" series Brnos. Magazines were Springfield '03, modified if required for longer cartridges. Unless I threw it away years ago, I still should have a brochure stashed someplace.