Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Hot handloads in an old Swedish Mauser?

The 3rd locking lug on a Mauser '98 is a safety lug, we all accept that but to suggest there is no spring or compression in an action would make a person look pretty silly at a bench rest convention.

Those older actions are held back in factory loads because of their age, metalurgy and probably more importantly, the variation in spec's which would also effect chamberings and lead for each barrel.

Modern actions are beefier in the side walls and can be bedded in the recoil mortise area and the tang but because you can attempt to make an accurate rifle from just about anything, take considerations for what you believe is important.

The rear lockers like the Marlin single lug, Model 788 and SMLE were accepted for potential case stretching and head separation and because I ahev also experienced it from pre '98 Mauser actions, I still recommend lighter loads for these actions. If you don't get case stretching because you have loaded conservatively, that does not prove it does not occur.

My background in reviewing rifles always, without exception, involved handloading, developing new unpublished loads nad killing feral animals, often scores of them before the rifle was returned and the review published. I hammered these rifles so I could report on what the average consumer could expect from them.

The reputation you have is the one you generate and I would never report falsely on a finding which is why I often refused to review prodeuct or returned bad product if I found it.

This is not a scolding and I encourage all of you to call it like you see it, just base in on the facts you know and never follow old wives tales regurgitated in the gun press as many writers achieved fame beyond their ability to contribute and it got so bad a few decades back that later writers would never challenge these icons even when they knew they were wrong.

Australia has always been a dumping ground for obsolete product. We were still getting push feed Model 70's long after Americans would not buy one. Same with ex military rifles and action after about 1972, whole arsenals were purchased and imported so the experience there with '96's, 98's, 1903's, SMLE's #4's etc was not only extreme, the shooting culture was handloading only, with very little factory ammo ever seen in the field and thousands of animals killed with these same rifles in time frames that would be considered slaugher these days.

It is a very different background to the shooting scene here in the US. As always, I live democracy and welcome anyone else to have their own opinion and experiences.

I shoot very near full tilt loads in my 7x57 Swede with nary a worry.

In reply to your bullet weight inquiry, during over 40 years of reloading, shooting and hunting with the Swedish Model 96 in 6.5X55 (carbine), I have found the 139/140 grain bullets to be best overall for accuracy and for killing game. This oldie is one great cartridge.

The Swede Mausers are said to be much superior to the '93s and '95s that they are basically the same as. The story is that the metallurgy and or heat treatment was much superior thus resulting in a stronger action. While I've got little other actual evidence to prove it I would tend to think that while they're not as strong as a M98 they're stronger than the rest of the pre-M98s. There are a lot of M95s out that that have been converted to .308 Win and haven't blown up. The Swede is reputed to be a stronger action that that. Since I wouldn't buy a pig in a poke I wouldn't believe all the opinions put forth on the internet either. That includes mine. Do some due diligence research and form your own opinion.

Thanks, all. I'm thinking of 120gr Ballistic Tips @2800-2900 fps for deer/antelope, and a combo of 140gr Sierra Gamekings for load development and 140gr Partitions @2650 for hunting the big stuff.

I'd also sure look hard at the 130 grain Nosler Accubond, somewhat flatter than the 140 Partitions, should be positively great performance in the 6.5 (I used it in the .264 WM). No flies on the 140 Partition either for that matter.

Or the 125 partition.

A couple of bullets that work well in the Swede are 120gn. Sierra over 50gn of H4831 for 2772fps or 48gn of H4350 for 2867fps.

For a heavier load, I liked 48gn of H4350 again but with the 129gn Hornady for 2802fps. Tried these loads in several '96's and they shot and killed well.

That really is a "heavier load" - the max listed on the Hodgdon website is 45.5gr of H4350 for 2703fps with the 129gr bullet.

I've heard that current load data is often lower than what was published even just a few years ago due to overzealous lawyers looking for opportunities to sue.

Regardless, I appreciate hearing from people with real experience with the equipment I'll be using...and it's somewhat comforting to know that the action of the old Mauser can perform well with a load a couple grains higher than what I'll be using.

Thanks to all who replied.

I have mentioned this on another thread, but for what it is worth to this discussion, I have a DWM Mauser with 1897 dated on the receiver.

Sometime before I received this rifle in 1984, it was rebarreled in 308 Win. In that time I have fired maybe 8000 rounds through it. About 30 or 40 percent of those have been factory ammo loaded to modern SAAMI levels. The rest were mild handloads, eg 150g bullets around 2650 fps or 180g bullets around 2500 fps.

Now I am not saying this is necessarily the best idea. However the rifle was assembled by a good gunsmith, who had been using it for a while as his personal rifle. He was happy with the safety of it.

These days I load it mild, 150g bullets around 2600fps. There is no visible evidence anything has ever become stressed or overdone. In fact the receiver and bolt looks very sound.

I suspect I could have gone on shooting 308 modern-spec loads, but I hope to give the rifle to the kids and grandkids. And I would hate to have a failure. So in older age I have decided prudence is a virtue and think its worth going easy.

Obviously this is a different case to a Husky 96. Those things I believe would be fine with full power loads.

If the action is to stretch the bolt has to push on the rear of
the action. Reward force on the locking lugs may put the action
into compressioin. Bench rest shooters used to sleeve the action
to prevent flexing (bending moment) from recoil.
Of course everything in Australia is upside down.

I've found the 130 grain Nosler AB to be a really good bullet in my Sako 6.5X55. I don't push them, getting only about 2700 from them, but the rifle will put them into 3/8" all day. Furthest I've killed a deer with one is 400, closest is about 10 yards. Works well at both extremes. In my other 6.5X55, a jackknife sporterized Swedish Mauser I shoot 160 grain Hornady RN. I use this rifle, with its Williams receiver sight, as a rainy day gun in the woods. I'm getting 2300 with the 160's. Neither of my loads are particulary hot but they both work real well for deer.

The title of the thread is "Hot Handloads..."

Personally, I do not use 'hot' handloads in any rifle, new or old. I go by the loading manuals, and very seldom use even the max load listed.

I have no pressure testing equipment, and if I fire a cartridge with a load listed in the manual, but below max, then I check the primer for flattening, bolt lift, and CHE. If none of the three, I might increase the powder by .5 to 1 grain, but never over the max listed. I compare these to the previously fired cartridges, checking for flattened primers, sticky bolt lift, and CHE. If there is any or the above present, more so than on the previous loads, I drop back down.

I realize these indicators will not give or tell me what the pressures are, nor will they even tell how much over, if they are over.

I do believe that I can load up a group of cartridges, shoot them, and as long as I do not go over max listed in the loading manual, increase the powder charge slightly. Then, by comparing the fired cases from each batch, possibly determine if the second batch is getting too warm. This is not laboratory testing. At the most, it is guessing, and not even educated guessing.

But, and this is the way I look at it, if there is no CHE, sticky bolt lift, or flattened primers, and an increase of 1 grain gives one or more of those indicators, I believe I would be correct in thinking the 1 grain increase did give higher pressures. But not how much, or even how much too much.

Regardless of the load given, I can see no logical reason for loading a cartridge to the limit. If, for some reason, I think I need more velocity, I can always go from a .30-06 to a .300 Mag.

But then, there are people who want the most they can get from a .30-06 and if they do not get it, go to a .300 Mag. But, then, instead of being satisfied with .30-06 ballistics from the .300 they try to reach the limit with the .300. And if they do not get it, go to an even more magnumized .300.

Seems like the trend is to get a little bit more than what the cartridge was originally designed for.

Anyone ever tried necking down a 40 MM cannon shell to .30 caliber?

In a couple of my loading manuals, IMR4831 lists some pretty good loads for the 6.5 Swede. I have tried that and also RL-19 and RL-22 and got very accurate groups out to 100 yards. Put a bullet of good construction into the vitals of either a deer, elk or moose, and you're eating meat. Like others have said, the animals won't be able to tell the difference in 150 feet per second of velocity.

A little "off topic" but applies to "hot loads" in general. Never accept ANY load in a particular manual as gospel. It's a good idea to have several published sources of reloading data. That way you can get a consensus on what is a "safe" load. Be suspect of any load in one manual that is a lot "hotter" than the same powder/bullet weight loads in all the other manuals. Old timers might remember the Speer Reloading Manual #8, published in 1970. It was a big seller, due to the unbelievably high velocities listed for many cartridges. Some of the "starting" loads were unsafe in many firearms and the "max" loads were border line disastrous in most. Lots of sticky extraction and loose primer pockets on the first pull of the trigger.

Has anyone ever used the Sellier & Belloit 140gr soft point @ 2670 fps? It seems to me (without any firsthand experience whatsoever) that a moderate velocity round like the 6.5 Swede would put an old-style cup and core bullet to its best use.

And the low retail price wouldn't put much of strain on me, either, if I decided not to handload.

czech1022,
I have not used the S&B rounds on game but they gave satifactory accuracy at the range. My gun preferred the Privi Partisan and Remington plain jane's though

as for this question:
"I plan to reload, and I need to know if I should back off from the "max load" data in the manuals in deference to the age and design of the (1896?) Mauser action.

From my experience (a "bad" one) work up to a load your gun likes, as many others have already mentioned. Be extra cautious, I wasn't and I have the excellent designing of Peter Paul Mauser to thank that I didn't get injured. My experience only:

Rifle: Sporterized M96 Swede (most likely a Carl Gustav early 20th century, as I recall)
Powder: below max book level, one of the 4831's
Case: 1x or 2x reloaded Remington
Primer: CCI
Bullet: Barnes X (the old one)

I had read about keeping charges lower for that bullet and thought I had been "safe enough" at a couple of grains below max. Not so. fifth shot and I had a bit of hot gasses flowing back over my face and hands. Also a few splinters from the stock. However, and this addresses the "safety" of the Swede Mauser action, everything made of serious metal held together as designed. They bottom metal blew out of the magazine but that was part of the gas relief design. The stock cracked where the gas relief hole is on the side of the reciever. Bolt was locked up tight and took a beating to get it out. Thank you Mr Mauser! I wear safety glasses at the range (and most days hunting, as my work bifocal sunglasses serve double duty) so my eyes were not in danger. My habit of wearing double hearing protection at the range actually contributed to the situation as I was told by another shooter that they thought the report of the first few rounds sounded a bit strange. Therefor I didn't wonder too much about them other than they weren't anywhere near as accurate as "normal". They were not double charged, or even overcharged as I pulled the remainder of the ones I had loaded and checked.
I felt extremely bad as the rifle was a great example of a "truck gun", little finish left, old functional scope, whole thing cost $145 in 1999/2000. I used it when the weather was "nasty", never got anything with it unfortunately, but I nver worried about rust etc (on the outside that is!). I also felt bad about my blowing up a gun until the next month or so when a leading magazine had a feature on guns blown up by their writer(s?).Heck, mine could be replaced for about $250 nowadays maybe.

All this has made me extra cautious at the "reloading bench". I cross reference even more manuals now, check and double check my powder weight/measure, and I haven't been able to bring myself to use up the half box or so of those remaining Barnes X's.

I'm one who goes along with those who say find an accurate load below max and go for it. If you want faster get another gun (that's why they sell them, so we can buy more ) in a faster cartridge.

Be safe,
Geno

If I remember correctly, its in about the 2350 fps range...

haven't tried the newer 140 ballistic tip yet, but that would be ideal in my book...

with a 120 grain ballistic tip, that is about 2500 fps...

and with a 100 grain ballistic tip, its about in the 2700 fps range...

to clarify tho, my rifle has the old 29.5 inch barrel on it..

but all the above are easily 200 yd loads and then some...

and since about 99 % of all game are taken within 200 yds, along with the ballistic tips will open quite nicely down to about 1300 to 1400 fps.. they are more than up to the task of any deer you'd ever encounter...

30 grains of 4198 can also be substituted, but the RL 7 powder has been more accurate in my 6.5 x 55s...( 3 of them )..

I frequently run the same loads in a 260.. especially when I am taking kids out hunting and they don't have a rifle to use..

Your understanding is correct.

To the original poster...it is your risk and your eyes.

Personally I would minimise the risk by working up loads for your particular rifle...not by asking what others do with theirs.