Swedish Mauser Model 1896 Question

Not taking issue with your conclusions regarding the need to stay within SAAMI pressures for the Swede, but the Swedish Mausers were in fact made with very high quality, high Nickel steel. Swedish ore, particularly those in the northern basins, contains quantities of V, Mn, Cu, Zn, Rb, Sr, Mo, Ag, Cd, Sb, Ba, Ce, Tl, Pb, B, Th, Ni and U in the right combination to make a very consistent steel. And the Swedes were making quite good steel by the latter half of the 19th Century.

Click to expand...

Good quality steel by 19th century standards. Not by late 20th century standards. Process controls have improved from the pre vacuum tube era to the semi conductor era.

I am going to state while your reference is very interesting and I have downloaded a copy, all those trace quantities of elements you reference, are infact, to be considered containments. The unpredictable amounts will create unpredictable effects on the properties of the steel. There are very good reasons modern steel makers try to reduce the number of residual elements and tramp elements in steel making.

Residual Elements in Steel

https://www.totalmateria.com/page.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&site=kts&NM=205

Abstract:

Residual elements (Cu, Ni, As, Pb, Sn, Sb, Mo, Cr, etc.) are defined as elements which are not added on purpose to steel and which cannot be removed by simple metallurgical processes. The presence of residual elements in steel can have strong effects on mechanical properties. There is therefore clearly the need to identify and to quantify the effects of residual elements in order to keep these effects within acceptable limits.

Since so much scrap is recycled in the making of steel, “tramp elements” are a major concern.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0110/manning-0110.html

One alternative to removing metallic tramp elements is to reduce their deleterious effects on steel properties. Most metallic residuals reduce steel hot strength and hot and cold ductility by segregating to and weakening grain boundaries. Tolerance to such chemical impurities could be improved through the design of alloys in which these elements were tied up in heterogeneously nucleating second-phase particles, which might not have the same negative effect on steel properties. Also, new near net shape casting processes, which will be described in following sections, may dramatically reduce the overall effect of residual elements for two reasons. As its name implies, near net shape casting describes solidification processes by which steel is cast in dimensions near to the specifications of the final product.

Might also look at the problem of micro inclusions and how they weaken steels.

I will bet that someone on some food forum is claiming that the high quantity of hairs, mold, insects, fly eggs, maggot eggs, rat scat, found in Aunty Em’s biscuit flour is the secret for their great flavor! Dear Old Aunty Em is of course a factious character, but before the food and drug act, “Defect Levels” were not controlled in foods. To find how many maggot and fly eggs are allowed in today’s processed foods, just read these references:

Defect levels handbook

https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRe...mation/SanitationTransportation/ucm056174.htm

The Food Defect Action Levels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels


Does the thought of chowing down on maggot eggs improve or take away from your dining experience?

Designers today, use data supplied by steel manufacturers, who test and provide the mechanical properties of their steels. Some questions I have, and would like to know, just what standards were being used in the 1890’s? especially in Sweden. In today’s world, we have more or less agreed on yield, ultimate, elongation, compressive strength, and fatigue lifetime. But I don’t know when that was standardized, maybe you do. Today, we are aware of the effect of low temperature on steel properties. From my reading, fatigue lifetime was unknown around World War 1, and so was knowledge about brittleness and cold temperature. I read that the first phase diagrams were coming out in the 1890’s. And, in that time period, what were steel manufacturer’s agreeing to as measures of mechanical properties? I would like to know that, I do have a first edition of Machinery’s Handbook, (1916) I can tell you, there are serious gaps in the metallurgical knowledge of the period. Anyone who spends any time looking at 19th century metallurgy should figure out they just did not have the knowledge or technology we have today.

Though likely more for domestic economic and political reasons than metallurgical, the Swedes mandated use of Swedish steel in the manufacture of the first run of Swedish Mausers at Obendorf. Essentially, very high Iron content within Swedish Iron ore makes removal of impurities less costly and time consuming, especially the removal phosphates which are highly effective oxidizers and greatly contribute to brittleness in steel. So, the Swedish Mauser receiver is essentially a very high quality steel, not soft, but malleable to the degree desired in high quality steel. However, the less effective than more modern processes that provide heat treatment to deliver a hardened outer layer is where the need to adhere to prescribed operating pressures comes from. As you very correctly describe, repeated exposure to pressures above SAAMI Max Pressure (51,000 psi), will overwhelm the surface heat treatment and lead to excessive headspace via lug recess lengthening and surface cracking.

Click to expand...

You know, the Bessemer darn near went broke from lawsuits. Bessemer created a blast furnace technology that vastly increased the rate of steel production over any previous process, but he used Swedish iron. Swedish iron, by an accident of geology, is low in phosphors. Apparently Bessemer did not know that, but his licensee’s were using cheaper iron ores which were high in phosphorus and their steels were brittle. And they were suing. Bessemer found a chemist who created spiegeleisen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegeleisen which removed the phosphorus. But you know, the Bessemer process, and all those early processes, could not remove non oxidizing elements. Most of the elements you listed are non oxidizing elements. And the question I have, because I don’t know this, is how are non oxidizing elements removed from the steels of today? I have conducted a web research, and would like to know how modern blast furnaces start with iron ore (or steel scrap) and remove all the rat scat to produce an ingot of pure Fe. I do believe that modern processes are removing the tramp, residual, and micro inclusions, because based on one SAE report I read, the lifetime of wheel bearings has increased. And the report directly related the increased fatigue lifetime to reduced micro inclusions. And, I have lived long enough to experience the wonderful stainless knife steels of today. The steels in good quality knives are just incredible, they take fantastic edges and hold them. And they are hard.

I lost this, it was made of D2. Took a great edge. I am still kicking myself over the loss:



Titanium handles and S35VN. These materials were beyond imagination as knife materials when I was a Boy Scout. And yet, here they are, and the edge is amazingly sharp.



It used to be, a knife was at best, 440B, and then, you would occasionally run into a hard, or soft spot. The majority of knives were plain carbon steels back them, they worked well, but they rusted and they were still inferior to the same steel composition in a modern knife. Knife steels today much more consistent than they have ever been, so, just from a user aspect, I can tell steel making technology has vastly improved since the 1950’s. And anyone claiming that steel from 1900 is as good as steel from mid century, is a romantic.

An interesting data point, in Rifle Magazine did a review of the first Ruger M77’s in their Jan-Feb 1969 issue. In that article there is this quote:

Ruger technicians claim that during strength tests, a static load of at least 40,000 pounds was required to damage the locking lugs (there are two), and that, even then, the lugs did not shear away. Similar tests with Springfield and Mauser type mechanisms are said to show that the locking lugs of these action shear completely under loads 19,000 to 29,000 pounds.

The author of course is writing an informercial on Ruger M77 rifles, and educating you on what you need to know to buy Ruger rifles. The article is not about Mauser rifles or Springfield rifles, the article is selling Rugers, so we get this “taste” of data, but hey, it is data. The Springfield and Mauser bolts were certainly strong enough for the loads of the period, but the low yield at shear, compared to the 4140 steels used in the Ruger M77, show the much greater safety factor of later steels, and, a promise of a much higher fatigue life.

I have a story. A bud of mine taught Metallurgy at West Point. They were lucky to receive a whole bunch of Russian tank axles from the Israeli’s. Just after the 1968 or 1972 war, the Israeli’s ended up with a big pile of Russian tanks with broken axles. The parts were the axle ends to the Christie wheels. The wheels had snapped off just at the end of the axle shaft. Bud got his class to polish the shaft ends and determine what was in the steel. I did not get a detailed analysis, what I was told, was that the Soviets had “thrown everything into the kettle”. I will bet Soviet steel had every trace element found in raw Swedish iron ore, and maybe some Vodka bottles too!

Usually these debates end up with a “prove it unsafe” comment from the antique fan boys. You know, that sort of attitude is long gone, actually about mid 20th century with product liability. The “prove it unsafe” philosophy got a lot of people injured and killed. I have also found that injury is not enough for the skeptics. For them to take a danger seriously, someone has to die. But not them of course, it has to be someone else. I have found two reports of deaths from old Swedish actions. One, the lugs sheared and the bolt blew out. The M96 action does not have a third lug, you shear the bolt lugs, and your head is in line with the action. Given those two events, the probability of death is high.

What I want from the skeptics, is the data necessary to prove these actions are safe. Prove it safe happens to be the safety standard today, the designer and manufacturer have to make a case, usually in court, that they anticipated every misfortune, and designed away the risk. It is called "Strict Liability". I have copied some URL’s from some real cool metallurgical analyses of Damascus steel as examples of the data I want, to prove these actions are safe. What I would like to know, is the metallurgical composition of these old Swedish actions. Not some book value, not some design specification, which would have been iron, carbon, limits on silicon and phosphorus, but the actual composition of the steels in the final product. And, I would like a discussion of the crystal structure (an indication of the heat treat process control) and the yield, ultimate and charpy impact values of the steel. Hardness at the surface would be interesting. But pretty much, if any skeptic funds this effort and puts this data out there, on actions from around WW1, and pre WW1, it would be something I would appreciate, and it would quantity the material uncertainties about these things. Then, claims of whether these actions are “safe”, would go from philosophical farce to factual data. If God granted me lifetime till such a study was published, I am certain I would be immortal. It will never happen.

IMPACT STRENGTH AND FAILURE ANALYSIS OF WELDED DAMASCUS STEEL

https://www.researchgate.net/public...FAILURE_ANALYSIS_OF_WELDED_DAMASCUS_STEEL.pdf

The Key Role of Impurities in Ancient Damascus Steel Blades https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/def_en/articles/key_role_impurities/key_role.html



The Mystery of the Damascus Sword by John Verhoeven and Alfred Pendray

http://www.hefajstos.agh.edu.pl/files/[1998] The Mystery of the Damascus Sword - J. Verhoeven A. Pendray.pdf[/quote]

Slamfire said:

Good quality steel by 19th century standards. Not by late 20th century standards. Process controls have improved from the pre vacuum tube era to the semi conductor era.

I am going to state while your reference is very interesting and I have downloaded a copy, all those trace quantities of elements you reference, are infact, to be considered containments. The unpredictable amounts will create unpredictable effects on the properties of the steel. There are very good reasons modern steel makers try to reduce the number of residual elements and tramp elements in steel making.

Residual Elements in Steel

https://www.totalmateria.com/page.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&site=kts&NM=205

Abstract:

Residual elements (Cu, Ni, As, Pb, Sn, Sb, Mo, Cr, etc.) are defined as elements which are not added on purpose to steel and which cannot be removed by simple metallurgical processes. The presence of residual elements in steel can have strong effects on mechanical properties. There is therefore clearly the need to identify and to quantify the effects of residual elements in order to keep these effects within acceptable limits.

Since so much scrap is recycled in the making of steel, “tramp elements” are a major concern.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0110/manning-0110.html

One alternative to removing metallic tramp elements is to reduce their deleterious effects on steel properties. Most metallic residuals reduce steel hot strength and hot and cold ductility by segregating to and weakening grain boundaries. Tolerance to such chemical impurities could be improved through the design of alloys in which these elements were tied up in heterogeneously nucleating second-phase particles, which might not have the same negative effect on steel properties. Also, new near net shape casting processes, which will be described in following sections, may dramatically reduce the overall effect of residual elements for two reasons. As its name implies, near net shape casting describes solidification processes by which steel is cast in dimensions near to the specifications of the final product.

Might also look at the problem of micro inclusions and how they weaken steels.

I will bet that someone on some food forum is claiming that the high quantity of hairs, mold, insects, fly eggs, maggot eggs, rat scat, found in Aunty Em’s biscuit flour is the secret for their great flavor! Dear Old Aunty Em is of course a factious character, but before the food and drug act, “Defect Levels” were not controlled in foods. To find how many maggot and fly eggs are allowed in today’s processed foods, just read these references:

Defect levels handbook

https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRe...mation/SanitationTransportation/ucm056174.htm

The Food Defect Action Levels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels


Does the thought of chowing down on maggot eggs improve or decrease your dining experience?

Designers today, use data supplied by steel manufacturers, who test and provide the mechanical properties of their steels. Some questions I have, and would like to know, just what standards were being used in the 1890’s? especially in Sweden. In today’s world, we have more or less agreed on yield, ultimate, elongation, compressive strength, and fatigue lifetime. But I don’t know when that was standardized, maybe you do. Today, we are aware of the effect of low temperature on steel properties. From my reading, fatigue lifetime was unknown around World War 1, and so was knowledge about brittleness and cold temperature. I read that the first phase diagrams were coming out in the 1890’s. And, in that time period, what were steel manufacturer’s agreeing to as measures of mechanical properties? I would like to know that, I do have a first edition of Machinery’s Handbook, (1916) I can tell you, there are serious gaps in the metallurgical knowledge of the period. Anyone who spends any time looking at 19th century metallurgy should figure out they just did not have the knowledge or technology we have today.



You know, the Bessemer darn near went broke from lawsuits. Bessemer created a blast furnace technology that vastly increased the rate of steel production over any previous process, but he used Swedish iron. Swedish iron, by an accident of geology, is low in phosphors. Apparently Bessemer did not know that, but his licensee’s were using cheaper iron ores which were high in phosphorus and their steels were brittle. And they were suing. Bessemer found a chemist who created spiegeleisen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegeleisen which removed the phosphorus. But you know, the Bessemer process, and all those early processes, could not remove non oxidizing elements. Most of the elements you listed are non oxidizing elements. And the question I have, because I don’t know this, is how are non oxidizing elements removed from the steels of today? I have conducted a web research, and would like to know how modern blast furnaces start with iron ore (or steel scrap) and remove all the rat scat to produce an ingot of pure Fe. I do believe that modern processes are removing the tramp, residual, and micro inclusions, because based on one SAE report I read, the lifetime of wheel bearings has increased. And the report directly related the increased fatigue lifetime to reduced micro inclusions. And, I have lived long enough to experience the wonderful stainless knife steels of today. The steels in good quality knives are just incredible, they take fantastic edges and hold them. And they are hard.

I lost this, it was made of D2. Took a great edge. I am still kicking myself over the loss:

View attachment 813932

Titanium handles and S35VN. These materials were beyond imagination as knife materials when I was a Boy Scout. And yet, here they are, and the edge is amazingly sharp.

View attachment 813933

It used to be, a knife was at best, 440B, and then, you would occasionally run into a hard, or soft spot. The majority of knives were plain carbon steels back them, they worked well, but they rusted and they were still inferior to the same steel composition in a modern knife. Knife steels today much more consistent than they have ever been, so, just from a user aspect, I can tell steel making technology has vastly improved since the 1950’s. And anyone claiming that steel from 1900 is as good as steel from mid century, is a romantic.

An interesting data point, in Rifle Magazine did a review of the first Ruger M77’s in their Jan-Feb 1969 issue. In that article there is this quote:

Ruger technicians claim that during strength tests, a static load of at least 40,000 pounds was required to damage the locking lugs (there are two), and that, even then, the lugs did not shear away. Similar tests with Springfield and Mauser type mechanisms are said to show that the locking lugs of these action shear completely under loads 19,000 to 29,000 pounds.

The author of course is writing an informercial on Ruger M77 rifles, and educating you on what you need to know to buy Ruger rifles. The article is not about Mauser rifles or Springfield rifles, the article is selling Rugers, so we get this “taste” of data, but hey, it is data. The Springfield and Mauser bolts were certainly strong enough for the loads of the period, but the low yield at shear, compared to the 4140 steels used in the Ruger M77, show the much greater safety factor of later steels, and, a promise of a much higher fatigue life.

I have a story. A bud of mine taught Metallurgy at West Point. They were lucky to receive a whole bunch of Russian tank axles from the Israeli’s. Just after the 1968 or 1972 war, the Israeli’s ended up with a big pile of Russian tanks with broken axles. The parts were the axle ends to the Christie wheels. The wheels had snapped off just at the end of the axle shaft. Bud got his class to polish the shaft ends and determine what was in the steel. I did not get a detailed analysis, what I was told, was that the Soviets had “thrown everything into the kettle”. I will bet Soviet steel had every trace element found in raw Swedish iron ore, and maybe some Vodka bottles too!

Usually these debates end up with a “prove it unsafe” comment from the antique fan boys. You know, that sort of attitude is long gone, actually about mid 20th century with product liability. The “prove it unsafe” philosophy got a lot of people injured and killed. I have also found that injury is not enough for the skeptics, for them to take a danger seriously, someone has to die. I have found two reports of deaths from old Swedish actions. One, the lugs sheared and the bolt blew out. The M96 action does not have a third lug, you shear the bolt lugs, and your head is in line with the action. Given those two events, the probability of death is high.

What I want from the skeptics, is the data necessary to prove these actions are safe. This happens to be the safety standard today, the designer and manufacturer have to make a case, usually in court, that they anticipated every misfortune, and designed away the risk. It is called "Strict Liability". I have copied some URL’s from some real cool metallurgical analyses of Damascus steel as examples of the data I want, to prove these actions are safe. What I would like to know, is the metallurgical composition of these old Swedish actions. Not some book value, some design specification, which would have been iron, carbon, limits on silicon and phosphorus, but the actual composition of the steels in the final product. And, I would like a discussion of the crystal structure (an indication of the heat treat process control) and the yield, ultimate and charpy impact values of the steel. Hardness at the surface would be interesting. But pretty much, if any skeptic funds this effort and puts this data out there, on actions from around WW1, and pre WW1, it would be something I would appreciate, and it would quantity the material uncertainties about these things. Then, claims of whether these actions are “safe”, would go from philosophical farce to factual data. If God granted me lifetime till such a study was published, I am certain I would be immortal. It will never happen.

IMPACT STRENGTH AND FAILURE ANALYSIS OF WELDED DAMASCUS STEEL

https://www.researchgate.net/public...FAILURE_ANALYSIS_OF_WELDED_DAMASCUS_STEEL.pdf

The Key Role of Impurities in Ancient Damascus Steel Blades https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/def_en/articles/key_role_impurities/key_role.html



The Mystery of the Damascus Sword by John Verhoeven and Alfred Pendray

http://www.hefajstos.agh.edu.pl/files/[1998] The Mystery of the Damascus Sword - J. Verhoeven A. Pendray.pdf

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

That was an excellent primer on metallurgy. Thanks--always learn something.

orpington said:

View attachment 813925 View attachment 813926 Attached are photographs of the stock. What wood do you think it is? I am leaning towards beech because it doesn't appear to be elm or mahogany. It also strongly looks like a lighter walnut, except attached sites to this thread seem to suggest walnut was available only earlier in production and this one dates from 1915. All numbers match.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure that it is beech that has been darkened a bit and perhaps stained. Wood grain does not match birch, elm, or maple for the most part. While this would give the vapors to some collectors, I would advise using a mild detergent grime and wood cleaner--something like a damp rag with mean green or the like. Just make sure to dry the metal if it gets wet. As some of these have been refinished, without seeing it, I would hesitate to use odorless mineral spirits as it will affect some finishes. If you are sure that it is only an oil finish and stain then you can lightly swab an unobtrusive area of the rifle with mineral spirits to see if the stain or a finish comes off.

Here is an example of copper or red beech wood which looks pretty close to your stock plus age and dirt:


If cartouches (stock markings) are present, then whatever you do, do not sand the stock if you want to keep collector value. If you check the receiver serial number, you will find the last three repeated throughout the rifle on things like the cocking piece, the inside of the barrel channel on the stock, the trigger guard plate and the like. The swedish mark of a crown should also be present. If you have an all matching original Mauser 96 in shooting condition, then it might be worth at least $400-500 with the right buyer.

Slamfire said:

Good quality steel by 19th century standards. Not by late 20th century standards. Process controls have improved from the pre vacuum tube era to the semi conductor era.

Click to expand...

Very true. But the Swedes were among the leading innovators in steelmaking during the period those rifles were built. Scandanavians have been making steel since Viking times and I'd imagine there were some experienced craftsmen in charge that produced some darn good steel.

Those rifles are a thing of beauty, the machining is flawless. I was just thinking how innovative they were with the 6.5 cartridge. It took the rest of the world 100 years to catch up.

Yep. Swedish steel has been legendary for over a thousand years. It has been the standard that most other producers despaired at matching.
Nonetheless, the newest of the Swedish Mausers were metallurgicaly excellent 75 years ago and built on a design that is over 120 years old.
One in good condition should handle its original stress levels but I would not suggest exceeding its design standards.
-By the way, I have four of these little gems. Wonderful guns.

Laphroaig said:

Very true. But the Swedes were among the leading innovators in steelmaking during the period those rifles were built. Scandanavians have been making steel since Viking times and I'd imagine there were some experienced craftsmen in charge that produced some darn good steel.

Click to expand...

One hundred twenty years hence, we have forgotten how rapidly steel technology advanced from the 1880's to the end of WW1. And also, how rapidly technology in general advanced from 1920 to 1950. I have gone, page by page, through Steel and Machinery magazines from as far back as hard copies are available in local libraries. Which is basically to the early, mid, 1920's. Almost no one remembers how fast science and technology advanced. In fact, in a generation or two, the rapid advancement of computing power afforded by the transistor will be forgotten. I remember this era:




I also remember the main frame computers of the 1970's and card punches and card readers. I learned how to use a slide rule, if your office had a Marchant calculator, it was being hogged by some senior engineer. I remember when the first personnel computers came into the office, I remember when those same PC's were linked together into a system. I remember Lotus 123, Enable, and other early office computer programs. The rate of change created by the semi conductor revolution from the middle 80's to now is mind boggling. And yet, future generations will project back the technology of their era, and not understand why, back in the day, you had to find a phone booth to make a phone call.

Slamfire said:

I also remember the main frame computers of the 1970's and card punches and card readers. I learned how to use a slide rule, if your office had a Marchant calculator, it was being hogged by some senior engineer. I remember when the first personnel computers came into the office, I remember when those same PC's were linked together into a system. I remember Lotus 123, Enable, and other early office computer programs. The rate of change created by the semi conductor revolution from the middle 80's to now is mind boggling. And yet, future generations will project back the technology of their era, and not understand why, back in the day, you had to find a phone booth to make a phone call.

Click to expand...

Ya, I've been through all of that as well. I call those the good old days. Are a bunch of zombies stumbling around (or driving a car) with a cell phone jammed in their face an improvement? Finding a phone booth was rarely a problem.

Swedish steel was pure, the yield strength was known, and slide rules are good to 2 decimal places. Those are fine rifles.

I think this post morphed into more than the OP ever wanted to know about metallurgy as related to the Mauser type of rifles pre-1920.

Let me sum up some of the more general conclusions I draw on these rifles. Assuming good condition, they are generally safe to shoot with ammunition of appropriate pressures.

They are among the best made of the Mauser family of rifles, including the steel, and conceding points on general metallurgy RE turn of the century steel processes.

The cartridge lends itself to accurate and pleasant shooting. The rifles tend to be among the most inherently accurate of any military rifle, even giving the Swiss and Springfield an even run.

There is a great preponderance of evidence of these rifles being safe to fire with appropriate ammunition. From over a century of military service, decades of use as sporting rifles converted from M96 type actions, and countless thousands of rounds fired through CG63 and CG80 international match rifles (These often went through several barrels in the service life of the action) there are few recorded incidences of failure, apparently no more than with any other action type.

The OPs stock appears to be Beech, you can see the "scale" under decades of funk.

The muzzle diameter, stock disc and stock placard questions are thoroughly answered.

Front sights are still in stock at Numrich; They are in different heights; I think the standard height is the one stamped with a zero. Front sights weren't stamped with the last three digits of the serial number, fortunately. I have a small paperback book on Swedish Mausers that I picked up in the 1990's but I haven't seen it around here lately and forgot where it is. The classic book, "Mauser Bolt Rifles" by Ludwig Olson covers them pretty good if that one is still available.

Message deleted as question was misunderstood

orpington said:

My apologies. Spell check changed hood to good.

Am seeking a hood for my front sight and is this numbered with the last 3 digits of the serial number?

I edited my post and changed good to hood..

Click to expand...

https://www.centuryarms.com/pam9637b.html

They also have various increments of front sights. This is new, I'm guessing they bought SAMCO's inventory.

Sight hoods were not serialized as a general rule. Sarco has the tall sights for 100 yd zero. They may also have sight hoods. Numrich aka gun parts corp also has some Swede parts. Also check Century Arms as the are now selling parts including some of samco global stock of Swede parts.

Cheapest Swede Mauser book is from northcape publications by Steve Kehaya and Joe Poyer . Expensive book is something like Crown Jewels : the Swedish Mauser by Dana Jones

orpington said:

I ordered the Kehaya & Poyer book. Cheapest place for it, better than Amazon, was midwayusa.com

My cleaning rod looks like the one posted by 22250Rem in his photographs of the muzzle of the Swedish Mauser he used to own. The tip of the cleaning rod actually has a diameter greater than that of the bore!?!?!?

Click to expand...

It is pretty much a compilation of facts about each part of the rifle--kinda like Joe Friday's Just the Facts. It is useful to distinguish different parts, markings, and proofs. Don't expect a whole lot of discussion about design, function, or even shooting the rifle itself. From the description, the Crown Jewels book does go into those things with pictures but is much more expensive.

Another good book on Swedish rifles is Doug Bowser's "Neutrality Through Marksmanship". Descriptions of the various models, production history, and some information on shooting and handloading. Check out post #5 regarding how to order from Doug. He is a THR member but I haven't seen any posts from him recently.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-shooting-at-camp-perry.829357/#post-10697567

The steel is fine for the M/41 ammo, however there are companies that make “Ruger no.1” loads, for modern bolt actions chambered in 6.5x55 like the sakos and new Mauser rifles.

My 6.5 x 55 load is 44.0 gr. IMR4831 and a 140 SMK. I've always used Remington brass.

orpington said:

Any thoughts as to the diameter of the tip of the cleaning rod being greater than the bore diameter?

Click to expand...

Would that not make it difficult to push the cleaning rod down the barrel?

Laphroaig said:

My 6.5 x 55 load is 44.0 gr. IMR4831 and a 140 SMK. I've always used Remington brass.

Click to expand...

I might have to look at 4831 again. You are the most recent of several people to say that IMR4831 is it. I can't recall what powder weight I was using with the 140 grs, but I was getting stiff bolt lifts and felt I was probably hot-rodding the Swede. After a lot of testing, I came out the other side with H4350 as "the powder". Think I'll look at 4831 again in the Spring.

http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/FIREARMS/swede_m38-m41b-m96.pdf You may find this interesting. The cleaning rod isn't really intended for cleaning.