6.5 Swede Mauser and loading manuals

[Clark]

PO Ackley failed to publish tests on the Swede. So I went out and bought a 94, 96, and 38 for testing.

 

[e rex]

Clark, I'd be interested in hearing about your tests and conclusions.

 

[Slamfire]

PO Ackley failed to publish tests on the Swede. So I went out and bought a 94, 96, and 38 for testing.

Instead of a blow up test, I would be more interested in an endurance test. How many rounds till failure. P.O. Ackley's test are interesting, and at the same time, misleading. Is the measure of an action the amount of powder it takes to blow it up? Is that your number one goal, to chamber one over pressure round and see if you blow the rifle up?Tee hee, giggle, tee hee?

I will say that won't make a very good military rifle. Military rifles are expected to function in weather world wide, be simple to operate, simple to dismount, meet a certain price point, weight point, and feed and extraction have to be perfect at all times in all weather. Ole Ackley was having fun blowing up actions, just like a juvenile kid blowing up stuffed animals, but you know, any fool can blow anything up given enough explosives. See the videos of those guys blowing Roman Temples up in Syria? Any intolerant fool can blow up a stone temple given enough dynamite.

The guys who designed those actions and the militarizes that issued those actions understood that there were limits to action strength, and they were not interested in reaching the structural limits of their firearms. One reason why Soldiers are issued ammunition that is made to a certain pressure point. There was no desire to issue ammunition that would blow up the user. If you think about this, Armies have a difficult enough time keeping their Soldiers from getting killed, never mind deliberately issuing ammunition which would kill their serviceman.

So while blowup tests are as fun, I think they are more infantile than informative. Which is what you would expect from a machinist. Ackley did not preform shear tests on lugs or receivers which would have been far more useful as measures of comparison than his non instrumented blow up tests. For a good comedy show act, Ackley should have assembled a toy store of stuffed animals, and blown them up. We all would have had a bunch of giggles out of that.

Look Ma, I blew up the world, tee hee, giggle, tee hee.

 

[Jim Watson]

It was also P.O. Ackley who said of the Mannlicher Carcano "No army issues booby traps to its own troops."

One contemporary said you might be better off with a Spanish Mauser (German made) than a Swede. The Swedes tended to SHOOT their rifles, the Latins didn't. Main fault he identified was rust under the stock line on rifles from the tropics.

 

[Slamfire]

It was also P.O. Ackley who said of the Mannlicher Carcano "No army issues booby traps to its own troops.".

I agree. The attitudes of the WW2 generation towards our enemies arms was based on biases created about their combat performance. The Germans were wily, tough and lethal, all the way through. So the WW2 generation tended to have a high opinion about all guns German. The Italians realized soon, they got involved in the wrong war, with the wrong people, and generally, were not interested in fighting and dying. The WW2 generation thought them losers, and had the same attitude towards everything Italian. The WW2 generation frankly had racist attitudes towards the Japanese, loved them as much as a rattlesnake, wanted to exterminate them all, and because of Japanese fanaticism, thought it made sense the Japanese would arm their Soldiers with cast iron rifles. This piece of wisdom got around because a number of GI's picked up training rifles, made out of cast iron, put a service round in the things, and Kaboom!

 

[everydefense]

Interesting post. Thanks, @Slamfire

 

[Clark]

http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/download/Z299-4_ANSI-SAAMI_CFR.pdf
On page 358 we see the 270 max average load is 65 kpsi and proof loads to be between 87 kpsi and 93 kpsi.

If we put that on the S/N graf of fatigue for steel that yields [end of elastic deformation and beginning of plastic deformation] at 122 ksi, then:
[65 kpsi / 87 kpsi] [122 ksi] = 91 ksi -> ~1000 cycles on fatigue graph
[65 kpsi / 93 kpsi] [122 ksi] = 85 ksi -> ~2000 cycles on fatigue graph

If one were to work up a bolt action rifle to failure in one cycle, the bolt lugs deform on the bolt and the bolt lug abutments deform in the receiver at practically the same time.
If I look at the bolt lug cross sectional area in shear in rifles normally chambered in 270; 98 Mauser, Win M70, Rem 700, Sav 110, [ or Mosin Nagant which is not] ect. [The Sav 110 is a tiny bit bigger] 0.43" x0.38" = 0.163 sq in per lug.
If I look at the 1896 Swedish bolt: one lug is 0.1325 sq in and the other is 0.1925 sq in for an average of 0.1625 sq in.

 

[Slamfire]

http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/download/Z299-4_ANSI-SAAMI_CFR.pdf
On page 358 we see the 270 max average load is 65 kpsi and proof loads to be between 87 kpsi and 93 kpsi.

If we put that on the S/N graf of fatigue for steel that yields [end of elastic deformation and beginning of plastic deformation] at 122 ksi, then:
[65 kpsi / 87 kpsi] [122 ksi] = 91 ksi -> ~1000 cycles on fatigue graph
[65 kpsi / 93 kpsi] [122 ksi] = 85 ksi -> ~2000 cycles on fatigue graph

If one were to work up a bolt action rifle to failure in one cycle, the bolt lugs deform on the bolt and the bolt lug abutments deform in the receiver at practically the same time.
If I look at the bolt lug cross sectional area in shear in rifles normally chambered in 270; 98 Mauser, Win M70, Rem 700, Sav 110, [ or Mosin Nagant which is not] ect. [The Sav 110 is a tiny bit bigger] 0.43" x0.38" = 0.163 sq in per lug.
If I look at the 1896 Swedish bolt: one lug is 0.1325 sq in and the other is 0.1925 sq in for an average of 0.1625 sq in.

Very interesting, good measurements. That fatigue curve is for 4130 steel. If you have one for a plain carbon, 30 point steel, such as used in the Swedish Mauser, take a look at the difference in fatigue lifetime. If you don't, take a look at Charpey impact tests, particularly in cold conditions, which is a good predictor of fatigue lifetime. Alloy steels take two to three times more foot lbs to shear at low temperature than plain carbon steels.

Then, take into account the uncertainty of composition when dealing with antique, pre vacuum steel era steels, that Swedish Mauser does not look that good.

 

[denton]

All very informative. Thank you.

IIRC, the Swedes were making better steel than the rest of the world back in the day. Swedish iron deposits had naturally occurring Manganese in them, and that greatly improved the hardenability of their steel. There were a couple of times the Germans had to swallow their pride and specify Swedish steel in their armaments. I've read that circa 1900, Swedish steel wasn't that far behind modern steels.

Someone with more knowledge of metallurgy may be able to shed more light on this.

 

[Clark]

I have drilled and tapped ~ 100 Mausers.
The only hard ones are Swedes.
Yield strength is proportional to hardness.

 

[Slamfire]

All very informative. Thank you.

IIRC, the Swedes were making better steel than the rest of the world back in the day. Swedish iron deposits had naturally occurring Manganese in them, and that greatly improved the hardenability of their steel. There were a couple of times the Germans had to swallow their pride and specify Swedish steel in their armaments. I've read that circa 1900, Swedish steel wasn't that far behind modern steels.

Someone with more knowledge of metallurgy may be able to shed more light on this.

Everything you were quoting had to be written by a fan boy of antiques. Bessemer used Swedish iron in his first converters and darn near went bankrupt when other iron ore sources were used. However, the fact that Swedish iron ore lacks manganese is a non issue now, because of technological advancements in ore processing.

I would like to see a metallurgical analysis of 1900ish Swedish action steel. I was able to find one on a 1916 German Mauser action, and it is garbage.

Anyone who thinks that 1900 era plain carbon steels are not vastly inferior to modern steels ought to go on a knife forum and make that statement. Those guys live, breath steels, steel compositions, and steel performance. They will chew you up and spit out the bone shards.

Looking forward from 1900, this radio was 58 years in the future:



Now what Radio stations did the Swedes listen to in 1900? What kind of radios did they use? Their manufacturing technology was equally primitive.

 

[Alaskan Ironworker]

When was a “green” reloader i pushed 140 grain noslers to 2800 fps + out of my 96 swede. My carl gustafs was manufactured in 1920, and although sporterized still had its 29” barrel. I was using 45.5 grains of “accurate” brand 4350 powder. I had no flattened primers or hard extractions, but the more i read and learned about old military actions and modern reloads, i scared my self! Thank god nothing bad happened. I keep it at 43 grains now. Im still getting around 2600 fps, and i effectively proofed tested my rifle, (the dumb way).
My advice, dont try to make your caliber something its not. If you want more power, get a more poweful caliber!

 

[boom boom]

Everything you were quoting had to be written by a fan boy of antiques. Bessemer used Swedish iron in his first converters and darn near went bankrupt when other iron ore sources were used. However, the fact that Swedish iron ore lacks manganese is a non issue now, because of technological advancements in ore processing.

I would like to see a metallurgical analysis of 1900ish Swedish action steel. I was able to find one on a 1916 German Mauser action, and it is garbage.

Anyone who thinks that 1900 era plain carbon steels are not vastly inferior to modern steels ought to go on a knife forum and make that statement. Those guys live, breath steels, steel compositions, and steel performance. They will chew you up and spit out the bone shards.

Looking forward from 1900, this radio was 58 years in the future:

View attachment 770842

Now what Radio stations did the Swedes listen to in 1900? What kind of radios did they use? Their manufacturing technology was equally primitive.

Just came across this--Slamfire.

I once came upon some old records of U.S. Army Ordnance in the 1890's where they purchased Swedish steel to make Krags or Krag barrels a couple of years ago. If I remember correctly, it did has assay values for the Swedish steel used in these. Was researching U.S. Krags at the time so did not bother to save the document but I think that it was related to the Annual Report of the Chief of U.S. Ordnance during the 1890's.

I stumbled across it when researching the odd .22 Krag round tested by the U.S. Army as a .22 caliber, 120 gr. bullet @2600 fps in 1895, http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...d-the-forgotten-22-frankford-arsenal-of-1895/ There is no information why the test was abandoned but I suspect that both rapid barrel erosion and perhaps the strength of receivers/bolts/barrels were not up to the task.

Here is a website by the Swedish Steel Industry trade group that has an overview of the history of Swedish Steel with a number of links to Swedish steel history and current production/mining information. http://www.jernkontoret.se/en/the-steel-industry/the-history-of-swedish-steel-industry/

 

[Hokkmike]

I shoot a model 94 Swedish mauser with the 17.5 inch barrel so bullet speeds are slow.
Hornady lists 44 grains IMR 4350 with their 140 grain bullet as Max load. Everyone else lists 45 grains of the same powder and bullet weight as Max. Is Hornady just cautious or is their bullet bearing surface and jacket material different?
Has anyone dropped down to the 129 grain Hornady or 120 Nosler BT for deer? Speeds with the 120 grain at full load probably won't exceed 2600fps by much.

I use 44.9 grains of IMR 4350 with the 120 BT for my varmint/deer combo choice. For only deer I prefer the Winchester X 140 (silver box) grain factory load. But, I have used both on deer with one shot kills. My rifle, however, is a modern SAKO.

 

[gsbuickman]

There's definitely a lot of good information in this thread .

I also have an all original unmolested Carl gustaf's 94 / 14 Swedish Mauser in 6.5 Swede as well as a Norwegian krag in 6.5 Swede. I do have a nice reloading bench that I recently put together but I haven't started using it yet and when I do I will not be hot rodding loads for these. Until then I have several hundred rounds of Swedish surplus ammo and several hundred rounds of Privi / PPU 6.5 Swede to feed them ...

Here's the specs on the Mauser that I pulled off the interweb :

Calibre: ........................ 6.5 x55 Swedish
Rifling & Twist: .............. 1 in 7.9"
Barrel Length: ............... 17.7 in. (450mm)
Overall Length: ............. 37.3 in.(950mm)
Weight: ........................ 7.5 lbs. (3.4kg) (empty)
Magazine Capacity: ....... 5 (charger fed)
Total Qty Mfg: .. ............ 115,000 (by Carl Gustafs Stads Gevarsfaktori)
Qty Mfg (1907): ............ 14,105 (Low Serial # 39600 - High Serial # 53615)

This rifle in paicular is production number # 12221 out of 115,000.

 

[cdb1]

Everything you were quoting had to be written by a fan boy of antiques. Bessemer used Swedish iron in his first converters and darn near went bankrupt when other iron ore sources were used. However, the fact that Swedish iron ore lacks manganese is a non issue now, because of technological advancements in ore processing.

I would like to see a metallurgical analysis of 1900ish Swedish action steel. I was able to find one on a 1916 German Mauser action, and it is garbage.

Anyone who thinks that 1900 era plain carbon steels are not vastly inferior to modern steels ought to go on a knife forum and make that statement. Those guys live, breath steels, steel compositions, and steel performance. They will chew you up and spit out the bone shards.

Looking forward from 1900, this radio was 58 years in the future:

View attachment 770842

Now what Radio stations did the Swedes listen to in 1900? What kind of radios did they use? Their manufacturing technology was equally primitive.

One contemporary said you might be better off with a Spanish Mauser (German made) than a Swede. The Swedes tended to SHOOT their rifles, the Latins didn't. Main fault he identified was rust under the stock line on rifles from the tropics.

All Swedish Mausers, whether built in Germany or Sweden, were fabricated using a Swedish-supplied high grade tool steel alloyed with nickel, copper, and vanadium, a product then noted for its strength and corrosion resistance.

These rifles, like other pre-M 98 system Mauser rifles, lack the third safety locking lug at the rear of the bolt and feature "cock-on-closing" (similar to the contemporary Lee–Enfield rifle) instead of the "cock-on-opening" style found on the German Gewehr 98 and most subsequent bolt-action rifles.

I’ve done a fair amount of reading about Swedish Mausers because the 6.5x55 cartridge fascinates me and is my favorite. I don’t own a Swedish Mauser, I have a 6.5x55 CZ 550 American.

I’d never heard of Swedish Mausers having inferior steel until I read this thread. In fact EVERYTHING I’ve ever read says the opposite, just like in the Wiki article. I’ve also read since Sweden didn’t fight any wars during the Mauser era that all of the rifles are top notch since no shortcuts were taken during the manufacturing process.

As usual I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between. I will say if it were based strictly on quality I’d rather have a Swedish than a Spanish Mauser.

 

[boom boom]

I’ve done a fair amount of reading about Swedish Mausers because the 6.5x55 cartridge fascinates me and is my favorite. I don’t own a Swedish Mauser, I have a 6.5x55 CZ 550 American.

I’d never heard of Swedish Mausers having inferior steel until I read this thread. In fact EVERYTHING I’ve ever read says the opposite, just like in the Wiki article. I’ve also read since Sweden didn’t fight any wars during the Mauser era that all of the rifles are top notch since no shortcuts were taken during the manufacturing process.

As usual I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between. I will say if it were based strictly on quality I’d rather have a Swedish than a Spanish Mauser.

To begin with, if you search for postings by Slamfire in the THR archives, he is a THR member who is probably the most up on metallurgy of old military weapons. He has done some outstanding posts backed by linked and cited information if you care to find these.

I have several Swedish Mausers and like them. But, the wikipedia article and that specific quote is misleading. It is describing impurities derived from the ore source rather than conscious alloying by adding amounts during the production to create a specific steel during the production of much of those Swedish Mausers. The basic production during that time was carbon steel with some interesting impurities.
I once naively used that specific quote and got schooled on it--as a result, I spent some time digging up old information about the Swedish metal industry. ( I am leaving out Husqvarna production during WWII period as I have no idea if the Swedes applied the new findings in material science to their manufacture). Due to my research, that alloy quote in Wikipedia of early Swedish steel--from what I have gathered, is that it was an accident of history--not really metallurgy or material science. Assay methods during the 1890's and 1900's were much inferior and material science was somewhat primitive in determining how to alloy steel for specific qualities. Many of those trace elements in the wiki quote come from the ore source as "impurities" from Swedish magnetite iron ore. The ore used in ordnance steel for the Swedes also lacked problematic qualities such as significant phosphorus compounds that can create embrittlement problems with producing steel down the road. Fit and finish on the Swedish and most German Mausers of the same era are often better than their Spanish counterparts, but all are pretty much carbon steel base.

From what I can remember, the magnetite iron ore that made Swedish steel famous came mainly from Kiruna Mines which is described somewhat in this geology article http://www.geo.tu-freiberg.de/oberseminar/os03_04/Ines Kurmies.pdf (it is in English but is a scholarly geology article) as is general description of magnetite iron ore and its specifics in Sweden and the world http://onlinebiblio.lneg.pt/download.asp?file=multimedia/associa/base mono/35250.pdf. Also see Malberget Mines in the same general area, http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/malmberget/

Carbon steel is and was pretty well understood at the time of these Mausers but are subject to the variances in impurities and production techniques. At Oberndorf, the location of the massive Mauser plant in Germany, there is still a "Swedish" building where Sweden's orders of German Mausers using Swedish steel were produced. I am sure that these Mausers and later Swedes were made to the best of 1890's-1900's technology regarding carbon steel. But, Winchester moved to nickel steel during that period because they felt that the metallurgy was better, as did the British for the No. 1 Lee-Enfield series of rifles due to Cordite erosion of carbon steels. That use of nickel steel carried over to the P14 and later U.S. 1917 rifles and eventually prodded Rock Island and later Springfield Armory to switch to nickel steel for the 1903 receiver after failures of the carbon steel ones. From what I have gathered, some countries felt carbon steel was "good enough" that it did not justify the cost of moving to better steel for that purpose. To retool a manufacturing process can be expensive, especially if the production levels are low such as during non-war periods where budgets are tight. A commercial manufacturer might do so based on selling more of a type due to competitive advantage or if necessity dictate it like the British apparently were forced to do so by the properties of their Cordite smokeless powder, but in general, militaries often prefer to work around the limitations of weapons rather than trying to optimize them due to budget constraints. Innovation is generally forced by war, threat of war. or disasters, by way of necessity rather than planning.

The case hardened nature of Mauser carbon steel receivers has often been described as a passive safety where the rifle's receiver's lug recesses deform in an over pressure event rather than cracking and shattering, but that passive safety also supposes proper heat treatment that can fail like the Springfield low numbers (improper heat treatment led to a completely hardened receiver which is brittle) and that it will be recognized by the user before a cartridge separates due to excessive headspace and dumps hot gas into the Mauser receiver with unpredictable results. That is also why it is not wise to push these old receivers with newer high pressure cartridge loads. If you want the latest .300 Godzilla Magnum killer @75000 psi, use modern rifles and receivers with modern alloyed steels that have an excess of a safety factor.

 

[22250Rem]

The case hardened nature of Mauser carbon steel receivers has often been described as a passive safety where the rifle's receiver's lug recesses deform in an over pressure event rather than cracking and shattering,

..... This thread had become very interesting and informative. Since my last two posts back in November I came across something on another site that dealt with the Swedish Mauser receivers that Kimber had re-barreled to higher pressure rounds like .308, .243 and .22-250. They said that those re-barreled Swedes eventually developed "set back" issues. Wouldn't that be due to the lugs and/or the lug recesses deforming under excessive repeated pressures and creating excessive headspace? I'm glad my Kimber Swede is still in the original 6.5x55 chambering as I've not heard or seen anything about problems with those. I'm sure my headspace is still correct after 23 years because I reload everything that goes into it (pretty much just one load nowadays; a 129 gr. Hornady at about 2620 fps, nice but not a hot rod) and brass seems to last through many, many reloading cycles. So would I be correct on my assumption that those "set back" issues were due to lugs / lug recesses deforming at those higher pressures?

 

[boom boom]

..... This thread had become very interesting and informative. Since my last two posts back in November I came across something on another site that dealt with the Swedish Mauser receivers that Kimber had re-barreled to higher pressure rounds like .308, .243 and .22-250. They said that those re-barreled Swedes eventually developed "set back" issues. Wouldn't that be due to the lugs and/or the lug recesses deforming under excessive repeated pressures and creating excessive headspace? I'm glad my Kimber Swede is still in the original 6.5x55 chambering as I've not heard or seen anything about problems with those. I'm sure my headspace is still correct after 23 years because I reload everything that goes into it (pretty much just one load nowadays; a 129 gr. Hornady at about 2620 fps, nice but not a hot rod) and brass seems to last through many, many reloading cycles. So would I be correct on my assumption that those "set back" issues were due to lugs / lug recesses deforming at those higher pressures?

Yes. I did not add the Kimber experience as I usually run long on posts anyway but you are correct. Firing these rifles over time with higher pressure rounds does cause lug setback which will eventually cause the rifle to become unserviceable. The high pressure when the bolt is locked swages the softer underlying material in the lug locking recesses in the receiver producing ridges, humps, etc. It can be felt if you have small enough fingers or a dental mirror and light can help determine it. It is often diagnosed as problems with the chamber or extractor as it becomes more difficult to run the bolt properly when this happens. Try a bing image search for mauser lug setback for some good pictures of this.

I rebuild old military Mausers to issued condition along with some other old military bolt action rifles. That is why I actually prefer buying bare receivers online, as opposed to whole rifles or barrelled receivers, to restore as pictures indicate whether or not the receiver is toast. You also have less into it and even worn receivers can sometimes be used for lower pressure builds like .22 LR single shots. Barrels for Mausers are pretty easy to come by including new ones and it is fairly easy to rebarrel a Mauser.

 

[cdb1]

As 22250Rem said, this thread has become very interesting and informative. I don’t hold Swedish Mausers in awe like I used to.

 

[Slamfire]

Boom Boom, you are da Man! Thanks for the help!

I’ve done a fair amount of reading about Swedish Mausers because the 6.5x55 cartridge fascinates me and is my favorite. I don’t own a Swedish Mauser, I have a 6.5x55 CZ 550 American.

I’d never heard of Swedish Mausers having inferior steel until I read this thread. In fact EVERYTHING I’ve ever read says the opposite, just like in the Wiki article. I’ve also read since Sweden didn’t fight any wars during the Mauser era that all of the rifles are top notch since no shortcuts were taken during the manufacturing process.

There are few things more that I enjoy in pissing in the Mass Marketing punch bowl. I dislike lies, I dislike liars, and as I have found, industries have a habit of withholding information. Our primary educators are in print Gunwriters, who are nothing but shills for the industry. The current business model for periodicals started with the Lady's Home Journal in the 1880's: and that model is, subscriptions may pay for the postage, but the profits come from the advertisers. Articles in in print periodicals are nothing but "infomercials" and the articles you read were written by gunwriters with the purpose to sell product. Advertisers will spend money to educate you what to buy, they are not going to spend anything educating you what not to buy. Massive numbers of obsolete firearms were imported and sold in this country after WW2. Commissioned by importers, gunwriters wrote glowing reviews with indefinable terms as "German Technology" and "old world craftsmanship". They still do, as these amorphous terms have been found to resonate with the shooting public. The public is savvy enough to know that 2G wireless is ancient, but criticize firearms built with 1800's German Technology, and you will have a fight on your hands. The fact of the matter is, pre vacuum tube technology, is still pre vacuum tube technology no matter how skillfully a gunwriter spins it. Vacuum tube technology was better, but that was way after most of these rifles were built. It is worth looking at the CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF CODES AND STANDARDS FOR STANDARDIZATION & TESTING DEPARTMENT https://cstools.asme.org/csconnect/FileUpload.cfm?View=yes&ID=32642 for an idea of how immature metal technology was in the pre vacuum tube era.

One should also be wary of in print Gunsmiths, drumming up business by selling the romance of old guns. These guys have all the moral integrity of those Pharmaceutical Companies whose profits are directly linked to the number of opioid addicts they create. By the way, the Tobacco Industry thanks you for smoking.

All Swedish Mausers, whether built in Germany or Sweden, were fabricated using a Swedish-supplied high grade tool steel alloyed with nickel, copper, and vanadium, a product then noted for its strength and corrosion resistance.

Who ever wrote for Wiki this is so incompetent , he does not know he is incompetent. The fan boy did not provide a citation to a metallurgical analysis of Swedish Mausers, so I will assume, he was actually referring to this WW1 analysis:

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/4281076061?r=8481020161

Okay, here we go again. Sorry, I'm paraphrasing Duane Wiebe.

The 1996 "core" assay of a generic WW-I era 1898 Mauser receiver:

Carbon: 0.29%
Sulfur: 0.022%
Phosphorus: 0.019%
Manganese: 0.45%
Silicon: 0.16%
Nickel: 0.05%
Chromium 0.02%
Molybdenum: <0.01% (trace)
Vanadium <0.01% (trace)
Copper 0.17%
Columbium: <0.01% (trace)

The 1996 "core" assay of a WW-I era 1898 Mauser bolt:

Carbon: 0.18%
Sulfur: 0.018%
Phosphorus: 0.014%
Manganese: 0.76%
Silicon: 0.23%
Nickel: 0.29%
Chromium: 0.06%
Molybdenum: <0.01% (trace)
Copper 0.15%
Aluminum: 0.02%

This thread had a number of fan boys of old guns, and the poster of this assay information said this stupid thing:

The assessment of these assays was that the steel was not standard carbon steel but a copper bearing, high strength low alloy steel.

The following was the steel composition specified by the Mausers:

Carbon LT 0.40%
Manganese LT 0.90%
Copper LT 0.18%
Silicon LT 0.30%
Phosphorous LT 0.04%
Sulphur LT 0.06%

This is from page 103 Rifle & Carbine 98: M98 Firearms of the German Army from 1898 to 1918 Dieter Storz

The material looks to be a manganese steel alloy. The copper is most likely a containment, with a percentage to limit the amount, it could be that copper added for easy machining, either way, it detracts from the steel properties. Specified property requirements were: Ultimate 78.2 Ksi, Yield 36.9 KSI, elongation 15%. A yield under 40 KSI probably means these are the desired properties of normalized steel.

Silicon, phosphorous and sulphur were actually undesirable, but unavoidable based on the ladle linings, so the percentages are limited. The load imparted to the lugs and the receiver seat is an impact load. Phosphorous has the ability to increase steel strength, hardness, and hardenability, but, sulphur and phosphorous adversely affect the material’s toughness, fatigue strength, which are critical properties in a rifle receiver. The other stuff, in the assay, is crap. To repeat, this stuff is crap that got into the steel. That nickel, chromium, molybdenum, vanadium, columbium, are all containment's. Instead of making this some super duper advanced alloy steel, these “residuals” unpredictably detract from the properties of the steel.

These residuals are elements that the Bessemer and Open Hearth processes were not able to oxidize during the oxygen blow. They come from multiple sources, the most common one in today’s world, is scrap. Scrap is often contaminated with coatings of various kinds, and there is nothing to indicate that the steel manufacturers were particular about the segregation of scrap. They might have been tossing everything and anything into the ladle. Waste in steel plant was collected and thrown back into the process, which also gave a slow but steady increase in the residual content, especially of copper and nickel, as these elements are not oxidized and removed in steel making.

The idea that 1916 steel was superior because it was copper bearing is total nonsense. I did not know it at the time of that thread, but unlike the poster, I read up. By the way, did you know about the amount of allowable bug parts there are in food? Wheat flour is allowed this much filth:

Insect filth: Average of 75 or more (!) insect fragments per 50 grams
Rodent filth: Average of 1 or more (!) rodent hairs per 50 grams

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

One might as well claim that Papa Joe’s piazza crust is superior because of its cockroach bearing wheat flour.

Residuals in steels continues to be very serious problem, but at least it is recognized, and technology has provided means of controlling and reducing some. These papers are worth reading to understand their affects.

Residual Elements in Steel

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

Opportunities and dangers of using residual elements in steels: a literature survey

www.jernkontoret.se/globalassets/publicerat/forskning/d-rapporter/d819.pdf

Any owner of a vintage rifle is free to load their weapon to whatever pressure levels they want. The lowest risk is to create loads that are of a pressure equal to, or less, than the original service loads. Attempting to “improve” on service rifle pressures is risky, and the effects of a catastrophic structural failure very unpredictable, but, people have died behind these old rifles, and more have suffered injuries. It is all your call.

And mind you, none of those in print Gunwriters and Gunsmiths who convinced you that your 19th century musket was made out of superior steels, is going to contribute one dollar to your medical co pays.

 

[cdb1]

You don’t have to convert me Slamfire, I conceded in post #45.

 

[Slamfire]

The only hard ones are Swedes.
Yield strength is proportional to hardness.

Fatigue life is inversely proportional to hardness. Make it hard, it will fail sooner through metal fatigue. Not the direction I would want to go.

Receivers are made hard enough so they can carry the load of a standard pressure round without deforming the bolt lugs or receiver seats. The load is basically an impact load, and after the desired hardness is created in the material, the most desired characteristic there after is fatigue lifetime, because you don't want the lugs or the receiver to break.

 

[someguy2800]

Great info Slamfire. It amazes me the number of mausers I've seen in 300 win mag and other cartridges that have no business being in there. All mechanical things need to be treated with respect. Just this morning I was drilling and tapping my sporterized krag for scope mounts I made for it. The back of the receiver was hard but the front bridge was not. hrrmm...

 

[boom boom]

Boom Boom, you are da Man! Thanks for the help!



There are few things more that I enjoy in pissing in the Mass Marketing punch bowl. I dislike lies, I dislike liars, and as I have found, industries have a habit of withholding information. Our primary educators are in print Gunwriters, who are nothing but shills for the industry. The current business model for periodicals started with the Lady's Home Journal in the 1880's: and that model is, subscriptions may pay for the postage, but the profits come from the advertisers. Articles in in print periodicals are nothing but "infomercials" and the articles you read were written by gunwriters with the purpose to sell product. Advertisers will spend money to educate you what to buy, they are not going to spend anything educating you what not to buy. Massive numbers of obsolete firearms were imported and sold in this country after WW2. Commissioned by importers, gunwriters wrote glowing reviews with indefinable terms as "German Technology" and "old world craftsmanship". They still do, as these amorphous terms have been found to resonate with the shooting public. The public is savvy enough to know that 2G wireless is ancient, but criticize firearms built with 1800's German Technology, and you will have a fight on your hands. The fact of the matter is, pre vacuum tube technology, is still pre vacuum tube technology no matter how skillfully a gunwriter spins it. Vacuum tube technology was better, but that was way after most of these rifles were built. It is worth looking at the CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF CODES AND STANDARDS FOR STANDARDIZATION & TESTING DEPARTMENT https://cstools.asme.org/csconnect/FileUpload.cfm?View=yes&ID=32642 for an idea of how immature metal technology was in the pre vacuum tube era.

One should also be wary of in print Gunsmiths, drumming up business by selling the romance of old guns. These guys have all the moral integrity of those Pharmaceutical Companies whose profits are directly linked to the number of opioid addicts they create. By the way, the Tobacco Industry thanks you for smoking.



Who ever wrote for Wiki this is so incompetent , he does not know he is incompetent. The fan boy did not provide a citation to a metallurgical analysis of Swedish Mausers, so I will assume, he was actually referring to this WW1 analysis:

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/4281076061?r=8481020161




This thread had a number of fan boys of old guns, and the poster of this assay information said this stupid thing:



The following was the steel composition specified by the Mausers:

Carbon LT 0.40%
Manganese LT 0.90%
Copper LT 0.18%
Silicon LT 0.30%
Phosphorous LT 0.04%
Sulphur LT 0.06%

This is from page 103 Rifle & Carbine 98: M98 Firearms of the German Army from 1898 to 1918 Dieter Storz

The material looks to be a manganese steel alloy. The copper is most likely a containment, with a percentage to limit the amount, it could be that copper added for easy machining, either way, it detracts from the steel properties. Specified property requirements were: Ultimate 78.2 Ksi, Yield 36.9 KSI, elongation 15%. A yield under 40 KSI probably means these are the desired properties of normalized steel.

Silicon, phosphorous and sulphur were actually undesirable, but unavoidable based on the ladle linings, so the percentages are limited. The load imparted to the lugs and the receiver seat is an impact load. Phosphorous has the ability to increase steel strength, hardness, and hardenability, but, sulphur and phosphorous adversely affect the material’s toughness, fatigue strength, which are critical properties in a rifle receiver. The other stuff, in the assay, is crap. To repeat, this stuff is crap that got into the steel. That nickel, chromium, molybdenum, vanadium, columbium, are all containment's. Instead of making this some super duper advanced alloy steel, these “residuals” unpredictably detract from the properties of the steel.

These residuals are elements that the Bessemer and Open Hearth processes were not able to oxidize during the oxygen blow. They come from multiple sources, the most common one in today’s world, is scrap. Scrap is often contaminated with coatings of various kinds, and there is nothing to indicate that the steel manufacturers were particular about the segregation of scrap. They might have been tossing everything and anything into the ladle. Waste in steel plant was collected and thrown back into the process, which also gave a slow but steady increase in the residual content, especially of copper and nickel, as these elements are not oxidized and removed in steel making.

The idea that 1916 steel was superior because it was copper bearing is total nonsense. I did not know it at the time of that thread, but unlike the poster, I read up. By the way, did you know about the amount of allowable bug parts there are in food? Wheat flour is allowed this much filth:

Insect filth: Average of 75 or more (!) insect fragments per 50 grams
Rodent filth: Average of 1 or more (!) rodent hairs per 50 grams

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

One might as well claim that Papa Joe’s piazza crust is superior because of its cockroach bearing wheat flour.

Residuals in steels continues to be very serious problem, but at least it is recognized, and technology has provided means of controlling and reducing some. These papers are worth reading to understand their affects.

Residual Elements in Steel

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

Opportunities and dangers of using residual elements in steels: a literature survey

www.jernkontoret.se/globalassets/publicerat/forskning/d-rapporter/d819.pdf

Any owner of a vintage rifle is free to load their weapon to whatever pressure levels they want. The lowest risk is to create loads that are of a pressure equal to, or less, than the original service loads. Attempting to “improve” on service rifle pressures is risky, and the effects of a catastrophic structural failure very unpredictable, but, people have died behind these old rifles, and more have suffered injuries. It is all your call.

And mind you, none of those in print Gunwriters and Gunsmiths who convinced you that your 19th century musket was made out of superior steels, is going to contribute one dollar to your medical co pays.

Thanks, I always learn something from your posts. Here is the assay information on the alloy steel used in 1917 rifles by comparison, it is closely related to what the British used in the no. 1.

http://www.yesterdaysweapons.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=6834

1917 Enfield Rifles

Receiver and Bolt:
Made of nickel steel specificed in US Army Pamphlet no. 3098.
This steel could be made by the acid process, or the basic process, both were accepted.

Acid Process:
Carbon .30% to .40%
Manganese .50% to .70%
Nickel 3.00% to 3.75%
Phosphorus under .05%
Sulphur under .035%

Basic Process:
Carbon .35% to .45%
Manganese .50% to .70%
Nickel 3.25% to 3.75%
Silicon .10% to .20%
Phoshorus under .05%

Barrel Steel specified in US Army Pamphlet no.3098:
Carbon .45% to .55%
Manganese 1.10% to 1.35%
Silicon .20% to .30%
Phosphorus under .06%
Sulphur under .06%


FWIW, found some interesting information on the production of 1917 Rifles (and others) of the Eddystone plant in WWI. I might do some more digging in old U.S. War Dept and congressional hearings on that before posting on the topic. It has a relationship with reports of receivers from that plant cracking.