RIFLE: 9,3 x 62 and 9,3 x 57 old Mauser hunting rifles
Alexander Eichener
> On 18 Apr 1996, Alexander Eichener wrote:
>
> # make sense to use, IMHO), the 9 x 63 lies a bit above the .35 Whelen
> # and a bit below the 9,3 x 62. Now I just have to find a cheap old
> # "Zivilmauser" ("cheap Zivilmauser" probably being an oxymoron)
> # with a nice schnabel forend and ocatagonal barrel, and can indulge in
> # traditionalist glee :-)
>
> Hardly had I written it when Fate blew her trumpet. A major gun dealer
> not far away from me announces a Husqvarna M 96 in 9,3 x 62 and an old
> (1930 vintage) Sauer & Sohn (probably a M 98 action) in 9,3 x 57 for
> about 490,- Deutsche Mark each. This does not seem expensive. I shall
> see them on Monday, if possible.
I have seen them and would like to share my impressions with you. After
all, there may a a grain (or two) of interesting material hidden therein
*grin*.
The Husqvarna 9,3 x 62 was an m/96 action, basically. At least parts of
it were of militray descent. I decided against the gun for the following
reasons:
- Heavily reworked wood. The stock had been stripped (amateurishly) by at
least 1 millimeter depth everywhere, as obvious at the metal-wood fit.
- Small crack going straight through the lower buttstock edge. This made
me suspect major abuse. The stock was a wee bit too long, too.
- Barrel was only in "good used" condition. Meaning: no rust or pitting,
but well rounded lands and a lot a tiny scratches in the grooves. The
throat also appeared fairly worn.
- Unsafe safety. A test everybody of you will know already. Switch the
Mauser-type wing safety to the "up" and to the "right" position.
Press the trigger in either case. Then turn the safety to the left.
If the firing pin strikes as a consequences, the safety has been
tampered with. While this part can be replaced with little expense,
it is not a good feeling it creates. This is the _second_ Husqvarna
m/96 in 9,3 x 62 I met which showed this specific defect.
The "Sauer & Sohn" was a small-ring receiver Mauser action with a light-
weight barrel in 9 x 57 (not 9,3 x 57, as I presumed). The exterior,
the wood and the mechanical condition of this gun were better, in spite of
an old reblueing job. Probably, a military action has been used by the
original gunsmith. I did not take it in spite of its low price. Why ?
- The stock was far too short. Even with a bulky coat (which one will
always try when choosing a shotgun or rifle), it made the gun point
extremely high, making it unsuitable for drive hunts. One could add
a long butt extension, but at the low price of the original gun, I
wondered whether it might be worth the (ungainly) expense.
- The caliber (9 x 57) is definitively defunct. It is a slow woodlands
cartridge, below the 9,3 x 57 and the 9,3 x 57. Ammo has not been
made for many decades. Reforming from 8 x 57 IS is possible, though.
- I already have a Husqvarna m/96 rifle in 8 x 54 KJ. If I were to buy
another quaint caliber, I would rather choose one I were fully happy
with, such as the 9 x 63.
--
Alexander Eichener
c...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (for rec.guns and rec.hunting stuff)
aeic...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (everything else)
The old VM address (c...@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de) is no longer valid !