Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 9.3x62

I am looking to buy a Husqvarna that the caliber listed is 9.3. When inquiring which 9.3 it was I was told that it would chamber and cycle a 30-06 case so that would make it a 9.3x62. Since this is a new caliber for me I know very little about it and don't know if that is a true statement about using a 30-06 case. Hopefully someone on here will know. Also, since this is a Mauser action built around 1941/42 could the 96 actions be modified to cock on opening?
Any help will really be appreciated.

Husqvarna was building the 9,3x57 and the 9,3x62 on both the 96 and 98 actions during the 1941/42 time period. The Models M46A, M46AN, M146 and M246 were all produced in that time frame. Production overlapped.

Some were simply marked Kal 9,3 the length of the case not being marked.

Not knowing EXACTLY which model you have or are looking at, I'd at least want a chamber cast.

You are however correct in assuming that if it will chamber a 06 round it is most likely a 9.3 X 62. However, I would still want a chamber casting to assure that it has been properly chambered. Many of the 46/146 Husqvarna models have been rechambered from 9.3 X 57 to 9.3 X 62, and not all have been done properly.

And yes, you can convert to Cock-on-Opening but the purists collectors will hate you forever.

Thank you all for the replies. This information really helps. The rifle is a Husqvarna, but I don't know which model. I'm told it cocks on opening, but has the thumb slot in the receiver.

A 9.3x62 will chamber a 35 Whalen ,whose parent case is the 30-06.

Cock on closing and thumb slot means that it's probably a 94 or 94 variant, but NOT a 98.

Also, the fact that it will chamber a 30-06 case gives me very little confidence. The shoulder and case mouth diameters are different enough that you might be able to get a 30-06 case into a 9.3x57 chamber. Definitely need to get a cast, or be prepared to own a 9.3x57 on a 94 action, which isn't a bad thing at all.


Okie John

Here is a photo they sent me of the bolt.

The Cock on Open models (98s) were chambered in both 9,3x57 and 62.

If it ends up being a 9,3x57, you can almost always rechamber them to 62. Some of the 9,3x57's have generous enough chambers that they could chamber an 06 case. Which is why, some do not successfully rechamber to 9,3x62. I always make a chamber cast BEFORE attempting a rechamber.

If it's a 9.3X57 based on a KAR length magazine you can rechamber it, but you can't load the longer cartridges into the mag. So you'd end up with a single shot or a "2 shooter".

Is the rifle you are interested in somewhere you can get pictures of it and post those pictures?
If so set a ruler on top of the stock next to the action and many of us can tell you if you have a KAR length or a GEW length action and also if it's a 98, 96 or 94 action.

94s will not be 9.3X62, but both 96s and 98s can be.

The fact that it cocks on opening means it's a 98 unless someone has done a conversion on it. If it cocks on opening and If it's 100% original it's a 98.

But that still leaves you needing to know for sure what the chamber is. Some are stamped under the wood line on the barrels. When you get the rifles take the barreled action out of the wood and look it over. That may be all you need to do to know it is really a 9.3X62. If it is a 9.3X57 I would still advise you to get it. That's a fine shell too, and easily made from 8X57 brass.

All this has sure helped. No accessible pictures of the rifle are available other than the bolt I posted. From what the owner has told me, the photo of the bolt, and the great help from the 24hr. crew, I'm betting it is a 98 action. It has the third lug and cocks on opening. What caliber is still up in the air, but if its a 9.3x57 I can have it rechambered to a 9.3x62 easily. It was the action that was concerning me.
You all have been really great help.

WTH are you talking about? The KAR98 (WWI Variants) were Small ring, Large thread, standard length 98 actions. With a magazine of approximately 3.310". The Kar98k was a large ring, large thread, standard length action using the same magazine box length. Husqvarna used neither of these when building their rifles though they did use FN supplied 98 actions that also used a magazine length of 3.310" for rifles made during the 41/42 time period. All these are standard length 98 actions.

The

Can you clarify what you mean by 94's will not be 9,3x62 but 96's will? The actions are identical. What are you calling 94's and what are you considering 96's?

The Husqvarna Model 46AN was made on a 96/94 action. It was a 9,3x62. The 649 which started production post WWII was built using the so-called "strengthened" 96 action. It lacked the thumbcut found on the previous actions. The 94, 96 and 640 actions are intermediate length actions and have a magazine of approximately 3.23", which, unless altered, are too short for the 9,3x62 at 3.290".

So are saying that even though this one cocks on opening it cannot be a 98 by virtue of the year it was made? Now I'm starting to get confused.

Did the 94's and 96's have the third locking lug? I thought it was only the 98's.

OK z1r here is the scoop.
WW1 era M98s were large ring. Small rings commercial 98s were not made until the 20s from my understanding.

Small ring 91s 93s 94s 95s and 96s were all made in both commercial and military styles.

The long action (30-06 length...so called today) was the 96 and the 98 (GEW Length)

The KAR length military Mausers (Like the WW2 rifles) were not introduced until the 30s.

I would not say "thus saith the Lord", but that's been my understanding for as long as I have been working on them, 49 years now.


94 and 98 actions are not identical and in fact, no part other than the front guard screw and bolt stop screws will interchange.

All 91s 93s 94s and 95s were what we now call "KAR length" even though the true KAR-98 was not invented at the time those were designed.

"KAR length" is 7X57 and 8X57 specific in their manufacture.
GEW length is longer and can accommodate the 30-06 length cartridges and can be opened up to 300 H&H mag length.

So a Husqvarna M94 cannot be a 9.3X62 because you could not load the magazine. It could be a 9.3X57 perhaps, but not the X62.

The M96 Carl Gustav M96 actions can be either one because many 96s were GEW length.

That how I have read the info. The 96 Husqvarna magazine is GEW length not KAR length.

No matter to the OP. He has a 3 lug bolt. That is a 98.

szihn, I think sir that you may be confusing the Husqvarna 1640 action with the 96.

The 94 and 96 are for all intents and purposes, identical. In military guise, they differed by virtue of the fact that the 94 was a carbine and the 96 a rifle.

You also mis-read my post, I claimed the 96 and 94 were the same not the 94 and 98.

Say what you will but the Husqvarna M46AN, built on a 96 action, was factory chambered in 9,3x62. Got one in my shop. Same identical action as the M46 which was chambered in 9,3x57.

The Kar98a and b were WWI era as I previously described. The side of the action was marked Kar(a) or (b). The WWII K98k was marked Mod 98. Both were standard length 98 actions. But that is neither here nor there since they were not used to make Husqvarna commercial sporting rifles. The first "Commercial" rifles using the 98 action were produced in 1898. Between 1898 and 1946 Mauser made just under 127,000 commercial sporting rifles.

If the OP's rifle cocks on opening and has the "third lug", then it would be a 98. The pre-98's did not have a 3rd lug.

Again, thank you for the information and the education. While not new to rifles nor 98 Mausers I admit to my ignorance on the what you guys have stated in the above posts. You helped me considerably and soon I hope to be the proud owner of a 9.3x62. Other than an 8mm Magnum, the largest caliber I have ever owned. My giant killer you might say.

Z1r, you may be correct in my confusion. I am not as familiar with commercial "Huski"actions as I am with military actions and their commercial counterparts made in Germany (and a few other European countries as well) If i am wrong about those comercial actions I'd love to lear what you have to show me.

But the military 94 and 96 are not the same. In fact I have one of each sitting on my desk as I write this, and I am measuringthem now to be 100% sure of myself.
The box on the 96 is noticeably longer than that of the 94. About 3/16 inch. The 96 has the same length box as the GEW 98 on my 9.3X62. The 94 is .130" shorter.

I have seen several 9.3X57s made on GEW and KAR length Mausers both. I have seen the 9.3X57s made on all 3 models of Mauser action, 94s,96 and 98s over the past 40 years or so. But the 9.3X57 cartridge is shorter then the 9.3X62. I do not have a load spec on the 9.3X57 C.O.L. but I assume it's the same as the 8X57 cartridge overall length.
The spec on the 9.3X62 is 3.290" or 3.310" depending on which sheet you read. Old German specs (1920s) are a bit longer than the current spec (2015)

szihn,

Normally I'd bust out a 96 and a94 lay em side by side and show you they are the exact same thing. However, photobucket has taken my photos hostage and I really don't think that even pics will matter to you.

But, since you have both a 96 and a 94 on hand, why don't you post pics so that we can be sure what we are talking about.

I just got a huski 9.3. I can't post photos either. Would like some identity help with this guy. Any of you can help with the photos?

I haven't found a replacement site yet for hosting pics.

I did recently pic up another couple of 9,3x62's. Both Husqvarnas using FN Commercial actions. Took the one that didn't have a cracked stock to the range and was bouncing soda cans at 25 yds with the open sights. Prvi 285 ammo, I was plenty happy.

The second one is getting restocked.

If you had a Husqvarna 1640 action and wanted to rebarrel to 9.3x62 is there a barrel maker you would suggest? Plus, open sights will need to be installed also. A used small ring take off barrel would be ok, but so far I haven't located one. Any suggestions.

If you like the donor, a JES rebore might be worth considering.

If you think that a take-off barrel from a Husqvarna 46 or SR 640 in 9.3x57 would work, it might be worth a call to Simpson LTD in Galesburg, IL, as they are probably the biggest importers of used Husqvarnas in the U.S.

My Mark X in 9.3x62 has a Lothar Walther barrel and I'm very happy with it.

I've looked at the Lothar Walther barrels and liked what I saw. Did you have sites installed?

I installed a front sight strictly for the aesthetic value 'cause it is a mannlicher stocked rifle and mannlicher stocked rifles just don't look complete to me without a front sight.

I have two Lothar Walther LR Mauser barrels, a 7.5x55 Swiss and the 9.3x62, both shoot good groups.

Lothar Walther, Krieger, PacNor, Douglas, Shilen, all make a 9,3mm barrel.. Any good smith can thread it to fit the Husqvarna action.

And, either Krieger or PacNor can supply a copy of the Husqvarna barrel profile if need be. One of the two, can;t remember which, supplied one for a customer's build.

My 12 twist Pac Nor is a half minute shooter with 286 NPs, and not much worse with 250 Accubonds. I wouldn't be scared to go that way again.

Pac Nor price is reasonable. Any idea of their turn around time?

It's been suggested that I pick up one of the lower cost Husky's in 9.3x57 with a good bore and have that barrel rechambered to 9.3x62 as I've heard that many do. Not a bad idea, but here's where my ignorance shows. I thought the 57's were .358 bore and the 62's .366 bore. Isn't that enough difference to cause issues? Or what am I missing?

57 is short version, 62 long version. Think .30'06 vs .308. Same bore.

Thank you. Makes sense to me now.

You are perhaps confusing the 9x57 with the 9,3x57. The 9mm has a nominal bore size of .356" (Grooves 0.356", lands 0.345").

Both the 9.3x57 and 9,3x62, as well as the 9,3x64 and 9,3x70 have the same bore size 0.365". The lands are 0.354".

Yes, that is where the confusion was. I will be saving this information.

Hey Z1R
Sorry to take so long. My apologies.
The photobucket screw job made me use Flickr, and I had to get my camera back, so I was not ignoring you.

I think your request is very reasonable.
So here are the pictures

Here is a FN M94 Mauser (badly pitted, but that doesn't matter for the purpose of this illustration'
FN 94 by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

Here it is with my calipers on it. As you can see the box is 3.305"
FN 94 Measured by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

Here is a Carl Gustav M96. You can see part of the stamping to the side of the scope base.
C.G. 96 by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

Here is the same action with my calipers on the box. As you can see it's 3.440"
C.G. 96 Measured by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

That's 135 thousandths different. Over 1/8"
Not a lot, but they are NOT the same. The parts do not interchange.

Szihn,

Thanks for posting those. They are all that is needed to clear up the mystery.

You are measuring an 1894 Brazilian which is really nothing more than a Spanish 1893.

I was talking about Husqvarna commercial actions which are based off the Swedish 1894/96 actions. The Swedish 1894 and 1896 are for all intents and purposes identical. The Swedish 1894 is not however the same as the Brazilian 1894. Many Swedish gun collectors insist on referring to the Husqvarna Commercial actions like the M46 as 94's, others refer to them as 96's. Since the Swedish 94 and 96 are the same, it makes no difference.

This helps clarify where the confusion comes from.

So, my Husqvarna M46AN which is built using the Swedish 94/96 action is factory chambered in 9,3x62.

OK, that clears it up for me too.
That 94 in the picture is a Belgian made receiver, (F.N. Herstal) made for the Brazilian Army sometime in the early part of the 1900s
It's converted to an 9.3X57 and works like a charm.

I had assumed that the 94s were all the same length if made under license from Mauser, regardless of country of origin. Not so?

If I understand you correctly, you say the Husky 94s are the same as the 96s (Swede's) in length?
If that's true what is the difference between the two?

I have seen pictures of the commercial 9.3X62s and 9.3X57s made by Husky, but pictures only. So I really don't know. Please educate me.

I believe the difference is barrel length. 94's are carbine length while the 96 is a long barrel, 29"? Model 38 is a shorter barrel than 96 but longer than carbine 24"?

Well I started the 9.3X57 today. 11 hours. I sawed out the blank and did the inletting for everything. I am ready to start shaping the stock now.

I already have the barrel turned chambered polished and installed. I installed the front sight base and the rear sight also. I made a scope/bolt handle and installed a scope safety. I installed a set of Leupold scope bases also. All that metal work was done before today.

Now I will shape the stock, install the under lug and key, install the butt pad and make the nose cap and grip cap, and install them. Then I will sand to 400 grit and install the sling swivels. Then I finish wood, engrave the metal and last, I blue it.

I may have it done in time for hunting season,but I still may use my 9.3X74R or my 6.5X56 Mann/Scho.
but who knows, I may decide to use the new 9.3 at the last minute. I love having that dilemma..............

It sounds very nice. Hope to see a picture as you move on.

If I can get my camera to work, I will.

I'll be interested in seeing the this also.

Had a little trouble, but I got these photos of the work so far.
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
Now I have to make the under-lug, both front and rear sling swivels, silver grip cap, and silver nose cap.
I am debating if I should install a pad or a checkered steel butt plate. Plates are classier, but a pad may be appreciated if I run 250 grain bullets at 2300 FPS. I will use 30MM scope rings for a Vortex scope, but I won't even buy them until I have the scope in hand.

Very, very nice Steve. A true European Mannlicher design. Love it. Turkish walnut or maybe Claro? Hard to tell from the photo's.

That looks awesome. Cannot wait to see it take shape.

I really admire someone who takes on a project like this. I can't wait to see it finished.

Thanks guys.


K22, it's Bastogne actually.

I hope to make a lot of meat for our freezer with this rifle in the coming years. It's one of the guns I had wanted for 3 decades. Now I am just going to build my own guns that I have put off for the last 30+ years. Not all at once, but over the next 2-3 years.

A 9.3X62 Mauser in British fashion, a Lee "Speed" in 303, and a 28 cal flintlock squirrel rifle are all on the list. When they are done I may go into another long period of time in which I make no guns for myself.

I have wanted these for many years and when they are done I can't really think of anything else that give me any motivation to make. (for myself)

After these are done I expect ALL the guns I make will be for customers and friends from then on. We'll see......

Up until last year, I had not made a gun for myself since 1994, (my 62 cal flintlock) and the last two I made for myself before that one was 1988 (a 338-06 Mauser and a 416 Taylor Mauser).

It's been said "the cobbler's kids seem to get their shoes last". Seems like gunsmiths fall into that trap too. My wife talked some sense into me at Thanksgiving time in 2015. So now I am doing a few of my own now and then.

Curious why you chose the rear sight that you did for your 9.3? Wouldn't a British fashion bolt have a multiple folding leaves express sight?

No, Carbon12 not on the German or Austrian style rifles. Some German classics have folders, but not the typical British type.
The Germanic folders are usually like the ones on these rifles.
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
My 270 8 by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
These are the most common to see on German and Austrian sporting rifles made from 1900 to 1925.
but those rifles were also offered with the type I used, which are basically military style, but always with windage adjustment too. most Military sights on Mausers had no windage, will that being done at the front sight.

The British folders are more of the "parade style" as show here.
416 Taylor Mauser by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
P2160005 by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
Custom CZ 375 4 by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
The + and - of the 2 styles are simply that the folders make you select the blade that is the closest to your target's range and do it very fast. The slide adjustable sights allow you to dial to the range almost exactly but are slower to adjust for range.
Neither is "better". You just choose the one you like.

Doggone those are nice rifles. And you do some very nice work.

Since all of my deals on a 9.3x62 have fallen through I'm now going to build one. I just bought a 1640 (4100 lightweight) in 30-06 so the action and stock will be my base, now to find a 9.3x62 barrel or a 9.3x57 I can have chambered to the x62. I've considered a Lomar Walther and haven't ruled out yet, but would prefer a nice used one from a Husky.

Dam szhin you undoubtedly have a gift for creating a work of art.

Yeah! I feel like I need a cigarette after that !!!!

Thanks guys,
But anyone that does something for over 50 years will get good at it.
Hey K22
PM me. I may be able to help you. Let's talk.

Beautiful work. The style of stock demands a metal butt plate. You could hedge buy adding mercury reducers if you can stand the extra weight or make them removable.

But for bench work with just about any rifle or especially those with more dunch then a 7RM I use a shooting shirt, jacket or sissy pad as I have had a couple of incidents when I got carried away and shot too much before a big hunt only to develop a flinch. Had to learn this lesson several times but a flinch will quickly undo that last smidgen of accuracy you gained by shooting additional rounds. With rifles of 458 and over I will even use a sand bag as a shoulder pad and shoot standing up if possible.

Yeah I think you may be right. I am leaning toward the steel butt plate. But I am still going back and forth in my mind on that detail.

I would not add any weight to the stock. The idea of this rifle is to make it light and handy. I am not recoil sensitive, but I also see no virtue in a rifle's kick. The 9.3X57 is factory loaded to very low pressures and has a light recoil, but it's not "kickless". Factory loads fire bullets about as fast as a 30-30 170 grain, but weigh 116 grains more. Coming form a rifles only 12 Oz. heavier than a typical 30-30, it's easy to see that such a rifles will have some recoil. The 9.3X57 dates to a time that many of the rifles it was made in were of the 94 Mauser type and therefore the European specs for the loads keep the pressure down to under 38,000 (Or so I am told)
In a 98 Mauser, the pressures can be safely brought up to 58,500 like so many other shells used on the 98 system. Same bolt face and same action. So should I desire a more powerful load, I can load my ammo up. But if I do, a steel bullet on a 6-3/4 pound gun may be a bit "brisk" to say the least. I may settle on a 250 grain bullet at about 2400 FPS. We'll see soon enough.


Here is the latest. I am hogging out the forward parts.
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

K22, I sent you a PM.

I am dealing with this by using a leather lace on pad. These look appropriate to me on a classic rifle as long as you don't add the Bubba buddy to it. I like the shorter length of pull for wearing heavy cloths and the longer for summer time and range use.

Like the side panels on this one in spite of what James Howe said about them and a double Schnabel would be appropriate too. Haven't shot the 9.3 but used an 8mm some and they are all very useful rounds and not just for woods hunting either. Cartridges like this and the 358 win just seem to have an air of authority about them and usually there is no mistaking when you hit home with them.

Trejano, you are correct about the 8X57. It's a wonderful shell. Not really better than the American classic, the 30-06, but about as good. I killed my deer and my elk with one last year, and I don't buy into the idea that the 8X57 is a "close range cartridge". In fact I am of the opinion that anything the 308 can do the 8X57 can do a bit better, and I am a 308 fan. But credits need to be give when it's due. Flatness of trajectory can be nice, but it's not vital for long range shooting. Heck, the 308 Match loads are not super flat, but ask our nation's enemies is it's worthless at range, and see what they think of USMC and US Army snipers using 308s.

Here is what my 8X57 does regularly with 200 grain bullet.
PC070001 by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

And with the 170 grain Hornady SSTs is shoots 2X smaller groups that this one in the pic above, but I have found the 170 SST is not ideal for elk, so I am only using them in the future on deer and antelope. It killed a nice sized 5X5 bull last year, but penetration was not as good as I wanted.

I don't own a 358 Win, but I have made a few for customers. I made one for a man who hunts in Western and south western Wyoming with it and has for many years now, and he tells me it's wonderful for elk and moose and he's also killed most of his antelope with it now for the last 18 years or so. Again, I have to reject the notion the 358 is a "only close range shell". It is only if it's owner can only shoot well at close range, or only uses it at close range. My friend has killed many antelope with his, and he tells me many were out past 300 yards and a few were a bit over 400.

I hope to have some details to give in the use of the 9.3X57 and the 9.3X62 in the coming years. I have well over a Dz kills with my 9.3X74R and I can tell you with certainty what some of the bullets can do. I am hoping to add much more information in the coming years.

Great infor. and awesome rifles....

mr szihn you are a fine crafsman i make knifes for myself an family so i realey enjoy seeing an apseate other peples work

Ant tat da truff.

Thanks guys.

szihn,

you are a very skilled craftsman. I for one am very impressed.

An 8x57 was my very first centerfire. I bought it and a bag full of WWII ammo for somewhere less than $25 and had a blast with it. This was before the 68 gun control act.

Well, I hacked off a bit more wood and I installed a butt plate and made a sliver grip cap and nose cap.
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

Looking good. I put my FN actioned 9.3x62 in a micky. Would prefer pretty wood but the cost was prohibitive. Maybe at a later date.

Sidepass, why is wood more expensive? That piece you see above was only $125.
I never could warm up to the plastic or laminated stocks, but I have to admit, the good ones are super functional.

Well it's nearly time to start finish work. The last of the metal work will be to make the swivel for the front and a swivel and stud for the back. Next I'll put a scope on the rifle and find an accurate load. Then I'll remove the scope and using that load, I'll make a temp front sight and zero the rear sight at distances from 100 to 500 yards. Then I make a bead style permanent front sight.

That will complete the metal work expect for the polishing.

I'll then sand and finish the wood. When the stock is 100% done I'll polish the metal, do the engraving and then blue. Then re-mount the scope.

Last............go hunting with it.

I often use guns for hunting on open ground for antelope and deer that most think are not good for long range. This will be one of them I am sure.
First, I like to hunt, so I like to get close and I feel satisfied when I kill antelope with "close range guns" far more then i do when I kill them way out there with my 270 or my 25-06. But if I have a hard time and after a few weeks, if I can't get what I want at close range, I have proven to myself MANY times that learning the trajectory of even a 45-70, a 9.3x74R or my old 303 British, I can still make 300 yard shots without much problem and I have made a few with "bullet lobbers" at over 400.

I hope to have some stories to tell about hunting with this gun in the future.
But first I have to finish it. I still have several hours of work to do before I can start thinking about making meat with this one.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

Rifle looks EXCELLENT! That is one fine looking bolt gun.

Thanks Beretzs

Really like your rifle Steve and thanks for showing us the progress. To me, it is a work of art.

Thanks Joe.

I have to get back on other projects so it's likely I won't have time to work on my rifle again for about 2 weeks, but as I do get the finish work done I'll post more pics. I expect to have this rifle done in time for the hunting seasons this year, but I doubt I'll use it until next year. I hope to do my hunting this year with my 6.5 Mannlicher, and maybe my 9.3X74R. I may even bring out my old 30-30 marlin for deer. It's fun to hunt with.

In the coming winter I am going to also build a 9.3X62 on a 98 Mauser in classic British fashion and also 2 Lee "speed'(ish) sporters. One of the Lee's will be for sale.

There is nothing wrong with plastic and laminated stocks and I do them for customers when they want, but for my guns, I derive far more pleasure from wood and old classic styling.

Yep, you described my feelings as well. I have one fiber stocked rifle and very seldom use it, all the rest are wood.

That is really coming along nicely Steve. Nice piece of Bastone and the price for the wood was exceptional.

Got the 1st coat on the stock today. I'll wait about 3 days before I get time to do any more on the wood, but I may get to the polishing on the metal on Monday. I think I'll engrave the floor plate and TG before I blue. It's more striking if you cut through the blue, but they it can catch crime and rust over time more then if it's blued.

I still need to get all the checkering done, but I am sure I can't get around to that until winter. I also need to do a trigger job on it because the pull weight is over 6 pounds now. I will make a strap for it in the next few days.
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

And I lost the locking screw in the front. I hope I can fine it, but if not I need to make a new one.

Steve, elk should just line up to be shot with such a classy rifle. What scope are you going to use?

Joe if I can get them to line up I may be able to kill 2 with one bullet.


I have a Vortex Strike Eagle 1X-6X with a straight 30MM tube so there is no objective bell. I am waiting on my 30MM rings to show up UPS. I should have them in the coming week.
6X is probably more than I'll ever need for this rifle, and I will leave the scope set on 2X or 3X most of the time when hunting. I may crank it up now and then for antelope. These scopes have good brightness and exceptional fields of view which can be very helpful in dark timber, but also appreciated on the open prairie. Thinking back over the last 24 years or so, I don't think I have killed any antelope with any gun with a scope of over 6 power (or set over 6X) and most have been killed with 4X. In fact, about 1/3 of them have been shot with guns with iron sights only, 3 of which were revolvers, one in 357, one in 44 and one in 45.

I believe MOST hunters today handicap themselves by being "over-scoped". If they were to down-size more I think they would be better able to make kills with greater ease.

I did a demo about 9 years ago at a police "sniper shoot" where I took a 19" barreled 30-06 make on a Mauser and scoped with a 2X Burris Scout Scope and shot it over the course of fire from 30 yards to 600 yards. At the end of the course I didn't win, but I was in 3rd place, with 42 men competing.

I didn't expect to win, but I did expect to show how equipment is not the panacea it's thought to be. I did attain my goal, and I got the attention of many other shooters at that event.

My stalks were a lot easier for me than for any other man there because all of them had longer heavier and bulkier rifles which are a LOT harder to stay hidden with.

So it is with hunting in the real world, despite what the magazine articles will try to get us to believe. The #1 goal of the magazine publishers is to get you to buy products from their advertisers. Not all authors are totally sold out, but I think I am safe to say all publishing companies are sold out to that goal. They have to be, or they will loose the advertising dollars which are far more important to them that magazine sales.
Can you imagine an article that said "I tested this XYZ and ABC scope (or widgit, or gizmo, or do-hickey ) and it is pretty much worthless. Well made, but has no real-world application. It's a perfect answer to a non existent problem!
How long would that publisher be in business? How long would that author keep his job?

But it's not often about what new goodie you buy.
It's always 98% the skill of the hunter and 2% what he uses. Hunting skills trump shooting skills in most cases------ by far.

I agree completely. Unless I'm after varmints or working up loads, 99% of the time my scopes are at most 3x or less. My longest shots ever were with a 4x Leupold M7.

Gorgeous!! That is some fine work Steve. And I agree on the scope post.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

All done but the checkering.
Shoots quite well. My 1st load is going 1-1/16" at 107 yards
I am going to see what I can get with 220 grain Fox and with 250 grain Nosler Accu-Bonds too.

Oh man, you are extremely talented. What craftsmanship. Beautiful.

Thanks K.

I will echo that! Thank you for sharing your journey with us.

Ed

Oh WOW!

If anything rates a Two-Cool this does.

What a piece of art...that shoots.

Thanks again guys.

Guys, my Sports Afield fix came in the mail today and guess what cartridge has a SUPER article??? The 9.3X62.

It's really worth reading.

Best regards,

kd