GN,
as I mentioned on another thread, I've been thinking how to answer your reply. I hope always to base my assertions on data that is both factual and correct; something at which maybe I don't always succeed. But I think I can for this reply.
Let me say again that I appreciate and respect your concern for safety. That is a fine attribute for a moderator, and of course for any gun nut. Below, I'll put your reply segments in quotes since the forum doesn't seem to allow selective font changes.
"I must differ with your assertions of the strength of the small ring actions. Of them the swedes are the best but they simply lack the larger diameter of the 98 design both in the outside diameter of the ring and the barrel shank diameter." Later segment: "Have you an web address for the SAAMI information you quoted, I would certainly be interested in doing a bit of research on that site."
I've combined two sentences that weren't together in your post, but they work well together with my answer. The SAAMI information was gotten from a "conglomeration site" like Steve's Pages or Hawk's; I didn't bookmark it, but indeed, you'll enjoy researching either :-) Here is the relevant section of the chart:
6.5x55 45,000
7mm Mauser 51,000
7mm Rem Magnum 61,000
7mm Weatherby Mag 65,000
7mm-08 61,000
70-30 Waters 45,000
7.62x39 45,000
8mm Mauser 35,000
Well, it didn't format particularly well, but maybe it will be usable. This is one example of cold facts conflicting with our dearly-held notions. You see, the "stronger" large-ring Mauser was "designed" for a lower pressure cartridge than were the small ring ones (tongue-in-cheek). Of course, LR rifles were later chambered for 7X57. But look, the 7mm has the highest operating pressure of any of the three shown. And, that cart. was used in the 93 and 95 Mausers. While it is unarguable that a larger receiver ring makes a stronger action, at least in the receiver ring :-) Strength of that ring isn't really relevant. PO Ackley (forget which book or article) tells of experiments in strength of chamber sections. As I remember, his experiments showed that a very thin cylinder of barrel steel, 1/8" or less, as I remember, was sufficient to contain the combustion pressures of a modern high-velocity cartridge. And, this was during the era of the .270Win with its 65,000 psi pressure limit. It is plain that the diameter of the receiver ring (in Mausers of the series we are discussing) has no bearing upon whether the action is strong enough for any cartridge we're going to put in one, plus a great deal extra strength left over for accidents. Finally on that topic, when did you ever read or hear of a Mauser action being blown apart in the reciever ring *except* from a plugged barrel or an inadvertent charge of bullseye instead of a normal-for-caliber powder? It just don't happen!!!! In the 60s I saw varminters shoot 6.5-06 rifles made from any of the common Mauser actions, day-after-day, using charges that flattened the primer like it had been hammered on an anvil... had to be over 65,000psi. They weren't even close to rupturing the barrel cylinder, let alone the receiver ring. So, let's use these fine small-ring actions and have fun; they are plenty strong.
"But that's not the real problem. the 96's don't handle escaping high pressure gas as they should. They don't have the deflection ledge on the bolt shroud, the baffle on the firing pin, or as extensive a venting system as the 98. If a primer lets go you may well lose an eye."
Here you are exactly correct... they don't handle escaping gas as well as the 98. However, why does gas escape? Standing by my assertions above, I'll aver that it isn't from broken actions. It is *nearly always* from poor (excessive) headspace and/or lack of attention to the condition of cases. The Mauser action retains the cart case to below the position of the web. So, escaping gas always is a result of carelessness. Shame on me if I let my cases stretch and separate. If I do, I'll have to rely upon shooting gases to save that eye. So, on that point, I'll continue to shoot my Swede, 91, 93, 95, etc. and recommend them to others.
"Also one must take into consideration what might happen should that weapon get into the hands of someone using stronger loads.. At least the lack of factory ammo makes the latter less likely."
True that last!!! But, he'd have to be shooting some mighty special loads to get into trouble, if what I've said above is credible.
"Also I must admit to never having seen a 96 mauser altered to a 30-06 length round. I can't see how they would fit."
They've been done in their thousands, likely tens of thousands; all the discussed actions are the same operating length. We are mostly past the day of wholesale sporterizations and conversions on surplus actions... it casts more these days to do a full sporterization (even without rechambering) than to buy a good used Win70 or Rem700. But, in the 50s and 60s, this was cheap shooting; everyone has a few of these in his rack. I've seen every Mauser from the 91 Belgian/Argentine (commonly rechambered to .303-06, though folks mostly didn't bother with the 7.65 mm bullets; just fill 'er up with .30-06 fodder and lay down your fire!!!! :-) to the 98, and in every caliber from .22 to .375, and likely smaller and larger were done as well. Another one of my conversions is a 93 SR action rebarreled to .225Win, and the loads I shoot are easily 65,000psi. I do watch my cases.
It has been a long time since I have examined a 6.5-06 based upon a 96/38 rifle, so I went to the shop last night and cycled a few .270Win rounds through my Swede (of course, the bullets wouldn't chamber). They worked a treat. I seem to remember that with longer bullets in larger calibers the ejector has to be ground back to allow a loaded round to pass the front ring upon ejection. That might be necessary with smaller calibers as well if the bullets were seated out really far. Also, I remember that for some conversions, the magazine box had to be lengthened, but that ain't gonna be needed with a 6.5.
Anyway, I hope you keep the spirit of safety alive, but I also hope that you don't allow unnecessarily-stiff requirements on the topic to keep you from enjoying some good, clean, safe fun :-)
Best/buffler
