Arguing with a Couple of Swedes

[Jeff Higgins]

My God... what is it with Swedes? I know, I know - "you can always tell a Swede, you just can't tell him much...". And boy is that ever proving to be the case. I'm faced with a couple of them who just can't seem to get along, and they've now dragged me into it.

One of them has been around for awhile and has become a trusted family friend. The other is a relatively new acquaintance, but in spite of that, appears bound and determined to have his way, to exert his will on the rest of us. And, well, the older one just isn't willing to give in. As stubborn as they come.

I thought I could get this sorted out, and reach some sort of a mutually acceptable agreement. The longer this drags on, however, the less likely that becomes. I would go so far as to say we have now reached the point where it's pretty obvious we have "irreconcilable differences".

Here is a pic of the recalcitrant pair. The upper is the old timer, who has been around since 2001. It's my older son's Model 70 Featherweight. He has been hunting with it since he was 12. The lower is a relative newcomer, having shown up in 2011. It's a Ruger #1 Light Sporter. They are chambered in the same caliber which, if you haven't guessed by now, is the old 6.5 "Swede" - the 6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser, adopted for military use in 1896.



The argument centers about what they each believe to be an acceptable load. The hope was to be able to share ammo when hunting, particularly if traveling when hunting. Well, unfortunately, such has proven to be anything but the case. Loads that are safe in the Model 70 generate dangerously high pressures in the #1. Loads that are safe in the #1 are essentially "squib" loads out of the Model 70.

The difference lies in their respective chambers. Or, more accurately, their respective throats. The Model 70 has a lot of freebore, a very long throat. This is the section in front of the case mouth, before the rifling begins. The #1 essentially has no freebore. Cartridges with bullets seated out to the limit of the magazine box in the Model 70 will not even chamber in the #1 - they have to be over a tenth of an inch shorter or they just stop short when they hit the rifling. And, even at this length, they still jump over .150" before they engage rifling in the Model 70.

Talk about an abject lesson in the loading manuals' old adage to "start low and work up". Even at that, when dealing with something a bit off the beaten track (like the old Swede), even that advice may not be enough. The "starting" load in one of my manuals, for the bullet and powder i've chosen, is fully four grains higher than the "maximum" load in another! Starting with that load - which is well under what we use in the Model 70 - resulted in the breech block on the #1 being very difficult to open, and the primer falling out when it did open. Full stop - time to go home and pull bullets.

In the end, I worked up a safe, accurate load for the #1. It's fully four grains less powder than the safe load in the Model 70. So much for sharing ammo...

Anyway, just thought I would share, and by doing so reiterate the need for caution when playing with this stuff. Even modern rifles in the same caliber can have vastly different requirements in their loading. What is entirely safe in one may not be in another.

[craigster59]

Very nice Jeff! I have a few Swedes. An 1896 rifle, an M38 carbine and an M41B sniper rifle with Ajack scope.

They are some accurate spoons to be sure!

[tabs]

Originally Posted by craigster59

Very nice Jeff! I have a few Swedes. An 1896 rifle, an M38 carbine and an M41B sniper rifle with Ajack scope.

They are some accurate spoons to be sure!

Ditto on the trio

the 96 is Heino Massi presentation rifle given to him for winning an event in 40. All matching not a rebuild...the 38 is a Husqvarna 1943...matching does not appear to be a rebuild. The 96 sniper is Gustafs..and is a rebuild. as they mostly are.

The Swedes are drying up.. Everybody wants the sniper...4K to 4.5K

[MBAtarga]

Originally Posted by craigster59

Very nice Jeff! I have a few Swedes. An 1896 rifle, an M38 carbine and an M41B sniper rifle with Ajack scope.

They are some accurate spoons to be sure!

Craig - I thought you lost those in that boating accident?

[unclebilly]

I have a Swede that my father spotter used in the 80’s. It is the most accurate rifle I have.

I have killed a coyote at over 800 yards with it and a couple at over 450 yards.

I can also reach out and touch the iron gong at the range at 800 yards with the iron sights...

I will post up photos one day. It is a great rifle, albeit heavy. 6.5x55 Ammo can be hard to find sometimes too.

[svandamme]

I had one Swede and a bunch of Mericans...The Swede had some English prosthetics, that the previous owner slapped on it for the longer distances... (Parker Hale sights) .



But when push came to shove. I never shot it as well as the 1903A3 with standard sights and issue sling.
I just never really got in the zone with it..I think it was the PH prosthetics, AngloSwedish corruption

[craigster59]

Originally Posted by MBAtarga

Craig - I thought you lost those in that boating accident?

I was talking about before the accident Mark

[craigster59]

Originally Posted by svandamme

I just never really got in the zone with it..I think it was the PH prosthetics, AngloSwedish corruption

Probably just needed a little love from a Gin-U-wine Swedish front sight adjustment tool.

[Superman]

Just be glad you are not trying to get a Swede and a Norwegian to play nice together. Or worse, and Irishman and a German. That's the worst combination. Wouldn't you agree, Jeff?

[Jeff Higgins]

You know me too well, Supe. My half Irish, half German heritage has been a source of conflict my entire life... Whisky or beer? I no longer have the energy or the will to fight this fight, so I just give in... and have both...

As an interesting aside, I recently discovered that "Higgins" is an Anglicization of the old Gaelic name "Uiginn", which is, in turn, the Gaelic version of the Old Norse "víkingr" or "Viking". As if it weren't bad enough already...

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by craigster59

Probably just needed a little love from a Gin-U-wine Swedish front sight adjustment tool.

No good, there wasn't a gin-u-wine front sight post on the gun!

[livi]

Don´t get me started on Swedes.

[svandamme]

dagnabbit, now the chunks have hit the proverbial blower

[Bill Douglas]

Ah, Finnish are not that fickle.

[Jeff Higgins]

The shooting world is awash with what we refer to as "medium bores". Generally speaking, these include "big game" calibers from .243 (6mm) dia up to maybe .284 (7mm) dia. In between is the .257 dia, the .264 (6.5mm) dia, and the .277 dia (",270") Some may stretch this to include the various .30 calibers, but most start to look at those as "large bore". Or at least "medium large bore".

The old 6.5 mm, along with its sister caliber the 7mm, are rather unique among this group. They are the only ones designed to shoot very heavy for caliber, high sectional density bullets. The rest are all designed to be "high velocity", "flat shooting" numbers for use in open country where shots may come at great distances. Oh, the 6.5 and 7mm can be loaded with lighter bullets to achieve higher velocities (and they really do perform exceptionally well in this role), but that is not where they made their reputations. It was those really long round nose bullets - 160 grains in the 6.5 and 175 grains in the 7mm - that earned them their reputations. The ability to use these bullets adds tremendously to their versatility, and sets them apart from the rest of the "medium bore" crowd. Yes, they give up a bit as far as trajectory, but at real world hunting ranges (particularly in any kind of cover) no one will ever notice. Anyone looking for a truly versatile "medium bore" need look no further.

[svandamme]

No contest , the 6.5 will outfly the 3006 or 308 at long distances. At least in standard barrels and twist.
Sectional density is much better.. and BC is in another league because of it. like minimum 20% better across all velocities for same weight
Stay fast longer
less windage needed

[Jeff Higgins]

Yes, the modern 6.5's - the Creedmoor, the PRC, and a few other more obscure ones, have taken over the long range game. I find it odd that no one has simply used the old Swede case, with throating to accommodate the modern ultra-high BC bullets. It seems it would be a natural.

The only reason the 6.5's have come to favor is bullet weight. Everything they can do can be done just as well with the various .30 calibers, and even the various .338's. Their problem is bullet weight, which adds substantially to recoil. Since these are target shooting games, and we really don't care how hard they hit way out yonder, there is no disadvantage to the little 6.5's. Those who have a reason to care about such things, like the militaries of the world, have stuck with the .30's and .338's for their long range work. They simply hit harder, but at a cost.

[svandamme]

not entirely sure bout that.. Military NATO standardized 7.62 because US military insisted it had to be 30 cal minimum.. Europe was looking at .280 calibers... But US said 30 , ok, 762 nato it is..
Then vietnam.. US military changed it's mind.. and to 556 light weight zipper bullets.. low weight good for carry.. and tumble , good wound effect.. Who cares bout stopping power of a single bullet when you got volume of fire and thousands of rounds per kill..

It's not like hunters who want to bring down big animals humanely...at a sensible distance (anybody hunting past 300-400 yds, in my book is ego tripping, because you can't guarantee you'll get to the wounded animal in time past such distances)

Only ones really doing long distance in the military is snipers..
Military Snipers simply stuck to the 7.62 NATO in inventory for years, I think USMC goal was 90% guaranteed first shot placement out to 800 yds? very doable with 308..equally doable with 6.5 175 grainers..

some exceptions and experiments with 50bmg like Carlos.. but that wasn't even sniping , it's was area defense.... it stayed like that til specialized long range sniping became a thing in Afghanistan and suddenly 338 comes up.. But for those ranges nobody is even thinking of .30 , let alone 6.5 anymore..
Either way.. it was 308 due to availability in the NATO arsenal..Not really because 6.5 couldn't do it the same job.
And 7.62 nato is a better feeding round for belt fed machine guns.. that's one thing 6.5 wouldn't have done as well.

[Jeff Higgins]

What you say is correct, Stijn, but entirely out of context. I did say "for their long range work". I was referring to their snipers, specifically the ones tasked with "long range work". I was not referring to general infantry and their requirements for massive volumes of firepower. That's an entirely different set of requirements, met by an entirely different class of rifle.

I was discussing these modern "long range" calibers, the 6.5 Creedmoor, PRC and such, and drawing comparisons between them and the modern "long range" .30 and .338 chamberings. I'm sorry, I guess I could have been more clear. So, yes, in the context of "long range work", they very much do care about single round effectiveness, so they have stuck with the .30 and .338 calibers. Not the .308 / 7.62 NATO, mind you, but the larger capacity .300 Winchester Magnum and .338 Lapua Magnum, both firing very heavy for caliber, very high BC bullets.

The down-range ballistics (wind drift, bullet drop, retained velocity) of these rounds are equal to, or even better than, the similar bullets used in the 6.5, while providing a worthwhile increase in striking energy. Like I said, though, we pay the price in recoil, which is what has made the 6.5's so popular with civilian target shooters, who don't have to care how hard they hit down range.

[Crowbob]

Two Swedes, the brothers Antilla, walk into the bar and see a big dog over in the corner licking his balls.

Brother Ano says to Brother Waino, 'I wish I could do det.'

Waino, not to be outdone nor relinquish the last word replies, 'Ya. But I bet he'd bite cha.'