Classic Cartridge ideas for a 1909 Argentinian build

[Wood_Duck]

So today i acquires a rather handsome 1909 that’s been mildly sporterized. Luckily no modifications have been done to the metal. I currently have a .275 Rigby and .404 rifle. I want to build a middle of the road cartridge leaning abit more on the larger bore side of things. I’m looking for ideas for some classic cartridges that can work in this action without drastic modification. 9.3x62 is an idea, I’m not sure if .425 WR would be an easy swap or not? I’m not tied to anything right now besides loving old seldom seen chambering so toss your ideas!

 

[sestoppelman]

Since you already have a .404, the .425 seems an unlikely choice. The 9.3 will be a very practical choice. Might also consider something '06 based like the .338-06 or .35 Whelen, two very good rounds. Or even a .338 Win mag., which would be a good gap filler for your existing rounds.

 

[Wood_Duck]

I know the .425 doesn’t do middle of the road much but I have wondered about owning one mostly

 

[AZDAVE]

My three favourite classic bolt action rounds are 7x57, 9.3x62 and 404 Jeffery .

 

[nztimb]

My three favourite classic bolt action rounds are 7x57, 9.3x62 and 404 Jeffery .

I think they resonate for most of us with a hunting Africa mindset.

 

[Sika98k]

It’s got to be, no question, a 300 H&H. Looking for a classic build on a classic action, look no further. This is next on my bucket list. However as a leftie I need to source a left handed action. I already own 2 Mauser actioned rifles and a Browning and Tikka in left hand drive.
Suggestions for a suitable action ? I’m toying with a Zastava leftie. Do/Did FN Browning make a leftie ?

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Since you already have a .404, the .425 seems an unlikely choice. The 9.3 will be a very practical choice. Might also consider something '06 based like the .338-06 or .35 Whelen, two very good rounds. Or even a .338 Win mag., which would be a good gap filler for your existing rounds.

Sestoppelman
As much as I love the 35 Whelen I think I would have to opt for the 9.3x62 just to keep the European theme going. Cheers mate Bob

 

[bruce moulds]

do I remember reading that the 1909 actions were soft and were known to set back, even in their original chambering?
if so one of the older cartridges loaded to lower pressures than modern ones.
bruce.

 

[Rob404]

If I could have one more caliber it would be without a Doubt a 300HH Mag

 

[Sika98k]

If I could have one more caliber it would be without a Doubt a 300HH Mag

Attaboy !

 

[Wood_Duck]

So top contenders at the moment continue to be 9.3x62, 300H&H, or .350 Rigby NE. I have pondered the .300 for a few years but for some reason I’ve never been a .30 cal person.

 

[Rob404]

If I could have one more caliber it would be without a Doubt a 300HH Mag

I even have the donor rifle a 1941 Austrian Mauser chambered on 30-06 but my Gunsmith say the cost would be to expensive

 

[spike.t]

With the other two calibres you already have there is no other choice but 9.3x62.....simple... now you can stop stressing and get on with the build.... you will also get it quicker as the procrastinating is done and dusted

 

[Von S.]

do I remember reading that the 1909 actions were soft and were known to set back, even in their original chambering?
if so one of the older cartridges loaded to lower pressures than modern ones.
bruce.

Yes Bruce...... a nail well hit.

When building any rifle with any action I have always had the action magnafluxed , x-rayed, steel alloy analyzed a s well as , with with mausers, the case hardening depth.

"Set back" is something that many people simply aren't aware of.

Good job.

 

[Velo Dog]

I’m with the others who say 9.3x62.

However, a classic pre-war style sporting Mauser, in 8x57S might be a possible alternative caliber, in the event your 1909 Magazine box is too short for a 62MM cartridge.
(I do not know if the 1909 action’s magazine box is too short or not).
And/or if the action screws are too close together to make putting a longer magazine box on it turned out to be more trouble than you wanted.

I’m no Gunsmith.
Therefore again, I do not know if any of the above will be at issue or not.
I’ve only read that, many military Mausers have magazines too short for cartridges based on the .30-06 length.
And that, some Mausers have their fore / aft action screws too close together to easily fit a longer magazine box between them.
If so, one must move one of the screws plus, possibly one or more other modifications will be required to the metal works in general ?

 

[baxterb]

The x62 is so obvious here as to not need any
More discussion. It just fits perfectly in your setup.

if you wanted a 350 Rigby (and I do in a bad way) I would go all-in and call Lon Paul.


I would say the 35 Whelen if you wanted 350 Rigby performance in a modern case, but it’s an American cartridge - i still think the x62 if THE one to get

 

[HWL]

8x68S



HWL

 

[bruce moulds]

von s
as I understand it, the mauser 98 is of quite soft steel, case hardened.
it was specifically made this way, as in the day metallurgy was not advanced.
the soft steel would certainly set back, but would not shatter like some eddystone enfields and some springfields.
shattering steels would just let go, far worse than softer steel just yielding a little in setback.
pre ww1 actions were known to set back more than later ones, and 1909s for some reason were among the most prone to this.
the best military mausers were the post war f.n. 98s, probably because metallurgy had advanced by then.
those fn actions were as smooth as silk, and some made for 30/06, giving them a good mag length.
interestingly, some gunsmiths liked this setback, as when it happened both lugs bore more evenly in their recesses.
to this day accurizing modern actions involves machining locking lug recesses and the lugs square to the axis of the action to bear evenly, other than such as Dakota which are manufactured that way in the first place, and machining is done after heat treating so any bending had happened before maching, meaning the bolthole, lug recesses, lugs, and front face of the receiver ring are all true or square to true.
this is part of the reason a Dakota action costs more than a military junker.
bruce.

 

[flatwater bill]

WoodC.............One of my first rifles was a 09 Arg. Wish I still had it, and in original caliber. May want to check other forums on probs with 9.3x62 conversion of any rifle who's bolt face is standard 12.01 mm. Not saying it can't be done, but some guys complain about the oddball case head.......good luck with whatever you choose.............FWB

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

von s
as I understand it, the mauser 98 is of quite soft steel, case hardened.
it was specifically made this way, as in the day metallurgy was not advanced.
the soft steel would certainly set back, but would not shatter like some eddystone enfields and some springfields.
shattering steels would just let go, far worse than softer steel just yielding a little in setback.
pre ww1 actions were known to set back more than later ones, and 1909s for some reason were among the most prone to this.
the best military mausers were the post war f.n. 98s, probably because metallurgy had advanced by then.
those fn actions were as smooth as silk, and some made for 30/06, giving them a good mag length.
interestingly, some gunsmiths liked this setback, as when it happened both lugs bore more evenly in their recesses.
to this day accurizing modern actions involves machining locking lug recesses and the lugs square to the axis of the action to bear evenly, other than such as Dakota which are manufactured that way in the first place, and machining is done after heat treating so any bending had happened before maching, meaning the bolthole, lug recesses, lugs, and front face of the receiver ring are all true or square to true.
this is part of the reason a Dakota action costs more than a military junker.
bruce.

bruce moulds
Hate to be the bearer of bad news mate but the Eddystone action was not brittle. The problem with this furphy arose when it came to rebarreling the Eddystone. The barrels in some of them were done up overly tight and when gunsmith tried to screw the action or barrel off the actions would crack. This led people to believe they were inferior to the on we made at Remington and Winchester. The fault was barrel tension not action brittleness.
When it comes to building accurate rifles I like the savages with thier floating bolt heads and ease of headspacing. The floating bolt heads allows the lugs to bear evenly from the start. That's why they have a good reputation for being accurate out of the box. This is despite the action is but ugly.
Cheers mate Bob