Here's some Load From A Disk theoretical external ballistic data for the Hornady 205 bullet in the Steyr M-95. No too shabby in my opinion. Maximum Point Blank Range for a 6" target is 255 with a zero at 215.
 
Paul

Boy, if that isn't a 200 yard rifle, there has never been one made! That is impressive to say the least. I wonder if mine will do that????? Those are awesome numbers, Paul. I can't wait to get mine cranking. I will kill a deer with this rifle next year....if my tired body holds up! Regards, Rick.

Those are some pretty impressive numbers. That would make a nice elk round out to 300 yards. How much pressure are you loading that up to? I know that the milsurp ammo that you've checked it ran about 40K. Do you think this action will handle 50K? What load is that or does it say?

Let me qualify that MV of 2696 f/s a bit.
 
LFAD predicts a range of pressures and muzzle velocities based on a range of charges. In this case, LFAD predicted the 2696 MV at a pressure of 55,750 PSI. Personally, I'm not going to run the M-95 up as hig as 55 kPSI I don't think. That straight-pull bolt makes me a little nervous. However, I used the LFAD data to construct a multi-dimensional model for predicting pressure, mv and charge. With a chamber pressure of 39,848 PSI and a charge of 46.5 grains (the values obtained for the nazi milsurp ammo) the MV predicted is only 2279 f/s. This is in contrast to the measured average MV of 2385 f/s.  If we take the 46.5 gr charge and couple it with the 2385 MV, we get an estimated pressure of 40,149 PSI. So, LFAD predicts a little low on the MV given the charge and pressure, and a little high on pressure given the charge and MV.
 
I think I'm willing to run the measured chamber pressure to 50 kPSI AS LONG AS I get no signs of excessive pressure as I work my way up, AND precision remains about the same. (See recent 8x56R posts for targets.) However, 45 KPSI may be the reasonable limit.
 
Actual charge, MV and chamber pressure values are:
 
51.5 gr . . . 2020 f/s . . . 23851 PSI
52.5 gr . . . 2108 f/s . . . 24049 PSI
53.5 gr . . . 2323 f/s . . . 27084 PSI
 
The actual 2323 f/s MV is achieved at an actual chamber pressure of only 27 kPSI. That leaves me with some 23 kPSI (almost doubling the existing 27 k) to get to 2600 f/s @ 50 kPSI. So you see my optimism at reaching the LFAD predicted velocity of 2696. (An increase of about 375 f/s.) In other words, I've got 23 kPSI to wring 375 f/s from. Probably do-able. Case capacity - to the top of the mouth - is 62.6 grains of H414. Therefore, I'm sure I have sufficient capacity within which to work. I'm using 4350, which may be why I can get the velocities I'm getting without the pressures of the lower-charged (46.5 gr) milsurp ammo.
 
However, especially in 100-year-old milsurps, your mileage may vary. :)

Paul

The straight pull gives me pause as well concerning strength but if I were to trust anyone to get it right Steyr would be a good choice. Given the fact that there has been an improvement or two in the 65+ years since the milsurp ammo was made you very well may be able to hit 2600+ fps or at least 2500. I would just hate to see you have any catastrophic problems. A sentment that I'm sure you echo. For my personal use I would be happy with 2400 from a 205gr or 2500ish from the 175.

Truthfully, I'll settle for what I can get. I like the cartridge and I like the rifle. The cartridge definitely has what it takes to be a good "sporting" cartridge at any of those velocities. I like the general configuration of the rifle, but I don't care for the straight-pull, cok-on-closing action, the forced use of the charging clips, and the tough-for-old-eyes military sights. If money were no object, I'd consider making (having made , a double rifle chambered for this cartridge, or a drilling with 16s or 28s or maybe even 24s over this in the rifle barrel. I suppose if I was gonna build a double, I would consider necking up to .338 just for the ready availability of bullets. If I could get that 205 going 2750, and shooting straight, I'd be a smilin' Jack.
 
Paul

Has anyone ever tried IMR4064?? It seem like a good fit for this cartridge. I wonder where to start the workup? I supposed around 2200'/sec would be a good start point for lack of emperical data. Regards, Rick.

I don't mind the action as far as it's function goes. I don't even notice the cock on closing like I did with the Enfield. The availability of brass is the biggest issue to date. I agree that the sights leave something to be desired but we'll get that fixed here shortly.

Rick, I used 4064 with both cast and jacketed bullets. 4350 produced smaller groups from my 'scoped rifle.
 
My starting loads for 4064 were 46.0, 47.0, and 48.0 grains. The 48 grain load produced an average MV of 2145 f/s with an average chamber pressure of 28320 PSI.
 
I also used 3031 because I've read that 3031 most closely mimics milsurp powder.
I did not find that to be the case, and have abandoned use of 3031 for the Hornady 205. A charge of 45 grains of 3031 produced an average MV of 2072 f/s with an average chamber pressure of 26821 PSI.
 
I also used both H & I 4831. Charge was 50 grains yielding an average MV of 1978 f/s.
 
I also used Varget and VV N-150 as well as BL-C(2) and 4759. None impressed me as far as MVs went, although the N-150 was a close contender as far as precision.
 
No one would serve themselves well by adhering doggedly to my results. I did not try all powders with all bullets. More importantly, when 4350 looked like it was what the rifle "liked" for the Hornady 205, I concentrated on that powder. I think 3031, 4064, and N-150 remain viable candidates not just for the Hornady 205, but for the 150s and 175s especially, and I'm using BL-C(2) for the 100 grain Lebels.
 
Paul

I'm repairing one of these Steyr M95's now and looking for load info.   This is an old thread, but IMHO using a calculator to judge velocity and bullet drop is a shot in the dark.  It's almost always less than what any calculator shows, and very sensitive to barrel length- i.e. an M95 rifle would have better ballistics than the carbine or stutzen.  The only way to do it is with a chronograph, bench rest shooting, and to test pressure accurately one would have to buy or build a pressure gun.
 
The 8x56R certainly has a fairly generous case capacity compared to other cartridges, even modern ones- and IMHO anything an 8x57 Mauser can do, an 8x56R should also do.    The limitations are the strength of the action, the straight pull is definitely weaker than a Mauser M98- with less barrel material around the cartridge chamber.
 
Another factor is, almost everyone into these Steyr M95 straight pull rifles is into them for the collector aspect, not many modify/gunsmith them into sporters, or push the limits of the action to see how much it can take.   Any experimental work with the M95 and 8x56R is therefore always breaking new ground.

LNLN,
 
The pressure figures above are actual measured values from a rifle equipped with a piezo-electric sensor.
 
While I agree with the opinion that using a calculator to precisely predict ballistics - both internal and external - is often an exercise in futility, using the numbers for starting values for load work-up and for preliminary design of a wildcat, is hardly a waste of time. Furthermore, newer software like QuickLoad, is much more capable of accurate estimates - as ground-truthed by chronos and pressure gauges - than older stuff like LFAD.
 
Paul

here's pics of my gun
 

more pics
 
 
 

 

Paul, my statements were made in reference to your post below, it appeared as if you were relying on a computer program to predict safe pressure levels of a handload for the M95. I didn't see a mention of a piezo equipped pressure gun.   This is a topic of interest though, the real question is:  what's a safe pressure level for an M95 straight pull ?  I'd expect it to be somewhat less than a Mauser M98.  It would be interesting to take a "junker" M95 and chain it to a truck rim/tire, and do some destructive testing from a distance with protection, with a string on the trigger.  This type of test was done some time ago on a Japanese Arisaka and published, and it took an amazing amount of punishment to break the gun.  But a turnbolt is much stronger than a straight pull by design, as you alluded to in your posts.
 
To elaborate, computer models have become commonplace in many arenas, i.e. weather forecasting, engine dyno testing, etc.  With something like an engine there's no inherent danger, if the engine makes less power.  With bullet drop/velocity, if the bullet drops an extra 2 inches at 250 yards no big deal.    But with respect to safe pressure levels in a gun's chamber there is an inherent real danger-  it may mean a lost eye to the shooter, or worse- if that prediction is incorrect.  I'm wary of computer program pressure predictions for this reason- also because safe pressure level is dependent on other variables such as bullet crimp, bullet seating depth, distance to rifling when chambered, brass condition/quality, small variances in bullet diameter, etc.  There's also the issue of old steels vs. modern steels, pressure that is safe in a modern gun, may very well blow up a turn of the century firearm.    Looking at the M95 action design alone, I'd suspect it's pressure limit would be somewhere between a modern lever action and bolt action rifle- but the strength of the steel itself is an unknown without doing a hardness test on the barrel and receiver- it may very well be the same as/weaker than a lever action, due to the primitive steels used at the time.
 
 
 
 

Quote from: gitano;35640Let me qualify that MV of 2696 f/s a bit.
 
LFAD predicts a range of pressures and muzzle velocities based on a range of charges. In this case, LFAD predicted the 2696 MV at a pressure of 55,750 PSI. Personally, I'm not going to run the M-95 up as hig as 55 kPSI I don't think. That straight-pull bolt makes me a little nervous. However, I used the LFAD data to construct a multi-dimensional model for predicting pressure, mv and charge. With a chamber pressure of 39,848 PSI and a charge of 46.5 grains (the values obtained for the nazi milsurp ammo) the MV predicted is only 2279 f/s. This is in contrast to the measured average MV of 2385 f/s. If we take the 46.5 gr charge and couple it with the 2385 MV, we get an estimated pressure of 40,149 PSI. So, LFAD predicts a little low on the MV given the charge and pressure, and a little high on pressure given the charge and MV.

The "confusion" is due mostly to two, old, M-95 threads being open at the same time. You were correct in assuming that the figures mentioned in the above post were estimates from LFAD. However, more recent posts of mine regarding load development for the M-95, (one of which is also "at the top"), have measured pressure values.
 
I have a dozen or so of the carbines, and should you ever want to part with that long rifle and get a carbine, gimme a shout. I am looking for one and Alaska is not exactly 'fertile ground' for finding old milsurps. Especially ones as esoteric as the M-95 in its long configuration.
 
Paul