Well, I am new here. I read for a while and then joined. I am impressed with the knowledge that I see on this site. I have noticed a lot of interest in the M96 and questions regarding its strength. Recently I read Dangerous Game Rifles and notice that Wieland had some interesting things to say. Basically he took a Carl Gustav 96 and a 1917 Enfield. He wanted to compare the strength of the Swede with 2 lugs to the 1917 which has 3 lugs.. He had 3 goals: 1-He knew it was possible for any fool to stuff a case full of bullseye and blow it up. His goal was to determine if it was possible for a handloader using a legitimate powder to accidently blow up the rifle. 2- To see how the progressive effects of higher pressure manifested themselves as the PSI mounted into the stratosphere.3-To compare performance of the supposedly weaker Swede w/o 3rd lug, compared to the Enfield which had one. His conclusion...ultimately both were destroyed, the Swede in a slightly more spectacular manner than the Enfield. Both held on far beyond his expectations. He stated that as he neared the end of the test, both guns had to have their bolts opened up with a hammer. In fact, he was afraid that the bolts would seize solid before the actions let go. Finally the Swede blew a one foot piece of kindling off the side of the stock, the action bulged and the extractor tried to make its escape....but the lugs held like granite. He said...that's typical of Mauser actions when confronted with high pressure, whether as a result of an imprudent load or the effects of the African sun. Instead of going to pieces, the lugs seize in place like a rottweilers teeth.