Riversrest, maybe you have had some bad experiences, but most of us that pay $250 for a rifle don't expect it to be brand new in the box for that kind of money. A little stock work if honest wear bothers you, a touch up of bluing perhaps, but most with "good" barrels or better are good shooters. If you purchase such a rifle from Tradeex and they tell you what the bore condition is, that is what you will get. I have at least 10 HVA rifles in 8x57, 9.3x57 and 9.3x62, and I wouldn't trade any of them for what is available on the market today in the $450-$800 range, for a hunting rifle.
Husqvarna Sporting Rifles #### - ALL MODELS!!!
- Thread starter Baribal
- Start date
^^I'm far away from expecting a NIB rifle for $250,-. But description on these is lacking and IMO shall be more accurate. The following is for one rifle with was apparently "Overall Good + condition":
Pls. compare desciption with outcome:
Desc. "Minimal/tiny hairline crack behind tang"
-> Took the barreled action out of the timber and the crack runs through, opening up all the way to the mag well.
Desc. "Slight surface rust that would clean up"
-> Taking the barreled action out of the timber and metal is showing pitting where it mates/lies in the stock.
Desc. "Receiver drilled and tapped with weaver style bases"
-> Attention should be given to "weaver style". They were not "Weaver" bases and the d/t holes are some metric denomination. Drilled out of center badly - to boot!
Desc. "Very good bore".
-> No sh!t. They guy/club who owned this particular rifle figured out rather quickly that it "doesn't shoot right". Hence, it did not get much use - which consequently preserves the barrel ;-(
RR
Pls. compare desciption with outcome:
Desc. "Minimal/tiny hairline crack behind tang"
-> Took the barreled action out of the timber and the crack runs through, opening up all the way to the mag well.
Desc. "Slight surface rust that would clean up"
-> Taking the barreled action out of the timber and metal is showing pitting where it mates/lies in the stock.
Desc. "Receiver drilled and tapped with weaver style bases"
-> Attention should be given to "weaver style". They were not "Weaver" bases and the d/t holes are some metric denomination. Drilled out of center badly - to boot!
Desc. "Very good bore".
-> No sh!t. They guy/club who owned this particular rifle figured out rather quickly that it "doesn't shoot right". Hence, it did not get much use - which consequently preserves the barrel ;-(
RR
Haters too, are welcome here.
Really, what are you expecting frong a 80 years old 250.00 $ rifle ? That it shoots like a "beloved" brand new plastic Savage ?
Also, those 250.00 $ rifles always been the bottom of the barrel. TEC are importing much better, rarer and valuable HVA / CG rifles, so maybe the problem is the people who buys those 250.00 $ rifle thinking they will be "sniper rifles" ? .
Grouping ? I don't post my groups on the internet, as I don't even bother taking pictures of it, but believe me, these rifles can shoot. But usually it's not the cheapest which are the best and you have to work it out to get something out of a worn out rifle with a bent stock...
Is this a sporting rifle? Does it belong in this forum? I wonder if it was originally sold as a hunting tool or for target shooting? Doesn't seem to be much traffic on these on the web.
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
lledwod,
These rifles were intended as "pest control" guns, They are popular once in a while, but seen today's taste for plastic, the interest is limited for that kind of M1871 action kick-off. The 45-70 Gvt (M45) are quite popular, they don't last much.
Here is the model listing;
M 25 = .32-30 Win (made 1908-1925)
M 26 = .25-20 Win (made 1926-1945)
M 35 = .30-30 Win (made 1912-1942)
M 45 = .45-70 Gvt (made 1915-1932)
Thanks Baribal for confirming that these +$250,- rifles "always been the bottom of the barrel". At least, we can agree on this.
My difficulty is to understand why they are advertised way better than they are? I apologize to have had the classification (Overall Good+) wrong on the description above. After checking the screenshot (I usually take upon ordering any online item) it actually says "Overall Very Good Condition". lol
I cannot recall me mentioning "sniper rifles" in this thread. It must be your imagination while marketing these HVA / CG relics or while shooting your beloved "plastic Savage" which actually can hit something.
Last but not least your comment above where you mention "you have to work it out to get something out of a worn out rifle with a bent stock...". I think there is nothing more to be said.
I wasn't referring specifically to you, brother.
I can testify that TEC's listing usually is what it should be, and most everytime it's below the real condition of the rifle. A lot of other people can just say the same thing here...
I don't know what you expected but any of my M46 will shoot good groups with open sights... I can't comment on your particular rifle, as I didn't see it myself, but the true HVA rifles, not talking of Stiga or Vapen Depoten or other ex-military rifles, usually shoot pretty well, too. And I've owned / tried a whole bunch of these...
And my own rifles are very rarely bedded, they are all orignals...
I can testify that TEC's listing usually is what it should be, and most everytime it's below the real condition of the rifle. A lot of other people can just say the same thing here...
I don't know what you expected but any of my M46 will shoot good groups with open sights... I can't comment on your particular rifle, as I didn't see it myself, but the true HVA rifles, not talking of Stiga or Vapen Depoten or other ex-military rifles, usually shoot pretty well, too. And I've owned / tried a whole bunch of these...
And my own rifles are very rarely bedded, they are all orignals...
Well, simply because they also have their say and I am not a moderator (and not interesting in being one neither) so it's not my job to decide who is not a good member or not.. And when I wrote it, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment... I never saw a real hater posting here.
Then it's always good to see what people are experiencing, good or bad and maybe we can bring them to change their minds... And really, who cares the odd post ? - not me, anyways..
Attah boy Baribal……………...thanks
You gotta have a little knowledge if you are looking at picking up some 50-60 year old used rifles. One thing I learned to ask Tradex about because it isn't usually in the description, has the barrel been free floated? Doesn't bother everyone, but I like these to be as original as possible.
Has anyone noticed how very different the factory nosecaps on the Husqvarna fullstock carbines can be? Some have a totally different shape from others...and therefore the wood forend behind it is tapered differently. I just noticed it on two that I have. Hard to see the difference in photos but I tried:
The two rifles in the photos are a 30-06 and a .243. Both all original. The .243 has a front sight hood and has a Monte Carlo stock. The 30-06 has the simpler stock and is the earlier rifle (based on serial number). In the 30-06 nosecap there is a pronounced taper from the bottom of the forend up to the barrel and there are just straight sides in the .243 nosecap. Or to put it another way, the nosecap on the 30-06 widens from the barrel downward and the .243 nosecap does not.
The bevel at the front of each nosecap differs as well, and is wider in the 30-06, but this minor compared to the difference in overall profile.
I have not taken any accurate measurements but you can see what I mean...I hope. The differences are more obvious in reality than in photos.
I guess we have to put the considerable variations of parts dimensions down to the handwork by different employees over the years. You would think that by the 1960's the interchangeability and standardization of all parts would have been the norm in firearms assembly, but this is apparently not the case with Husqvarna. (I also note that the two stocks will not interchange without requiring rebedding in the recoil lug area. The .243 has a barrel that protrudes approx. 1/16 in. past the nosecap. The 30-06 barrel is flush to the end of the nosecap. You can clearly see this difference in the first SXS photo.)
On the negative side, this makes parts replacement difficult. The nose-caps on these two rifles are not interchangeable. At least not without re-filing the forend wood, since the frontal shape of the nosecap acts as a template for the forend section. On the positive side, it could prevent the unscrupulous from assembling parts guns and falsely claiming them as all original.
One other thing: The screw holding the nosecap on the more recent Monte Carlo stocked .243 is nearly three times as long as it is on the 30-06. Both screws look completely original. Although it has never happened to me, I know some people have complained about losing the caps and having them come off during recoil. Placing the screw parallel with the barrel (and the recoil force) never seemed like a good idea to me. Other manufacturers usually have the attachment screw enter the stock from the bottom center of the nosecap at a right angle to the barrel. I think HVA using the much longer screw on the more recent rifle may have been an attempt to solve this problem.
My question is whether or not one of these nosecap profiles is more common or more typical than the other?
The two rifles in the photos are a 30-06 and a .243. Both all original. The .243 has a front sight hood and has a Monte Carlo stock. The 30-06 has the simpler stock and is the earlier rifle (based on serial number). In the 30-06 nosecap there is a pronounced taper from the bottom of the forend up to the barrel and there are just straight sides in the .243 nosecap. Or to put it another way, the nosecap on the 30-06 widens from the barrel downward and the .243 nosecap does not.
The bevel at the front of each nosecap differs as well, and is wider in the 30-06, but this minor compared to the difference in overall profile.
I have not taken any accurate measurements but you can see what I mean...I hope. The differences are more obvious in reality than in photos.
I guess we have to put the considerable variations of parts dimensions down to the handwork by different employees over the years. You would think that by the 1960's the interchangeability and standardization of all parts would have been the norm in firearms assembly, but this is apparently not the case with Husqvarna. (I also note that the two stocks will not interchange without requiring rebedding in the recoil lug area. The .243 has a barrel that protrudes approx. 1/16 in. past the nosecap. The 30-06 barrel is flush to the end of the nosecap. You can clearly see this difference in the first SXS photo.)
On the negative side, this makes parts replacement difficult. The nose-caps on these two rifles are not interchangeable. At least not without re-filing the forend wood, since the frontal shape of the nosecap acts as a template for the forend section. On the positive side, it could prevent the unscrupulous from assembling parts guns and falsely claiming them as all original.
One other thing: The screw holding the nosecap on the more recent Monte Carlo stocked .243 is nearly three times as long as it is on the 30-06. Both screws look completely original. Although it has never happened to me, I know some people have complained about losing the caps and having them come off during recoil. Placing the screw parallel with the barrel (and the recoil force) never seemed like a good idea to me. Other manufacturers usually have the attachment screw enter the stock from the bottom center of the nosecap at a right angle to the barrel. I think HVA using the much longer screw on the more recent rifle may have been an attempt to solve this problem.
My question is whether or not one of these nosecap profiles is more common or more typical than the other?
Last edited:
Yes, basically it is just that...However as a true lightweight (for instance, compared to the bulky logs that the Sako carbines became after the 60's) I think it might be a real loud kicker in 9.3 X 62. To me, 30-06 is near the upper limit for such a light short barreled carbine.
Last edited:
