Husqvarna Sporting Rifles #### - ALL MODELS!!!
- Thread starter Baribal
- Start date
Here is a few more pics of it.....
The fit to the butt and grip cap is tight, no gaps, completely flush.
sanded stock interior. notice the screw hole in the fore end
same hole in the beech
bolt face and polished receiver rails
front sight is a brass bead
The fit to the butt and grip cap is tight, no gaps, completely flush.
sanded stock interior. notice the screw hole in the fore end
same hole in the beech
bolt face and polished receiver rails
front sight is a brass bead
Where can I find info on the different actions. It gets a bit confusing understanding the M96/98, M38 differences, etc. Also, which of these actions are capable (if any) of safely handling modern load pressures? Just curious really. Thanks!
Iv been shooting factory ammo (140gr fusions) out of my m96 carbine for years. These rifles where tested to just under 60,000 psi.
No idea if it is 'recomended' to do so. But my rifle shows no I'll effects.
Before I started I checked the rifle over maticulesly. Got a set of ggo-to go gages and made sure everything else was squared away.
No idea if it is 'recomended' to do so. But my rifle shows no I'll effects.
Before I started I checked the rifle over maticulesly. Got a set of ggo-to go gages and made sure everything else was squared away.
As for pre-98 action strenght, this have been discussed many times before.
Then, what for you is a "modern load pressure"?
You need to understand the following; The pre-98 actions are all made of very soft metal, with a hardened outside. By very soft, I mean SAE/AISI 1020 forged steel and trust me, you can learn it fast when unscrewing a barrel. This means the action is made to stretch before letting go to avoid shattering, plus that the outside hardened (carburation). Then, the pre-98 where not designed to handle escaping gases from a case rupture under very high pressure like a 98 and it does not have the third lug to avoid to bolt to back off when the top of the front ring tears off - and that's what usually happens whit a rupture case head.
I don't mean the action can't take it for some time, but HVA themselves never chambered anything higher in pressure than 8X57 / 9.3X62 in their M/38. Then, they also used (and CG and Vapen Depöten too) very long conic engaging cones to lower the initial pressure of these calibers.
Anyways, I've seem these actions chambered for A LOT of calibers, but personally, i'd chosse say a 1640 instead of any pre-98 actions.
Then, what for you is a "modern load pressure"?
You need to understand the following; The pre-98 actions are all made of very soft metal, with a hardened outside. By very soft, I mean SAE/AISI 1020 forged steel and trust me, you can learn it fast when unscrewing a barrel. This means the action is made to stretch before letting go to avoid shattering, plus that the outside hardened (carburation). Then, the pre-98 where not designed to handle escaping gases from a case rupture under very high pressure like a 98 and it does not have the third lug to avoid to bolt to back off when the top of the front ring tears off - and that's what usually happens whit a rupture case head.
I don't mean the action can't take it for some time, but HVA themselves never chambered anything higher in pressure than 8X57 / 9.3X62 in their M/38. Then, they also used (and CG and Vapen Depöten too) very long conic engaging cones to lower the initial pressure of these calibers.
Anyways, I've seem these actions chambered for A LOT of calibers, but personally, i'd chosse say a 1640 instead of any pre-98 actions.
The highest pressure round I'm aware of that the Swedes built post war widely for commercial consumption on the '96 actions is the 30'06. SAAMI pressure specs for it are 60,000psi.
The P14/M1917 were also very closely related to the '96 design, and were made into many magnum chamberings over the last century.
If you don't constantly push the max load limits in a '96 you won't have any problems. It's a sweet action that is just the right size for the standard length rounds they are chambered in.
The P14/M1917 were also very closely related to the '96 design, and were made into many magnum chamberings over the last century.
If you don't constantly push the max load limits in a '96 you won't have any problems. It's a sweet action that is just the right size for the standard length rounds they are chambered in.
Last edited:
Well, the P-14 / M-17 actions are a different thing than early Mausers as while they used the same oprating principles, they were designed with higher pressures in mind and have a much better escaping gases handing, a large front ring and different material (closer to SAE/AISI 2340, nickel steel, and also forged - and if the tempering is well done, which was hard to reach at the beginning of the prooduction (similar to the 1903) the strenght is VG). The best manufacturing process of steel proceeding was achieved by the Japanese for their Arisaka, using similar steel as the Mauser (1020 for the early ones / 1035 for the later) but with a higher carbon contain and better tempering... but that's another subject.
I am sure it is referenced somewhere in this huge very interesting thread but I am having trouble answering this question.
How does the Husqvarna 1600 action rank in strength compared to the other Mausers and modern manufactured actions? I have just started reloading for a 6.5x55, with the variety of low and higher pressure data available I am unsure how heavy to load it. I have currently worked up to 46.0gr of RL 22 with a 140 gr. bullet, Win LR primers in Norma casings with no signs of excessive pressure. Any advice is most appreciated and I have really enjoyed learning about these classic Husqvarna rifles. Thank you, WK
How does the Husqvarna 1600 action rank in strength compared to the other Mausers and modern manufactured actions? I have just started reloading for a 6.5x55, with the variety of low and higher pressure data available I am unsure how heavy to load it. I have currently worked up to 46.0gr of RL 22 with a 140 gr. bullet, Win LR primers in Norma casings with no signs of excessive pressure. Any advice is most appreciated and I have really enjoyed learning about these classic Husqvarna rifles. Thank you, WK
Well, it is used in factory rifles chambered for 243, 308, 270 Win, 7mm Rem Mag, and 358 Norma, all high pressure cartridges.
I would not be at all concerned about loading a 1600 series rifle chambered in 6.5X55
Ted
I would not be at all concerned about loading a 1600 series rifle chambered in 6.5X55
Ted
Yes, a list of receiver types, models, years and their respective strengths and weaknesses would be helpful. Earlier Baribal helped me find out my m96 is a 1944 from an M38 and it is in 9.3x62 so it seems store bought and light-medium loads are good for it! However if we had a list set out it would help in identifying what we have and what we may want to purchase! Is the a book like that?
Cheers and thanks for everyone's input! Bob
Cheers and thanks for everyone's input! Bob
In truth, these "tests" (are fun but) worth little scientifically, as anywhere the pressures were reliably measured, but only "guestimated" using Quickload and personally, I would never rely on such "experiments" for safety sakes.
There are several known and documented cases of blown up M/94/96/38 and even Norma did pretty extensive experiments with SEE and blown these action almost at will with low powder charges of slow burning powders.There are also a huge number of known cases of M94/96/38 creating excessive headspace after being rechambered and that means that the tensile strenght limit was exceeded, and plastic deformation occured.
When you design a firearm, you always have "service factor" in mind. And when the pre-98 acctions were designed, there was no way to have ammunition above the 45 000 PSI (piezo) MAP pressure. Only the 8X57IS brang pressures above that, and in the days the only firearm designed to withstand these "modern" pressures was the Mauser 1898.
Under normal testing, an action must withstand a pressure pill of at least 25% above the standard MAP (Maximum Average Pressure). This means a 57 700 PSI caliber will be proofed at 72 000 PSI while a magnum round will be proofed at 77 500 PSI.
There are several known and documented cases of blown up M/94/96/38 and even Norma did pretty extensive experiments with SEE and blown these action almost at will with low powder charges of slow burning powders.There are also a huge number of known cases of M94/96/38 creating excessive headspace after being rechambered and that means that the tensile strenght limit was exceeded, and plastic deformation occured.
When you design a firearm, you always have "service factor" in mind. And when the pre-98 acctions were designed, there was no way to have ammunition above the 45 000 PSI (piezo) MAP pressure. Only the 8X57IS brang pressures above that, and in the days the only firearm designed to withstand these "modern" pressures was the Mauser 1898.
Under normal testing, an action must withstand a pressure pill of at least 25% above the standard MAP (Maximum Average Pressure). This means a 57 700 PSI caliber will be proofed at 72 000 PSI while a magnum round will be proofed at 77 500 PSI.
I definately won't argue that the Swede '96 is the best action ever made, I just think it isn't the scary unsafe monster some make it out to be. With some reasonable care in ammo choices, I doubt anyone would ever have an issue shooting 1000's of rounds through them. Swedes made many CG63's out of pre-ww1 receivers that shot barrels out, CG80's were converted to .308 Winchester.... Another 60,000psi monster, and thousands upon thousands of rounds have been fired through those as well.
It may not be the best gas handling rifle in the event of head failure or pierced primers, but it's no worse the a Winchester Model 70, or a Rem 700 when it comes to that, they have next to zero gas handling measures built in....
It may not be the best gas handling rifle in the event of head failure or pierced primers, but it's no worse the a Winchester Model 70, or a Rem 700 when it comes to that, they have next to zero gas handling measures built in....
CG80 were converted to .308 win (actually, to 7.62X51) but they have some modifications on the bolt gas escape ports and often a hole added in the front action ring, plus a veeeeery long throat (a long engaging cone - and so does most of the sporting M/94/96/38, made by HVA or iothers). Just the cone by itself is enough to lower the pressure several thousand pound square inches.
Kimber also made a run of '94/96/38 in many chamberings, and quite a few of them had problems.
Saying it's no worse than a Winchester is forgetting that the Winchester are made of modern alloy (Cro-Mo Steel), not 1020, so the steel by itself have a much higher tensile strenght. But, yes, it's about true to say that the old 70 does not handle gases that well.
And, as I pointed out above, I don't say it's a bad action or anything, I just say it was not designed in the same period than the high power calibers, so unlike the '98, it was not designed with that in mind. But honestly, I don't see why one would use such an action to build a "modern pressure firearm" when there are so many good action readily available for not so much money....
Kimber also made a run of '94/96/38 in many chamberings, and quite a few of them had problems.
Saying it's no worse than a Winchester is forgetting that the Winchester are made of modern alloy (Cro-Mo Steel), not 1020, so the steel by itself have a much higher tensile strenght. But, yes, it's about true to say that the old 70 does not handle gases that well.
And, as I pointed out above, I don't say it's a bad action or anything, I just say it was not designed in the same period than the high power calibers, so unlike the '98, it was not designed with that in mind. But honestly, I don't see why one would use such an action to build a "modern pressure firearm" when there are so many good action readily available for not so much money....
the 96 is not as good at gas handling as a 98, but few other receivers are. Cone breech receivers are much worse than a 96 ie the M70 Win., 1903 Springfield, M-17 Enfield. The Sako A series is very bad as well. I have never had a case rupture, I have had a few blown primers.
Actually, Ackley proved that these designs are OK, but only as long as the steel is correctly tempered and clean of impurities. What makes the Swedish Mauser "strong", it's the purity of it's material (Low carbon steel, almost exempt of impurity)and the very good control of the carburizing process and "standardization" of steel (anealing).
The Japanese were even better than the Swedes at it.
When the US started making their 1903 and some of the P-14 with the then "new" nickel alloyed steel, they did not control very well the tempering, providing very hard metal (way too brittle, with much less tensile strenght). Winchester was sued for using corrupted steel (thanks to Ackley's work) in their then new M70.
The Japanese were even better than the Swedes at it.
When the US started making their 1903 and some of the P-14 with the then "new" nickel alloyed steel, they did not control very well the tempering, providing very hard metal (way too brittle, with much less tensile strenght). Winchester was sued for using corrupted steel (thanks to Ackley's work) in their then new M70.
Last edited:
