- Location
- SE corner Sk
Lovely!!
Husqvarna Sporting Rifles #### - ALL MODELS!!!
- Thread starter Baribal
- Start date
Lovely!!
Guys I wanna pick up a husqvarna 30-06 to keep at camp. I would like a CRF rifle, with iron sights. And I would like to put it in a B&C stock as they fit me well and quite a few of my rifles sport one. What model would you all recommend ? Anybody buy theirs on intersurplus? Please give me a quick run down on what I should know.
Not a .30-06, but a 9.3 x 62. Mine was nicer than expected; very nice and very new looking actually. Bore was sharp and pristine, some dings and marks on the stock (from carrying/handling). These rifles are sporters, often carried a lot but not shot a lot. Mine is an earlier HVA built on a commercial FN 98 Mauser action. Bluing was 95% with the most wear evident on the floor plate from carrying. Surprisingly, no crack in the stock behind the tang.
Their descriptions are accurate, their shipping is reasonable, and their service is fast. I have bought other rifles and reloading components from them as well. Good company.
My rifle:
Attachments
Have also bought from intersurplus and was pleased with what I’ve bought, the service and dealing with returns. No complaints from me.
Regarding the stock, it depends on the model.
Rifles like Meroh’s FN98 will fit in a B&C Mauser 98 stock.
The 1600 series will also fit the same stock with a bit of filing some of the aluminum block and a bit of epoxy.
Now the 1900 series are a totally different animal. Not sure what they fit.
Regarding the stock, it depends on the model.
Rifles like Meroh’s FN98 will fit in a B&C Mauser 98 stock.
The 1600 series will also fit the same stock with a bit of filing some of the aluminum block and a bit of epoxy.
Now the 1900 series are a totally different animal. Not sure what they fit.
Can some of you chime in on the FN98 vs the 1640 in terms of build quality, engineering, and weight?
I am not at all ashamed to say that I have purchased 7 beautiful, mint late model FN98. 9.3x62, 8x57 and 30-06. All great cartridges, so why not own them all. None have been bubba'd, all factory triggers, without thumb hole or charging bridge. Only two are drilled at tapped and I confirmed proper location before purchase. Two in walnut stocks, and a couple with the schabel stock. They are all bedded, polished, cleaned and so beautiful. I was so impressed with these rifles that I just could not say no, and they are enjoyable to work on. I guess im a damn collector now. Despite my best efforts to be a one rifle man.
However, lately I have become interested in the 1640 lightweight model and I am wondering if an enthusiastic FN98 fanatic can really appreciate and like the 1640 by comparison. From everything I have read, the 1640 came about out of economic reasons, it is an "improved" mauser action, most say it is an improved 96 mauser, and not an improved 98 model. And I can agree with that, albeit an improvement is only an improvement if there was a problem in the first place... the position of the ejector is near identical to the Ruger M77. Not a bad thing, but with less leverage as the original 98 design.
Anyway, every gun writer and owner tries to justify their purchases and will say things like " smoothest action ever", "strongest action ever made" etc etc...
What can I reasonably expect from the 1640 that would impress me over the FN98?? Are they that much smoother? That much lighter?
Thanks,
I am not at all ashamed to say that I have purchased 7 beautiful, mint late model FN98. 9.3x62, 8x57 and 30-06. All great cartridges, so why not own them all. None have been bubba'd, all factory triggers, without thumb hole or charging bridge. Only two are drilled at tapped and I confirmed proper location before purchase. Two in walnut stocks, and a couple with the schabel stock. They are all bedded, polished, cleaned and so beautiful. I was so impressed with these rifles that I just could not say no, and they are enjoyable to work on. I guess im a damn collector now. Despite my best efforts to be a one rifle man.
However, lately I have become interested in the 1640 lightweight model and I am wondering if an enthusiastic FN98 fanatic can really appreciate and like the 1640 by comparison. From everything I have read, the 1640 came about out of economic reasons, it is an "improved" mauser action, most say it is an improved 96 mauser, and not an improved 98 model. And I can agree with that, albeit an improvement is only an improvement if there was a problem in the first place... the position of the ejector is near identical to the Ruger M77. Not a bad thing, but with less leverage as the original 98 design.
Anyway, every gun writer and owner tries to justify their purchases and will say things like " smoothest action ever", "strongest action ever made" etc etc...
What can I reasonably expect from the 1640 that would impress me over the FN98?? Are they that much smoother? That much lighter?
Thanks,
They are lighter depending on the model, I have a 1640 crown grade 2 in 9.3x62, it weighs about the same as my FN 98 640 9.3x62 with beech stock. My 1640 “helstock” in .308 is a lot lighter. The only thing that is better on a 1640 compared to the 98 is the small ring 1640 permits a slimmer stock.
Depending on the model, they are more finished than the 640 series, quite on par with the 1000/1100.
As far as action strength goes, the metallurgy is more modern than the M94/96/38. The Swedes only had a licence to build M94 and it's variant, so they improved what they had.
The M38 HVA were building could not handle longer rounds than 6.5x55 and they were not designed for high energy, post 1898 calibers and they wanted to expand as a small arms manufacturer and they did not want to depend on others (FN) and have to follow rules of licensing for Mauser products. So, they decided to "improve" while keeping the same machinery.
The result is a mix between the M38 and the M98.They used a longer action to feed '06 size rounds and streamlined the action itself to make it less chunky. They did keep the double staggered row magazine, the breeching system and extractor of the M94/96/38, but they added gas escaping capability together with a streamlined M98 shroud.
The 1640 is on par with any Small Ring M98.
As far as action strength goes, the metallurgy is more modern than the M94/96/38. The Swedes only had a licence to build M94 and it's variant, so they improved what they had.
The M38 HVA were building could not handle longer rounds than 6.5x55 and they were not designed for high energy, post 1898 calibers and they wanted to expand as a small arms manufacturer and they did not want to depend on others (FN) and have to follow rules of licensing for Mauser products. So, they decided to "improve" while keeping the same machinery.
The result is a mix between the M38 and the M98.They used a longer action to feed '06 size rounds and streamlined the action itself to make it less chunky. They did keep the double staggered row magazine, the breeching system and extractor of the M94/96/38, but they added gas escaping capability together with a streamlined M98 shroud.
The 1640 is on par with any Small Ring M98.
Thanks for the comments, it is always great to get more information about these old beauties.
So the 1640 really is an improved model 96. No doubt the metallurgy is better than the original model 96. I wonder what the metallurgy is like compared to the commercial FN98, because it was not many years the FN98 that they started the manufacture of the 1640. Obviously the metallurgy for the model 1900 would be superior to both the FN98 and 1640.
Even still, in the original cartridges that all of these commercial rifles were designed for, metallurgy and strength considerations are a moot point since they are all more than fine.
So the 1640 really is an improved model 96. No doubt the metallurgy is better than the original model 96. I wonder what the metallurgy is like compared to the commercial FN98, because it was not many years the FN98 that they started the manufacture of the 1640. Obviously the metallurgy for the model 1900 would be superior to both the FN98 and 1640.
Even still, in the original cartridges that all of these commercial rifles were designed for, metallurgy and strength considerations are a moot point since they are all more than fine.
I would not count on the metallurgy of the 1900 being different than the 1640. The metallurgy of the 96 seems superior to most 98’s if drilling and tapping is a realistic test. The toughest 98 I ever drilled and tapped was Polish made.
The late FN (post '49) and the 1640 have the same or very close to the same as per FN was using Swedish steel for a while.
Keep in mind that the 300 or Supreme action, with the streamlined contours and side safety came 3 years AFTER the introduction of the 1640.
After WWII, FN got a big share of Mauser patterns as war reparation, so there must have a relation between FN and HVA sharing Mauser actions.
Both the 1640 and 1900 have forged receivers, they are very similar in metallurgy. The Zoli 1900 is said to be made of bar stock, not forged receivers.
We must also take into consideration that the 1640 was made in both 358 NM and 7mm Rem Mag.
Keep in mind that the 300 or Supreme action, with the streamlined contours and side safety came 3 years AFTER the introduction of the 1640.
After WWII, FN got a big share of Mauser patterns as war reparation, so there must have a relation between FN and HVA sharing Mauser actions.
Both the 1640 and 1900 have forged receivers, they are very similar in metallurgy. The Zoli 1900 is said to be made of bar stock, not forged receivers.
We must also take into consideration that the 1640 was made in both 358 NM and 7mm Rem Mag.
The steel used for the 98 Mauser is higher in carbon than any pre-98 Mauser action, but the idea of these actions is to keep a soft core and a hard shell so the front ring won't chatter in 1 million shrapnels when it blows. So, it's mostly a matter of surface hardness, but there may be some higher carbon content and even little alloys too is some batches, depending on period of manufacture.
