Stiga M96 sporter vs Husky

A

Alvin1095

CGN Regular
Rating - 99.2%
248   2   1
What's up gunnuts
I'm new to bolt action hunting rifle, and I'm thinking about getting a cheaper controlle feed rifle in some common calibers (30-06 6.5x55 8x57 etc).
I saw stiga sporter m96 in 30-06 going for pretty cheap, quite a bit cheaper than husky 1600. Are there some common shortcomes about these Stiga rifles? Will I be better off buying a husky from tradeex instead?
Any info or suggestions will be appreciated.

Merry Christmas folks
 
I've bought a few rifles from Tradeex ,very good people to do business with..product condition understated,well priced and shipped promptly.You won't go wrong with a swede
 
I have had both and have no complaints about either. They are both nice light hunting rifles but there are important differences:

The Husqvarna 1600 is a purpose built hunting rifle with a 98 style action, floorplate release, is already tapped for aperture sights and/or scope and has a side safety from the factory.

The Stiga is a converted 1896 rifle that is well done but has limitations compared to the 1600. 96 actions are strong but have poor gas handling compared to 98 actions and some caliber conversions such as 30-06 are at the limit of what the action can handle. This really only matters if you are a reloader making hot loads and getting pressure signs, if shooting factory ammo you would be fine. Function wise, the Stiga is #### on close, has a mauser wing safety on the bolt, bolt handle likely will not clear a scope, and it probably will not be tapped for scope mounting.

Like I said before I have had and shot both. They were both accurate and I really liked the Stiga in 30-06 as a light gun, I miss it as it was great to carry. If you plan to use open sights both will work but if you plan to scope it go with the 1600.

Both my rifle shot right to point of aim with federal blue box FWIW.
 
Last edited:
Also don't overlook the Parker Hale Mauser's they have...true '98 action with adjustable triggers, Sile stocks, nice guns.
20170520_164335.jpg
 
Last edited:
Parker Hale 'conversions'are excellent examples of turning' swords into plowshares' and if anybody wants to call that 'Bubba ',tell someone who cares...ex military rifles have been putting meat on the table by returning servicemen long before these snot nosed' purists' were born and I for one carry a 'sporter' with respect for both the weapon and the men who carried them to defend my freedom

That said,no,I would not 'convert' an untouched milsurp today,there are plenty of already 'sporters' to work on and I take great pleasure and personal satisfaction in doing so
 
Last edited:
Both great guns, but the 1600 has the safety features of a Mauser 98 with increased action rigidity compared to the Stiga's M96 design. Mostly comes down to gas handling and the ability to hot-rod a small-ring action.
 
I have three 6.5 x55's and three more 9.3x57's ,looking at a Stiga 9.3X 62 ....I hand load for the 9.3x57 due to limited commercial ammunition but don't try to push the maximum
 
I am not a dedicated hand loader,I simply followed the general criteria on loads available on loading charts and followed that. I did not try to increase it, and watched for signs of excessive pressure. I seated my bullets by comparing commercial loaded ammunition.I probably wouldn't have gotten into hand loading I hadn't had a 8x57,and only did to get enough ammunition to go hunting with.Frankly,I don't really 'need' a 9.3x62,but I just like the nice blued steel, beautiful walnut stock, and craftsmanship of a rifle older than I am( 70) ....
 
Hitzy said:
There is usually OAL issues with '96s and the 9.3x62.
Click to expand...

I ran into similar with my STIGA - was a 30-06 barrelled action with bolt that I bought - a regular milsurp M96 magazine / trigger guard would of course fit, but too short for 30-06, to my mind. Found an M96 trigger guard with a mag box that had been sliced at rear and re-worked to make longer - pretty sure that one is at 3.4" inside length now - same as a standard Mauser M98, which the 9.3x62 was designed for.

There was a poster on CGN a few years ago who could not get his 9.3x62 rounds into his Mauser magazine - do not remember if it was his handholds or factory shells. Turned out he had a M96 Mauser, not an M98 Mauser. Without measuring them, quite sure the standard inside length of M96 magazine is 3.0" or 3.1"; most M98 are 3.3" or 3.4"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom