Which Husqvarna to get....

Philthy1

Philthy1

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
55   0   0
Location
Winnipeg
Time for another Swedish sporting rifle debate. I'm considering picking up a 1600 or possibly a 1900, but then again I like the FN actions so much I can hardly resist another 600 FN rifle. Having never owned a 1600 or 1900......what does a guy do? And yes I realize the 1900 is a completely different animal.
 
The 1600’s are good but a 1900 is better. You don’t know smooth until you work a Husky or Carl Gustav 1900 bolt. And they have a better trigger IMO. Well balanced they don’t really feel that heavy either.
 
Buckmastr said:
The 1600’s are good but a 1900 is better. You don’t know smooth until you work a Husky or Carl Gustav 1900 bolt. And they have a better trigger IMO. Well balanced they don’t really feel that heavy either.
Click to expand...

Yes the trigger is a big plus for the 1900. Even the 640 has trigger options. Sounds like there are few options for the 1600.
 
My preference is the 1600, though I have two minor complaints; one is that the safety is not mounted on the bolt, and second is that the '06 comes with a 1:12 twist. Neither is an unsurmountable problem, the 1:12 twist only limits the use of very long bullets in the .30/06, which is no issue at all if you're looking for a 6.5 or a 9.3, and I tend not to use a safety anyway. My personal idiosyncrasies not withstanding, Husqvarna rifles represent good value for the money.
 
I have owned a couple of the 1600 series rifles - current one is the short barrel carbine with Monte Carlo on the butt stock - the Model 4100 - in 7x57. Same issue with twist rate - for whatever reason is 1-12, so perhaps were thinking to use shorter bullets like a round nose 150 grain? Early version like this one have steel bottom metal - the tongue is narrower; later versions were made of some kind of alloy, maybe even aluminum - the tongue is wider, so that is a consideration, if a replacement stock is to be purchased. The Swede's were pretty fussy about the "proof testing" business, so if Husqvarna chambered it in 9.3x62, it will safely handle CIP level 9.3x62 pressures. If someone else screwed on a 9.3x62 barrel, without proof testing, then that might be different. If it was made prior to about 1968, it will have the serial number on the barrel, not on the receiver - at least not visible on the receiver when rifle is assembled.

Edited 9-Jan-2021 - mine does NOT have the Monte Carlo on the comb - it is straight comb - a 4100; would be a 4000 if it have the Monte Carlo.
 
Last edited:
R.Henning said:
Can’t go wrong with either, depends what tickles your fancy more. The 1600 lightweights are nice, with shorter, thinner profile barrels around 20.5” and controlled round feeding. The stock is slimmer as well. The 1900 is a bigger, heavier rifle, barrels around the 23” mark. Their push feed action is much smoother than the 1600’s, and they have nice adjustable triggers.
Click to expand...


Actually, the 1600 (it should be called 1640) and the 1900 series, for equivalent models, weight pretty much the same. It's the same action size. Also, the (real) 1600 series ARE the lightweight rifles and the stock profile is quite exactly the same as some of the 1640 which are sporting longer barrels. The 3000/3100 and 1640MC series have a bulkier stock, while say, the 1640 Std is the slim stock.
 
Last edited:
Boomer said:
My preference is the 1600, though I have two minor complaints; one is that the safety is not mounted on the bolt, and second is that the '06 comes with a 1:12 twist. Neither is an unsurmountable problem, the 1:12 twist only limits the use of very long bullets in the .30/06, which is no issue at all if you're looking for a 6.5 or a 9.3, and I tend not to use a safety anyway. My personal idiosyncrasies not withstanding, Husqvarna rifles represent good value for the money.
Click to expand...


For info, the twist rates of the HVA 1600/1640/1651 are as follow;

30/06 - .308 Win, 7X57 = 4 lands and grooves, 1:12" twist
6.5X55 = 4 lands and grooves, 1:8" twist
.243 Win - .270 Win = 4 lands and grooves, 1:10" twist
7mm RM = 6 lands and grooves, 1:9" twist
8X57 = 4 lands and grooves, 1:9.5" twist
9.3X62 = 4 lands and grooves, 1:14" twist
.358 NM = 6 lands and grooves, 1:12" twist
 
Last edited:
Potashminer said:
I have owned a couple of the 1600 series rifles - current one is the short barrel carbine with Monte Carlo on the butt stock - the Model 4100 - in 7x57. Same issue with twist rate - for whatever reason is 1-12, so perhaps were thinking to use shorter bullets like a round nose 150 grain? Early version like this one have steel bottom metal - the tongue is narrower; later versions were made of some kind of alloy, maybe even aluminum - the tongue is wider, so that is a consideration, if a replacement stock is to be purchased. The Swede's were pretty fussy about the "proof testing" business, so if Husqvarna chambered it in 9.3x62, it will safely handle CIP level 9.3x62 pressures. If someone else screwed on a 9.3x62 barrel, without proof testing, then that might be different. If it was made prior to about 1968, it will have the serial number on the barrel, not on the receiver - at least not visible on the receiver when rifle is assembled.
Click to expand...

Sweden is not a member of CIP, but follow the same rules.

The 7X57 was made with a slow twist and this have been covered in a Gun Digest article by R. Sherwood in the 1967 Edition, titled "The Mysterious Seven"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom