Considering a medium bore cartridge...available in a used, overall 90% condition sub moa (proved out) Husqvarna or a new CZ 550. The Husky will require a new, scope friendly safety and recoil pad. Adding said costs into the equation, the overall price will be comparable to a new CZ. What say you? Husky + some bucks or the CZ out of the box?

Thanks.

I love the CZ, but don't like it out of the box.

So, I would need to replace the safety and trigger, and either restock it or hire a lumberjack to chop the factory stock down.

I also love the Husky, especially the ones built on FN Model 98 actions. But as you say, those too need some modifications to bring them into the modern era.

I say flip a coin. Lots of help, I know . . .

quote:

I say flip a coin. Lots of help, I know . . . Cool

Me too except I'd be looking for a biased coin in favor of the Husky!

Ive got both, both have their good points , gotta say though if I was only gonna keep one it would be the CZ.

I've seen many questions on this forum, and this is a good one. Good because it is so difficult to answer. I have both the CZ 550s and the Husqvarna 98s, and one of the 1640s which I haven't tried yet. Even though I have both, I can't say which is a favorite. I simply can't decide - it's just too difficult. I like them both for many of the same reasons and for different reasons.

I will say that I bought the CZ to use with minimum modifications. Otherwise I can't see the point and I would just use the Mauser. I thought about replacing the CZ trigger and safety and stock, but decided I would be abandoning the main features that make the CZ attractive price wise. So far I have been happy with a reworked factory trigger and the three-position cz safety, and the factory walnut stock. Although a little heavy, I can live with it, rather than paying a lot of money for a small improvment. I do recommend glass bedding.

Shopping carefully you can find a good FN/Husqvarna, but it will take some work to bring it into the status of modern. Depending on your tastes it could cost some money - a lot more than the out-of-the-box CZ. In my opinion though, you can't get a better commercial 98 Mauser action than the FN, Husqvarna or otherwise. I suppose there are some current production Mauser actions, but the cost is way disproportionate.

Also, maybe some use rifles as they come out-of-the-box, but that hasn't been my experience, whether it's a Ruger or CZ. They need tweeking. However if you are looking for a rifle that is good to go out-of-the-box, buy a Tikka.

Deciding between a CZ 550 or a used Husqvarna 98 - it's too difficult a question - I can't decide. That's why I have both, and I like them both equally well.
KB

Take a look at a Husqvarna 1600 in 9,3x62, Small Ring Mauser. They have side safties and are drilled for Weaver bases.

here is my 1600 'Special'in 9,3x62 (fancier wood and some engravings)

I am Husky and the Husky 1600. Lou

I kinda like the old Husky idea myself.

Terry

Proven accuracy in a rifle that has a classic profile in the Husqvarna and probably stock iron sights. Some of us still like them!

What extras do you need? Mounts and rings? Easy with an old gun like this get a set of Redfield on eBay!

Recoil pad? Again in the Pachmayr Old English with just a black spacer (no horrible white line) it adds to the rifle in terms of usability and appearance.

I personally don't like the CZ 550 bolt shroud. It is too long. It is spot on right on the BRNO ZKK 600 but just too long on the CZ 550.

And I'd warrant that the seller of the CZ 550 won't guarantee sub MOA. No choice!

Husky it is...appreciate all of the feedback.

I have three Husqvarnas in 30-06 and a CZ 550FS in 9.3X62. I like them all, but the CZ is my current pet because of the way it shoots (sub 1" out of the box with no tuning of any sort). The Husqvarnas are very light weight and would be real kickers in a medium bore. Also, I hate to see older high quaulity rifles altered even if they are plane Janes like most Husqvarnas.

Understood R720...

The safety will still be a wing Mauser safety...rather than the full 180 degree factory it will be the low swept wing version. Looks good, functions well...like on my Higgins M50.

Buck she does...but...shoots extremely well.

I like the Huskies for any cartidge they are chambered in and the CZ550 for those the Huskies weren't made in.

My current favorites are the 9.3x57's.

Off topic but not much... I recently saw a Husky with FN 98 action in 9.3X57. It was a very nice rifle and I would have bought it. My question is. Is it just a matter of dropping a 9.3X62 reamer in there to get a 9.3X62 from a 9.3X57??

quote:

Originally posted by MopaneMike:
Off topic but not much... I recently saw a Husky with FN 98 action in 9.3X57. It was a very nice rifle and I would have bought it. My question is. Is it just a matter of dropping a 9.3X62 reamer in there to get a 9.3X62 from a 9.3X57??

Not always. The 9.3x57 chambers vary greatly. On paper the 9.3x62 reamer will clean it up but in practice you may be in for a nasty surprise. I have however had no problems reaming two M146's out to 9.3x62. But, I have several more 9.3x57's whose chambers would not clean up were I to run a reamer in.

Do yourself a favor and do a chamber cast prior to running that reamer in.

Alan, I wasn't meaning to be a purist about minor but functional changes like a low safety. Also, I have to admit I wouldn't mind if one of my Husqvarnas was a 9.3 instead of '06.

I have owned a couple of CZ 550s
Darn good shooters. But man they sure are heavy, The new stock they came out this year is a big improvment.
But I think a Husky in the 600.00 dollar range would be hard to pass up.
You say medium bore. To me that means probably a 9.3X62 ?
Cool round. I would take the Husky.
...tj3006

Alan,
I was facing the same decision just a few months ago. I went with the Husqvarna, I just like the looks of that old FN 98 action. Mine is a 1949 vintage and I did do a few things, I drilled and tapped for a 1 piece Leupold base,and added a Timney trigger and safety. Mine shoots great with the 286 grain Prvi stuff. I topped it with a VX-3 1.5-5 and a German #4 reticle. I will probably add a recoil pad of some sort to lengthen the stock which is a bit short for me. The recoil is not objectionable in the least to me.

All in all I probably spent a few more dollars than the CZ would have cost but I am very happy with my rifle and would do the same thing again.

I hope you are happy with yours as well!

R720...you didn't come across that way at all.

TJ: indeed it is a 9.3x62. I've threatened for years that I would own a rifle chambered in this cartridge. It was time to put up or shut up

Bob: Early indications with the Prvi ammo shows the rifle is a shooter. I am very much looking forward to see what quality handloads will do.

Has anyone tried, or can recommend, a peep sight for this rifle? I'd really like the option of using irons or a scope.

Thanks,

Alan

Husqvarna ; But don't listen to me because I like CZ and several other brands also .

A good Husky is never to be turned down however !. I can't recall a single Husqvarna which ever gave me a

minute of trouble . Whether I was shooting it or cutting logs , weed whacking or riding it . That's a fact !!!.

I have a CZ FS (mannlicher stocked carbine w/20" bbl) I got an elk and a nice 4-point muley buck with it this fall. Inexpensive PRVI factory ammunition shot about 1.25" for a magazine full at 100yds, and a hiar under 2" at 200. Bang, dead, clop both animals. The set trigger makes all the difference for me. The 450 Dakota on Buff was nice too with the set for a one pound pull. I really like mine, and would not get rid of any of them.

Rich
Buff Killer

Hands down, the commercial Husqvarna

Correct pronunciation of Husqvarna...

Is it husk-varna as in corn husk or "hoosk" varna?

My Norwegian speaking friend said it was "hoosk"varna, but I've had a hard time not saying "husk".

It has taken me over a year to become comfortable with the correct pronunciation of Sako

It's Husky, like the fat boy paints section at Sears

Terry

The correct pronounciation would be "hoos"kvarna

Can´t really go wrong with an old husky, I love the old M98´s and no action beats that of a mod 640 -I´ve had several rifles built on that action.

quote:

The correct pronounciation would be "hoos"kvarna

In Minne Soooda, its pronounced "Hoos Kvarna, ya chur ya betcha"...as the full name...

'specially up on "Da Range"....

I have a CZ 550 that I wouldn't trade for nothing. It's a beatiful and accurate rifle.

We all have our favorites,

http://forums.accuratereloadin...3221043/m/5281080101

I like the grape colour,



She slings 320 grain Woodleighs like no other.

Best regards Chris

Here's mine. My good friend Mike McCabe (z1r) put it together for me. This was it's 1st year out.



Terry

Damn Terry, that's a nice looking rig. How does it shoot and did you bloody it yet?

quote:

Originally posted by rem721:
Damn Terry, that's a nice looking rig. How does it shoot and did you bloody it yet?

I've only shot about 80 rounds down the barrel as it was finished just before the season started. It's a solid MOA rifle. I had a few groups go 1"@200yds. I figure after the barrel is a little more seasoned and I fine tune my loads I might end up with a 1/2 MOA rifle. After hunting it for a month in the rain and mud and bumping it around on the 4-wheeler I checked the zero last week and it hadn't moved any. I was very pleased to find this. It raises my confidence in the rifle considerably. Props to Mike McCabe for a excellent job.

I've taken 4 deer this year with it. The 1st one at 325yds. It's a nice looking rifle that performs as well as it looks.

They say you gotta have plastic to hunt in bad weather. hmmmm.

Terry

Hoos-Kvarna as we from Minnesota up on da range would say. Only have had one, a model 96 stock Swede Mauser in 6.5X55. Very smooth and accurate, sights were a bit high for 100 yards. I do have a CZ 550 in 9.3X62. With handloads will shoot under MOA with 232 270 and 286 bullets. It is a bit heavy, action was a bit rough out of the box but is smoothing up nicely trigger (set) was good as it came. Can't see going wrong with either one. The CZ I would guess would be a bit less money in the long run but the Hoosky (snoosebox) would be a nice old time keeper. Best chainsaw I every had was also A Husqvarna. They also made great dirt bikes and sewing machines.

HELLO ALL, I HAD A HUSKY ORDERED FROM BUFFALO BROTHERS IN ARIZONA A WHILE BACK. IT WAS A LARGE RING 98 9.3X57 ALREADY DRILLED AND TAPPED. UPON RECIEVING THE RIFLE I HAD IT ROCKWELL TESTED FOR HARDNESS BEFORE HAVING IT RECHAMBERED TO 9.3X92. IT DID NOT MEASURE UP TO SCALE AND I WAS TOLD THE CONVERSION WOULD NOT BE SAFE.ACCORDING TO THE TEST IT WAS NOT SAFE WITH MODERN 9.3X57 AMMO EITHER. I SENT THE RIFLE BACK AND TOLD THE SALES PERSON THE TEST RESULTS. THEY REFUNDED MY MONEY, HOWEVER THEY CHARGED ME A 10% RESTOCKING FEE. WHICH MEANS THEY PUT A RIFLE THAT IS UNSAFE TO FIRE BACK IN CIRCULATION. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN ORDERING A RIFLE OF UNKNOWN QUALITY. THIS PROJECT COST ME $120.00 WITH THE RESTOCKING FEE, FFL TRANSFER, SHIPPING,ETC. THANKS... WV3568

Dude, you are so lost,

modern x57 loads are slower than old ones, a Husqvarna will never test up in a rockwell test, they are all case hardened with a softer core,

however at one point in all the CAPITAL letter of yours you are correct, old 96/38/34 actions are not safe to rechamber to x62 or any other cal above 8x57/9,3x57 they are just not up to it, this of cours is all my and the Swedish opinion.

The Idea that a Husqvarna M98 would not stand up to a rechambering justified with reference to a rockwell test is just plain wrong, I hope it made you satisfied.

take care/ Best regards Chris

quote:

Originally posted by WV3568:
HELLO ALL, I HAD A HUSKY ORDERED FROM BUFFALO BROTHERS IN ARIZONA A WHILE BACK. IT WAS A LARGE RING 98 9.3X57 ALREADY DRILLED AND TAPPED. UPON RECIEVING THE RIFLE I HAD IT ROCKWELL TESTED FOR HARDNESS BEFORE HAVING IT RECHAMBERED TO 9.3X92. IT DID NOT MEASURE UP TO SCALE AND I WAS TOLD THE CONVERSION WOULD NOT BE SAFE.ACCORDING TO THE TEST IT WAS NOT SAFE WITH MODERN 9.3X57 AMMO EITHER. I SENT THE RIFLE BACK AND TOLD THE SALES PERSON THE TEST RESULTS. THEY REFUNDED MY MONEY, HOWEVER THEY CHARGED ME A 10% RESTOCKING FEE. WHICH MEANS THEY PUT A RIFLE THAT IS UNSAFE TO FIRE BACK IN CIRCULATION. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN ORDERING A RIFLE OF UNKNOWN QUALITY. THIS PROJECT COST ME $120.00 WITH THE RESTOCKING FEE, FFL TRANSFER, SHIPPING,ETC. THANKS... WV3568

quote:

Originally posted by Remington720:
I have three Husqvarnas in 30-06 and a CZ 550FS in 9.3X62. I like them all, but the CZ is my current pet because of the way it shoots (sub 1" out of the box with no tuning of any sort). The Husqvarnas are very light weight and would be real kickers in a medium bore.

The "Husky" Model (which seemed to be the most popular in the U.S.) was a lightweight model of rifle, but the standard sporter Husqvarnas definitely were not. I've owned quite a number of the standard sporters and they were not severe kicking machines at all. Reminded me of what you would get if you bought one of the older Browning Safaris, except with a standard weight barrel instead of the "pencil" barrel of the Browning.

I also found the stock shape of the "Husky" model didn't fit my build and hold at all. They kicked the hell out of my cheekbone with the top of the stock. Again, the standard weight ones displayed no such problem to me and my standard offhand shooting style.

I sold all my "Huskys" many years ago. Still have standard weight Husqvarna sporters though.

So, if I had a choice between the three, I'd rank them thus:

1st choice- Standard Husqvarna

2nd choice- modern CZ series

10th or 12th choice, maybe even lower- the "Husky" model of Husqvarna as imported to the U.S.

But again YMMV, it depends on your physical build and shooting style.

quote:

Originally posted by WV3568:
HELLO ALL, I HAD A HUSKY ORDERED FROM BUFFALO BROTHERS IN ARIZONA A WHILE BACK. IT WAS A LARGE RING 98 9.3X57 ALREADY DRILLED AND TAPPED. UPON RECIEVING THE RIFLE I HAD IT ROCKWELL TESTED FOR HARDNESS BEFORE HAVING IT RECHAMBERED TO 9.3X92. IT DID NOT MEASURE UP TO SCALE AND I WAS TOLD THE CONVERSION WOULD NOT BE SAFE.ACCORDING TO THE TEST IT WAS NOT SAFE WITH MODERN 9.3X57 AMMO EITHER. I SENT THE RIFLE BACK AND TOLD THE SALES PERSON THE TEST RESULTS. THEY REFUNDED MY MONEY, HOWEVER THEY CHARGED ME A 10% RESTOCKING FEE. WHICH MEANS THEY PUT A RIFLE THAT IS UNSAFE TO FIRE BACK IN CIRCULATION. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN ORDERING A RIFLE OF UNKNOWN QUALITY. THIS PROJECT COST ME $120.00 WITH THE RESTOCKING FEE, FFL TRANSFER, SHIPPING,ETC. THANKS... WV3568

This is pretty much a crock and whoever advised you didn't know shit from shinola.

Norma factory loads operate at less than 40,000 psi. And their handload data is slightly higher. Both operate at pressure lower than their 6.5x55 ammo and both are under the design limits of the 96 actions.

The 9.3x62 is also a relatively low pressure loading.

I've had over a dozen of the 96 variant and darn near as many of the 98's apart and have never seen or measured even the slightest hint of setback. I can't say that about most other chamberings.

Also remember that there are essentially three different actions that are being talked about in this thread as if they were on in the same.

First the M46 which is basically the Swedish 96 or 94 is you ask a Swede . Then the M146 which is an FN 98. And lastly the 1640 series which is sort of a hybrid between the 96/98 and model 70. The 1640's are about as hard an action as I've come accross though not overly so.

Thus far, all the 9.3x62's I've seen that were factory made were built on the so-called improved 96 action, the one with a solid left side wall (no thumbcut). The 98's that I've seen in 9.3x62 were built on the commercial FN 98 action also with solid left side. Then they also made the 1640 in a 9.3x62.

I have seen both the M46 and the M146 rechambered to 9.3x62. I have a couple of the M146's that have been rechambered to 9.3x62 and they make a nice trim rifle that weigh in at just under 8.5 lbs scoped with sling.

Husky!!