I was running the racks of used guns at a local store yesterday and came across 8 Swedish Rifles with commercial Mauser 98 style actions. Anybody know anything about these ty[e of Rifles. They had a small tab in place of the normal mauser bolt release,.

I answered this on another thread; the answer is the same.

quote:

posted 26 February 2024 01:33 Hide Post
I answered this on another thread; the answer is the same.

I'd like to hear what other people have to say about them!

I highly doubt anyone know more than Tom, unless you use an AI chat bot….

I have 2 HVA in 30-06 and one in 270. I use them as knock-around truck guns but that is a disservice. I consider them to be far better than the low cost mass produced entry level rifles that are so popular today. They were marketed by several firms back in the 60's and are a great value today.

Certainly very serviceable riles; however they would not stand a chance against any modern design, in a blow up.
Lacking the inner ring of the 98, and the gas handling design of say, a 700, they would fail much sooner. As I have said, the Swedish thought the 93/6 design was plenty good enough, and for most applications, it is. Was.
Now, thanks for the vote of confidence, ST, but you do realize that I make most of this stuff up as I go along,
NM/FAL is the one who knows the details on Mausers.

The Dakota action uses an "inner ring" machined in the barrel'

Just wonder if that might be utulized as aditional assurance of gas handling.

The base of the case is surrounded pretty much like the 98

Note the bolt face and lugs are like the 96 and has no protruding nose; so there is nothing to make a barrel counterbore for.

I have an HVA action rifle in 260 AAR.
Have not shot it ages, so had to go get it and look it over. Nice action, but not exceptional, bolt release is a little crude.

Damn...Haven't seen a Husky in years...but don't recall the bolt face being like a 96...Previous post describes the "Husky" action...thought that was the object of the thread. ( swm post)

So..the Husky bolt is NOT configured like a 98 bolt?

As I recalled it, the Husky was more or less a small ring 98 without the inner pressure ring

Remember building a 35 cal magnum on a couple..maybe 350 Norma Mag....(Brain is getting cluttered!)

I believe they had a basically unchanged M96 style receiver and breeching, but the bolt was improved with more gas vent holes, solid left lug, and 98 style bolt shroud. Just like the Ruger M77.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/ge...enfabriks/5-2358815/

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Certainly very serviceable riles; however they would not stand a chance against any modern design, in a blow up.
Lacking the inner ring of the 98, and the gas handling design of say, a 700, they would fail much sooner. As I have said, the Swedish thought the 93/6 design was plenty good enough, and for most applications, it is. Was.
Now, thanks for the vote of confidence, ST, but you do realize that I make most of this stuff up as I go along,
NM/FAL is the one who knows the details on Mausers.

Interesting! I heard that at one time Remington fired cartridges with two extra bullets in the barrel to show their action's strength. The story goes that Husqvarna then loaded one of their own rifles and filled the barrel with sand, tamped it down and pulled the trigger. The action and barrel apparently survived but I bet groups weren't too good afterwards

No, Husky actions are not just small ring 98s; they are 96s with a funny bolt stop and a Model 70 ejector, so the bolt lug is not slotted. No inner ring/barrel abutment/recess for the bolt nose. There is no bolt nose. Sweden never made a 98 in any form. They bought them from FN.
I would like to see that test report of Husky actions.
And I have seen a few 700s blown up by idiot reloaders. They always hold together.

In no way disagreeing with your assessment of the safety of today's rifles in the event of a catastrophic failure. the CNC machined rifles of today are an absolute marvel of safety and function,including accuracy. That did not enter my thoughts regarding this discussion.
My preference to the Swedish Mausers is based on the craftmanship shown in the metal and wood fit and finish that I consider far superior to the entry level rifles that are so popular today. Just one person's opinion.

I would never carry anything new into the field; not because new rifles are safer, more accurate, and cheaper than anything made in the pick a date a few decades ago. But because, as you said, the old ones are classic iron and walnut.
Nor will I ever take a 30-06 or a 270 hunting! Everyone else will have one. I know this really enrages other shooters here. Don't care.

quote:

ose. There is no bolt nose. Sweden never made a 98 in any form. They bought them from FN.
I would like to see that test report of Husky actions.

I'd heard the destruction testing story with barrels filled with sand, also. This is for Husqvarna's commercial 1640 actions vs their military actions. It was referenced in a thread on 24 Campfire as being from Tradewinds (US Importers) sales brochures, and referenced also in some trade publications:

“The receiver is made of high-grade Swedish steel. This steel has a very low carbon content. Its high quality is attained by reducing the sulfur and phosphorus content to an absolute minimum. This is achieved by using high-grade iron ore and a special smelting process using charcoal instead of coke. For centuries Sweden has been the only country where iron ore low in sulfur and phosphorous has been smelted with charcoal. This is the secret of the world-famous high-quality Swedish steel used in Husqvarna (HVA) actions. Constant checking of dimensions at every stage of production is maintained to assure absolute precision. Each action is factory tested before release and each action is proof tested the same as a completed rifle."

"The Husqvarna barrels are produced by inserting a mandrel of the same size as the bore and grove dimensions into a barrel that has been drilled slightly oversize. The barrel is hammered on the outside and the hammering process literally hammers the outside of the barrel to work the steel inward until it has formed itself around the mandrel and taken on its exact shape and size. The mandril is made to extremely tight tolerance has a hard mirror finish. The result is a bore of a precise dimension and admirable smoothness marred by no machine manufacturing marks. Husqvarna barrels are proof fired and tested with precision chambering and head spacing.”

The following (also contained in the HVA/Tradewinds literature) is reprinted with acknowledgment to Gunsport from the September 1960, volume 3 issue by Gill Paust:

“To the Swedes, the name Husqvarna is familiar and means as much as GE or Westinghouse to us and is perhaps even more familiar since HVA was in business before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth. Perhaps it means even more to Ole since HVA has added rifles to its machine products. With these rifles, the Swedes, which have always been magicians with steel, have really done the impossible. They've beaten the unbeatable. They've come up with an improved Mauser action that really is improved and no one knows it better than we. Not long ago, at one of our proving grounds the world bolt-action rifles were submitted to destruction tests to discover how much they could take before coming apart. Each rifle was fired with its barrel packed full of sand and each failed, even the famed Mauser. Some barrels blew. Some bolts had to be hammered open. Others were welded shut and couldn't be opened at all, except the Husqvarna improved Mauser. It took the test without a wince. It released the pressure through the escape ports. Its bolt was opened by hand and after the sand had been emptied and the bullet pushed from the barrel, the rifle functioned normally.”

I believe it might have also been referenced in Frank DeHaas book "Bolt-Action Rifles", but I can't find my copy.

The Frank DeHaas book references Tradewinds, but not the "barrel filled with sand" destruction testing story. No more details. In fact, it references Tradewinds advertising that says their improved Mauser action handles 50K psi vs 40K psi. Which is obviously lower than the standard for some of the cartridges chambered in the action. And it mentions the deletion of the internal c ring also.

By 1960, eveyone else was using 4140 Chrome Moly steel.
When you can blow the case and release all the gas, it will stay intact. Note where their gas release hole is on the pictures above; on the bottom. That means the magazine will be blown out. Or like a 700, you contain all the gas so none escapes. Followup question is, where did the gas go and how would a shooter fare?
I do not recommend that test!
As for deletion of the inner ring, no Swede action ever had one. When they advertised Improved Masuers, they didn't mean improved 98s. They meant improved 96. If you really want to have a strong, antique action, pick an Arasaka, or a Mosin.

Remingtons are still the best IMO because the bolt face surround will expand and obturate the chamber, preventing gasses from escaping out the action. Everything has to go out the tube. There is a gas escape hole on the right receiver wall just in case. We've had several come in blown up and they only needed a new bolt to put them back in service. BTW, that goes for the 710-770 family as well. They have the same breeching.

Not all modern guns are that safe. We had a recent Browning X-Bolt brought in that had been blown up. Shooter got brass and gas in the face from the open 12 o'clock lug raceway. Magazine destroyed and stock blown in half from the open 4 and 8 o'clock raceways. All three lugs set back into the receiver. Total loss save the trigger and safety.

quote:

Originally posted by swm:
In no way disagreeing with your assessment of the safety of today's rifles in the event of a catastrophic failure. the CNC machined rifles of today are an absolute marvel of safety and function,including accuracy. That did not enter my thoughts regarding this discussion.
My preference to the Swedish Mausers is based on the craftmanship shown in the metal and wood fit and finish that I consider far superior to the entry level rifles that are so popular today. Just one person's opinion.

Thanks skl1, I had never seen your version of the story, just what an Australan gun writer had related.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
Remingtons are still the best IMO because the bolt face surround will expand and obturate the chamber, preventing gasses from escaping out the action. Everything has to go out the tube. There is a gas escape hole on the right receiver wall just in case. We've had several come in blown up and they only needed a new bolt to put them back in service. BTW, that goes for the 710-770 family as well. They have the same breeching.

Not all modern guns are that safe. We had a recent Browning X-Bolt brought in that had been blown up. Shooter got brass and gas in the face from the open 12 o'clock lug raceway. Magazine destroyed and stock blown in half from the open 4 and 8 o'clock raceways. All three lugs set back into the receiver. Total loss save the trigger and safety.

quote:

Originally posted by swm:
In no way disagreeing with your assessment of the safety of today's rifles in the event of a catastrophic failure. the CNC machined rifles of today are an absolute marvel of safety and function,including accuracy. That did not enter my thoughts regarding this discussion.
My preference to the Swedish Mausers is based on the craftmanship shown in the metal and wood fit and finish that I consider far superior to the entry level rifles that are so popular today. Just one person's opinion.

Aren't you glad Mauser developed that breech face? Oh... you thought Remington came up with that?

Which Mauser model is that?

I don't believe my post claimed such. I could give a care who invented it. Remington commercialized and developed it. The Mauser Verguiero had a similar enclosed cartridge head breeching, but the bolt face surround couldn't expand and seal the breech. Plus, it had an external extractor cut in the bolt head. For that matter so did the Mosin Nagant and Carcano. Arisakas were similar but had that pesky extractor cut. Why don't you enlighten everyone with the Mauser patent application? Remington filed a shrouded sealing breech patent #2,585,195 on Feb. 12, 1952[M.H. Walker], according to Otteson.

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
Remingtons are still the best IMO because the bolt face surround will expand and obturate the chamber, preventing gasses from escaping out the action. Everything has to go out the tube. There is a gas escape hole on the right receiver wall just in case. We've had several come in blown up and they only needed a new bolt to put them back in service. BTW, that goes for the 710-770 family as well. They have the same breeching.

Not all modern guns are that safe. We had a recent Browning X-Bolt brought in that had been blown up. Shooter got brass and gas in the face from the open 12 o'clock lug raceway. Magazine destroyed and stock blown in half from the open 4 and 8 o'clock raceways. All three lugs set back into the receiver. Total loss save the trigger and safety.

quote:

Originally posted by swm:
In no way disagreeing with your assessment of the safety of today's rifles in the event of a catastrophic failure. the CNC machined rifles of today are an absolute marvel of safety and function,including accuracy. That did not enter my thoughts regarding this discussion.
My preference to the Swedish Mausers is based on the craftmanship shown in the metal and wood fit and finish that I consider far superior to the entry level rifles that are so popular today. Just one person's opinion.

Aren't you glad Mauser developed that breech face? Oh... you thought Remington came up with that?

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
I don't believe my post claimed such. I could give a care who invented it. Remington commercialized and developed it. The Mauser Verguiero had a similar enclosed cartridge head breeching, but the bolt face surround couldn't expand and seal the breech. Plus, it had an external extractor cut in the bolt head. For that matter so did the Mosin Nagant and Carcano. Arisakas were similar but had that pesky extractor cut. Why don't you enlighten everyone with the Mauser patent application? Remington filed a shrouded sealing breech patent #2,585,195 on Feb. 12, 1952[M.H. Walker], according to Otteson.

quote:

Originally posted by Fal Grunt:

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
Remingtons are still the best IMO because the bolt face surround will expand and obturate the chamber, preventing gasses from escaping out the action. Everything has to go out the tube. There is a gas escape hole on the right receiver wall just in case. We've had several come in blown up and they only needed a new bolt to put them back in service. BTW, that goes for the 710-770 family as well. They have the same breeching.

Not all modern guns are that safe. We had a recent Browning X-Bolt brought in that had been blown up. Shooter got brass and gas in the face from the open 12 o'clock lug raceway. Magazine destroyed and stock blown in half from the open 4 and 8 o'clock raceways. All three lugs set back into the receiver. Total loss save the trigger and safety.

quote:

Originally posted by swm:
In no way disagreeing with your assessment of the safety of today's rifles in the event of a catastrophic failure. the CNC machined rifles of today are an absolute marvel of safety and function,including accuracy. That did not enter my thoughts regarding this discussion.
My preference to the Swedish Mausers is based on the craftmanship shown in the metal and wood fit and finish that I consider far superior to the entry level rifles that are so popular today. Just one person's opinion.

Aren't you glad Mauser developed that breech face? Oh... you thought Remington came up with that?

Relax, I wasn't being a jerk, just poking fun. You are 100% correct, the Mauser Verguiero does not have a complete ring, and does not obturate. My point is more that nearly every development, is mostly an improvement of an earlier development. This includes a great many of Mauser's designs.

It is a shame what has gone on recently in Portugal, as it has made any research impossible for the most part. I was corresponding with a gentleman there doing research in an archive on the topic of the Portuguese trials. There were several neat developments, and some really neat rifles built for that trials, and there are a lot of topics that would be interesting to know more about. One of which being, why did the Portuguese want an improved "safety breech" for their rifles?

We know Mauser (company and individual) was involved, including building numerous rifles for the trials (did you know Mauser Oberndorf produced Mannlicher Schoenauer?) what we don't know is who did what. To come back around to your point about the Mauser patent, I will pull my patent book today, I can't remember if there is one for the improved safety breech or not. I am of the opinion that the barrel and improved breech were Verguiero's designs, but have no proof one way or another. I suspect that Mauser gave his input and opinion to Verguiero, in the same way that he did to Richerri.

The only reason that we have DWM Mauser Verguiero today instead of Mauser is due to the cartel system imposed at the time. The first Mauser Verguiero were made..... at Mauser.