[arilar]

Following info is gathered from three small prints from Norma called "Norma nytt" (new from Norma) and are printed 1962,1963 and 1964.
It was a demand after a new rifle for FSR with good precision and aimed for competition. Norma in Åmotsfors and Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori in Eskilstuna seemed to have worked together on the subject. Delegates from Gevärsfaktoriet went to Åmotsfors 1961 to look at the "skyttegevär" (shooting-rifle) that had been put together by gun-smith Eric Hellqvist (yes...the same that made the diopter with his name on it) and major Björn Zachrisson. But it was in Eskilstuna the possibilities for production existed so Gevärsfaktoriet started to make try-out rifles. (freely from Norma nytt 1962).

To hold down costs decision was made to use m/96 as base. Summer 1961 had Gevärsfaktoriet made five try-out rifles that had the stock from hunting-rifle m/Trofé as starting-point. First result was announced autumn 1961. Further improvements by Erik Wallberg at Eskilstuna led to prototype CG 62 that was tested winter 61/62. Summer 1962 field-tests by military and civilian shooters led to further improvements and finally... CG 63 (Type 1) was born. In November 1962 was CG 63 approved by "skytteförbundens överstyrelses verkställande utskott" (FSR superior boards executive committee). and thereby on proposal for next FSR parliament in (to be held May 1963) as FSRs next shooting-rifle. A requirement was of course that the CG 63 also was approved as an army-model. (freely from Norma nytt 1963).

Pics on CG 63 type 1 for right and left shooter.

During autumn 1963 was the army involved in try-outs with type 1 CG 63. The army was not satisfied with the stock and several adjustments had to be made. Now CG 63 type 2 was born in September 1963. In October field-test was held at InfSS, infanteriets Stridsskola (Infantry War Academy). They was done in December 1963 and army model m/6 and m/7 was planned to be approved February 1964. The plan was to start deliver the first CG 63 to FSR shooters in April 1964. (freely from Norma nytt 1964).

Pics showing differences between type 1 and type 2 CG 63.

1. "rosett" withdrawn.
2. Moved forward about 12 mm.
3. Raised about 6-8 mm.
4. Cheek-support same both sides.
5. Increased to 134 mm.

Well....all for tonight. But will continue within next days. If anyone has different info on this please let us know. Maybe this has been covered before..
Regards,
ARILAR

 

[swede]

No one has posted any detailed info of this type before now . Please add more as your time permits . Glad you found these papers . It does give us some idea how & when the CG63 came into production .

Thank you .

swede

 

[Metzgeri]

As usual, arilar, very well done. I enjoy reading your posts every time and always come away with some new found knowledge of Swedish Mausers and FSR.

Keep up the great work!!

metzgeri

 

[swedeM63]

And in 7.62 x 51?

A great post with all new information.

I have always wondered about evolution of the 7.62 x 51 versions of the M63 rifle. Reynolds and Fulton's 1972 book Target Rifle Shooting references the M63 fitted with parker Hale sights was trialled for adoption on the UK when they were crossing over from the 303 Br to the 7.62 x 51 cartridge. It doesn't give a date but it would have been about 1968 when the changover occurred.

Interesting too that the original M96 action was perfectly OK for this cartridge.

 

[Dutchman]

Most excellent, keep it coming!

Dutchman

 

[foudufoot]

Great stuff Arilar!!

Much appreciated from the target rifle aficionados!! Thanks!! Dan

 

[USMCsean]

It is some great info! I think that it was universally accepted that the primary difference between the two models was just the provisions for the cleaning rod. Now that there is a comparative photo of both stocks and the differences pointed out, you can see they are really different from each other.

 

[arilar]

It is some great info! I think that it was universally accepted that the primary difference between the two models was just the provisions for the cleaning rod. Now that there is a comparative photo of both stocks and the differences pointed out, you can see they are really different from each other.

Sorry if I have been unclear. CG63 is a "civilian" model for FSR. M/6 is the military version with cutout for disc, cleaningrod and GF diopter as only differences (well...GF diopter of course can be used on the FSR CG 63). What I have shown as "type 1" is the first FSR approved CG 63 (used as try-out rifle during summer 1963 and shown in left and right version on the pic with the couple above) that wasnt accepted by the army and never got into production for FSR neither. Type 2 of CG 63 was the CG 63 that came into production and was "model" for the army m/6. Hope this can make more sense.
Regards,
ARILAR

 

[alb87]

Thanks for all these informations!
Can anyone post some good pictures of the M/6 military model? I always hear talking about it but actually I've never seen one. All the CG63 I've seen until now, the one I own included, are civilian version I think.
Best regards.

 

[arilar]

CG 63, info the year 1965.

Above is the info directly from FFV 1965. Describes what differs between m/96 and CG 63. Tells among other things that the barrel is conical and now 19 mm diameter instead of 17,5 mm before (therefore more heavy compared to m/96 barrel). Slower twist (220 mm instead of 200). Total lenght the same. Walnut stock and free-floating barrel. Receiver to be "glossy" or black-oxided and much more. This is the CG 63 that could be ordered from Gevärsfaktoriet if a new CG 63 was wanted. Conversion from m/96 sent in by FSRshooters could be done both at Gevärsfaktoriet and Norma at this time.

This document from FFV are dated october 1965. Tells that production of CG 63 started April 1964 and in end of May 1964 was the first 50 rifles CG 63 delivered. The numbers of rifles each month has then been raised and since May 1965 kept around 600 rifles (I guess for each month. In the numbers it seems both new made and conversion are included). A special document had to be used and filled in for order of a CG 63 (will show that in a later post). Estimated time from order of a new CG 63 was 6 weeks and for conversions 6-8 weeks (from time the rifle arrived to Åmotsfors or Eskilstuna). News: Buttplate in "hard rubber" now able to get. A "field-competent" diopter under construction. Not to be ready before before shooting-season 1966 (this was the GF-diopter that wasnt ready. A disappointment of course for FFV that instead had to offer Söderin or Elit. If you sent in a Hauge, Hooka or Lyman it could be mounted as well. So what is written in "Crown Jewels" about diopters in the beginning for CG 63 differs from the how it actually was). Note that pics shows CG 63 with Elit-diopter.

Regards,
ARILAR

 

[USMCsean]

Arilar,
Im just generally confused today. I knew about the disc, cleaning rod, and the specific sights. I guess I was thinking something weird before I replied and it got all jumbled up.

 

[Metzgeri]

...Im just generally confused today...

Well, if you'd get that antiquated gas mask off your face....you're oxygen deprived man!!

metzgeri

 

[Ken]

"A requirement was of course that the CG 63 also was approved as an army-model."

Were the 22 cal versions also approved as a army model?

 

[arilar]

"A requirement was of course that the CG 63 also was approved as an army-model."

Were the 22 cal versions also approved as a army model?

Interesting question but I dont know. Hopefully someone else (Anders?) has the answer.
Regards,
ARILAR

 

[arilar]

Orderform used 1965!

Here we go.....this document was required when getting your CG 63 of any kind.

This is upper part and I will try to translate parts of it.

Nedanstående utförande beställes (following model is ordered)
Nyanskaffning av Skyttegevär (new acquisition of shooting-rifle)
Ändring av insänt gevär m/96; byte av stock och pipa samt översyn (alteration of sent rifle m/96; replacement of stock, barrel and overhaul)
byte av enbart stock samt översyn (replacement of only stock and overhaul)
Nedanstående tillägg beställes (following additions are ordered)
Inköp och montering av (purchase and mounting of)
med (with)
särskild för sig insänt (specially by itself sent) "meaning that you already had this and was sending it to Åmotsfors or Eskilstuna to be mounted on the rifle"
Ändring till kort slaglängd (alteration to short stroke)
Kolvförlängning av valnötsträ med skruvar (butt extensioner of walnut with screws)
Bakplåt av hårdgummi (buttplate of hard rubber)

And lower part of the document

Byte av defekta delar å insänt gevär m/96 (change of defective parts on rifle m/96)
Låda (receiver)
Slutstycke (bolt)

Sorry, dont have the the skill to translate all other technical words and cant find my "Crown Jewels" just now...maybe someone can fill in...

So...it seems this explains all different variations of CG 63 that shows up . And of course...all this variations are truly legit CG 63s.

Regards,
ARILAR

 

[arilar]

CG 63 for U.K.!

A great post with all new information.

I have always wondered about evolution of the 7.62 x 51 versions of the M63 rifle. Reynolds and Fulton's 1972 book Target Rifle Shooting references the M63 fitted with parker Hale sights was trialled for adoption on the UK when they were crossing over from the 303 Br to the 7.62 x 51 cartridge. It doesn't give a date but it would have been about 1968 when the changover occurred.

Interesting too that the original M96 action was perfectly OK for this cartridge.

Hi SwedeM63!
I have posted this before but maybe on "Old Gunboard". Do you refer to military try-outs or civilian ones? I have been told that FFV was not all happy with Parker Hales efforts to market the CG 63 7,62 Nato-version as target rifle. As you can see is this news-letter from "late" July 1968.
BTW. Interesting info is that by this time 16000 (guess both all-new and conversions counted) of CG 63s hade been made!! Remember, production started 1964 with first 50 ready in May same year.........I am counting........about 300 each month if production all year around. Guess demand was at top in Sweden the first years when 600 could be made each month.

Regards,
ARILAR

 

[Anders]

Were the 22 cal versions also approved as a army model?

Not to my knowledge.

//Anders

 

[swedeM63]

Great information

Thanks Arilar, I have never had any document sourced before this to prove when the 63 was being sold and used in the UK.
SwedeM63

 

[swedejohn]

M6 Photos

I happen to have an M6. Let's see if these photos will come through.

 

[kriggevaer]

Thank you Arilar for posting that documentation - it is a tremendously important contribution. Tack så mycket! For years, Dana's Crown Jewels has been one of the few sources of information for the CG 63 and it was from his book that I set my standards on what I want to find and have when I buy a CG 63 rifle. Your documents make it very clear and fill in the gaps in that information.

Questions still remain - Was any rifle that was produced or converted/modified by CG-FFV or Norma given the appropriate stamp on the receiver? Are there any other known markings that are specific to that process? Not all CG 63 rifles that have all of the attributes of a newly produced or fully converted rifle (i.e., 19mm barrel, modifications to the trigger, firing pin, cocking piece, receiver stamps, etc.) have a re-proof rune. Does this mean that the gunsmiths at CG-FFV or Norma determined that the rifle did not need to be re-proofed?

We need some examples of the markings left by FSR gunsmiths on converted/modified guns and since some of those gunsmiths from that period are surely still alive, finding that out may not be that difficult.

Although it is very clear from the documents that a military m/96 could just have the stock replaced, what things occurred during the overhaul that is also listed as part of that activity?

One of the points I raised earlier is also unanswered. Since originality is a basic premise of collecting these types of rifles, how is the originality of an m/96 barreled military action with a CG 63 stock to be determined? That is, how do we know such a rifle went through the official process in Sweden versus someone either in Sweden or the USA simply building a CG 63 like rifle out of parts. At the prices these rifles can command, that is the first thing I want to know. Can I establish the provenance of the rifle?

I can help on translating the technical terms for the gun parts on the order sheet and will get to that tomorrow.