Norma barrels ?????

Did Norma really make CG-63 barrels or just install them ???????

I have seen 3 CG-63 barrels marked " NPK , NPS " , but also marked " small K inside of a C " & " T K " over an " A " , which I believe are Carl Gustaf maker marks . So , did Norma install these CG manufactured barrels ?????

I have seen several Norma made M-96 barrels marked " NP " , but no CG markings . These M-96 barrels differ from CG barrels in that they are not fully " blued " under the handguard .

So many questions & to few answers !!!!!!

 

More on CG63 for UK!

Found this:

For unknown reason was pics lacking on the last part about CG 63 above (last part from catalogue G.E. Fulton & Son, Bisley Camp Surrey).


Regards,
ARILAR

 

CG 74 and CG 63 T!

1974 was tryout-rifle CG 74 presented by GF (Gevärsfaktoriet). During some time they had been working on a new "skyttegevärsmodell" (rifleshootings-model). Basically was m/74 using the old 94 or 96 system but with a new barrel with 21 mm diam. at muzzle and 30 mm at base. That ment 2 mm thicker than before on CG 63. Shorter barrel (670 mm length instead of CG 63s 740). Rifle-twist 210 (220 before). "Bombredd" (cant remember english expression) just 1,5 mm instead of 2,4 mm before. Blastered, lustreless surface on outside. The forstock shorter and no handguard. As tunnel front sight was used same as on CG m/6 and CG Junior. Inserts m/Universal could be used. I dont know if any, and if so, how many of this that reached the shooters. 1979 is reported that the coming new model should be m/74 but the stock should be five layers of laminated wood (walnut). Next year was CG 80 introduced.

Well....the CG 63 T then. The same year when CG 74 was announced (1974 of course) saw 63 T the day-light. This was a cheaper version of the m/74 that could later be converted to a true 74. Simply making room for the m/74 barrel in stock and handguard (guess in many cases the hand-guard wasnt used) and wood-works to get place for front sling-swivel (so not getting in contact with the bigger barrel). New stationary tunnel front sight (m/Universal). Total weight for CG 63 T was 4,7 kg instead of m/74 4,8 kg. Almost forgot.....T stands for "tung" (heavy) and correspond to the barrel of course.

Here is a pic of the CG 74 as presented 1974.

Regards,
ARILAR

 

Thank you arilar, well done. My m/94 based CG63 is dated 1964. I've always like the modification of the m/94 bolt handle when they were built into CG63.

 

I know of at least one ( maybe two ) Officer's weapon carbines that were made into CG-63's .

I have not seen nor heard of a Norma marked CG-63 either ( made from a M-94 ) .

I keep some records of carbine serial numbers , some of which were built into CG-63's with the a CG Crown & dated '64 , '65 , '66 or '69 . Maybe some other board members have some later dated CG-63's .

Arilar : By the way , there were a large number of M-94 or M-94/14 carbines surplused into the USA in the late 1950's & early 1960's . It is reported that Interarms ( an importer ) brought in 2 shipments of 20,000 carbines , each ( 40,000 total ) . There were 3 or 4 other importers that brought an " unknown " number of carbines in this same time period . I am only guessing the total from all importers could be as many as " half " the total carbine production of 125,xxx . Unfortunately , to many carbines on the market at one time , lead many to be sporterized .

 

This might be try-out CG 62 stock!!

Remember that summer 1961 was made 5 try-out rifles that used stock from hunting-rifles Trofé/Trapper Lyx as base. Winter 1962 was first prototype CG 62 made. Autumn 1962 was first version of CG 63 presented and FSR-approved spring 1963. Not accepted to military standards so version 2 of CG 63(final version) was ready just in the end of 1963.

This is a stock used in Eskilstuna for try-outs and I think its a CG 62 or maybe very early style of version 1, CG 63. I compare it here with my CG 63.

Here is the add from FFV 1965 regarding hunting-rifle Trapper/Trapper Lyx.

Trapper Lyx compared to version 1 CG 63 just below.

Regards,
ARILAR

 

The plans of introducing CG 62.

Got this sketch on introduction of CG 62 that later never got into production. Makes me sure that my stock on pics above is from a try-out rifle CG 62. What do you think?

Regards,
ARILAR

 

Got this sketch on introduction of CG 62 that later never got into production. Makes me sure that my stock on pics above is from a try-out rifle CG 62. What do you think?

Um, I could be wrong Arilar, but your stock looks like it might be the very same one as the sketch...

I've compared both sides of your stock in your pics looking at the grain patterns compared with those in the sketch, and I find so many matches it's scary. Sketches in those days were so often either drawn from a photograph or were turned into sketches from a photo of the actual item (cheaper print costs?) - I'm a former professional photographer (commercial/advertising). The sketch would naturally have highter contrast if it was made from an original photo, where tones tend to shift to lighter or darker when converted; hence the grain pattern in the 'sketch' stands out more. But look carefully....

What do you think?

 

Spot on arilar.

You never fail to come through with good literature...do you live in a library?

metzgeri

 

Hi mate, isnt that amazing!

Thanks Pete D!! I would never had thought about if you hadnt showed me the way!
Sure it has to be the same old wood. Have taken some new pics in bad light indoors tonight but you must be absolutely right!! Have tried to alter the colours slightly to find the pattern.

Best Regards,
ARILAR

 

That is like winning the lotto . What are the chances of ever finding the same stock as in the photo ??????????????????????

 

It's very similar, but is probably not the same. The one in the catalog has a butt plate and hand guard cap installed. Arilar's looks to be new and shows no evidence of ever having butt plate or grip cap installed, or ever mounted on a rifle.

They may have come from the same tree, and probably from stock blanks which were side by side.

 

It is very cool. I agree with Jimmy C though, it doesn't appear to me as the same stock in the photo.

 

I am a believer!!

Interesting thoughts.... In this case I do believe Pete D are right. The stock was given to me by the person that did try-out shootings 1962 using this actual stock on a rifle. He wasnt sure what version of the CG 62 or 63 it had been. He was employeed by FFV and member of the shooting-club in Eskilstuna and at that time one of the most promising free-rifle shooters (as junior-shooter) in Sweden. Funny is that one year later (just some months ago) he found the sketches for CG 62 I have shown. This stock has had butt-plate and grip-cap on before but removed.
I will give you further pics later today. I also diminished the pics above to be easier to compare.
Regards,
ARILAR

 

I'm Convinced

Looking at the pictures side-by-side, plus Arilar mentioning his stock has had the buttplate and grip cap removed (plus the provenance of the stock from the actual person doing the trials!) convinces me. I've spent a lifetime analysing images and comparing details, etc and I'm 100% convinced it's the same stock from looking at the pictures the way they've been presented now. If others can't see it then methinks they need to look closer . The grain is the same. Same tree / stock blanks side-by-side still won't produce exactly the same grain pattern as is shown here (I spoke to a stockmaker today and quizzed him / showed him the pics; he was convinced also).

Nice one Arilar.

 

I don't know Gents. I'm still not convinced. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details and from what I see, I don't think it's enough to make a 100% certain call. In the two dated photos in the post, you cannot make out the grain patter on the lower portion of the photos. That is an area that would need to be seen. As from the new pictures, there is much more specific details in this area that would be very specific to a particular stock. The grain patterns on the upper portion just don't convince me. Shoot me for being the nay-sayer, but I just don't see it. That is my opinion.

View attachment 143589

 

Same same

It is obvious that the pictures are of the same stock. All the grain structure you can see match.

 

No, Mats P is not the creator of that drawing. It is older than the Internet...

The "FSR approved gunsmith program" wasn't started until the late 70's or early 80's, if memory serves me right.

And why is all this in the military forum?

Pettson

 

Hi Pettson,
Seems I am missing something here? Are you answering questions that I cant find?? Anyway...
I have specifications on the CG 62 but only in Swedish so I will try to translate it here.

" The targetshooting-rifle Carl Gustaf 62 is a modernized version of Mauser-rifle m/96. The system of the receiver and the firing mechanism has been kept, while the barrel and stock have been changed.

The change of the barrel consist mainly of an alterated external dimension, which has been increased from a diameter of 17,5 mm to 19,0 mm as well as an alteration of twist lead from 200 to 220 mm.

The stock, in which the barrel lies free, has been shaped in an modern way with a cheek-rest, a suitable curved pistol grip with a filling for the right hand, knurled cutting on both pistol-grip and fore-end and also provided with a hand-guard. The rest in the stock for recoil projection has been strengthened by a steel insertion and a through bolt.

The only alteration to the Mauser-system are knurled underside of the trigger-guard, grooved trigger and all parts of the bolt black oxidized.

The rear sight has been taken away and is assumed to be replaced by some type of diopter e.g. the Elit-diopter, the Söderin-diopter et.c.

A shortened striking length has not been introduced as the saving of time obstained (abt. 2/1000 sec.) does not outweight the loss of the possibility to adjust the weight of trigger pull of a worn rifle to 1,7+-0,2kg., (the risk of a misfire requires an increased striking power at a shortened striking length).

Data:
Weight of rifle without sling and unloaded 4,3 kg
Length of rifle (=G m/96) 1260 mm
Length of barrel (= G m/96) 739 mm
Lead of twist 220 mm
Diameter beetwen the lands 6,51 mm
Diameter between the grooves 6,73 mm
Width of the lands 3,2 mm
Weight of trigger pull (pressure point) 1,7+-0,2 kg
Bolt and its parts black oxidized,
straight bolt handle
Trigger grooved
Knurled underside of trigger guard
Butt with cheek rest
Pistol grip with filling for right hand
Butt plate of bakelite
Handguard


Furhter additions which can be introduced at the request of the customer:
Lenghtwise adjustable fore sling swivel
Butt plate of hard rubber
No pressure point ( if ongoing try-outs will be successful)
Shortened striking length
Chrome-plated chamber and bore
Stock for left-handed shooter

The adjoining photomontage is showing the shooting-rifles here mentioned modifications"




Well....the text doesnt mention the grip cap easily seen on the photomontage and which also has been installed (later removed) on my stock. Here are some new pics on my stock. See how the filling for right hand on pistol grip is shaped.

Regards,
ARILAR

 

Since this stock came from the person that originally tested the rifle , I think it is clearly the same stock as in the advertisement .

Did the fellow mention what happened to the rifled action ? Does he know how many were made ?

 

I was moving a little bit to fast....



Okey..have to back up slightly....Phoned my contact...This is how it turned out...He was test-shooting because of member-ship in Eskilstuna shootingclub as a skilled junior-shooter but that was already in the first steps of a new FSR-rifle in 1961. When things evolved during 1962 he was occupied outside Eskilstuna. When back some years later and involved with FFV he was given this stock that I have shown. He thinks (but dont know more for the moment) that maybe a handful CG 62 were made before CG 63 version 1 was born. Remember that CG 63 version 1 was approved by FSR but denied by the military. Probably more CG 63 version 1 were produced than CG 62 but this is also a guess. When my contact got the CG 62 stock it was lacking hand-guard, buttplate and grip-plate. Of course he dont know where the rifled action went...
Sorry for mix-up. Hopefully I can get more info further on.

What I do have is a similar sketch on the CG 63 version 1. This one is in english. Anybody interested??

Regards,
ARILAR

 

Sure , we are interested in more info on the CG63's .

Also , it seems strange that Carl Gustaf would use the same CG62 model number for the folding stock biathalon rifle ????????

 

CG 62 was the working-name for what , after several adjustments and versions (e.g. CG version 1), became the final CG 63. Those sketches shown has never been intended for public use. CG 62 Biathlon Rifle became a commercial model. Number 62 was not taken when Biathlon Rifle saw day-light! Guess because of delay change was done regarding the shooting-rifle so finally number 63 choosen.
Regards,
ARILAR

 

Specifications for CG 63 version 1.

Remember my first post in this thread? The pic with two happy shooters summer 1963 with the CG 63 version 1. Here it is again and with the sketch with details in english. So... seems FFV already in this stage hoped for an international future on this model.

Well...wasnt approved by military hence FSR had to cancel it despite that they approved this model at first. GC 63 version 2 became the one we know about and was adopted by both military (m6) and FSR.
So.. here once more the difference between CG version 1 and the final CG 63 as we know it (called "typ 2" in this pic).

And that is all I have on this subject (until more info floats in of course).

Regards,
ARILAR

 

CG63 from m/94

I know I'm getting into this thread very late... But many thanks again to Arilar for answering a question in my mind that I never thought could be answered.

QUOTE "FSR had in 1964 and 1965 applied for carbine m/94 (probably meaning m/94 or 94-14) to be given,and forwarded to FFV, from Swedish Government to be used to build CG 63. Answers came 14th of May 1964 and 7th of May 1965 and each time 5000 m/94 was given."

This information is what I needed to judge the history of my CG63 as one of the first 5000 built at CG. I believe Arilar's info indicates the m/96 conversions came afterward (1966 on). Arilar should write a book, or start a web site on Swedish Mausers!

Here is a 1915 m/94 conversion from 1964:

 

Hi can any one tell what this rifle is ?

 

Can anyone tell me what this is?

Is it CG-63?

I do not know the answer ??

 

Looks like a CG63, but since it has a bore disc, it could be an M6. But it doesn't appear to have the cleaning rod. It could go either way as the CG63 looks like it does normally, and the M6 looks exactly the same with the addition of a bore disc and a cleaning rod.

 

i will check to see if it has cleaning rod hole and get back to you, so what else do i need to look at for you guys to work it out for me.

What pictures do i need to post for asnwers.

and thanks for the info.