Jack O'Connor's opinion is worth considering.

Fast forward 60 years and the Husky's provide a sweet spot for "bang for the buck" rifle enthusiasts. That's my opinion.

 

Well..its like the guys that grew up in the world of Chargers, Cameros, fairlanes and mustangs..Then they have a opinion about todays cars.. He saw the golden age of Refinement and quality arms that got hands on treatment. Then had comments on best bang for buck rifles of the age of mass produced lowest price to compete with sporterized military arms. Now compare a Husqvarna today to what you can get...The Husqvarna is refined and nice.

 

Jack O'Connor was lucky enuff to have some custom rifles with very good walnut stocks. Because of that, his opinion would have been substantially lower, about beech wood used for a rifle stock.
The beech wood is pretty meh, (ho-hum) in appearance, but functionally it stands up well in usage.

 

His opinion is his opinion . Like most gun writers , he did a lot of writing . In reality , the .270 has several problems and is not the best cartridge .

 

Husqvarna Model 640 rifles used actions furnished by FN. The same actions as marketed by FN but for nomenclature and finish. Although the FN brand bluing was finer and of course FN and Husqvarna each used their own barrels, I don't know the Husqvarna barrels were any less quality.
As far as stocks were concerned, Husqvarna did make an upgraded model of Monte Carlo design coming along in 1952. While i prefer Walnut to Beech, I prefer the straight comb Beech stocks. They also made both an American market model which is what we mostly see, and a European model (my terms here) with bit of a Schnabel.
The net, that Husqvarna built their FN model to a price point. Easy to criticise, but the fact is that FN was an expensive rifle here. Considerably more than the Standard or Lightweight Model 70, or most other rifles of the early fifties era. Their stock designs were simply clunky in comparison to the FN quality finished metal. Some of the best FN based rifles were of course "custom" models where they were the basis for some quite nice to spectacular pieces. From Sako to Sears, FN actions adorned their price point rifles. By 1953 FN was pulling out of the American Market. I don't think they sold that many here as perhaps a drop in the bucket compared to such as Winchester and Remington. Far as I'm concerned the FN post WWII actions were about the finest iterations of the modern sporting yet pure mauser. Oberndorf made a solid sidewall action too. I have a double square bridge from 1939 SN range, but as the early FN it retained a clip loading function.
By 1954, Husqvarna had the 1600 Series in the American Market succeeding the FN and the FN Firm was heavily into NATO small arms contracts. Their actions remained available and were offered by Firms such as Flaig's, Paul Wahl and Hunters Lodge, all in Pa. By late fifties into early sixties FN barreled actions were back in the US market in their "Supreme" iteration. Safety relocated from striker assembly and striker-impinging, to tang adjacent sliding lever as trigger impinging. Yet too, almost all those actions I've seen were with alloy bottom metal. A big step down from steel in such as ruggedness and scratch resistance. Firearms International offered their own such rifles in the Musketeer series through perhaps 1963.

The Husqvarna 640 Series and it's replacement (not successor) the 1600 series were both great guns. "Fancy" may account for aesthetics. We all appreciate handsome rifles! But rubber meeting the road in terms of good hard value for bucks arising to entirely reliable rifles 'there for you when you need them... Husqvarna is a great no-nonsense "Mauser"!

My take!
Best!
John

 

Purists always have rather hard opinions on what is "best".

Jack O'Connor had every right to express his own opinions; he was an appreciator of fine firearms and cartridges and had opportunity to express his observations in print. I loved the stuff he put out and read it all so many years ago.

My father gave me a BSA Hunter/Regent model WAY back. The rifle was in very good shape but had the aluminum trigger guard issue...flaking finish...making an otherwise "classy" firearm look a bit tired and cheap. Oh well...

We also, concurrently, had an old 109 inch wheel base Land Rover that had belonged to a mining company in Canada. It also had "finish issues" where paint was flaking off some areas. I think it was a 1966 year model that had seen hard use.

My BSA has had almost NO use so I adjusted to the finish issues and "learned to live with the pain". A bit like having a series Land Rover in the garage.

Like a piebald dog or a watch eyed mule.

The Husky's are kind of the same...REALLY good rifles and possibly attained at a more reasonable price than almost anything else laying about these days.

 

I really wonder if Husqvarna had used strictly walnut stocks, if ol' Jack's opinion wouldn't have been higher of them. In America, we tend to associate mid-century use of non-walnut stocks with budget versions of guns sold by chain stores. For instance, the "Ranger" line by Winchester, which sold in stores like Service Merchandise and others - same gun, less finish quality and stained hardwood stocks (mostly Birch). This gives the impression of "budget rifle for the working class." ...

In that mindset, you see some rifles coming over from Europe stocked in Beech, and I think that probably tainted some opinions that they were budget rifles. I've owned Pre-64 Winchesters Model 70s and I've owned Husqvarna 1600 series rifles. For my money, give me the HVA. To me, the "Swedish steel" cache is every bit as romantic as the "Pre-64" mojo.

 

I really wonder if Husqvarna had used strictly walnut stocks, if ol' Jack's opinion wouldn't have been higher of them. In America, we tend to associate mid-century use of non-walnut stocks with budget versions of guns sold by chain stores. For instance, the "Ranger" line by Winchester, which sold in stores like Service Merchandise and others - same gun, less finish quality and stained hardwood stocks (mostly Birch). This gives the impression of "budget rifle for the working class." ...

In that mindset, you see some rifles coming over from Europe stocked in Beech, and I think that probably tainted some opinions that they were budget rifles. I've owned Pre-64 Winchesters Model 70s and I've owned Husqvarna 1600 series rifles. For my money, give me the HVA. To me, the "Swedish steel" cache is every bit as romantic as the "Pre-64" mojo.

I really wonder if Husqvarna had used strictly walnut stocks, if ol' Jack's opinion wouldn't have been higher of them. In America, we tend to associate mid-century use of non-walnut stocks with budget versions of guns sold by chain stores. For instance, the "Ranger" line by Winchester, which sold in stores like Service Merchandise and others - same gun, less finish quality and stained hardwood stocks (mostly Birch). This gives the impression of "budget rifle for the working class." ...

In that mindset, you see some rifles coming over from Europe stocked in Beech, and I think that probably tainted some opinions that they were budget rifles. I've owned Pre-64 Winchesters Model 70s and I've owned Husqvarna 1600 series rifles. For my money, give me the HVA. To me, the "Swedish steel" cache is every bit as romantic as the "Pre-64" mojo.

In rereading JOC’s comments about other rifles such as the Model 70 and Model 721 you can see that he defiantly had favorites. He liked walnut: European and than Black American. He also said that maple if it was stained correctly could be pretty. He said that Griffin and Howe made excellent stocks as did Alvin Biesen, Bob Owen and Morgan Homes. He did not like the California style that was beening developed by Weatherby as they had too much wood.



Of course his favorite rifle was the Model 70 but he said that the “Pre-war” Model 70’s fit and finish was much better than Post-war ones. He said that the Model 70’s stock carried “too much wood” and caused it to be too heavy once a scope was placed on it which is probably why he restocked his as some as he got a new one.

He did not like the Model 30 as it was too heavy and the bottom metal was ugly , etc.



He said that the Model 721 was not a rifle for a “gun nut” but something made for a working hunter. He did however say that it was lighter than the Model 70 and custom gunsmith could make new bottom metal for it to improve its appearance.



He did like the Brno rifles saying that they were well made and “light, short and handy.”



According to him FN rifles were good with well made and had well designed stocks of European walnut and were very accurate. Since the Model 70 could not be bought as a barreled action he said that the FN actions made up most of the custom rifles at that time.



The Big Game Rifle was published in 1952 before the Remington 700 and the Husqvarna 1640. I wonder what Jack would have thought of them especially the Husqvarna Lightweight with a walnut stock. If anyone has any of his later books that cover them or other rifles let us know.

 

Didn't realize Jack O didn't like the Remington Model 30. I've been looking for a choice example of one of those. I'm fascinated by those odd looking "factory sporters" for some reason.

 

Didn't realize Jack O didn't like the Remington Model 30. I've been looking for a choice example of one of those. I'm fascinated by those odd looking "factory sporters" for some reason.

View attachment 4228707

He didn't like the stock and bottom metal of a M1917 or Model 30. Too heavy etc. He didn't like any stocked and scoped rifle to weight more than 8 or 8 1/2 lbs.
However he did mention that the M1917 did make a good custom conversion action for a big bore cartridge.

 

I have O’Connor’s 1965 book The Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns. He doesn’t have much to say about Husqvarna rifles in this book, but, in a section entitled “Trend Toward Light Rifles,” O’Connor discusses a number of rifles that appeared in the early 60s, writing “Just about everyone had jumped on the light-sporter bandwagon.” He goes on to say

“Imported by Tradewinds, the Swedish Husqvarna weighs even less [than 6¾ pounds], and when judiciously scope-equipped it will weigh around 7½ pounds. It is available in .270, .30/06, .308, and 7x57.”

So this refers to rifles built on the small-ring 1640 action. Since O’Connor liked lightweight rifles, I’m guessing that his opinion of that era of Husqvarna rifles would have been much higher than his earlier views of the FN-action models.

Edit. In his 1970 book The Hunting Rifle, O'Connor mentions Husqvarna rifles, but only in passing, without comment, when listing various European rifles.

I might just add that I'm in full agreement with O'Connor about hunting rifle weight. Over the years, I've tried to keep my hunting rifles to between 8 and 8½ lbs. scoped. With new rifles and scopes these days, this is getting harder to do. It seems that many of the new scopes are running 1½ to 2 lbs., and, along with many new-manufacture rifles, put the weight of the scoped rig close to 10 lbs.

 

Yes, the 1640 action when used on the 1600 series, i.e. 4000 / 4100 "Lightweight" for him as a North American.
The 1640 series is more into 7 1/4 lbs, which isn't bad either and was a big part of their fame in the days.

 

Smith & Wesson put their name on some Husqvarna rifles about 50+ years ago.
Average quality wood at best. Not exactly "best" quality overall but certainly functional hunting rifles.
Maybe somewhat better than what Winchester built for Sears back in the same time frame ?

 

I agree. The S&W 1640s and 1900s had too much of a blond stained walnut for my taste. Otherwise the rifles look great. I also think that the JC Higgins Model 51-L looks good. I don't know if the US made chrome lined barrel shoots any better than the Husqvarna made ones.
I have a JC Higgins Model 51 FN action and it is very accurate however the trigger is terrible and can't easily be swapped out for the standard FN 98 Timney replacement because the stock is different.

 

I have a commercial Mauser put together by Voere, Austria (Model 2155) It was imported to Jovino's in NYC in 1970. It is nothing fancy but it is a a good rifle in 30.06. It has decent Walnut furniture, a tang safety and an adustable trigger. It is a nice rifle; It is hard to beat a Mauser action. I have always been curious, but I have never found out if Voere was using former military actions on these or not.

The rifle might be a "tack driver" for all I know, but I am too much of a broad side of a barn shooter to give it a realistic workout. About 20 years ago I put Nikon Buckmaster scope on it and it has taken care of all of my high-caliber needs. At the time that I put the Buckmaster on it, it was a somewhat respectable scope for a working man. I just looked and Voere still making the same model with a slightly different stock.

There were two European gun companies that use the Voere name, the one in Austria made and still makes good guns, the one in Germany was known for poor quality .22s. Voere was also the company that was going to make caseless ammo the new standard. That didnt' work out... As I said, the rifle I have was imported in '70 and I do not think that Voere stayed in the American market for long. Probably too much direct competition for hunting rifles.

VOERE | Rifle Technology

voere.com

 

I have a commercial Mauser put together by Voere, Austria (Model 2155) It was imported to Jovino's in NYC in 1970. It is nothing fancy but it is a a good rifle in 30.06. It has decent Walnut furniture, a tang safety and an adustable trigger. It is a nice rifle; It is hard to beat a Mauser action. I have always been curious, but I have never found out if Voere was using former military actions on these or not.

The rifle might be a "tack driver" for all I know, but I am too much of a broad side of a barn shooter to give it a realistic workout. About 20 years ago I put Nikon Buckmaster scope on it and it has taken care of all of my high-caliber needs. At the time that I put the Buckmaster on it, it was a somewhat respectable scope for a working man. I just looked and Voere still making the same model with a slightly different stock.

There were two European gun companies that use the Voere name, the one in Austria made and still makes good guns, the one in Germany was known for poor quality .22s. Voere was also the company that was going to make caseless ammo the new standard. That didnt' work out... As I said, the rifle I have was imported in '70 and I do not think that Voere stayed in the American market for long. Probably too much direct competition for hunting rifles.

VOERE | Rifle Technology

voere.com

I too have a Voere mauser. It is the NATO Cougar model that uses a reclaimed Mauser 98. Nice lightweight stock (a bit too 70s styles), tang safety, Austrian-made barrel also with a Buckmaster scope. It really shoots. Voere was/is a small player but they can make rifles.

 

I bought this 1954 Husky 1640 in .30-06 from Allan's Armory several years ago. The stock was likely customized by a craftsman in Sweden; it creates a perfect cheek weld for the Zeiss Conquest scope she's wearing now:

 

When you think about what they did with that stock, that is a beautiful piece of craftsmanship.

 

In a closer pic, you can see how the grain matches up on either side of the "riser". That is pretty cool work, isn't it?

Interestingly, the butt plate seems to be a factory item which has been made to fit the new shape.

 

That is a way cool handmade M/C stock that I bet works great. I don't know how he did that buttplate. It looks factory.

 

It has to a replacement plate that is long enuff to work on an MC buttstock.

 

Yeah, I assume that Husqvarna must've made those in various lengths that were then hand-fitted by the 'smith/stockmaker to fit each modified stock.

 

I’ve shot husquvarna 270 Winchester for bear, moose, elk and deer. Killed em all with no problems. Shot placement as always is essential, but whoever says this rifle is undistinguished is wrong.