Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 136 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
For some time I have wanted to collect info on the CG80. Recently the model has been up for discussion here and many questions has not been sufficiently answered. Hasnt found so much written about the CG80 in the usual sources that we have acess to. Therefore I have gone through MANY numbers of the FSR-magazine during the period 1966-1986. The story of CG80 begins shortly after the introduction of CG63. I have also realized that a lot of questions we have had around different "types" of CG63 can also be explained after studying the evolution and progress of CG80. Several top-shooters during the 80s and a few approved gunsmiths during this period has been interviewed by me. Even one elderly gentleman that was the one putting together a lot of this two models at GF has been kind enough to answer my calls. I am still in the progress contacting persons in Sweden with knowledges in this matter.
Therefore I will soon start to give you all the info and thoughts I have collected so far and my hope is that you all will enjoy it. Be patient though because its all takes time and I will post part by part when I have possibility. Back within a couple of days.
Regards,
ARILAR:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Arilar,
Awesome! Looking forward to reading your information.
I have a Lefty CG80 and any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for doing the research.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
We must go back and start all over......

Well, to understand FSR and what happened in creating CG80 we actually has to back 150 years from now and see how and why it all started.
The first national spread formation to include targetshooting (if we dont count the huntingassociation, Svenska Jägaresällskapet from 1832) were the Volunteer Sharpshooting Movement that occured 1860. Its goal were to create a volunteer base of men when the Swedish army were small and weak to be able to protect the Nation from enemies , actually both outer and inner. The number of members in clubs all over Sweden increased fast. But within 10 years it had peaked and started to fall. Reason for that is that members were required to pay for the compulsory uniform, trained every weekend with military drill and not so much target-shooting. This liberal movement also achieved its goal political when pushing for altering the parliament act (with success) 1866 to diminish the power of the nobility. On more problem was that this organisation was lacking a board that were holding them together, no leadership.

In the 1880s not much were left and instead more ordinary shootingclubs started to grow. Its members were not interested in wearing military-like uniforms and excersis in military drill.

Thats when the FSR started in 1889, in its stabil form with Govermental support from 1893. 1893 counts as FSRs birth with its "Centralstyrelsen", central board holding the regional unions that under them hold the clubs in the region. All this with economical, govermental support. But, FSR or what it was called "Frivilliga Skytteväsendet" was also linked to the military and wanted to achieve a broad recruitment to educate men with arms for the sake of the nation. Not for creating top-shooting individuals. I will try to translate its goal at it is written up to 2008 ( I take it from the 1974 edition from FSR):
"The volunteer shooters movements goal is to encourage shootingskills among the Swedish people, to develop and increase their will to defend the country and to awake and maintain a living interest for the Nations defence".

Now, back to the rifles....this will be a continuation on the former thread on the CG63 and I must go from that point further http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?49464-Info-on-early-period-of-CG-63.-(As-I-understand-it).

So the CG63 came alive in 1964 and looked like this. Remember no diopter GF until 1966 therefore here with an Elit-diopter.



Everybody was happy but how much better than a m/96 were the CG63? If comparing an average m/96 against an average CG63 the CG63 of course was superior. Soon many realized though that a topclass overhauled m/96 without difficult came in level with an average, standard CG63. In prone position was the CG63 declared a better rifle but many didnt see this happen in kneeling or standing. Already 1966 came first report from a shooter that a plastic-bedding had to be done to "sharpen" the results for the new CG63. No purpose-made CG63 out of GF was nevertheless delivered with bedding.

Here the ad for the CG63 from GF 1967. See here the m/94 bolt (GF got 10000 m/94 receivers with bolts to use during 1964-65 production) and now had GFs own diopter seen light.



A happy Crown Prince (now King) got his (free of charge) CG63 the year 1967.



It seemed that besides this little comment about bedding in one FSR magazine 1966 everything was on the bright side. This was to be altered about two years later and I will explain why within the next coming days.....;). I have to write about UIT and targets......
Regards,
ARILAR:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,551 Posts
" A happy Crown Prince (now King) got his (free of charge) CG63 the year 1967. "

Wow, I sure wish I had that one in my collection. I wonder if he still has it?

Thanks again for this wonderful information Arilar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
When FSR after long and hard discussions decided to participate and send a Swedish shooting-team to Olympic Games 1908 in London everyone were a bit nervous. Distances out to 1000 yards and swedish shooters using m/96 even when free-rifles was allowed. Several shooting-leaders in Sweden thought it was even dangerous to participate because a failure could show the world that Sweden had a weak defence...Well, swedish shooters did pretty well. When FSR organized the shooting-events at the Olympics in Stockholm 1912 the results were splendid and only m/96 used by swedes. The Swedish team in World-champ in Camp Perry 1913 did also pretty well with a few medals as result. WW I came in between and after the "Great War" was the international shooting from Sweden organized by the 1911 founded SAIS (Swedish branch of international shooting) that joined UIT. In the 40s SAIS transformed to SSF (Swedish sportshooting association).

Swedish UIT shooters were in most cases recruited from FSR. Many did still participate in FSR-shootings but most as a "recreation". The UIT-shooters that aimed for high results didnt have time for national shooting. Also is national shooting (FSR) more a speed-shooting in contrast to UIT "take your time". When UIT decided for its international 300-meters target didnt FSR follow. Instead FSR hold on to its BIG, generous target (for decades) where a bulls-eye gave the top point, a five. Let us look at the US-shooter Daniel Puckel and his internationel target at an event that took place in Stockholm 1960. Beneath a swedish FSR-shooter and his target (with a high result) tha same year.




To go from the speed-shooting national FSR shootings with its "nearly impossible to achieve less than 4 points every shot" (had to hit the white then huh) and instead try the mental and physical hard UIT-shooting on that "nearly impossible to hit that bulls-eye"-target. For many , even high qualified, Swedish FSR-shooters this was never, ever on their minds. But, a small part of the FSR-shooters, some that also were UIT-shooters, wanted more. So after many years struggle did FSR in 1966 change to a "new" NATIONAL 10-point target. Not as difficult as the international target though. It looked like this.



Now the CG63 started to be the main rifles on range-shootings so, surprisingly for many, did FSR at last change to the UIT international 300-meterstarget from 1970. Even in the 80s discussions prolonged to go back to a national more "friendly" target to not frighten away shooters but the UIT-target could stand against.

All this important to understand when going forward looking at CG63 success (or not) and the different fractions among FSR-shooters and why the thought and acted as they did.

Next time I will discuss SMI (the Swedish branch of CISM, International Military Sports Council) and its position, UITs Standardrifle-program from 1972 and heavy critics against the CG63.

Have patience, I will reach the CG80 further on.
Regards,
ARILAR:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
GF were of course hoping to have a market for CG63(m/6, m/7) outside FSR like UIT and CISM-shooters both in Sweden and abroad. The World Champs 1966 in Wiesbaden at the armyrifle-event was the place to promote the CG63. 57 shooters and 17 nations. In the end 27 shooters (4 swedes) had used m/6!!

M/6s best result was sixth place by the skilled swede (and gunsmith) Ingvar Jansson. Then followed the mastershooter Kurt Johansson on eight and a norwegian shooter, Istad, on tenth place. Rest of the m/6 shooters were spread from 13 to 56 place in the resultlist. Why? Well, the three japanese shooters had only had two opportunities to test-shoot this rifle and they had before the event never tried kneeling and standing position. According to spotters did the japanese shooters have miserable technique and placed themselves on 35, 47 and 53 place. A belgian shooter had his belgique mauser destroyed and lent a m/6, placed 55. The polish shooter had manipulated with the m/6 he had an loan and placed 37 and the same problem with jugoslav Loncar placed 27 (in this case a russian weapon-technichian was blamed). Warner from Canada was not an army-rifleshooter and participated with a m/6 to be able to report home after the Champs about armyrifle-shootings, placed 44.

In the team-event was Sweden placed number five in the result-list. Winner and second became two russian-shooters using newly rebuilt Mosins with new sights. Third place US-shooter Anderson using a modernized Remington 30-06 with a Redfield free-riflediopter. Cant call this a success for the CG63 (m/6) and SMI in Sweden instead around 1972-73 bought 100 Winchester 70 International Army match rifle 7,62 for the CISM-shootings. They were modified by my spokesman to carry 10 instead of 6 cartridges in the magazine and Anschutz-diopters were mounted (this work took one week full-time).

UIT introduced standard-rifle events 1972 and CG63 was never a candidate. Will later tell what model instead drow interest 1974 but didnt got FSR-approval.
Next time I will reproduce the FSR-shooters complaints.

Underneath my 1965 GF-built CG63 out of a m/94 receiver and bolt.




Regards,
ARILAR:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
Wasnt CG63 good enough?

Within a year started complaints against the rifle. At this point reports that the quality was uneven and more a lottery if the rifle was "perfect" or didnt give wanted results. Reason for that thought to be because of sloppy work when put together rather than a fault in the construction.

After three years of production more detailed complaints. More and more shooters were concerned that the m/96 (m/94) receivers were to weak to hold for a heavier and specially for a free floating barrel. That not enough care was taken when connecting barrel and receiver was a concern. Trigger pressure that measured over the promised 2 kg and barrels that wasnt mounted straight was reported.

GF answered the critic. CG63 was a rifle designed for FSR to give a more even quality compared to m/96 but to a reasonable cost. That ment that the old m/96 had to be used for conversion and a new type of receiver would had made it to expensive. The rifle had to be approved by Swedish military authorities and was designed to suite for demands according to FSR shooting-program (see my post above about the generous FSR-target in early 60s).

The limit on 4,5 kg for army-rifles according to UIT had to be taken in concern but GF only promised a total weight not over 4,7 kg. The weight on the rifles varied a lot because of different hardness in the stock. To less heartwood made the stock vulnerable for moisture. GF admitted that in the start, with demands on rifles from FSR, they had not enough stocks in stock to reject as many as they should have done.

All stocks came from the same supplier, "Hålaveds Trä AB" in Sommen close by to Tranås. They also mad a lot if not all table-tennisrackets for Stiga.
So, what solutions were to be found?

What came into practice rather fast was to make a plasticbedding. Trial and error. In the start was plastic-padding used but more and more varities showed up. The part-time and sometimes fulltimes gunsmiths (and shooters as well) learned themselfes and teached each other. Names as Alvar Holmgren and Ingvar Jansson are mentioned often. Even GFs fitter, Wigholm, bedded but only in the case of a CG63 that came in to be rebarreled and never on newproduced CG63 (or converted m/96). It also seems that the skills on plastic-bedding increased fast among a few gunsmiths but stand still at GF.

Next issue was the barrel. But I wait with that until next time when I will tell some about "approved" gunsmiths.
Regards,
ARILAR:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
The GF-diopter was shown for public first time at a shooting in March 1966. In bigger quantities fírst to be ready for delivering November same year. It was first thought that the shooters themselves could change from an earlier diopter to the GF. That was of course not the case. Therefore needed GF retailers that could both sell and mount the GF-diopter locally. In October 1966 had GF plans to find retailers spread over Sweden. It turned out not to be so many but they got some tools from GF and after a while they also started to convert m/96s to CG63 as well, with stocks and barrels delivered from GF. The stocks for CG63 were, according to one of this first gunsmiths, made from Polish walnut and delivered from Hålaveds Trä in Sommen. Even second class stocks could be bought but they very much needed plastic-bedding to be able to be used.

This gunsmiths had no approval from FSR, only from GF. FSRs program with approval of gunsmiths started when CG80 was born and that first course was held at GF in Eskilstuna 30th of November to 4th of december 1981. But I will get back to that later.

I have spoken to one of the gunsmiths from 1967 that later kept on with the CG80. When the course 1981 was held the names of the earlier retailers (that could sell barrels, stocks and other parts from GF) were announced and besides Norma AB following gunsmiths were at hand:

Lars Andersson
Eric Hellqvist
Alvar Holmgren
Ingvar Jansson
K-G Nilsson
Per-Olof Cronholm

Three names were mentioned in papers I have red from 1966 but only one of those above, Ingvar Jansson. I dont know if the fellows above all were active from the start 1966-67 but surely active during the CG63-period.

Ingvar Jansson for example was a very skilled shooter and started helping friends with adjusting triggers and plastic-beddings but started up as full-time gunsmith first 1970. Still known by GF as a option for them already 1966.

According to my sources wasnt it compulsory for the gunsmiths to mark their work on the CG63s . Compulsory marking started with the FSRs program 1981 with approved gunsmiths. If they marked they usually marked on the barrel close to the receiver. All this were to be changed during the CG80 period.

Back to barrels. The quality of CG63 barrels could vary in times. Already 1969-70 searched a few gunsmiths after alternatives. They found out that they could go directly to Ulf Larsen at S&L to buy barrels for CG63 with higher quality but same profile as GFs. We talk here about same style, not heavy bullbarrels (that came later), and handguard on place as usual. GF didnt like that but could not stop it (they tried).

Getting back in a couple of days. Hoping this all is of some interest. Just giving you what I have found. Remember that some is from written document and magazines and some from people that were involved. Age though can confuse the memory. What I write here is what make sence and that, in most cases, more than one reports.
Regards,
ARILAR:)
 

·
Moderator/Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet member
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Arilar : Keep the info coming . Interesting to me and many others . You are the best source for info presently in Sweden , with occassional help from a few other Swedes .

From what I read above , only Carl Gustaf marked their CG63's ( Crown/C over date ) . No other gunsmiths marked CG63's . So , unmarked CG63's can be legit from Sweden .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
950 Posts
Arilar:

Did the Shultz and Larson CG-63 barrels have any different marking that denote them as being S & L barrels? I thought that I read (somewhere or another) that some the the S&L barrels were a 1 in 9 inch twist rate (1 in 228.6mm) and not the GF standard of 1 in 220mm. I ask because my CG-63 seems to have a 1 in 9 inch twist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Arilar : Keep the info coming . Interesting to me and many others . You are the best source for info presently in Sweden , with occassional help from a few other Swedes .

From what I read above , only Carl Gustaf marked their CG63's ( Crown/C over date ) . No other gunsmiths marked CG63's . So , unmarked CG63's can be legit from Sweden .
GF made marking and also with the rune. Norma AB also marked with NP and date. Gunsmiths may or may not have marked. Often on the barrel and sometimes (seldom) on receiver. "Skilled" shooters and gunsmiths not sanctioned from GF I guess didnt mark theirs. This was of course a problem for GF. And in the end a problem for us collectors today.....
To mark became a demand in the CG80-period but if marked on the barrel a shift of barrel made it even more confusing. Will get back on that when I reach the CG80.
Regards,
ARILAR:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Arilar:

Did the Shultz and Larson CG-63 barrels have any different marking that denote them as being S & L barrels? I thought that I read (somewhere or another) that some the the S&L barrels were a 1 in 9 inch twist rate (1 in 228.6mm) and not the GF standard of 1 in 220mm. I ask because my CG-63 seems to have a 1 in 9 inch twist.
Sorry, dont have info on this matters. I have been told that S&L differed some in style of rifling but I am not sure about it and about the twist. A small number of "advanced" shooters all the time tried to "bend" the rules and find equipment that gained the results. Sometimes they crossed the line but hard to detect.
Regards,
ARILAR:)
 

·
Moderator/Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet member
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Float Pilot : I have seen several S&L CG63 barrels . A bit bigger at the rear , 29.2m/m ( 1.150" ) , than Carl Gustaf barrels of 28.1m/m ( 1.107" ) . The handguard still fits over them . Some posted here and marked " Shultz and Larsen , Otterup " as best I recall . I do not remember any other marking of twist , etc. These are my measurements , as I do not have blue prints of the barrels .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
The rise and fall of the cg80

We all should measure S&L cg63 cg80 barrels and rate of twist to get a better understanding of the different variants that were produced from differnt sources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
We all should measure S&L cg63 cg80 barrels and rate of twist to get a better understanding of the different variants that were produced from differnt sources.
Good idea! Will tell more about different barrels furter on when I have reached 1981 and the CG80. Then we will see several different style and makers that of course made a change also for CG63. But until 1981 only GF barrels (m/63, m/96) and the slim S&L on the CG63.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Most shooters satisfied with the CG63!

Although several complaints on the CG63 most shooters satisfied.
But the Army made a point 1971 that m/6 (CG63) had barrels that got worn to fast and the rifle didnt stand up good enough for SMI-events compared to other countries rifles (they got instead the Winchester mentioned above). GF listended and started to developed a substitute from the year 1972. In 1974 they presented the CG74 to maybe be a new UIT and SMI standard-rifle and CG63T as a better CG63 for FSR.

The CG74 looked rather similar to the later CG80 but a somewhat different stock. Barrel 67 cm and no handguard. CG63T with heavy bullbarrel, 670 cm long, and no handguard.
Test were performed that also included standard CG63 with barrel 74 cm and handguard as usual. Also CG74 with 7,62mm caliber.
Results showed best results with ordinary CG63!!
Somewhat less with CG74 in caliber 7,62 and thereafter CG74 6,5mm.
Even receiver Husqvarna 1900 were tested but not so much related about that.
The project died.
The Swedish UIT-team did for several years use a standar-rifle much like the prototype CG74 with a 1900-receiver. Not sure but suspect caliber 7,62 got used. This was a model that FSR couldnt accept (6,5 mm caliber) because of to expensive and not able to easy convert from m/96 and CG63. I have been told that if the CG74 with Husqvarna receiver should have been the new FSR-rifle it had saved the 1900-system in Sweden.
Regards,
ARILAR:)
 

·
Moderator / Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
1,295 Posts
Just to clarify, the "receiver Husqvarna 1900" that Airlar talks about above is the commercial push-feed type action made by Husqvarna, not a military receiver dated 1900.

Arilar, I believe I may have seen one of these Husqvarna 1900 target rifles chambered in .308.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Just to clarify, the "receiver Husqvarna 1900" that Airlar talks about above is the commercial push-feed type action made by Husqvarna, not a military receiver dated 1900.

Arilar, I believe I may have seen one of these Husqvarna 1900 target rifles chambered in .308.
Thanks for clarifying that! Obvious for me and those hanging around on the "Civilian Forum" but can be confusing for others;). Could you please try to describe that target-rifle. Hasnt seen it myself...
Regards,
ARILAR:)
 
1 - 20 of 136 Posts
Top