Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Pre64 M70 vs. HVA 640/1640

Objectively, what are the major differences, if any, in materials or production quality? (Interested in the comparison to pre64 because it seems more apples to apples with CRF.)

I've owned both. Multiple examples of both and I still can't think of how to answer this

This is just speculation, based on an example of one. But a while back I cut a new crown and oversized the scope base holes for a guy on the receiver of a 640. Judging from the swarf, the difficulty of the drilling and tapping operation...I got the definite impression that the 640 is made with something notably tougher than the 4140 of the Winchesters, and I have worked on a lot of them over the years. I am used to using sulfur and lard oil on my HSS tools, nope, went to cobalt and Rapid Tap after the first bite. The swarf from the cut-off and crown was like a coil spring steel, a continuous chip. Unscientific, but gut feeling is the 640 uses steel tougher than I am used to.

The biggest difference is the ejector, which is pretty important. Its a separate piece on the Pre-64 that performs its duty specifically. On the Husky its held in place by this kinda goofy flat spring affair, not as positive IMO. If I remember correctly, it also serves as the bolt stop on the Husky.

The trigger is easier to tune on a Pre-64 as well. The Husky military style trigger is robust, but much harder to tune to a good weight w/o creep. Most, if not all aftermarket triggers for the Husky require stock modifications.

I also prefer the safety on the bolt shroud of the Pre-64, but the Husky can be fitted for a side swing safety.

The Husky is much trimmer and a good bit lighter. I like the earlier 50's models with steel bottom metal.

I have both and while I really like the 1640s, I prefer the trigger/safety and bolt stop/release on M70s. This is probably design differences more than materials but I think Husqvarna could have done better on that bolt release tab.

I'm no metallurgist, but I agree completely with this based on owning several, one which required chamber work.

That's what JES says too. Husky barrels are significantly harder steel than Winchester

Mike - I guess what I'm grappling with has a lot to do with the demand for pre-64s. I realize a lot of that has to do with nostalgia and Made in America, etc. But they're also frequently touted as being some of the best mass-produced bolt action rifles ever made (not fair to compare an assembly line gun with a bespoke safari rifle.) The Husqvarnas overlap the M70s quite a bit, both used a CRF action, and both strike me as having been "nice, solid" rifles for everyday hunters, but not seen as gaudy or fancy in their day. So I'm wondering if the HVA can go toe to toe with the M70s on everything aside from mystique. (Does that make any sense?)

I believe so. The only flaw I remember on Husqvarna rifles were their tendency for the tang wood to split

Does the better steel carry forward to the 1640s?

Yes, a little relief on the stock where the tang sits helps. As does glass in the lug area. Some came with beech stocks as opposed to walnut.

I just picked up a 1640 in 3006. I was debating on whether I should bed the recoil lug and maybe the tang but its uncracked and survived this long maybe I should see how it shoots first? The stock is in pretty nice shape and has the later alloy bottom metal.

I wouldn't fuc k around, bed it now and shoot it for a lifetime. I still have at least three 1640/640 take off stocks on my bench and all are cracked at the tang/wrist due to setback at the recoil lug. Course, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’, Well do ya?

All of these exhibit setback at the recoil lug mortise. All resulted in similar cracks at the tang/wrist.

Personally, I prefer the 640 and 1640 over the Model 70 but the Husqvarna's weakness is the inletting and the Model 70's weakness is the gas handling. My favorite Model 70 is a 6.5x55 Classic.

Me, I enjoy both, but judge each axample on it's condition. I have a few dozen Husqvarnas and 3 model 70's.

Yes

The M70 looks better

That or their heat treating process was different or inconsistent. Neither great, as that actually causes embrittlement. This was common in some early manufactured 1903 springfields and some eddystone manufactured m1917's. I always thought I'd like the 640, until I handled them and really looked them over. They seem to be great rifles that are comparable to the pre 64, but less refined like most mauser 98 derivatives. Basically an FN 98, which is a great platform for a build. The 640's I've handled were smooth, but a little clunky compared to the pre 64 model 70. Generally the 640 can be found for a great deal, if you can find one. They seem to be getting harder and harder to find. I wish I would have purchased the ones I have seen in the used rifle racks over the years. The most recent one I handled was only $400.00. A bargain, as compared to most pre 64 model 70's I've seen...

It’s always puzzled me how they could make such excellent rifles, but not figure out how to prevent that. I have a Heym in .308 that split badly, but that stock is the lightest walnut Mauser stock I’ve ever seen, and is very trim to boot. I put two crossbolts through that one and am hoping for the best.

Yes it does