Question on Swedish Mausers

[Small Arms Restoration]

does any one know if the Swedes issued a 96 with target sights etc to the troops?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Patrick Chadwick]

Please wait a moment while I suppress rant mode!! - This is a topic that has caused trouble and confusion in Germany, ever since a German who cannot read English laid down a competition ruling which stated that Pramm backsights were OK for competition Swedish Mausers, because they has been issued to the troops for trial purposes. This claim is made in a German book that does not offer any substantiating documentation or even a reference.

NOT.

If the self-appointed expert in question had been expert enough to be able to read that definitive work on Swedish Mausers - "Crown Jewels" by Dana Jones, specifically page 212 -, he could have read that "An Army Technical Order dated January22 1951..." permitted the fitting of diopters approved by the Swedish Volunteer Shooters' Association (FSR) to the rifles that were on loan to the volunteer bodies "...provided the work was done by a military armourer or an FSR-certified gunsmith".

The loaned rifles remained crown property, and "The rifle had to be returned to its original condition (except for the drilled and tapped holed where the sight base had been attached) before it was it was ultimately returned to the crown."

I.e such diopter backsights were only permitted as temporary alterations for the volunteers. That is NOT the same as issuing such items to the troops.

Dana Jones even goes to the trouble of providing a facsimile of the orignal document, in case any of you out there can read Swedish and would care to check. As far as I can gather, he presented the matter orrectly.

The aforementioned German who thought otherwise also insists that Enfield No. 5s are only usable in competition if the flash hider is removed!!!
- Because the flash hider is a recoil brake!!!

I bet Peter Laidler and all those who ever used a No. 5 never knew that!

From this piece of competition ruling you may judge the man's competence with regard to service rifles.

And the answer to your question is "According to Dana Jones: no".