Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Mausers and Military Rifles Info on H&R 340 please

Ran across a beautiful commercial mauser yesterday. Price seemed right. I researched it and looked like they were going for somewhere around $850 on line. The stock is very nice and has good lines. Reminds me of my Pacific Research, but it is wood. It's nice and light. Reminds me of my fwt pre 64 model 70's. Made an offer on the rifle and American made gloss Burris 3-9x40 scope and they accepted it. Will pick it up in a couple day. I also read they only made these from 1981-1983 and are built on FN actions. How many of you guys have one? I'll be doing some testing with it to see how "inherently" accurate this 30-06 is and probably post pics here. Rifle looks like new, as does the bore, so I'm hoping it shoots sub moa. Will check the bedding, trigger and freefloat first thing and probably mount a different scope on it, in some new mounts and rings. It has a windage adjustable rear mount, that I don't particularly car for..

I have one in 243. Its not an FN but a Zastava. Beautiful stock that looks like it came from a custom maker. Maybe some were FN, but all I've seen were Zastava.

Thanks for the info. I appreciate it. Is your .243 a good shooter? I read online that they used commercial FN actions. Also read where they take Interarms MKX and Zastava scope mounts. Did a little research lastnight. I just got a call a little while ago to come and pick up my rifle. I'll be interested to see if they used steel pillars or glass bedded the action. I agree about the stock. Same lines as my Pacific Research and those were designed by Al Biesen. I'll post some pics later..

AFAIK, they were made with FN actions but maybe toward the end of the run they switched to Zastava actions. Frankly I don't know. The Zastavas are a very close copy of the FNs and the few I've owned have been good rifles with one exception. The rifle was a mark X Alaskan in .375 H&H. very accurate and the stock fit was such that recoil wasn't a problem. The problem was when they opened up the action to lengthen the magazine to accept that longer H&H cartridge they get very close to the slot where the locking lug fits when the bolt is closed. This left a sharp jagged edge similar to the teeth of a Great White Shark. Every time I chambered a round it left deep longitudinal grooves the full length of the case, ruining it for all practical purposes.
I strongly suggest if one is considering one of those rifles, or one chamber for an H&H length cartridge, stick you finger into the chamber and feel thee dge where the locking lug seats. I've always wanted to replace that .375 with another but every one I've check has had "shark's teeth".
PJ

E. C. Bishop made the stocks for the H&R 340. Nice rifles. Finn Aagaard used one in a .270.

heres mine. Only used cheap factory ammo so far. Shot fine

Sharp looking rifles..


BSA! Branching out from the Tikkas and 70's!

I owned one in 243 or 270 I dont remember now. But Im almost positive that it was an FN Mauser action

They made one called Ultra something or other that used FN and Sako actions. Mine pictured is definitely a Zastava

TY Blair, I believe my rifle was a 340 Ultra......

Hey Hey BSA! Another rifle, another day. Congrats on that H&R 340 as a 'Winner!' Bit of background!

These H&R Model 340 rifles, last of the "300 Series" were all nice rifles and positional departure from mainstream H&R "working man's" guns. Such from about mid-sixties including the Sako sub era as well as FN & Zastva Mauser action editions. The FN principally spanned '68 to '81 and the Zastava from '81 to '84. The necessary aside to say that such wider date range/info is a bit clouded. As to the 340, the data appears consistent.

The Model 330 was the FN Mauser edition immediately preceding. The upside of that model was the FN action which is yet considered a 'half-click' above the Zastava if much of such 'action branding aura', with minor 'fit & finish of fifties era FNs as highpoint. The 330 downside in perspective, surely 'stock styling' as ghost of Weatherby effect. Flared pistol grip, rollover cheekpiece and angular contrasting wood forend. The irony of 'all quality', but 'dated'! The Zastava action Model 340 clearly won the stock design, claiming 'overall balanced victory', "Wow" effect, "classic-light" sculptured stock lines while achieving 'linear recoil effect'. Sealed with a kiss' as delivered from Bishop Stockmakers fully finished. (Few pix of my 340 in 7mm below.) The 340 chamberings were also down from the 330, to .243 & .270 Win, 30-06 and the 7mm Mauser.

And PJ... Model 330 was available in "short mag" configurations. 7mm Rem Mag & 'I believe' maybe .300 Win Mag. FN yet supplied long H&H Mag length action. "Browning" brand offering them. The point here, I don't think the Model 330 ever came in those Long Mag chamberings. The Zastava 340 actions are prominently marked H&R" on left receiver ring as well as on barrel. Chambering is mid-barrel, RIGHT side. My conclusion, that Zastava action of which you complain, not H&R factory work. Check action & barrel branding & chambering for indications of non-originality.

The late Bill Goforth as 'the H&R man with the book to prove it'. A small moment of tribute!

Just my take!
Best!
John

A lot of great info guys. I appreciate it. beretzs is funny about me venturing away from Tikka's and model 70's. Nah, I have an appreciation for good rifles. I've always liked mauser rifles and grew up using a sporterized m1917. As for this 340, it is definitely a cool rifle with some unique features. One being the bedding system. Or I will call it a "system" for now because the recoil lug locks into the bottom metal with a circular lug. I don't think I will need to glass bed this one, as it is a very solid mechanical locking system. The barrel shouldn't need to be freefloated either, as I believe the barrel is nice and snug in the channel. All this working together mechanically to aid in precision/accuracy. I like to look at things mechanically and this rifle is pretty slick in design. Some engineering went into it for sure. The rifle has a trigger that is easy to adjust and is very similar to a Timney. I adjusted it down to 2 3/8 pounds quite easily. Very smooth and crisp let off with no creep. Here are some pics. I don't think the rifle has been fired, since it left the factory. Actually let me start with how it looked when I got it. Scope included:



Now, some pics of when I had it out of the stock and started working on it:

After wiping the stock down with old english^^^


Lets face it. The 40 year old recoil pad was hard as a rock, so you guys know what I did:


This rifle cleaned up beautifully. It's nice and lightweight, I really like the stock design. It is slim and comfortable. That red Pachmayr is going to make it much nicer shooting off the bench. Now, for scope mounts and rings. I'm working on that one, but this is probably what I'm going to put on it. Right now, I'm thinking weaver mounts and Burris Zee rings and this Leupold I picked up yesterday:


Don't pay any attention to that price tag. I actually got it for $150.00^^^ Along with this one:




Yesterday was a pretty good day for finding deals.. Thanks for all the information you provided. Now what bases and rings work??? Maybe some for an Interarms Mark X or Zastava model 70?? I believe this to be a Zastava action, not an FN as I previously stated.. I think I got lucky with this one. Package deal was $585.00. I may sell the old gloss Burris 3-9x40 that was on the rifle. I've seen the old gloss ones sell for $200+ on ebay..

Twin of mine. Yep, its a Zastava. Mark X and FN bases are the same and both work.

"My conclusion, that Zastava action of which you complain, not H&R factory work. Check action & barrel branding & chambering for indications of non-originality."I said that rifle was a Zastava, the "Alaskan". I never said it was by H&R.

When they removed metal from the front of the action to use a longer magazine, they went a bit too far creating those "shark teeth" I mentioned. Every Zastava I've seen and checked in .375 H&H seems to have had that problem. It would have been better to have left 1.16" more metal at the front of the action and removed the difference at the rear of the action.

A probably fix would have been remover the barrel, clean up the teeth at the top of the feed ramp but they way it was done to begin with left very little metal to control the back thrust on the bolt. The top lug would most likely have to carry more of the load.
Paul B.

A friend had a H&R .243, that he said had a Sako action. Don't remember the model.

How good are the barrels? I'm wondering if I should freefloat it? I did end up glass bedding the recoil lug area. I was reading some threads here, where some guys were having issues with weaver style bases. I ended up using the windage adjustable Leupolds, since that is what was on there. The weaver's were out of alignment vertically. Tried what they call for (55 and 20A), no go. Then I tried 45 and 46. Still had an alignment issue. As beautiful as the rifle is, it did need some fine tuning. There was a hang up in the mag box, but I beveled the edge of it and now it works great. Also polished the sides of the follower and that helped. Cartridges load into the mag box slick as a whistle now. The rear action screw was a little too long, so I ground that down and re-blued it. From what I've seen of the Zastava 70's, this one is much nicer, but was not perfect. Shoots 3 shot groups into about 1 1/2" and 5 shot groups into 2". Thus the reason I ask about freefloating the barrel. I may try that and see if accuracy improves.. I'm also using one of my "proven" scopes, instead of the new to me Leupold. Better to go into it knowing the scope is not an issue..

Nice, find Bud....................I had one once upon a time in 30-06.

Wish I still had it.............looked just like your.

Good Shooting !!

MM

Thanks MM. You always have nice rifles. This one is a sweetheart. I just freefloated the barrel. I'm hoping it shoots a little better next time out. The bore on this one is pretty sweet, so with some good loads, I would expect it to shoot sub 3/4 moa (for 3 shots) at 100 yards. Was yours a good shooter? I'm pretty happy with how it felt off the bench. The red pachmayr made a huge difference, I'm sure. Feels great shooting offhand as well.

Very handsome. IME, Zastavas vary widely as to finish and that’s pretty much on the outfit putting them together as a final product. Those H&Rs are nicely done. I can remember lusting after them after the demise of the FNs. Now it seems they command about the same price as the Belgian guns.

Great snag.

I own an ultra, FN action, 30-06, top of the bolt handle is flat, and has one of the most gorgeous stocks I've ever seen.
What would be the current price range of this rifle ?

Thanks Pappy. When I saw it in the gun rack, it got my attention. I had never seen one, so I did a quick internet search on what they were selling for. The shop had it marked $630.00 with the old Burris 3-9x40. It is the same shop where I found a scoped Winchester 5 digit classic model 70 for $500.00. Kind of a honey hole I like to hit up when I'm in that area. The only issue I see with this rifle is how the weaver style scope mounts are mismatched. Maybe a receiver issue? However, I kept seeing on the package that weaver bases may need to be modified or fit to an action. I have never seen this before to this degree. I usually bed the weavers on my sporterized m1917 rifles, but these mounts are beyond just bedding. With every combo I tried, there was about a .060" discrepancy. I can hand fit them and bed them. I'll eventually do that, as I prefer the weaver style mounts over the windage adjustable Leupolds.

Check the numbers and compare to the list. They may not be the same as FN ones, as I found out about 40 years ago.

I tried 2 different sets. Typical "mauser" mounts that are 45 and 46, and then the Interarms mark X that most suggest using. Those are 55 and 20A. I remember reading some threads here and guys were having a hard time finding the right mounts and that is what was also suggested. I also tried a combination of the 2. 45 and 55, I believe and that was very close to being in alignment, but the scope was pointing upwards. No bueno there. Just got through shooting a few groups with the rifle. It definitely shows promise after free floating the barrel. That was a good move.



Now for the nitty gritty:


The first shot was very low. I had to shoot one of the 10" steel plates at the 100 yard range to see where POI was shifted to after free floating the barrel. Center hold on the steel plate and it still hit below the plate. Around a 6" shift, so there was quite a bit of pressure on the barrel. In this picture, you can see the steel plate I shot at, as well as the paper targets on the backer board. Not a great image though the scope because the camera on my phone was trying to focus in on the back of the receiver. Those targets were literally "flapping around in the wind".


And the real proof of the pudding. On target as per always:




In my mind, it was too windy to be shooting for ultimate precision, but it was a great check to see if accuracy/precision improved after freefloating the barrel. Rifle shows a lot of promise. Now to start developing a load for it, since these were loads I developed in my pre 64 model 70 fwt. It is a great load though, as it has worked in about 7 different 30-06 rifles. I'm pretty happy with my new cheap rifle.. After I develop a load for it, I'll stretch it out to at least 400 yards..

How many of you guys actually shoot your Mausers? Stretch their legs a bit?? Every time I take one out, I always worry if it's going to hit the target at 400 yards. A couple years ago I met a guy that was checking his really nice sporter m98. It was dialed right in at 100 yards, but when he shot it at 400 yards to check POI, it was off by about about 12-16". It was not even that windy that day either. It shot so bad that he had to shoot at the life size hog we had set on the hillside. No one ever shot at that target, well I didn't shoot at that target. It was too fn big!!!


The pig was too big...^^^ Now, this guy asked me if I'd spot for him and see how far off he was. He said he was going to aim at the center of the hog. First shot more than a foot low and 16" to the right. He makes some adjustment in the scope and fires again. He hits the pig in the azz and I say you are still a foot to the right, but on steel. He said cool, made an adjustment and was closer on the next shot. It was a beautiful rifle, I wish I remember who built it. I then said, now how far off is it going to be at 100 yards??? He said, "I don't know lets try it".. I asked if I could look at his rifle and he said sure. I admired it, but at the same time I noticed the scope was not centered up on the bores axis. it was noticeably off and pointing to one side. I thought that could be why it's not shooting well at 400 yards.
After checking it out, he shot it at 100 yards. It was off to the left by about 5 or 6"... I thought, hmm. What would I do with this thing, if it were mine? I'd probably use windage adjustable rings and try my best to get it centered over the bore axis and in perfect alignment. Thank god I didn't have that kind of issue with this new H&R 340 today!!! Messing with a MOA or more load today, I didn't expect the greatest precision. The rifle is solid now though. I don't think I'd give it up too soon. I do need to load up some more loads with the 180gr Winchester powerpoint bullet. The rifle really seemed to like that old proven load. I have 5 other 30-06 rifles that love that load. Anyway, with a pointy plastic tipped bullet, this is how it did today:

100 yard accuracy fairly abysmal. I'm either going to try a new bullet, or different powder next time out. Maybe even a 178 ELDX. I didn't expect much at 400 yards, and I was right. Not great, but at least I was on paper:


I had to hold the upper left hand corner of the paper to drop it in closer to the orange dot. I knew my hold, based on the 10" steel plate I shot at:


That is slightly over moa (about a 4.5" group). The yote was an easy target as per usual, but I did not do any head shots today. I'll need to work up a much better load for that. Just held on center of the body, with the 4th hash mark down:



Here's the freefloating I did the other day:



That helped immensely.. This is a reminder to take your mausers out shooting. I'll shoot this one a little bit more, working on some loads to see what it likes. I won't be doing anymore work to the rifle, even though I'd like to fit some weaver scope mounts to it. I may just leave those crappy Leupold std's on it.. We will see.. In the thread, "when is it good enough".. 1/2 moa or 1 moa?? This load is 1 moa, I'll find one that is 1/2 or close. Then it will be good enough. Good enough for an old mauser hunting rifle, anyway..

I fit the steel bases I got in yesterday.



I also glass bedded the bases, so the scope tube is not stressed in any way. Hand fitting the bases was a pretty simple operation. Took about an hour, but would have been so much quicker if I had a mill!! Going to these mounts, the rifle lost 1.4 oz's, but the main thing is they are a stronger and more sleek looking. I didn't really want to waste my time, hand fitting $5 aluminum bases, so I opted for the Warne's. Rifle weighs in around 8 1/4 pounds. Not a super lightweight, but feels good and trim in the hands. I'd hunt it:


I may end up with another mauser on the 13th, but we will see..