1944 Finn Mosin Nagant

Cost is one good reason to prefer the M30. Due to its "legend" status the M39's are priced completely out of line with the rest of the Finn rifles. The idea that many Finn rifles are "rebuilt" Russian rifles is pretty common out there. While there are M91s and 91/30s that the Finns simply fixed up with a few replacement parts, the true Finn models (20's Tikka-barrel M91s, M91/24s, M27s, M28 &28/30, M30) are truly new manufacture that happened to use some salvaged parts. Its common to see a discussion about the fascinating history a Tikka- or VKT-barreled Finn M91 must have had because it was built with a 1901 Izhevsk receiver or something like that. I fact, all history prior to the build date in the 20s or 40s is gone- it's a new rifle.

milsurpo
 
tokguy said:
Is that a 91/30 or a 91? Typically 91/30 have sight hoods...shorter barrels.
If yours is original, all lack of a sight hood makes it a Dragoon, at least at a glance. Tape measure would be the final word on yhat.
Dragoon are way cooler IMO.
Got a PTG, 2 Remmys and a Westinghouse. Tough to get Bayo's IIRC.
Too far from my book to say much on the M30 topic sadly
Click to expand...
Not a dragoon at all. The M30 uses a standard 91/30 rear sight, the front is a typical stacked Finn sight and the barrel is the same length as a 91/30. The actual Russian/Soviet dragoon pattern uses a Konovalov rear sight just like the 1891.
 
BlackPowderBurner said:
Not a dragoon at all. The M30 uses a standard 91/30 rear sight, the front is a typical stacked Finn sight and the barrel is the same length as a 91/30. The actual Russian/Soviet dragoon pattern uses a Konovalov rear sight just like the 1891.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. M30’s are encountered with stacked sights and Soviet hooded sights, somewhat randomly. I’m not aware of any serial number survey and if it’s a date of manufacture thing, or just random. I have a right out of the cosmo m30 with hooded 91/30 sight in my safe.

They are also found with refinished Soviet stocks, and also new made 2 or 3 piece stocks.
 
Claven2 said:
Yes and no. M30’s are encountered with stacked sights and Soviet hooded sights, somewhat randomly. I’m not aware of any serial number survey and if it’s a date of manufacture thing, or just random. I have a right out of the cosmo m30 with hooded 91/30 sight in my safe.

They are also found with refinished Soviet stocks, and also new made 2 or 3 piece stocks.
Click to expand...
What I was trying to address was that OP’s rifle is a correct example or an M30 and does not fall into any other pattern. Russian/Soviet 1891 un-updated Dragoons will have a Konovalov rear sight and an unstacked blade 1891 front sight. Your M30 sounds like an interesting example, there is a survey thread on gunboards that’ll show you how uncommon that feature is! Pics would be cool to see.
 
BlackPowderBurner said:
Not a dragoon at all. The M30 uses a standard 91/30 rear sight, the front is a typical stacked Finn sight and the barrel is the same length as a 91/30. The actual Russian/Soviet dragoon pattern uses a Konovalov rear sight just like the 1891.
Click to expand...
Cool, I appreciate the info. I low key acquire Finn 91's. The home tweaked Finn specialty ones are out of my spending limit.
Nice to see it.
Regards
Tokguy
 
MiG25 said:
The M30 is much more streamlined, the M39 is a big, bulky rifle, I'm not small but those Finns must have giant mitts.
Click to expand...
I had 2 of them, moved them both along. They reminded me of throwing a 4" fence post on my shoulder when walking.
I'm a smaller statured fella...hands ain't that big.
They are about as svelte as a fence post IMO
 
Claven2 said:
They made stocks, extractors, sears, bolt heads, some types of sight assemblies and barrels. They seem to have never made bolt bodies, receivers or magazines.
Click to expand...
From everything I've learned and seen Finn made rifles were better than Russian Mosin Nagants in every regard. Improved sights, triggers, actions shimmed for accuracy, heavier barrels. They used Russian and WW1 American produced actions even to rebuild the rifles. Sometimes entirely new wood, sometimes spliced Finn forewood onto Russian butt stocks. Added their own sling swivels in many cases. I figure rarity of my 1944 Tikka model 30 will someday be more recognized. Tikka made 15,000 barrels in 43 and44 though Finn sources claim around 3000 had steel issues and were rejected. It's said many were not assembled until the war ended and were never issued.
There are a shocking number of Finn variations and a dearth of information on this side of the pond.
 
There's a lot of modern mythology about Finn Mosins. Frankly, there are lots of Finn rifles that are nothing special. Their standard M91s (ie standard barrel weight), for example, are all over the page in terms of fit and finish and accuracy. There are some superb Finn rifles (M91/24's in original form, M28/30's, etc) but some of the finest Mosins I've owned were original condition New England Westinghouse and Remington M91s (specifically examples that the Finns left alone) and Soviet 91/30 PU Snipers. I'm talking about unrefurbished PUs, and the examples I've owned were bedded as well as any military rifle I've seen. The "shimming" so widely used by the Finns is simply the easiest, cheapest and fastest approach to bedding a rifle in a way that allows for great accuracy in M27s and M39s, etc. But, when you see shimming in a run of the mill M91 or refurbished rifle, it wasn't used to "tune" the rifle- it was just their approach to standard bedding. In fact, you may run into older Finn rifles that didn't use shims- I have yet to own a reasonably original M91/24 that used shims. They appear to have been bedded in the conventional manner and can be incredibly accurate.

milsurpo
 
I guess there are major variations in FInn quality as well as Soviet and Russian produced rifles then. I have seen more than a few wartime produced Soviet rifles that were pretty crude. Interesting that American origin Mosin Nagants come near the top of the heap, quality wise. No doubt expediency due to wartime demands played a role in quality of both Finn and Soviet rifles.
 
Mike Webb said:
I guess there are major variations in FInn quality as well as Soviet and Russian produced rifles then. I have seen more than a few wartime produced Soviet rifles that were pretty crude. Interesting that American origin Mosin Nagants come near the top of the heap, quality wise. No doubt expediency due to wartime demands played a role in quality of both Finn and Soviet rifles.
Click to expand...
Yes, wartime 91/30s can be very crudely finished. I have an unrefurbed '41 Izhevsk that is very well finished but have seen examples from later that year that appear very crude. I have an unrefurbed '43 Izhevsk that is probably the crudest of all but also a '43 Izhevsk PU that's first rate. Regarding the American Mosins, we see some pretty nice ones, both from Finland and examples that never left the US. Here in Canada there's just about zero chance of finding a Russian M91 in similar condition. One would guess they were pretty well made prior to WW1 as well although Arctic Birch stocks will never stand up as well as walnut. One of the biggest "failures" in the Finn line was the M27, whose birch stocks weren't up to having bayonet attached to nose-cap. Most were later modified with extra supports added to the cap but I have an original that was made with a used US walnut stock that remains in original form.

milsurpo
 
If you're referring to mine, probably not. Was in the same family for 50 years and I was told no one ever fired it. Previous owners didn't know it was a Finn rifle either.
 
BlackPowderBurner said:
What I was trying to address was that OP’s rifle is a correct example or an M30 and does not fall into any other pattern. Russian/Soviet 1891 un-updated Dragoons will have a Konovalov rear sight and an unstacked blade 1891 front sight. Your M30 sounds like an interesting example, there is a survey thread on gunboards that’ll show you how uncommon that feature is! Pics would be cool to see.
Click to expand...

Photos:

PxPyf45.jpeg

aADPCrc.jpeg
 
Claven2 said:
Photos:
Click to expand...
That’s a nice rifle, thanks for sharing. Interesting spliced stock, the front part looks like it’s from a post 1942 sling escutcheon-less 91/30. Almost certainly wartime salvage. Your rifle also falls into the very last of the serial number range and was likely assembled post war. After perusing the Gunboards survey thread again I can say that a 91/30 globe sight is more common than I remembered and slightly more common on 1944 dated rifles than 1943 as are standard non-potbelly stocks like yours.

Check it out here (remove the space):
h ttps://www.gunboards.com/threads/tikka-91-30s.885/?nested_view=1&sortby=oldest
 
BlackPowderBurner said:
That’s a nice rifle, thanks for sharing. Interesting spliced stock, the front part looks like it’s from a post 1942 sling escutcheon-less 91/30. Almost certainly wartime salvage. Your rifle also falls into the very last of the serial number range and was likely assembled post war. After perusing the Gunboards survey thread again I can say that a 91/30 globe sight is more common than I remembered and slightly more common on 1944 dated rifles than 1943 as are standard non-potbelly stocks like yours.

Check it out here (remove the space):
h ttps://www.gunboards.com/threads/tikka-91-30s.885/?nested_view=1&sortby=oldest
Click to expand...
It’s not a spliced stock.

Tula in particular used this pattern of stock around 1942, it’s somewhat transitional I think.
 
Claven2 said:
It’s not a spliced stock.

Tula in particular used this pattern of stock around 1942, it’s somewhat transitional I think.
Click to expand...
I had a good look at a Finnish capture SVT40 that had a spliced birch stock. I'll have go back to see whether the splines were large or small. It's owned by someone I know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom