Mosin Nagant M91/30 ex- sniper Rifles

[Dakk]

Dakk, you mentioned a difference between the regular Mosin-Nagant stock and the sniper stock.
What is the difference ?

For the later model sniper scopes (PU), the mount sits low enough on the receiver that the stock had to have a small section cut away to accomodate the mount. So as an example, on a later WWII ex-sniper that's been converted back to an infantry rifle before it was decommissioned, you'll probably find that the receiver has the filled in scope mount holes, which you might be able to see partially from the outside of the receiver, but the stock won't have the cut away, which suggests its not the original stock.

A friend and I are refinishing a 44 Tula ex-sniper. The shellac was really degraded in spots, and I'm not keeping it as a collectible. Plus the stock was a refurb replacement (with 'refurb' stamp and missing the cut away) when it was converted to infantry. The stock has a number of serious repairs that were exposed further with the removal of the shellac. Also, I discovered that the stock was actually an early 1930's Tula stock, featuring the Tula star and 1930's date hidden under the shellac. So definately not the original stock.

The Soviets reused a lot of stuff. For instance, a lot of people think that if they have a hex receiver, they have a superior example of a mosin that was made in earlier years. But the hex receivers would be salvaged off of early model mosins that were badly damaged, and were often reused on later model weapons. Based on our 44 Tula, I'd say they also repaired and reused stocks whenever possible.

 

[Longshot84]

For the later model sniper scopes (PU), the mount sits low enough on the receiver that the stock had to have a small section cut away to accomodate the mount. So as an example, on a later WWII ex-sniper that's been converted back to an infantry rifle before it was decommissioned, you'll probably find that the receiver has the filled in scope mount holes, which you might be able to see partially from the outside of the receiver, but the stock won't have the cut away, which suggests its not the original stock.

A friend and I are refinishing a 44 Tula ex-sniper. The shellac was really degraded in spots, and I'm not keeping it as a collectible. Plus the stock was a refurb replacement (with 'refurb' stamp and missing the cut away) when it was converted to infantry. The stock has a number of serious repairs that were exposed further with the removal of the shellac. Also, I discovered that the stock was actually an early 1930's Tula stock, featuring the Tula star and 1930's date hidden under the shellac. So definately not the original stock.

The Soviets reused a lot of stuff. For instance, a lot of people think that if they have a hex receiver, they have a superior example of a mosin that was made in earlier years. But the hex receivers would be salvaged off of early model mosins that were badly damaged, and were often reused on later model weapons. Based on our 44 Tula, I'd say they also repaired and reused stocks whenever possible.

I don't suppose you have a pic of the cut-away stock for the ex-sniper?

 

[Dakk]

I don't suppose you have a pic of the cut-away stock for the ex-sniper?

Most ex-snipers that I've seen don't have cut away because they've been refurbed and given a regular infantry stock. But if you check the stock of a sniper, you'd see the stock is cut away under the scope mount.

 

[Mills]

The people on youtube converting their regular m91/30s always have to cut into their stocks to fit their repro scope base. After reading a ton of info on here and looking on other parts of the web, I think it is a lot of work restoring an old x-sniper that may have less accuracy if not equal to a regular infantry model. For looks and display purposes I would restore a x-sniper, but as a shooter I am leaning away from spending the extra hundred bucks to buy a x-sniper online because I cannot varrify the bore's condition. Also, the old holes on the receiver may not match with your base and are likely no longer salvageable.

 

[Dakk]

...I think it is a lot of work restoring an old x-sniper that may have less accuracy if not equal to a regular infantry model.

Funny how false ideas become so popular. That's an idea propagated by people who want their $100 mosin to be more than it is. The fact is, the infantry rifle is even more likely to have deteriorated from its already mediocre status to POS.

Let's take a hypothetical situation as an example... Back in 1942 two newly manufactured Mosin barrels were tested for accuracy. One was inherently more accurate and stamped for use on a sniper rifle. One was not. Then both rifles go through several years of fighting. The sniper mainly used his rifle from a distance, taking shots with as much precision as possible. The infantry rifleman used his rifle in closer quarters, firing with less emphasis on precision, and more emphasis on cycling through rounds faster (thus the need for the SKS). Close quarters fighting also means more often using the rifle as a club or stabing weapon. Added to this, pretty much all Russian rifles from WWII and earlier would have seen action, as USSR was notoriously under-armed, having more troops than weapons.

After WWII, more years of regular non-war military use pass. Since the USSR wasn't keeping as many snipers as they had during WWII, many sniper rifles had their scopes removed. Also, some stocks were removed and replaced with regular infantry rifles. Other sniper rifles keep their same stocks, but there was a repair done to replace the chunk of wood formerly removed for the scope mount.

Fast forward to today when you have people saying the ex-sniper's barrel might have degraded. Huh? You don't think there's reason to believe an infantry rifle's barrel degraded even more?

This is precisely why you check out the barrel's condition before you buy. If its in great shape, then there's no reason to believe an ex-sniper barrel would have lost its inherent accuracy, and every reason to believe an ex-sniper could be more accurate than a similarly configured (tweaked) infantry rifle.

 

[MiG25]

is there documentation that during WWII rifles rifles where selected for accuracy? or did they just pull say 1000 rifles off the line to become snipers? maybe real testing was done post war and that is when the less accurate rifles became ex-snipers?

my WAG is also that the typical ex sniper would have seen many more rounds than the typical infantry rifle.

 

[Dakk]

my WAG is also that the typical ex sniper would have seen many more rounds than the typical infantry rifle.

I doubt it, but would be interested in hearing your rationale. Short range combat favors RoF. So at shorter ranges, soldiers are more concerned with getting more shots off. At longer distances, accuracy becomes more important than RoF and snipers typically try to make more precise shots, which means a typically lower RoF.

And yes, there is lots of documentation in books, and on the www to check out.

Something to think about.... If the inherent accuracy of a barrel wasn't important, why would sniper programs anywhere care what barrels they used?

 

[MiG25]

I doubt it, but would be interested in hearing your rationale. Short range combat favors RoF. So at shorter ranges, soldiers are more concerned with getting more shots off. At longer distances, accuracy becomes more important than RoF and snipers typically try to make more precise shots, which means a typically lower RoF.

statistics. number of red army soldiers, production number of rifles, german casualties, realization that the tank, artillery, and machine gun where primary weapons.

 

[Dakk]

statistics. number of red army soldiers, production number of rifles, german casualties, realization that the tank, artillery, and machine gun where primary weapons.

So enlighten me. What analysis of stats makes it obvious that sniper fired more rounds through their mosins than regular infantry?

And actually, in terms of raw numbers, in WWII the infantry rifleman was the primary weapon. Tanks, MGs and artillery were generally considered support weapons. Probably only with a tank unit would you ever consider infantry more support for the tank than vice versa.

 

[Coyote Ugly]

Lately I have seen quite a few dealers selling Mosin Nagant M91/30 ex- sniper Rifles. Got me to thinking, what makes a "Sniper Rifle " different than a standard Mosin Nagant M91/30 rifle ? I always thought sniper rifles were quite uncommon. I have read that the Russians used a lot of sniper rifles, but they seem to be getting very common, other than their price. I'm wondering if someone is just drilling and tapping holes in the receiver of a regular rifle and re branding it for a profit. Any thoughts ???

It all depends what you want it for.

With a collectable original, WW2 or Hungarian M53 Nagant Sniper, there's no questions, providing it checks out.

With an Ex-Sniper, all you really have is a barrelled receiver with a mismatched incorrect straight bolt and infantry stock.

With an Infantry rifle conversion, non ex-sniper, it's a repro fake, but fun to shoot.

Then repro or original optics to decide on? Same with the sniper bolt.

It's how much you want to spend that commands what you get.

 

[Mills]

My point is that just because a mosin is an x-sniper it doesn't mean it is more accurate or worth an extra 100+ bucks than the regular one. These are cheap rifles and when buying online I would ask the seller to pick out the one in the best condition. My chances are better when he has more options to choose from and there are generally more regular infantry rifles than the x-snipers. converting the regular models, and messing with the x-snipers to mount scopes on would not help their collector, or historic value either as that would be altering them from their condition when they were retired.

When picking out a rifle in person, I would ask myself if an extra 100 dollars is worth having the sniper serial numbers, a bolt that has been modified to have a bent handle and the chance it could be as accurate or a smaller chance it is more accurate than the cheaper rifle.