Does this look like the real thing? Mosin sniper
- Thread starter PCB
- Start date
bp2626 is right, this is legit refurbished MN 91/30 sniper rifle. Prefix-year combination is well known, plus other signs of originality. Rifle was refurbished post-war and as any refurbished soviet rifle has a mix of parts, but those are authentic parts, and rifle was not put together recently.
IMHO This is an authentic WWII Mosin Sniper rifle. Refurbished post war. Released to civilian market by Tula plant. According to the tube, prefix and serial number on scope it was made in Omsk in very late 1943...however 25 in triangle isn't an Omsk plant logo...IMHO this is an arsenal repair re-stamp. Is there any grind marks in that area?
P.S. It is assumed, but not confirmed, that 25 in triangle is 25th Central Artillery Armament Base(not a plant) in Omsk. They also stamp letters Л, М, Н, Р indicating a year
P.S. It is assumed, but not confirmed, that 25 in triangle is 25th Central Artillery Armament Base(not a plant) in Omsk. They also stamp letters Л, М, Н, Р indicating a year
Last edited:
First time I've heard this - I have a sniper plus several ex snipers (a few with war time stocks with a patch) in my collection and I have not noticed anything special about them. Aside from the stock being cut to accommodate the scope, what are the other unique features that differentiate a sniper stock from a standard 91/30 stock?
Brookwood
What I'm about to state is only really true for rifles in original configuration, as during refurbishment, many parts were mixed and matched. Relief cuts were also added sometimes during refurbishment, in varying sizes.
Pre-war and very early war stocks: Both Izhevsk and Tula used screwed in escutcheons. The majority of stocks do not have a relief cut for removing the rear barrel band. Some Izhevsk rifles did get a very small cut, starting in 1941 or so. The same could be true for the final Tula rifles produced before the factory was shut down but I don't have any original Tulas from this period to comment on.
Mid war stocks: Tula had no production. Izhevsk rifles used wartime liners, rather than escutcheons. Sniper rifles have a liner in the rear, whereas infantry rifles only have a liner in the front. Neither have a relief cut for the barrel band.
Late war stocks: Both Tula and Izhevsk rifles had pressed-in escutcheons. Tula rifles have a tiny relief cut for removing the rear barrel band, Izhevsk rifles have none. Tula rifles will be marked with the Tula star on the right of the butt stock with the year of manufacture whereas Izhevsk rifles will be marked with the CCCP roundel and an inspector's proof. 91/30 infantry rifle production was basically stopped during this period so, almost all of these stocks are sniper stocks.
Post war/refurbishment stocks: Will have pressed in escutcheons with a very large relief cut and will have a refurbishment mark on the right side of the butt stock.
Thus, a wartime stock with a liner in the front and rear is almost certainly a sniper stock. Whereas a liner in the front only, is an infantry stock. A late war stock with pressed-in escutcheons and with either a tiny relief cut is a Tula sniper stock and one without any relief cut is an Izhevsk sniper stock. However, one with a large relief cut is a post-war general purpose stock. There are exceptions though, being Russian...
For the rifle in question, the fact it was inspected around 1944 and has not been sanded is enough to indicate that it is a sniper stock.
Last edited:
^ There are examples of Izhevsk non refurb 91/30 PU's with inspector cartouche, but no CCCP roundel. Vic has pics on GB. Do you have info on which ones were given the CCCP roundel cartouche because it's clear not all were.
Maybe they are just early to mid stocks, that received the inspector cartouche but no roundel.
Maybe they are just early to mid stocks, that received the inspector cartouche but no roundel.
Last edited:
Butcherbill
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Blaster land, Okanagan BC
Interesting reading, I always enjoy the knowledge that's passed around on this forum.
It was either sanded off or was just missed during production. Almost all of them do have the CCCP roundel. If it's a really obscure case, the guys at GB would he happy to take a look and get a discussion going. I haven't seen the rifle in question posted by Vic though, must have missed that thread. There are always exceptions with Russian stuff.
Thanks for the info, I couldn't find any pictures of a scope with those markings. If there was a logo scrubbed off they did an incredibly gentle job of it. I can't see any scar.
Thanks, I did see this, it's surprising the little details that are the tell tales.
Armed with this knowledge I looked at my 91/30 collection and holy smoke, you are absolutely correct. Everything you highlighted as quoted above is consistent with my non-postwar restocked sniper/ex snipers compared to my straight 91/30s. I thought I had done my homework regarding all the subtleties of these rifles, but you taught me something new today. Thanks!
Any idea why the snipers got the 'extra' liner in the rear slot??
Brookwood
PinkyPlinker
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Kenora, ON
Apologies, I got a bit lazy last night. This should read more like "when the details all look correct the MIR marking confirms it is one..."
Thank you Bp2626 for elaborating and providing some other details I was not aware of. I have handled several of the recent ones and bought one.
One other thing I have seen common (can't say all...) to the ones I have seen is the old scope sn is scrubbed or X'd out from the barrel and instead of the new scope sn stamped they have re stamped the rifle sn. The stampings are obviously old and considered non standard but correct. My own theory based only on my rifle, is this may have been done with scopes totally scrubbed of sn as mine is. It has only the refurb factory stamp and a few letters that I think are a date code of some sorts. Again, only a theory. I have no question that mine is an original sniper refurbed late 50/60s where the scope etc were replaced as necessary. Refurbed for battle, not repopped for profit.
Last edited:
This is pure speculation on my part as I'm not aware of any documents or sources that explain it. If someone knows of any (Ratnik?) feel free to chime in. I might be overthinking this.
The liner is there to protect the sling slot and the sling both from wear and tear. A simple brass liner was cheaper and faster for production. Screwed in liners are considerably more material, and require machine time for the screws. The bulk of the weight of the rifle when slung is on the front liner, so the back liner is somewhat superfluous, especially when the lifespan of a rifle in service could be only weeks or months for the standard infantrymen's 91/30. I know the amount of brass in the rear liner seems minimal in the grand scheme of things but we have to consider that Izhevsk made literally millions of 91/30s in 1942 and 1943, and if you multiply one liner by millions, well, that's a lot of brass.
Sniper rifles had a longer lifespan and the snipers had a higher survival rate than infantrymen, though, it wasn't a particularly good survival rate. Sniper rifles would be carried more often facilitating the need for more protection. The biggest factor though, is probably that the sniper rifles are the best 91/30s made during the war. They had to shoot to near MOA (many can do much better) and were made to a much higher fit and finish, even during the peak of wartime production. As we know, a rifle's zero is greatly dependant on the stock it sits in, and if you have to replace or repair the stock, your zero is lost and now you have to have labour, materials and time to rezero the rifles, as the PU scope is set to zero with grinding, shimming and firing. Rinse, repeat. So, the brass in the rear of the sniper rifle would save money, materials and time overall.
This latest batch of Tulsky exports went through a much more refined refurbishment process. Many of the rifles kept their original stocks, bases and mounts. The majority of the metal hardware is completely mismatched, though, scrubbed and stamped with new serials in a much more professional way than most. For some reason, the overwhelming majority of these rifles have had their scopes removed, and replaced. It was probably just a matter of "Well, most of them need to be overhauled anyway, so, we might as well just do them all." Something like a Soviet "make work" program. Yay communism.
Since these rifles were clearly refurbished in a different way, and at a different time, it's probably logical to assume that they came from a different source than the Molot rifles. Different branch of service? Police rifles? No one knows for sure.
PinkyPlinker
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Kenora, ON
Yup, that's exactly what I have. Original Iz stock, barrel, scope base and mount. Mag force match, bolt looks scrubbed and re stamped, scope replaced, one ring Iz and one Tula.
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
From what I have looked up on Czech stocks, there is no set rule for them, except for minimally marking the stock. Some examples I have seen have no escutcheon on the front or back, some have one on the front, and some have the pressed metal escutcheons like the post-war Soviet stocks. I wouldn't rule out a rear escutcheon possibility, however I haven't personally seen it.
