This has been something I've wondered about for a long time, and I wanted to know your opinions. I've seen varying levels of quality from both Tula and Izhevsk, changing in the wartime years etc. Which do you feel has generally made better firearms, or is there a general consensus I'm not aware of?
Tula quality versus Izhevsk quality
- Thread starter CrazyHands13
- Start date
In the pre-war and post-war years, both factories were about equal in quality, though Izhevsk was the larger factory and was first to implement innovations in design between the 2 factories. We're talking infantry rifles here.
During the war years, Tula was much slower to adopt shortcuts and never made guns as crudely as Izhevsk did in the worst days of the war, so in that sense "innovation" was not for the better with respect to quality.
In the post-war years, when the SKS became the main gun to be built, Tula was the primary factory. Far fewer Izhevsk guns were made, I think in 2(?) production years only. Then Izhevsk switched entirely to AK47 manufacture.
During the war years, Tula was much slower to adopt shortcuts and never made guns as crudely as Izhevsk did in the worst days of the war, so in that sense "innovation" was not for the better with respect to quality.
In the post-war years, when the SKS became the main gun to be built, Tula was the primary factory. Far fewer Izhevsk guns were made, I think in 2(?) production years only. Then Izhevsk switched entirely to AK47 manufacture.
You are mistaken. Izhevsk is 900 km east of Moscow. Tula is south and slightly west of Moscow. Tula was encircled during the battle for Moscow (Dec 1941) but was successfully defended. Most of the machinery from Tula was evacuated to the east during the fall of 1941. For a significant period during late 1941 and early 1942 on Izhevsk was the only plant making Mosin Nagant rifles.
Ah gotcha
Yes much of the Tula equip was moved east in 41 to the medorsk (sp) plant to my understanding. If anything had higher quality standards it was the podolsk armouries which were evacuated and moved to the other plants in Sept of 41 when the Germans made a push in the Caucuses. Podolsk were responsible for making quality artillery and antiaircraft pieces etc.
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
There is another parallel with M1 Garand production. Every collector goes ape#hit over Winchesters. Ten or twelve years ago I read quite a bit about their work, and from what I remember they got it all wrong. Winchester knew how to make sporting rifles. Springfield was making military rifles for a whole lot longer, and consistently did all the right things. Winchester's inspectors were refusing higher rates of production than anywhere else. It took Winchester longer to get their quality up high enough to be able to meet their objectives without special teams of skilled tradesmen and managers sent over from Springfield. That kind of contract noncompliance would be a national scandal in any other circumstance.
The are two separate aspects to early/ mid war quality of MN.
"Quality" is are series of criteria that define "fitness for use or intended purpose". The rough machining that is visible on many Izhevsk rifles from 1941-1943 has very little effect on their fitness for use. The main reason for smooth surface finishes is corrosion resistance. Chemical passivation (bluing) is more effective on smooth finishes since it is less prone to damage. Smooth finishes resist corrosion more effectively because they prevent the formation of micro-chemical cells and accumulation of dirt which hosts "poultice" corrosion.
'Perceptual quality" is a term applied to how customers formulate opinions with respect to overall fitness based on observable subjective evaluation. The rough surface finishes lead to inferences about other unseen aspects of construction that might also be compromised. Evidence for relaxation of critical standards is lacking; although many modifications were made to enhance production, there is no documented evidence that any had significant negative outcomes for the rifles in service.
Simplicity of manufacture played a very important role in the defence of the USSR. Today, where everything from the washing machine to the waffle iron is internet connected and blue tooth capable, I admire things that do exactly what they are supposed to and nothing more.
"Quality" is are series of criteria that define "fitness for use or intended purpose". The rough machining that is visible on many Izhevsk rifles from 1941-1943 has very little effect on their fitness for use. The main reason for smooth surface finishes is corrosion resistance. Chemical passivation (bluing) is more effective on smooth finishes since it is less prone to damage. Smooth finishes resist corrosion more effectively because they prevent the formation of micro-chemical cells and accumulation of dirt which hosts "poultice" corrosion.
'Perceptual quality" is a term applied to how customers formulate opinions with respect to overall fitness based on observable subjective evaluation. The rough surface finishes lead to inferences about other unseen aspects of construction that might also be compromised. Evidence for relaxation of critical standards is lacking; although many modifications were made to enhance production, there is no documented evidence that any had significant negative outcomes for the rifles in service.
Simplicity of manufacture played a very important role in the defence of the USSR. Today, where everything from the washing machine to the waffle iron is internet connected and blue tooth capable, I admire things that do exactly what they are supposed to and nothing more.
I have many Russian rifles ( Mosin, SKS, M38, M44, and SVT ), and while there may be a vast differences in esthetics and finish I have not observed one to shoot better than the other based on finish alone. I've heard several hypothesis claiming some are better than others but I have not found this to be true.
so long as stock fit is good its what's inside that counts. Rough exterior milling means little. I agree re:corrosion resistance over time, hardly an active wartime issue. A 42 or 43 ugly duckling can shoot every bit as well as a 34. Mosins are cheap buy 3 or more shoot em all keep the best sell the rest. Collecting various examples is fun too. I'm still looking for a wartime 42 or 43 workhorse with good rifling. I have 34 38 39 & 44 PU. Down the road people will probably want war rifles over anything else.
I have a 1943 Izzy Mosin. The charger bridge is not even finished and you can clearly feel the lathe marks all over. It is quite an accurate rifle at the end of the day so the rough finish doesn't bother me. In fact, I actually like it as it shows you just how desperate they were to get rifles out the door.
I also have had and shot a number of Tula 91.30s. I did notice the finish to be visually a little cleaner on these compared to Izhevsk examples I have had but that is all that comes to mind for noticable differences.
I also have had and shot a number of Tula 91.30s. I did notice the finish to be visually a little cleaner on these compared to Izhevsk examples I have had but that is all that comes to mind for noticable differences.
My only Soviet firearm in the safe is an Izhevsk SKS. This is one of, if not the most beautifully finished SKS I ever handled, and it is very accurate , for an SKS.
So I would say it is more hit and miss what concerns quality and finish between the two factories.
So I would say it is more hit and miss what concerns quality and finish between the two factories.
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
Personally owning and having owned a bunch of Tula and Izhevsk firearms it doesn't really matter. It is easier to define quality by the timeframe than the factory (pre-war, wartime, post-war). Look for a Mosin that meets your standard rather than one specific factory. My 1939 M91/30 is much better finished than my buddies 1942 M91/30, overall both shoot the same. Mine just looks nicer.
It's like the Rock-Ola M1 Carbines. Jukebox=gun?
