I dont think that the refurb look nicer than the unissued. I have a Tula 1953 unissued and ..........its a pure beauty!(except that the dust stick on the greased metal,i just dont want to remove that grease, i even put a bit more on)The only reason I was leaning towards a non-refurb/original was the idea that it hasn't been used. Not for collector value, like I said it means nothing to me. Just the idea of having a rifle that is brand new just appeals to me.
If someone can unequivocally say that the refurbs are the same quality mechanically, and tolerance wise as the unissused rifles then I will buy a refurb. But I just seem to have very bad luck buying anything used, and I am picky.
One thing I have read, which i am not sure if it is true or not, is that most of the unfired refurbs are in nicer condition COSMETICALLY than the unissued/unrefurbs due to the fact that obviously the originals have been sitting around for 60+ years, while the refurbs have only been sitting around maybe 30 to 40 years. Is that true? I am talking about stuff like nicer newer bluing etc etc
My bottom line is a solid rifle, that is as close to new in it's tolerances, and wear as I can get. Considering this... should I be good with a refurb? How dod I know which refurns are blued, and which are painted? I hate ugly coatings/shellacs applied to the steel on a rifle. So if refurbs are painted black or have shellacked bolts or whatever then that is an absolute definite 'pass' for me.
edit: Do any of the Russians have chromed bores?


















































