Christmas in July . . .

Of course they have been using shellac on rifles for many years. Right around the end of WWII is over 60 years now. Doesn't make it the original finish on a WWII rifle. The recent wave of imports has been since the break up of the Soviet Union when many of the smaller states started selling off what they've held in storage. These do indeed have shellac as they've been refurbished.

Previous imports were either unrefurbished rifes, rifles from Spain or Finland for the most part along with a few bring backs from other conflicts. They don't have shellac. Definitive answers on when the shellac started simply aren't there because the Soviets didn't make a practice of keeping good records of such things and/or sharing them with outsiders. I've talked with Russians who are active in historical presentations who can't answer that. Some leave the shellac on their rifles, some remove it. It's easy to assume they shellaced them all as it's what most people see but look at the earlier rifles, they do not have shellac. Refurbished, yes, but the refurbishment came after the war.

The shellac comes off with your fingernail, with almost no effort. Are you suggesting this was a protective coating suitable for the battlefield?

I've personally examined an early 20's M91(non-import marked) rifle that had much of it's original shellac finish still intact. The finish was much less shiny than what you see on most of today's refurbs but it was shellac and probably just dulled with handling and age. Maybe they used a more dilute mixture, too? Hard to say.

I would have to agree that the refurb shellac finishes are sometimes very poorly done and will easily flake or scratch off. Some aren't like that, however. Properly applied shellac finishes are much more durable and I suspect that the original finishes were generally more durable than the ones we see today on many of the refurbs. That old M91 had certainly seen some hard use but still had most of the shellac in place.

I'm not sure that Finnish rifles are a good indicator of original Russian finishes. They re-worked the rifles and probably sanded off whatever the original finish was. I've looked at quite a few Finnish captured SVT40's and the stocks were always sanded and parts mix-matched from their refurb process.

All of the Spanish Civil War rifles Mosin Nagant rifles that I've seen have a shellac finish. Here is a good website for some reference photos: 1936 Izhevsk M1891/30 [Serial number 118924] - The Spanish Civil War Mosin Nagant

Do you have any photos of any of the early imports that don't have a shellac finish?

I've examined half a dozen Spanish 91/30's and not one had any shellac on them. It's what draws the eye to them. All had an oil finish which is what they were supposed to have and are accepted as having prior to WWII. The shellac we see on the refurbs did not come into use until sometime very late or after WWII. What you are calling shellac on earlier rifles is not the same substance used on the refurbs and while I'll accept that the term shellac has many meanings to many individuals, we both recognize what is on the refurbs and that is what we are discussing. This is not period correct for a 1943 91/30 in wartime service. If it is the owners desire to restore it to that state, as he owns it, I'm not about to criticize him for it. Collectors come in many forms and the new wave wants historically accurate pieces rather than pure straight out of the refurb shop pieces. I am one of them and have stripped several 91/30's and put an oil finish on them which is much more durable and will hold up under any range or hunting expedition I may take it on. I see little point in maintaining a finish that a sneeze will knock off.

You are correct that a Tula sniper from 43 is a rarity, any Tula from that year is uncommon but it's been refurbed and what he's done in stripping a finish that is easily duplicated hasn't harmed the value for most individuals.

Look at photos 6 and 12 in the link I posted above. Do you think that is an oil finish or shellac? It appears to be shellac to me.

Without examining a rifle in person, it is difficult to determine what the finish or state of the finish is. On that particular rifle, I am sure of only one thing. It is not the shellac found on refurbished rifles. It isn't even remotely close.