Christmas in July . . .

My 91/30 Russian Sniper has arrived. Everyone says if you collect milsurps, you have to have a Mosin-Nagant 91/30. So I took the plunge and ordered a “Tula” WWII Sniper from “Classic Arms”. Only two days later, right to the front door it comes (gotta love that C&R).
Anyway, here is some gun-porn to drool over. The only EP numbers are on the scope mount, scope & receiver numbers. All other gun numbers stamped match; bolt, receiver, butt plate, mag-floor plate, with no line outs.
Enjoy and comments are always welcome! (good or bad)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...7/SnprBX-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../SnprACC-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...7/SnprFL-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...7/SnprFR-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...SnprTula-1.jpg

---------- Post added at 10:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 PM ----------

MORE PICS;

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...7/SnprML-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...7/SnprMR-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...7/SnprMt-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...7/SnprTL-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../SnprScp-1.jpg

REALLY nice! It has a correct Tula mount, too!

Does it have a Tula cartouche on the right side of the buttstock?

I’m such a NOOB on these. I don’t know about the Tula cartouche on the buttstock. There is a small cartouche on the right side of the stock, but not a star or triangle, looks like a circle with a letter inside? Any way as I clean it up I will try to get GOOD pics of any and all markings to further my education.
Thanks for the comments and I am looking forward to learning a lot more about this piece of history.

Well done. Range report to follow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fn111557

I’m such a NOOB on these. I don’t know about the Tula cartouche on the buttstock. There is a small cartouche on the right side of the stock, but not a star or triangle, looks like a circle with a letter inside? Any way as I clean it up I will try to get GOOD pics of any and all markings to further my education.
Thanks for the comments and I am looking forward to learning a lot more about this piece of history.

---

Most of the refurbished PU Snipers don't have it, so don't feel bad if yours doesn't. They were typically sanded off when the stock was re-finished. These genuine PU snipers often have lot's of different inspection marks on the stocks - circles with numbers, circles with cryllic letters, symbols, etc. Looking forward to more photos! Thanks for sharing....I never get tired of looking as these!

The original cartouche would look like this.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_4642-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_4643-1.jpg

Very nice 43 Tula PU. I assume you paid extra for handpick Tula? I got a 43 Tula from AIM, same shipment of 1000 from Morlot and imported by I.O.. Mine was a definite shooter with 6 groups of 5 shots at 100 yds averaging 1.23 inches and 3 sub inch using Extra Match ammo.

Your scope is an early A prefix with 1943 date, and probably one of the last A prefix that had a date. Progress stopped dating theirs about the time yours was made. I can not tell that you have a Tula mount but bear in mind these guns are refurbed and parts are usually mixed and renumbered. For the price these are saleing for, they are a steal. That is why AIM sold out of Tula in about 30 minutes when first offered and sold out of the 500 they bought in about 3 days.

There are dozens of examples posted on gunboards collector's forum and sniper forum.

Congratulations on getting a nice PU. These are the best deal on a WW2 sniper and the PU will shoot with just about any sniper made in WW2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike radford

I can not tell that you have a Tula mount but bear in mind these guns are refurbed and parts are usually mixed and renumbered. ....

---

You can tell that the mount is a Tula because of how far down it is cut between the mounting rings (above the circular hole).
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../SnprMt1-1.jpg
The Izhevsk mounts are not generally cut that deep and are more straight across. I suspect that he will have small circular tool marks on the back side of the mount like this...
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_2497-1.jpg

The Izhevsk mounts look like this...
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_4584-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_4591-1.jpg

Thanks for that info. Yes the back of my mount has the small circle tool marks like your pic. I was wondering if that was an original mount because of the E.P. numbering, but remember reading somewhere they could be numbered either way; E.P. or Stamp.
No large-ish STAR on the stock, but a few circles with letteres/numbers.
Will get more pics next week, this weekend I am off to visit my son for his 29th B-Day. He's getting to be an OLD FARRTTTT like me! LOL

It's most likely not the ORIGINAL mount, but it is a TULA made mount. Tula mounts were originally stamped with the rifle's serial number. During the refurb, the original number on your mount was polished off, mount was re-blued, and then the new numbers added.

Here is what the numbers on the Tula mounts originally looked like...
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_4625-1.jpg

Note that on this rifle, when it was refurbished, they used the original Tula mount number and added the EP'd mount number to the rifle's receiver!

Yes, I can tell its a Tula mount from the rear machining. Thanks for the better pics. Izhevsk mounts vary and I have seen a degree of the downward cut between the rings so I do not rely on that.

These rifles are outstanding IMO. Any WW2 collector who does not get one has made a big boo boo.

When Rguns first released their Tula's, they were out in about a week. Price was $900. Izhesk, without hand pick was $800. These are $200-300 less. These are fresh out of military storage, mine was zeroed and ready for issue. Many others have reported the same experience. Gotta love these things, and they definitely will grow on you.

Picture is old. I have added a few since.

:move eek::clap:

Got any pictures of the low cut Izhevsk mounts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jjjxlr8

:move eek::clap:

Got any pictures of the low cut Izhevsk mounts?

---

I found pictures of 3 such mounts. Two should be enough to post. The only rifle nearby right now also has an Izhevsk mount with the center cut, but it is yet to be photoed making 4 with just a quick check. They vary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike radford

Picture is old. I have added a few since.

---

Wow. You have cornered the market. Nice looking Mosin family photo.

Decided to start cleanup of the stock. Removed ALL metal (except stock escutcheons), and started with hot water damped sponge and “Murphy’s Oil Soap”. This worked good getting the cosmoline off the wood, but soon discovered most of the shellac was flaking off. It looked like a BAD Sun Burn peeling off. After I was sure I had removed all the cosmoline, I thought I would try chemical removal of the rest of the shellac. Since the top hand guard looked like the best coated section, with no noticeable markings, I decided to start there. I sprayed Brake Cleaner on to a paper towel until it was saturated. I lightly wiped in short strokes, with the grain, and watched the old shellac disappear. As the paper towel would get full of shellac, or dry out, I would re-spray and continue. Never spray on the wood, and only use light strokes with the grain of the wood. It appears I have managed to get down to a clean wood surface with some highlighting of the old stamps and marks showing.
I hope it is not considered too much of an insult, but I HATE shellac so I’ll just apply several coats of “Tru-Oil” over the wood to preserve it.
Here are some pictures of how the wood looks now. If you can recognize any stamps/markings I would love to know what they are.
Thanks for everyone’s support!
Fred

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK001-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK002-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK003-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK004-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK005-1.jpg

---------- Post added at 09:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------

MORE PICS.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK006-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK007-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK008-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK009-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK010-1.jpg

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------

MORE PICS.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK011-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK012-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK013-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK014-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK015-1.jpg

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

LAST ONES (for now)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK016-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/STK017-1.jpg

Oh man. :( You just ruined a nice rifle.

---------- Post added at 12:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 PM ----------

I feel sick, now, and must look away.

Rifle looks fine.

Some people think that these 91/30's of which 37 million were produced and 36 million of them are currently in the United States (slight sarcasm) are going to be worth money someday with that crap called shellac which was put on them for STORAGE purposes. That stuff wouldn't last three days out in the field.

That's very curious as I did not post the previous message, nor use the quote function.

What I said was:

Don't worry about your rifle, it looks fine and as there were about 37 million of them produced, they are never going to be worth much with or without the shellac put on them for storage purposes that would not last 3 days in the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

That's very curious as I did not post the previous message, nor use the quote function.

What I said was:

Don't worry about your rifle, it looks fine and as there were about 37 million of them produced, they are never going to be worth much with or without the shellac put on them for storage purposes that would not last 3 days in the field.

---

This wasn't a typical M91/30 rifle, it was an original (although refurbished) WWII PU Sniper made by Tula. People who are very much "in the know" when it comes to these rifles estimate that there are between 5000 and 8000 of these rifles imported to the US. Only a very small percentage of those are Tulas.

Shellac is the original finish on these rifles, not something unique for "storage purposes."


Obviously the rifle really isn't ruined, just the resale/collector value.

The resale/collector value is in the eyes of the beholder. The finish on these has been debated endlessly and there is no final word on what is, what was original to a WWII rifle. As the shellac will not hold up under very mild conditions, it most certainly would not hold up under battle conditions and in this instance it was applied during the refurbishment prior to storage. As shellac seems to only appear on the recent wave of imported refurbished rifles and not on the earlier non-import marked rifles, it was most likely not original to the rifle.

It was certainly a refurbished finish, but the Russians have been using shellac on rifles (not just Mosin Nagants) for MANY years.

What do you mean by "recent wave?" Rifles imported in the last 20 years?

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.