Soviet Mosin sniper builds

[Micheal Doyne]

Hi all,

I am after a direct transaction to English of a primary source detailing what procedures where followed to acuratise a 91/30 during WWII. I have no idea of such a primary source exists. I have tried Googling but either the steps are overly general or or they are not military wwii specific.

I have acquired a made up 91/30 pu. I appreciate I cannot give it a tighter tolerance barrel but I would like to at least give it period correct bedding and trigger. Currently bedding has a cork platform at the muzzle barrel band. And brass shims at the action screw on the upper side of the wood, but no shims on the lower side.

I have read that the triggers where ‘worked over’ which I assume means they improved the surfaces of the existing components rather than adding such things as offer travel screw ect.
I assume cork wouldn’t have been available for bedding but I have read oiled material was used. I assume this was to clamp the barrel at the rust barrel band?

My rifle has a few contact point between barrel and lower fore stock between the first barrel band and the noxform I assume (and have read) this isn’t ideal, what that the prevailing doctrine at the time.

Sorry if this is all already up here, I did look first because I assumed it would be, but I might be blind.

All the best, and thanks in advance.

[AGB-1]

First m91/30 - is this typical accuracy for these? | Gunboards Forums

[Micheal Doyne]

Thanks, not sure how I did not find that!

[Micheal Doyne]

First m91/30 - is this typical accuracy for these? | Gunboards Forums

Thanks it is a useful threat but not quite the “this was the soviet armorers doctrine for sniper builds during WWII” I am looking for, maybe it doesn’t exist.

[Bruce McAskill]

From what I was told the Soviets did not use armors to make their sniper rifles. They started in the factories with barrels which appeared to be top quailty. Then they made the rifles and twicked them to accuracy. Izzy and Tula were the ones making them with the large majority being made by Izzy.

[Micheal Doyne]

From what I was told the Soviets did not use armors to make their sniper rifles. They started in the factories with barrels which appeared to be top quailty. Then they made the rifles and twicked them to accuracy. Izzy and Tula were the ones making them with the large majority being made by Izzy.

I appreciate they where factory built as sniper rifles. I am interested in in the steps taken by the factory armours steps to accurize them (over and above the use of low tolerance parts, I.e. the “twicked” stage as you put it.

[Riter]

From what I was told the Soviets did not use armors to make their sniper rifles. They started in the factories with barrels which appeared to be top quailty. Then they made the rifles and twicked them to accuracy. Izzy and Tula were the ones making them with the large majority being made by Izzy.

this is is correct. When assembled guns were test fired for accuracy, the best were set aside for installing scopes. The Soviets, the Germans and the British Commonwealth Nations did this. Remington was the oddball in selecting certain barrels and then assembling them onto the receivers. It still had to meet certain specifications of accuracy to be accepted as a sniper rifle.

Lyudmila Pavlichenko mentions some of the things she did to improve her M91/30. You can read about it in her autobiography, Lady Death.

There is also a translation by Maj. James Gebhardt on Soviet sniper rifles that covers what was done to improve the M91/30. Suggest you get that too.

I would look at what the Finns did to accurize a MN but rememeber, it it shoots poorly to begin with, don't expect exceptional results. Start with a good shooter.