Real or Fake?

[Tls1133]

Alrighty, I don't have good pictures just yet, but I'll be taking more tomorrow.
From what I see, this is a repro, BUT there are indicators that this may be a real sniper.

*1st, The date of manufacture is 1926 @ Izhevsk - a hex receiver - NOT sniper like AT ALL
*2nd, It has a turned matching bolt, no traces of grinding, it's all uniform and not force matched
*3rd, It's an all matching rifle, the scope mount is original, mfg'd @ Izhevsk with the same proof that is found on the receiver, AND the stock (Diamond with a "5" in it)
*4th, The scope is indeed a repro
*5th, the whole thing was in cosmoline and shellac'd - This may anger some, but I've since re-applied shellac as it was scarcely there to begin with - I didn't want the wood cracking / breaking ect.

- If there's anything I left out, I'll include it as questions are asked, or as I remember them

image.jpeg

image(4).jpeg

image(3).jpeg

image(2).jpeg

image(1).jpeg

[desert drifter]

Does it have an importers mark such as PW, A.I.M., CAI marks? By looking at the top picture of the scope..it appears that the PU scope is offset to the side of the receiver instead of being directly centered over it.

Just me, I'm no expert...but a PU on a hex makes me suspicious. Just my thoughts others will vary.

'Drif

[Tls1133]

Yep - C.A.I Georgia, and I agree 100% - 1926 AND Hex? If it is real, which I have my doubts, it would be rather rare, would it not?
The scope isn't off to the side, that's the way I had the rifle laying lol, It's directly over the rifle - I'll post better pictures in the morning

[desert drifter]

It seems that the only down right "verified" snipers are imported by "RGUNS". ... I suppose anything could sneak by. But with being a hex and by the pictures I don't think its an authentic sniper but a reproduction.

Again, just my opinion and thoughts others will vary.

'drif

[Tls1133]

I've read similar, but I've also read something to the latter :

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread. ... desireable

I suppose it's hard to say either way, perhaps some M/N god will come my way and educate me lol

[WeldonHunter]

Welcome to the forum. To put it simple it was never a PU Sniper rifle as issued. They started making them In 1942 so there's a lot wrong with this rifle. It's most likely an updated dragoon that was humped together by someone. Refinishing the stock does anger people here and in the collector community but it's also against the rules here, especially since you did it. It wouldn't have cracked the way it was but since the rifle was no longer a collectable rifle anyway with all the alterations I guess it's a wash. Damn shame they're ruining more of these rifles every day. That was a nice one too.

[Tls1133]

Alright. Thanks anyway, though, that sounded more like a parent griping at me more so than helpful info.
If it's a jank rifle, why do all the numbers match? - Including the bolt. Wouldn't the dragoon have a straight bolt as the other standard INF rifles?
Also, if it was already ruined, what's the harm in applying a new shellac to it? - Just asking, I understand the non-PU part, it pains me as well to see people hacking up good rifles to make abominations

[WeldonHunter]

Alright. Thanks anyway, though, that sounded more like a parent griping at me more so than helpful info.
If it's a jank rifle, why do all the numbers match? - Including the bolt. Wouldn't the dragoon have a straight bolt as the other standard INF rifles?
Also, if it was already ruined, what's the harm in applying a new shellac to it? - Just asking, I understand the non-PU part, it pains me as well to see people hacking up good rifles to make abominations

Yeah I guess it did sound that way. I'm a grandfather so it comes natural. This is a preservation forum and you'd get some sympathy for buying a reproduction PU sniper and asking about it but you refinished it on top of that and regardless of the previous condition it's still altering it further. Refinshing it won't stop the stock from cracking. That's the way these rifles look and it doesn't cause cracking. The reason the numbers match (besides the bolt or scope parts) is it went through the refurb process. The bolt and any scope parts that match were done by someone other than an arsenal most likely. Some of the rifles coming in now are very similar to this rifle and the seller states they are reproductions. They go on to make the case that they are made in a Russian factory and not put together by an importer in the US implying they are still correct. Wrong. They are matching numbered rifles down to the bayonet but are not PU snipers and never were. http://www.wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm? ... 0|701|1400

[Junk Yard Dog]

Welcome to the forum, and the short, quick answer is YES, it's a fake PU. The Soviets did not retrofit early dated 91/30's with PU mounts and did not build real PU's until 1942.

[notabiker]

iv have one of these, imported thru PW ARMS. i like the rifle and have shot it a lot. i have 2 complaint
1. very DARK bore that never cleans up ,no matter what i do.
2. why use a 1936 issy for a PU sniper with millions of 1942-44 izzys out there to hack up.
otherwise it looks and operates fine.

[Junk Yard Dog]

Because they couldn't get rid of a dark bore rifle until they jazzed it up with a fake PU scope, they ain't stupid and are always looking for a way to make a buck.