Is it wrong

[Junk Yard Dog]

In the middle of a war when things were so badly rushed that even final finishing had to be done away with it just strikes me as unlikely that they would have spent so much time on PU selection when a shooter actually firing the rifle could easily pick out a barrel that was shooting well enough for sniper use. 1942-late 1943 they needed the rifles, 91/30's, PU's, carbines RFN, they were producing PU's by the thousands, making up for lesser quality by flooding the field with snipers, a tactic that worked. Plugging holes requires the skills of an experienced welder, it's not as easy as it looks to make neat welds like that, and doing it in a way that does not overheat the metal and alter the heat treatment. The Soviets perfected the KISS principle when it came to small arms during the war. The Germans and the Japanese had to be bombed into the stone age before they would allow it to effect how they produced rifles, and other weapons. Izhevsk was far from the front and in no danger of bombs falling, the Soviets were able to toss the plan out the window and alter production for pure speed, getting rid of steps that were not absolutely necessary to the weapons function in order to get arms to the troops. These people would have used the simplest, and fastest method of choosing a sniper barreled receiver, I would not be surprised to learn that there was no selection process at all, they just used whatever barreled receivers were available at the time. Of course they are not inclined to tell us.

[bunkysdad]

The fact that you have a 91/30 rifle with the heritage of once being a sniper puts it on another level of collectibility. But not if you mess it up. If you want to respect it for what it is, leave it as it is. Many people evidently have done this based on feedback in many different forum posts, but in the future the only milsurps that are gonna be worth a plug nickel will be the ones that escaped the hands of the tinkerer. I even saw a whack job mod on another forum the other day where a tinkerer of milsurp parts drilled, threaded, and installed a set screw Mauser-style into the trigger guard screws of a Mosin. Why did he make this mod? In his own words he was tired of having to tighten his trigger guard screws all the time when they come loose! Like properly torqued screws on a properly maintained rifle are gonna come loose all the time. Bubba please.

[desertgunner]

Yes, it is wrong!

And even if the bore is like brand new , the action as smooth as silk and the trigger as good as a Finn, if the ex-sniper does not shoot 1 MOA at 200m constantly and under different conditions, then that is the reason for the rifle being an ex-sniper. The Light Ball (commonly called "Silver Tip") has a trajectory meeting the targeting line between 150 and 200m, also that is what the 9130 iron sights were set for (different forums have the same drawings for this)..........that is also why they shoot high at 100 yards, right?
The Light Ball with 147/148 gr was the standard ammo issued for all 9130 users, if not snipers. They had the "Yellow Tip Heavy Ball" at 184 gr (As I recall) with a flatter trajectory and a higher impact strength at 500m. I would have to look up the curve, though, to make a statement valuable for a forum. Something about a .357Mag at 25yards seems to be what I think about right now....no bet on that until verified, and I know where to look.

Let's say this ex-sniper shoots 1 MOA on 200m with LB and HB ammo, 3 out of a 5 round group 2nd man assisted. Would that be a reason today to re-convert the rifle?
My answer: NOT AT ALL.
Because that is what we have been able to get out of 10 different '32 '33 '42 '43 9130 refurbs and 2 '44s , all with mil sight tested from the bench, rested front and back, 2nd man assist. With LB and yellow tip ammo. And new Commercial . It's a quality thing,IMHO.

I agree with JYD fully; the Russians did not have the time for absolute quality control, so they produced and issued snipers, maybe at the start of every new material ( barrel and receiver) run for some 100 rifles and then left the results to the soldiers out there to deal with their guns. Many may have understood how to really dial them in, others may have asked for another one and the old one was arsenalled, ripped of the sniper things and reissued as 9130 blunt......and the sniper parts put on the next one.

We may never know the truth, and all assumptions lead nowwhere, so don't undo what the Russians thought right for that particular rifle..........maybe the former owner kicked it for it's inaccuracy and made it worse, and that's what you got, not!

[Junk Yard Dog]

Remember Simo and his battered old M28 hunting rifle? It's skill, not necessarily weapon that makes the sniper. The finest weapon with all the latest gizmo's on it is no better than a battered .22 in the hands of an untrained, or unskilled user. We are familiar with the Mosin as a 70 or more year old rifle with the wear of years of use on them, 3-6 MOA is what we have come to expect as normal. The situation would have been very different when these rifles were new out of the crate in the 1930's and 40's. Brand new bores and tight crowns, I had a taste of this with a couple of ex dragoons that seem to have escaped use and had bores that look absolutely new. These rifles despite their age shot 2 MOA, not bad from a refurb, have a '38 Tula that was like that also. The point is that there was nothing special about these rifles, no sniper marked actions, just ordinary random dragoon and 91/30 infantry rifles when new. These examples lead me to believe that most of the new produced Mosin 91/30's probably had similar shooting characteristics, that being the case there would be no need to special select a rifle for sniper use, any barreled action would do.
There was a comment made in another thread about how someone found M38's to be horribly inaccurate shooters. They are 3-6 MOA shooters at 100 yards most of the time, however when you build a collection of them it's inevitable that you will acquire one or more that just didn't see much use and have extra nice bores. This happened with my 1939, and 1945 M38's and all of a sudden the M38 is a 2 MOA shooter at 100 yards holding it's own with the 91/59's and M39's. We judge the Mosin by what we see today and fail to remember that once these rifles were brand new, and if they still shoot passably well after decades of use, and wear then they probably shot pretty dam good when new.

[Starshina]

It doesn't matter if the rifle was shot and rejected at the factory or when it was issued. Most of them are not retired snipers, they are snipers that were rejected and turned in to regular rifles. That was my original point.

[Junk Yard Dog]

Yes, and they should be left that way.

[Starshina]

Yes, and they should be left that way.

Absolutely. That's the history of that particular rifle. There are shelves full of commercial scoped rifles that will out shoot even the best Mosin sniper, why ruin historical artifact. I don't necessarily agree with everything collectors preach, but this one is no brainer.

[Darryl]

It doesn't matter if the rifle was shot and rejected at the factory or when it was issued. Most of them are not retired snipers, they are snipers that were rejected and turned in to regular rifles. That was my original point.

Where does all this "Information" come from?

Russians have never released any of this information that I know of. I'd like to read up on it.

The "speculation" from the "information" that has been able to be gathered says that a "batch of M91/30 rifles would be pulled and test fired for accuracy. The best of that batch was set aside and marked as snipers. Those rifles had scope mounts and stocks cut to accommodate and may have had some trigger work done also. Most snipers have a smother pull on the trigger and the finish is better on the trigger, but not all.

"Speculation" (and excepted by most "experts" -- and there are very few in my opinion) for Ex-snipers -- they just had so many sniper rifles after the war that when they "refurbished" them, the may have had more rifles than working scopes or just didn't need them so they were converted them back to M91/30's with no regard for their accuracy. That would explain why some have nice barrels and others don't. But once they were re-furbished back as standard M91/30's, they would have lost their triggers and bolts and stocks and misc parts just like a standard M91/30 re-furb (mixed in with all the other M91/30 refurbs).

Now that is the "speculation by experts" as to what happened to them with the little information that we do have, but anything else is conjecture by non-experts.

A Ex-sniper is an Ex-sniper. It will always be an EX-sniper. You are not an arsenal of the Russian Republic and are not authorized to alter a Russian firearm. So any alteration from the configuration it was in when it left the Russian Arsenal (or Ukrainian or where ever) is Bubba work and damage to the rifle. It will drop the value of the rifle. At that point the rifle will be worth the value of its "parts". Real scope, mount and base and Bubba drilled and taped M91/30.

Preservation means we don't touch its configuration or make permanent alterations of a "Ex-Military Surplus" rifle after it has been released from the countries arsenal. After that point you either preserve it or Bubba it. (not including minor repairs to keep the rifle in working order if something breaks and original parts should be kept with the rifle.

Re-snipering an EX-sniper is a permanent alteration to the configuration the rifle was in when it left the arsenal.

These are "Preservation" forums.

Dolk

[Starshina]

My information comes from extensive knowledge and experience in shooting sports and reading Russian literature on how accurate Mosins are selected A. A. Yuryev, 2nd edition. I am also a holder of Distinguished Rifleman badge and a winner of National level trophy. I know what's possible and impossible to do and on such basis I can eliminate what some only "speculate" was done 70 years ago. It's idiotic to think that an arsenal will dismantle a sniper and convert it to regular rifle, because they had a lot of snipers. They had a lot of regular rifles as well. In fact Mosin snipers were still used long after they stopped issuing plain 91/30's. What would be the point of such conversion? I agree that the rifles should be left as they came from the crate (if you can read), but I wouldn't urinate myself from excitement that I have an ex-sniper, just because I see plugged holes.

[Junk Yard Dog]

PU snipers are still in use today in some of the Mid eastern garden spots. I never gave a rats ass about ex snipers, the two I have came to me as regular 91/30's and I found out after I got them what they were. Three if you count that CH marked 1944 Tula that never was a sniper. Back then the knowledge of how to tell an ex PU was not as widely known as today, some dealers didn't know to set them aside and charge more.

[zeebill]

Yepper I agree 100% on what you are saying! We oft repeat things based on speculation and most of the so called specs for for snipers are just that speculation and not based on written fact from books excepted as reference books by all. When you repeat these things you are just preservinbg the urban myths that exist about them today and that isn't history or the truth.

When I jump someone about it they get all defensive and say well I read it somewhere. That is not a good enough answer I am afraid. Even many of the books we except wholly as a good reference have parts of them that are totally wrong and at times just could not have possibly happend at the time mentioned or the place. I learned many things from the extensive reading about the Civil War I have done and one of the first was there is a lot of contradictory information out there and you have to pick and sort what is there to find the real truth about things. History is like that, it is never purely and simply put in the first book you read on a subject. So you draw a conclusion from all the reading and count it as the truth about something. You still have to present it in a manner of a conclusion from your reading and as such it is open for pop shots by others. That is the way we all learn and it is for the good of us all to be a little on the side of multiple sources and drawing a conclusion but allowing for others to be right maybe too. You have to keep an open mind when studying history for sure!

So many fascinating things out there!!! Read and try absorb from all sources!! As I get older I realize all the time in my life I have wasted when I could have been reading. Sitting in a waiting room bring a book and read. Get on your hand held computer device and research stuff. Guys you only get one chance at this don't blow it!!! Satisfaction in old age comes from efforts like this, so remember that!! The test comes in old age! Bill

[Junk Yard Dog]

You should read some of the weird shit I have in things like the Bannerman catalog, or old gun values books about the Mosin rifles. It's obvious that they knew little to nothing about them. Same goes for the old NRA magazines, misinformation galore. I think most of what we know about Soviet Mosins is speculation, the Finns are more forthcoming so long as you can read Finnish, and of course Remington didn't keep secrets about their production.

[clayshooter2]

If I bought a mosin and found out that it used to be a sniper model, would it be wrong to source the correct parts and the correct stock to turn it back into a sniper?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

2 schools of thought on this one. I stand on the side of don't mess with it; but this is a split decision topic amongst the collecting world. If you are talking about re-snipering a PU sniper though, don't bother. There are enough real examples on the market to not even make it worth the time or money to do it. Heck you can get a real PU sniper though Classic Arms right now for less than $600. It will cost you that much at least in parts alone to turn an ex-sniper back into a sniper. PE and PEM's are a different story.

[Starshina]

Zeebill,
There is a lot of reliable information about Mosins out there. You just have to read Russian and understand all of the nuances of shooting. There was also an official 91/30 sniper manual published by the Soviet Ministry of Defense. I believe that's where I saw .75MOA specs for group. Speculation based on tribal knowledge that doesn't make any sense means nothing to me.

[Darryl]

The point I was making is.......

These are all just speculation and stories. Period. I'm not backing any of them.

There is no literature on what the Russians did during WWI with their rifle productions, just speculation by a few authors. But there is no proof. That is how they wanted it back them. Trying to speculate on how they were made back in WWII or how they made them is just guess work.

With all due respect, your "experience" in national matches and rifles have nothing to do with rifle made in Russia during WWII during wartime production. You can't begin to imagine the difficulties and pressure they must have been under during WWII.

"It's idiotic to think that an arsenal will dismantle a sniper and convert it to regular rifle, because they had a lot of snipers."
"Idiotic"? I'm hoping you didn't direct that statement at me. If you did, I was trying to have a conversation here, not a pissing match. As I said, that theroy is not mine but I believe some owners of another forum have speculated this may have been what went on. Now if you don't agree, then say so, and say why, don't get all lathered up about it. Please don't call people "Idiotic" (anyone) on these forums.

"Even many of the books we except wholly as a good reference have parts of them that are totally wrong and at times just could not have possibly happend at the time mentioned or the place." This is the point I am trying to make. Some try to "push" their agenda on how something should have been done back then when we really don't know for sure. Many of the "sources" or books are incorrect and are just pushing their agenda and book.


But all of this has nothing to do with the original question of "Is it wrong". It was asked here on this forums and......it is wrong (as far as these forums are concerned). If you don't agree with that........it is OK. There are plenty of other forums that are OK with you altering your Mosin. Guns and Games Forum comes to mind. You can do as you wish and show it off there. That's OK with us. But don't bother to post it here.

Dolk

[Darryl]

Please try to bring this conversation back to the OP's original question.

Is it wrong to re-sniper and ex- sniper"


Dolk

[Starshina]

Please try to bring this conversation back to the OP's original question.

Is it wrong to re-sniper and ex- sniper"


Dolk

Would it make you feel better if I say it is wrong five more times? I only mentioned another reason why returning these rifles to sniper configuration doesn't make sense. There was a good reason why they took the scope mounts off and pluged the holes.

[target]

I think the Ex-snipers are really cool and a neat piece of history at an affordable price. Ive got 2 ex-snipers one is a 1944 the other 1943 both from Izhevsk. The 44 has a dark and frosty bore while the 43 looks brand spankin new, so new in fact I haven't shot it yet. I think they are a neat little subdivision of the Mosin world that you could seek out and collect by itself. I could see ex-snipers being worth more later down the road, some commercial dealers have already made note of this and are selling ES rifles for more now.

Leave it how it is, you would regret the decision later if you alter it now.

My opinion on the whole why it was ex-snipered. Until the Russians come out with something official either from the state or an old armorer then everything wrote down here in the states is here say and guessing. Just like a USGI bring back k98 is just another k98 without the papers, that's how these stories are... just stories. Some make more sense than others but since they are all unfounded then they are nothing to get riled up about. Just my even though no one probably wanted them.

[Darryl]

Please try to bring this conversation back to the OP's original question.

Is it wrong to re-sniper and ex- sniper"


Dolk

Would it make you feel better if I say it is wrong five more times? I only mentioned another reason why returning these rifles to sniper configuration doesn't make sense. There was a good reason why they took the scope mounts off and pluged the holes.

Yes.....Go ahead and try it.

Dolk

[Starshina]

1. It is wrong, because it alters historical artifact.
2. It is wrong, because these rifles either were rejected or barrels shot out to meet the accuracy requirment for a sniper.
3. It is wrong, because it turns an old military weapon in to Bubba's weekend project, that no one cares about.
4. It is wrong, because people who try to do this are guided by ignorance.
5. It is wrong, because there is a simpler way to have a much better and more accurate scoped rifles then re-cooking a surplus rifle.