Is it Advisable to Exchange Parts on Rifles?

[mosinsky]

As a relative newcomer to the Mosin Nagant club, I am still learning what I should or should not do. My question for the more experienced members is whether it is advisable to change certain parts on a Mosin, for example, changing the stock bands to match the arsenal of the receiver or change the stock so it makes the era of the receiver's year? Any advise would be appreciated!

[Junk Yard Dog]

No need to do that, the refurbs are supposed to have that parts mix, and with things involving the bolt it could be dangerous if proper headspace is lost.

[MarksmanTim]

Please do not do this. Others will elaborate, but basically you will ruin the history of the rifle. The way they are now is the way they were meant to be. Making a rifle "match" arsenal stamps when it wasn't originally like that after refurb not something we allow here.

Just enjoy the rifles as they are!

As a side note: if you have a rifle with a broken part, it is OK to replace that part with another good piece to make the rifle safe and/or shoot-able again.

[Lee-online]

Humping is frowned upon. It does not increase the value but may raise some suspicion.

[redspoon]

Humping is frowned upon. It does not increase the value but may raise some suspicion.

I agree, just don't tell that to the M1 Carbine Community. Some of those guys spend years humping parts to make as they call it a all matching rockola, inland etc etc. Most of those carbines sell for big bucks and have been humped more than the car dash uns. To begin with I think some of em left the factory new with mismatched parts to start with.

[mogunner]

If I got one that ALL the parts matched as to the arsenal, I'd know for certain that it had been "humped". It just doesn't happen that way. Now, one with no import mark, sure, but refurb, no way.

[kworm99]

mogunner, are you talking about pre/wartime rifles specifically? Or are you referring to post war as well?

[millman]

mogunner, are you talking about pre/wartime rifles specifically? Or are you referring to post war as well?

Most of these rifles are a mix of all era parts. A 42 Izhevsk with an oldstyle Tula bolt handle would not be strange. If I saw any rifle with all matching arsenal and era feature I would think that it might have messed with, unless there was a legitimate explanation. For instance I have a 1939 Izhevsk that is all Ishevsk parts except for the sight leaf. I would think it weird if I saw it at a show. However I bought this gun at Dunhams, and they didn't hump it. They wouldn't know enough to do it.

[kworm99]

I completely agree about Dunham's. I ask this because I purchased a '47 M44 a couple of days ago, and every part is Izhevsk. Bolt, rear sight, butt plate, both barrel bands, cleaning rod, bayonet, bayonet lug, etc... Numbers don't match, and it's packed full of cosmoline. What are your thoughts on this?

[Lee-online]

I completely agree about Dunham's. I ask this because I purchased a '47 M44 a couple of days ago, and every part is Izhevsk. Bolt, rear sight, butt plate, both barrel bands, cleaning rod, bayonet, bayonet lug, etc... Numbers don't match, and it's packed full of cosmoline. What are your thoughts on this?

Tula only made M44's in 1944 so almost all m44's will be Izhevsk and the fact that late post war rifles most likely never were issued, the odds of finding all original is pretty high.

[Junk Yard Dog]

Humping is frowned upon. It does not increase the value but may raise some suspicion.

I agree, just don't tell that to the M1 Carbine Community. Some of those guys spend years humping parts to make as they call it a all matching rockola, inland etc etc. Most of those carbines sell for big bucks and have been humped more than the car dash uns. To begin with I think some of em left the factory new with mismatched parts to start with.

Many of them did due to some makers inability to keep up with production. They had to borrow parts from the nine other manufacturers. Add in to the mix the sub-sub contractors who made runs of parts for all of the makers any it becomes very confusing.

[zeebill]

To me the American and German rifle collectors today switch so many parts around it is refreshing to find a rifle with non-proper parts! I surely hope the Mosin community takes notice and acts the right way about it. Parts break or get unsafe I have no problem changing things out to make them right and safely firing. Otherwise the way it came to me is the way it goes if indeed it ever does go? Bill

[mosinsky]

"Humping?" This term now has a new meaning to me. Still, I am confused. If "humping," or not replacing parts on a Mosin, isn't recommended in order to maintain the value of the "reconditioned" Mosin then are all the rifles of the same Arsenal and year are of equal value, regardless of the number of components that share the same arsenal's parts and appropriate stock with the barrel/receiver? In support of this discussion, one question that would need an answer to would be how the rifles were reconditioned. One possibility would be that a specific rifle was disassembled at a station, the barrel/receiver would be cleaned/re-blued, any damaged parts replaced with spares, and then reassembled. Judging by even my limited experience - three rifles, this seems unlikely as why would each one of them have different arsenal stock bands, magazine, and butt plate versus the barrel/receiver. In fact, these three rifles have few common arsenal parts with the receiver. This would make one suspect that at the arsenal where the rifles were reconditioned the rifles were disassembled; the non-serialized parts/stocks pooled, the receiver/barrels cleaned/re-blued, and then assembled with non-serialized parts and stocks randomly chosen. If this is so, then whether any rifle had more or less components are of the same origin would have to be the random effect of what parts were assembled at the arsenal after the barrel/receiver was reconditioned as the chance of the reassembled non-serialized parts being part of the original rifle would be very low. Does this make sense?
In either case, I still will enjoy collecting Mosins. I would just like to know what makes one rifle of the same make/year more collectable from another.

[Lee-online]

You cannot increase the value of a refurb mosin by changing, swapping or modifying parts. Leave it as it is and time will increase the value.

[Darryl]

"Humping?" This term now has a new meaning to me. Still, I am confused. If "humping," or not replacing parts on a Mosin, isn't recommended in order to maintain the value of the "reconditioned" Mosin then are all the rifles of the same Arsenal and year are of equal value, regardless of the number of components that share the same arsenal's parts and appropriate stock with the barrel/receiver? In support of this discussion, one question that would need an answer to would be how the rifles were reconditioned. One possibility would be that a specific rifle was disassembled at a station, the barrel/receiver would be cleaned/re-blued, any damaged parts replaced with spares, and then reassembled. Judging by even my limited experience - three rifles, this seems unlikely as why would each one of them have different arsenal stock bands, magazine, and butt plate versus the barrel/receiver. In fact, these three rifles have few common arsenal parts with the receiver. This would make one suspect that at the arsenal where the rifles were reconditioned the rifles were disassembled; the non-serialized parts/stocks pooled, the receiver/barrels cleaned/re-blued, and then assembled with non-serialized parts and stocks randomly chosen. If this is so, then whether any rifle had more or less components are of the same origin would have to be the random effect of what parts were assembled at the arsenal after the barrel/receiver was reconditioned as the chance of the reassembled non-serialized parts being part of the original rifle would be very low. Does this make sense?
In either case, I still will enjoy collecting Mosins. I would just like to know what makes one rifle of the same make/year more collectable from another.

Read the information pages on the refurbished Mosins. http://www.russian-mosin-nagant-forum.c ... index.html
It gives a general idea of what they did to them during refurbishment.

The snipers were handled a little differently because they probably wanted to get the original scopes back to the correct rifles making it easier. No two PU sniper rifles are drilled exactly the same. Their is a pretty good variation of the pins and holes. Each was drilled to match the base they were putting on.

Dolk