Why So Many 1943 Mosins?

[RugerNut]

I do see all year makes of Mosin Nagants out there. But, I see a lot more 1943 MN's then any other year made. Why are/were there so many 1943 MN's manufactured then any other year? Or, is it just a coincidence because I own a 1943 MN?

[tjtM38]

The production information by year is available on this forum. Notice the figures are "estimated." Not sure anyone knows the exact number produced but you can be assured that the total number far exceeds any other country's battle rifle production in WWII. It would appear from the data that more were produced in 1942. Why you are seeing a lot of 1943 rifles is anybody's guess. I own a 1943 Izhevsk M91/30 myself. It is the roughest high wall receiver I have with lots of tool marks. It is a refurb, but it has the correct war time stock so I like it. Also one of my best shooters.

http://www.russian-mosin-nagant.com/russia_m1891-30/

[ffuries]

My M91/30s are a 43 Izhevsk, along with a 42 and 39 Izhevsk, and a 39 Tula.

As said the 43 Izhevsk has a rough finish, while the rest are nicely finished.

[capt14k]

Based on what was going on in the world I would expect 1942-44 to have the highest production numbers across all nations. I think it likely holds true for most nations with 1943 being the most.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Junk Yard Dog]

1943 was a crowded year for the USSR, they turned the tide and became the pursuing army. Their war became staggeringly huge as did their overall military forces. Their industry hit it's peak performance and was going hell for leather. No longer were Soviet soldiers going into battle with nothing but their dicks in their hands as had been the case during parts of 1942. The Red Army was fully equipped and had a secure supply line, and a plan, march toward Germany and kill everyone they found in the way.

[Junk Yard Dog]

My M91/30s are a 43 Izhevsk, along with a 42 and 39 Izhevsk, and a 39 Tula.

As said the 43 Izhevsk has a rough finish, while the rest are nicely finished.

Depends on what part of 1943 the rifle was made, some '43's can have a final finish as nice as post war rifles. When the rush was on they did away with all but the necessity's, when the pressure was off they resumed normal production.

[RugerNut]

My M91/30s are a 43 Izhevsk, along with a 42 and 39 Izhevsk, and a 39 Tula.

As said the 43 Izhevsk has a rough finish, while the rest are nicely finished.

Depends on what part of 1943 the rifle was made, some '43's can have a final finish as nice as post war rifles. When the rush was on they did away with all but the necessity's, when the pressure was off they resumed normal production.

This must be the time my '43 Izhevsk was made.

[Junk Yard Dog]

Yes, some attempts were made by whoever made the 91/59's to clean up some of the rough finished rifles, but otherwise with the exception of the reblue the Soviets just left them as is during the refurb post war.

[RugerNut]

Yes, some attempts were made by whoever made the 91/59's to clean up some of the rough finished rifles, but otherwise with the exception of the reblue the Soviets just left them as is during the refurb post war.

The thought of cleaning mine without harming the stamping, had entered my mind. But, I think I would be doing more harm than good.
Now, had I still kept one of the BOO KOO MN''s I bought back in the late 80's/early 90's, I wouldn't hesitate to try it on one of them. The price of a rusty, broken stock MN is fetching $300+ today. IMHO, that's about $250-$275 too much. We will NEVER see 80's/90's prices again. I plan on keeping this '43 MN as long as I live. It shoots straight, looks great, and I only paid $150 for it back in 2014.

[Junk Yard Dog]

Yes, some attempts were made by whoever made the 91/59's to clean up some of the rough finished rifles, but otherwise with the exception of the reblue the Soviets just left them as is during the refurb post war.

The thought of cleaning mine without harming the stamping, had entered my mind. But, I think I would be doing more harm than good.
Now, had I still kept one of the BOO KOO MN''s I bought back in the late 80's/early 90's, I wouldn't hesitate to try it on one of them. The price of a rusty, broken stock MN is fetching $300+ today. IMHO, that's about $250-$275 too much. We will NEVER see 80's/90's prices again. I plan on keeping this '43 MN as long as I live. It shoots straight, looks great, and I only paid $150 for it back in 2014.

We didn't have the refub Soviet Mosins until after the breakup of the USSR, and the fall of the communists in 1991 freed the Ukrainians to start selling their hoard. Before this we saw occasional '43's from the Finland stash and a few brought home from Korea in 1950-53. Never alter a piece of history, and that is what the 1943 rough looking finish Mosins are. They graphically depict a time of near panic and the balls to the wall all out effort by a people to save their country at any cost. We saw something similar with the Japanese Arisakas made during the last year of the war, pray you never see it on anything made in the USA.

[djbuck1]

There are a number of interrelated factors to consider in responding to your question. This is in the realm of "industrial history" geeks (such as myself) who would wonder why (for example) the higher production year 1942 (refurbished) rifles seem not to be proportionately represented when compared to to the 1943 production. Below are some musings.

The M91/30 was, of course, the principle Soviet small arm of the war, especially before 1944. With a few exceptions, the war in the East was marked by a series of disasters for the Red Army from June, 1941 until Kursk in mid-1943 (yes, Stalingrad was a victory but at an appalling cost). The loss of small arms during Barbarossa was staggering, and I suspect that production well into 1943 was to replace those losses as well as to arm even more conscripts. The numbers and uneven quality of refurbished rifles tells us a lot about the fortunes of war up to mid-1943. As has often been said, these weapons wear their history.

As far as uneven quality goes, the workers producing the weapons were not the decently fed, clothed and housed workers of the American industrial juggernaut. More likely poorly fed, inadequately clothed and barely housed. I suspect that if there was time (and oversight by foremen and politruks), then the quality was better. Or maybe not. Maybe those worthies pushed production out and allowed shortcuts to meet an urgent (as in, 'produce the rifles or be shot') requisition. As with so much about what went on in the Soviet Union, we just don't know. I have some decent 1943 produced rifles. I also have a 1943 that became a Romanian "INSTRUCTIE," that I am very reluctant to fire. See, below.

Consider also that battlefield recovery and repair of weapons is a vital logistical operation. It's not glamorous, so not that much has been printed about it. If you are in possession of the battlefield at the end of the day, you will get a proportion of your dropped and/or damaged weapons back. If not, then those weapons are lost. For this reason (to say nothing of the intensity of combat), Soviet production from 1943 onwards was more likely to be retained and repaired than pre-1943 production.

Also keep in mind that the relative experience and skill of the Russian soldier was increasing in 1943. His ability (and the means and time to maintain his weapon) was also on the increase.

And by 1943, Russian tactical doctrine was changing-- both of necessity and by virtue of experience. There seems to have been a shift towards automatic weapons (such as the PPSh-41), and it had been the intent of the Russians to field the semi-automatic SVT-40 until the necessity to replace rifle losses after Barbarossa put the kibosh on that. I don't think that it was ever the intention to keep M91/30 production going in the numbers they did, but the Russians had no choice, hence high-number production in 1942-1943.

By 1944, it was clear to everyone but the most indoctrinated Nazi that Russia was going to win the war. The transition to automatic weapons was allowed to continue while rifle production declined somewhat.

So. My conclusion is that while production in 1942 may have been higher, the survivability/recoverability of the individual rifle increased from mid-1943 onward-- probably at the time the 1943 production was really getting into the hands of the troops. Survivability of pre-1943 rifles? Probably lower than 1943 production. But quality remained inconsistent throughout those years, dependent I suspect on local circumstances and pressure from above.

Finally, we have no idea what criteria was used in determining whether to reuse or to scrap parts during the period when these rifles were refurbished. Maybe a lot of used-up pre-1943 barrels and receivers simply didn't make the cut. Maybe because of some of the factors cited above, there were just more 1943 barrels and receivers to use. It's interesting to speculate, but unless Russian/American relations thaw again, AND records exist, AND those records are available to researchers, we won't ever know the full story.

I've thrown in a few pictures of two 1943 Izhevsk rifles, both refurbs, though the rougher (and first shown) of the two is the Romanian re-issued "Instructie."

[djbuck1]

Meanwhile, at Tula in 1943 they were even using hex receivers they found somewhere or recovered from otherwise unrepairable Dragoons.

1943: "Everything for the Front! Everything for Victory!"

[SA1911a1]

The made a lot of rifles in '43 because they were still losing a lot of rifles in battles the likes of which we never saw in WWII. The Soviets had somewhere around 1.6 million troops killed in '43.