Did I step on a landmine? 1943 Tula refurb [PICS!!]

[jerrywyy]

Dear fellow mosin lovers, after lurking here for about 2 years, I finally decided to get a PU sniper. Sorry for the lack of whole gun picture, I basically took it apart as soon as I got it. Here it is stripped down in it's future residence:


I spent 1600 Canuck pesos on this piece, the seller claims it to be "factory refurbed". Now it is all fun and games until I start to notice some red flags that make me question the authenticity of this rifle. So what better place to ask questions than here on the forum? AS IS TRADITION!

I will post different parts of the rifle, but first thing first, there are no visible import marks or even the good'ol <rNc> marks anywhere. Although I think this is quite common for guns imported into syrup-land (I have a few SKS and an SVT40 without marks). The pictures of the common places that I see import marks are below:

Receiver top:


Rear receiver:


Barrel under the handguard:


TO BE CONTINUED...

[jerrywyy]

Now, as per usual the barrel markings and shanks:




Plus the rear sight leaf spring:

[jerrywyy]

Now on to the first REDFLAG that I've noticed (apart from the pitting). I wanted to checkout if there is any markings under the scope mount base. However, I discovered that there are in total 5 holes (not 4!) under there, one of which is plugged with a screw:

I begin to worry if this is a "re-snipered" ex-sniper, since I've heard plenty of such scary stories. Now what I don't understand is that, why is the hole only plugged with a screw but not welded shut and grounded flat (like most other ex-snipers)?




On a side note the inlet cut in the wood stock does not look too fresh, and there appears to be some sort of shellac covering the inlet edge:

[jerrywyy]

Moving on, some of parts are clearly force-matched, for instance the buttplate and the magazine floor plate.

In fact that they used so much "force" in force-matching these, you can feel the metal caving in around the stamped numbers. Is this a normal thing? What do you think?





The stock also has a "split" near the butt end, instead of one-piece hardwood.

[jerrywyy]

Moving on, the next and perhaps the greatest REDFLAG is the bolt. I learned here that the bolt should be machined not welded on, however, on this one I noticed clear weld marks (dark pits) on the side of the bolt handle. Did someone re-snipered the gun by welding on a bent bolt handle?

The bolt assembly


Bolt serial, appears to be re-stamped since the "4" is of a different font. Again no special Cyrillic letters so could be easily faked.


Upper part showing overall radius:


Side profile:


Close-up of the weld marks:


Finally the underside of the bolt:



Oh boy not looking too good

[jerrywyy]

Now lets look at the scope and mount, there are a few things here that also got me confused.

A sight picture, the image is yellowish:


The scope numbers are jiggly (and non-matching), it is also very strange that no refurb marks can be found on the scope:


Scope turret stopping pins and screws:



The eye piece is quite worn, plus a side profile of the scope with a scratch on:







The mount itself is pretty confusing too, the original scope number is half ground-off, and the new rifle's serial number is stamped on there. Like mentioned before, this can be faked easily since no special Cyrillic letter. Also, if you squint at it, you can see there's electro-penciled numbers ground off of the mount.



The backside of the mount and the mount base:




And thats about all folks, thanks for tolerating my bad photography skill! What do you think about this rifle, is it an re-snipered gun or just a sloppy refurb job?

[AMCHornet]

I have much less experience than others on this forum, but I'll give you my opinion. The worst I can be is wrong and the experts will correct me, but since they have not spoken yet I might as well.

The scope mount holes in the receiver look like fresh, white steel inside like they were drilled and tapped after the receiver was blued, or like there were screws in the holes when it was blued.

The alignment pins came out with the scope mount rather than staying in the receiver.

The bluing on the side of the receiver around the scope mount holes is worn almost completely off like that area was worked over a lot after the receiver was blued.

The screw in the receiver is plugging a hole that was drilled in the wrong spot by a novice. Somebody made a silly mistake and covered it up. It could have been the FNG at Tula arsenal in 1943, but I doubt it.

The bolt handle is definitely welded. Could be a field repair, but I doubt it.

The finish on the stock in the cut-out area for the scope mount is a little too neatly finished. It should have the same dark line of old varnish like the cut-out area on the other side for the bolt handle has.

The scope number is not electro-penciled onto the scope mount, and the rifle number is stamped on the mount rather than electro-penciled.

I think it's a re-sniper, and not a good one at that. I wouldn't have touched it at that price.

[Miller Tyme]

I will need to look at it latter today on my computer at home but this rifle appears at best a resnipered ex.

[steelbuttplate]

Is it normal to see a hole drilled thru a charging slot ? The bolt handle welded, not good, the stock looks sorta fresh cut and penciled over the fresh part.

[jerrywyy]

I have much less experience than others on this forum, but I'll give you my opinion. The worst I can be is wrong and the experts will correct me, but since they have not spoken yet I might as well.

The scope mount holes in the receiver look like fresh, white steel inside like they were drilled and tapped after the receiver was blued, or like there were screws in the holes when it was blued.

The alignment pins came out with the scope mount rather than staying in the receiver.

The bluing on the side of the receiver around the scope mount holes is worn almost completely off like that area was worked over a lot after the receiver was blued.

The screw in the receiver is plugging a hole that was drilled in the wrong spot by a novice. Somebody made a silly mistake and covered it up. It could have been the FNG at Tula arsenal in 1943, but I doubt it.

The bolt handle is definitely welded. Could be a field repair, but I doubt it.

The finish on the stock in the cut-out area for the scope mount is a little too neatly finished. It should have the same dark line of old varnish like the cut-out area on the other side for the bolt handle has.

The scope number is not electro-penciled onto the scope mount, and the rifle number is stamped on the mount rather than electro-penciled.

I think it's a re-sniper, and not a good one at that. I wouldn't have touched it at that price.

Thanks for pointing out! Looks like I payed a heavy tuition for this one

[jerrywyy]

Is it normal to see a hole drilled thru a charging slot ? The bolt handle welded, not good, the stock looks sorta fresh cut and penciled over the fresh part.

Probably not, couldn't find any on google images

[jerrywyy]

I will need to look at it latter today on my computer at home but this rifle appears at best a resnipered ex.

I admit it doesn't look good

[Miller Tyme]

Is it normal to see a hole drilled thru a charging slot ?

That is pretty close to where the rear pin hole is.

[Darryl]

I didn't comment on it because frankly, I had so many concerns about it. Which usually means it's bad news.
Pretty sloppy work also

I'll let Miller Tyme do this one.

Darryl

[jerrywyy]

Is it normal to see a hole drilled thru a charging slot ?

That is pretty close to where the rear pin hole is.

Do all authentic snipers have pins on the receivers (instead of on mount base)?

[Darryl]

Is it normal to see a hole drilled thru a charging slot ?

That is pretty close to where the rear pin hole is.

Do all authentic snipers have pins on the receivers (instead of on mount base)?

It's a hole on both sides. The pins are usually hammered into the receiver (and yes they are that tight). and they usually stay in the receiver when the base is ever removed. BUT, not always. So, less of a concern if I see them poking out of the base.

I will let Miller take it from here! LOL

MILLER! where are you?


A few of the things that bothered me was.
1) notice that the barrel shank has been sanded or "grained". Notice how rough it is compared to the receiver?
Why? .... to cover something up?

2) The hole that was drilled and tapped then plugged with a bolt and "set". That doesn't make sense. The Russians never did things like that ......that I know of.

3) The rust pitting in the scope base area. That is the kind of rust pitting you see under the stock, not under a base like that. Like that was done when it had a standard stock on it.

4) Those are very fresh tapping in that receiver for the scope base mount.

5) There has been so much work done under the scope mount base it is really awful. That would concern me to death.

6) The bolt, .... well, what can I say about that bolt. I have never seen work like that on a rifle from the Russian arsenals. Never. Fact is, you can see grind marks still on the surface where the serial number is. That never happens. Not to mention the "under cuts" on the welding. Under cuts are the areas or void between the weld material and the main surface. That is awful.

7) The cut out for the scope base (stock) is not as poor a job as the rest. MAYBE, it is correct, but there are things I see that are not right on it either.

I'm sure Miller will tells us even more.

Darryl

[Miller Tyme]

On my way home Darryl, something about hot weather and no AC drives people crazy.

[Darryl]

On my way home Darryl, something about hot weather and no AC drives people crazy.

Oh, I know that one.

Darryl

[jerrywyy]

On my way home Darryl, something about hot weather and no AC drives people crazy.

Oh, I know that one.

Darryl

I must say I really appreciate the help I am getting here, I hope I am at least providing some entertainment for you guys.

Speaking of the rough barrel shank, I got this refurbed m38 which also has a pretty grainy finish on the barrel so I didn't notice that at all

[Darryl]

Not much entertainment here. I always worry for the guy who got a reproduction sniper and was told it was real.

On the M38, it is a Izhevsk and it's not a sniper rifle. On snipers (for the most part) they took a little more time on them. On Izhevsk rifles or M38's, they sometimes had to push out rifles to meet demands. So, they cut corners. Especially some years when the Germans were right on top of the arsenals.

Darryl