The Russian Mosin Nagant Forum

I just read in Lapin's book on the Mosin-Nagant that once the Germans got too close to the Tula Arsenal the Soviets broke down the equipment and moved it to the Izhevsk Arsenal. The real surprise to me was once they built the equipment back up they continued to make rifles bearing the Tula "Star." Is this accurate? I have a 1942 Tula and never would have guessed that it was made at Izhevsk.

The time frame was actually 1942-1943!

It may have only been assembled at Izhevsk with parts already manufactured at Tula. If it looks like the better finish that Tulas are known for, then that is probably the case.

I don't know that that is true or not. They may have shipped the equipment but Tula kept at making SVT and other stuff. I have a 42 and 43 Tula. If they moved the equipment, why would they continue with the tula mark instead of the Izhevsk mark unless the barrels were already made ahead of time. I will have to check the tangs on the 42 and 43 to see if they have Izhevsk receivers or not.

It is my understanding that Izhevsk made the forgings and rough machining for the receiver and barrel blanks for Tula Mosin production, all Tula did was finish machining and assembly. So it would make sense to move the final processing at Tula to be closer to the source of the raw material. The Tula production probably wasn't located in the same facility as the Izhevsk production so they continued to use the Tula marking. Another consideration is how much of the machinery was actually moved? As stated above, Tula continued to produce weapons, so how much of the machinery was converted to produce weapons other than the Mosin, i.e. SVT, machine guns, sub guns, etc?
Also, I have to wonder with full scale production of the M44 starting in 1944, when the Soviets were retooling for that model they didn't go ahead and start using the Izhevsk markings then. May explain the low numbers of Tula marked m44s, and the huge number of Izhevsk marked ones.

I have a 1942 Tula, two 1943s (a hex receiver and an ex-sniper), and a 1944. None of them has an Izhevsk tang mark the way the 1941s do.

The Wehrmacht came close to taking Tula in 1941, but they never did.

The Russians weren't always able to evacuate machinery ahead of the German advance. One example is Stalingrad where the Tractor Factory, the Red October factory and the Barrikady kept producing right up until fighting outside the city began.

I'm resurrecting this thread because I was curious about a refurbished 91/30 I've been cleaning up this week. It's a 1943 Tula barrel on a 40 or 41 Tula receiver. The barrel is barely finished and at first sight almost looks like rebar--very rough indeed--and the contrast with the well-finished receiver is striking.

In other posts I've read that Tula has the reputation for having kept up its quality control right through the war, but this piece would suggest otherwise. And I have a lovely 1943 Izhevsk that suggest no dropping-off in quality of finish.

I can think of at least two explanations: (1) at some times during the year production was hastier--on both Tula and Izhevsk-marked rifles--than it was at other times, or (2) some assembly lines were just slacker than others (again regardless of "brand"), although both nicely and poorly finished rifles went into service. I'm assuming more than one assembly line because of the variety of fonts used for the date. Any other scenarios?

I think that war production factories were given quotas that they had to meet or exceed. If the end of the month was coming up, and it looked like the quota wouldn't be reached, I'll bet there was a big drop off in quality just to get rifles out.

Can you post a pic of your receiver tang? I don't recall ever seeing a 41 Tula receiver.

rdmadison wrote:I'm resurrecting this thread because I was curious about a refurbished 91/30 I've been cleaning up this week. It's a 1943 Tula barrel on a 40 or 41 Tula receiver. The barrel is barely finished and at first sight almost looks like rebar--very rough indeed--and the contrast with the well-finished receiver is striking.

In other posts I've read that Tula has the reputation for having kept up its quality control right through the war, but this piece would suggest otherwise. And I have a lovely 1943 Izhevsk that suggest no dropping-off in quality of finish.

I can think of at least two explanations: (1) at some times during the year production was hastier--on both Tula and Izhevsk-marked rifles--than it was at other times, or (2) some assembly lines were just slacker than others (again regardless of "brand"), although both nicely and poorly finished rifles went into service. I'm assuming more than one assembly line because of the variety of fonts used for the date. Any other scenarios?

I would say the key to your question is in the one word "Refurbishment" We really have no idea when these parts joined each other just educated guesses. I read all the theories put forth by the masses but it really is only a guess with a lot of the records long gone and the old USSR not existing any more. Bill

I have reduced photos of the receiver and tang with the left third of the star and first digit of the date (4) highlighted. Apparently you can't just copy and past these into a message, so without further instruction I'll have to leave it up to your imagination. But they don't look any different than other half-visible tang markings you run across.

desdem12 wrote:I don't know that that is true or not. They may have shipped the equipment but Tula kept at making SVT and other stuff. I have a 42 and 43 Tula. If they moved the equipment, why would they continue with the tula mark instead of the Izhevsk mark unless the barrels were already made ahead of time. I will have to check the tangs on the 42 and 43 to see if they have Izhevsk receivers or not.

Tula plant was evacuated in late 1941. Starting from early 1942 "Tula" SVT-40s were build in Mednogorsk. Also the m/91-30 production was started in a new location.

The Tula plant in the city of Tula re-started production in 1944, if I remember it correctly.

I have a Hex Tula w/ big hammer stamp , so it's pre- '28, rebarreled at Tula in '43. The tang is also stamped '43 SBP.....63 MN's

What does it matter? Do you think the Germans really cared if they were being shot by a Tula or Izhevsk made MN?

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

No, perhaps the German soldier would not have cared.

Were all '42 tula guns assembled or made elsewhere? if not how would i know? just curious on my 42

More on this 1943 barrel.

Under a magnifying glass I can see that the turnings on the barrel proper are consistent with a lathe, but the short strokes on the breech are more like the marks of a file or emery cloth, suggesting scrubbing. If the barrel was contemporary with the receiver (40 or 41) then it's been re-dated. The smaller font of the date may be a clue, but I haven't seen enough other example to know.

Of course, no way to tell where. No overstamped Izhevsk marks. A curiosity.