qz2026 wrote:
Whoa Nelly.
These carbines were NEVER M-44's. And, technically, they were not converted to M-38's. The 91/38 is a hybrid created in a separate project to re-service Imperial M-91's. (The 91/59 project did the same thing but to re-service 91/30 configured rifles).
Correct, M38s were never M44s. But an M91/38 could have been an M44 (hence why you see filled pin holes on some and like in Redspoon's pic).
Nope, not a chance. Remember 91/38's were made from M-91's that in many ways were unserviceable. Yet, removing the damaged muzzles and cutting them to carbine length saved many of them. These were never M-44's. Remember, the M-44 was developed and first issued in 1943. These were round receiver rifles. Yes, I understand that some M-44's have Hex receivers. These receivers had been stored and only used when production of the round receivers could not keep up with demand. It's possible that a very few Imperial Hex receivers may have been used in these (M-44) carbines but their numbers would, if they even exist, be very small. The filled area on the barrels of the 91/38's were from the removal of bayonet mounts that had been purposely installed so the carbine could have a bayonet like the M-44. But, these were virtually all removed save for a very, very few.
Again, the M38 never was designed or intended to have a bayo and neither were M91/38s.
You are entirely wrong with that statement. If this were the case, then why did virtually all of the 91/38's once have the bayonet bracket? BTW..., where did I say that the M-38 was designed to have a bayonet?
The Czechs never intended for the 91/38 to have a bayo either (hence removing lugs and filling holes) and were not designed to "mimic the M44" - they were designed to mimic the M38, otherwise, they'd be called an "91/44."
You are quite incorrect on this. It is clear to me that these carbines were, indeed, originally designed to have bayonets, hence virtually all of them were manufactures like this. I don't know where this term 91/44 came from. I first saw the expression in a post I made for the Showcase. Perhaps if they had not removed the bayonets, they would have renamed it such. But, when you install bayonets on altered carbines, the mimic is of an M-44, not an M-38. And maybe "mimic" is the wrong word. Perhaps "function as" would be better. Once the bayonets had been removed, then the "38" found it's way into the description. And don't be so sure about the "Czechs" having build these rifles. That has still not been resolved. Could have been any of the Russian satellite countries. Albania/Bulgaria seem likely suspects... There is no documentation either way, just speculation and trying to understand based on the markings on these guns. And, the builder's intentions would not make any difference. I contend that this project, along with the 91/59 project, were Russian projects with specific requirements that were given to satellite countries to build. On the 91/38, the unique shank and receiver stampings were probably local inspection/ID markings.
I also contend that these carbines (91/38 and 91/59) were not designed to be put into service unless absolutely necessary. There is no reason other than to believe that they were built to (1) recondition unserviceable inventory and (2) to be put into storage for future use - the exact reason for the large refurbishment program. I have never seen an example of a 91/38 that was ever used in combat. (And, I've seen a few...). That doesn't mean that there might be one or two.
To be sure...
The 91/38 was never an M-38 and was not designed to be an M-38
The M-38 was never a 91/38
The 91/38 was never an M-44
An M-44 was never a 91/38.
That said, the 91/38 was originally designed to function as an M-44, albeit in grandpa's shoes.
Country of manufacture/refurb/rebuild is unknown
They were never intended to have bayos… so they generally do not have ground-off bayonet lug "figure-eight" markings. They were made straight up as is in carbine config or an old M91 or M91/30 were chopped down and converted. 
BTW... very nice example.