AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper (Updated Pictures Page 2)

All Military Snipers are discussed here!


Preservation forum, please no altered military surplus rifles or discussions on altering in this forum. Please read the rules at the top of each forum.
User avatar
WeldonHunter
Posts: 5242
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Louisiana
Contact:

AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper (Updated Pictures Page 2)

Post by WeldonHunter »

After a bit of a wait I finally picked up my rifles today. One was the one in this thread and because I decided to also order 2 Czech VZ24s picking this one up was delayed. This rifle came in last friday. The day before it came in I purchased the other two rifles and decided to pick them all up together. Total cost for FFL transfer of all 3 rifles was $20. My FFL likes when I get these because he knows a little about them and loves pulling them out of the boxes to log them in. I expected to have to come back next week to pick these up because everytime so far the "instant" background check wasn't. While I was waiting I looked at the limited inventory of rifles he has for sale and noticed he had a 303 British. I didn't lift it out of the rack but saw it was stamped S.M.L.E MKIII .303 (not sure about the MKIII, I may have remembered that wrong). The manager told me it was a 1928 Australian made and the price tag was $1,149.00. I have no idea if the price was good or bad as well as if what he's correct about the rifle being Australian but it was a clean looking rifle. I suspect it'll be there for a while.

Ok back to this rifle. It's a 1943 Tula and the pictures are of it right out of the box, uncleaned. I didn't get the white Molot box that some got. It was packed in the same type of box I usually all of my other rifles in but was packed very well. It's in one of the pictures. The rifle came with basic tools. Muzzle protector, cleaning rod t-handle and adapter, cleaning jag and multi-tool. It also came with an oil bottle. No sling, no bayonet and no ammo pouch.

From first inspection this rifle is refurbed as expected. The bore is dirty with fairly decent rifling but has seen it's share of the cleaning rod. The crown is somewhat worn but is still fairly intact. I ran a few patches through the bore and they came back dirty for a while but after a soak with only Hoppes and a few passes with some different brushes the bore is shiney and has little to no pitting. CLP helped even more. I'm not done cleaning it so it might clean up more. Bottom line is the bore is still in good shape. It's not perfect but I'm happy with it. I'd be happier if it was perfect but it exceeds my expectations. The firing pin protrusion had to be adjusted back half a turn because it was touching the higher notch on the tool. I checked headspace with my new Okie Headspace gauges, http://www.okiegauges.com/sales.html , thank you Todd. It passes both no-go and field with flying colors. The trigger is better than any Mosin Nagant I own from first feel. They've done something different on this rifle. It has no play like a lot of the others I have and is smooth. The bolt is well fit and works very smooth also. When I started cleaning this rifle I found a fairly clean chamber. Very little to no cosmoline. I used a 12ga nylon brush to start with for the outer chamber and finshed up with a 44Mag nylon brush and some cleaning rags. There's no corrosion and the throat is intact.

The scope, tools and oil bottle all came wrapped in oil paper. The scope has the lens covers and they're old and mostly just for show at this point because time has had it's way with the leather. One cap has swelled up to the point where it is a lot bigger than the scope tube. The other side is better but not much. It's bacisally for show at this point. I wouldn't trust them on the rifle to walk around with. The one cap that's swollen also shows signs of some mold. It's white powdery buildup. I'll clean them up and see what I have later. The good thing is the scope is perfect. It appears from intial research to be a Plant NKV, Leningrad, Progress, Omsk 1943. The optics are clear with no apparent internal defects so far. The windage and elevation dails both work. The mount and scope tube are witness marked to eachother. The LOP is a bit long for me and I found I have to lean into the scope to view a correct picture through it. One other thing I noticed is the front site is pushed to the right but has a witness mark and I've heard theres quite a few others like this. I'll shoot it with iron sites to see if it's correct. It's not the only one I have like this.

The stock appears to be a late or post war with push in escutcheons the bullet cut out behind the rear barrel band and has a toe splice. The shellac is thick in places and has a rough feel to it in places. Typical slopped on job done during refurb. All in all I'm happy with it so far. Once I see how it shoots I'll make final judgement but if it's like most of the others I've seen so far it should shoot better then me. It's only rifle I own now with a scope that's right for the rifle. Hopefully it'll be accurate. Most reports I've seen so far for these have them shooting at about 1 to 2 MOA at 100 yards. I'll be real happy with that if this rifle shoots that way. I can't think of anything else at the moment and it's late so I'll finish cleaning it up tomorrow and maybe do some shooting. More to follow.


I've taken a lot of pitures and some might seem to be retakes but as the light changed I was able to get a little different perspective. They aren't the best pictures in some cases because it was getting late and the sun was hampering my efforts. I took so many pictures in the hope I might cover most of the different angles and stamps on it as well as clues to what this rifle actually is. I'm posting this mainly for those that know these rifles to scrutinize and help draw conclusions as to it's authenticity. If there's something someone wants a picture of that's not clear or not in these let me know and I'll be more than happy to take them.

Before cleaning.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Last edited by WeldonHunter on Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Junk Yard Dog
Owner/Founder
Owner/Founder
Posts: 48861
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:54 pm
Location: New York

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by Junk Yard Dog »

What is up with the front sight, I see it's staked like that so it's not an accident, I don't believe I have ever seen one set so far over like that, sighting in that scope could be interesting with this rifle. Going by the bullet test the crown looks tight, how much cleaning rod wear could there be if it's showing that much bullet? Bore looks good in the pics, typical refurb otherwise, too bad about the mold, set the leather in the sun, sunlight kills mold, may take a week..
Leave it as it is. The ages have been at work on it and man can only mar it.
Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft.
Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Cajun
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:20 pm

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by Cajun »

JYD. My front sight is nearly the same!!

Nice lookin PU!!!!! I want it. It was
My Bday thursday. Give it to me :))


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
martin08
Posts: 2614
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:39 am

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by martin08 »

Seems that there has been much feedback about the skewed front sights thus far. Not really sure what it means, as I haven't read any feedback on how well the irons were sighted out of the box. Mine came through pretty well centered, and was a useful tool in bore sighting, and rough sighting of the optics. I haven't tried my irons yet either, but my guess is that they are dead on.

Really nice looking rifle, there. Congrats.
No words of wisdom come to mind at this time....
User avatar
Junk Yard Dog
Owner/Founder
Owner/Founder
Posts: 48861
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:54 pm
Location: New York

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by Junk Yard Dog »

It caught my eye right away because I have never seen the like of it before and I have a considerable number of Mosins refurb, and issued with none of them having other than a pretty much centered front sight. I had not heard that it was a trait with these rifles, I would suspect such a far deviation of the front sight could indicate a slightly bent barrel, or incompetence in whoever sighted in the rifle.
Leave it as it is. The ages have been at work on it and man can only mar it.
Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft.
Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
desdem12
Posts: 16839
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:51 pm
Location: Eastern Washington

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by desdem12 »

Looks pretty Decent Mike! The front sight is noticeable to say the least. Maybe these were hightech around the corner snipers first. :thumbsup: :vcool: :vcool: :Drool1:
The commerce which maybe carried on with the people inhabiting the line you will pursue renders a knowledge of these people important ~Thomas Jefferson~ (to- Lewis and Clark)
User avatar
WeldonHunter
Posts: 5242
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Louisiana
Contact:

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by WeldonHunter »

Junk Yard Dog wrote:What is up with the front sight, I see it's staked like that so it's not an accident, I don't believe I have ever seen one set so far over like that, sighting in that scope could be interesting with this rifle. Going by the bullet test the crown looks tight, how much cleaning rod wear could there be if it's showing that much bullet? Bore looks good in the pics, typical refurb otherwise, too bad about the mold, set the leather in the sun, sunlight kills mold, may take a week..
Jim there's a few of these that have shown up so far but I have at least two others that are off to one side. I'll post them below. They also have the witness mark. Gunboards has a thread about them and a few people that got them posted about it with some theories about it. http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread. ... ost2231116 I'll know once I shoot it. Doubt that will be real soon though. It's hotter than hell out and will be for a few days so I'm mostly inside for now. The lawn needs more attention because we've actually gotten some rain but it's only been enough to keep the grass happy and make my life harder. I've gotten to where I only cut the grass in sections now because it's a full days job otherwise. Anyway back to the rifle. The guys over at gunboards bought a bunch of these and they've posted thread after thread with all the little quirks as well as range reports and lots of pictures of them. They run the gammit from a few dogs to some really really nice examples. I consider mine to be fairly nice for a refurbed rifle.


You know Jim funny you should mention putting the lense cover in the sun. You're 100% correct about the sun killing mold and I had completely forgot about that. My mother is always hanging stuff out in the sun. It's natures disinfectant. What I did since I hadn't read this was wipe it down with a dry cloth to remove the heaviest stuff then used some Redwing bootoil on it using Q-tips and a rag and it looks good. I don't know if the oil will kill the mold, if that's even what it was, but it's way better looking now. I wiped the scope down and removed all the surface grease and used a lense wipe under the larger cap to help take up the slack on the lense cover. I left the oil paper that's wrapped around the strap.
Once I get this out to sight it in I'll see how close it is and once dialed in if I need to resituate the dials I'll wipe any other grease off that's under them. I'm not going to do a detail cleaning until I shoot it first to see how it shoots out of the box. I've cleaned the barrel, chamber, bolt and will clean the magazine. I've left the dials on the scope where they were out of the box and will see how far off it is if at all. I've been seeing these are for the most part fairly close right out of the box. Even Vic commented they should be and remarked that's why they're numbered to the rifle because they do sight them in after refurb. After shooting it I'll strip down, clean it good and recheck accuracy.

What I mean by cleaning rod wear is the rifling at the crown is shallow. The end of the bore doesn't have the crisp gear appearence like I've seen on some with less wear. It's there but not as pronounced as others.

Image

Image

Image
User avatar
WeldonHunter
Posts: 5242
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Louisiana
Contact:

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by WeldonHunter »

Cajun wrote:JYD. My front sight is nearly the same!!

Nice lookin PU!!!!! I want it. It was
My Bday thursday. Give it to me :))


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Happy belated B-Day. No you can't have this one my friend. Get your own, lol. !! :twisted:
User avatar
WeldonHunter
Posts: 5242
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Louisiana
Contact:

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by WeldonHunter »

martin08 wrote:Seems that there has been much feedback about the skewed front sights thus far. Not really sure what it means, as I haven't read any feedback on how well the irons were sighted out of the box. Mine came through pretty well centered, and was a useful tool in bore sighting, and rough sighting of the optics. I haven't tried my irons yet either, but my guess is that they are dead on.

Really nice looking rifle, there. Congrats.
Thanks Matt, all in all I'm happy with it so far. Shooting will tell the tale. I have to admit that though I have 17 Mosins now I've never actually taken the time to shoot for accuracy and dial any of them in. Every time we've done a shoot recently I've had so many other rifles I want to shoot I didn't really have time to concentrate on accuracy with the Mosins. I'm going to get a sight tool from Bruce and the next time Fred_G and I shoot I'm going to pull all the off center front site rifles off the wall and check and adjust them all. Including this rifle. The first thing I'm going to do with this rifle is shoot it with iron sights to see if it's accurate and adjust it if needed. It's possible there's a stock fit issue or a bent barrel. Time will tell. Then I'll check the scope and address any issues with it. When I'm done hopefully it'll be consistant and accurate. Fingers crossed.

I really liked the write up you did on your's also. Very informative. Then again you don't do them any other way, lol. ;)
User avatar
WeldonHunter
Posts: 5242
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Louisiana
Contact:

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by WeldonHunter »

desdem12 wrote:Looks pretty Decent Mike! The front sight is noticeable to say the least. Maybe these were hightech around the corner snipers first. :thumbsup: :vcool: :vcool: :Drool1:
Thanks Brad. You may be right but though the Russians did experiment with curved barrels the ever resourceful Germans actually did it. They link is a more modern version of around corner firearms. Not a curved barrel but a curved receiver.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/2576/

User avatar
kermit
ban
ban
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 7:23 pm

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by kermit »

my 42 Izhevsk has its front sight towards the left that much. otherwise it was hitting high and to left of target. short front post can be made 1/8" taller with shrink tubing as a crappy temporary solution to a front post that needs to be taller.
Camping is cheaper than therapy. San Diego,ca. usa
User avatar
WeldonHunter
Posts: 5242
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Louisiana
Contact:

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by WeldonHunter »

kermit wrote:my 42 Izhevsk has its front sight towards the left that much. otherwise it was hitting high and to left of target. short front post can be made 1/8" taller with shrink tubing as a crappy temporary solution to a front post that needs to be taller.
You know kermit I've looked this rifle over again and again and that sight post is in line with the left side of the bore. If this rifle shoots on target and that front site is in the correct place I'll be surprised. To me that means there's something seriously weird going on here. Like Jim said either the barrel is bent or there's some serious barrel harmonics going on here or the stock fit is way off. That or maybe the rear sight is incorrect/off center too and the front is compensating for it. Either way it's hard to believe it would be accurate at all ranges being that far over. I just looked at it again and the front sight itself is very ill fitting to the sight base. I can actually see light through the underside of it and the sight post looks to be bent to the left slightly which is worse because if it was exactly straight this sight would need to go further to the left. Oh well I'll shoot it with irons first and go from there.
User avatar
desdem12
Posts: 16839
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:51 pm
Location: Eastern Washington

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by desdem12 »

Might have been used to beat someone with a left eye dominate Mike! If it shoots good i would chock it up to good ole fashioned unsupervised chicken scratchers doing the quality control, Or some intentional swinging of a get in line tool. :D
The commerce which maybe carried on with the people inhabiting the line you will pursue renders a knowledge of these people important ~Thomas Jefferson~ (to- Lewis and Clark)
User avatar
WeldonHunter
Posts: 5242
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Louisiana
Contact:

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by WeldonHunter »

desdem12 wrote:Might have been used to beat someone with a left eye dominate Mike! If it shoots good i would chock it up to good ole fashioned unsupervised chicken scratchers doing the quality control, Or some intentional swinging of a get in line tool. :D
It's not a huge issue in the big picture unless it's a clue to some underlaying problem other than a ill fitted front site. After all it's got a damn scope. I'll be shooting it with that mostly anyway. It's just nice to know all aspects of the rifle and how it/why it functuions the way it does. Ultimately if it shoots consistantly with the scope and is even close to as accurate as most of the others the front sight could drop off for all I care. I'm most certainly going to use this rifle to get at least one deer this season.
User avatar
desdem12
Posts: 16839
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:51 pm
Location: Eastern Washington

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by desdem12 »

Well it looks good in the fotos anyway :thumbsup: And that is all that counts. :lol: Just a kiddin of course. Sounds like fun to me to do a milsurp hunt. :vcool: :vcool:
The commerce which maybe carried on with the people inhabiting the line you will pursue renders a knowledge of these people important ~Thomas Jefferson~ (to- Lewis and Clark)
User avatar
Junk Yard Dog
Owner/Founder
Owner/Founder
Posts: 48861
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:54 pm
Location: New York

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by Junk Yard Dog »

A few shots using the iron sights will tell the tale, If there is an issue with the barrel, or the stock I can't understand why the commies didn't correct it, or remove the rifle from service. The entire point of a sniper weapon is accuracy above that of the ordinary infantry rifle.
Leave it as it is. The ages have been at work on it and man can only mar it.
Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft.
Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
WeldonHunter
Posts: 5242
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Louisiana
Contact:

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by WeldonHunter »

Junk Yard Dog wrote:A few shots using the iron sights will tell the tale, If there is an issue with the barrel, or the stock I can't understand why the commies didn't correct it, or remove the rifle from service. The entire point of a sniper weapon is accuracy above that of the ordinary infantry rifle.
Exactly right. That's why I have a feeling it's incorrect but stranger things have happened. I mean look at that first picture. The sight post is over the left third of the crown. That's ok I finally got around to ordering a sight tool from Bruce. Oh shameless plug inserted here. http://elby.yolasite.com/purchase-products.php <----Elby sight tools, the best. I figure with 14 of these I'll need to adjust at least one. I'll get around to ordering the two M44s tools he sells. I have a 52 Polish and two 44 Russian M44s that have two different sights so I have to get the other two tools. I really wanted to get the gunsmith versions but I've spent so much on other stuff lately, ammo, rifles, forum hats and socks for the cat I'm going broke.
User avatar
desdem12
Posts: 16839
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:51 pm
Location: Eastern Washington

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by desdem12 »

You may want to have a bayonet there that fits on just to see if that makes a difference too. It may have been sighted with one on and then resighted without. I am not sure if anyone has cleared up the bayo with the snipers yet,but it can't hurt to test i suppose. :D
The commerce which maybe carried on with the people inhabiting the line you will pursue renders a knowledge of these people important ~Thomas Jefferson~ (to- Lewis and Clark)
User avatar
Junk Yard Dog
Owner/Founder
Owner/Founder
Posts: 48861
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:54 pm
Location: New York

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by Junk Yard Dog »

Socks for the cat? :lol: I just ordered the 91/30 tool yesterday, I didn't get the gunsmith model as all my regular shooters are already adjusted, I need the tool for minor corrections.
Leave it as it is. The ages have been at work on it and man can only mar it.
Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft.
Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
WeldonHunter
Posts: 5242
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Louisiana
Contact:

Re: AIM 1943 Tula PU Sniper Pic Heavy

Post by WeldonHunter »

Junk Yard Dog wrote:Socks for the cat? :lol: I just ordered the 91/30 tool yesterday, I didn't get the gunsmith model as all my regular shooters are already adjusted, I need the tool for minor corrections.

Well I'm an auto tech and tools make the job. I have a huge toolbox full of snap-on tools and you always get the biggest and best. I only buy a tool once in most cases. I just like the idea of the gunsmith model because it's a lot sturdier looking. Who knows how much I'll use it.

The socks for the cat thing was just to see if anyone would notice, lol. Besides he wears flip flops most of the time. :chuckles:
Post Reply