Results 1 to 16 of 16
10-31-2009, 07:43 PM #1Junior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
Izhevsk 1931 91/30 vs. Tula 1931 91/30 differences?
Hi, I am new the field of guns and guns collecting although I have lived with people who have been involved in it in a merely survivalistic manner, but I am interested in learning about the mechanics of guns and specifically the differences between the Mosin Nagants.
1. What are the best quality mosin nagants?
2. What is the best overall year to purchase a mosin nagant from? (i.e. 1931, 1929, etc.)
3. What are the differences between the Izhevsk mosin nagant and the tula? is one better than the other? were they made with different parts?
4. what is the best one for it's price? i.e. best bang for the buck
I would just like some opinons on these guns and what to look for. I have been familiarizing myself on the markings and am currently looking at buying a 1931 Izhevsk 91/30 for 135.00$ to me it looks like a pretty good deal but I'm not sure.
Any good info would be appreciated!
P.S. if I've made any mistakes about my statements about the guns please forgive my ignorance! All help is appreciated!
10-31-2009, 08:39 PM #2
1. Czech (I meant Polish! ) and Finnish Mosin Nagants have the highest quality in my experience.
2. I prefer Pre-1930's receivers because I think the markings are far more interesting and the hex design is nice.
3. Izhevsk and Tula only did very minor things differently than the other (if anything). All parts are interchangeable between the two.
4. If you have a 200 dollar budget you can buy a great quality 91/30 if you shop right.
The 31 Izhevsk sounds like a good deal for an average/good 91/30.
Last edited by Gorbachev; 11-02-2009 at 11:29 PM.
10-31-2009, 08:53 PM #3
Welcome to the board.
1 I think the best quality mosins are the Finns.
2 I think pre-WW2 mosins have a better fit, finish, and cooler markings (if you are into that sort of thing:D).
3 There are really no differences as they had to meet the same spec and parts interchance between all of the mosin manufacturers. In WW2, Tula seemed to have a little better fit/finish when compared to its Izhevsk brother.
4 I think the best bang for the bucks have to be the finnish ones. Most are great shooters.
I think $135 is a little high for a '31.
How's the bore on it?Fine Print:
The preceeding opinion should be considered only as an opinion and not legal advice. In no event will the poster, Unbekannt, be held liable to any party for any damages arising in any way out of the availability, use, reliance on or inability to use poster's opinion or any information provided by or through the poster, or for any claim attributable to errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in, or destructive properties of any information provided by or through the poster.
10-31-2009, 09:23 PM #4
Many of your questions can be answered (sparking many more questions) by reading through here and another site, which both have the best info on Mosins online.
It'll take a while to digest all of the info, but it's well worth it. Welcome to the addiction!"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."
10-31-2009, 09:35 PM #5Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2009
An interesting question I have often asked myself. Of course the answers are basically opinion.
On a year to year comparison the only difference between arsenals is the stampings of the arsenal. Some on the Tula stocks I have seen have a Tula star on the stock. That is kinda cool but you don't see it often.
I am often surprised that people seem to pay more for the Tula. I have both and think they are equal in all respects.
You often see the Finnish rifles seen as superior. Interesting since the Russians designed and manufactured them. But the Russians weren't know for 'refinement'. Mass production all the way. You also will see the shortcuts in WWII production rifles (not aware of any other military rifle that took such shortcuts in production but there may be some).
I often hear a 'preference' for the hex receiver. I think they are cool but fundamentally they are not 'better'. They all shoot the same ammo with the same results. So the only reason to pay more for a hex is sheer personal preference. I have some of each type. I like them all.
$135.00 seems a little high to me but prices vary by market. A nice 91/30 here is usually around $100.00 (more often than not round receiver).
I like the Russian and Finnish both. Yes, the Finnish is more 'refined'. But for blasting away grab a good quality rifle at a good price.
The older ones do seem to have more 'refinement; than the war time but again they all shoot the same round in the same way.
If you like the rifle you found then that is a good reason to buy it. A 1931 will be a great rifle. based on the price I am guessing it has the hex receiver as 1930 is when they began the switch.
10-31-2009, 10:25 PM #6
Czech mosins?Administrator of Gunboards.com
Michigan Historical Collectables
"Terror is not a new weapon. Throughout history it has been used by those who could not prevail, either by persuasion or example. But inevitably they fail, either because men are not afraid to die for a life worth living, or because the terrorists themselves came to realize that free men cannot be frightened by threats, and that aggression would meet its own response. And it is in the light of that history that every nation today should know, be he friend or foe, that the United States has both the will and the weapons to join free men in standing up to their responsibilities."
John F. Kennedy
10-31-2009, 11:08 PM #7
11-01-2009, 12:16 AM #8Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Colorado Springs, Colorado
11-01-2009, 12:35 AM #9
11-01-2009, 01:06 AM #10
Yes, I've got it!
11-02-2009, 01:27 PM #11Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2009
- N W AZ
The triggers are diffrent
I have 5 Mosins 4 91/30s Tula and Izzy and 1 M44 Izzy. The on;y thing that I find that is different is the trigger. The Tula is longer and slender the Izzy a bit stubbier and thicker. I don't have them side by side, I think the Tula has more curve in it. Put them side by side you can see there is a big difference then.
Last edited by Mantis; 11-02-2009 at 07:07 PM.To error is Human.
To forgive and forget is not S.O.G. policy
11-02-2009, 01:38 PM #12
Izhevsk markings are always more sloppy. :D
11-02-2009, 11:21 PM #13
All years of manufacture are more or less the same in terms of quality. The exception being rifles made in the darkest days of the Great Patriotic War. These rifles have a coarser finish to the metal and wood. They are just as safe to shoot though.
$135 out the door is a good price for your rifle. If you still need to add transfer fees and tax to that it is too much.Жить стало лучше, товарищи. Жить стало веселее.
Life has improved, comrades. Life has become more joyous!
11-02-2009, 11:53 PM #141944 Sako M39 ('34 Izh.), Wartime Stock
1918 Erfurt Luger P.08
2008 CZ 452 .22LR
11-03-2009, 06:04 PM #15Junior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
Hi to all and thanks for the warm welcome! I appreciate all the good info that you guys have given me! But as always, more info creates more questions! I am curious, what is the difference between 91/30 and the M44? I know it may be a stupid question but I'm not sure, and I haven't looked it up yet. Also are there any good books about these guns that are available? I like large books with well made diagrams and pictures, but I don't mind reading either ;-)
11-03-2009, 08:58 PM #16
91/30 is the long rifle with detachable bayonet
M44 is carbine length with attached side folding bayonet.
In my area, 91/30's sell for $150 OTD. I PERSONALLY prefer Russian over Finns, but to each their own. The main differences as stated are just the arsenal marks, and wartime rifles will look more rough.
I have a 1916 Tula M91(non Finn), 1930 Tula 91/30, Hungarian M44, 1940 Tula that's been in the balkans and non-matching.
All shoot about the same despite the Hungarian and 1940 Tula looking like they've been through hell three or four times. Only counterbored rifle is the 1930 Tula and doesn't hurt accuracy one bit.
Best advice is: If YOU like the rifle, it's worth what you are comfortable paying to aquire it. I probably overpaid for my M91 to most people, but it was what I wanted and therefore worth it.