Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Izhevsk 1931 91/30 vs. Tula 1931 91/30 differences?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3

    Default 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!
    Sincerely,
    Victor

    P.S. if I've made any mistakes about my statements about the guns please forgive my ignorance! All help is appreciated!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    745

    Default

    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 10:29 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Mana-Mana
    Posts
    2,420

    Default

    Hi, welcome!

    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.

    http://mosinnagant.net/USSR/Soviet-M9130.asp

    http://7.62x54r.net/

    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."
    -David St.Hubbins

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    852

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    16,089

    Arrow

    Czech mosins?
    Owner/Administrator of Gunboards.com
    Mosin Nagant.net
    Michigan Historical Collectables

    "Tulta munille!"

    "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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Midwest.
    Posts
    10,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vic View Post
    Czech mosins?
    24/47 is my favorite.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Posts
    554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ij70 View Post
    24/47 is my favorite.
    The only 24/47's I own are Yugo Mausers.
    Can you post a pic of the 24/47 Mosin's markings?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Midwest.
    Posts
    10,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBBG View Post
    The only 24/47's I own are Yugo Mausers.
    Can you post a pic of the 24/47 Mosin's markings?
    I never said it was mosin.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,821

    Default

    Yes, I've got it!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    N W AZ
    Posts
    513

    Exclamation 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 06:07 PM.
    To error is Human.
    To forgive and forget is not S.O.G. policy

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    SE WI
    Posts
    3,272

    Default

    Izhevsk markings are always more sloppy. :D

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Eastern Sierras, above the snowline.
    Posts
    1,396

    Default

    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!
    I.V.S, 1935

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FistLaw View Post
    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!
    Sincerely,
    Victor

    P.S. if I've made any mistakes about my statements about the guns please forgive my ignorance! All help is appreciated!
    1. Rifles with finnish barrels.
    2. No difference in quality, although the WWII years were pretty rough. No year is best.
    3. None. Same parts exactly. Some feel Tula parts were machined better.
    4. 91/30 with a very good bore. Get one in good shape.
    1944 Sako M39 ('34 Izh.), Wartime Stock
    1918 Erfurt Luger P.08
    2008 CZ 452 .22LR

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3

    Default

    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 ;-)
    Thanks,
    vic

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    88

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •