Are you sure the scope numbers were not well scrubbed? If it is not an Ex sniper someone went to a lot of trouble to hide the fact.
I bought this 43 tula ex sniper. bore cleaned up really nice. slugs at .313. is there a way to tell if it actually was a sniper? it's marked ch and has the plugged up holes, but no lined out scope number4q.
Last edited by prairie state pete; 01-20-2017 at 07:39 PM. Reason: re posted pic
Are you sure the scope numbers were not well scrubbed? If it is not an Ex sniper someone went to a lot of trouble to hide the fact.
It is an ex-Tula PU. They did not have a scope number on the shank when issued. Izhevsk did have such a number. The scope package, the scope and mount, were matched by the scope number on an Izhevsk. The same package was matched by a number on the mount on a Tula. Post war refurb procedures were a different story and this rule does not apply.
Why they were decommissioned is a constant debate. Many variables may have contributed: the SVD introduction, too many to maintain, just not needed, random selection, work projects, needed more infantry rifles, ???.
Last edited by mike radford; 02-07-2017 at 12:23 AM.
Mike pretty much summed it up. I believe random selection and just not needed were the two driving forces behind decommissioning. I've seen exes with absolutely pristine bores that would shoot the lights out, and I've seen never decommissioned PUs that had very tired bores.
Mike & Ol' Relic Had it right I had an Izhevsk brain fart. I thought that I had read somewhere that some of the Tula refurbs had the numbers.
thanks, gentlemen; i'm happy about this find. I got it from a lgs, so I want to check the head space before I shoot it. had to order a gage. it comes about wed.
Looks nice from the few pictures. Give a range report and some better pictures to ogle at when you get done.
In postwar period there was no aim to keep quantity of PU snipers as high as possible - at the end of war was decided to left M91\30 rifles at the armament "until the end of the stock". So seems that if at the repair depot after assembly sniper rifle shoot over 8 cm at 100 meters, they did not spent time to solve accuracy issue, and simply converted it to ex sniper
Last edited by Ratnik; 01-21-2017 at 01:29 AM.
The accuracy standard requires way more than bore condition meaning many good bore rifles were decommissioned and many not so good bore rifles made the cut due to other variables. That could even include the variable of lots of ammo available at testing IMO but I have nothing to back that up other than my experience with 30 or so PUs and 10 or so ex Pus. The bores were obviously not the only consideration. The whole rifle and ammo when they were tested made the determinations it would seem.
Thank you again for bringing in a little historical fact into the discussion. Too much second guessing why Russians did what and why become internet posts on WWII Mosin Rifles . I do believe what you posted is the rationale , however I have two examples to throw up to you:
a. One Ex PU sniper which shot .6 MOA at 100 yds with match ammo had a rough bore so I think that bore condition is why they pulled it out, welded up the scope mount holes and decommissioned it.
b. Another Ex PU which has a mirror bore, shoots .5 MOA all day long with my match loads but it does have a over sized chamber. I think that chamber was caught on post war refurb process and it was decommissioned for the chamber.
THis same large chamber Ex PU was the rifle I "re snipered" and I have adjusted reloading die to size brass to fit this chamber and bring that rifle into full accuracy potential. It is the rifle I use for vintage sniper matches when I go there to shoot a PU sniper rifle. Hvalinka on this board has seen me take it to 1000 yds many times in a match.
Thus I submit...accuracy probably was the main reason of decommissioning a PU but other flaws found might be reasons too. However...the two examples might just be odd examples not often encountered.
Last edited by milprileb; 01-23-2017 at 10:45 AM.
I have about 10 ex-snipers of various scope mounts.
Many with really near-perfect bores and one 1939 Tula with a poorer bore will still shoot 2 MOA or better match ammo from a lead sled, even in their refurb stocks.
I tend to think that a Soviet bean-counter's viewpoint of an overstock of snipers as the SVD came along also led to de-snipering in the 1960s as these are just still fine rifles, but who knows?
The plan was, of course, to rearm the Red Army veterans if war broke out, using the rifle they were familiar with. Less skilled snipers available for the old PUs, more call for regular rifles if war broke out, so de-sniper the extra PUs and stack 'em away for an increasingly less likely WWIII with less old vets to shoot them.
Once the Cold War cooled off a bit, maybe Warsaw Pact planning for less capitalist tanks rushing over the border needed more subs and ICBMs and less sniper rifles. Who knows?
Why all the 1960's refurb PU scopes without rifles to go with them? That seems to match the Mosin de-snipering major years and SVD production. Of course, the scopes were refurbed at different locations like Kiev, so maybe it was all make-work projects not too co-ordinated.
Ratnik - when do you think most of the the PUs were de-snipered? I tend to think during the 1960s.
Last edited by Stalin's Ghost; 01-23-2017 at 12:50 PM.
My understanding of what Ratnik is saying that the tested the rifles and every variable possible, a combination of stock fit, bore condition, ammo, Loose screws, etc. determined the outcome. Those that passed as a whole, were retained. A mint bore gun could therefore be decommissioned because the stock fit was lousy. A worn bore with good stock fit could be retained, I definitely have one and it will shoot the slack standard with match ammo.
The result is that many ex-snipers with near new bores could easily fail and be move on due to variables that those of us that shoot them would correct. This explains why we see ex-snipers of excellent quality and refurbed PUs of just barely OK quality.
Clearly, many of the workers involved could care less. The SVD was replacing them and they just wanted to earn enough to get a roll of TP, a piece of pork or a bottle of Vodka. There was no war and no rush. There was just jobs and payment for the week.
Such things like "good bore" or "worn bore" are relative. Soviets did not sorted bore as good, very good, worn, etc. They were sorted as suitable for use and not. All bores were tested with K2 gauge (7,772). If it was possible to insert it up to 1 cm from the muzzle, and rifle still was accurate as required (up to 15 cm for regular rifle and 8 cm for sniper rifle at 100 meters), barrel was considered as suitable for further use. 7,770 bore will pas K2 test, but I doubt that it will be considered as good bore today.
I have nothing too add to my previous message. Instruction that I decribed, is general GAU instruction for repair depots. It contains drawing and schemes of plugs and their installations, deails how different types of snipers were converted, how were filled stock cutouts. And everything that I saw when I look at ex snipers (conversion details), is identical to what is described in the instruction. So it makes me think that it is quite accurate and there was no major changes in it after 1948. And it have only one reson for conversion - accuracy. However, I can't exlude other reasons that were added later, but I don't want create any theories
Ratnik, you leave me a deep mystery. My ex-sniper must have been classified unserviceable and decommissioned for some reason per the standards you refer to. I just am amazed that such a pristine bore (and bloody accurate bore) got judged unserviceable. If they did not gauge chambers, I have no idea why this rifle was decommissioned. Perhaps it had its bolt missing ?
That said: An Ex sniper is an ex sniper for a reason and the Russians had a reason. Its a poor choice to re sniper most likely.
But "normal" size of the chamber is not a single size, it's range of allowed sizes. Everything that is between two lines at the gauge (pisture below) was a norm
Did you checked chamber with soviet gauges?
I don't have much experience with ex snipers, so I can't comment observations of their owners. I just wrote what I found in documents. Currently this is the only known documented fact about converting of sniper rifles to ex snipers
Do you have to remove the barrel to use that gauge and, most importantly, do you have any for sell? That seems like a neat item to have in my collection.
PS: Awesome posts in this thread, THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
Looking for USS Casimir Pulaski SSBN 633 items.
This was the most interesting conversation I was ever not a part of and I look forward to the next conversation on the topic.
These gauges are the part of the bigger gauges set, I had few of them some time ago, but how they are gone.
So there are 2 gauges in the picture, and the lines on the top gauge are minimum and maximum chamber. Very clever!
Most of the refurb post-war stocks that I have seen had issues that could cause accuracy problems. Things like rough barrel channel, inletting for the receiver being too large, or unsymmetrical shape. The bore, crown, receiver, barrel, and other mechanical parts can be top notch, but if it isn't mounted correctly in the stock, even tightening the screws down wrong will ruin the accuracy.
What comes up from Ratnik this week is solid feed back that PU were decommissioned for "cause", not because they had excess numbers of PU. Thus, its my take had I known this, I would have never considered this re snipering of a defective rifle. That is my point...re snipering now is definitely good money invested in trauma.
I got lucky, I can compensate for my over sized chamber with my reloading die setting...I got this under control but that was just a crap shoot toss of dice situation...I got lucky.
My "re sniper" is just a pile of original parts on a decommissioned PU rifle. Its value is only in its bolt, scope and mount. It serves a purpose for me but I would as of today never recommend anyone doing a re sniper.
I used to think I could shoot out a PU , I don't think I can now. Its one tough rugged rifle and I think now my Molot PU would have taken the abuse and kept on doing just fine. It sits unused because I was paranoid about shooting this rifle too much and making it a wall hanger.
For example, my refurbished 1937 regular 91/30 had gouping near 10 cm from 4 shoots at 100 meters "from crate". It had refinished wartime stock, with some repairs, also it had installed shims - so it was "adjusted" at the repair depot. But after I replaced that stock at unused postwar laminated stock and added cloth wrap at the barrel, best groups that I had were near 3 cm from 4 shoots at 100 meters with same ammunition (chinese 1960's). So not always depots adjusted rifles properly.
During refurbishement all rifles were disassembled, parts were mismatched (including stock). Most likely repair depots spent less time at the proper adjustment of sniper rifles than at factories during production. I already mentioned, there was no aim to keep number of sniper rifles as high as possible - all Mosins after 1945 were in use "untill the end of the stock".
Important thing - if rifle was proofired as sniper rifle, and it showed lower result than was required and than converted to ex-sniper, this mean that it was checked with gauges at the stage of refurbishement of sniper rifles. So bore, chamber, receiver were ok (standarts were the same for sniper and regular rifles), because rifles that were not suitable for further use were disposed off.
This is a wonderful thread and should be a sticky.
I want to be sure we do not have a language barrier and that we are on the same page. Ratnik, to me it sounds like the K2 measurement was what we call muzzle erosion. The US measures that and if a barrel fails it then it is replaced or the weapon is out of service. The Chamber "blow out" sounds like throat erosion measurement, again we do that. If any of the US guys have heard "Chamber blow out" used as a term I need more education please. So it would make sense that they would measure these objective indicators of wear on all rifles like we do.
Then the given sniper, having passed measurements mentioned, would be tested as a whole and must meet standards. Again, this makes sense and if it passes it should be stored for issue. If not, decommission was a bit dumb IMO if they had good bores and the stocks were not fitted and other means to fix it were not systematically tried. On the other hand they had a ton of them so I assume they did not want to waste effort for something they did not need and which was becoming obsolete. I think this led to a lot of good bored rifles with near mint bores being made into ex-snipers and why Mil and many others having some excellent ex-snipers, and I do as well.
Although Ratnik's excellent research has discovered one reason for making a sniper an ex, until shown otherwise, I am betting another major reason for making an ex is with the PE top mount and PEM side mount rifles, they were essentially replaced as the standard sniper and keeping them ready for reissue was simply too burdensome in all ways including training and ordnance personal plus scope supply. This part I have long held as true which could simply be traditional wisdom.? Traditional wisdom or verifiable, it does make a lot of sense IMO.
Humor follows: Hey Mike, it is real simple, if its R Guns its real and if not its fake. Ain't no re sniper R Gun PU's out there....CASE CLOSED>
1945 documents that I have mention that only PU sniper rifles were left in service
Besides, instruction mention that holes at top mount PEM snipers were welded without plugs. Is this confirmed with ex snipers? I understand that it is difficult to verify was plug or no in welded blind hole, but maybe somedy know this
In the right light on the '38 Tula, I can just barely see where the welded holes are, and they are located where a side-mounted PEM would have gone.
The other, the '40 Tula, looks like it had the top of the receiver PE mount. Neither rifle has the plugs.
If you would like to see some pictures of them, I will try to get some and post them. But it will be difficult as I do not have the photographic skill or an advanced digital camera.
I can also confirm PE Topmount snipers had not plugs once you drilled through the welds the OLD holes were UNPLUGGED.
Tula 91/30 Ex-Snipers WANTED!!!!!!! See List Below
Zeiss Type Any Date
Walther Type Any Date
1932 PE, Top Mount, Hex Receiver
1933 PE, Top Mount, Hex Receiver
1936 PE, Top Mount, Round Receiver
1938 PE, Top Mount СП Marked
1938 PE, Top Mount Siege Built
1939 PE, Top Mount СП Marked
1939 PE, Top Mount Siege Built
1940 PE, Top Mount Siege Built
1943 PE, Top Mount Siege Built
took my ex to the range. surplus rounds test will not be discussed in the interest of preserving sense of self. I then fired some reloads, best group at 100 yds put 3 touching and the other two off. I will go back when the rests I ordered come and if it's warm enough and the creek don't rise. I have attached some imgur pics. I will look for an eight year old to show me how to do pictures the right way.
actually, for me three touching is good for me with iron sights and firing in between floaters.
somebody did a nice refinishing of the stock. and by the muzzle marks, somebody liked shooting it with a fixed bayonet.
Last edited by prairie state pete; 02-06-2017 at 08:09 PM. Reason: additional info