ex sniper: decommissioned, or didn't make the cut?
Results 1 to 41 of 41

Thread: ex sniper: decommissioned, or didn't make the cut?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    northern illinois
    Posts
    199

    Default ex sniper: decommissioned, or didn't make the cut?

    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.

    http://i.imgur.com/s4qUYsM.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/1S26efy.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/8M4Rpya.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/C468qfJ.jpg
    Last edited by prairie state pete; 01-20-2017 at 07:39 PM. Reason: re posted pic

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    So Illinois
    Posts
    15

    Default

    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.

    Pondcreeker

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    11,450

    Default

    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.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    GunBoards.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dark and Bloody Ground
    Posts
    7,116

    Default

    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.







  6. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    So Illinois
    Posts
    15

    Default

    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.
    Pondcreeker

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    northern illinois
    Posts
    199

    Default

    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.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    So Illinois
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Looks nice from the few pictures. Give a range report and some better pictures to ogle at when you get done.
    Pondcreeker

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine, Lviv
    Posts
    852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ol' Relic View Post
    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.
    I have 1948 GAU instruction about converting of sniper rifles to ex-snipers. It mention only one reason when snipers were converted to regular rifle configuration (and in text it is underlined and have "!" symbol) - accuracy that is not enough for the sniper rifles, which is more than 8 cm at 100 meters from 4 shoots. As we know this not always depended from the bore condition. Poor alignment in the stock, issues with scope, etc.
    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.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratnik View Post
    I have 1948 GAU instruction about converting of sniper rifles to ex-snipers. It mention only one reason when snipers were converted to regular rifle configuration (and in text it is underlined and have "!" symbol) - accuracy that is not enough for the sniper rifles, which is more than 8 cm at 100 meters from 4 shoots. As we know this not always depended from the bore condition. Poor alignment in the stock, issues with scope, etc.
    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 assemble sniper rifles shoot over 8 cm at 100 meters, they did not spent time to solve accuracy issue, and simply converted it to ex sniper
    Very useful information, thank you!

    I had presumed many sniper rifles were decommissioned for logistical or cost reasons.
    Looking for Mosin 91/30 bayonet ГС4625. Will pay well!

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    11,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratnik View Post
    I have 1948 GAU instruction about converting of sniper rifles to ex-snipers. It mention only one reason when snipers were converted to regular rifle configuration (and in text it is underlined and have "!" symbol) - accuracy that is not enough for the sniper rifles, which is more than 8 cm at 100 meters from 4 shoots. As we know this not always depended from the bore condition. Poor alignment in the stock, issues with scope, etc.
    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
    That certainly explains a lot.

    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.

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    northern illinois
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratnik View Post
    I have 1948 GAU instruction about converting of sniper rifles to ex-snipers. It mention only one reason when snipers were converted to regular rifle configuration (and in text it is underlined and have "!" symbol) - accuracy that is not enough for the sniper rifles, which is more than 8 cm at 100 meters from 4 shoots. As we know this not always depended from the bore condition. Poor alignment in the stock, issues with scope, etc.
    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
    ratnik,

    i'm going to apply this standard, except 7.2 cm at 100 yards because I can't shoot 110 meters. I will even dust off some surplus ammo for the task. BUT..... when they fired their 4 test rounds, was it from a fixed device, or just lying it across a rest?

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    11,949

    Default

    Ratnik,

    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.

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    8,857

    Default

    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.

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    11,450

    Default

    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.

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dark and Bloody Ground
    Posts
    7,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mike radford View Post
    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.
    I was going to write this exact thing (though probably not succinctly stated) before I saw Mike's post. I think that post cuts to the chase on this matter.







  17. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine, Lviv
    Posts
    852

    Default

    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

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    11,949

    Default

    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.

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine, Lviv
    Posts
    852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milprileb View Post
    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.
    Chambers at all rifles (snipers and regular rifles) were checked during refurb. Everything that was not normal, was removed from service. If it was left in service - it mean that chamber is ok
    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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0146.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	136.5 KB 
ID:	1901106

    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

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milprileb View Post
    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.

    .
    "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." I follow everything you write here as I'm trying to expand my knowledge. I've only had one cup of coffee, so forgive me, but I am having a very difficult time reconciling the sentence in quotation marks with the other statements above that seem very favorable to resnipering "ex-PU's". It also conflicts with my own personal experience in that our ex PUs are our best shooters. Please enlighten me and expound upon your reasons further, if you don't mind?

  21. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    South of DC
    Posts
    10,138

    Default

    Ratnik,

    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.

    VA-Vet

    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.
    - Pcan

  22. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine, Lviv
    Posts
    852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VA-Vet View Post
    Ratnik,

    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.

    VA-Vet

    PS: Awesome posts in this thread, THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
    No need to remove barrel, you insert bottom gauge at the picture (K4) into the receiver, and then insert top gauge (K3) into it. If it is not possible to insert K3 deeper than first line, chamber had burrs, it was polished with special tool. Between two lines - chamber is ok, over second line - blown up chamber, rifle was removed from service.

    These gauges are the part of the bigger gauges set, I had few of them some time ago, but how they are gone.

  23. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    4,553

    Default

    So there are 2 gauges in the picture, and the lines on the top gauge are minimum and maximum chamber. Very clever!

  24. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratnik View Post
    Chambers at all rifles (snipers and regular rifles) were checked during refurb. Everything that was not normal, was removed from service. If it was left in service - it mean that chamber is ok
    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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0146.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	136.5 KB 
ID:	1901106

    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
    So the ex PU's chambers tested by the gauge were found to be "serviceable", it was just that they didn't pass the 8cm accuracy test that caused them to be converted to infantry rifles.

    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.

  25. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    11,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Montana Bearbait View Post
    "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." I follow everything you write here as I'm trying to expand my knowledge. I've only had one cup of coffee, so forgive me, but I am having a very difficult time reconciling the sentence in quotation marks with the other statements above that seem very favorable to resnipering "ex-PU's". It also conflicts with my own personal experience in that our ex PUs are our best shooters. Please enlighten me and expound upon your reasons further, if you don't mind?
    Bear Bait: Okay, great question so my rationale went like this: At some point in time 3 months after the Molot PU imports came in, a lot of ex PU floated up around my area and I snagged one with pristine bore. I got one to resniper for a range match sniper rifle because I assumed the Collector Board BS about ex snipers being just excess and converted back to 91/30s (this was flatulence but it was the theme of the day then). It also coincided with NC Reptile selling a ton of PU sniper mounts and top shelf quality scopes. Thus I re snipered a rifle and had a great PU to shoot its bore out and save my original Molot import PU from destruction from hard use.

    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.

  26. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine, Lviv
    Posts
    852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milprileb View Post
    My ex-sniper must have been classified unserviceable and decommissioned for some reason per the standards you refer to.
    I think it will be more correct to say that at some point during adjustment shooting rifle showed lower result than it must.
    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.

  27. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratnik View Post
    I think it will be more correct to say that at some point during adjustment shooting rifle showed lower result than it must.
    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.
    Yes my experience too. A shim here, a barrel wrap there and like magic, the rifle shoots like a sniper rifle should.

  28. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    11,450

    Default

    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.

  29. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    11,949

    Default

    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>

  30. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine, Lviv
    Posts
    852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mike radford View Post
    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.
    Mike, you are right with corrections

    Quote Originally Posted by mike radford View Post
    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.
    Same instruction have information about top and side mount PEM snipers. Generally all drawings in the instruction show PU sniper, but text have notes about snipers of another configuration
    1945 documents that I have mention that only PU sniper rifles were left in service

  31. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    11,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratnik View Post
    Mike, you are right with corrections


    Same instruction have information about top and side mount PEM snipers. Generally all drawings in the instruction show PU sniper, but text have notes about snipers of another configuration
    1945 documents that I have mention that only PU sniper rifles were left in service
    Thank you very much. Best regards.

  32. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine, Lviv
    Posts
    852

    Default

    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

  33. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratnik View Post
    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
    There are two Tulas here that I think were once "expedient", siege built sniper rifles. Neither has the sniper proof "CH", or the earlier one.

    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.

  34. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    8,857

    Default

    No plugs in my several topmount Tula ex-snipers. One I rescoped and in drilling and tapping found no plugs, just super hard weld.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratnik View Post
    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

  35. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine, Lviv
    Posts
    852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stalin's Ghost View Post
    No plugs in my several topmount Tula ex-snipers. One I rescoped and in drilling and tapping found no plugs, just super hard weld.
    Thank you for the confirmation

  36. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    999

    Default

    Hello,

    I can also confirm PE Topmount snipers had not plugs once you drilled through the welds the OLD holes were UNPLUGGED.

    later
    vaughn
    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

  37. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    northern illinois
    Posts
    199

    Default

    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.

    http://i.imgur.com/VVvWudC.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/JJasSPd.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/Xr5cB43.jpg

    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

  38. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prairie state pete View Post
    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.

    http://i.imgur.com/VVvWudC.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/JJasSPd.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/Xr5cB43.jpg

    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.
    I'd be ecstatic if I shot a group like that at 100 yards with irons.

Posting Permissions

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