Mounting a PU on a scopeless sniper
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Mounting a PU on a scopeless sniper

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Lebanon, CT
    Posts
    80

    Default Mounting a PU on a scopeless sniper

    I have a very nice Yugo sniper without optics I bought from another member and I am in the process of finding a scope and base for it. The pins and screws were never welded so I'm hoping they will come out easily.
    I know Accumount offers a base without holes if I need to go that route.

    Ol' Relic posted this: "You'll find that at least 90% (and probably a much higher percentage than that) of Izhevsk PUs will have 53.5mm spacing." Is that a fairly standard spacing?

    Are there any tips or tricks you can share with me on removing the pins and screws?

    Pics for reference:

    http://forums.gunboards.com/showthre...sk-Yugo-Sniper

    TIA, Paul

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dark and Bloody Ground
    Posts
    7,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SwampYank View Post
    I have a very nice Yugo sniper without optics I bought from another member and I am in the process of finding a scope and base for it. The pins and screws were never welded so I'm hoping they will come out easily.
    I know Accumount offers a base without holes if I need to go that route.

    Ol' Relic posted this: "You'll find that at least 90% (and probably a much higher percentage than that) of Izhevsk PUs will have 53.5mm spacing." Is that a fairly standard spacing?

    Are there any tips or tricks you can share with me on removing the pins and screws?

    Pics for reference:

    http://forums.gunboards.com/showthre...sk-Yugo-Sniper

    TIA, Paul
    If the pins are intact, you may be able to mount the base without removing them-worth a try. I can't tell from the pics, but I'm understanding the screws are ground flush but unwelded? If so, you could carefully cut a crude slot for a small screwdriver using a pointed diamond burr.







  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Lebanon, CT
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Yes, the pins and screws were ground flush, polished, and blued. No welds. My first thought was to drill the screws and use an easy-out to unscrew them. The slot idea is good too, I hope they're not too tight.
    Can the pins be driven out with a punch? I don't remember if they are through holes or not.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    GunBoards.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE WI
    Posts
    615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SwampYank View Post
    Yes, the pins and screws were ground flush, polished, and blued. No welds. My first thought was to drill the screws and use an easy-out to unscrew them. The slot idea is good too, I hope they're not too tight.
    Can the pins be driven out with a punch? I don't remember if they are through holes or not.

    Usually you will end up keeping the pins. they can be tapped side to side a little with a hammer to fit a base. on most Yugo scopeless base the screws will un-screw.
    Ok fine, after years of people asking, I finally created a website to show/trade and sell "Eastern Front" milsurp. Check out milsurpselect.com and PM me with any questions...

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Lebanon, CT
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Ok guys, I'm approaching this very carefully so I don't do any damage to the receiver or the blued finish.
    I'm having a hell of a time trying to get the pins out. I've tried driving them out from the inside using a pin punch and small hammer. Were they soldered in at the armory?
    I plan on using a left hand drill to remove the screws or slotting them as Ol' Relic suggested using a burr and my small die grinder.
    Any other tips or tricks would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks, Paul

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    935

    Default

    " I've tried driving them out from the inside using a pin punch and small hammer". I tried that too, did not work... I ended up drilling them out. Be careful to use just the right sized drill bit. The pin holes are smaller than the threaded screw holes. Good Luck!

    They're not at all hard to drill, nothing like trying to drill through a weld. Can't quite remember but I think a 5mm bit for the old screw holes, and a 4.9mm for the pin holes would do it.
    Last edited by Montana Bearbait; 02-09-2017 at 10:28 PM.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Lebanon, CT
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Montana Bearbait View Post
    " I've tried driving them out from the inside using a pin punch and small hammer". I tried that too, did not work... I ended up drilling them out. Be careful to use just the right sized drill bit. The pin holes are smaller than the threaded screw holes. Good Luck!

    They're not at all hard to drill, nothing like trying to drill through a weld.
    Thanks Pete, I'll give it a go tomorrow. That's if I can find the barn with the snow we have coming...lol Supposed to get 12"-18"

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Ah, more "Global Warming" on the way. We have three to five feet of it and now rain which leads to:" The following message is transmitted at the request of the Forest
    Service West Central Montana Avalanche Center Missoula MT

    ...The Forest Service West Central Montana Avalanche Center
    Missoula MT has issued a Backcountry Avalanche Warning...

    * Timing...In effect until 5 AM MST tomorrow.

    * Affected Area...For the mountains of west central Montana
    including the Bitterroot, Rattlesnake, southern Missions and
    southern Swan Mountains near Seeley Lake MT.

    * Avalanche Danger...The avalanche danger for the warning area is
    High.

    * Reason... Recent heavy snow and rain combined with wind will
    create widespread areas of unstable snow. Both human triggered
    and natural avalanches are likely on slopes steeper than about
    30 degrees."

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,011

    Default

    I have a samco matching bolt i re scoped with original parts.Well worth the effort.Really some of the best PU snipers when done right.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails !cid__2011-08-10_18-45-25_395_.jpg   PICT5639.JPG   PICT5650.JPG   PICT5647.JPG   PICT5637.JPG   PICT5652.JPG  


  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    132

    Default

    At the risk of boring everyone, I'm posting my story of rescoping a Yugo sniper, along with comments by Marcus von Weigert. Hope someone finds this useful, interesting. I really enjoy this rifle! I had this one out at the range last week, and it was shooting 3 inch groups at 500 yrds.

    Rebuilding My Yugoslavian Ex-Sniper Mosin Nagant

    I’m guessing a lot of people have looked at the Mosin Nagant “ex-sniper” rifles that have been kicking around recently, and thought, “I’ll bet I could cobble a rifle together.” The idea was particularly attractive to me, because I happened to have a PU scope and mount I picked up years ago.

    So I ordered one of Samco’s “Original Mosin-Nagant M91/30 Bent Bolt with 2 holes/2 pin on receiver for PU Scope and mount.” The rifle I received is a 1944 dated Izhevsk, s/n TK1317, imported from Yugoslavia.

    I’ve pondered why there so many ex-snipers floating around without optics. I don't know whether there was a shortage of optics and the Russkies tried to keep them in-country, or they didn't want to put built-up snipers in the hands of countries with whom the alliance was shaky (like Yugoslavia).

    My particular rifle was rated “Special Select Condition”, which SAMCO defines as “80% of original metal finish. Some dings & dents on wood, Clean Bore: pitting”. The finish is actually much better than 80%. Numbers all match (not forced), except the butt plate. Wood has dings and dents, although still in decent condition with a lot of interesting markings. Those include a circular Soviet CCCP, a “10” in a circle (Bulgarian?), “BP 124” in triangle (which I understand is a Yugoslavian Military Workshop 124 refurbishment mark) and some hard to read characters in small parallelograms (one of them may be “51”). There are none of the ubiquitous Soviet rebuild marks (rectangle with slash).

    The bore was slightly frosted, but the rifling is very strong. Several trips to the range followed by careful cleaning resulted in a bright and shiny bore.

    The first attempt to mount the scope made it clear this was not going to be a quick or simple job. The pins protruding from the receiver did not match up with the pin holes in base plate. I had assumed all of these dimensions would be standard. But Henry Ford's miracle of mass production and interchangeable parts apparently did not completely catch up with the Soviets, at least as far as scope mounts are concerned.

    I realized I should have ordered the rifle with four holes, rather than two holes/two pins. I tried to drive the pins out, but they wouldn’t budge. In looking the situation over carefully, I ascertained that the front pin would line up correctly, so I carefully removed the rear pin with a Dremel tool, grinding the remnants of the pin flush with the receiver, so that the base plate would lay flat on the receiver.

    Assuming I was over the worst of it, I prepared to install the two screws which hold the base in place on the receiver. But I quickly discovered that the distance between the screw holes in the receiver was different than the holes in the scope base plate. Again the miracle of mass production and interchangeability apparently didn’t make it to war-torn Russia.

    Some browsing on the web confirmed that original mounts might have a variation of as much as 2 mm between the screw holes. Mine wasn’t ever going to work on that rifle.

    Fortunately, I discovered that ACCUMOUNT (accumounts.com) makes bases with three different distances between centers on the screws. I measured the spacing on my receiver, and ordered closest one from ACCUMOUNT.

    When it arrived, I held my breath as I slid the new base over the remaining pin, and snuggled it down onto the receiver. Although the distance between centers on the screw holes was now correct, the holes in the base did not line up with holes in the receiver. It was clear that the remaining pin was now a problem. So off she came, as had previously been the case with the rear pin.

    Now it was possible to snug the base up to the receiver. Had to do some modifications to the mounting screws, as the inlets for the set-screws did not line up correctly, but that was accomplished without too much trouble. With the base plate now firmly secured on the receiver, it was apparent that the alignment on what had been the front pin was now very close. So I carefully drilled out the remainder of pin, and gently tapped a new pin through the base mount into the receiver, and it all tightened up nicely. Still one pin short of the original configuration, but everything seemed secure.

    I then mated the scope bracket to the base. There is a great article by Paul Oats about this process at http://www.owrpc.co.uk/images/mnpu.pdf.

    Each rifle had to have the scope bracket individually machined to the base in order for the rifle to be set at a true zero. This involves shooting a few rounds, removing the bracket, and filing (presumably very small amounts) from the bracket. Unlike most scopes, the PU scope's field of view is fixed, and the adjustment turrets actually move the entire reticle within the field of view. You first center the pattern by filing the bracket, and then move the reticle to the centered pattern by adjusting the turrets. Then the turrets can be indexed (set for zero windage and correct elevation) and subsequent fine adjustments can then be made using the turrets.

    The articles I read suggested the grinding process would amount to removing small amounts of metal. In the case of my mount, it turned out to be a lot of grinding. The pattern started off way to the left in the scope’s field of view (which is where you want it to begin with). I fired a few rounds to warm the barrel up, then three rounds at 100 yards to get a pattern. Then I removed the bracket, filed the bracket to adjust the point of impact, and reassembled it to fire again.

    You want to keep the barrel at a fairly constant temperature or the point of impact wanders around. Which means you can only work on it for a relatively short time at a stretch. If you get the barrel too hot, the patterns aren’t good. You can sit around at the range and let the thing cool off, or you can go do something else. Easier for a busy person to go do something else, so I made numerous trips to the range over many days. Fire, file, fire file. I went slow, because if you grind too much, the pattern will end up to the right of center, and then you’ve got a problem which can only be resolved by shimming. Didn’t want to go there.

    Once the pattern was very nearly centered, I made the fine adjustments with the turrets and indexed them at 100 yards. At this point I was getting consistent MOA groups at 100 yards.

    Then the acid test. I moved the targets out to 200+ yards and prayed that the point of impact wouldn’t shift left or right. If you've done the grinding correctly the scope should be dead center over the barrel, and windage should remain constant at all ranges. If not, the problem shows up right away at 200 yards. Bingo! I was lucky - everything was perfect. First two shot straddled the vertical center line on my target. Last thing I did was cold-blue the places I had filed and ground.

    I have two other Mosin Nagant snipers which are original. One I have never shot (it's an unissued post-WW2 arsenal rebuild). The other one goes to the range quite a bit. My restoration shoots a gnat's ass better than my regular shooter. In one string I had 4 out of 6 shots touching at 100yd.

    Believe me, after having spent at least 20 hours on this job, I have a lot more respect for the guys who were setting these rifles up while the enemy was at the gates. Crude process by modern standards, but nonetheless effective. I'm sure the learning curve improves with experience, but there was still a lot of work to bring each individual rifle up to sniper standard. It’s a far cry from modern weapon systems.

    I realize that I now have a rifle that is not completely “original”, and thus strictly speaking, not very collectable. But it’s my favorite of the three Mosin Nagant snipers I own. Why? The others will always be there – one in pristine condition. They have their own histories. Mine is a bit of a mutt – well in fact they all are – but this one was put together far from its home long after the battles it was originally meant to fight. But this one has given me a deep appreciation of what was going on in midst of a desperate war many decades ago. And there is a lot of me invested in this particular rifle. So when rounds go down range, I know what was involved during Великая Отечественная война - the Great Patriotic War. And even when I’m shooting my original sniper, the work I have done on this restoration helps me feel a tiny connection to the craftsmen who helped keep the Nazi hordes at bay more than half a century ago.

    Comments from Marcus von Weigert regarding my rebuild project

    These Rifles were given to Yugoslavia by the Soviet Union in 1944 as Military Aid, they were brand new from the factory at that time, and were in Sniper Configuration, barring something unusual they never would have served with the Soviets. They did however see action with Yugoslavia during World War 2, possibly some action in Africa at some point before returning home where they fought in the Yugoslavian Civil War in the late 1990's-really when they were imported, it's conceivable that some of theses Rifles were in action as late as LAST YEAR. The reason they don't have the Scopes, Bases, or Mounts is because for some reason the Yugoslavians stored those separately from the Rifles, and sold them separately.

    Mosin Nagant m-91/30 PU snipers were all "one offs" they were not made on an assembly line, the base rifle was, but after they decided to "sniper it", the conversion was done by an armoror, they are all different, you'll find that some of the holes were actually drilled by hand. There is no standard placement, though there usually in the same general area, and they may be crooked. When I did mine all the holes lined up perfectly, but they were lopsided, I had to have a gunsmith re-drill the base to match the holes in the receiver, and as a result there was no room for the locking screws. The pins are locating pins, they were drilled, and installed first, they served to keep the base steady as the mounting holes were drilled.

    9245 10/14/08

    These are not "ex"-snipers, they are genuine, original, snipers that are merely missing their scope setups. "Ex"-snipers are the ones the Soviets plugged the holes in the receivers by cutting off the mounting screws and pins, removed the original sniper bolts and replaced them with standard bolts in most (but not all) cases, and patched the cutout for the base on the left side of the stock or replaced the stock altogether.

    There is absolutely nothing Bulgarian about these rifles - that smaller circled marking on the right side of the butt is Cyrillic writing.

    It seems that most of these were part of a shipment of 60,000 various weapons the Soviets delivered to Yugoslavia in early 1944. A few others are reported to have been supplied by the Soviets after WW2, before relations between Tito and Stalin soured. However, it seems there is an inventory listing of weapons in Yugo military inventory from 1947 that is sometimes mistaken for a contract or delivery from that year, instead of a list of weapons they already had.

    It is quite likely that some of these PU snipers were also originally in German possession and were captured from or surrendered by German forces in Yugoslavia at the end of the way, along with all those Yugo captured 98k Mausers. The Germans used large quantities of captured Mosin snipers because they simply did not have enough Mauser snipers. Elite German units like Gebirgsjaeger and Waffen SS had a lot of these Mosins.

    There are no Soviet refurb markings or post-war pieces on these rifles because they left Soviet possession before the massive post-war Soviet refurb and update programs.

    The bottom photograph on page 184 of my friend Karl-Heinz Wrobel's essential but now unobtainable "Drei Linien, Die Gewehre Mosin-Nagant" (Three Lines, The Mosin-Nagant Rifles) shows the conditions under which these PU snipers were being assembled at Izhevsk in 1944. It is very informative.
    The scope shown in the photo was made in 1943 by the "Progress" Optical works. The first character in the serial number is not a 5, but a Cyrillic letter B. If you look on the left side of the barrel shank just above the wood line, you will see the serial number of the original scope that the rifle was fitted at when it was manufactured at Izhevsk in 1944. You can identify the maker of the original scope by this number, which will start with a Cyrillic A or B (for the series of the scope - A dates from 1942 and early 1943, B from 1943 and 1944) or the numbers 43 or 44, which stand for the year the scope was made, 1943 or 1944.

    The various little markings stamped on the stock are the original arsenal inspection and proof cartouches. You don't often see these on Soviet refurbed rifles, because they were sanded off when the stock was refinished, and a multitude of new markings stamped on.

    BP 124 is Cyrillic for VR 124, the VR stands for Vojna Radonica. This is a fairly scarce and very desirable cartouche, as it adds to the Yugo history and provenance of the rifle.

    It is true that these rifles are "not particularly collectable" - they are extremely collectable. The very best of these rifles are pristine, near mint, and as original as the day they were made, except for the missing scope setups, and the Yugo cleaning rods with brazed on heads many of these have. These are the best and most original WW2 condition and configuration PU sniper rifles most folks will ever see, much less have a chance to own.

    The mount on the scope in the above photo is Soviet post-war production for military and civil use. A few of these were used on Soviet post-war refurbed rifles and on East German refurbed and rebuild Mosin PU snipers, but most were used on Soviet refurbed scopes that were put into storage from the 1950's through the 1980's, and many were just kept in reserve as spares. They were sold off after the fall of Communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and have become rather scarce and valuable lately.

    Marcus von Weigert, 11/03/08

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuhrer View Post
    I have a samco matching bolt i re scoped with original parts.Well worth the effort.Really some of the best PU snipers when done right.
    +1

    chcusnr, Thanks for the story. I have one that is all original matching except the bolt. Fantastic bore and by far the most accurate rifle here. I think the Yugo scopeless rifles are way underated here.
    Last edited by Montana Bearbait; 03-04-2017 at 04:20 PM.

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,011

    Default

    Yup and they maintain there original sniper mods or at least a lot do. Mine has a 2.5 trigger pull and if i blindfolded you and gave you several rifles.And had you work the bolt over you would notice the samco was the smoothest operating.And be able to guess which rifle you were holding.They also have a scribed dotted line on there sear spring.And apparently the bolts are reworked some way.To cycle smoother.My action is also shimmed with brass stock

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    11,450

    Default

    These Yugo PUs are very impressive. Fitting a mount base is not always easy. Mine was a PIA but I got it done. All the others I bought had a base already fitted.

    The Soviets did not have interchangeabilty, at least not in WW2. Nor did the Germans. That is why everything was numbered. US weapons did have interchangeable parts, no numbers needed, unlike the master race. All those numbers matching were not needed on US weapons so who had the better weapons? They needed to fit everything and number it which was a major time consumer and cost. Ability to change parts, regardless of number, was a standard to come and the Germans and Soviets were behind the curve on this standard of technology.

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dark and Bloody Ground
    Posts
    7,116

    Default

    This is slightly off-topic, but I'll throw it in anyhow:

    Regarding the smoothness and excellent triggers, etc. of the Yugo PUs, I wouldn't be surprised it it's more down to tuning done in Yugoslavia that the presence of original factory PU parts. I've handled several original matching PUs in near-new condition (both Izhevsk and Tula), and they haven't overly impressed me with their trigger pulls.







  16. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    11,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ol' Relic View Post
    This is slightly off-topic, but I'll throw it in anyhow:

    Regarding the smoothness and excellent triggers, etc. of the Yugo PUs, I wouldn't be surprised it it's more down to tuning done in Yugoslavia that the presence of original factory PU parts. I've handled several original matching PUs in near-new condition (both Izhevsk and Tula), and they haven't overly impressed me with their trigger pulls.
    It was definitely Yugo improvement.

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,011

    Default

    True i do remember a discusion here a few years ago and most thought these rifles were Yugoslavian tweaked.Although i have also seen a Russian pu sniper manual on here to outlining what they did.As i remember the trigger was to be around a 4.5 lb pull.I did do that mod to my RGuns PU.And i did get it to right around a measured 4.5 lb pull.I did notice if i put the bolt from the samco in the Rguns PU the trigger turns into a hair trigger pull.The only difference i could tell comparing bolt to bolt was.The Rguns bolt has noticeably more play in its parts than the Samco does.And you also see more bolt movement resting your finger on the trigger with the rifle cocked in the Rguns than in the Samco.In other words my trigger sear mod is a dangerous hair trigger with the samco bolt in the Rguns rifle.Is the bolt in brand new condition in the samco? and the Rguns bolt put together with well worn parts? I have no idea.Other than the Rguns bolt in the Rguns rifle is safe with a 4.5 lb trigger pull.A nice gun but not the slick PU the Samco is.

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Back in the "Glory Days" of PU sales, my son saved up and bought a $550 Classic Arms PU. In 2012 it was still in the Russian Army. Except for the scope, mount, and stock it appears to be all original matching. The trigger on that rifle is very nice and light, and is almost as nice as the Yugo PU I have. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Mosin and target.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	350.4 KB 
ID:	2014537



    However, the bolt operation is a lot smoother and easier on my Yugo PU than my son's Classic Arms PU. Probably because my son's Classic Arms PU had been refurbed at some point.

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,011

    Default

    Yup i dont no how the YUGOs did it with those bolts.I have looked at that bolt up and down to try to figure it out.I love my Rguns to but its rough and unrefined compared to the Samco.What i really would like to know to is what is the key to the dotted line on the spring sear.It must referance what the trigger pull is.

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Hilliard, Ohio
    Posts
    6,543

    Default

    I would leave the pins in place as noted earlier. Once you mock up the fitment of the base you may determine the pins are in alignment with the base.
    If the deviation is only a few .000's" you can lightly open up the pin hole in the base or lightly file the pin where the interference is too great but only slightly off.
    I have done this on a couple of ex-sniper rework projects. Small fitment issues on the main screws can also be accomplished in a similar manner.

    Now if they are off by as much as 1 or 2 mm then it is no a simple, small adjustment of course.

  21. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,011

    Default

    when i did mine the only repro items i used was the pins and lock screws.I did have to file one pin hole open slightly in the rifle.I also had to file the pin slightly.Luckily the screw holes were very close.The Key was getting the base perfectly flat to the reciever.And than matching original screws that would tighten up.Than i had to put the lock screws in a drill and turn them down a little on a file to fit.Than cold blue them after.That way the mount base holes look not enlarged at all.Which they are not.And the pin looks on center.I guess you could say it has the original look.A lot of the re scoped ones i have seen looked hacked more or less.Thats not taking pot shots at anyone.Installing a original base is not easy to say the least.Honestly it took me 4 or 5 hours to get the desired results.And than it was a wing and a prayer that it sighted in well after i got threw.

  22. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Assachusetts
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Please, don't use Accumounts. Ebay has ton's of PU mounts, just ask the seller to measure hole spacing and make sure it matches with yours. Original PU mounts can be found all over the place and relatively cheap. Or just get in touch with Raspootyn (awesome guy to deal with) and he might help you out. Either way there's way toomany reasons not to buy Accumounts PU mounts. BTW just got back from Millstream preserve in Lebanon CT today. Had some awesome time chukar hunting.
    Quote Originally Posted by SwampYank View Post
    I have a very nice Yugo sniper without optics I bought from another member and I am in the process of finding a scope and base for it. The pins and screws were never welded so I'm hoping they will come out easily.
    I know Accumount offers a base without holes if I need to go that route.

    Ol' Relic posted this: "You'll find that at least 90% (and probably a much higher percentage than that) of Izhevsk PUs will have 53.5mm spacing." Is that a fairly standard spacing?

    Are there any tips or tricks you can share with me on removing the pins and screws?

    Pics for reference:

    http://forums.gunboards.com/showthre...sk-Yugo-Sniper

    TIA, Paul

Posting Permissions

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