Gunboards Forums banner

Molot 91/30 Tula Sniper???

6K views 53 replies 17 participants last post by  freethinkr 
#1 · (Edited)
Alright guys, I took a chance and bought it, and I don't know if it is the real deal, didn't really have time to post pics and ask here before I bought it, but I took the chance and pulled the trigger. Let me know what I got, and if it was worth the $900 I paid for it. I couldn't get a good pic of the import mark, but it is a IO inc import marked rifle. Metal parts are all matching but the scope and mount... I was told it was a Tulsky Sniper, whatever the hell that means. LOL Let me know...
 

Attachments

See less See more
8
#6 ·
Yeah it has a IO inc import mark on the barrel. Is that normal? This isn't going to be comparable to a horrible century built sniper is it!?!?
It's a genuine Soviet refurbed PU. The only unfortunate thing is the export marks, but that's just the way it is. I'd be glad to see more PU imports come in, export marks and all, but it probably isn't going to happen.
 
#10 ·
Not a thing wrong with import marks on a refurb PU sniper, has not hurt the value of them at all. More collectors today have no regret buying one with import marks and these sniper rifles sold out fast when they were imported a short time ago into USA.

The guys with PU snipers that came in before 1968 Gun Control Act without import marks want you believe their PU are worth more and its these owners / collectors who have an investment agenda in this import mark myth. Same crew in the 98K Mauser owner/ collector circles who paid big bucks for examples w/o import marks and want to keep values of them up.

If you will go back a few years (in this boards archives) and see the Cries of Slander on the first Molot PU imported, you will see what I am talking about. That died out only because the Molots sold out and finally the truth prevailed and they were acknowledged on this board as legit PU snipers. Not so on some other obtuse boards but this board led the way in flagging the truth.

So you paid $900 and Relic validates that as about right in todays market for a Tula example, you can rest easy knowing what you got and that you did not pay too much. Your rifle will hold value and increase in value (good investment).

Here is a link to a light over view of the entire Import Marked PU subject area: http://www.russian-mosin-nagant.com/sniper_exports/index.html
 
#11 ·
Thanks for the link, I will study the info on there to get more informed about it. I bought a Tula sniper from Aimsurplus.com on the first go around, still have it. Some of the markings were the same, and it had a progressive scope on it when it came dated 1942. The thing that was worrying me when I looked at this one was the markings were a little different than the one I bought from aimsurplus, and it had a post war scope on it, but now that I figured out what Tulsky's are, it matches up perfectly with the description. I feel better about the purchase now that you guys have been so kind to give me more info on it. I feel I made a good purchase at a decent price. Thanks again for the link!

Not a thing wrong with import marks on a refurb PU sniper, has not hurt the value of them at all. More collectors today have no regret buying one with import marks and these sniper rifles sold out fast when they were imported a short time ago into USA.

The guys with PU snipers that came in before 1968 Gun Control Act without import marks want you believe their PU are worth more and its these owners / collectors who have an investment agenda in this import mark myth. Same crew in the 98K Mauser owner/ collector circles who paid big bucks for examples w/o import marks and want to keep values of them up.

If you will go back a few years (in this boards archives) and see the Cries of Slander on the first Molot PU imported, you will see what I am talking about. That died out only because the Molots sold out and finally the truth prevailed and they were acknowledged on this board as legit PU snipers. Not so on some other obtuse boards but this board led the way in flagging the truth.

So you paid $900 and Relic validates that as about right in todays market for a Tula example, you can rest easy knowing what you got and that you did not pay too much. Your rifle will hold value and increase in value (good investment).

Here is a link to a light over view of the entire Import Marked PU subject area: http://www.russian-mosin-nagant.com/sniper_exports/index.html
 
#13 ·
Nice looking 43 Tula PU! You did good; Tula produced only about a third of the PU snipers in 1943 that Izhevsk did. Where else can you get a legit WWII sniper for $900.00! Look forward to your range report.

PA
 
#14 ·
Have you notice,- Scope has date 1959?
 
#19 ·
The scope is just fine. It is a Progress PU scope made in 44' and refurbed in Kiev in 1959. Which means it's probably in better shape than my son's scope that was made at the same place, about the same time and NOT refurbed...
Now Soldaten, live up to your chosen nick by posting some quality targets that you shot with this fine rifle...:)
 
#39 ·
I still find it odd that folks think 900.00 for a legit WWII sniper rifle is high. Try to buy a 1903A4, No4 T, or one of the various German (if you can wade though the sea of fakes) sniper rifles for anywhere near that price.

I know the Soviets made thousands more snipers than the other major players in WWII and that does factor in the price somewhat. But when talking specifically about Tula PU snipers the production is much lower than Izhevsk. To put it in perspective, 1944 Tula PU production numbers are similar to 1903A4 production numbers yet a nice 1903A4 currently sells for 3K plus.
 
#45 ·
how can you tell the stock is a wartime Izhevsk PU stock? and is this gun like a post war look alike that was made in Russia? and whats the difference with these export marks from U.S. import marks. and why the difference? and when you say its a 1944 guessig by the serial number whats that all about? sorry for all the questions. I know next to nothing about snipers.
 
#46 ·
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top