M1944 Mosin With SVT Cleaning Rod Release Button-Rare Prototype or Bubba's Creation?
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: M1944 Mosin With SVT Cleaning Rod Release Button-Rare Prototype or Bubba's Creation?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,968

    Default M1944 Mosin With SVT Cleaning Rod Release Button-Rare Prototype or Bubba's Creation?

    Someone on another forum posted the following photos of his newly acquired Russian M1944 Mosin carbine. As you can see it appears to be fitted with an M1940 Tokarev rifle cleaning rod release button. The owner did not specify where he purchased this piece but the unusual rod release hardware was apparently not advertised or disclosed as a feature and it was only when he had the rifle in hand that he noticed something different. The owner has not found any references for similar examples and has asked for assistance.

    I advised the owner that the workmanship doesn't look like something crafted in someone's basement and that this might be an arsenal prototype or test piece. I think it might be real. And rare.

    Your thoughts?




    Purists of the world, unite!

    If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
    Samuel Adams

  2. #2
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Super Moderator/Diamond Bullet member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Where HAL-9000 was built
    Posts
    11,556

    Default

    Totally awesome! This is an experimental carbine that was tested in 1947. It is shown in Yuschenko's book on pp. 266-269. The rod is not from a SVT, just similar, but specific to this modification.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Obr 91-30 -0.jpg  

    "It's impossible to grasp the boundless" - Kozma Prutkov

    "Бросая в воду камешки, смотри на круги, ими образуемые; иначе такое бросание будет пустою забавою." - Козьма Прутков

    "A який чоловiк горилку не п'є - то вiн або хворий, або падлюка." - Невідомий українець

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    363

    Default

    Very cool!

  4. Remove Advertisements
    GunBoards.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Crotch Of The Country
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    Will we cease to learn new things about these arms? There always seems to be something new.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    669

    Default

    Nice post Richard! That is amazing.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Abita Springs, LA
    Posts
    474

    Default

    Its real and rare. I have the one that Nick mentions in the book above. Mine also has a flap door in the buttplate for a cleaning kit.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    SW PA
    Posts
    2,375

    Default

    Neat rifle. Seeing this and watching Ian's video on the M44L (Forgotten Weapons) makes me think there's probably a few rare oddities in the U.S. that were just sold into surplus as they were no longer of use.
    Mosin Fanboy

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PherBag View Post
    It’s real and rare. I have the one that Nick mentions in the book above. Mine also has a flap door in the buttplate for a cleaning kit.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Please post pics of that butt plate and your carbine.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard in NY* View Post
    Someone on another forum posted the following photos of his newly acquired Russian M1944 Mosin carbine. As you can see it appears to be fitted with an M1940 Tokarev rifle cleaning rod release button. The owner did not specify where he purchased this piece but the unusual rod release hardware was apparently not advertised or disclosed as a feature and it was only when he had the rifle in hand that he noticed something different. The owner has not found any references for similar examples and has asked for assistance.

    I advised the owner that the workmanship doesn't look like something crafted in someone's basement and that this might be an arsenal prototype or test piece. I think it might be real. And rare.

    Your thoughts?

    Can you post more pictures? Including picture of the serial number


    Quote Originally Posted by PherBag View Post
    It’s real and rare. I have the one that Nick mentions in the book above. Mine also has a flap door in the buttplate for a cleaning kit.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

    Here are the pictures of the PherBag's carbine from my book.
    Such design was created in 1944, few were made in 1944 and 1945, and seems small batches were issued in 1946 and 1947. PherBag's carbine from 1946 has serial number AA0006, serial numbers from the 1947 report (June) are AA-7520, АK-2365, ВГ-2172, all are from 1947 production.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20200613_074530.jpg 
Views:	23 
Size:	1,020.1 KB 
ID:	3669871
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20200613_074546.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	1.37 MB 
ID:	3669869
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20200613_074555.jpg 
Views:	26 
Size:	921.5 KB 
ID:	3669867
    Last edited by Ratnik; 06-13-2020 at 03:06 AM.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Houston, Lone Star State
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Amazing feature! Who knew?

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Wow, wow, wow!!!!!!!
    KH

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Ohio, about five miles from Lake Erie
    Posts
    11,966

    Default

    Wet blanket time.

    It is a neat 'variation', but it just seems to me to be you are trading a little bit of extra weight, a number of additional parts, and additional machining time added to the rifle when the only 'advantage' seems to be eliminating the threaded insert in the stock that the existing cleaning rod screws into.

    Oh, and now the Red Army needs to carry TWO distinct types of cleaning rods in their Armorer's inventory.

    Would it really be an 'improvement' if they adopted it?

    I don't figure it had a snowball's chance of getting adopted, and one has to wonder why they even played with the idea..

  14. #13
    Mike O's Avatar
    Mike O is online now Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet member
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Stuart Island, WA
    Posts
    3,341

    Default

    Wow! That is super cool. Thanks for posting this.
    "You mean to say you don't know me? I'm Antti Rokka. A farmer from the Isthmus. At the moment I sell bullets."

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronbo6 View Post
    Wet blanket time.

    It is a neat 'variation', but it just seems to me to be you are trading a little bit of extra weight, a number of additional parts, and additional machining time added to the rifle when the only 'advantage' seems to be eliminating the threaded insert in the stock that the existing cleaning rod screws into.

    Oh, and now the Red Army needs to carry TWO distinct types of cleaning rods in their Armorer's inventory.

    Would it really be an 'improvement' if they adopted it?

    I don't figure it had a snowball's chance of getting adopted, and one has to wonder why they even played with the idea..

    Actually, there are 13 pages in my book which provide answers to your question. But since it is in Russian, I'll provide a summary - the reason why such designs were tested were the same, that caused acceptance of the M44 - soldiers lost huge numbers of bayonets, cleaning rods, and cleaning kits in the field, and missing cleaning rods and kits impacted to the quality of firearms maintenance. There were almost 15 trial designs for M44 tested in 1944-1945, and 5+ more for M91/30, tested in 1942-1943.
    SVT pattern design was selected the best, and was produced in small numbers for wider trials
    Last edited by Ratnik; 06-15-2020 at 04:01 AM.

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratnik View Post
    Actually, there are 13 pages in my book that provide answers to your question. But since it is in Russian, I'll provide a summary - the reason why such designs were tested were the same, that caused acceptance of the M44 - soldiers lost huge numbers of bayonets, cleaning rods, and cleaning kits in the field, and missing cleaning rods and kits, impacted to the quality of firearms maintenance. There were almost 15 trial designs for M44 tested in 1944-1945, and 5+ more for M91/30, tested in 1942-1943.
    SVT pattern design was selected the best, and was produced in small numbers
    Great info, Ratnik, many thanks!
    KH

  17. #16
    USMCsean's Avatar
    USMCsean is offline Super Moderator / Silver Bullet member/ Rocket Scientist
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Buckeye country
    Posts
    105,692

    Default

    Very cool!
    Semper Fi,
    Sean



    Check out the newest forum on Gunboards! The Brass Exchange. Where reloaders can come and find the brass that they need. https://forums.gunboards.com/forumdi...Brass-Exchange

    Please add your info for the Tikka 91/30 Survey at: https://forums.gunboards.com/showthr...=3975#post3975

    We Marines believe that God gave America the greatest gift he could bestow to man while he lived on this earth-freedom. We also believe he gave us another gift nearly as precious-our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines-to safeguard that gift and
    guarantee no force on this earth can every steal it away. It has been my distinct honor to have been with you here today. Rest assured our America, this experiment in democracy started over two centuries ago, will forever remain the "land of the free and home of the brave" so long as we never run out of tough young Americans who are willing to look beyond their own self-interest and comfortable lives, and go into the darkest and most dangerous places on earth to hunt down, and kill, those who would do us harm.
    Nov 13, 2010 Lt General John Kelly, USMC

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Ohio, about five miles from Lake Erie
    Posts
    11,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratnik View Post
    Actually, there are 13 pages in my book which provide answers to your question. But since it is in Russian, I'll provide a summary - the reason why such designs were tested were the same, that caused acceptance of the M44 - soldiers lost huge numbers of bayonets, cleaning rods, and cleaning kits in the field, and missing cleaning rods and kits impacted to the quality of firearms maintenance. There were almost 15 trial designs for M44 tested in 1944-1945, and 5+ more for M91/30, tested in 1942-1943.
    SVT pattern design was selected the best, and was produced in small numbers for wider trials
    I guess this makes a lot of sense from that standpoint, but I would figure the issue of lost cleaning rods and kits in the field could be just as easily dealt with if the Russian equivalent of the Platoon Sergeant would tell the soldiers to screw the rods in and don't lose the cleaning kits, and then severely beat on the first soldier in his platoon that had the misfortune of losing one or the other.

    Since they never adopted the trial installations (other than attaching the bayonets to the rifles), I figure they decided to go with my plan.

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronbo6 View Post
    I guess this makes a lot of sense from that standpoint, but I would figure the issue of lost cleaning rods and kits in the field could be just as easily dealt with if the Russian equivalent of the Platoon Sergeant would tell the soldiers to screw the rods in and don't lose the cleaning kits, and then severely beat on the first soldier in his platoon that had the misfortune of losing one or the other.

    Since they never adopted the trial installations (other than attaching the bayonets to the rifles), I figure they decided to go with my plan.
    Reason why these updates were not introduced into production is that they appeared too late. First trials on numerous designs were made only in October 1944. Few were selected as best between others, but they still required some updates. Reliable design was adopted only in late 1945, when WWII had already ended. Firearms production heavily decreased, and the role of each firearm during WW2 was reviewed. Total number of produced M44s in 1946-1948 is less than 30% of 1944 M44. In 1945 Soviet already were focused on 7,62X41 cartridge firearms, and 1945 SKS designs already had a door in the stock buttplate for cleaning kit and design that prevented cleaning rod loss, and it is present in SKS that was adopted in 1949.
    So finally it was decided not to introduce a new design, because it was senseless considering small current production plans - small numbers of updated M44 will not change the overall situation, but will cause problems with interchangeability. And it was obvious that soon the new 7,62X41 (7,62x39 later) semi-auto carbine will be accepted to the service.
    In case these designs appeared in mid 1943, like it happened with the Semin bayonet for M38, they for sure were implemented into mass production. In early 1944 it still made sense, because production plans were still high.

  20. #19
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    N. Texas
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Wow, learn about a new variant of Mosin for every day of the year

    But seriously, this is fascinating information. Wouldn't it be nice to be that lucky when you think you're just getting another Mosin and Bam! Something neat like this is dropped into your lap.

    -STR

  21. #20

    Default

    Cool variation of the M44! This discussion reminded me of a question that came up when trying to use an replica cleaning rod in my 1955 Romanian M44. I believe it is 20" long and appears to be an acceptable length when in the storage position. However, when trying to clean the rifle, it is not long enough to push the patch out past the chamber. So I just use a modern Hoppe's or Outers cleaning rod that is longer. Were the original rods longer than 20 inches or was this a problem with the M44 design?
    Last edited by GunHobby; 06-29-2020 at 04:10 PM. Reason: clarification

  22. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,326

    Default

    Very interesting variation. The explanation of the rationale for the trial design is much appreciated, as well.

Posting Permissions

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