Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey guys,
So today a reference book I ordered arrived from Finland on Finnish Mosins. I was hoping to find a rifle I got from an online action house, which is an M39 trainer in 22 LR. I kind of knew going into it that this was an uncommon beast and not a pure M39, as the auction house called it an M28/39. I had a working theory that it was actually an older M28/30 that had been upgraded with M39 furniture and having looked at the book I'm starting to think that is probably correct. According to the book the Finns never made any trainers in large numbers and they stopped after the M28/30. The book does mention however that collectors have found a multitude of different variations of them and that these are probably the result of the arsenal putting them together later from spare parts they had lying around or refitting them.

Has anyone else seen M39 trainers like this and is there some way of telling if it started life as an M28/30? The receiver has 1941 on it as the production year and I don't feel it's likely that someone knocked up this after the war. What do you reckon?

Here are pictures.



Baby photos
3743791


3743792



How it looks currently

3743793






3743796


3743797


3743798


3743799




3743802


3743803
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
409 Posts
Please add a picture of the top of the barrel where it joins the receiver as well as both sides of the barrel/receiver at that section and maybe that will tell us more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Here you go. There is also a gun smith’s mark on the receiver. Toro Erkki. I think he might have redone the barrel at some point. He is near Joensuu but the only contract details I can find is a land line and I don’t dare call with my level of Finnish. If he is even alive anymore.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
967 Posts
The barreled receiver at least appears to be a M28/30, the length of the muzzle forward of the front site is noticeably shorter on a M28/30 compared to the M39. Can't help much more than that, info on Finnish .22 trainers is pretty scarce in English. Palokangas mentions the M91 and M27 .22 trainers in Volume 2 of Sotilaskäsiaseet Suomessa 1918 - 1988 but not the M28/30 version(in the English summaries anyway)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Erkki Toro is a famous gunsmith who worked with the FDF and contributed a lot in making of the TAK-85 sniper rifle.

He has made a number of those civilian m/39 .22LRs for request. That is one of tjose right there.

Lähetetty minun STF-L09 laitteesta Tapatalkilla
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Erkki Toro is a famous gunsmith who worked with the FDF and contributed a lot in making of the TAK-85 sniper rifle.

He has made a number of those civilian m/39 .22LRs for request. That is one of tjose right there.

Lähetetty minun STF-L09 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

So this isn't an original wartime trainer? Did he make them from 22 trainers or from full calibre rifles?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,878 Posts
It is most certainly not a war time gun or even an FDF trainer. I will say it is solely a civilian gun. Toro used to make those back in the day. They were and are very nice and prized guns. Those are made using parts from standard m/39s thus are not made out of trainers.

Lähetetty minun STF-L09 laitteesta Tapatalkilla
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
It is most certainly not a war time gun or even an FDF trainer. I will say it is solely a civilian gun. Toro used to make those back in the day. They were and are very nice and prized guns. Those are made using parts from standard m/39s thus are not made out of trainers.

Lähetetty minun STF-L09 laitteesta Tapatalkilla
There actually is a 5 etched on the barrel and on the 22. bolt parts. You can also see the difference in condition between them and that is the only way the 41 date makes sense. It was definitely made from a 28/30. It’s definitely neat gun for sure but it’s annoying because it makes it ineligible for the trainer competition because the conversation needs to have been done before 1946. It is very close to a M28/30 trainer so maybe I could swap out the stock and sights and turn it into it but it’s probably not worth it.
 

·
Diamond Member
Joined
·
5,555 Posts
The barreled receiver at least appears to be a M28/30, the length of the muzzle forward of the front site is noticeably shorter on a M28/30 compared to the M39. Can't help much more than that, info on Finnish .22 trainers is pretty scarce in English. Palokangas mentions the M91 and M27 .22 trainers in Volume 2 of Sotilaskäsiaseet Suomessa 1918 - 1988 but not the M28/30 version(in the English summaries anyway)
A quick summary of my translation from Palokangas Vol II

Pg. 121 - Small orders of miniature barrels were made for shooters and guards for the M28 and M28-30 models. No qtys. were stated, and I infer from the previous text that these were make by Tikka in the 1930's

Pg. 122 - Miniature rifles were decommissioned and many were scrapped between 1944 - 1945. By 1956 there were 703 mini-rifles accumulated at asevarriko 1, and a qty. of three were the M28-30 model. These figures match the OP's book info (muutama = few)


So....a few mini-barrels were made for the M28's and M28-30s, but no other details were really stated by Palokangas that I could find in VOL II. Denny
 

·
Site Contributor
Joined
·
1,260 Posts
It is most certainly not a war time gun or even an FDF trainer. I will say it is solely a civilian gun. Toro used to make those back in the day. They were and are very nice and prized guns. Those are made using parts from standard m/39s thus are not made out of trainers.
This exactly. One of my friends also has .22 LR version of m/39 and according him there was a small batch made of them made for shooters back in the day (1960's - 1980's?), but they were never in FDF inventory. Only service rifle trainer versions that Finnish military had were made from infantry rifles m/91 and m/27 in 1920's and 1930's. Both rifles are single-shot without magazine of any sort. I doubt there would have been much need for .22 calibre training rifles in post-war era. The main reason for having trainer rifles built in 1920's and 1930's was to save full-power rifle ammunition in basic marksmanship training, but after World War 2 FDF had massive stockpile of 7.62 x 53R ammunition, which had already been bought and paid.

I have shot the particular .22 LR m/39 and also .22 LR trainer m/91 few years back - they are really fun guns to shoot.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top