Some random shots of the internals.

 

That's a really nice, honest use, matching example. Really nice.

 

That's a great example! I would have put back together dirt and all too. But then I err pretty far to the purist side of things. I would have no issue with the Izhevsk stock either. Could be any number of perfectly innocuous reasons why everything got swapped over. Not everything unusual in the Mosin world is a made up con job.

 

CH: As we all know, with Finn-owned 91/30s, the variation in degree of originality is total. Barreled actions (with all other parts replaced) at one end of the spectrum to totally original (with only an "SA" stamp added at the other end). This rifle would obviously be at the higher end—a real beauty! If I might ask, was anything visibly done to set the rifle up in the replacement stock- any shims?

Ruprecht

 

Izhevsk supplied spare stocks to the Soviet depot system. They have the CCCP roundel but no GAU acceptance. Hard to tell if this one has the GAU inspection or not.

 

Looks like a legitimate arsenal or field replacement stock to me, not an owner-refinished stock as in that other discussion. Finns or Soviets (or Germans?) may have done that at one point or another. Condition of the wood matches the metal, seems to be clearly assembled together for a very long time.

 

Enjoyed the photos.
Ozzes history and character
Thanks

 

It's clear that the Finns did not bother keeping buttplates with the other matching parts when replacing a stock on a 91/30. I recall several examples of matching bolt/barrel/magazine combos being moved to a new stock, but this is the first all-matching example I've seen that does not have the "correct" stock. I see little reason to doubt that the rifle was wearing that stock when the Finns took posession of it.

 

Sharp Finnish capture @CH, coming at us with another post of a somewhat enigmatic piece. As mentioned above by other member’s post I would imagine the stock was either a replacement stock done back when it was in Soviet hands, or maybe Tula received a couple of Izhevsk stocks🤷‍♂️. Though I do personally enjoy the possibility that a Finnish armorer was too much of a perfectionist and just had to go the extra mile.

 

 

Here's another thought that I suppose won't definitively prove anything but will still be a fun exercise:
Pull the barrel/receiver again and see if the year and arsenal stamp from the tang have a mirrored impression inside the stock.

 

That's a great example! I would have put back together dirt and all too. But then I err pretty far to the purist side of things. I would have no issue with the Izhevsk stock either. Could be any number of perfectly innocuous reasons why everything got swapped over. Not everything unusual in the Mosin world is a made up con job.

Thank you. I'm glad this was not my first milsurp. When I started in 2004 only heavy refurbs looked good. I hated muzzles and cleaning rods that were "in the white". Lacquer/varnish on stocks also, particularly if the finish was partially worn. Civil Guard guns were perhaps the worst to watch.

As to collectibles, years have made me more like purist. I suppose it happens to many collectors over time. We tend to cherish dirt as some kind of certificate of origin. If I end up cleaning something I photograph the object before doing anything. These days I don't even feel like disassembling a collectible weapon, unless absolutely necessary. No matter how carefully done an old, dirty gun will still devop this someone-has-been-here-recently kind of look. Not necessarily a screwdriver slip but that little shine on the screw slot. Barrel bands can also be very difficult to move discreetly, at least if there is any surface finish left on the stock. Well, that's just me.

CH: As we all know, with Finn-owned 91/30s, the variation in degree of originality is total. Barreled actions (with all other parts replaced) at one end of the spectrum to totally original (with only an "SA" stamp added at the other end). This rifle would obviously be at the higher end—a real beauty! If I might ask, was anything visibly done to set the rifle up in the replacement stock- any shims?

Ruprecht

Thanks Ruprecht. Yesterday, when I was browsing through the old 2008 photos I couldn't find a single one showing the stock's receiver mortise or barrel channel. For some reason I hadn't taken a picture of them. That might be perhaps that there wasn't anything interesting, like shims, added. As you can see, the magazine inlet has shims at both ends. I don't think that I've seen a Finnish shim made so long that there is a cut for trigger also. Could this be Soviet/Russian?

In any case, the stock is now so compressed that the action keeps wiggling back and worth when the action screws bottom.

In addition to SA mark, D modification and filing of the rear sight base at the lowest graduations the rear sight notch has been filed to more V shape. It looks about as old filing as that of the base but it's hard to be sure. The muzzle has also been counterbored. As mentioned earlier, the nosecap has a Tula star which can be seen in one of the new pics of today.

Izhevsk supplied spare stocks to the Soviet depot system. They have the CCCP roundel but no GAU acceptance. Hard to tell if this one has the GAU inspection or not.

Thank you. I tried to get a better view but the finish seems perhaps too worn for that. I just noticed that on the left side, the buttstock escutcheon has an Imperial Izhevsk logo. Does this mean it is just an old Dragoon stock that was recycled?

Here's another thought that I suppose won't definitively prove anything but will still be a fun exercise:
Pull the barrel/receiver again and see if the year and arsenal stamp from the tang have a mirrored impression inside the stock.

That's a really good idea. Let see first what you think about the Imperial Izhevsk logo on one of the escutcheons.

 

Thank you. I tried to get a better view but the finish seems perhaps too worn for that. I just noticed that on the left side, the buttstock escutcheon has an Imperial Izhevsk logo. Does this mean it is just an old Dragoon stock that was recycled?

Unlikely. May have just been some leftover parts being used at some point. The escutcheons are sanded over as Izhevsk often did, so it's probably original to the stock.

 

A few more pictures taken today. No, this stock doesn't feel "dry" in your hand.

 

The Soviet factories reused older Imperial era receivers to make new 91/30s. I would assume (but I have no idea for sure) that they would use other parts of older rifles as well. Would they strip escutcheons and other metal parts from stocks that were too damaged to repair and just re-use them in new 91/30 builds? That would seem to make sense...