Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,573 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So we know a decent number of these were built post WWII with leftover and scavenged parts, mostly assembled by the AV3 depot. So, with this in mind, is it really proper to call a post war, armorer built M39 utilizing a recycled 1926 Tikka M91 barrel, a "Tikka M39?" I'm leaning towards no, because it wasn't actually built by Tikka, the barrel was never designed to be used in an M39, and was built by scavenged parts at an SA depot. What say you all?
 

·
Silver Bullet Member
Joined
·
3,675 Posts
You probably do have a good point. As nobody knows for sure who assembled them possibly "Tikka Barreled" would be a more appropriate title.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
I call it a Tikka. This IMO is all part of the history of the m39 rifle. This is what makes the Finns so much more collectible than the average 91/30s. Such a variety with the finns creates a much more collectible market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,380 Posts
Tikkakoski Oy-produced late M91s, e.g. 1940-1943 production, were assembled into postwar M/39 builds alongside 1942 B barrels and the "no maker" variety.

For short-hand, and convenience, I would call it a "Tikka" or "Tikkakoski" M/39, just as I call my B barrel M/39 a "B barrel" rather than a "VKT-produced B-barreled M/39 service rifle." However inaccurate, it is a term of convenience without resorting to lazy slang neologisms like, say, "mah Izzy" or what-have-you. For me, the barrel mark is the maker when I describe a given Mosin-Nagant... YMMV.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,288 Posts
Agree
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,573 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Is the OP talking about an arsenal refurb in a postwar stock or a late date?

Am I the only one confused?
No, I am talking about rifles assembled post war from leftover parts. There are several variations: some built with leftover "B" barrels from M91 production, some built with entirely new barrels, the "late dates", and some built with scavenged or recycled barrels from older rifles, mostly M91s. We've seen early and late Tikka M91 barrels, VKT M91 barrels, Imperial Russian M91 barrels, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,758 Posts
No, I am talking about rifles assembled post war from leftover parts. There are several variations: some built with leftover "B" barrels from M91 production, some built with entirely new barrels, the "late dates", and some built with scavenged or recycled barrels from older rifles, mostly M91s. We've seen early and late Tikka M91 barrels, VKT M91 barrels, Imperial Russian M91 barrels, etc.
Ok, then I was confused, to me a B barreled M39 would be a B barreled M39, etc...
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
4,946 Posts
Ok, then I was confused, to me a B barreled M39 would be a B barreled M39, etc...
+1 If you don't call it that then what pray tell in the way of complicated and confusing names that you are not really sure of are you going to call it? Why would anyone want to knowingly complicate something further than it already is? Bill
 

·
Moderator/Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
8,904 Posts
+1 If you don't call it that then what pray tell in the way of complicated and confusing names that you are not really sure of are you going to call it? Why would anyone want to knowingly complicate something further than it already is? Bill
You've obviously never worked closely with any government agencies... ;)
Pat
 

·
Silver Bullet Member
Joined
·
4,042 Posts
Let's be clear here - 1940s dated Tikka M39s were built from M91s/M91 length barrels. They were only remade into M39s post war. They are commonly called Tikka M39s. This seems to be the way Finn Mosins are named - Tikka barreled M28, SIG barreled M28. Bohler M24, SIG M24. SAT M91, etc.

My 26 Tikka and 1899 Tula M39:




 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,731 Posts
So we know a decent number of these were built post WWII with leftover and scavenged parts, mostly assembled by the AV3 depot. So, with this in mind, is it really proper to call a post war, armorer built M39 utilizing a recycled 1926 Tikka M91 barrel, a "Tikka M39?" I'm leaning towards no, because it wasn't actually built by Tikka, the barrel was never designed to be used in an M39, and was built by scavenged parts at an SA depot. What say you all?
I think I know where the other Tikka from AIM went. LOL
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
376 Posts
I guess you can call it what you want but the fact is: The rifle may have a Tikka M91 barrel but it has been reworked to Finnish M39 standards. You would not designate it as a Tikka M91 because its nomenclature has been changed. If they wanted to keep it in M91 configuration they would have done so. It has M39 hardware, sights, stock and a reworked barrel so it is in my eyes it is a 26 Tikka M39.
So we know a decent number of these were built post WWII with leftover and scavenged parts, mostly assembled by the AV3 depot. So, with this in mind, is it really proper to call a post war, armorer built M39 utilizing a recycled 1926 Tikka M91 barrel, a "Tikka M39?" I'm leaning towards no, because it wasn't actually built by Tikka, the barrel was never designed to be used in an M39, and was built by scavenged parts at an SA depot. What say you all?
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
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