Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Rifle Discussion' started by molonlabexx, Apr 18, 2013.
Yeah, the size of a pencil
Nope. I am not. Russia like big things. And they tell us not to dry fire a mosin. PPPPPPPFFFFFFF
Lol, how you supposed to judge the trigger pull without dry firing, right?
Trigger pull is very heavy on mine. 9 pounds at least. Still love the things though
Mine was an anomaly. Pitch black bore, with more pits than Lindsey Lohan has freckles, but a 3-4 pound trigger that snapped like a glass rod, beer can accurate at 100 yards, EVERY time. I never once pulled a clean patch through that bore. Traded it for a .22 that I could sell for more than the Mosin is worth, to help me out while going through my rough patch last year.
It was a 1938 Tula. Whenever I get around to replacing it, I'm only going Tula, unless I find a rearsenaled Finn for a good price.
Whats wrong with Izhevsk? I have a 1929 Hex 91/30 and a 91/59 Carbine built from a 1942 Izhevsk 91/30 and they are both good rifles that are fairly accurate. I think maybe the finish on a Tula might be a smidge better but wartime mosin's are pretty much crude with a few exceptions. I have a 1953 Hungarian M-44 that's a beaut. Inside and out, its a fine carbine.
There is no practical difference, in the quality of the rifles, from Tula and Izhevsk. In fact, after the Tula factory, under pressure from the Germans, moved out of the German's reach, many Tula marked rifles may have been built at the Izhevsk plant, on relocated Tula tooling.
The biggest difference in the desirability is that the Tulas have the "cooler" logo.
Tulas regularly have a nicer finish and smoother machining in their pre '38 productions. That's really the only difference. (which leads to things like abnormally good triggers for a Mosin)