1891???

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by texnmidwest, May 15, 2008.

  1. texnmidwest

    texnmidwest Sir Loin of Beef Forum Contributor

    OK, I was looking at a rifle that has me puzzled. I wish I had pictures of it but did not have a camera with me. It was Billed as and for all intents a purposes looked like an old 1891. Hex receiver, longer barrel than 91/30, correct front sight for an 1891, curved and stepped rear sight, etc. The part that didn't makes sense was the receiver. The markings were Izzy and the date of mfr. was 1944. RED FLAG! I thought they quit making 1891's in 26. Am I wrong here? The stock was pretty beat up and it looked more weathered than most I see. No finn markings either.

    Has anyone else ran across a true 1891 that has that date?
     
  2. SwedeSteve

    SwedeSteve Freedom Zealot Forum Contributor

    Are you talking about the tang date?
    M91's were made from 1893-1925 or thereabouts.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2008

  3. texnmidwest

    texnmidwest Sir Loin of Beef Forum Contributor

    The date on the receiver just in front of the hex part. Looked similar to the below. Just did not fit with the rest of the rifle. I think someone rebarreled it.

    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
  4. Big Dog

    Big Dog Retired IT Dinosaur Wrangler Forum Contributor

    Check the tang date to be sure. I would expect, if the Soviets refurbed it, they would've built it to M91/30 specs.
    Wonder what this rifle's story is?
     
  5. SwedeSteve

    SwedeSteve Freedom Zealot Forum Contributor

  6. SwedeSteve

    SwedeSteve Freedom Zealot Forum Contributor

    Well I don't think its a pure M91. I think if you measure the OAL you'll find it's a M91 refitted with M91/30 barrel.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2008
  7. texnmidwest

    texnmidwest Sir Loin of Beef Forum Contributor

    I want to go look at the rifle again. I think you are right there Steve, but the front sight is not a glove but a 91 sight. I'll have to take another look.

    tex.
     
  8. SwedeSteve

    SwedeSteve Freedom Zealot Forum Contributor

    The front sights are interchangeable Tex.
     
  9. texnmidwest

    texnmidwest Sir Loin of Beef Forum Contributor

    OK, that makes sense then. I forgot about that fact. The rifle was laid side by side with a true 91/30 and the rifle was a couple inches longer. I forgot about that fact. I just gotta go look at that rifle again. This dog just don't hunt!
     
  10. marion57

    marion57 G&G Newbie

    something strange on this one:werd:
     
  11. SwedeSteve

    SwedeSteve Freedom Zealot Forum Contributor

    It will be interesting to find out.
     
  12. I have to agree that some one else has thrown a newer barrel on it. If it would have been me that done that though, I woud l have kept the original barrel and sent it away wth the rifle too, just for the fect that it was the original to that M91. But that's just me.
     
  13. SwedeSteve

    SwedeSteve Freedom Zealot Forum Contributor

    You have to remember that the Russians were constantly refurbishing/recycling their rifles. To put an old M91 with a bad bore back into service by adding a new 91/30 makes sense. The M91/59 is also a smart idea as well as the Czech M91/38.
     
  14. The Rumanians put together some pretty weird mish-mashes when they were handing out "instructee" Mosins; they were hoping that if the Soviets rolled in, an armed civilian populace could slow them down long enough to get the West involved. So they cobbled together anything that could be made to fire. For example, mine is a round-receiver 91/30, but it has an m91 front sight on it.

    Is there any indication it ever had a red stripe painted on the buttstock, or the word instructee stamped or carved into it?
     
  15. texnmidwest

    texnmidwest Sir Loin of Beef Forum Contributor

  16. I really hate it when they do that. i.e. sell what I want when I can't afford it.:34:
     
  17. SwedeSteve

    SwedeSteve Freedom Zealot Forum Contributor

    I feel your pain Geo! When I have cash, there's nuttin out there!