[jmeck]

I just picked up this 91/30 a couple of weeks ago. Its a 1935 Tula Hex receiver with a mint bore that actually shines. I was going to test it out yesterday but I ended up having to work until 4:30 :sigh:
The scope is a Weaver K4 with fine crosshairs. The mount is a proto-type I'm working on to use on rifles that I don't want to do any modifications to. ( I will probably use it on a few rare Finns I have) It is an external band strap design (the band don't touch the stock) with a low offset rail so the straight bolt can be used. Looks? Yeah, its not to pretty, I may need to strap a cheek rest on the side of the stock for a better cheek weld but I think it will get the job done.
If it don't work to well or I don't like it I can allways mount a rail on top of the see-through base and use a turned down bolt. I'll post a range report if I get to the range next weekend.

 

[savage1r]

That looks pretty awesome, would love to see how it works out.

 

[FS00008]

I'd be interested in one of these mounts..

 

[No Man]

I want one too in case I lose my right eye.

 

[MosinRuger]

The mount looks like a good idea and design for un-altered rifles, but i have to ask, why is it so low?, i think it would be better if it was raised up and inch or so.

 

[littlestoney406]

Sits like a Winchester Model 94 mount.

 

[Cyrano]

I'll withhold opinion until we see some range reports on this. It looks clumsy, but that's to be expected with a prototype that is for proof of concept. I do agree with MosinRuger that the scope seems awfully low for comfortable use by the shooter. Would raising it an inch or two interfere with cycling the bolt?

 

[WisconsinHunter]

I gotta ask...how exactly does this work?

 

[jmeck]

I'll withhold opinion until we see some range reports on this. It looks clumsy, but that's to be expected with a prototype that is for proof of concept. I do agree with MosinRuger that the scope seems awfully low for comfortable use by the shooter. Would raising it an inch or two interfere with cycling the bolt?

Yes it may, at least that is the concern. Actually if it was higher the bolt probably wouldn't hit , but you may hit your thumb when you cycle a round and since the scope is offset to the left it would make it more difficult for your face to be in contact with the stock, since your chin is generally narrower then your cheek. I may try a smaller diameter scope at the same elavation or slightly higher than the iron sights. I have an old Weaver "Cub"
I can use for this, of course that would limit my field of view alot, then again our boys in WW2 used very small diameter scopes when compared to what we have today. I went with a 1 inch diameter scope for two reasons, one I had a used Weaver side mount ring set and two, most everybody myself included likes a scope with at least a 1 inch diameter tube.
I do appreciate the feedback and am open to all comments as to the pros and cons of such a mount. I'll continue to refine this a bit I'm sure, as my goal is to (if possible) make a mount that will work well, and require no changes to a stock Mosin Nagant.

 

[ohioman]

Looks better than when people mount them on the rear sites.

 

[killsnapz]

I like basic idea but just like some of the others I am wondering if the scope could be moved up a little higher.

Michael

 

[WisconsinHunter]

I think the POI would be MUCH different than the POA at longer distances than what the scope is zeroed for with the scope not being in line with the bore.

 

[jmeck]

You guys got me courious about the scope height and possibley raising it an inch or so for better cheek support and function. I took a few pics to show cheek weld and cycling the bolt. The first pic is sighting down the iron sights, the second is using the scope. Granted while using the scope I have less contact with the stock compared to the iron sights. I've ordered a cheek pad from eBay which I feel will improve the scope cheek weld. The next 3 pics are of cycling the bolt and thumb clearance while doing so, keep in mind this is a Vintage Weaver K4 scope with bells that are smaller diameter than many modern scopes, my hands are about average size. I have a little room to work with but like with most Mosin scope mounts some compromises will need to be made to balance out the cheek weld scope size issue I have become so familiar with.


Wisconson Hunter, Your right about POI and the POA being different. The scope is about 1 1/5 to 2 inches left of the bore and 1/2 inch above it. I think the scope adjustments can handle this at 100 yards pretty easily, If not it will need to be shimmed like a Russian PU scope set-up. I have it set up so I can shim it if necessary. I'll find out on the first range trip. I have a big yard so I am going to bore sight it to about 60 yards. I'll do that first to get an idea if I'm going to need to shim it . I should be able to get it close enough to get on paper.

 

[No Man]

I want one of these for one of my M91's. I have offset mounts on a Garand and a K31 and no problem with either.

 

[killsnapz]

It looks comfortable to shoulder and it does not look as awkward as I thought it would be to sight through the scope. I see what you mean about needing room between the bolt for your finger but I almost never grip the bolt like that myself. I have huge hands for someone who is only 5'11" and I have always jammed the ball of the bolt on my palm with my fingers extended and pointed forward and guided the bolt in this manner so for me the clearance would not be an issue but I doubt everyone else cycles the bolt like that.

Michael

 

[jmeck]

I want one of these for one of my M91's. I have offset mounts on a Garand and a K31 and no problem with either.

We think alike, I have a Finn M91 on a Westinghouse receiver that I am planning on putting one of these mounts on.

 

[littlestoney406]

It can't be anymore awkward than my previously mentioned Winchester Model 94. That looks much better.

 

[Cyrano]

jmeck, if you've polished the bolt and the bolt channels in the receiver the way I do, you ought to be able to palm the bolt, not grab it at all. That would let you move the scope up at least an inch, I should think.

I definitely see what you're saying about needing a cheek piece in the current configuration. Even a Monte Carlo stock wouldn't raise the side enough for a decent weld. I'm not sure even a lace-on cheek pad will do it without you put a piece of wood sanded to conform to the stock under it.

 

[R5CYA]

the cheek weld looked fine till i saw pic #2 looks like you have to pull the rifle so far up outta the pocket that it'll kill your collar bone.
very interesting idea but it seems to low.

 

[kortik]

Jeff,

It certainly shows you're thinking in a very original way.

I'm sure you can figure out the best scope position. I do see somewhat of a weak point in external band approach in comparison to your original design - certain chance of losing zero if action is taken out of the stock or if external band gets banged against something. Another thing - you may have to spend more time talking to the customers who might need advise related to this particular design in comparison to your original design.

Other than that, I really admire your creativity.