1944 Tula M91/30

Re: 1944 Tula M91/30

feeds@kickapps.com (zeebill) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:07:09 PST

Probably the angle you took the picture at? My eyes are getting so bad I should have just let it sit and made no comment! Sorry Bill

Re: 1944 Tula M91/30

feeds@kickapps.com (Renfield54) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:14:05 PST

Dawes wrote:
I take it that the little diamond-shaped mark visible on the upper receiver is a refurb mark of some type?

Yes......that is a refurb stamp. Put on when the rifle was worked on & probably put into storage. Might be a slash mark running thru the box as well.....can't tell from the pic if there is.

Bill.......that recoil lug doesn't appear to be out very far to me......the darker spot in the pic is the lug, & the lighter section looks to be the side of the hole drilled into the finger slot FOR the recoil lug. At least my eyes tell me that's what I'm seeing.......LOL

Steve

Re: 1944 Tula M91/30

feeds@kickapps.com (zeebill) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:41:34 PST

Refinished and sanded I would say. Look how proud the recoil lug end is from the stock, that is a dead give away to sanding. Looks nice but just not right. Hey if it gets ammo where you want it who cares. There are so many refinished rifles around these days there is a market for them today. I wouldn't mind having it and I like the look. I have an M27 which is polyed all up and looks about that shade which I often shoot and love the feel of too. You can't save them all and that is just a fact of life. Congrats a nice rifle for sure! Bill ELT

Re: 1944 Tula M91/30

feeds@kickapps.com (Dawes) — Sun, 09 Sep 2029 14:54:59 PST

I take it that the little diamond-shaped mark visible on the upper receiver is a refurb mark of some type?

Re: 1944 Tula M91/30

feeds@kickapps.com (Pahtu) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:38:33 PST

It does not appear to be sanded - It very well could be a military finish - 1944 Tula 91-30's do not grow on tree's!! Enjoy your rifle, it is a dandy!

Pahtu.

Re: 1944 Tula M91/30

feeds@kickapps.com (Renfield54) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:21:20 PST

If it was affected by the alcohol it just may be a clear shellac.

I was thinking of the more garnet colored version when I answered earlier.......someone may have indeed refinished with a clear shellac to make it stand out more.

If so......it's yours now, enjoy it any way you like. It looks good all the way around.

Steve

Re: 1944 Tula M91/30

feeds@kickapps.com (Dawes) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:15:36 PST

I took a Q-tip and a little bit of alcohol to a small spot undeneath the stock. The finish seems to be affected by the alcohol. Would this indicate that it's finished in shellac?

Re: 1944 Tula M91/30

feeds@kickapps.com (Renfield54) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:58:57 PST

I'd have to say a nicely done re-finish.......doesn't look like shellac on there.

Looks good, tho.........my .02

Steve

Re: 1944 Tula M91/30

feeds@kickapps.com (daengmei) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:55:23 PST

I have an Ishvesk 1947 M44 that is very nicely blued and the refurbed stock is just like yours in color.

1944 Tula M91/30

feeds@kickapps.com (Dawes) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:51:09 PST

Just picked up the below 1944 Tula. It's in better than average shape, with a nice, non-counterbored barrel. I haven't seen many 1944-dated Tulas, although I'm sure they're around.

The consensus is that the stock has been redone, and I would probably agree since I haven't seen too many M91/30's with blonde stocks. I've seen quite a few postwar Russian M44's with similar looking stocks, though.

Whaddya think - original finish or a re-do?