Finnish M39

Fuck it. Bumping my own thread

matching numbers maybe

>>34287332
The Finns didn't change the action except in one model prior to the M39, and it was adding fins to the tail end of the bolt and cutting corresponding grooves in the receiver; ostensibly to reduce binding, but in reality made the action impossible to use if it got too dirty.

I really feel like the only thing that really sets the actions apart in a Finn compared to a 91/30 is much higher QC in general. Cos even my M91 Finn is very smooth compared to the majority of Mosins I've handled.

>>34287332
They were not manufactured by poor, demotivated communist laborers on converted pitchfork tooling.

During the war production receivers and bolts vs before the war production receivers and bolts.

>>34288580
But... they were.
The bolts and receivers are all captured by the Finns, mostly made by the Russians, save for the odd NEW or Chatterault.

That said, of my two M39s - One of them has an OK bolt that drags just a smidge, the other one is super slick and makes a tuning fork ring when you open the bolt with authority.

No, they didn't OP

My m39 is built on late 1890s tula m91 parts. It's pretty gritty

>>34290658

In addition to which the Finns recycled to their rifles a whole lot of receivers manufactured by Remington and Westinghouse in United States during World War 1.

Military surplus firearms are very much individuals - they vary a lot and it is not only due to variations of manufacturing quality, but because they may have seen decades of use. Hence it is smart to inspect a surplus firearm before deciding if to buy it or not.

File: IMG_7356.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>34287332
The trouble with comparing an M39 to your generic available 91/30 is that the M39s generally retain their original Finnish hand fitted parts. The refurbs we usually see from the Eastern Block simply didn't have enough time put into the hand fitting of bolt components when they went through the depots.

I've owned original non refurb mosins and ones that received brand new fitted bolts during refurb and they are much smoother than a refurb built from random parts.

File: 20160403_164815 - Kopie.jpg (3MB, 2988x5312px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2988x5312px

>>34290756
Mine has an undated Chatellerault receiver and is a mix of parts from all russian factories, VKT, Chatellerault and a tiny piece of Remington.

It's got a super smooth bolt that is actually better than my matching '37 K98.

>>34290756
>buying someone's reject M39

>>34291912
how do you like the optic? I've heard they aren't great.

>>34291982
I was actually pretty surprised by it.
Still crystal clear with a nice and pointy reticle.
Though I might have just lucked out and got a good one.

>>34287332

The reason the M39s feel smoother is because they've been rebuilt from earlier rifles, they are "broke in" quite well.

Have an M39 built on a 1916 Tula receiver that was an M28/30 before finally being rebuilt into an M39.

The Finns also improved the triggers and did some shimming and other accuracy hacks as well.

>>34292080

In addition to which the Finns also improved the sight and fixed magazine. The sights were improved to get better sight picture, make zeroing in the rifle easier and allow very accurate fire to various ranges. Fixed magazine was improved to get it work more reliably. The last improved fixed magazine design was so-called "jamb-free" magazine design used in m/28-30 and m/39 rifles.