Finnish Mosin barrel interchangeability

Status
Not open for further replies.
handsonaudio

handsonaudio

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
39
Location
Old Virginny
I own a Finnish Mosin M27 and the barrel bore is toast. The receiver is still good however. I have the opportunity to buy an M39 barrel (which would be an upgrade) but am wondering if fitting an M39 barrel to an M27 receiver is advisable. Threads are the same. I'm not worried about stock fit (it's a sporter and the old stock was already chopped by a PO).

This suggests it is: https://www.guntweaks.com/mosin-nagant-barrels.html

This suggests it probably isn't: http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinParts.htm

Does anyone have any practical experience doing this, or knows enough not to do it?
 
handsonaudio said:
I own a Finnish Mosin M27 and the barrel bore is toast. The receiver is still good however. I have the opportunity to buy an M39 barrel (which would be an upgrade) but am wondering if fitting an M39 barrel to an M27 receiver is advisable. Threads are the same. I'm not worried about stock fit (it's a sporter and the old stock was already chopped by a PO).

This suggests it is: https://www.guntweaks.com/mosin-nagant-barrels.html

This suggests it probably isn't: http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinParts.htm

Does anyone have any practical experience doing this, or knows enough not to do it?
Click to expand...

The receivers are all Mosin 91's and thus any mosin barrel will "fit" another as far as barrel threads go. The Finns themselves used any Mosin receiver during the war that they could acquire due to a desperate shortage of rifles.

Now, will any Mosin barrel "headspace" onto a new receiver and clock properly (sights not canted to one side or the other). That is an experimental question as the Mosin uses a rimmed cartridge and barrel shoulders do vary a bit. It might take a bit of lathe work but it could be done to have one properly fitted mechanically. It will however, change your rifle to a one off shooter grade rather than a fairly rare collectible if your m27 is still complete regardless of the toasted barrel. A lot of times, to get the barrel off, the old barrel is essentially mutilated by either a cut on the barrel shoulder locking surface or even cutting it off.

Now, the major difference will be if you have a m27 stock as the M39 barrels might probably require changing the inletting of the barrel channel in the stock due to different sights and perhaps barrel profile. http://www.mosinnagant.net/ has a bunch of stuff on the Mosin and I have a reference manual somewhere but I believe the barrel profiles are a bit different but cannot swear to it.

This post suggests that the barrel is thinner on the M39 than the M28 https://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=205-M39-Mosin-Nagant-Civil-Guard-Rifle
 
boom boom said:
The receivers are all Mosin 91's and thus any mosin barrel will "fit" another as far as barrel threads go. The Finns themselves used any Mosin receiver during the war that they could acquire due to a desperate shortage of rifles.

Now, will any Mosin barrel "headspace" onto a new receiver and clock properly (sights not canted to one side or the other). That is an experimental question as the Mosin uses a rimmed cartridge and barrel shoulders do vary a bit. It might take a bit of lathe work but it could be done to have one properly fitted mechanically. It will however, change your rifle to a one off shooter grade rather than a fairly rare collectible if your m27 is still complete regardless of the toasted barrel. A lot of times, to get the barrel off, the old barrel is essentially mutilated by either a cut on the barrel shoulder locking surface or even cutting it off.

Now, the major difference will be if you have a m27 stock as the M39 barrels might probably require changing the inletting of the barrel channel in the stock due to different sights and perhaps barrel profile. http://www.mosinnagant.net/ has a bunch of stuff on the Mosin and I have a reference manual somewhere but I believe the barrel profiles are a bit different but cannot swear to it.

This post suggests that the barrel is thinner on the M39 than the M28 https://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=205-M39-Mosin-Nagant-Civil-Guard-Rifle
Click to expand...

Thank you for the in-depth reply. I think what I'm asking is as much an "economical" question as it is a functional one, in that the money/effort spent on turning this M27 into a shootable gun might more wisely be spent on another Finnish Mosin. I would love an M39, true to form, but they've gotten a little too expensive for me. Another shootable M27 could probably be had for the money I'd spend on making my current M27 shootable, regardless of barrel. With the M39 barrel, I was simply wondering if an M39 equivalent, even if a "one off shooter grade" as you said, is what I would ultimately end up with and for less than the going rate for a stock M39.

I do not believe, despite the barrel condition, that my current M27 would be of any interest to a collector. The stock was cut down by a PO (even though the barrel is the original length) and is missing the rear sling hardware and butt plate. I've posted some photos to give a clearer idea of condition.

You are correct in that any stock carved for an M27 barrel would have to be modified (or replaced) to fit an M39 barrel. Given the bubba-fied condition of my current stock, I didn't see this as much of an issue. I also have a Boyd sporter stock that was thrown in with my purchase.

I'm not experienced enough to gauge general interest in these guns, but I think what I have now is no more than a wall hanger or a "parts" gun.
 
I tried getting decent photos of the bore but no luck. From my eyes, it's pretty pitted and gunked -- the result of a PO having shot corrosive ammo and never cleaning. But mostly I'm going off the evaluation of my gunsmith who tells me it's probably not safe to shoot. He did mention fire-lapping (firing the rifle remotely, in some kind of jig) to see. Even if it will fire, however, accuracy will always be compromised.
 
You will have to freshen out the barrel channel, for the fatter M39 barrel, with that sporterized stock, is all.....if it were gonna go into a full military stock, you would have to change stocks and fittings.

The only thing the m27 had different in its receiver were grooves for 'guide' wings on the bolt for a less sloppy lock up, but they are not needed a bit, and were discontinued with the adoption of the m39.

The gun is safe to shoot, and you really should try seeing how well it can or cannot shoot, you may be suprized and not have to fork out $$$$ to that gunsmith anyways. What matters ia that it can extract, the accuracy may not be compromised at all, in my experience.
 
handsonaudio said:
I tried getting decent photos of the bore but no luck. From my eyes, it's pretty pitted and gunked -- the result of a PO having shot corrosive ammo and never cleaning. But mostly I'm going off the evaluation of my gunsmith who tells me it's probably not safe to shoot. He did mention fire-lapping (firing the rifle remotely, in some kind of jig) to see. Even if it will fire, however, accuracy will always be compromised.
Click to expand...
Dark pitted bores do not mean unshootable. There is a very good chance its better condition than you think. Its not super uncommon to have sewer pipes that shoot 2-4 moa with good ammo. That may sound bad but truthfully is good for the design of the gun, even with a pristine barrel 1-2 moa is above average.
 
Well.... I'll likely build some kind of protective rig and fire the rifle with a string a few times, see what happens. 2-4 moa isn't bad. End of the day, I'd just hate to own a gun that I couldn't shoot.

Out of curiosity, is the accuracy all that improved on the M39s vice the earlier models, on average?
 
handsonaudio said:
Well.... I'll likely build some kind of protective rig and fire the rifle with a string a few times, see what happens. 2-4 moa isn't bad. End of the day, I'd just hate to own a gun that I couldn't shoot.

Out of curiosity, is the accuracy all that improved on the M39s vice the earlier models, on average?
Click to expand...

The Finns did a continuous improvement on the std Mosins after their independence from the Russians after the Russian Civil War. They made the trigger better, improved the sights, played around with finding the right barrel profile, bedding/inletting, stock remaking, the magazines were designed to prevent rimlock which is a problem with rimmed cartridges, and making their own barrels. The m39 barrels as a rule are more accurate than their Russian counterparts and their sights are hardier than those based on the old Mosin std.

The m27 Army model and m28 Civil Guard were interim improvements where the Finns were trying to find out what worked, these led to the 28/30 model and then the m39. The major reason was that the Finns wanted uniformity among the Civil Guard and Army in rifles for parts and logistics reasons but the war and the urgent need for new rifles shortchanged conversions of the older models plus the Finns captured a lot of Russian rifles during the Winter War. Thus, you see all sorts of "Finn" rifle models that have parts that do not quite match. Pretty much all of the Finn rifles are "parts" rifles (most if not all of the Finns used Russian receivers including American contract makers) so go ahead and put the m39 barrel on your receiver and heck you could go most of the way and simply get a m39 stock etc. If you sold the old barrel if it can be removed nearly complete on fleabay or something like that, you could get some money from some collector wanting a wallhanger to complete. The m27 sights alone are pretty expensive when sold @50-100 depending on which variant you have.

From what I have observed, online at least, there are more m39's floating around at better prices than m27's as many of those were either destroyed or reconfigured into the later models of m39's or m28/30's. You might also look at the m28/30's as these were transitional models to the m39.

Two of the major safety risks from a rough and pitted barrel is 1) metal fouling is accelerated which can get to the point if not cleaned in causing undue pressure and a kaboom and 2) if you like to use a reduced load in rifles, a rough pitted bore can result in a bullet sticking in the bore and the subsequent pulling of the trigger is bad news.

Pitting inside and out can also get to the point of causing a barrel to blow out a section at a particular weak point but I think that most folks today would not use such a barrel in the first place.

As others have noted above, some rough or even worn barrels can shoot quite well if the person is willing to clean frequently or tailor bullet size to the remaining rifling. Ironically, some rough pitted bores do worse after a cleaning in accuracy (due to the rough bore stripping the jacket unevenly of a bullet) then do a bit better as the craters get filled with fouling. It is wise to use fmj or the like in rough bores and not cast as generally they will foul quite quickly with cast lead with ensuing accuracy and safety issues. Worn bores do better generally with cast and there is a bit less risk in firing a worn bore than a rough one due to less pressure in the bore but at the cost of accuracy. A few folks size up their bullets to match the worn bore which is a whole nother topic.

In essence, rifles are individuals with individual characteristics and like people, can get more eccentric with age and experiences. A person familiar with a particular weapon can usually coax a bit more accuracy by ammunition selection or handloading and firearm alteration (bedding, sights, and the like). That makes them interesting but it can be infuriating as well as some rifles simply will not shoot despite doing everything to improve them due to some fatal flaw while some rifles that would appear from the outside to be wrecks do quite well.

If your gunsmith is familiar with old milsurps and tells you not to fire it, then listen to him and rebarrel if you must to shoot it as the collector value is mostly gone with your current rifle. If he is not familiar with old milsurps as a lot of younger gunsmiths might not be, then go to one that is for a second opinion.
 
boom boom said:
The Finns did a continuous improvement on the std Mosins after their independence from the Russians after the Russian Civil War. They made the trigger better, improved the sights, played around with finding the right barrel profile, bedding/inletting, stock remaking, the magazines were designed to prevent rimlock which is a problem with rimmed cartridges, and making their own barrels. The m39 barrels as a rule are more accurate than their Russian counterparts and their sights are hardier than those based on the old Mosin std.

The m27 Army model and m28 Civil Guard were interim improvements where the Finns were trying to find out what worked, these led to the 28/30 model and then the m39. The major reason was that the Finns wanted uniformity among the Civil Guard and Army in rifles for parts and logistics reasons but the war and the urgent need for new rifles shortchanged conversions of the older models plus the Finns captured a lot of Russian rifles during the Winter War. Thus, you see all sorts of "Finn" rifle models that have parts that do not quite match. Pretty much all of the Finn rifles are "parts" rifles (most if not all of the Finns used Russian receivers including American contract makers) so go ahead and put the m39 barrel on your receiver and heck you could go most of the way and simply get a m39 stock etc. If you sold the old barrel if it can be removed nearly complete on fleabay or something like that, you could get some money from some collector wanting a wallhanger to complete. The m27 sights alone are pretty expensive when sold @50-100 depending on which variant you have.

From what I have observed, online at least, there are more m39's floating around at better prices than m27's as many of those were either destroyed or reconfigured into the later models of m39's or m28/30's. You might also look at the m28/30's as these were transitional models to the m39.

Two of the major safety risks from a rough and pitted barrel is 1) metal fouling is accelerated which can get to the point if not cleaned in causing undue pressure and a kaboom and 2) if you like to use a reduced load in rifles, a rough pitted bore can result in a bullet sticking in the bore and the subsequent pulling of the trigger is bad news.

Pitting inside and out can also get to the point of causing a barrel to blow out a section at a particular weak point but I think that most folks today would not use such a barrel in the first place.

As others have noted above, some rough or even worn barrels can shoot quite well if the person is willing to clean frequently or tailor bullet size to the remaining rifling. Ironically, some rough pitted bores do worse after a cleaning in accuracy (due to the rough bore stripping the jacket unevenly of a bullet) then do a bit better as the craters get filled with fouling. It is wise to use fmj or the like in rough bores and not cast as generally they will foul quite quickly with cast lead with ensuing accuracy and safety issues. Worn bores do better generally with cast and there is a bit less risk in firing a worn bore than a rough one due to less pressure in the bore but at the cost of accuracy. A few folks size up their bullets to match the worn bore which is a whole nother topic.

In essence, rifles are individuals with individual characteristics and like people, can get more eccentric with age and experiences. A person familiar with a particular weapon can usually coax a bit more accuracy by ammunition selection or handloading and firearm alteration (bedding, sights, and the like). That makes them interesting but it can be infuriating as well as some rifles simply will not shoot despite doing everything to improve them due to some fatal flaw while some rifles that would appear from the outside to be wrecks do quite well.

If your gunsmith is familiar with old milsurps and tells you not to fire it, then listen to him and rebarrel if you must to shoot it as the collector value is mostly gone with your current rifle. If he is not familiar with old milsurps as a lot of younger gunsmiths might not be, then go to one that is for a second opinion.
Click to expand...

Again, very useful information, though I don't fully understand your usage of the terms "rough" bore and "worn" bore -- what is the difference?

Re: my gunsmith, he's an older guy with a ton of experience -- i.e. I trust his opinion.
 
handsonaudio said:
Again, very useful information, though I don't fully understand your usage of the terms "rough" bore and "worn" bore -- what is the difference?

Re: my gunsmith, he's an older guy with a ton of experience -- i.e. I trust his opinion.
Click to expand...

A rough bore to me means pitted otherwise showing the effects of corrosion--rust, etc. You might see an area of damage in the bore such as over or improper use of cleaning rods at the muzzle can leave the barrel oval instead of round. Occasionally, you will see damage from someone that stuck a bullet in the bore and used bad methods to remove it or some other bad action leaving a bad section of bore. Rough bores often occurs from neglect, improper cleaning technique, or firing corrosive ammo without proper cleaning which often can happen in battle conditions or simply ignorance by folks that fire old milsurp ammo without thinking about cleaning it. You will also see terms such as a dark bore or frosty bore which is generally not misuse but simply firing corrosive ammo with insufficient cleaning but often the rifling itself is ok--this is a variant of pitted as the darkness comes from lots of little pits throughout the barrel instead of it being reflective and bright. These will often shoot ok but foul quicker than a good bore.

A worn bore on the other hand simply has a lot of rounds down it so that the rifling is worn down but often the bore itself gleams as if new. These have often been taken care of but simply wear from a number of rounds has removed the sharp rifling that you would see in a new rifle. As a consequence, the bore is usually oversized compared to a standard bore and you get things like gas escaping past the bullet affecting trajectory, range, accuracy, little engraving of the bullet by the rifling etc. However, if you compensate by using a bullet that fits the bore, these rifles can be accurate despite having little rifling left--often cast bullets can fit the bill here. At the extreme, you have a smooth bore instead of a rifle. Be aware that in a few rifles, namely old Lee-Metford rifles and Arisakas, you will see something that resembles a worn bore but these actually have rounded rifling--in the metford case for easing black powder fouling as the .303 started as a black powder round. Japan for awhile had an affinity for the British and adopted the Metford rifling for the Arisaka series throughout two world wars for what reasons I do not know.

Might find this link describing how bore condition affects accuracy useful
https://www.preciseshooter.com/blog/BoreConditionAndAccuracy.aspx

Occasionally, fouling can be so bad as to appear that you have what appears to be both pitting and worn out rifling in a barrel. Sometimes a thorough multiple cleaning of such a rifle can yield a surprising result of a shootable bore after removing layers of crud and fouling.
 
I bought an old Colt 1911 that had a rough-looking barrel. I shot it for a while & found that it shot pretty well, rough barrel and all. So I figured that if it shot well w/a rough barrel switching to a new barrel would make a huge difference. I was surprised after the new barrel was installed that the improvement was not as noticeable as I thought it would be.
 
boom boom said:
A rough bore to me means pitted otherwise showing the effects of corrosion--rust, etc. You might see an area of damage in the bore such as over or improper use of cleaning rods at the muzzle can leave the barrel oval instead of round. Occasionally, you will see damage from someone that stuck a bullet in the bore and used bad methods to remove it or some other bad action leaving a bad section of bore. Rough bores often occurs from neglect, improper cleaning technique, or firing corrosive ammo without proper cleaning which often can happen in battle conditions or simply ignorance by folks that fire old milsurp ammo without thinking about cleaning it. You will also see terms such as a dark bore or frosty bore which is generally not misuse but simply firing corrosive ammo with insufficient cleaning but often the rifling itself is ok--this is a variant of pitted as the darkness comes from lots of little pits throughout the barrel instead of it being reflective and bright. These will often shoot ok but foul quicker than a good bore.

A worn bore on the other hand simply has a lot of rounds down it so that the rifling is worn down but often the bore itself gleams as if new. These have often been taken care of but simply wear from a number of rounds has removed the sharp rifling that you would see in a new rifle. As a consequence, the bore is usually oversized compared to a standard bore and you get things like gas escaping past the bullet affecting trajectory, range, accuracy, little engraving of the bullet by the rifling etc. However, if you compensate by using a bullet that fits the bore, these rifles can be accurate despite having little rifling left--often cast bullets can fit the bill here. At the extreme, you have a smooth bore instead of a rifle. Be aware that in a few rifles, namely old Lee-Metford rifles and Arisakas, you will see something that resembles a worn bore but these actually have rounded rifling--in the metford case for easing black powder fouling as the .303 started as a black powder round. Japan for awhile had an affinity for the British and adopted the Metford rifling for the Arisaka series throughout two world wars for what reasons I do not know.

Might find this link describing how bore condition affects accuracy useful
https://www.preciseshooter.com/blog/BoreConditionAndAccuracy.aspx

Occasionally, fouling can be so bad as to appear that you have what appears to be both pitting and worn out rifling in a barrel. Sometimes a thorough multiple cleaning of such a rifle can yield a surprising result of a shootable bore after removing layers of crud and fouling.
Click to expand...

Worn vs Rough bore -- those make sense now, thank you. And that's a great blog post btw. It's always nice to see attempts at experimental, rather than just anecdotal, data to support claims. I'd always figured that I lose little by a repeated soaking and cleaning of the barrel, that I might surprise myself. Who knows. If nothing else, you all have convinced me not to write off this rifle so soon, that she might still be a shooter after all. Obviously safety is still my first concern. That'll govern my first round of shots through the rifle regardless.

I finally got some OK photos of the bore with the iphone camera. See below.

IMG_2542.jpg

IMG_2546.jpg
 
handsonaudio said:
Worn vs Rough bore -- those make sense now, thank you. And that's a great blog post btw. It's always nice to see attempts at experimental, rather than just anecdotal, data to support claims. I'd always figured that I lose little by a repeated soaking and cleaning of the barrel, that I might surprise myself. Who knows. If nothing else, you all have convinced me not to write off this rifle so soon, that she might still be a shooter after all. Obviously safety is still my first concern. That'll govern my first round of shots through the rifle regardless.

I finally got some OK photos of the bore with the iphone camera. See below.

View attachment 852070

View attachment 852071
Click to expand...
Thanks for your kind words.

Good job on the photos btw, your bore would appear rough from them--however, it would if it was badly fouled as well and without a borescope it is difficult to tell. So, there are a number of cleaning threads on the THR how to get back a thoroughly dirty bore. One is to use elbow grease after removing the std. powder fouling using Hoppes, etc. with things like JB Bore paste, another is to use electrolysis, a third is to use chemicals such as wipeout. Each have their good points and bad points so the threads will tell you real life experiences in the charming world of cleaning bores from THR readers. I have tried all three and all three work to some degree and can make a seemingly unshootable bore into one that might foul quickly but is safe to shoot. My 1916 No. 1, Mk 3* Enfield is one example where a bore that looked hopeless ended up being shootable and about as accurate in general as those rifles tended to be. It was an early peddled scheme No. 1 that is pretty rare so I am glad I saved the bore.
 
handsonaudio said:
Worn vs Rough

I finally got some OK photos of the bore with the iphone camera. See below.

View attachment 852070

View attachment 852071
Click to expand...

That would fall into dark pitted with strong rifling. No issues with jacketed bullets. I would give it a good soak with ballistol or similar cleaner (plug barrel, fill up, sit for a day). Give it a good scrub with slightly oversized brush (9mm), and run patches through. If any rough spots catch or tear a patch, a little bore paste on a patch run back/forth 5-10 times should be about it. The barrel will never be shiny and new looking. It will however shoot perfectly fine. There were tons of guns sold in this condition in the milsurp market.
 
Sounds like a plan. I'll admit, I'm a little more optimistic than when I started the thread. I'll be sure to post more photos throughout the cleaning and testing.

Thanks guys.
 
handsonaudio said:
Sounds like a plan. I'll admit, I'm a little more optimistic than when I started the thread. I'll be sure to post more photos throughout the cleaning and testing.

Thanks guys.
Click to expand...
FWIW, you can get JB Bore Paste online from Brownells and a little goes a very long way. They also sell a finer grade JB Bore Bright which you use after the JB Bore Paste to polish the bore. I have not used Iosso Bore paste so have no opinion on it. You still will need to start with a good soaking type cleaning to remove as much powder fouling as possible--Ballistol as illinoisburt mentions is a decent one, Ed's Red is another, etc. One of my favorites if there is any possibility of rust in the barrel is to use Kroil on patches first. Kroil is a very light penetrating oil that gets under the fouling and loosens it for removal. It also works to remove rust, as a penetrating oil on nuts etc.

You might also use a de coppering cleaner after that--a lot of folks like BoreTech's stuff and so on, Sweets is the old traditional but must be used carefully and per instructions. I simply use the Hoppes non-toxic stuff as I have switched as much as possible to eliminate nasty chemicals from my life.

Then you use the brush with the patch impregnated with JB Bore Paste and run it through until your arm falls off--(well not really) but about 40-50 times. Then clean out all of the gunk with your favorite general cleaner. Use an old bore brush as it will get hammered during the process, a worn .30 cal works just fine with a bit thicker patch. If you have access to it, the military patches are superior to the usual garbage at Wally World. Use a good patch as it holds the bore paste better than the cheap thin ones.

If you are a glutton for punishment, then use the JB Bore Bright to put a final polish which is a similar procedure. Both of these products are essentially jeweler's rouge.

Don't like labor, then you can make yourself a cheap homemade electrolysis cleaner applied after removing powder fouling. Done right, it will remove EVERY bit of copper fouling or lead fouling depending on the formula. It will not remove powder fouling and badly fouled barrels often require multiple cleanings and multiple rounds of electrolysis. Done wrong, like too much voltage or too long, it can start to eat your barrel.

Then, there are the chemicals, Wipeout, etc. and if you stay within a family of products, there is little risk to damage the barrel if you follow instructions. Thus, use a general cleaner, use the specialty cleaner to remove either copper/lead, then use the general cleaner, etc. until your patches come out clean. Soaking cleaners that can stay in the barrel without damaging them are best for old barrels--get your self some rubber or cork plugs and remove the action from the stock (along the bolt etc. ) before the soak treatment because you do not want that stuff in the action itself and maybe not in the chamber.

One thing to be aware of, you may find a rough throat (which is the transition between the chamber and the beginning of the rifling in the bore) and sometimes after cleaning the fouling away, the throat may no longer be symmetrical or it may be oversize due to wear. These types of barrels often give really spotty accuracy and the only way to tell is if you slug the bore after you do your cleaning thing.

My hobby is old milsurps and rarely within my price range as shooters do they have pristine barrels. I have my own preferences based on what I expect from these old warhorses which often is just whether it is safe to shoot again even with 6 MOA accuracy. Others have different experiences and can give you some other guidance including products that I have not tried or some different techniques. Note that what I would use for an old crappy milsurp barrel would not be the same as for a new factory job.

The firelapping technique is one that I have not tried but you can get the bullets already ready and roll your own or one company did have preloaded ammo in certain cartridges that was ready to go. There is a homemade variant of this if you want to search around for it but I have no opinion on it. It is a variant of the slower borepaste method but supposedly yields superior results, especially in fixing rough throats (although after they may not be symmetrical or could be oversized.). It is really a polishing technique rather than a cleaning regimen and you would still need to remove all the fouling you could before resorting to it.
 
I've got some Wipeout on order. I've never used it before, but I planned to use that initially -- plug the barrel, soak for a day, rinse and repeat as needed. My general cleaner is Tetra Action Blaster, which I've been fairly happy with in my limited experience.

I've never used bore paste or electrolysis, but with some research I'd be willing to try.

I dig the old milsurps as well and certainly more for their practicality as shooters than for any collector value, especially for hunting. But I don't have much experience with them yet, hence my questions on this board.
 
OP, I'm here to testify that you shouldn't give up on that barrel yet.
I have a 1930 Izzy 91/30that looked just a bit better than your barrel. I spent 4 days cleaning it - not 4 days straight, but 4 days of messing with it after it soaked.

I used Ed's Red on a patch, then scrub. Then wet with Ed's Red and leave it for a few hours.

Patch that out, and switch to Hoppes, do the same circus.

Then switch to copper solvent, repeat.

Then go and start the carousel again.

I ended up with a dark, pitted bore with fair rifling that slugged at .315". I shoot .316 cast from it, into 2-3 MOA at the monthly club military match.
I could probably do better, but the trigger is horrid.
 
Hooda -- what do you mean that the trigger is "horrid?" Heavy? Long travel distance? I don't know what's standard on these old Mosins, but the trigger on mine is surprisingly heavy and has a long pull. I'd wondered if I could modify the spring to alleviate some of that, sometime down the road.
 
handsonaudio said:
I've got some Wipeout on order. I've never used it before, but I planned to use that initially -- plug the barrel, soak for a day, rinse and repeat as needed. My general cleaner is Tetra Action Blaster, which I've been fairly happy with in my limited experience.

I've never used bore paste or electrolysis, but with some research I'd be willing to try.

I dig the old milsurps as well and certainly more for their practicality as shooters than for any collector value, especially for hunting. But I don't have much experience with them yet, hence my questions on this board.
Click to expand...
The cleaning is really to get any flaky gunk out and ensure it's mostly smooth so there isn't any rough edges which might damage a bullet going down the tube. I'll get a pic of one of mine tonight to give you an idea of the cleaning goal.
 
handsonaudio said:
Hooda -- what do you mean that the trigger is "horrid?" Heavy? Long travel distance? I don't know what's standard on these old Mosins, but the trigger on mine is surprisingly heavy and has a long pull. I'd wondered if I could modify the spring to alleviate some of that, sometime down the road.
Click to expand...

One of the THR members and infrequent poster is Mr. Smith of Smith Sights http://smith-sights.com/
He has a lot of info on his site about fixing up Mosins and how to improve their triggers including videos. Pretty useful overall for Mosin knowledge and some key parts. Fortunately, the Mosin trigger is not something like a K31 which is a pain to remove and to put back. It responds well to having a better spring, light polishing of engagement areas of the trigger/sear, and a thorough cleaning.

In lieu of polishing, as long as there are not burrs etc on the engagement surfaces, I have had luck with Sentry Systems https://ads.midwayusa.com/product/598573/sentry-solutions-bp-2000-dry-lubricant-1-oz applied to old milsurps as well. This is especially useful for those triggers that are pains to remove and replace as this dry lube can be applied in place--Brownells sells something like it as well. Believe that the key ingredient is moly disulfide if I remember correctly. The dry lube doesn't attract dirt and smooths out the trigger and reduces friction on working surfaces without polishing. It does bond to the surface but can be removed relatively easily if you want bog standard equipment.

Mosins often have a glaze of nasty cosmolene dried in the trigger mechanism, heavy springs, and the engagement surfaces are often poorly polished. The Finns figured out a pretty good fix and it is relatively easy to do what they did if you like or Mr. J Smith can do it for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
A suitable finish for m39 finnish mosin nagant new forearm, to match old stock?
Replies
6
Views
537
Dave DeLaurant
Dave DeLaurant
S
  • Locked
Finnish M39 Production Numbers?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Sam Adams
S
7
  • Locked
Finnish M-28/30 Question
Replies
2
Views
333
GD
G
F
  • Locked
Finnish Mosin Nagent, Swiss barrel
Replies
8
Views
911
fatelk
F
L
  • Locked
Mosin Parts Sources
Replies
3
Views
434
Erich
Erich
Back
Top