Will Someone Direct Me to a Izhevsk Serial Number Registry?

[Trident5]

Gentlemen of the forum, I’d like to learn about the serial number of my Mosin Nagant sniper rifle. Its s/n, as stamped on the receiver, is TB2317 (“TV2317” in ‘English’). It’s an Izhevsk, 1943. I’d love to know where I can see a serial number database. Does one exist, here, or somewhere?

Many thanks!

Trident 5

[Junk Yard Dog]

No such thing exists that I have been made aware of. If anything exists it would be deep inside some former Soviet archive, and likely massively incomplete like our serial number records.

[Trident5]

I appreciate your answer but it begs the question, “How, then, does everybody in this forum constantly make reference to the numbers of weapons and “serial number ranges” by year?”, if we’ve no artifacts/records of any kind? It would seem to me, then, that the only thing we can know is what’s stamped on the receiver (e.g. 1943r); Everything else is mere conjecture. Am
I wrong?

[Junk Yard Dog]

Much of it is conjecture, or based on partial information dug out of records. We know what total production was, or think we do, but not who received such and such serial number rifle. The Soviets confused the issue on purpose not wanting to give the enemy clues to rifle production capabilities based on serial numbers of captured rifles. Our production runs started at or near one, and ran until the last rifle left the production line with some number blocks set aside for outside production, or making things like snipers and such. The Soviets would change prefix codes at so far as we know random times with the serial number starting at one again, or ten thousand, or any number they chose. Being a communist country you can bet this was all recorded someplace, it's what such systems of government do, but you and I will never get into whatever archive that information is in. We aren't on the best of terms with the Soviets just now, and showing up a Westerner in Moscow and asking to see the secret war production archives would lead to interesting times. Given the type of war being fought where you did have soldiers instructed to arm themselves by picking up rifles dropped by their dead comrades in the last assault on the enemy lines doesn't lead to detailed information on individual soldiers being connected to a particular rifle being accurately kept.

[Darryl]

I appreciate your answer but it begs the question, “How, then, does everybody in this forum constantly make reference to the numbers of weapons and “serial number ranges” by year?”, if we’ve no artifacts/records of any kind? It would seem to me, then, that the only thing we can know is what’s stamped on the receiver (e.g. 1943r); Everything else is mere conjecture. Am
I wrong?

Never have seen a registry. Soviets changed the batch numbers constantly. This kept the "other side" from figuring out how many weapons they have. Most other countries didn't do this.
Finn rifles (Mosins) have serial numbers that can be followed, but not the Soviets (Russia)

Darryl

[Trident5]

So, no one was walking around the battlefields of Eastern Europe trying to deduce the size of the Soviet land-component command by analyzing rifle serial numbers. Second, for those of you who’ve the interest, Mosin Nagant serial number records are available for many years of production for both OEMs, now, but for IZHEVSK 1943 and 1944. Darryl isn’t wrong in that the batch/lot numbers have no rhyme/reason, but it’s an unjustified long-shot to think they numbered weapons the way they did because they were trying to “confuse the enemy.”

[racerguy00]

Google "mosin sniper rifle database". Easy peezy.

And there actually was a method to the way they used serial number prefixes. Ratnik had mentioned before that you could narrow down what part of the year a mosin was produced based on the prefix but I can't remember the specific method.

[Junk Yard Dog]

So, no one was walking around the battlefields of Eastern Europe trying to deduce the size of the Soviet land-component command by analyzing rifle serial numbers. Second, for those of you who’ve the interest, Mosin Nagant serial number records are available for many years of production for both OEMs, now, but for IZHEVSK 1943 and 1944. Darryl isn’t wrong in that the batch/lot numbers have no rhyme/reason, but it’s an unjustified long-shot to think they numbered weapons the way they did because they were trying to “confuse the enemy.”

Secrets on top of secrets layered with misinformation and lies pretty much sums up the USSR. Everything the Soviets ever did was some attempt to confuse, trick, or otherwise mislead the enemy about what they had, how much of it they had, and how good it was, and the " enemy" was anyone who wasn't themselves. From fake well stocked stores shown to tourists to making the west believe there was a missile gap by successfully making us think they had more missiles than we did. The entire history of the Cold War has them making us believe they had better stuff and more of it. Why wouldn't they also confuse the issue of small arms production in the middle of a world war? Being the little commie bastards they were you can bet they recorded everything because that's what such systems of government do, but they aren't going to share that with westerners like us even today, especially today. Hell, the Soviet Union put us on the moon by 1969 by making us think they would get there first, and in reality they weren't close, and never did make it.

[Trident5]

Your frustrations, at a strategic level, are very justified, as the Soviet Union took the youth (directly or indirectly) away from scores of generations of Americans since our first combat involvement in the Russian Revolution on the part of the 31st Infantry Regiment (Polar Bears) in the early 1900’s. But you also apply gross generalization (the closed and very deceptive nature of the USSR) to a very industry-specific practice (assigning serial numbers), which I feel is disingenuous. In addition to being a three-time commander of American combat forces who’s studied “battlefield indicators” and methods of deception employed by the armies with which we have continually found ourselves at war, I am also a Director of Engineering for a particular weapon system family that is employed by the United States Army and our allies. In all cases of conventional mass production, serial numbers and their prefixes are much more likely to serve purposes other than “trying to keep someone from knowing how many we made.” Key examples which necessitate prefixes and number blocks include such concepts as; 1) Configuration control (especially during wartime when any aspect of the physical design can change rapidly due to a change in enemy tactics or doctrine), 2) Predicting and tracking of operational defects by lot, 3) Allowing for “control testing” during Production QA, 4) Ability to temporarily recall groups of already issued weapons for the purpose of applying a modification or update, based upon the original “as built” configuration of the weapon, and, lastly, 5) Funding constraints (No army has the money to buy everything it needs “right now”; Hence prefixed blocks allow authorization-per-OEM for specific quantities of something, per month or per quarter, so that the allocated defense budget isn’t overspent.
So, I can easily see how someone would conclude that the Soviets’ irregular use of serial number blocks and prefixes very conveniently supports the strong argument that they’re deceptive by nature - but, again, I feel very strongly, based on my combat experience and formal military education, that there’s a much more effective and efficient way of determining the size of your opponent’s land component; and it’s not by scouring weapon serial numbers.

[racerguy00]

So, no one was walking around the battlefields of Eastern Europe trying to deduce the size of the Soviet land-component command by analyzing rifle serial numbers. Second, for those of you who’ve the interest, Mosin Nagant serial number records are available for many years of production for both OEMs, now, but for IZHEVSK 1943 and 1944. Darryl isn’t wrong in that the batch/lot numbers have no rhyme/reason, but it’s an unjustified long-shot to think they numbered weapons the way they did because they were trying to “confuse the enemy.”

Secrets on top of secrets layered with misinformation and lies pretty much sums up the USSR. Everything the Soviets ever did was some attempt to confuse, trick, or otherwise mislead the enemy about what they had, how much of it they had, and how good it was, and the " enemy" was anyone who wasn't themselves. From fake well stocked stores shown to tourists to making the west believe there was a missile gap by successfully making us think they had more missiles than we did. The entire history of the Cold War has them making us believe they had better stuff and more of it. Why wouldn't they also confuse the issue of small arms production in the middle of a world war? Being the little commie bastards they were you can bet they recorded everything because that's what such systems of government do, but they aren't going to share that with westerners like us even today, especially today. Hell, the Soviet Union put us on the moon by 1969 by making us think they would get there first, and in reality they weren't close, and never did make it.

The USSR and the Russians following them didn't want the west to know such things and wouldn't turn over documents voluntarily I suspect. But when those documents reside outside of Russia now in a former republic because of the USSR's breakup that makes them much more accessible to researchers and is where so much updated information has come from. So a lot of the recorded production information and official documents have now come to light and the info put out there for those interested

[Trident5]

Saying they “didn’t want the West to know such things” is unjustified and lacks substantiation by any aspect of the military/industrial historical record. No, they didn’t want the West to track their every move, but to deliberately extrapolate that concept in an attempt to authoritatively state that they “didn’t want us knowing how many widgets they produced” is still a leap, in my mind. I lead and oversee the conceptualization, design, prototyping, test/evaluation, eventual full-rate production and issuance/delivery of serialized military weapons and, outside of metallurgy, manipulation of material properties, and material handling processes, quite a lot remains similar to the methods employed of half a century ago (or more). I have spent time in both corporate and uniformed status in the former Soviet Union - and I absolutely agree that no information was given freely to anyone by ANY commissariat, but it’s still a significant and irresponsible leap to authoritatively assert that a certain serial numbering scheme was employed to “confuse the enemy.” Looking at any number of captured weapons will give one absolutely no idea of the total volume of weapons produced. To claim otherwise is apocryphal. What DID matter to their Defense Industrial Complex that they wished to remain “close hold” is precisely the same as what I wish to keep close hold as a senior leader in our Defense Industry; 1) Where I manufacture my arms, 2) From whence I receive the materials and machinery needed to facilitate my manufacturing operations, and 3) Times/dates/locations of post-production shipments. Serial numbering schemes are for process control, Quality Assurance, and the ability to recall a product in “lots” or batches for the purpose of upgrade or final disposition.