Question re. my 1895 Tula

[VTK]

I'm confused about this MN Forum statement: Manufactured from 1939 to 1945 at the Izhevsk arsenal.
Manufactured in 1940 and 1944 at the Tula arsenal.
How did this rifle manufactured at Tula in 1895 become a M38 configuration?
I hope the photos are adequate to help.
Thanks
Vic

[Robertroadking]

Captured or bought as surplus from other countries after WWI and rebarreled

[Robertroadking]

My mistake I mis read the op.
I saw m39

[millman]

That is a M91/38.

[redspoon]

Yep, 91/38. If that's your carbine, congrats on a nice score. Their quite uncommon and a bit more expensive than most Mosin carbines. I believe most started life as a M91 and converted to M44 then bayonet and lug removed and are being called M91/38. Up toward the business end there should be a little figure eight mark were the bayonet lug was ground off. Jury is still out on where these were converted, some say Czech/Bulgarian/Russian ???

IMG_1915.JPG

[BorisBadenov]

I'm confused about this MN Forum statement: Manufactured from 1939 to 1945 at the Izhevsk arsenal.
Manufactured in 1940 and 1944 at the Tula arsenal.
How did this rifle manufactured at Tula in 1895 become a M38 configuration?
I hope the photos are adequate to help.
Thanks
Vic

All your questions can be answered here: http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinM38.htm

In 1938, Russia started making the M38 carbine, but they didn't go into production until 1939. (1939-1945 at Izhevsk and 1940 and 1944 at Tula.) They would also use older M91s (like your dated 1895) and cut them down to be an M38. Other countries did the same too during WWII.

Yep, 91/38. If that's your carbine, congrats on a nice score. Their quite uncommon and a bit more expensive than most Mosin carbines. I believe most started life as a M91 and converted to M44 then bayonet and lug removed and are being called M91/38. Up toward the business end there should be a little figure eight mark were the bayonet lug was ground off. Jury is still out on where these were converted, some say Czech/Bulgarian/Russian ???

Redspoon - the M38 came first so most were NOT converted to an M44 first. They were never intended to have bayos… so they generally do not have ground-off bayonet lug "figure-eight" markings. They were made straight up as is in carbine config or an old M91 or M91/30 were chopped down and converted.

Yes, the pic you show is of an M44 that was converted to an M38... but this a rarity as most M38s would never had the bayo lug in the first place. I doubt an arsenal would go through the trouble to convert an M44 to an M38 and I suspect "Bubba" did this to yours. But I could be wrong and anything is possible.

[steelbuttplate]

It's a 91/38, look at the receiver marks. They were all made from Imperial m91's, They all had bayonets and all have the plug where there was the pin for the bayonet bracket .

[qz2026]

Oh boy... that's opening up a can of worms BTW... very nice example.

[qz2026]

I'm confused about this MN Forum statement: Manufactured from 1939 to 1945 at the Izhevsk arsenal.
Manufactured in 1940 and 1944 at the Tula arsenal.
How did this rifle manufactured at Tula in 1895 become a M38 configuration?
I hope the photos are adequate to help.
Thanks
Vic

Yes, the pic you show is of an M44 that was converted to an M38... but this a rarity as most M38s would never had the bayo lug in the first place. I doubt an arsenal would go through the trouble to convert an M44 to an M38 and I suspect "Bubba" did this to yours. But I could be wrong and anything is possible.

Whoa Nelly. These carbines were NEVER M-44's. And, technically, they were not converted to M-38's. The 91/38 is a hybrid created in a separate project to re-service Imperial M-91's. )The 91/59 project did the same thing but to re-service 91/30 configured rifles). They were originally designed to have bayonets, perhaps to mimic the M-44 (which had probably gone out of production by the time the 91/38 project kicked off-I suspect the bayonets were excess inventory and Russian's being Russians, they couldn't bear a rifle/carbine without a bayonet), but that idea was scrapped and almost all of those that had been made with bayonets had the bayonets removed. The carbine above is one of those, as a large majority of them were. The "38" in the 91/38 designation indicates that it was designed, more or less, to resemble the M-38, not that it was designed to be an M-38. There are significant, in my mind, differences between the two. No bubba here...

[BorisBadenov]

My apologies as I got confused between M38s and M91/30s for a bit. But it seems everyone else is too. Especially regarding the bayos on these things. So let's sort this out.

It's a 91/38, look at the receiver marks. They were all made from Imperial m91's, They all had bayonets and all have the plug where there was the pin for the bayonet bracket .

OP's pic is of an M38. M38s were made from M91s between 1939-1945. There would be NO bayo markings as M91s didn't have lugs and pin holes to fill - especially after a barrel is chopped down.

Redspoon's pic is a M91/38 - which is a Czech converted Mosin to resemble (as qz2026 puts it) an M38. The Czech's converted any mosin - mostly 91/30s and M44s, which they would then remove bayo lugs and fill the pin hole. (Redspoon, my apologies if I offended about the "Bubba" comment.") Czechoslavakia converted LOTS of 91/30s and M44s during the Cold War so that is why you probably see many 91/38s with the filled pin hole.

Whoa Nelly. These carbines were NEVER M-44's. And, technically, they were not converted to M-38's. The 91/38 is a hybrid created in a separate project to re-service Imperial M-91's. )The 91/59 project did the same thing but to re-service 91/30 configured rifles).

Correct, M38s were never M44s. But an M91/38 could have been an M44 (hence why you see filled pin holes on some and like in Redspoon's pic).

They were originally designed to have bayonets, perhaps to mimic the M-44 (which had probably gone out of production by the time the 91/38 project kicked off-I suspect the bayonets were excess inventory and Russian's being Russians, they couldn't bear a rifle/carbine without a bayonet), but that idea was scrapped and almost all of those that had been made with bayonets had the bayonets removed.

Again, the M38 never was designed or intended to have a bayo and neither were M91/38s. M38s were designed for rear area troops and NOT frontline troops. That changed towards the end of the war where they did use all those excess bayos on the M44 carbines.

The Czechs never intended for the 91/38 to have a bayo either (hence removing lugs and filling holes) and were not designed to "mimic the M44" - they were designed to mimic the M38, otherwise, they'd be called an "91/44."

The carbine above is one of those, as a large majority of them were. The "38" in the 91/38 designation indicates that it was designed, more or less, to resemble the M-38, not that it was designed to be an M-38. There are significant, in my mind, differences between the two. No bubba here...

You are correct that there is a distinction between designed to be an M38 and resembling an M38. OP's pic is a great example of an M38 - one "designed" to be one from an M91. Redspoon's pic is an example of one that is "resembles" an M38 - a M91/38 that Czechoslavakia converted to resemble one. ….But on the flip side... a Bubba COULD take any Mosin today and convert it to resemble an M38. So it does depend on who did the conversion and when.

Hopefully, this helps sort things out. Sorry I previously added to some of the confusion.

[qz2026]

qz2026 wrote:
Whoa Nelly. These carbines were NEVER M-44's. And, technically, they were not converted to M-38's. The 91/38 is a hybrid created in a separate project to re-service Imperial M-91's. (The 91/59 project did the same thing but to re-service 91/30 configured rifles).

Correct, M38s were never M44s. But an M91/38 could have been an M44 (hence why you see filled pin holes on some and like in Redspoon's pic).

Nope, not a chance. Remember 91/38's were made from M-91's that in many ways were unserviceable. Yet, removing the damaged muzzles and cutting them to carbine length saved many of them. These were never M-44's. Remember, the M-44 was developed and first issued in 1943. These were round receiver rifles. Yes, I understand that some M-44's have Hex receivers. These receivers had been stored and only used when production of the round receivers could not keep up with demand. It's possible that a very few Imperial Hex receivers may have been used in these (M-44) carbines but their numbers would, if they even exist, be very small. The filled area on the barrels of the 91/38's were from the removal of bayonet mounts that had been purposely installed so the carbine could have a bayonet like the M-44. But, these were virtually all removed save for a very, very few.

Again, the M38 never was designed or intended to have a bayo and neither were M91/38s.

You are entirely wrong with that statement. If this were the case, then why did virtually all of the 91/38's once have the bayonet bracket? BTW..., where did I say that the M-38 was designed to have a bayonet?

The Czechs never intended for the 91/38 to have a bayo either (hence removing lugs and filling holes) and were not designed to "mimic the M44" - they were designed to mimic the M38, otherwise, they'd be called an "91/44."

You are quite incorrect on this. It is clear to me that these carbines were, indeed, originally designed to have bayonets, hence virtually all of them were manufactures like this. I don't know where this term 91/44 came from. I first saw the expression in a post I made for the Showcase. Perhaps if they had not removed the bayonets, they would have renamed it such. But, when you install bayonets on altered carbines, the mimic is of an M-44, not an M-38. And maybe "mimic" is the wrong word. Perhaps "function as" would be better. Once the bayonets had been removed, then the "38" found it's way into the description. And don't be so sure about the "Czechs" having build these rifles. That has still not been resolved. Could have been any of the Russian satellite countries. Albania/Bulgaria seem likely suspects... There is no documentation either way, just speculation and trying to understand based on the markings on these guns. And, the builder's intentions would not make any difference. I contend that this project, along with the 91/59 project, were Russian projects with specific requirements that were given to satellite countries to build. On the 91/38, the unique shank and receiver stampings were probably local inspection/ID markings.

I also contend that these carbines (91/38 and 91/59) were not designed to be put into service unless absolutely necessary. There is no reason other than to believe that they were built to (1) recondition unserviceable inventory and (2) to be put into storage for future use - the exact reason for the large refurbishment program. I have never seen an example of a 91/38 that was ever used in combat. (And, I've seen a few...). That doesn't mean that there might be one or two.

To be sure...
The 91/38 was never an M-38 and was not designed to be an M-38
The M-38 was never a 91/38
The 91/38 was never an M-44
An M-44 was never a 91/38.
That said, the 91/38 was originally designed to function as an M-44, albeit in grandpa's shoes.
Country of manufacture/refurb/rebuild is unknown