Wondering How Real It Is

[Trident5]

Good evening, gentlemen. I’ve purchased was is purportedly a Mosin-Nagant sniper rifle, yet I know nothing about them. I have heard that a lot of mixing-and-matching has been done since WW2 and many non-snipers have been (dangerously) modified to look like sniper rifles. I’m sure there’s also a ton of after-market scopes, slings, and everything else, too. So, who the hell knows what I’ve got. I certainly don’t. I’m currently a Deputy Brigade Commander (LTC, Field Artillery) and have commanded platoons, batteries (and a rifle company), two different battalions, et al, having commanded twice in combat. My point is that I know that modifications are also made (we call them MWO’s) by the unit armorer that also don’t get tracked to the level of the serial number. So, determining authenticity of a surplus rifle is never an exact science. It frankly takes the eyes of a lot of passionate folks like yourselves to get a good “triangulation” on what someone’s looking at. Here’s what I’ve got. I’ll appreciate any feedback on what this group thinks I’m in possession of.

[Miller Tyme]

Definitely was a sniper at some point, but the base and stock cut out make me suspect it might be an ex that was resnipered

[Trident5]

Sir, thanks very much. Would you school me on why you feel confident that it was a true sniper rifle?

[Darryl]

Yeah, base looks "new" and doesn't match the rest of the rifle.
I'd vote for "re-sniper" also.

Who is the importer???

Darryl

[Trident5]

Gentlemen, it was imported by “CAI.” (Century Arms?). I’m not looking to lock horns with anyone here, but I actually felt very confident in the originality of the scope mount base because it had the kinds of machining marks I’d read that one should expect to see. I’m in no way imposing superior knowledge here; Just enjoying learning about the rifle. I appreciate the feedback. I also left a rather interesting post regarding the scope from this rifle. Would you gentlemen help me out and take a look at that post? Many thanks for all the good, thought provoking comments.

[Darryl]

Gentlemen, it was imported by “CAI.” (Century Arms?). I’m not looking to lock horns with anyone here, but I actually felt very confident in the originality of the scope mount base because it had the kinds of machining marks I’d read that one should expect to see. I’m in no way imposing superior knowledge here; Just enjoying learning about the rifle. I appreciate the feedback. I also left a rather interesting post regarding the scope from this rifle. Would you gentlemen help me out and take a look at that post? Many thanks for all the good, thought provoking comments.

It takes years of study to know what you are looking at on these snipers.

Rifles (stock and metal) look to be an "exsniper" rifle that was decommissioned and turned back into a standard (non-sniper) M91/30

Base (connects to receiver and to the mount) is "new". Probably a reproduction.

Scope Mount looks to be real PU mount

Scope looks to be a real PU scope

Bolt. I can't tell from the photos.

It is CAI (import) A lot of the CAI imports of sniper rifles were made from "ex-snipers" and some real snipers that were missing parts.They would put on reproduction parts to make it a sniper if necessary. They purchased parts and whole sniper rifles from Russia and made up some of them that were missing parts.
knowledgebase/sniper_exports.html

So, this looks like a CAI "made up sniper" from parts to me.

CAI sniper rifles (early) are always "questioned" because of what CAI did to them here in the USA.

Darryl

[Trident5]

Thanks, Darryl. I don’t know how you concluded that someone took a sniper and “decommissioned” it to a standard infantry rifle. How do you confidently put the pieces together to conclude something that specific? Is there a marking, a peen or a stamping that suggests that? If not, what drives that opinion? Thanks.