Is this a real 1943 PU Scope??

[Trident5]

Gentlemen,

On my Mosin Nagant, I was pretty convinced that I had an original scope. Having done research on PU scopes, I’ve learned that nothing like my gloss-black painted scope EVER came out of any factory. Through the black paint, I could see markings that appeared original. Learning that judiciously applied acetone won’t disturb original bluing, I took to the task of trying to clean the paint off my PU scope. Only to find that, underneath the paint, it appears…. Well, I’m not sure it appears to be. I’m not an aficionado here like you fellas are, but my guess is that, at some point, it was in pretty bad shape and someone wire-wheeled it down to bare metal (see pics, below), and then painted it black. The markings look authentic to me. They look as though they were retraced with an electro-pencil (probably after the scope was wire-wheeled), for the purposes of wanting to still be able to see them under a layer of paint. But, what the hell do I know? I haven’t finished removing the paint, yet, BUT; Would anyone kindly consider looking at these pictures and tell me you think is going on? I’ll surely be disappointed if I learn this thing’s fake. But hey - I’m not squatting over a hole in northern Iraq right now, am I??

I sincerely appreciate anyone’s thoughts.

[Trident5]

Progress update; Reluctantly decided to remove the scope from its mount and continue removing paint. It’s pretty obvious it’s either a knock-off or an original that was heavily wire-wheeled and repainted.

[Trident5]

More paint removed. For your collective perusal.

[Trident5]

All paint removed. I can still see some original bluing on the end-pieces and the overall assembly now doesn’t have the “wire-wheeled” look to me, anymore. I’d sincerely your thoughts on whether this is a real scope or a knock-off of some sort. Help?

[Miller Tyme]

Paint was most certainly used on scopes, as well as other blued parts on Mosins during refurbishment, usually to help protect scratched, damaged, or thinning bluing.

[Darryl]

Well, as you now can see, removing the paint was not a great idea.
Parts were often "painted" instead of re-bluing a parts. Especially on a scope.
It would be a very difficult just to "re-blue" a scope, so they just ..... painted them.
Wish someone would have got to you sooner.

Oh, and it is an original scope.

Darryl

[Trident5]

Paint and parkerizing indeed protect weapons and equipment from the elements. I have no regret having removed the substandard paint job from this scope as the weapon lives in a humidity controlled vault. It now looks soldierly and - most importantly - as original. There remains sufficient bluing (might not be evident in the pictures) that, with a light coat of CLP, there’s virtually no likelihood it’ll rust. Don’t be afraid to remove old paint. Just maintain your weapon as the OEM directs.

[racerguy00]

Well when the old paint is correct as how it left government usage/storage then yeah, no bueno IMO. A collector should ABSOLUTELY be afraid of removing paint or anything else until they are positive it's not a correct finish and then go from there. Lots and lots of nice surplus firearms and equipment turn up altered/degraded/refinished or what have you in an attempt to improve the correctness only to find out they did the opposite. Be patient, be informed before altering.

[Trident5]

I was informed enough to know that 1) it didn’t originally leave the factory that way, and, 2) high-gloss black wasn’t a color option for post-war refurbished scopes, according to 9130.info. (Shiny, glossy stuff on a sniper rifle just kind of defeats the purpose, no?). You fellas are acting like I just sporterized and checkered the stock of the Carcano that killed President Kennedy.

[racerguy00]

I was just addressing your statement about don't be afraid to remove old paint. Not very good general advise to give in a collecting field where paint is fairly common and correct.