M-39 question

[WW1-WW2rifleman]

Hey guys, I’m new to rifles. I was wondering if anyone could tell me about the M-39 Finnish. I know there was a series of conflicts between Finland and the Soviet Union over land issues and I am sure other issues too. Anyway, I know the Soviet infantry rifle during the Winter War was the 91/30. Did the Soviets have any m38 carbines in service for the Winter War? If so, did the Finnish convert any m38s to the m39 pattern or were all the m39s derived from 91/30s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TnBuckeye]

This site will get you started, especially the M39 section...

http://mosinnagant.net/finland/default.asp

MOST of the barrels used on M39s were made by the Finns for that purpose, some from cut down Finn m91 barrels, and some may have been made elsewhere per Finn specs (B barrels).

A few examples of M39s have shown up with barrels from Remington m91s, and I have seen at least one posted with an old Russian m91 barrel.

But I have never heard of a m91/30 barrel being repurposed onto one. The barrel dimensions would not be the same on the 2 rifles.

The Finns briefly made their own 91/30s though.

I personally LOVE M39s and have found my few to shoot extremely consistently. And some of the stocks on them can look stunning!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WW1-WW2rifleman]

This site will get you started, especially the M39 section...

http://mosinnagant.net/finland/default.asp

MOST of the barrels used on M39s were made by the Finns for that purpose, some from cut down Finn m91 barrels, and some may have been made elsewhere per Finn specs (B barrels).

A few examples of M39s have shown up with barrels from Remington m91s, and I have seen at least one posted with an old Russian m91 barrel.

But I have never heard of a m91/30 barrel being repurposed onto one. The barrel dimensions would not be the same on the 2 rifles.

The Finns briefly made their own 91/30s though.

I personally LOVE M39s and have found my few to shoot extremely consistently. And some of the stocks on them can look stunning!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, thanks for posting this link.
I have previously heard that during the Soviet-Finnish wars that many 91/30s were captured and converted to other more suitable variants by the Finns. Among those variants is of course the 91/30. From what I heard the 91/30s that were captured had their barrels cut down when converted to a shorter variant. I’m not sure of the validity of this but, that was what I heard. Anyway, I’ll look over the information on the link. I have not seen a m39 in real life but, I have seen a 91/30. I still regret having to pass it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TnBuckeye]

They didn’t seem to let any usable part go to waste that is certain.

I think you will enjoy the reading.

My first Finn was a m39 and I love it just as much today as the day I got it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Junk Yard Dog]

The Soviets used many M38's during both the Winter War and the continuation war. The Finns killed nearly a million Soviets during the Winter War and captured large numbers off all types of Soviet small arms including the M38. Finland then put some of these M38's into service with their own forces. You will find these M38's with as little a change as a single SA stamp to full overhauls with sling rings added, two piece stocks, and the dark finish. My own Finn used M38 has two SA stamps, ink dark stock, and very likely a reblue job. The Finns had a large quantity of older M91 era receivers on hand that could have built more M39's than there were military age men to carry. Parts were not wasted and round receivers do turn up on M39's, you can build the Finn rifles from any style Mosin receiver. Finland was short of money and time, they used any usable part that could be salvaged, waste not, want not.

[Longcolt44]

Here is a variant for you, my 1937 Finn captured Tula 91/30. The SA in a box, ( left side by woodline), signifies the Finnish capture .

1937 Finn. Tula 7.jpg

1937 Finn. Tula 5.jpg

[WW1-WW2rifleman]

The Soviets used many M38's during both the Winter War and the continuation war. The Finns killed nearly a million Soviets during the Winter War and captured large numbers off all types of Soviet small arms including the M38. Finland then put some of these M38's into service with their own forces. You will find these M38's with as little a change as a single SA stamp to full overhauls with sling rings added, two piece stocks, and the dark finish. My own Finn used M38 has two SA stamps, ink dark stock, and very likely a reblue job. The Finns had a large quantity of older M91 era receivers on hand that could have built more M39's than there were military age men to carry. Parts were not wasted and round receivers do turn up on M39's, you can build the Finn rifles from any style Mosin receiver. Finland was short of money and time, they used any usable part that could be salvaged, waste not, want not.

Thanks for that information. I was wondering about the Soviet’s use of the M38 carbine considering the time lag between adoption and production of a new model firearm. It’s good to hear about the M38s use by both sides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WW1-WW2rifleman]

Here is a variant for you, my 1937 Finn captured Tula 91/30. The SA in a box, ( left side by woodline), signifies the Finnish capture .

1937 Finn. Tula 7.jpg

1937 Finn. Tula 5.jpg

That’s a great looking rifle. Thanks for the pictures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steelbuttplate]

M-39 barrels have a slightly smaller inside diameter I think, than a 91/30. Ya can't shrink 'em. I had a 91/30 Tikka potbelly, would it have been the same as a M-39 bore?

[Junk Yard Dog]

M39 barrel is an M39 barrel no matter who's name is on it or what stock it's stuck in.

[TnBuckeye]

M-39 barrels have a slightly smaller inside diameter I think, than a 91/30. Ya can't shrink 'em. I had a 91/30 Tikka potbelly, would it have been the same as a M-39 bore?

Here are a couple photos of a Tikka 91/30 (or m30 I suppose!) barrel.

Hard to quantify this exactly but at the muzzle it looks noticeably different (thinner walls?) than my m39s.

I don’t have this one any longer or I would put it next to a m39 to show the difference. But you could tell there was one just in looking at both...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Darryl]

Everything you "think you need to know" in barrel contours.

http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinBarrel.htm



.

[WW1-WW2rifleman]

As far as finished product is concerned I completely understand the difference between the 91/30 and the m39 but, when captured rifles were reworked maybe the barrel was melted and and redone according the their specs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[racerguy00]

As far as finished product is concerned I completely understand the difference between the 91/30 and the m39 but, when captured rifles were reworked maybe the barrel was melted and and redone according the their specs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not nearly as complicated as you think. If the bore on a captured rifle was good they had no problem with using it as is or with slight repairs or whatever. If a rifle had a bad bore many times they just stripped it for parts and used the receiver in the production of a basically new m39 or m91.

[WW1-WW2rifleman]

As far as finished product is concerned I completely understand the difference between the 91/30 and the m39 but, when captured rifles were reworked maybe the barrel was melted and and redone according the their specs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not nearly as complicated as you think. If the bore on a captured rifle was good they had no problem with using it as is or with slight repairs or whatever. If a rifle had a bad bore many times they just stripped it for parts and used the receiver in the production of a basically new m39 or m91.

True, I was just thinking along the lines of them reducing waste. Granted if the bore was bad then it’s a moot point but, if the bore is good but, the barrel is just too fat or skinny to use a the kind of rifle they want it to be then they might melt it down and rework it to suit their needs. The only real complicated thing I can think of in reworking the barrel is re-rifling it. It may not be done in war time but, what about peace time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Junk Yard Dog]

Melted barrels?, No, barrel steel is more than just molten metal drawn out into a rod and drilled out. The science of hardening metal comes into play. Barrel steel is similar to tool steel in it's quality only often much better, the receiver steel is the best, every country thinks theirs is the best, in truth they are all good, some like Swedish, and German have a slight advantage due to the experience of the makers that goes back century's and the quality of the iron ores .

[WW1-WW2rifleman]

Melted barrels?, No, barrel steel is more than just molten metal drawn out into a rod and drilled out. The science of hardening metal comes into play. Barrel steel is similar to tool steel in it's quality only often much better, the receiver steel is the best, every country thinks theirs is the best, in truth they are all good, some like Swedish, and German have a slight advantage due to the experience of the makers that goes back century's and the quality of the iron ores .

Oh ok. That makes sense then. Thanks for letting us know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steelbuttplate]

Melted barrels?, No, barrel steel is more than just molten metal drawn out into a rod and drilled out. The science of hardening metal comes into play. Barrel steel is similar to tool steel in it's quality only often much better, the receiver steel is the best, every country thinks theirs is the best, in truth they are all good, some like Swedish, and German have a slight advantage due to the experience of the makers that goes back century's and the quality of the iron ores .

And so do you think your best is the best. You got the B barrel M39 Belgian Leige mark? Is it the best?

[Junk Yard Dog]

Melted barrels?, No, barrel steel is more than just molten metal drawn out into a rod and drilled out. The science of hardening metal comes into play. Barrel steel is similar to tool steel in it's quality only often much better, the receiver steel is the best, every country thinks theirs is the best, in truth they are all good, some like Swedish, and German have a slight advantage due to the experience of the makers that goes back century's and the quality of the iron ores .

And so do you think your best is the best. You got the B barrel M39 Belgian Leige mark? Is it the best?

None of us are going to live long enough or be able to afford the ammo to fire any M39 barrel until it's a smoothbore so the question will have to go unanswered. They are all of excellent quality, the only real difference between them is what country made them and when. It would be an act of national suicide to deliberately accept, or make weapons of low quality for your own first line forces. I would not count the Japanese in that category, they were capable of making excellent rifles and would have continued to do so until the end of the war if we hadn't bombed the shit out of their factory's. We have seen some crude weapons made by people who simply did not have the resources to do better, like the Chinese Commission 88's or some of their early Mauser attempts. They tried hard to improve and did by the time they were making Type 53's. Commercially made firearms intended for the civilian market can be absolute crap or the highest quality depending on the target market. They can get away with things no government inspection would allow into a military arsenal. Bannerman for instance had some stunningly shitty arms they cobbled together from old junk and assorted leftover parts

[WW1-WW2rifleman]

Melted barrels?, No, barrel steel is more than just molten metal drawn out into a rod and drilled out. The science of hardening metal comes into play. Barrel steel is similar to tool steel in it's quality only often much better, the receiver steel is the best, every country thinks theirs is the best, in truth they are all good, some like Swedish, and German have a slight advantage due to the experience of the makers that goes back century's and the quality of the iron ores .

And so do you think your best is the best. You got the B barrel M39 Belgian Leige mark? Is it the best? [emoji106]

None of us are going to live long enough or be able to afford the ammo to fire any M39 barrel until it's a smoothbore so the question will have to go unanswered. They are all of excellent quality, the only real difference between them is what country made them and when. It would be an act of national suicide to deliberately accept, or make weapons of low quality for your own first line forces. I would not count the Japanese in that category, they were capable of making excellent rifles and would have continued to do so until the end of the war if we hadn't bombed the shit out of their factory's. We have seen some crude weapons made by people who simply did not have the resources to do better, like the Chinese Commission 88's or some of their early Mauser attempts. They tried hard to improve and did by the time they were making Type 53's. Commercially made firearms intended for the civilian market can be absolute crap or the highest quality depending on the target market. They can get away with things no government inspection would allow into a military arsenal. Bannerman for instance had some stunningly shitty arms they cobbled together from old junk and assorted leftover parts

The Egyptian Helwan Brigadier comes to mind as far as bad quality. I have seen three and held two all in person. The one LGS had a military grade copy that was eh ok. The other store had another one that had the military Arabic inscription on the slide but the firearm was best suited as a bludgeoning tool. I hated that thing. Other than the fact that it looked nice it was absolute garbage. The slide wouldn’t rack unless I used the jaws of life to pry it open and the heel release was stuck. Even after racking the slide via the death grip the trigger sucked. After that little episode with the second one I didn’t bother with the other one they had. But, after all that nastiness at least it didn’t have an exposed sear bar. *cough Nambu cough*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk