M91/59 Review...........Post Your M91/59's here!!!!

[reiver]

Postby Longcolt44 » Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:37 pm
The 91/59 has a stock all its own. Others will fit but not correct.

Question....as the actual origin is unknown with the 91/59 how can once ascertain that an M44 stock is not correct?

[qz2026]

Postby Longcolt44 » Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:37 pm
The 91/59 has a stock all its own. Others will fit but not correct.

Question....as the actual origin is unknown with the 91/59 how can once ascertain that an M44 stock is not correct?

91/59 stocks are unique. They are devoid of any stampings except a box 20 and a box 17 stamps on the top of the butt stock. The majority of these also have a very unique finish and color. Once, you have seen many of these stocks and many of the Russian/Euro stocks, you can spot the 91/59 stock a mile away.

[reiver]

Yes, they are unique....but the M91/59's I've seen in a stock with the bayonet cut out are also of the same unique finish and color...almost as new...and, as I said...how does one make the statement that whoever made the rifles did not also use what was on hand...like the ground down sight ramps.
Some of the non bayonet cut out stocks have butt metal stock sling liners and some do not so they are not all the same anyways.
Numerous MN sites indicate they are both correct due to the number seen and the stock conditions.
The provenance is unknown is it not? If the provenance is unknown it would seem making claims as to configuration would also be speculation given numerous examples in both cases.
Thanks for your comment.

[qz2026]

Yes, they are unique....but the M91/59's I've seen in a stock with the bayonet cut out are also of the same unique finish and color...almost as new...and, as I said...how does one make the statement that whoever made the rifles did not also use what was on hand...like the ground down sight ramps.
Some of the non bayonet cut out stocks have butt metal stock sling liners and some do not so they are not all the same anyways.
Numerous MN sites indicate they are both correct due to the number seen and the stock conditions.
The provenance is unknown is it not? If the provenance is unknown it would seem making claims as to configuration would also be speculation given numerous examples in both cases.
Thanks for your comment.

Here is something I put together the other day. Much more detail about the rifles themselves was lost when the site I was posting it to timed out. Maybe, I'll finish it up again. I really lost my steam when the app times out.

Ground down sight ramps are the original 91/30 sights that were on the doner rifle. So, nothing special was done other than the grinding of the graduates. If a Dragoon had been used as a donor, then new rear sights would have been installed.

"seem making claims as to configuration would also be speculation given numerous examples in both cases." Configuration is well understood...

I am not an expert on anything. I have had, more than the average guy's, opportunity to fondle a relatively large number of these project carbines. I have no clue where they were made. I have no clue why they were made. Nothing is documented. Here is my speculation, for what it's worth.

Why it was done.
- After WWII, Russia had genuine concerns that the West would attack them perhaps soon or in the future.
- They instituted a large refurbishment program to shore up their inventories and store them for use should this attack occur.
- At that time they did not have sufficient inventories of new/modern rifles that could be issued to a large conscripted Army. At some point in the future, they did which might explain the rash of surplus arms that his the international community.
- There were likely relatively large numbers of rifles whose barrels could not be repaired by a simple counter bore.
- I disagree with the notion that these rifles would be discarded. This would not be the Russian way and if I were in charge, I would come up with a solution that could put even more rifles into storage for future use. I really think that these carbine programs were included in the thoughts of those who came up with the refurbishment program in the first place.
- The 91/38 program was likely executed to refurbish/recondition all Imperial rifles (M-91) left in inventory that could not be adequately refurbished in their present state.
- The 91/59 program was likely executed to refurbish/recondition all 91/30 length rifles left (I say this because I am certain some Dragoons made it into the 91/59 program) in inventory that could not be adequately refurbished in their present state.
I know of no proof to support this. It would only make sense to do though.

Where it was done.
- There is no information that I know of that points directly where this work occurred.
- There is no information available that points to how many facilities were involved with this work.
- There is no information available to points to if both projects were done simultaneously over time or both under one roof.
- There is reason to believe that the work was not done in Russia, at least in the primary manufacturing centers of the time. Although, it might make sense that some refurbishment centers could have been used. But, in this case, I would suspect Alex would have known about this.
- With the assumption that such a program existed (which I feel must have been the case) and assuming that Russia had it's hands full manufacturing more modern weapons, then it stands to reason that the work for both projects was bid out.
- These bids would contain specific requirements for the end product.
- Costs should remain minimal. This, more than anything
- Excess parts from all armories would have to have gathered and supplied to the bid winners.

What to virtually all of these project carbines have in common?
- Virtually all use anything from existing to new stocks. It is apparent that most reused existing stock sets the were cut down, new sling slots cut and used front tab escutcheons (91/59) or reused prewar escutcheons (91/38). Butt stocks and rear escutcheons from the original stock remained. By "original" stock, I mean the stock used for the new carbine. The point being the the butt stock escutcheons were not removed/replaced unless they were damaged. Why would you see a 91/59 that contains post war escutcheons on front and rear? In this case, this would be a complete new/refurbished M-44 stock. Other than that, virtually all 91/59's have a tab (war years) front sling guard and any possibilities for the rear.
- Both 91/59 and 91/38's can be found in M-44 stocks. In most cases these are new stocks. It is more likely to see a 91/38 in a true M-44 stock vs. the 91/59.
- Virtually all the stocks use the same finishing material. Some stocks are darker based on the color of the wood. Yet, other stock finish resembles a refurbished darker/red stock but in my experience there a few of these. The point being that it appears there was very little pigment and that this pigment was part of the final finish vs. a prior staining.
- All original stocks seem to have been significantly sanded. And most appear to have been a light birch. I have seen one example of a 91/38 in an elm stock with prewar escutcheons all the way around.
- All stocks (both programs) seem to have the same stampings on the top of the butt stock - a box 20 and a box 17. It is interesting to note that some of the tail end M-44's whose stocks appear brand new and very similar to the pristine Polish stock we know of, were also stamped with those stamps. This could be a hint to the stock origins or even manufacture centers. Or, they could simply be inspection stamps.
- I have more than one 91/59 with a Ukrainian refurbishment stamp on the left side of the butt stock. I'm not entirely sure what this means. It could mean a lot of things.
- Virtually all (all I have seen) 91/38's have a bayonet groove. These were manually applied on cut down M-91 and possibly on some M-38 stocks. The thoughts are and there is good reason to think, that 91/38's were designed to have bayonets. Indeed, one or two exist. But, there is ample evidence that the decision was made to remove this requirement resulting in existing bayonet mounts being removed from the carbines. And from a "timeline" perspective this change likely impacted/changed the requirements of the 91/59, i.e. no bayonet assuming these programs had like requirements. There is no examples that I am aware of in 91/59's that show a removal of a bayonet mount whereas, this is commonly seen on most 91/38's.
- It appears that most were reblued.
- Bore condition on all of them range from good to excellent. I have seen at least one 91/38 with a counter bore and several examples of this in 91/59's.

[reiver]

Thanks....nice write up and I have seen some of the variances you mention on the 91/59 indicating they were 'built' that way including the M44 stock as new and finished in the same manner as the non bayonet stock.
There is a good discussion as to origin (and debate) on the MN Gunboards forum and some lengthy ideas/thesis with citation.

Regardless, I find the mystery interesting and in my mind makes them a unique MN beyond the modifications.

Thanks again for your comments.

[steelbuttplate]

I snatched this one last week, a pretty common yr. for these but this one is a really nice rifle.. I got it for what most folks are paying for a M44 beater, one bid. All matching except the stock, Is this a cut down 91/30 stock ?

[qz2026]

My thoughts are that the majority of them were cut down 91/30 stocks (prewar, wartime and post war) that required a new front sling slot and escutcheon. Unless an M-44 stock, which you will see once in a while or a purpose made stock, they all seemed to be given a tabbed front escutcheon regardless of what escutcheon remained on the butt stock of the original stock which was not changed. This is one way to ID a 91/59 besides the shank stamping and ground down rear sight leaf. You can tell if the stock was purpose made because they all seem to have matching post war escutcheons. Of course, the M-44 stocks would have matching post war escutcheons, as well. I don't believe that there is any remaining documentation about this but this is my take on it from seeing a large number of these guns. It was all about re-purposing borderline unserviceable rifles using the 91/30 as the starting point vs. the 91/38 program that re-purposed M-91 class rifles.

[TnBuckeye]

Mine is not in the condition that others on here are, but it is the only one I have seen in person and thought I would add it to the pile!












Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steelbuttplate]

Poly on the metal, not the wood. Some Bubba couldn't even Bubba right. I wonder how to remove that .

[TnBuckeye]

Nah...just a lot of oil after cleaning prior to storage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TnBuckeye]

Well now I have seen 2 of these m91/59s in person in just a few months time...

This one is in better condition overall than the first one I found. And the stock looks and feels different as well. The feel of it is kind of like the shellac finish on refurbished Soviet Mosins but not as flaky if that makes any sense.

It is FUN to take to the range for sure!










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boogalooboy]

Im trying to get one these lol. I like the 91/30 but its just too long. I dont care for the m44's bayonet.

[qz2026]

They're going cheap on GunBroker right now...

[Maverick 82]

I new here and looking for info on a rifle I recently purchased from an estate sale. The gun is a 91/59 carbine with matching numbers and the sniper bolt. Can anyone tell me how common this gun is and possible value? Thanks

[Darryl]

I new here and looking for info on a rifle I recently purchased from an estate sale. The gun is a 91/59 carbine with matching numbers and the sniper bolt. Can anyone tell me how common this gun is and possible value? Thanks

They never put a bent bolt on a M91/59. It was done after it was sold out of the arsenals. (by civilians).

Dolk

[Remagen]

Here is mine

20201012_171501.jpg

20201012_172803.jpg

20201012_171716.jpg

20201010_093642.jpg

20201010_093605.jpg

20201010_093431.jpg

[Vity]

Here is mine