Finnish M91 versus M27

[Genetically Swiss]

I am wondering if there is a significant difference besides the obvious (barrel length, Front sight ears, etc.) between a Finnish M91 and a Finnish M27. Or was the M27 just, basically, a shortened M91 with an improved front sight?


GS

[Bugelson]

It was a completely "new" design. Just not a very good one. Most important improvements - some good some not good - included new heavier barrel profile, new floating trigger and sear pack, receiver cuts and winged bolt connector to perfect the trigger pull and accuracy.

In the big picture the whole m/27 rifle was a disaster. Civil Guards m/28 and m/28-30 were much better rifles. It was very painful for the high Army brass to admit this fact.

[Genetically Swiss]

Thank you. Very helpful.


GS

[neal45]

And the M27 is my favorite Finn. It just comes down to the look and feel for me. But I don't have a M28 or 28/30 to compare; only M27s, M39s, M91s and one M91/30 by the Finns for comparison. My second favorite Finn is the M91. I may not have many folks to agree with me though.

[Lee-online]

I like the m27 because it was the first real Finn design, sure it had problems but they learnt from those and improved on them. The Finn m91/m24 are also great rifles but they just added/improved to an already produced Russian rifle.

One of my favorite rifles, both to shoot and just for the look and feel is a m27. I do shoot my m28, m28/30 and m39s but a m27 almost always heads to the range with me.

[zeebill]

While the M27 was not the best rifle in the field in many aspects I find it to be the best shooter of all the Finn's I own. It just sort of fits my old eyes and I find I do better with the older rear sights then the ones on the rear of say an M39 or M28/30. The fronts and bayonet mountings failed often on them and the winged bolts clogged up with mud and froze the bolt or made them tough to move but for just a rifle at the range I love them. Matter of fact I just paid much more than I should have over the weekend for another one. They made improvements as the need for them showed up and they were at least serviceable and did a yeomen job for the Finnish soldiers in modified and improved shape for many years. This one I just got had a truck load of pine needles and crap down in the barrel channel and elsewhere and the bore shows much usage so it had to be heavily used. Nice rifle and my favorite with the slightly improved sights and great rifle feel. Bill

[Lee-online]

I too just purchased another m27, I really wanted it so I too paid more than I should have.

[8X56R]

I do not own a M91 but I did pick up a M27 awhile back. It's a really nice rifle. If I ever get it out to the range I'll post a range report.

[81turbota]

The M27's are my favorite Finn rifles in my collection. I like it so much, I picked up a second. Both of them are 1934's so they lack some of the "famous" M27 features like the winged bolt connector, pivot pin through trigger and sear, and sight plate screwed onto the rear sight. They both have standard M91 rear sight leafs with a different slider that hugs the sides of the sight base, and standard triggers.


My notes:
The M27 barrel is thick! Makes an m91 or an M39 look like a pencil



Personally, I like to Konovalov rear sight better than the M39. Sight picture with the standard rear sight and the tall front sight protector ears is really nice

M27 sight picture (crappy photo)



M91



The M27 barrel is free floated in the stock until the nose cap, where it has approx 1" pressure point. The free floating design is built into the stock, you can see the channel routed into the stock

The late M27 stocks are very sturdy. The M91 stock is flimsy towards the end, and the barrel is clamped down tight with the bands.

Both of my M27's have lighter triggers than my 2 M91's

All in all, both are excellent rifles and condition will be a major factor. My 1940 Tikka M91 has a near perfect bore like my M27's, but I haven't shot it enough to comment on a difference in accuracy. The heavy trigger is holding my M91 back IMHO.

[bocephus]

I've been wondering, why did the Finns continue with the M91 in the 40's? They went as far as to make brand new barrels for them. If you're going to make a brand new barrel why not make a shorter one?

[Genetically Swiss]

Because long barrels are cool looking.


GS

[Lee-online]

I've been wondering, why did the Finns continue with the M91 in the 40's? They went as far as to make brand new barrels for them. If you're going to make a brand new barrel why not make a shorter one?

They had thousands and thousands of good rifles except for the barrels. It was easy to rebarrel and leave the stocks and hardware alone.