My first real pu sniper

[Dan4good]

im super tempted to but other things in the works i just ordered up a crate of ammo and huge cans, plus am watching other guns currently, only if money was unlimited right!

[pgaplayerless]

Overall it's a nice sniper but man did they totally massacred the gun with the multiple redundant imports marks but far the worst of all PU imported :(

It's unfortunate the scope SN is rematched on the shank on these refrubs. I imagine that will hurt the value long term.

[gurn]

Overall it's a nice sniper but man did they totally massacred the gun with the multiple redundant imports marks but far the worst of all PU imported :(

It's unfortunate the scope SN is rematched on the shank on these refrubs. I imagine that will hurt the value long term.

I doubt that. The marks are what we have to put up with these days. I can guarantee at the price I paid these are a sound investment. I'm not worried about losing money on it.

[pgaplayerless]

Overall it's a nice sniper but man did they totally massacred the gun with the multiple redundant imports marks but far the worst of all PU imported :(

It's unfortunate the scope SN is rematched on the shank on these refrubs. I imagine that will hurt the value long term.

I doubt that. The marks are what we have to put up with these days. I can guarantee at the price I paid these are a sound investment. I'm not worried about losing money on it.

The placement and size of the marks marks is horrid, compared to all the other recent imported PU. Group West were by far the best (under the handguard and simple small S/N on the receiver bridge under the bolt handle). You can bet a house that those GW imported PU will be worth a whole lot more money going forward that the these Tula/PW imports. I didn't say you will loose money (you won't), people will just pay more money (quality premium) for the other ones.

It's really no different than what is happening today where people pay extra for early imports because the import marks are lot smaller then what importers do not (billboards)

[bocephus]

Overall this batch seems to be in great shape. Too bad the import/export marks really suck on these. As far as the scope serial, I'm sure someone has posted one but I've never seen an original matching. On my RGUNS they grinded the old one off and didn't bother to force match it.

[gurn]

The actual import mark is like most of the others out there now. Now all those other marks I call "brand" marks and look to be laser made with no imprinting into the metal. I'm sure those could be easily blued over without any legal worries but they don't really get under my skin like the import marks of today do. The worse ones I have seen are the big ones on the nice Swiss K-31's receivers. Those really make me sick.

[Darryl]

The Group West imports that are being praised here are Molot rifles and for that single fact alone, they will always be suspect unless Molot decides to come clean and tell us how they handled those rifle.


The marking under the hand guard is not Group West doing that, it was Molot.
The KO-91/30 mark is Molot. Not required by the US
The BN mark is Molot. Not required by the US
The diamond (rnc) is required by Russia (proof mark)
All of this is under the hand guard of the Group West PU's.

None of it is required and only serves to tattoo it as a Molot rifle.

gwmolot.png

Here are the other early imports that were also Molots. They marked the Molot on the rear of the receiver.

molot2.jpg

Again, this is not GW doing this.
The KO-91/30 mark is Molot. Not required by the US
The BN mark is Molot. Not required by the US
The diamond (rnc) is required by Russia (proof mark)

Again, Tattooing this rifle as a Molot rifle. Some were Imported by PW and others by GW. All Molot handled rifles and questionable in my book.


Now, for the new ones.

I don't like the present batch of PU's coming in (because of the import mark), but the fact that it is not a Molot (in my collecting opinion) makes them worth more. There is no question that they were not "screwed with". The condition and handling matches the know Ukrainian PU exactly. Yes, their import mark is larger,........I'd knock off $2 for that big import mark and move on. So what, it is a fact of life these days.

All of these PU have different plus' and negatives. It is part of the import process and has nothing to do with the way they left the arsenal (except the Molots).

If we applied your thinking, then the RGUNS are the best of the lot (which I think they are). Small import mark hidden under the scope on the receiver where the US required it to be (on the receiver). No huge Molot marks (that are not required by law) and you know the exact history of these rifles and how they were handled (military, then police, then arsenaled and sold). You know the entire paper trail of the rifle and who handled it. Nothing was altered on the rifle except the import mark that is required by the US. No controversies.

There is no way one can look into the future and predict which of these will be worth more in the future. Not unless you have a crystal ball. Enjoy what you have now ...... and if you are buying these rifles just as an investment for the future, then good luck.

Dolk







.

[bocephus]

The group west import marks were under the muzzle which was nice too.

How can you be suspicious of Molots but not the Tulas? As far as I'm conserned they're the same thing. Both being exported by Russian arms manufacturers, I don't think either company has made any claims about their origins. The Tulas even come with the little white book calling it a sporting rifle, I don't remember if they use the KO designator. I'll see if I can find the post but someone posted the innards of the Tula book, theirs includes a chart showing what each of the Russian export etchings means.

[pgaplayerless]

The group west import marks were under the muzzle which was nice too.

How can you be suspicious of Molots but not the Tulas? As far as I'm conserned they're the same thing. Both being exported by Russian arms manufacturers, I don't think either company has made any claims about their origins. The Tulas even come with the little white book calling it a sporting rifle, I don't remember if they use the KO designator. I'll see if I can find the post but someone posted the innards of the Tula book, theirs includes a chart showing what each of the Russian export etchings means.

x2

Both Molot and Tulas conform to the same making standards. Reason why both have those tatts that are not required in US is because Molot and Tula exports these to other European countries where they are required.....German, Czech Republic, etc. And they are also sold within Russia, again where those markings are required. As matter of fact some of the Molot Carbine imported into US actually showed up with Russian owners manuals, instead of English ones, all in Cyrillic.

[bocephus]

Here it is, stolen from another forum. My mistake, they don't call it a sporting rifle, they call it a hunting carbine. Doesn't appear that they are using the KO designator.

[pgaplayerless]

Here it is, stolen from another forum. My mistake, they don't call it a sporting rifle, they call it a hunting carbine. Doesn't appear that they are using the KO designator.

As for the KO-91/30

Hunting Carbine = карабин охотничий

[Darryl]

The group west import marks were under the muzzle which was nice too.

How can you be suspicious of Molots but not the Tulas? As far as I'm conserned they're the same thing. Both being exported by Russian arms manufacturers, I don't think either company has made any claims about their origins. The Tulas even come with the little white book calling it a sporting rifle, I don't remember if they use the KO designator. I'll see if I can find the post but someone posted the innards of the Tula book, theirs includes a chart showing what each of the Russian export etchings means.

Why do you call them Tulas. Tula is an arsenal, not a company like Molot is. You have two arsenals that these were made in. Tula, and Izhevsk.

Molot is a privatly owned company. If you have been following this forums conversations on M olot handled sniper, you would know why I suspect Molot snipers. The evidence shows clearly thst the Molots were probably put together from real pu parts and rifles from parts they got from the arsenals. Then they stamped the scope numbers in the side of the rifles to make people think they are matching. They even did this to the Tula snipers and that was never done to any snipers by the arsenals.

These new snipers coming out are not handled by Molot. They are exactly like the Ukranian PU snipers in the way they were handled. They also prove the Russians refurbed the rifles they have the same as the ones in the Ukrane (actually the Soviets, who owned all these rifles and refurbished them all). Proving in my mind that Molot did this remarking of the scope numbers. That's more like what Mitchell,s Mausers does to Mausers.

Believe it or not, but the evidence is right there. That makes me have less suspicions of these last snipers (compared to a Molot). I'm not pushing these new snipers. I could care less if you buy one or not or which one.

But don't put down someone elses sniper by calling the import mark "horrid".

Also, I have a all matching RGUNS sniper rifle for you to look. Some of them are matching and some of them are force matched .....but by the arsenal, not a private company. When RGUNS started selling them years ago now, you could buy a Izhevsk, or for $100 more, a Tula. For an extra $100, you could get a all matching numbers sniper. They stopped doing that and went to "next out of the crate for $800" only.

Dolk

[pgaplayerless]

They even did this to the Tula snipers and that was never done to any snipers by the arsenals.
Dolk

Some Tulas that came from Rguns have been documented with shank scope SN as well.

[Darryl]

Here it is, stolen from another forum. My mistake, they don't call it a sporting rifle, they call it a hunting carbine. Doesn't appear that they are using the KO designator.

As for the KO-91/30

Hunting Carbine = карабин охотничий

The KO-91/30 only shows up on Molot rifles, and is a Molot "model" designation, not Russia. Go to their website and you will see their models that they make from standard Mosins.

Also much like Mitchel's does.

[Darryl]

They even did this to the Tula snipers and that was never done to any snipers by the arsenals.
Dolk

Some Tulas that came from Rguns have been documented with shank scope SN as well.

I have only seen one in all the years I have been collecting. I wouldn't say that isn't even remotly common, bordering on extreemly rare or a fluke or something else.

All of the earlier PU (before RGUNS) Tulas were never marked.

Clearly this is not what was done. Only Molot PU snipers.

Dolk

[pgaplayerless]

They even did this to the Tula snipers and that was never done to any snipers by the arsenals.
Dolk

Some Tulas that came from Rguns have been documented with shank scope SN as well.

I've heard that, I have only seen one in all the years I have been collecting. I wouldn't say that is even remotly common, bordering on rare.

Dolk

Probably has to do with which refurb facility did the work as processes vary greatly from facility to facility much like even production varied between Tula and Izhevsk. Also, neither Tula or Izhevsk was doing refurbishments, other facilities were setup for that purpose.

[pgaplayerless]

Here it is, stolen from another forum. My mistake, they don't call it a sporting rifle, they call it a hunting carbine. Doesn't appear that they are using the KO designator.

As for the KO-91/30

Hunting Carbine = карабин охотничий

The KO-91/30 only shows up on Molot rifles, and is a Molot "model" designation, not Russia. Go to their website and you will see their models that they make from standard Mosins.

Also much like Mitchel's does.

Yes and ?? Remember these are marketed as civilian hunting rifles in order for Russia to be able to export. Call it surplus military and it's not leaving the motherland. Look at the various model names that exist for AR-15 depending on which company it doing the marketing.

[Darryl]

Here it is, stolen from another forum. My mistake, they don't call it a sporting rifle, they call it a hunting carbine. Doesn't appear that they are using the KO designator.

As for the KO-91/30

Hunting Carbine = карабин охотничий

The KO-91/30 only shows up on Molot rifles, and is a Molot "model" designation, not Russia. Go to their website and you will see their models that they make from standard Mosins.

Also much like Mitchel's does.

Yes and ?? Remember these are marketed as civilian hunting rifles in order for Russia to be able to export. Call it surplus military and it's not leaving the motherland. Look at the various model names that exist for AR-15 depending on which company it doing the marketing.

Yes and what???????????

Remember, it is clearly a Molot designation. It appears only on Molot snipers. It matches thevother bubba'd rifle model that Molot produces.I don't give a crap how they designated these rifles to get them into the US. It's irrelevant and adds nothing. It is however a way of IDing a Molot.

Molot bubba's Mosins and that is a fact. They have been selling them for years now ( not just snipers). So I have a right to be suspicious of any thing they touch. If you don't then great.

Their snipers are all real parts on a real sniper rifle that has always been in sniper configuration. I just don't like the idea they tried to sell them as all matching

Dolk

[bocephus]

See the triangle T's on these? that's why I'm calling them Tula. A private Russian corporation called Tula Arms(yes related to the old Tula) is the exporter of this new batch. http://www.tulatoz.ru/en/

[Darryl]

See the triangle T's on these? that's why I'm calling them Tula. A private Russian corporation called Tula Arms(yes related to the old Tula) is the exporter of this new batch. http://www.tulatoz.ru/en/

I see. They are a privste company like Molot is in Russia. So they are Tula, not Tula the Russian arsenal. That's confusing.

Maybe you should call them "Tulsky"

Dolk