Finland, why are these variants more desirable? or are they

[pelago]

did sako build them any time, why are they more sought after? or are they better?
I have seen some pretty fair shooting done with simple Russian nagants, and i have a sniper vestion (1939) and it is a tack driver at 600 yards (do not like the scope due to it not being a micrometer type adj but a linear adj), hard to tell where you are and where you need to be on first round out of tube. But 6 X's in a row at 600 yards ain't bad for a 70+ year old rifle!

I have been considering starting a search for a good finnish version, any advice from the knowledgeable ones out there is appreciated

[Tuna]

Yes Sako did build Mosins as well as other companies. The Fins just plain made better rifles then the Russians. They didn't make anywhere near as many and a lot of their rifles were Russian captured ones that they updated with new barrels and stocks or what ever was needed.

[Art]

It depends on what the definition of "build" is. I don't know that the Finns ever actually made a Mosin receiver from scratch, though I could be wrong and know I'll be corrected if I am. Most, but not all Finnish Mosins (and every single one I've seen) are rebuilds on Russian/Soviet actions. They are more desirable than non Finnish pre WWII rifles for two reasons: They are generally more consistently accurate and there are a lot fewer of them. Sort of like Albanian SKS 45s, at least as far as rarity goes.

[PhillipM]

Why are the Finns so collectable?

This answer could be an entire article, so I will be as brief as I can. One factor is the low production numbers. The Finnish made Mosin Nagants were not produced on the scale of many battle rifles in WW2. One can compare 21 million Soviet M91-30's to only 130,000 (or so) Finnish M39 rifles to get a pretty clear picture of the number difference. All the Finnish Mosin Nagants are uncommon and some are downright rare. Also Finland has a great and interesting history behind it. A small nation of tough Finns stood up to the largest army in the world and gave much better than it took. The history is compelling and certainly is a factor in collecting. Another key factor is the simple fact that the Finnish made Mosin Nagants are well made and accurate rifles. They can hold their own in accuracy against any military arm made in their time frame. The old notion that cheap prices are why Finns are collectable is false, as the Finnish market is no longer a cheap one. This further goes to prove just how good the rifles themselves are. They have an appeal that is much greater than cheap prices.

http://www.mosinnagant.net/finland/finnfaq.asp

[keith smart]

Finland, why are these variants more desirable


As above, November 1939-March 1940, The Winter War

[Art]

There are two times I know of when a mixmaster rebuild can compete with a pristine all original in value:

Anything that has U.S.M.C. provenance.

A Finnish Mosin-Nagant.

[Shooter5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin–Nagant#Finland

http://62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinM39.htm

http://www.gunsnammo.com

Highly Recommend the M39; if you like the MN you may much more prefer the M39.

http://kalinkaoptics.com/rifle-scopes/pu-original-wwii.html

[ismith]

Many variations of Finnish Mosins and they do seem to be more accurate, the barrels are shimmed to the stocks on many of them. Here's a few pictures of my Finnish M91.

[Art]

ismith, that is one sweet looking rifle . A mostly original Remington M91 modified by the Finns. If it could just talk.

[pelago]

well, I just bought one, probably paid too much for it, but we shall see. Would not be the first time i overpaid for something.
I bought a Sako version of the nagant
Now here is another question.
Why did the Soviets build a carbine version of the Nagant, I have one and it is not bad rifle, pretty accurate 1 1/4" at 100 yards from prone, that aint bad. but like other carbine attempts it sure is loud and has a helluva whack on the shoulder. but for $67.00 us dollars at a gun show, why not? still say it would make a nice deer rifle for someone on a budget, but the safety issue for these things, no aftermarket safety and the original Russian "pull the striker and rotate it"
is absurd. in reality the safety probably was to keep the finger off the trigger

[Shooter5]

Globally, most military troops have an empty chamber in a weapon unless and until they are actually under live fire conditions. That is likely why the safety on the MN is what it is: it probably wasn't used much if any. You will like the M39. The carbine version of the MN was for support troops, artillery, etc. They likely never used them much in combat but still needed a weapon if called upon. The majority of Soviet infantry doctrine revolved around the automatic weapons, organic artillery such as mortars, and for close-in; the PPSh. These weapons and tactics with a combined arms approach - maneuver warfare with armor, heavy artillery and rockets, plus air power when available - is what wins battles. The bolt action rifle sounds cool but its effects on the battlefield historically speaking, were minor.
See the German experience: they also had the squad and platoon firepower mainly depend on the machine gun. Their bolt action 98k was not the decisive arm of battle. Once they encountered the massive firepower of the PPSh during close in engagements, the Germans being smart did not reinvent the wheel (if it works, use it!). They used the PPSh concept themselves. They also developed the assault rifle concept; hence, the StG series.

[pelago]

''most military troops have an empty chamber in a weapon unless and until they are actually under live fire''
**
i am just not so sure about what you say! I never saw that and have the worn out boots to show it
I never went anywhere with an empty chamber, carried the 45 locked and cocked with safety on, the m14 locked and loaded with safety on, same with M16 and shotgun
the most horrible sound i ever heard was late at night on a moonless night at dodge city and I heard the safety click from a NVA ambush team
my fireteam, my squad, my platoon always was locked and loaded

[Art]

The Russians/Soviets built carbine versions for two reasons. The first was horse cavalry which actually continued in service through WWII!! The second was to shorten the rifle and make it more practical not just for rear echelon troops but the regular infantry. M44 carbines were widely issued to front line units in the last year of the war. Finally, postwar carbines, many converted from long rifles (the Model 30/59) were used for police work both in the Soviet Union and the satellite countries.

On the round in the chamber issue. When I carried an M14 on a regular basis in Korea SOP was a full magazine and an empty chamber. This SOP was universally ignored. All pistols were carried with an empty chamber. When I worked the Atlanta Olympics the Georgia National Guard MPs ran into a problem with the civilian authorities when it was discovered that not only were the Guard's pistols carried without a round in the chamber they were carried without a magazine in the weapon. This led to quite a dust up I must say. Finally a compromise was reached in which the Nat. Guard guys carried an M9 pistol with an empty chamber but a magazine in the weapon. One night before the Olympics actually began a Nat. Guard soldier was hit by a stray round from "the hood." He was not seriously injured but I understand you could hear slides being racked all over the place. With an Mosin operating the bolt is undoubtedly quicker than operating the safety!!!

[Shooter5]

''most military troops have an empty chamber in a weapon unless and until they are actually under live fire''
**
i am just not so sure about what you say!

… meant to say:
Most armies globally usually do not have chambered rounds unless in or around direct combat. The US is a little different that way; in the 20th century, we have tended to lock and load for most combat troops - support units are a different matter.
An example of non-chambered weapons is the militaries that use the AK47; its safety tends to be cumbersome to quickly use when coming under fire or when needed to get quickly into action so it tends to be more efficient to just simply rack a round from the mag when ready to fire. There are many variations of this depending on era, circumstances, type of troops, location during conflict etc.
Recall that many soldiers around the world tend to be less trained or proficient in safe and competent handling. It doesn't take too many negligent discharges for commanders to simply order weapons to be carried without chambered rounds.
Currently, even in combat zones, oddly enough, some US forces operate under strange restrictions for rounds chambered/magazines in or out - at least from the perspective of a grunt. Consider sidearms, since the US military of all branches has often fielded poorly trained soldiers when it comes to the pistol both in terms of marksmanship and proficient handling skills, units that have the M9 pistol have a wide array of carry rules. Some of common styles are: mag out completely unloaded (sad but true), loaded mag in with empty chamber and on safe, or loaded mag with chambered round on safe. Some unique units can operate an M9 with a loaded mag and chambered round without the safety on as long as the hammer is down. However, those units also tend to use a pistol model other than the M9.

[pelago]

like i said
I think i turned grey haired that night, when i heard that safety go off, i knew i was dead
then in less than 10 seconds all hell broke loose, and i shot a whole clip at the direction of the noise and threw just about every frag i had
then i cleaned my shorts