"I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

[BasraBoy]

Addiction....obsession.....

Whatever....I've got it BAD!!!

So, the nice man in the red Royal Mail van arrived this morning with another box......

I acquired this from the family a gentleman who fought in the Finnish independence War, the Winter War and the Continuation War. Apparently it was in the family since WW2 and was a reluctant sale of a family heirloom.

So...I've undertaken to look after it.

This is a Soviet made PEM scope dated 1937 - in full, museum-quality working order...<span style="text-decoration: line-through">but.....the news here is the scope mount. If it is genuine, it is one of less than 200 original mounts made by VKT (Valmet) for captured Soviet scopes.</span> <span style="color: #FF0000">Edited 9th March '12 Now 99% sure mount is a deliberate fake....see below</span>

Optics are clear (x4, the barn is 200yds from my back window) The reticle is a German three post style. Bluing looks all original and is pretty much in 100% shape.

There are signs of another scope ring just in front of the eyepiece bell....possibly from the original and wider Soviet PEM mount? (but that is just speculation)

It is beautifully engineered scope, no wartime, tractor factory rubbish here!!

I believe these scopes were Soviet copies of the Zeiss ZF39 made using tooling and machines bought from Zeiss pre-WW2. But this baby also has windage adjustment as well as elevation...now why didn't Zeiss do that??

The mount is for hexagonal receivers and features a dovetailed base which the scope and upper mount slides onto.

It seems to have quite a lot of in-built cant too...any guesses on MOA?

I have a plan for this scope....but that's something for later in the year!

 

[Chris K]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

What a wonderful find. Congrats, take care of it. I can't imagine how rare it is to find a piece in that condition that survived that kind of fight.

It's nice just knowing that items of that historical value still exist in such nice shape.

C_K

 

[Joop]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

That's a beauty of a scope! I have a '37 and '39 PEM, as well and the glass is really amazing, considering their age. As for the windage, I think the Russians saw the advantage to having it on the scope,early on. Especially in the PE top mount, where there is no provision for windage adjustments on the mount. Even so, adjusting the mount for windage is a bitch, as I recently discovered on my K98 SSR (and as you are certainly aware!).

Now, I'm not trying to alarm you, but I'm very skeptical on these "Finn" mounts. There are fakes out there and, given the very few existing examples that are known to be original, it's difficult to tell the difference. I would want to do a side by side comparison, for sure. But, if you got the set for a reasonable amount, I wouldn't worry about it, too much. That scope is the real deal, for sure and to find a '37 in that condition is almost unheard of, these days.

Also, in case you didn't know, the front ring of the mount should go in front of the recoil ring on the scope tube. This keeps it from sliding in the mount under recoil. I have a feeling I know where this rig is going to end up!

Cheers,

John

 

[Joop]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Forgot to add:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It seems to have quite a lot of in-built cant too...any guesses on MOA?</div></div>

I'm not sure of the exact measurement and it's going to depend on how it's mounted to the rifle. Make sure your smith takes great care in doing this properly. You want to make sure that you can zero the scope at 100m and, at that distance, the reticle is supposed to sit high in the FOV, to allow for adjustment out to greater ranges. So, yes, there's cant built in, but it needs to be properly mounted to get it right. The first one I did (an M39 SOV) required a shim in the rear ring, to bring the reticle down a little further, as my smith had mounted it level. He did a great job, but with this being the first one, it was something we failed to prepare for.

 

[BasraBoy]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Joop - thanks for the heads-up on the mount...good info as always!

So you found out the hard way about getting the windage sorted on the SSR? Aren't they a PITA to get right??

On the VKT mount....I've been trying to look at as many pics as possible of originals and compare fonts/spacings of the stamps, also there are some flatheaded screws on it which don't look entirely "period" to me....

At the back of my mind is that it might not be as it is claimed, but...as you say...for what I paid, I'd have paid that just for the scope

And the guy did agree to give me my money back if I'm not 100% happy.

I know the ring is the wrong side of the recoil ring...pics are as it came out of the box. Plan to "inspect" it in greater detail later.....

You may well be right in your feeling on the final destination!!

 

[desola]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Fortunately, there's not vaccine for Mosinitis... Nice piece of history, buddy. Cheers everybody, DESOLA.-

 

[ogonzalez13]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Looks very very nice, congrats.

 

[trilogymac]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

I think that was Humble Pie back in the 70's.


Wow! NICE scope.

 

[wslowik]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Very cool. Forgive my ignorance, but isn't it canted the wrong way? Or am I missing something?

 

[Sportin Wood]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Damn... look how thick that reticle is

... Nice find!!!

 

[BasraBoy]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Thanks for the comments guys.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: trilogymac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that was Humble Pie back in the 70's.</div></div>

I had WASP in the '80's in mind.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pgh_rugger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very cool. Forgive my ignorance, but isn't it canted the wrong way? Or am I missing something? </div></div>

I thought that but it seems that when zero'd at 100yds/m the correct procedure is for the reticle to be positioned in the top third of the FOV...it moves down to a more "normal" position as you wind on elevation.

Elevation drum is marked out to 14(00 metres?)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: StanwoodSpartan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Damn... look how thick that reticle is

... Nice find!!! </div></div>

I bet you could hide a whole section behind it at the right range!!

 

[Joop]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought that but it seems that when zero'd at 100yds/m the correct procedure is for the reticle to be positioned in the top third of the FOV...it moves down to a more "normal" position as you wind on elevation.

Elevation drum is marked out to 14(00 metres?)</div></div>

This is correct. Also, most of the experts insist that these scopes/rifles were calibrated to shoot light ball (about 148 grain) at a velocity of around 2800fps. However, every single Russian scope from this era that I've shot with, has been more accurately calibrated with 174gr. bullets at around 2500-2600. The light stuff shoots way flatter than what the elevation turret indicates (1.5 setting for 300, or 3 setting at 500, for example), but the 174s seem to be dead on. When I dial in 5, I can get a first round hit at 500m. Even though there are supposedly Russian manuals/documentation that support the light ball theory, I really have my doubts.

 

[BasraBoy]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Joop, is that the 174Gr SMK you use?

Do you have any experience of this calibration with the Lapua 200Gr D166 at around 2660 fps?

 

[Joop]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BasraBoy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Joop, is that the 174Gr SMK you use?

Do you have any experience of this calibration with the Lapua 200Gr D166 at around 2660 fps? </div></div>
Yes, I've used the SMK and they're great, once you find the right loading.

I don't have any solid data yet on the D166 in my snipers. I have shot them (and they're amazing), but have not figured the calibration out, yet. That may change, soon. I should have some more arriving in the next couple days and will likely do a little more testing with them at extended ranges.


ETA: Forgot to add; 2660 is going to be extremely hot for that big bullet. I'll have to check my data again from my M39 loads, but I want to say it's more in the 2400 range. You could probably push them harder, but I don't think they were meant to be and my accuracy starts to fall off, the further up I go.

 

[BasraBoy]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Thanks Joop

I got the 2660fps figure from a search on the wartime Finnish specs....but that would have been the 182gr version I expect.

 

[Joop]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BasraBoy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks Joop

I got the 2660fps figure from a search on the wartime Finnish specs....but that would have been the 182gr version I expect. </div></div>
I checked my notes and did some looking around, as well. From what I've been told, the service D166 round used in the M39 is about 2350fps. This is exactly what my loads are averaging when used over 43.5gr Varget. The D166 fired from the TKIV-85 is stated to be about 2264fps. So, yes, they're very slow, but also very accurate and effective.

The D46 is an interesting bullet. The spec has changed, it would seem and I'm not sure that I follow when or why, but there are D46 bullets that are .308 and .309, as well as weights being 170 and 185 grains. The only data I've found, so far, is for the 170 grain version that was barely breaking 2600fps when using IMR 4064. Other data with other powders shows lower velocities and I can't imagine that the 185 grain bullet would be going much faster than 2500, in most cases. This is all conjecture, however, as I don't have any solid references, or experience with those particular bullets and I can't find a straight answer on the what the service version's velocity would have been.

What I can say, without doing any further testing, is that my D166 loads, at about 2350-2400, print about 4 inches lower at 100 yards than my 174 grain loads, moving at about 2562fps, when fired from an original 91/30 PU sniper. I still need to determine however, if the D166 is on the upward leg of the arc at this range, as it appears to be when fired from the M39. SO many details. So little time and money. LOL

John

 

[BasraBoy]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Thanks Joop

Just for reference the 2660fps figure for 185gr ammo is mentioned here: http://uk.ask.com/wiki/7.62×53mmR

But that is WikiLies....so probably not as reliable as your tested load data

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Joop,

Just a thought on those bullets. I have a whole bunch of Lapua 7mm 170 gr. FMJ's that look just like the D46 185 gr. .30 cal bullets. I had heard at one time, just like the U.S., they had considered going to an intermediate cartridge. To me, 7mm 170 gr. FMJ's getting dumped on the civilian market is proof. It is just like 6mm and .25 cal 80-90 gr. fmj's getting dumped on the U.S. market. There was another bullet/case/caliber trial that got shot in the ass. Excess bullets were dumped on the civilian market with some excuse like, "The furbearer hunters wanted it..." Never in my life have I ever known of anyone who traps or shoots animals who wants an FMJ for their bullet. Anyhow, I don't know if you have 170 gr. .30 cal or 7mm.

I also have a 1937 Soviet scope just like you Basra. I keep wanting to find some easy to mount 27mm or 26mm rings for it so I can just put it on something. The glass is just incredible. Especially for a 1937 scope.

 

[Joop]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Sandwarrior,

That is a good possible theory. However, I'm not sure if that's exactly the case with these, as they should be .308-.309 diameter. Hard to say for sure, though, without a little more research.

As for your 1937 scope, have you considered finding an ex-PE/PEM sniper and re-scoping it? A worthwhile project, indeed!

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Joop,

It certainly would be a worthwhile project for sure. As usual, I am amazed at all the sniper combinations of the past that were incredibly accurate, or effective, for one reason or another. The hype (propablicity) tends to follow what Americans have done here in the U.S. without regard to what anyone else has done worldwide. Even Simo Hayha's record is obliviated by the "93 kills" of Hathcock. IMO both are great snipers and for good reason noted in the annals of great shooters. Just that American hype seems to downplay or not even mention Simo's feats.

In the end, I'm looking to stick this on something, historic or not, to see just exactly how accurate and repeatable it is.

 

[Joop]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

I agree, 100%.

Until I got heavy into Mosin rifles, I had never even hear of people such as Hayha, Zaitsev, or Pavlichenko (and you would think that the baddest azz female sniper ever would have been mentioned, somewhere, but no!). The rifles get a little more credit than the people who used them, but are also kind of swept under the rug, as you suggest. We all like to speak of how advanced the rifles are these days (and they are, no doubt), but I really think that it's the optics that have made them what they are, more so than the actions/barrels. Modern guns don't really shoot THAT much better if you put a 3.5x scope on them that's half the size of a toilet paper roll, which is exactly what a lot of them had in WW2.

 

[BasraBoy]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

With some much appreciated help from other Hide members and some more digging, I am 99% certain the mount is a deliberate fake.

A refund has been made and I have kept the scope at an even better price (isn't it funny what mention of filing a complaint with Financial Fraud Department at a state Justice Department can achieve!!)

However I believe it only fair to post details of the mount (including pics and measurements) so others can benefit from the experience.

<span style="font-style: italic">Edited 10/3/12: Details posted here:</span>
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3180870#Post3180870

Anybody looking for a Finnish M39-SOV mount beware!!

This really was proof that if a deal is too good to be true, it is probably a rip-off!!

 

[Wannashootit]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

I'm totally confoozed...
In the side-view picture above of the scope on the mount- I can clearly see that the mount is angled.

But, it's angled in the wrong direction. It should be angled "down" towards the front, and this is angled upwards.

Why??

 

[BasraBoy]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wannashootit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm totally confoozed...
In the side-view picture above of the scope on the mount- I can clearly see that the mount is angled.

But, it's angled in the wrong direction. It should be angled "down" towards the front, and this is angled upwards.

Why?? </div></div>

The pic is viewing it from the left side....so the "front" is on the left, "downhill" side

What looks like the objective end on a modern scope is the eyepiece end.

Mounted, it'd look like this:

 

[Wannashootit]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

Well damn, that explains it...

And I looked at it a dozen times to be sure I wasn't doing the stupid "looking at it backwards" thing...

I still find it "odd", that given the steep drop of the comb on the Mosin stock to bring the cheekweld down low for the irons, that they never made a stock modification (cheek riser) for the sniper stocks.

Putting myself in their (sniper) role, I sure would want one..any evidence of "unofficial" mods done by snipers to get their heads up on these rifles?

 

[BasraBoy]

Re: "I don't need no doctor......." Yeah, Right!!

I agree on the comb....always puzzles me about the German Mausers too.

As far as I know (and I'm happy to be corrected..) the No4T was the only "precision rifle" of the era that had a permanent cheekpiece?

I know you chaps over there had those lace-up leather contraptions

...and the Swedes had strap-ons (cheekpieces that is!!)...but I don't really count them as they sat it out when it mattered!

Not sure whether the Soviets had any expedient solutions to the problem or not.

My guess is Joop's the man for that question.

 

[sacred-sheep]

Hi there

I have noticed that quite a many of you guys are interested in the finnish made Valmet 7.62 Tkiv 85 sniper rifle (7.62 Tkiv 85 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and yes you can not buy that gun from anywhere but what you can do is build your own. So where I'm going with this is that I currently have one 7.62 Tkiv-85 stock in my hands that I could sell if someone would like to build their own Tkiv-85.

P.s I might be able to get more through my contacts.


Contact me if interested.

[email protected]