This is a finding worth sharing, so I might as well share it.

I just picked up a non-import, non-Finnish M38 in factory condition for a stupidly low price by being fast on the trigger. It is matching but for the bolt which is Tula with factory font serial that is "matching" to itself (I now realize I left it out of pic oh well). There is a duffle-cut under the rear band spring that has since been glue back together.  Sadly, it is not a clean through cut. I'm not sure if it was a case of inpatient GI or just poor support when cutting but the cut is about 90% thru the wood before the rest just splintered and crack away. So there are some ugly "shards" and cracks glued back that run towards the muzzle end.  Condition wise, I would say this gun was almost unissued (the original coating used to finish the stock still coats the dog sling trims) but has since suffered some heavy localized pitting on the exterior which I'm sure is result of being put away somewhere then forgotten. Likely in the janky old school 1960 dated Koplin soft case in which it arrived . The main pitting damage is on right side of the front sight and front side base. Everything on the right side is affected but should clean it pretty good.  Left side of the gun is perfect.

Not to get to the more important stuff...... For years the debate has been raging about what is the "factory original" finish used in production at Izhevsk.  The hottest topic is the use of shellac. Some people insist that shellac was only use after war, some say it was introduced in 1942, some insist no finish was added during the expedite production of 1942-1943.

What I am going to present you now is physical evidence resulting from a semi-scientific test which conclusively proves that shellac WAS used as factory finish at the Izhevsk plant as early as 1941. This does NOT proven that only shellac is the factory original finish for 1941 and there after, only that shellac is at lease ONE of the factory finishes used at Izhevsk in 1941.

Chemical used: Denaturated Alcohol
Location used: front escutcheon


Without further delay, the pictures:

Pre-test Left side


Post-test Left side


Pre-test Right side


Post-test Right side






The test subject itself:

Well this is what I found out from the seller while I simply asled if he bought the rifle or inherited it:

The carbine came from an old neighbor of ours that was with an Army graves registration unit in WW2. He brought back or shipped home many items he picked up off the battlefields. I bought this from his widow a few years back. He is long deceased so I don't have any other info on the item.

I've a '41 Izhevsk 91/30 that was captured by the Finns, property stamped, the either re-issued or (likely) stored. It's 100% matching.

Due to the shellac I first glance I thought it was just a run of the mill refurb till I noticed the SA property stamp. Nope, it was as issued to Ivan.

Pics here:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_14/456863_1941_Izhevsk_91_30_____Finn_Marked____As_Captured.html

I also own a Spanish Civil War '36 Tula (all matching) with remnants of shellac still on it.

Nice rifle, but it's inconclusive. Shellac may have been the finish as or original, but we've also seen many rifles point to the contrary. We also know you in particular misrepresent rifles as something they are not, aka your Romanian Mauser sniper fiasco. So, we'll take this one with grain of salt.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=537496399

Ratinik himself confirmed that VK-1 finish, which was shellac/nitrocellulose lacquer mix was used. He will have a book out on the exact mosin production 1941-1945 in a month of so. He also confirmed that the Tula Sniper bolt that was in this gun is genuine sniper bolt.   What exactly did I misrepresented on Romanian IOR VZ24 snipers? You must be confused.