M-44 vs. Type 53

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
908
Lately, I've been lamenting about missing out on an unissued M-44 Mosin still packed in cosmoline, priced at $250. It had been sitting on the store rack for years, and the day I come in intending to buy it, it's gone. So I went to a different store, and they had 4 Type 53s, all priced at $189. I looked at one. The stock was kind of rough, but the internals seemed fine. I've been thinking about getting one as a "next best thing".

How do the two compare shootability and quality wise?
 
I don't have one of the T-53s, but have examined several of the most recent batch that has shown up. The wood on all of them is in very sad shape, but they all looked like they would function quite well. Bores looked good with strong rifling. One of them had what looked like a brand-new bore. The M44's usually are in better shape on average, but the T53s hold their own.

Matt
 
T53s are rougher, but basically the same thing. If you have a C&R, check out SOG. They have them for $99 +3% with a credit card. I just purchased one, haven't arrived yet, but my total with shipping is $119.97. My other T53 is alright, dark roughed up wood, metal is okay, bore had some surface rust. Nothing some TLC can't fix. They are good deals if you put the work into it.

SOG also has M44s for $259.95.
 
Last edited:
Type 53's are the same as any post war M44 type carbine, either Soviet, Hungarian, Romanian, or Polish. Sure, some are better finished than others, but they all follow the same pattern, which is slightly different than the ones used during WWII.
 
From the ones I've seen the wood is trashed but the metal is fantastic. There are aesthetic reasons I prefer the M44 but for just shooting a T53 is as good or better in my mind.
 
I picked up a SOG tpe 53 a month ago. Wood was a little rough internals great. After I spent a little time with the stock steaming out the dents and putting on a couple coats of shellac the rifle looks very good. At the range it shoots 2" groups at 100 yards.
 
I have 2 T53's and several M44's.
The Chi-coms were both in rougher shape when I got them, both have many Soviet made parts. The triggers on the T53's are both much smoother than their Russkie brothers. They shoot about the same though, not a big difference.
 
Last edited:
So is it worth getting a type 53? It's not as cool or nice looking, but I'm sure it functions the same.
If you can find a Finnish M39, go that route! But if not, get the M44, you won't regret it. If you just want to shoot the rifle, and don't care about history or looks, then a 53 will work just fine.
 
Or simply get the T53 knowing its varied history coming out of the Balkans and enjoy shooting it. It'd be hard to get a better knock-around high-powered carbine for the money.
 
If you put some work into it, it'll be just as pretty.

What kind of work?

If you can find a Finnish M39, go that route! But if not, get the M44, you won't regret it. If you just want to shoot the rifle, and don't care about history or looks, then a 53 will work just fine.

I'd get an M-44 if I could, but there are none locally.
 
Century is running a special until the end of the month, $89 for a T53. Gotta have an FFL of some sort to order from them.
 
I got a Type 53 for $35 several years ago. The stock was trash. The action and barrel appeared solid. A guy at the range felt that the action and barrel may have been made in Russia for the Chinese, but the stock was made of some Chinese wood that simply does not stand up over time.

(Yeah, I know a "guy at the range" opinion is like opinion of a "guy at the barber shop (VFW hall bar, laundramat, car wash)". But I have read complaints about the Chinese wood used in a lot of imported Mosins.)

Most M38 and M44 Mosin carbines from Russia have sturdy wood stocks. At the local vintage military matches (small sample, but) I have not seen a M44 stock with bad wood. I see a lot of rough finish, garish shellac, but solid wood underneath.
 
What kind of work?

There is the usual de-cosmoline cleaning you'd have to do for every MN. If you want pretty wood, refinish the stock you got with it, or purchase a replacement. If you want pretty metal, you could get it reblued, DuraCoated or what ever type of finish you want.

For the stock, you could find a surplus 91/30 stock you like and cut down the barrel wood to fit your T53. You could also find a M44 stock and use it with no modifications.

I'd keep it the way I got it minus the cosmo, but thats me.
 
I got a Type 53 for $35 several years ago.

Yes, thats what I paid for mine. Like you said, metal was solid, but that wood....

I refinished both of mine and they shoot fine. just the ruskies are better looking rifles.
 
They were carried, used in drill and training exercises, and overall treated like combat arms but without a huge amount of shooting.
 
Are most of the T53 bayonet screws crimped in place so the bayonet would be a pain to remove? M44s I have seen look to have been struck across the mount and screw with a cold chisel to lock that sucker in place for ever and a day. Meanwhile Norinco SKS mounts easily allow the screw and so bayonet to be removed.

I keep hoping to find a semi bubba'd M44 at a yard sale with the lug and bayonet sawn off so I could have one that way without doing it myself and having to answer for it at the final judgement or find a M38 in the first place.

-kBob
 
For $189 you're probably better off getting a 91/30. Are you set on the carbine version? If not, get the 91/30 instead.

My friend just bought a 91/30 with a Hex receiver from last month's gun show for $190.
 
I've read that the recent T53s along w/the recent type 56 SKSes came from the Balkans; they were donated by the Chinese and used in conflict by the Albanians in the 90s. hence why both types are pretty beat up looking.
 
The CHicoms donated them during Mao Tse Tung s time to Albania. They must had used in extensively.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top