The Homepage For Mosin Nagant Rifles And Colletors Finnish - Soviet - Russian Collector's HQ
  Overview & Section Summaries
  The Finnish Area
  Global Mosin Nagants
  The Mosin-Nagant Store
  Collector's Articles
  Site Dedication
  Discussion Boards
  The Russian-Soviet Area
  Sniper Section
  110 Years Of The 7.62X54R
  Tuco's Hot Links
  Site Sponsors
  about us
  The Finnish Area




The Model 1891 Three-Line-Rifle, known more commonly as the Mosin-Nagant, was used by a wide variety of countries prior to and during WWI. Recent imports from Europe, have resulted in the availability of a large number of Russian rifles on the U.S. market. Many of these rifles were produced later than 1918 and do not have any bearing on the subject matter of this article. Many of the recent imports, however, are of WWI vintage or earlier. Due to the later alteration of many of the weapons, particularly those which have come in via Finland, some of the rifles in U.S. collections have lead to the incorrect identification of many of the earlier patterns of sling swivels as used by the various countries prior to, and during WWI. The purpose of this article is to correct some of the common misunderstandings regarding this subject. The research supporting this article is ongoing. As a result, there may be information available to many of you out there that has yet to be discovered by those of us who have been studying this subject. If any of you can shed additional light any variations not covered in this article, please feel free to contact us via Tuco’s Forum or web site.


The obvious place to begin is with the use of the Model 1891 Three-Line-Rifle in Russian service. However, to fully understand the evolution of the sling swivel arrangements as used on the Three-Line-Rifle, you must first examine the rifle, which the Model 91 replaced, the Model 1870 Berdan II.

The Berdan II in Russian Service

This subject matter begins with the Berdan II rifle and it’s variants. This is due to the fact that the sling swivel variations, which were used on the Russian Model 1891 Three-Line-Rifle, were to a great degree, determined by the sling swivel arrangement on its predecessor, the Berdan II.

The original version of the Berdan II Infantry Rifle was introduced in 1870. The Berdan II was a single shot bolt action rifle, which was designed by Col. Hiram Berdan. Berdan was an American who had achieved fame during the American Civil War. Col. Berdan was the organizer and commander of the famous 1st and 2nd U.S. Sharpshooter Regiments, both of which fought for the Union Army during the American Civil War.

Col. Berdan’s rifle was very advanced in its day, possessing ballistics, which in the 1870’s, were far ahead of its rivals. The flat shooting Obr. 10.66x57.5mmR cartridge raised tactical concerns all across Europe following its introduction in 1870. Due to the very slow burning rate of blackpowder, the barrel length rifles during the blackpowder era were out of necessity very long. The barrel of the Berdan II Infantry rifle was no exception as it measures 32 5/8” inches in length. Long barrels were the norm during the heyday of blackpowder metallic cartridge. The slow burning rate of the powder required barrels in excess of 30” in order to exert the maximum amount of continual pressure on the bullet as it traveled down the barrel. The original Infantry version of the Berdan II was equipped with sling swivels in front of the trigger guard and underneath the top barrel band. This arrangement was in keeping with the standard practice, which existed with most muzzle-loading blackpowder firearms during the 19th Century. The extremely long rifle barrels shifted the balance point of the weapon forward ahead of the action. This issue of balance was the determining factor regarding the placement of the sling swivels on most weapons during the 19th Century.

Following the introduction of the Berdan II Infantry rifle, the Russians sought to arm their specialist troops with their own versions of the new weapon. The resulting patterns were each designed to fit the needs of the troops to which they were to be issued. This required the introduction of three different models, the Berdan II Cossack, Dragoon and Cavalry models.

Slots vs. Swivels

The Cossack and Dragoon Models can be easily covered together as the difference between the two patterns was restricted to the trigger guard. Both models were intended to be carried by mounted troops. Full-length infantry rifles of the day were far too cumbersome to be carried comfortably on horseback. As a result, both patterns were substantially shorter than the infantry rifle at an overall length of 48.7” for the Cossack and Dragoon rifles vs. 53.35” for the infantry version. The primary difference between the two classes of weapons was tied to the tactical role each was expected to fill on the 19th Century battlefield. Dragoons were in fact mounted infantry. They provided a mobile force which, could be rapidly deployed on the battlefield. When in action, Dragoons were expected to dismount and fight as infantry. The Cossack Regiments, on the other hand, were expected to fight mounted. They fulfilled the traditional roles of light cavalry, i.e. scouting, pursuit, raiding, etc. Since the Cossacks were expected to fire their rifles from the saddle, the Cossack Model was produced without a trigger guard to enable the troops to find the trigger by simply sweeping their finger back along the bottom of the action. In place of the standard trigger, the Cossack Model contained what is known as a “reed drum” trigger. This configuration consists of a cylindrical trigger which is approximately ” in diameter. The cylindrical portion of the “drum” is knurled to provide a better gripping surface. The Dragoon Model is equipped with the same basic trigger and trigger guard as the infantry model. This is the only difference between the two rifles. Where they both differ from the infantry rifle is in the barrel length and the sling arrangement. Due to the shorter barrel length of both models, the point of balance is shifted back towards the action. As a result, the arrangement of the sling consists of two slots, one in the butt, back of the stock wrist, while the other is placed through the forearm, between the lower and upper barrel bands. The cavalry carbine, for all the same reasons as the Cossack and Dragoon Models, had slots cut through the same locations in the stock and the forend.

When the Model 1891 Three-Line-Rifle was introduced, all of the same considerations were used for the establishment of the sling swivel locations. The earliest production rifles from Chattelerault had the lower sling swivel located on the front of the magazine housing, since this occupied the space directly in front of the trigger guard. The top swivel was attached to the upper barrel band. Following the same reasoning as was used with the Berdan II, the Cossack, Dragoon and Cavalry models were all produced with sling slots rather than fixed swivels. This was the case up until the swivels on production rifles were replaced by slots in 1908.

For whatever reason, after 16 years of service, the Russians decided to equip the Infantry Model 1891 Three-Line-Rifles with slots, rather than the original swivels. Perhaps it was to cut production cost or to streamline manufacturing. I have yet to discover evidence, which confirms the reasoning behind the change. I doubt that it was due to battlefield experience as the rifle had been in the hands of troops since 1892 and had seen service in the war with Japan in 1904. Whatever the reason, the change was made in 1908 at the same time as the introduction of the new Model 1891g bullet. The rear sight was also changed at this time.

Early Slings

The original buckle and button type slings (now most commonly referred to as Mauser type slings), which were first issued with the Berdan II, were in turn, the first sling patterns to be used with the Three-Line-Rifle.

The infantry pattern was similar in style to the typical Mauser pattern sling with a brass buckle and button. The sling passed through the bottom or top swivel, back through the brass buckle and was then attached to the other swivel through the use of two split holes in the end of the leather sling. A brass or iron button with a flat disc on one side and a wasted button on the other, was slipped through the slits in the leather and aligned with the holes. Tension on the sling kept the button from slipping out. On the majority of the early pattern rifles, the top swivel was permanently attached to the top barrel band. There is evidence, however, to support the fact that some percentage of the early sling swivels were in fact attached to the sling. The swivel contained a hook, which could be slipped in and out of the space between the barrel band tightening flange and hooked over the center of the tightening screw. This made it in effect, a quick detachable swivel arrangement. It is not known, however, how many of this type were produced and over what length of time. It is also not clear if this was an officially approved variation or a field expedient design.

The “Guards” Rifle

There exists a second type of early sling swivel arrangement, which cannot be accurately identified at the current time. It has on occasion been described as a “Guards” rifle. I cannot find evidence to prove it’s actual issue in large numbers to any particular troops, let alone the Russian Guard Regiments. The rifle does exist and I have seen several examples in museums in Europe. The few survivors may indicate that these rifles were from an experimental issue or from troop trials. Once again, this is pure speculation. The swivels on these rifles are found on the bottom barrel band and under the rear of the butt, just ahead of the buttplate. The swivel attachment is located on the underside of the butt and is held in place with two screws, which anchor a swivel plate recessed into the wood. The inletting on the examples I have seen is very well done and the metal to wood fit is excellent. They do not appear to be an expedient wartime alteration. More research needs to be done on this subject before this rifle can be accurately identified in terms of it’s original intended use or issue.

Sling Loops

The Three-Line-Cossack, Dragoon and Cavalry Models, like the earlier Berdan II equivalents, were from the very beginning, equipped with sling slots rather than swivels. The most common type of sling issued with the slotted weapons has come to be called the “dog collar’” sling by today’s collectors. This type of sling employs two short (lengths vary, but most are approximately 6” to 10” in length) belts, generally equipped with roller buckles, which pass through the slot at either end of the stock. The loop formed by the “dog collar”, in turn, provides the two attachment point at either end of the stock, which the buckle and button type of sling can then be attached to. In this manner, the earlier pattern Russian buckle and button slings could be utilized with rifles equipped with slotted stocks.

Lesser Known Sling Patterns

Despite the widespread use of the “dog collar”or sling loop type of sling, there existed a variety of documented variations, which were used by the Russians both before and during WWI. Please bear with me as the terminology for some of the various patterns are my own. For the majority of the rather unusual and obscure types of slings I have encountered, there is no official nomenclature of which I am aware. I have attempted to use descriptive phrases, which are easily recognized once they have been compared to the accompanying photographs.

Split Tip Knotted Slings

One of the simplest designs can be seen in the collection of the Royal Belgian Army Museum in Brussels, Belgium. I know of no known official name for this sling, so I will simply call it the knotted pattern. The sling consists of a long leather or canvas strap, which has two tips which are thin enough to be passed through the slots of the stock. Both ends of the sling have been split lengthwise for a distance of approximately 3” to 5” from the tip. The sling tips are then passed through the sling slots on the side of the weapon opposite the bolt. They are then pulled through the slot to the other side and tied in a double knot. The knots prevent the tips from being pulled back through the slots. The net effect is that while this sling type is not adjustable, it makes a very simple and effective side mount sling arrangement for cavalry carbines as well as both the Cossack and Dragoon models. Slung in this fashion, the weapon rides on the back with the bolt side away from the body.

Dumbbell Slings

Next on the list is what I refer to as the “dumbbell” style sling. The tips of this version are made from very thin material whether constructed from cloth or leather. The tips of the sling are doubled over and then passed through the slots on the stock. The tip of the sling remains on the same side of the stock as the sling. Only the loop made by doubling over the sling tip passes through the slot. When the loop appears on the other side, a small “dumbbell shaped piece of leather is passed through the loop to function as a retaining bar, which prevents the loop from pulling back through the slot when pressure is applied. As with the knotted sling, by running the loops into the slots from the side opposite the bolt, the sling becomes in effect, side mounted.

Slots with Swivels

In addition to the early pattern swivels which were mounted on the magazine well and top barrel band of the pre 1908 rifles, sling swivels were also used by the Russians within the sling slots of post 1908 Three-Line-Rifles, Cossack, Dragoon and Cavalry carbines. For many years, collectors in the U.S. have wrongfully believed that ALL metal swivels, which are found mounted within the slots of original Russian rifles, were added in Finland. It is understandable why this myth became fact to a large number of collectors. So many of the rifles that came into the U.S. from Finland had seen service all over Europe during WWI! Naturally, collectors assumed that all of the variations, which arrived from Finland, were attributable to the Finns. This is definitely not the case! While there is a pattern of swivel, which was designed and introduced by the Finns, it is very specific in design. These swivels appear to be cast, as there is a visible parting line, which runs around the top and bottom of the midpoint of the swivel. The Finnish swivels are made in separate sizes for the top and bottom slots. They are mounted via a screw, which passes through the swivel on one end and screws through the threaded tip on the other side of the slot. These swivels follow the contour of the stock very closely around the side of the stock, at which point they then turn away from the stock to form a bearing surface for the standard 1 1/2” wide Finnish sling.

From here, the use of metal swivels mounted within sling slots becomes difficult to follow and verify. This is due to the fact that so many of the surviving rifles saw service with so many different armies! The identification of each type of swivel, when it was added to the rifle and by whom, becomes very difficult. There is ample photographic evidence to confirm the use of metal swivels mounted through the sling slots by Russia, Serbia, Germany and Austria during WWI. In addition, so many weapons were captured and reissued by both sides during the war! It is impossible to tell if the swivels in the slots of the rifles which, are found in wartime photographs, were added by the army shown in the photo, or by someone else from whom the weapon was subsequently captured! Despite this, there are some styles of metal and wire swivel, which can be traced to particular countries, based on combined evidence provided in the photographic record and on rifles found in both private collections and museums. At this point, it will perhaps be easier to deal with the identifiable patterns on a country by country basis.

Wire Swivels

One of the most valuable research tools which survives today regarding the weapons used both before and during WWI, is the huge number of battlefield and studio photographs. There exists a surprising number of photographs of Russian troops armed with slotted Three-Line-Rifles which very clearly have swivels mounted through the slots in the stocks. The only problem with the photographs, in most instances, is that they are not clear enough to identify the specific type of manufacturing used to produce the swivel. However, individual specimens found in the museums in Russia and Western Europe show most of these swivels to be constructed with heavy gauge wire, which has usually been bent into a rectangular swivel within the sling slots of the weapon. Interestingly, this type of swivel does not appear in any photo I have seen, which was taken during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. Based on this and knowledge of the supply problems which plagued the Russian Army throughout the war, I think it is safe to assume that the use of wire for the production of sling swivels was an expediency born of necessity in the early days of WWI. Wire swivels could be produced in the field by Regimental armorers with nothing more than a pair of wire cutters and pliers. The obvious advantage is that the early pattern Russian buckle and button slings as well as any pattern of sling, which was captured from the armies of Germany, Austria, Turkey or Bulgaria, could be utilized with slotted Russian rifles through the simple addition of wire sling swivels. No other type of metal swivel other than those fashioned from cut wire can be positively attributed to the Russians.

Russian “Ersatz” Slings

Although the term ersatz is German in origin, it’s translation as “substitute standard” can easily be applied to the various makeshift slings that the bedraggled Russian troops resorted to when standard issue or captured enemy slings were not available. In both Russia and Europe, there exist countless varieties of slings, which were fashioned from whatever was available at the time. These slings take many forms and shapes, including but not limited to, cloth slings which are passed through either swivels or slots and then stitched together. Leather slings are encountered made in the same fashion. The use of cord or rope is documented which was simply tied and knotted to the swivels or through the slot. On other rifles, cord or rope was tied around the stock wrist and forearm. These are but a few of the wide variety of solutions to the dismal system of supply that the Russian soldiers were forced to endure.


The Austro-Hungarian Army faced the Russian Army across thousands of miles of forest, mountains and swamps. The bitter fighting which began in 1914 saw the fortunes of both sides shift back and forth across the entire length of the Eastern Front. The war in the East took on a different complexion than in the West. The front lines were never deadlocked in the same static manner, which became synonymous with the Western Front. As was the case with nearly every army that took the field in 1914, the arms production of the Austro-Hungarian Empire could never keep up with the demands of mobilization. As a result, the Austrians were forced to issue large numbers of captured Russian rifles to their own troops. Weapons collected from the battlefield were sent to the rear areas where they were sorted by type and then sent on to one of the many arsenals or arms depots which were equipped to inspect, repair and when necessary, alter the weapons before they could be reissued to Austro-Hungarian troops.

While a percentage of the rifles captured from Russia were actually rechambered for the Austrian 8x50mmR service cartridge, the bulk of them were either reissued as they were captured or they had the sling swivel configuration altered to accept the standard Austro-Hungarian sling. This necessitated the addition of a rather large rectangular swivel attached in one of several ways, to the butt of the stock. The standard Austro-Hungarian sling was produced with a leather loop attached to one end of the sling and a tongue and roller buckle arrangement at the other end. The tongue was approximately 5” long while the buckle that it engaged was located approximately 2” from the base of the tongue. The end of the sling with the tongue and buckle arrangement was passed through the swivel on the butt of the rifle and then back through the leather loop. The tongue was then passed through the top swivel and secured through the buckle. The leather loop provided a sliding adjustment to the sling’s length while the roller buckle provided the static attachment to the swivel mounted to the forearm of the weapon. As a result of this sling pattern, the bottom swivel on Austro-Hungarian weapons was quite large, as it had to allow the thickness of the leather sling, plus the additional thickness of the roller buckle, to pass through the bottom swivel. The top swivel was of the usual thickness as found on most rifles of the period as it was designed to only accommodate the thickness of the leather tongue. Rifles that were reissued without alteration would have been issued with one of the various patterns of Russian slings. In order to use the Austro-Hungarian sling, a new rear swivel had to be adapted to the rifle. The order, issued in November of 1914, which approved this work to the sling arrangement on captured rifles, still exists in the Austrian Archives.

Screw Post with Swivel

The rework to the sling configuration, which was approved in November of 1914, was performed by many different facilities and over the course of the war. These alterations were accomplished in several different manners. The earliest form of conversion utilized a simple wood screw post, which supported a block of metal, which was drilled out to accept a simple wire loop. This was screwed into the underside of the butt 2” to 3” forward of the buttplate. The location of this new swivel on the underside of the butt made it necessary to add a new swivel to the forearm. Otherwise, the distance between swivels as well as the balance of the weapon when slung, would prove to be unacceptable. The new upper swivel was rectangular in shape and was fashioned out of bent wire. It was mounted through a hole drilled through the forearm several inches in front of the bottom barrel band. This conversion was performed on rifles that were originally equipped with slots or Russian type swivels. Many of the early pattern Three-Line-Rifles altered in this fashion, still retain the original Russian swivel mounted on the front of the magazine housing. This type of alteration is unmistakably Austro-Hungarian. Slight variation in this type of rear swivel may be encountered due to the variety of reclamation depots and arsenals, which performed this work over the course of the war.

Wire Swivels

The Austro-Hungarian alterations to captured weapons were carried out throughout the war. In addition to the above-mentioned method, weapons were converted for Austro-Hungarian use through the addition of simple wire swivels as well. Whether or not this type of alteration was in use throughout the war or only in the later stages when the production of the special rear swivel might have been considered a waste of manufacturing time, is impossible to tell. When wire was used for both swivels, the rear swivel that was added was of the same construction as the front swivel. Holes were drilled through both the butt and the forearm of the stock and crude wire rectangular swivels were bent into place. The rear swivel is generally deeper in form than the top swivel. If the rifle contained slots, the wire swivels were sometimes, but not always placed within the slots. Slotted stocks are sometimes encountered with holes drilled through which were used for the placement of this type of wire swivels. Once again, this was done to accommodate the Austro-Hungarian sling.


In the opening months of WWI, the stunning German victory at Tannenburg, left the German Army with over a quarter of a million captured Russian Three-Line-Rifles. When the war did not end in the three month time frame that everyone in Europe had expected, the Germans found themselves without enough rifle to equip the millions of men who were mobilized for the war effort. They too, were forced to issue captured enemy rifles to both first and second line troops in the early days of the war. As time passed, these weapons were relegated to the rear echelon troops, as more standard German rifles became available. Like the Austro-Hungarians, many of these rifles were issued as they were captured without alteration. Unlike the Austro-Hungarians, the German regulation sling could be used without alteration to the existing sling swivels as found on the early version of the Three-Line-Rifle. Many German troops appear in photos using the early (magazine housing/top barrel band) Russian swivels with German or Russian slings. However, the Germans did use other methods of attachment for their own regulation slings.

Bent Wire Top Swivels

The German garrison of occupied Brussels was equipped for much of the war with captured Three-Line-Rifles. Large numbers of Three-Line-Rifles were also issued to Naval units throughout the war. The well-known photograph of a detachment of sailors from the I. Matrosen-Division taken in Kiel in 1918, shows 15 German sailors equipped with captured Russian rifles. All of the rifles are equipped with German bayonets and all of the rifles utilize the early style sling swivels arrangement with the bottom swivel located on the magazine housing and the top swivel attached to the top barrel band. The top swivels, however, are not permanently attached to the barrel band. They are of the hook style, which could be attached or removed by slipping the hook over or off, of the tightening screw on the top band. I have seen this type of swivel in the Royal Belgian Army Museum and have one in my collection as well. The Museum in Brussels has a large number of the rifles abandoned by the retreating Germans when they pulled out of Brussels in 1918. There are a number rifles equipped with this type of swivel in the Museums possession. The swivels are formed with a single strand of heavy-duty wire, which is formed into a hook, and then bent around to form the swivel with the end opposite the hook butted up against the hook to complete the loop which holds the sling. The question is, is this a German swivel, or is it the early Russian type, which was attached to the sling rather than permanently to the top barrel band? To date, I have not confirmed this exact type in any photos of Russian soldiers. We must assume, for the time being, that this was a German alteration. However, if this is the case, why do the Russian top barrel bands lack swivels when the rifles obviously are not equipped with slots? More study of this type of swivel is required and if there is anyone out there who can shed some light on this subject, I would love to hear from you!

Slots with Swivels

The Germans utilized special swivels, which were purpose built for mounting through the sling slots or holes drilled in the stocks on post 1908 Russian Three-Line-Rifles. This particular type of swivel has been found in a variety of surviving German capture marked weapons and is without question, a German addition. They are closer in style to the later Finnish swivels in that they fit perfectly over the slots and are drilled and threaded to accept a round headed screw. These swivels are rectangular in cross section and have a flat round section at each end of the swivel through which the screw passes. They have been found in both the top and bottom slots of German capture marked rifles. They also appear mounted in a hole drilled through the forearm of early type, capture marked, Three-Line-Rifles which lack sling slots.

71 Jaeger Rear Swivel

In recent months, small numbers of German altered Three-Line-Rifles have surfaced out of the recent shipment of Mosin Nagants which have come into the US from either Bulgaria or Romania. There were a dozen or so of these rifles among the 10,000 or so rifles imported by Century Arms. Some, but not all of these rifles, bear German capture marks. What they all have in common, is that they have been adapted to accept a German Ersatz bayonet through the addition of a Gew 98 H-type barrel band and nosecap with bayonet bar. A few of these rifles still retain the original German sling swivel alteration which, was performed during the bayonet conversion. The top sling swivel is of the same type as is mentioned above. The bottom swivel, however, is identical to the swivel found mounted on the butt of the German Model 71 Jaeger Rifle. One of these rifles in my collection has the Jaeger swivel mounted on the butt, but has a bent wire swivel mounted through the hole in the forearm rather than one of the screw style swivels. The remaining rifles of this type in my collection have all been plugged in the exact same locations where these swivels were originally mounted. There is little doubt that these rifles were all converted in the same manner and most likely at the same time, and in the same depot.

Serbia and Montenegro

The rifles supplied by Russia to both Serbia and Montenegro before and during WWI consisted of both the early and later types of Model 1891 Three-Line-Rifle. Due to the fact that so few of the Balkans issued rifles have survived in identifiable form, the primary source of evidence for the type of sling arrangements used by the Serbs and Montenegrins comes to us through photographs. As would be expected, most photographs of the troops of both armies show the use of one or the other of the standard types of Russian sling attachment. There are, however, a few photos, which have come to light, which show metal swivels mounted either directly through the stock or through the slots in the stocks. The photos are inconclusive other than to confirm that a variation beyond the top barrel band/mag-housing or “dog collar” type of sling attachment did exist. Once again, whether these alterations were of Serb or Montenegrin origin cannot be proved at this time. The rifles in the few photos that exist might have been captured from Austro-Hungarian troops, which had been supplied with rifles captured from the Russians! If this were the case, then the alterations pictured in the photos could be of Austro-Hungarian origin. More research needs to be done in this area, although the amount of source material is very limited at best!

The Ottoman Empire

The Turks acquired thousands of Model 1891 Three-Line-Rifles from the Russians during the course of the war. Little information has made it’s way out of Turkey either in the form of surviving examples of the Model 91s used by the Turks, or in the quantity of photographs which have been published in the West. I have two rifles in my collection which are Turkish marked, however, nothing has been done to them other than the application of Turkish markings on the stock of one and the renumbering in Turkish Arabic of the rear sight of the other. Both rifles are equipped with sling slots. The captured weapons, as used by the Ottoman Turks during WWI, deserve more research than the subject has received to date. I hope to do additional study in this area in the near future.


In closing, there are a few words of caution that all of us, as collectors, need to consciously remember from time to time. WWI was a constantly flowing, evolutionary current event for those people who lived through it or were alive to read about it in the newspapers of the day. Real events of this nature, due not occur in clean and neat subdivided categories. One of the pitfalls that many collectors slip into from time to time is to try to ascribe order to the chaos that was WWI, or any other historical period for that matter. Dates of issue, patterns of equipment, model introductions, weapon alterations, etc. etc., the list is mind boggling, did not take place simultaneously on every front, in every unit, or for that matter, among every soldier in the same unit. While generalization makes our collecting and classifying easier, it oversimplifies greatly the wide degree of variation that existed in every aspect of the War. Keeping this in mind, this article can only ever hope to scratch the surface of the subject matter. At a time when the entire World was turned on it’s ear, anything that could have possibly been turned to an alternate use, most likely was. Keeping this in mind while doing everything from combing gunshows for that special find, to researching a particular weapon or unit history, will serve as a constant reminder that there is more out there that we don’t know, than what we do know! I hope this article is of use to you and that it might serve as a jumping off point for someone else’s research.

I would like to thank my usual group of coconspirators! Both Kevin Carney and Karl-Heinz Wrobel helped me immensely with this work. They are both very knowledgeable and have contributed greatly in so many areas of my research. Tuco, once again! Without his efforts, none of us would be here exchanging information and building friendships! My apologies for some of the photographs as they were taken at times and places when I had no idea that they would ever be seen outside of my reference material. Many were taken in museums without a flash while others were taken in museum basements, which if you have ever been in one, are singularly like dungeons! I am always pleased to hear from everyone out there regarding additional information or comments. Please forward them to the address that Tuco provides. As always, any mistakes are my own! But with the help of JohnWall’s proof reading, if there are any, they will be in the content of my research itself, rather than in the grammar or spelling of the article! John must have been an English Professor in one of his past lives!

John P. Sheehan March 1st, 2000

With Credits To Kevin Carney - Owner North China Arms

Site Updates and News

©2019 Trademarks by permission subject to their respective copyright(s)