Articles

Historical Articles

Evolution of the Dragoon

Dragoon Type I - Photo by Vic Thomas

The basis for the 91/30 was the Dragoon Rifle Model 1891. The Dragoon was proposed as early as 1891 as a rifle to replace the aging Berdan Dragoon in use by mounted troops in the Imperial army. It should be mentioned that the Czar was a cavalry soldier and was very attuned to the needs of the mounted fighting force. An official decree was issued by the Imperial government as early as 14 December 1891 calling for a replacement for the older Berdan rifles. Prototypes and trials rifles were almost immediately produced and the first Mosin Dragoon was introduced in 1893. Wrobel refers to this as the Dragoon Type I [*1.] He observed in his research that there were some fundamental differences between the early Dragoon and the Dragoon that immediately proceeded the 91/30. The Type I did not posses a cross bolt, retained a finger rest and may not have had a hand guard -at least in the very beginning. The preceding Berdan Dragoon did not have a hand guard and neither did the M91. Initial production of the Dragoon Type I was done at Izhevsk.

The First Model had three distinct types:

Type I Features

The Type I closely resembled a shorter version of the Model 1891 and was fielded in 1893 as mentioned above. It did not have a hand guard or cross bolt. The Type I had the finger rest behind the trigger guard. The Type I was produced in 1893 and 1894 by Izhevsk.

Type II Features

The Type II saw the removal of the finger rest and the addition of a hand guard that wrapped around the rear sight. It still did not have a cross bolt. Production ran from 1893 to 1906 by Izhevsk.

Type III Features

The stock was about 7mm shorter. Produced from 1906 to 1910 by Izhevsk.

Second Model - Dragoon Type II

In 1910, the Dragoon Type II [*2 ] was introduced. The Type II saw changes in the hand guard and improved sites with the rear site being designed by Kornovalov. The site redesign was in response to  the introduction of the "Spitzer" or M1909 7.62x54r round and a need to reinforce the site ladder which had a habit of getting knocked out of true and the repair had to be conducted at depot level which was costly and time consuming.  The rear sight improvements did not take place until 1912, two years after the Model 1891 had received the improved sight. Later on the hand guard was changed as it was shortened to end just before the front of the rear site base. A cross bolt was also added to accommodate the use of the new round. Wrobel describes this second model as having 4 variations. 

1st Variant

The Spitzer round is introduced which led to the rear sight being replaced in 1912. A cross bolt was added to compensate for the recoil of the improved round. The rear sight was marked in gradients up to 3200 arshins. The hand guard still wrapped completely around the rear sight base. Produced from 1910 to 1917 by Izhevsk.

2nd Variant

The hand guard was shortened to wrap around the front of the rear sight base but not the sides and back like the previous models. This was due to the older version being prone to breaking easily and being expensive to produce. Produced from 1917 to 1922 by Izhevsk and Tula.

3rd Variant

Hand guard was changed from a more rounded shape to a flatter shape on top and fit lower on the rear sight base. Produced from 1922 to 1926 by Izhevsk and Tula.

4th Variant

The hand guard assumes the shape of the later 91/30 which ends forward of the rear sight base. Produced from 1927 to 1930.*

The Second Model Dragoon In Detail

Second Model 3rd Variant Dragoon

Note The presence of a cross bolt.

Improved Kornovalov sight

Cross bolt added

Solid steel barrel band retainer spring and heavy barrel band

Blade front sight

Typical Markings - Note the early Izhevsk "Bow and Arrow" arsenal mark

Top view of rear sight - note the Type II hand guard

Evolution of the 91/30

Type III with round receiver and improved rear sight

As early as 1922, the Soviet government began to think about a standard infantry rifle that was more modernized and suitable for issue to all of the services. The early thinking used the Dragoon as a standard. The reason for this was that they saw the Americans and English use of shorter rifles during the First World War and saw that this set a new standard. The dilemma for the Soviets was that they were tooled up for the Mosin and had a sizable inventory of M1891's that they were reluctant to just scrap. The Artillery Board used the Dragoon as the basis for their modernization program and developed a set of standards for the new service rifle to meet. 

The first trials rifles were fielded in 1927 which were basically improved Dragoons. These rifles served two purposes - to transition to the full implementation of the 91/30 and to experiment with ways to utilize the existing stocks of Dragoon components. The first priority was the adaptation of a new rear sight. The goal was to produce a site better matched to the modern ammo that wasn't as prone to costly repairs as the old one. The adaptation of the metric system also dictated a change. Along with changing the rear site it was recognized that a new front site was needed as well. Again this was due to the ballistics of the Spitzer round.

In 91/30 a final decision was made to implement the new service rifle. Over the course of the next 6 to 8 years, that standardized service rifle went through about three iterations as the development goals were achieved.

This is where I want to spend a little time to address those variants because this is what we are seeing on the market today. Wrobel identifies 3 Types. Since the official start date of the 91/30 is 1930, there was some overlap between the end of production for the Dragoon and the Type I [3*] 91/30. Given the characteristics of the Type I and the low production numbers of the Dragoon between 1930 and 1932, one might assume that activity at the arms manufacturers  was slow. However Wrobel mentions that there was a program to modernize the Dragoon. Combine that with the need to retool for the production of the later 91/30 , it's possible that production was running at a blistering pace and confusion was reigning supreme. Many authors note that production records for this period are rather spotty and in some cases non-existent. 

Type I 91/30

The Type I was in effect a Dragoon receiver and barrel with the improved rear site added. The stock was changed to use pressed in metal inserts for the sling slots. The stock also retained the Dragoon steel barrel band retainer and heavier barrel bands. The blade front site was retained until 1931 and '32. The spring steel barrel bands were held together with a rivet and were prone to breakage and were obviously costly to replace. These were used up until about 1934. The spring steel barrel band retainer was introduced in '34 as well. This replaced the solid steel barrel band retainer from the dragoon. The Type I retained the hex receiver of the Dragoon up until it was replaced by the Type III. Wrobel cites the end of production for the Type I as being in 1931 or '32. He also carefully points out that construction of 91/30's using Dragoon parts continued on until 1944 and points out that there were examples of hex receiver 19/30's produced that year.

Improved rear sight

Type II 91/30

The Type II featured a shorter stock, improved barrel bands and band retainers and sported a higher (stacked) blade front site. The type II was phased out in 1933.

Improved barrel bands and band retainers

Stacked front sight

Type III 91/30

The Type III saw the introduction of the globe and post front site and later in 1936, the round receiver. This is final configuration of the 91/30 and changed very little up through the Second World War. The changes made then were a result of expediting the production of receivers by leaving the left receiver wall higher without the deep scallop and squaring off the rear the receiver back by the tang.

Globe and post front sight assembly

Round receiver

The Converted Dragoon?

Wrobel pointed out that there were three types of 91/30 distinguished by their features but those distinctions are blurred somewhat if you go back and revisit the period of roughly 1923 through 1933. It seems that there was a real push to get the 91/30 into production. A careful reading shows that there were efforts made to modernize the Dragoon.

I submit that there should be an additional type that is now commonly called the Dragoon Conversion. A large number of recent imports feature the hex receiver and some even retained the Dragoon stocks. However they were fitted with the modern sights, updated band springs and retainers and many have had the sling slots replaced with the pressed in sleeves or half-sleeves. I believe these were part of a deliberate refurbishment program that ran from 1932 through the end of W.W.II. It makes solid sense when you look at the economics and political considerations. The most costly and time consuming part of a rifle's construction is the receiver and barrel. Both require some level of precision machining and the receiver must be fitted with many separate parts - trigger group, extractor/interrupter, magazine and bolt assembly. As the Great Patriotic War approached, the Soviet Union had their eyes solidly locked on potential threats from the West and the East. Japan's expansion into Manchuria and the build up of Hitler's army did not go unnoticed. Production numbers of 91/30's jumped from 154,000 in 1931 to 283,451 the next year and yet the 91/30 was not in it's finished form. Production ran over 200,000 until 1935 when it dropped in half. Suddenly it jumps back up to finish 1937 at over 500,000 and climbed steadily after that through 1943. The round receiver and improved front sight was not introduced until 1936 so what was being produced in such large numbers in the preceding years?

It's my belief that those years accounted for what the majority of people call "Converted Dragoons" found on the market today. These were constructed to consume the surplus of older parts and to free up the lines for the manufacture of the newer receivers. The term "Converted Dragoons" isn't really as accurate as calling them "Transition 91/30's". They don't really hold to the well packaged description of the Type I & II or early Type III.  To my way of thinking a "Converted Dragoon" would have to retain a majority of it's original parts meaning the original receiver and barrel, stock and at least one of the Dragoon site configurations as described by Wrobel when he wrote about the late Dragoons prior to 1930. If it had an updated stock and sights and still retained a Dragoon receiver and barrel it would be considered a Transition 91/30. Otherwise it would fall into the Type I through III category.

Conclusion

Hopefully this article has served to put the 91/30's history into better perspective. What we know as the 91/30 was really a work in progress until the late 30's. It's lineage from that of the Dragoon is not neatly separated. It would appear that the Soviets weren't really prepared for it's production in it's final form and used the period between 1930 and 1936 or '37 to both exhaust their existing stocks of components and to build up the tool and production capability to produce the late 91/30. Those rifles constructed between 1930 and '37 can be better described as Transition 91/30's where a Converted Dragoon would be more appropriate for a rifle that retains a Dragoon receiver, barrel, stock and at least one original site. Between the two extremes of Transition and Converted you have the Type I through III. You should be able to more accurately type your 91/30 with this information. The key factor in determining the "type" is not dates but configuration. This might be confusing but if you remember that the Soviets were recycling their inventory of Dragoons between 1930 and 1935, you will have a clearer prospective.

1 & 2 - Wrobel's Type 1 and Type 2 designation is not an official Russian designation 3. - Again this designation is from Wrobel and not an official Soviet designator My thanks to Karl-Heinz Wrobel for his pointing out a couple of minor technical errors and use of his photo. Also I would like to thank "skurt1" for his contribution of the Dragoon photos. Thanks Kurt!

Page Up