The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Hello
I have used both the PE and PU.
I found that the early version of the PU with scope suited my needs better, I prefer a moving reticle with post and rail. The later scopes are supposed to be SVT copies with a fixed reticle but have a thin post and rail with wide gap, I am not that keen on them. Not had a PE scope for a while I found them to be of excellent quality "But Heavy". Quality was very good.
I recently had a chance to compare mine with the latest copies coming from Poland, China, and Canada
and they were C***. The USA mounts are excellent, but the latest scopes seem a little lacking compared to the early variants.
that's only my view though.

SVT PU scope also has a moving reticle and there is no difference dimensionally between a SVT or Mosin PU reticle, on genuine original scopes that is.

Is your PE scope an original?.

I have a rare 1940-dated SVT PU scope that was produced at the NKV Plant No.357 "Progress" in Leningrad.PU production started in Leningrad in November 1940 and ran until August 1941 when the Plant was evacuated due to the Siege of Leningrad and was re-established in Omsk

A total of 15011 1940-dated "Progress" PU scopes were produced, only around 3% of total PU scope production.The vast majority were recalibrated for use on Mosins by having the BDC elevation turret drum changed but my example slipped the net and is unmodified.

Hello
Thanks for the update.
But the information on the reproduction SVT scope supplied by Accumounts is fixed reticle and has a wide gap on the post and rail.

Mauserbill wrote:Hello
Thanks for the update.
But the information on the reproduction SVT scope supplied by Accumounts is fixed reticle and has a wide gap on the post and rail.

That is because the Accumounts scope is reproduction.....as I said it is a moving reticle on original wartime Soviet scopes.

One of the reasons the Accumounts reproduction scopes have a fixed reticle is because a lot of folks in the West seem to struggle when it comes to zeroing scopes with a moving reticle as with the majority of Western made scopes it is the image that moves.

Zeroing a repro PU scope with a fixed reticle can sometimes be a problem especially if the rifle is to be used at long range as on an original Soviet made PU the reticle sits quite high in the field of view when viewed through the scope, this ensures that the BDC turret doesn't run out of travel as the range is increased.

As much as I hate to say this an original Soviet made PU scope and mount can be bought for about the same money as a reproduction so why fit a repro one?.

On the subject of reproduction scopes.....why do the makers insist on marking them with "original" dates, makers marks and even in some cases Arsenal refurb marks!.Why not mark them with the logo of the company that actually makes them and a relevant year of production, as marking them the same as wartime originals fuels the trade in fake sniper rifles sold at a premium and dupes the unwary.I have seen dealers selling Mosins with clearly repro scopes/mounts with either no distinction between whether it is genuine or not being made to those that advertise clear fakes as a "genuine original sniper"......it's amazing how many pre-1942 "original Mosin Nagant PU sniper rifles" are out there!

snayperskaya wrote:

Mauserbill wrote:Hello
Thanks for the update.
But the information on the reproduction SVT scope supplied by Accumounts is fixed reticle and has a wide gap on the post and rail.

That is because the Accumounts scope is reproduction.....as I said it is a moving reticle on original wartime Soviet scopes.

One of the reasons the Accumounts reproduction scopes have a fixed reticle is because a lot of folks in the West seem to struggle when it comes to zeroing scopes with a moving reticle as with the majority of Western made scopes it is the image that moves.

Zeroing a repro PU scope with a fixed reticle can sometimes be a problem especially if the rifle is to be used at long range as on an original Soviet made PU the reticle sits quite high in the field of view when viewed through the scope, this ensures that the BDC turret doesn't run out of travel as the range is increased.

As much as I hate to say this an original Soviet made PU scope and mount can be bought for about the same money as a reproduction so why fit a repro one?.

On the subject of reproduction scopes.....why do the makers insist on marking them with "original" dates, makers marks and even in some cases Arsenal refurb marks!.Why not mark them with the logo of the company that actually makes them and a relevant year of production, as marking them the same as wartime originals fuels the trade in fake sniper rifles sold at a premium and dupes the unwary.I have seen dealers selling Mosins with clearly repro scopes/mounts with either no distinction between whether it is genuine or not being made to those that advertise clear fakes as a "genuine original sniper"......it's amazing how many pre-1942 "original Mosin Nagant PU sniper rifles" are out there!

Gotta agree there, by all means make it looks the same but don’t try and pass it off as something it’s not