Recently, I have taken in a new protege in the world of shooting. Whenever he wants a new gun or has a question about something, he comes to me.
Lately, he has been bugging me about buying a "sniper" rifle. He said he wanted to get a Mosin Nagant 91/30. So, I said okay. Then he told me he wanted to scope it, (with those cheap rear sight mounts) and shoot long range (600+ yards).
Now, it may be my personal bias getting the better of me (I used to hate Mosins, now I am indifferent but love their value). I am telling him that he will be very disappointed. Shooting corrosive surplus, with a non accurized MN will yield sub par results. By the time he gets the rifle shooting the way he wants, it will be a lot of smithing time and money. He is a really small fella and the MN is a pretty big/awkward gun, I think stock fit will be very poor for him, despite accuracy discrepancies.
Another thought, I just hate it when people hack up a piece of history or modify it to try and fill a role it will struggle to fulfill. I also don't understand why some people feel the need to scope everything.
Here is what I told him: He is better off buying a modern hunting rifle, even if it costs $150-250 more than a MN. He wants to start reloading anyway, so the benefits of cheap non reloadable surplus is pointless.
I think he should just buy a Marlin X7 Varmint in .308. Easier to scope, has a heavy barrel, stock will fit better, more accurate, better trigger, etc...
I also think he should buy a Mosin to practice with open sights at 300-400 yards. When he is ringing the gong with that setup, he should have no problem moving into the world of scopes, better gear/ammo and longer ranges.
I also told him to read articles on demigodllc. Since Zak Smith is a darned genius.
tl;dr
I think the scoped Mosin Nagant 91/30 would be a poor choice for 600+ yard shooting, given the better options out there and handloading. Plus it is messing with a war relic. Is my opinion correct?
Lately, he has been bugging me about buying a "sniper" rifle. He said he wanted to get a Mosin Nagant 91/30. So, I said okay. Then he told me he wanted to scope it, (with those cheap rear sight mounts) and shoot long range (600+ yards).
Now, it may be my personal bias getting the better of me (I used to hate Mosins, now I am indifferent but love their value). I am telling him that he will be very disappointed. Shooting corrosive surplus, with a non accurized MN will yield sub par results. By the time he gets the rifle shooting the way he wants, it will be a lot of smithing time and money. He is a really small fella and the MN is a pretty big/awkward gun, I think stock fit will be very poor for him, despite accuracy discrepancies.
Another thought, I just hate it when people hack up a piece of history or modify it to try and fill a role it will struggle to fulfill. I also don't understand why some people feel the need to scope everything.
Here is what I told him: He is better off buying a modern hunting rifle, even if it costs $150-250 more than a MN. He wants to start reloading anyway, so the benefits of cheap non reloadable surplus is pointless.
I think he should just buy a Marlin X7 Varmint in .308. Easier to scope, has a heavy barrel, stock will fit better, more accurate, better trigger, etc...
I also think he should buy a Mosin to practice with open sights at 300-400 yards. When he is ringing the gong with that setup, he should have no problem moving into the world of scopes, better gear/ammo and longer ranges.
I also told him to read articles on demigodllc. Since Zak Smith is a darned genius.
tl;dr
I think the scoped Mosin Nagant 91/30 would be a poor choice for 600+ yard shooting, given the better options out there and handloading. Plus it is messing with a war relic. Is my opinion correct?