Cosmoline
Member
"sucked bad" in what way? Rough machining marks on the receivers? You haven't identified any specific flaws. What is it the makers were doing or not doing that you think made them substandard?
For those who don't think Mosins are accurate..
- Thread starter Cosmoline
- Start date
- Status
Ash
Member
I would love to have it pointed out what design characteristics make the Mosin inferior to the other rifles as a marshal arm. The M91/30 has a rear sight equal to the Mauser and better than the combat sight on the #4 Enfield, the receiver is a split bridge, sure, but in an open sight infantry rifle, that is of no relevence (it certainly does not make the Mosin weaker). The rimmed case is a handicap and would be a jam-o-matic in a Mauser, but it works fine in the Mosin (and the Krag & Enfields, as well). The stocks are no less usable than the Swedish or Spanish Mausers or the Springfield (the sling arrangement is not as good as the Springfield, but the European armies did not treat the sling as anything other than a carry strap). The magazine protrudes from the bottom of the action, but so does the Enfield and Argentine/Belgian Mausers. None of the above indicates a weakness of the design or affect it's accuracy. The bayonet is archaic, but most bayos were little more than pokers (and few were decent combat knives). The safety can be tough, but that does not affect its shooting performance. There is nothing, design wise, that makes the Mosin inferior to any other bolt-action gun issued in WWII, save for the sights used in some Springfields and #4 Enfields.
Some Mosins are miserable guns, but most are not. Most are generally on par with contemporary rifles. An M39 makes as good a combat rifle as any other bolt action in WWII, better than most. It is just as Mosin as a beaver-cheweed 1943 Izhevsk. And Soviet snipers were very, very effective with those Mosins (as were Finnish snipers).
I've been into Mosins since you could get New England Westinghouse M91's for $50, I have several Mausers (and have owned many more), Enfields, Carcanos, a Berthier and an Arisaka.
Of course, some folks might not be very good with a Mosin.
Ash
Some Mosins are miserable guns, but most are not. Most are generally on par with contemporary rifles. An M39 makes as good a combat rifle as any other bolt action in WWII, better than most. It is just as Mosin as a beaver-cheweed 1943 Izhevsk. And Soviet snipers were very, very effective with those Mosins (as were Finnish snipers).
I've been into Mosins since you could get New England Westinghouse M91's for $50, I have several Mausers (and have owned many more), Enfields, Carcanos, a Berthier and an Arisaka.
Of course, some folks might not be very good with a Mosin.
Ash
Cosmoline said:
Sucked as in poor metal to wood fit (bedding), sucked as in inconsistent throating, rough rifling, sucked as in poor bolt lockup, sucked as in warped barrels (the Finns noted this during adoption of their first Mosins).
I don't know how else to overstate the obvious here, I really don't. The Russians were loose and ragged with their manufacturing, at least at times. At some points in their runs, they were better than others. It's just not consistent, hence some were not good.
Ash said:
Speaking specifically of the Russian 91/30, clunky straight bolt action, poor sights, only 5 round capacity, poor trigger (generally).
Even as early as 1900, the No1 Enfield had surpassed the Mosin as a combat arm. Higher capacity, faster action (more aimed firepower), and more compact.
I love the Mosin for its strengths (rugged, simple, reliable), but it has obvious weaknesses compared to other arms issued during its span....especially by WWII.
Cosmoline
Member
swingset said:
All Russian and Soviet Mosins I've seen have had deep throats. CONSISTENTLY deep throats. The only ones I know of that don't are certain Finns such as the M-27 "F" chambers. The "D" chambers also have deep throats. Consistently.
I've seen many with WORN rifling, but never a minty bore with "rough" rifling.
Poor bolt lockup in what way? The design of the Mosin-Nagant features a somewhat loose bolt fit. It is SUPPOSED to be loose. What are you talking about?
Warped barrels I can't speak to. Only that I've never seen it. You apparently have, so maybe you could post the warped barrel Mosins you've seen. It should also be noted that ALL military rifles suffer a certain amount of warped barrels. Elmer Keith describes the methods he used to weed out warped barrels from rifles in our own arsenals, for example.
Cosmoline
Member
swingset said:
So let's see. Most Military Mausers also featured the "clunky" straight bolt action, similar tangent sights, 5 round capacity, and a primitive trigger. Are they inferior as well?
You also don't seem to understand the straight bolt handle or its use. Most shooters don't. If used properly it is every bit as fast as a bent bolt. The SMLE is marginally faster not because of its bent bolt handle but because it is cock-on-closing and has a trigger set closer to the knob.
SMLE's weigh about the same as a 91/30 and are all of four inches shorter in OAL. How much more "compact" is that?
You seem to favor the SMLE. I agree it has advantages, esp. in its capacity. But its two-piece stock make it inherently LESS accurate than a Mosin-Nagant. You certainly don't see too many winning military rifle competitions. Its balance is also markedly inferior to the 91/30 or even M-91.
rangerruck
Member
i gotta m38, that was unfired all numbers match, and i did the trigger washer job to it, then i did a bbl break in routine, then i treated the bore, bolt assy, action with moly fusion, and it is sub moa at 100 yds. you jsut have to be thorough and lucky really.
Jesus you're like a petulant 12 year old. I'm sick of arguing, sick of typing, sick of playing ping pong with you. Your mind is made up, and there's no winning this because you won't relent until you convince me that the Mosin is as good as its counterparts....or better.Cosmoline said:
I'll go ahead and agree (to shut you up) that the Mosin ranks #1 as the most well-crafted long arm EVER. Mmmkay?
It's also the most accurate, modern, and deliciously wonderful ergonomic thing the world has ever seen.
It will out shoot every No4 ever made, and their horrible 2-piece stocks that dominated Bisley for 40 years. It shatters the Swede in fit and finish. It decimates the 03A3 for feel and balance, it's awesome stubby straight bolt is so fast you can bump fire it.
Good god. You happy?
Cosmoline
Member
If you don't want to debate the merits of the Mosin-Nagant rifle, why did you post on this thread? And why do you keep losing your temper?
Ash
Member
The sights on the 91/30, m27, 28/30, m39, and the older dragoon are identical in design (save for the dragoon's arshin numbering) and function to the k98k Mauser (or all Mausers save for the German m98 in WWI) and in all cases can be adjusted as finely as the Mauser. The M39 and 28/30 can be adjusted even finer than any military Mauser.
The drawbacks of the 91/30, as you see them, are identical to the drawbacks on most Mausers. You can easliy point out that the SMLE's rear sight is better for marksmanship, or that the 1903 and M1917/P14 rifles had patently better rear sights. The standard flip combat sight on the #4 is inferior to the sights on a 91/30, though, and you seem to have no problem with that.
I think the real issue is that you don't care for the Mosin as a rifle. That is born out by the elements you have pointed out as weaknesses (as Ian Hogg doesn't like the Mosin, and chooses to point out what he believes as weaknesses while igoring the exact same elements in the Enfield) that are the same in rifles you do like. The thing is, you don't have to like it as a rifle. But many of your complaints can't be backed up in the light of day. There are Mosins that don't shoot, but it is silly to say most of them don't. That same argument was made by a generation of shooters and gun-writers about the various Mausers (and as in this case, they were wrong). The Bisley crowd HATED the SMLE and its varients for the longest time (hence the P14).
The truth is, all marshal arms in WWI and WWII, save for the Ross, which was not a good combat rifle, were good rifles with good accuracy. They were selected for various reasons, including national pride, but they were produced to certain accuracy standards. The Soviets, while a wicked government, did require their arms to be competent and capable of accuracy (their sniper's rifles came off the same assebly lines as their infantry rifles). Ditto for the Russians, Italians, Japanese, Finns, Americans, Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, etc, etc, etc. Even the Carcano carbine of WWII fame, with its fixed rear sight, was a capable combat arm, and was accurate as well.
You can state your preferences towards the Mosin, but have a care that you do not cloak them in the mists of facts which cannot be backed up.
Ash
The drawbacks of the 91/30, as you see them, are identical to the drawbacks on most Mausers. You can easliy point out that the SMLE's rear sight is better for marksmanship, or that the 1903 and M1917/P14 rifles had patently better rear sights. The standard flip combat sight on the #4 is inferior to the sights on a 91/30, though, and you seem to have no problem with that.
I think the real issue is that you don't care for the Mosin as a rifle. That is born out by the elements you have pointed out as weaknesses (as Ian Hogg doesn't like the Mosin, and chooses to point out what he believes as weaknesses while igoring the exact same elements in the Enfield) that are the same in rifles you do like. The thing is, you don't have to like it as a rifle. But many of your complaints can't be backed up in the light of day. There are Mosins that don't shoot, but it is silly to say most of them don't. That same argument was made by a generation of shooters and gun-writers about the various Mausers (and as in this case, they were wrong). The Bisley crowd HATED the SMLE and its varients for the longest time (hence the P14).
The truth is, all marshal arms in WWI and WWII, save for the Ross, which was not a good combat rifle, were good rifles with good accuracy. They were selected for various reasons, including national pride, but they were produced to certain accuracy standards. The Soviets, while a wicked government, did require their arms to be competent and capable of accuracy (their sniper's rifles came off the same assebly lines as their infantry rifles). Ditto for the Russians, Italians, Japanese, Finns, Americans, Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, etc, etc, etc. Even the Carcano carbine of WWII fame, with its fixed rear sight, was a capable combat arm, and was accurate as well.
You can state your preferences towards the Mosin, but have a care that you do not cloak them in the mists of facts which cannot be backed up.
Ash
jeremywills
Member
wow, what an interesting read here 
Being a Mosin fanboy I dont really want to add coals to the fire, and being that I have limited hands on experiences with them than you folks, I cant comment much. But a few things stick out at me in this whole saga thats being played out here.
You say you have had over a 100 of them. I wont argue that out of a hundred different rifles you would have a lot of hands on experience with them. You did say that some were good. So its just possible that you got a lot of the shot out ones?
If this were 1943 and you took every single flavor of the rifles mentioned in this thread and most have had very little to practically being unfired NIB would you still make the same claims about the Mosin? Or any of the others for that matter.
They were accurate enough out of the plant. I know that in 1943 if I was standing a hundred yards away from the muzzle end of a 7.62X54R barrel that was in front of a solider of the Red Army I would be very worried that a pieplate would be good enough from his point of view. They are accurate enough, provided someone has put some TLC into thiers and the particular gun in question hasn't been shot out. Supposedly the Finn reworks of the Russians were some of the best shooters, the Tikka Barrels are the "ones" to have if your a Mosin collector. Doesn't mean jack ???? when your in a pawnshop and see a Tikka barreled M91 and your all over it till you shine a bore light down that barrel and all you see is Corrosive hell In its day straight out of the Finns assembly line Ill bet it was a tack driver. Fast forward to 2006 and some idiot who neglected it and that all went out the window.
Then again, just my humble opinions, YMMV but most Mosins in thier prime were good enough. If the Russians were so bad at making Military weponary then then the US Govt. probably wasted everyones time with the whole Cold War thing. My 2 cents.
But thats the beauty of living in the United States. Each to his own opinions. Have a good day sir.
Being a Mosin fanboy I dont really want to add coals to the fire, and being that I have limited hands on experiences with them than you folks, I cant comment much. But a few things stick out at me in this whole saga thats being played out here.
You say you have had over a 100 of them. I wont argue that out of a hundred different rifles you would have a lot of hands on experience with them. You did say that some were good. So its just possible that you got a lot of the shot out ones?
If this were 1943 and you took every single flavor of the rifles mentioned in this thread and most have had very little to practically being unfired NIB would you still make the same claims about the Mosin? Or any of the others for that matter.
They were accurate enough out of the plant. I know that in 1943 if I was standing a hundred yards away from the muzzle end of a 7.62X54R barrel that was in front of a solider of the Red Army I would be very worried that a pieplate would be good enough from his point of view. They are accurate enough, provided someone has put some TLC into thiers and the particular gun in question hasn't been shot out. Supposedly the Finn reworks of the Russians were some of the best shooters, the Tikka Barrels are the "ones" to have if your a Mosin collector. Doesn't mean jack ???? when your in a pawnshop and see a Tikka barreled M91 and your all over it till you shine a bore light down that barrel and all you see is Corrosive hell
In its day straight out of the Finns assembly line Ill bet it was a tack driver. Fast forward to 2006 and some idiot who neglected it and that all went out the window.Then again, just my humble opinions, YMMV but most Mosins in thier prime were good enough. If the Russians were so bad at making Military weponary then then the US Govt. probably wasted everyones time with the whole Cold War thing. My 2 cents.
But thats the beauty of living in the United States. Each to his own opinions. Have a good day sir.
M.E.Eldridge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2005
- Messages
- 367
I really like Mosins and think they shoot great, have no major disadvantadges when campared to most other contemperary martial arms. However, my recent experience with the Enfield No.4 Mk.2 left me loving the sights and being a little cold towards the Mosin sights. I personally find them much easier to use.
My No.4 was slightly more accurate than my 91/30, but only by about a 1/8 of an inch, so no real biggie.
Also, I thought the dragoons and earlier models used a different rear side system than the later rifles. A kind of flip up things marked off in weird units. I saw one at a recent gunshow, but didn't pay much attention.
My No.4 was slightly more accurate than my 91/30, but only by about a 1/8 of an inch, so no real biggie.
Also, I thought the dragoons and earlier models used a different rear side system than the later rifles. A kind of flip up things marked off in weird units. I saw one at a recent gunshow, but didn't pay much attention.
Mosins
I have just been introduced t the world of Mosin's by a good friend of mine that seems to have one of everything. Well, that may not be accurate, but he has over 20 Mosin's. He has Tula's, and "B" barrel's and 44's and 91/30, and a matching number sniper and a couple of Sako's and on and on. More than I even can tell the difference. One thing I do know, I like shooting them. Some are very, very accurate on our 100 yard range. All the one's he has scoped are very accurate. Even with open sights and my tri-focals, they at least shoot into pie plates at 100 yards.
They are so much fun, that I sent for my C&R about a month ago and am waiting to get it soon. I did buy one 91/30, made in 1937 with all matching numbers for myself. I think it cost me 70 bucks with accessories and bayonet, leather bullet pouches, oil and solvent can, sling and bolt tool.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. when you can get all that and 880 rounds of ammo for less than a hundred bucks, what's not to like?
I have just been introduced t the world of Mosin's by a good friend of mine that seems to have one of everything.
Well, that may not be accurate, but he has over 20 Mosin's. He has Tula's, and "B" barrel's and 44's and 91/30, and a matching number sniper and a couple of Sako's and on and on. More than I even can tell the difference. One thing I do know, I like shooting them. Some are very, very accurate on our 100 yard range. All the one's he has scoped are very accurate. Even with open sights and my tri-focals, they at least shoot into pie plates at 100 yards.They are so much fun, that I sent for my C&R about a month ago and am waiting to get it soon. I did buy one 91/30, made in 1937 with all matching numbers for myself. I think it cost me 70 bucks with accessories and bayonet, leather bullet pouches, oil and solvent can, sling and bolt tool.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. when you can get all that and 880 rounds of ammo for less than a hundred bucks, what's not to like?
NineseveN
member
swingset said:
In other words, I have no counter to your arguments, so I am throwing a fit and leaving.
This was a prety cool discussion until the temper rose. Hopefully it can get back on track soon.
NineseveN said:
No, I have plenty of counter. I can talk on and on and on and make the same DAMN POINT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, one that's backed up by arms experts, by the books about Russian Arms development, and by the completely obvious and Cosmo will still argue, will still deny there is any merit to my points, and still defend this assinine position that all Mosins are accurate if you just know what you're doing. That's retarded, I'm sorry, but it is.
The Russian Mosin IS A FINE COMBAT RIFLE, which did the job it was asked to do, but is not a well-crafted arm and not consistently accurate, at least not to the degree of its contemporaries. I'm sorry guys, I really am. You don't agree, you don't like that assessment, you don't like me, what-f'ing-ever, I'm sick of playing pong about it.
If you love your Mosins, and believe they are all tack drivers, then that's really really wonderful for you. I wish I had such a sunny outlook about everything I own. I don't believe my Jeep will win at Sebring next year, it's difficult being a realist amongst dreamers.
Good lord.
jeremywills said:
Most of mine are or were pristine (I don't have as many as I once did, tho I still have quite a few), some were unissued still in the arsenal wrap until I fired them. I discount the worn ones when talking about accuracy, as an eroded, pitted bore is not the fault of the gun.
I agree the Mosin is plenty good enough. That was never the issue, and I never debated that the Mosin was not worthy of military service or innacurate as to be unserviceable. My entire point was, and still is, is that the Russian (specifically the Russian) Mosins were a mixed bag, and were not the most accurate bolt gun of the first half of this century. Not a slam, just a fact. The Canadian Ross was vastly superior in quality and accuracy, yet was junk in combat because of its complex bolt and tight tolerances. So, in many regards I view the Mosin as a superior combat arm to many weapons fielded against it, I only debate with FANBOY that they are all tack drivers, if you talk to them or whatever he does with his rifles.
NineseveN
member
swingset said:
Dear sir, I do not own a Mosin, in fact, I don't really like them much at all. I have read up on them and learned a bit of their history but that's about it. I was making an observation as an unbiased party. I think the points made against you were valid, and based on the demeanor of the posters as compared to yours, easier to swallow. But hey, enjoy the Jeep.
NineseveN said:Dear sir, I do not own a Mosin, in fact, I don't really like them much at all. I have read up on them and learned a bit of their history but that's about it. I was making an observation as an unbiased party. I think the points made against you were valid, and based on the demeanor of the posters as compared to yours, easier to swallow. But hey, enjoy the Jeep.
I wasn't speaking to you specifically, more to the people who will not hear that the gun they apparently love above all others is without flaw.
I wasn't the first in this to level insults, although thinly guised. First was the assumption that I didn't know how to shoot my Mosins, next was that I didn't listen to my rifles, then that I must not have enough experience with them. I answered all those digs, and gave real reasons the Mosin has spotty accuracy when pressed. Ash proceeded to tell me that I don't infact like Mosins at all, which is suprising considering I'm sitting next to a safe full of them. I explain what about the Mosin manufacturing plagued them, only to have that argued back.
Here's a great example of why I'm losing my patience with the Mosin-jerk-fest:
Ash said:
Yes it would be silly to say that, and that's why I didn't say it.
Here's what I actually DID say, in answer to Cosmoline who like Ash accused me of saying Mosins weren't shooters:
Some are very good. Most are not VERY GOOD. Most are perfectly adequate, combat accurate rifles.....and yes, fanboys, some are just plain bad.
So, who's next? Who is the next one to chastise me that I've said all mosins are poor shooters, then act surprised when I'm defensive about words put in my mouth?
This whole thing started because I didn't jump into this thread and say "Wow Cosmoline!!! Those postal match results prove it!!! The Mosin is supremely accurate!!!" The thread is a "nana booboo" to people who don't think the Mosin is accurate. I happen to think it's not consistently so.
Because you like a rifle, because there are good examples of it or good variants, doesn't mean everyone should fall to their knees is awe when you start a jerk-fest thread about your favorite gun. I happen to like the No1mkV above all other rifles, yet I'm the first to admit its shortcomings. I like the Mosin enough to spend thousands of dollars on them, and I'm equally willing to recognize their shortcomings, one of them being spotty craftsmanship & acceptance standards by its makers. If this really makes me the bad guy here, great, I'll be the whipping boy.
I have some brand new, fresh from Tula rifles that I would be happy to let any Mosin fan shoot if you're in my area. You can handload for them, you can tighten the screws, you can talk to them, pet them, give them a kiss, whatever. Guess what you'll find? Poor bolt fit, rough machining in the bore, crude metal to wood fit, they stink. 2 that I've shot will do 6" groups, tops. How much clearer can I make it so you understand? Some Mosins stink. I'd bet if you sampled 100 rifles from Russian production across the years, all new and unfired, a good 5 percent would be 4moa shooters or worse. Now, I'd bet if you did the same thing to a Finn Mosin, that would not happen. I'd bet if you did that with a K-31, you'd find none. That was my point, and will remain my point.
I'm sorry if I'm hurting feelings here, but I'm not arguing that the Mosin is junk, or innacurate. I'm arguing that some of them left the arsenals being poor rifles, in numbers other countries wouldn't allow to see service. That's all.
Q-Lock
Member
swingset wrote:
"I have some brand new, fresh from Tula rifles that I would be happy to let any Mosin fan shoot if you're in my area."
Where exactly in Ohio do you live? Hell, I'd take you up on that offer.
Quinten
"I have some brand new, fresh from Tula rifles that I would be happy to let any Mosin fan shoot if you're in my area."
Where exactly in Ohio do you live? Hell, I'd take you up on that offer.
Quinten
NineseveN
member
swingset said:
I think you'll find the source of confusion there. To be honest, I have no dog in this fight, yet I read that as saying what you say you never said, which would cause me to disagree with you had I knowledge and experience to the contrary.
Q-Lock
Member
Sticking up for swingset on this one....with the fear of being fickle, re-read exactly what he posted.
swingset wrote:
"Some are very good. Most are not VERY GOOD. Most are perfectly adequate, combat accurate rifles."
Perhaps he means that most are "not very good" as in "decent/acceptable" but not "very good."
I agree that in the way it was originally typed...it seems a tad bit confusing, and can easily be taken the wrong way. The fact of the matter is that he's restated time and tme again exactly what he means, which is, the mosin nagant was/is perfectly adequate for it's purpose. Although as a whole, the mosin nagant(russian) is not the best candidate for marksmanship purposes i.e. tiny groups. Some have wonderful accuracy, some do not...simple as that.
Perhaps I'm perceiving swingset's statements correctly....perhaps I'm incorrect. This is just my take on the whole situation.
Regards,
swingset wrote:
"Some are very good. Most are not VERY GOOD. Most are perfectly adequate, combat accurate rifles."
Perhaps he means that most are "not very good" as in "decent/acceptable" but not "very good."
I agree that in the way it was originally typed...it seems a tad bit confusing, and can easily be taken the wrong way. The fact of the matter is that he's restated time and tme again exactly what he means, which is, the mosin nagant was/is perfectly adequate for it's purpose. Although as a whole, the mosin nagant(russian) is not the best candidate for marksmanship purposes i.e. tiny groups. Some have wonderful accuracy, some do not...simple as that.
Perhaps I'm perceiving swingset's statements correctly....perhaps I'm incorrect. This is just my take on the whole situation.
Regards,
jeremywills
Member
Hey AH1, is that you pete haha
Hey swingset, Im glad we are on common ground now. Lets all remember folks, this is a gun enthusiast website. We need to work together as theres plenty of other folks against us if you all know what I mean. What works for one might not work for the other, but each to his or her own. As long as we are all on the same team its all good. No need to snipe at each other a petty issue like this. Ok, back to Mosins because I love em The good, the bad, the ugly, and everything else in between. Ill admit, they are very rude and crude. Im sure there were some questionable examples alongside the good ones. If you take a history lesson of Russia's past its a miracle they were able to produce anything halfass decent at all. In some ways I view the Mosins as a bastard child. Probably why Im fascinated by them. So simple, to the point. Yet effective. Sometimes you have to take a look at the larger picture. Anyhow, everyone has proven thier points etc....
Yep me luvs me Mosins
hahaHey swingset, Im glad we are on common ground now.
Lets all remember folks, this is a gun enthusiast website. We need to work together as theres plenty of other folks against us if you all know what I mean. What works for one might not work for the other, but each to his or her own. As long as we are all on the same team its all good. No need to snipe at each other a petty issue like this. Ok, back to Mosins because I love em The good, the bad, the ugly, and everything else in between. Ill admit, they are very rude and crude. Im sure there were some questionable examples alongside the good ones. If you take a history lesson of Russia's past its a miracle they were able to produce anything halfass decent at all. In some ways I view the Mosins as a bastard child. Probably why Im fascinated by them. So simple, to the point. Yet effective. Sometimes you have to take a look at the larger picture. Anyhow, everyone has proven thier points etc.... Yep me luvs me Mosins
Cosmoline
Member
So now this is a "jerk fest"? Swingset, the only one being a jerk here is you. And I've about had it with being called names. I have no idea what your problem is.
jeremywills
Member
hey fellas, let it go. tis not worth the time or effort
read above, lets work together as firearms enthusiasts, not against each other
read above, lets work together as firearms enthusiasts, not against each other
- Status