Greetings and a question...

[fedaykincmndr]

I wanted to start by saying hullo and I've been haunting this forum for sometime now and thought I'd join. That being said, I've a couple of questions:

1. Would putting a synthetic stock on a MN 91/30 assist in better accuracy or merely aesthetics? Would it improve barrel harmonics visa vi the rifle being touched less by the stock. I'm not concerned with collector's value or anything like that, I'm a rifleman and a husband and want to do my best at an accurate hunting rifle for the least amount of money without my wife shooting me herself.

2. If the synthetic stock alone would not contribute to accuracy would glass bedding the rifle? If so, how much would it be to have a gunsmith do it? Ballpark, I know it varies on the smith.

3. Would it be worth it to do so much work on a MN? All the serial numbers match, bore is in great condition, and I can hold a 3" or less group at 300m.

4. Does anyone have any suggestions for fitting the scout style mount on the MN? I've already stripped one out. Perhaps it was the mount or me, I'm not sure.

Thanks in advance and sorry to post so many questions as my first post.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

3. Would it be worth it to do so much work on a MN? All the serial numbers match, bore is in great condition, and I can hold a 3" or less group at 300m.

A 3" group at 300 meters!?!?

Don't touch it!! Don't change a thing!

 

[fedaykincmndr]

25 yds is equal in trajectory to 300m. Thus, ballistically speaking, it should be around that. The flyers that extended the grouping were my fault (i.e. breath control, jerking, SORE shoulder, etc.). So I suppose that 300m would be theoretical?? I didn't mean to be misleading I think my hands were going faster than my brain. So, yeah, 300m...right?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

25 yds is equal in trajectory to 300m. Thus, ballistically speaking, it should be around that.

If I understand you, you've only shot this rifle at 25 yards?

A 25 yard zero will put you more or less on target at somewhere between 200 and 300 yards. That's because the rifle is zeroed so the muzzle is pointing slightly upward. The bullet is launched at an upward angle and intersects the line of sight at around 25 yards, then as the trajectory decays, it intersects it again somewhere between 200 and 300 yards.

But don't expect groups to be proportional -- a 1/4" group at 25 yards will probably open up well over that at 300 meters.

Take this rifle to a range where you can shoot it at 100 yards or more and check the accuracy before doing anything to it.

 

[fedaykincmndr]

anyone else....

 

[Oldnamvet]

Vern is right. Don't change anything until you know what you are starting with. Shooting it at 100 yds or more is the best way to find out.

 

[OldSchooler]

While you may not have anticipated the reponses, they are right.
You can make no accuracy assessment at 300 mtrs based on 25 mtr shots.

As to your original questions:
1. Would putting a synthetic stock on a MN 91/30 assist in better accuracy or merely aesthetics?
a. Possibly.
Would it improve barrel harmonics vis a vis the rifle being touched less by the stock.
b. Again, possibly
I'm not concerned with collector's value or anything like that, I'm a rifleman and a husband and want to do my best at an accurate hunting rifle for the least amount of money without my wife shooting me herself.
c. Hunting accuracy is generally accepted adequate at 2 MOA. Unless you live in Wyoming and are taking 300+ yard shots at pronghorns (when you should have something better suited than an old M/N), this is sufficient. Dont sweat working to get less from a plastic stock.

2. If the synthetic stock alone would not contribute to accuracy would glass bedding the rifle?
a. Possibly. My friend who is a smith says unlikely.
If so, how much would it be to have a gunsmith do it? Ballpark, I know it varies on the smith.
b. 50-100$

3.Would it be worth it to do so much work on a MN?
a. I wouldn't. Maybe a new stock, definately some trigger work, then handload a good grouper at around 2600-2700fps/150 gr SP.
All the serial numbers match, bore is in great condition...
b. That's standard stuff on todays import M/N's - these are great times we live in, aint they?
I can hold a 3" or less group at 300m.
c. Until you can verify this, don't bank on it. If its indeed true, then you got a great deal and I'd go with it - just remove the excess wood, bayonet, etc. to slim it down. Most M/N's I hear about will shoot 2 MOA, however. Again, that's sufficient.

4. Does anyone have any suggestions for fitting the scout style mount on the MN? I've already stripped one out. Perhaps it was the mount or me, I'm not sure.
since we dont know what you did wrong, or what you ended up with, visit this website and read before you buy another mount.:
http://www.surplusrifle.com/russianmosin189130/index.asp

 

[dfaugh]

Short answers:

Stock may or may not help accuracy. Barrel is really L-O-N-G, I would shorten it to stiffen it up, THAT might help accuracy.

Bedding is a pretty easy DIY job, less than $10 worth of materials, there's alot of sites on the web that'll show you how.

Personally don't like "scout mounts"---having the scope that far away just isn't condicive to accuracy for me, but YMMV

P.S. I'm building one myself, but its taken a back burner to other projects. I've shortend and re-crowned the barrel, bought one of the scope kits that replaces the bolt handle and allows scope to be mountied on receiver, need to find a stock,,,, Will probably go with a wood stock see http://www.rifle-stocks.com/, though, unstead of the synthetic, which seem cheesy to me.

 

[fedaykincmndr]

Thank you all very much for the responses. 2MOA is more than adequate for my needs and that's been the general consensus on various sites. I can't go to the rifle stocks website cause I'm at work, but I'll give it a look. I do think the synthetic stocks look awfully cliche but I'd definately be willing to give a wood sporter a shot or just a new MN one. As for the accuracy, I'm not banking on anything. I'm not expecting to get a sub-MOA rifle, just one that fits my needs for medium to long range hunting. If the MN proves to perform adequately then I'll be very happy.


Let me ask this also, would I be better off sporterizing a Yugo Mauser? Better accuracy, range, etc?
Thanks in advance.

 

[OldSchooler]

Let me ask this also, would I be better off sporterizing a Yugo Mauser? Better accuracy, range, etc?
Hmmmm, I'd say yes. Being a standard long mauser action you have all the benefits of many years of experience with them. Accuracy in a milsurp arm, however, is not likely to ever meet match standards, being that they were never required to do so. Function and adaptability to often widely varying ammo was more important. So, just slapping an action in a synth stock doesn't markedly change this fact.

Most early military rifles, while built to exacting standards, had issues with throat variance, headspacing, differences in bore dimensions...well, such things pretty much preclude benchmark accuracy. However, nearly all military agencies that adopted such weapons had practical standards that had to be met - thus, they usually meet the 2 MOA pretty handily. For example, the Finns wouldnt release a rifle from the arsenal if it couldnt produce 1.5 MOA, or so Ive heard - something like that, anyway

As far as the ammo goes, I'd like the slightly greater SD of the 8MM round to the 7.62x54R round, although the Russian round is getting alot more press and thus, hunting loads made for it these days. Im certain there ARE 8MM rounds to be had for hunting, but I wonder if it is in the supply train like the Russky ammo is these days. Either one would be wholly adequate for hunting deer sized game. Handloading could add a bit more utility, as well.

As usual, YMMV