Mosin M44 vs. M91/30??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why is it that everywhere you look at the history of the M44 it is refered to as a carbine?

Because it was based on the M38 and is called "Karbin" in Russian. But of course the K98k was called a "Karabiner" in German and we call it a rifle. The K31 Swiss rifle is also called a "carbine" by the Swiss, but it almost never has that title in English. To keep with this pattern, we should not call the M44 a "carbine" since it was the main infantry rifle for its brief moment in the sun. Or we should start calling the other rifles "carbine."

"Carbine" has become so confused as to be meaningless in English. It's not really about the name. The point is the rifle was not used as a traditional rear-guard "carbine." So the many M44's you see with major bore erosion and a lot of scars could very well have been in the final assault on the Nazi strongholds including Berlin.
 
I was under the impression that many of the M44's were not even issued before the end of the war, actually not even completed until a couple years after. I have a 1946 stamped M44 that is like new inside and out except the stock was dinged some. I've stuck it in an ATI sporter stock, yanked the bayonet bracket and made a sleeve to cover the bare spot and put on an ATI front sight. IMO it looks good, haven't shot it since the change and decided to use the open sights. It shaved some weight from the original and I've got some Lee dies to use. I may change the bolt to down turn. Cheap, simple, and reliable and a powerful round. I think that deserves a smiley. :)

NCsmitty
 
Many came too late to see any action, but they were still front-line weapons. The war didn't wrap up until the spring of '45 and the M44 had been in production since late 1943.
 
Well I know it was rearsenalled after the war, and being counterbored gives a lot of info right there... a lot of rounds have been sent through it.

I bought it at my favorite gunshop, and I guess it only had two American owners since it was imported, and according to the first owner, me being the second, he only put 100 rounds down the tube before he decided he didn't like it. So. There ya have it, my explanation, and I think it's believeable.
 
Matt-J2:
If I had to pick someone to argue with on the subject of the Mosin-Nagant, it wouldn't be Cosmoline. Dude wasn't born, he was created at Tula. After learning of democracy he defected to the US by walking halfway across the Bering Straight on floating ice. At the halfway point he blasted an iceberg down to size with an M39, and paddled the remainder of his journey with a 91/30. Upon arrival, he unfolded the bayonet on an M44 and staked it into the ground, claiming this land as his. We've been too scared to deny his claim.

That is an incredible story! Not only that...it's almost believable, I heard it was an SKS that knocked the iceberg down to size.
 
Is bore erosion the only thing which creates a darker reflection in a barrel?
Will most sellers/bulk suppliers give you an honest description of the bore? I don't know what pitting really looks like, or whether this is only to be found in the chamber.
Despite my age am still sort of new at this.

I'm trying to choose between another (second) 91/30, 44 or three extra spam cans of surplus, corrosive ammo.
So many 91/30s are on GunBroker. The MN and its ammo prices are why I never even considered a lower-cost Yugo Mauser.

The 91/30 should be inherently more accurate as with any longer rifle, having 8 more inches between sights, compard to a 38 or 44.
 
The volume dealers aren't going to describe the bore condition on any particular rifle. For that, you'll need to order through a smaller/specialty dealer (and you'll probably be looking primarily at Polish/Finn rifles than Russian reworks) or buy it in person at a local shop. Nobody is really going to take the time to write up and post individual descriptions of $70 rearsenaled Russian Mosins.

I ordered both of my MNs sight unseen from AIM without the handpick. They came as follows: the M44 is externally excellent (easily as nice as the one shown on their site), with a great finish on the stock and very clean metal, but the bore is moderately worn with about a 1.5-2 cm counterbore. It's also all-matching (note that unlike Mausers/K31s/et al, Russian MNs were made with loose tolerances from the start so most parts aren't numbered). For the sake of the contrast, the 91/30 that I ordered in the same shipment has a sloppier/rougher finish on the stock (though still borderline excellent, esp. by milsurp standards) but the bore is visibly sharper and isn't counterbored. Neither is badly pitted, but they aren't shiny new.

Really, I don't think you'll get a "bad" MN if you order an arsenal refinished example. They were all checked and (if necessary) counterbored before they were put into storage, so you're not likely to get one that doesn't possess passable accuracy.
 
Last edited:
91/30 versus M44

Here's a target for comparison. You can see the patches where I was using the M44, and the holes for the 91/30. Of course its all in the nut behind the trigger.

attachment.php


KKKKFL
 
to say the M44 is not a carbine because it was intended for issue to front line troops ignores the common definition of the word (as it was defined at the time even) which is quite simply a short rifle

The best of them are the Polish ones, some of which are MOA shooters. The Soviet production was wartime and not the greatest in quality.

so 46-48 was wartime? i've seen a few unissued condition 1948 M44s (unissued as in 100% original finish, original matching numbers, not refurbed) that are just as nice as a Polish M44 in the same condition

and i'm sure they would have given these MOA polish rifles you speak of a bit of trouble at the range
 
to say the M44 is not a carbine because it was intended for issue to front line troops ignores the common definition of the word (as it was defined at the time even) which is quite simply a short rifle

What "common definition?" As I pointed out, the Mauser 98k was called a "carbine," the Swiss K31 was called a "carbine," etc. They were shorter versions of longer rifles. To confuse matters further the term "short rifle" is used for different firearms than "carbine." There are Mausers even shorter than "carbines" known as "short rifles." And of course there were several leverguns called "short rifles" alongside similar weapons called "carbines." The term "carbine" can mean a small shoulder weapon that fires handgun cartridges, or it can mean a weapon for the calvary, or it can mean simply a shorter version of a main service weapon, or it can mean a combination of the above. My objection, for the umpteenth time, was simply that you should not call the M44 a "carbine" if by "carbine" you mean a reserve weapon for the tankers and artillery crews. With that objection noted, you can call it a carbine or not. I try to get that particular term out of the way because it's ambiguous and inconsistent. And because, in this case, it gets people thinking that the M44, like the M38, was just a reserve weapon.

I have owned many M44's and never found a USSR production one to match the Poles. If you have, that's great. The USSR was still gearing up for war after 1945. War to quell any resistance in the newly occupied empire and of course war with us capitalists. Stalin didn't slow down, which is one reason they had the SKS-45 and AK-47 designed and in production while we were still using service weapons from the 30's.
 
to say the M44 is not a carbine because it was intended for issue to front line troops ignores the common definition of the word (as it was defined at the time even) which is quite simply a short rifle
Thank you.
 
A 91/30 is long enough to skewer your dinner.
A M44 throws a big enough fireball to cook your dinner.

ever put marshmallows on your bayonet when shooting? :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top