Mosin vs Mauser, my take...
- Thread starter Midnight
- Start date
- Status
Sir Galahad
member
Dudette, I was making a point and it had nothing to do with my rifle. You, however, do a lot of opinion basing of a whole series of rifles based on the performance of YOUR rifle. Not criticizing, just pointing it out. The Soviets could have "afforded" to replace it had they wanted to. They had developed a semi-auto in that caliber, the Tokarev rifle but it wasn't reliable enough. By the end of WW2, they had developed the SKS. "Affording" never entered the mind of Stalin. If he said "jump" the whole country asked "how high" and hoped he didn't change his mind in mid-jump. You talk about "rimlock", yet the Lee-Enfield also fires a rimmed cartridge...
Dudette, it's okay. We know you like your Lee-Enfield.
Dudette, it's okay. We know you like your Lee-Enfield.
Cosmoline
Member
For anyone who thinks Mosins are inherently second-class weapons, I would point out the amazing things the Finns were able to do with them. There is nothing wrong with the design.
The Mausers were more popular world-wide because they were marketed better. I have shot a great many of them and cannot say that they are an inherently superior weapon to the Mosin-Nagant. Some are good, some are pretty awful and freeze up every time you fire them.
In short, basing an opinion of Mosin-Nagants on a roughed-up and re-bored 91/30 is like basing an opinion of Mausers on a battered and re-bored Turk.
The Mausers were more popular world-wide because they were marketed better. I have shot a great many of them and cannot say that they are an inherently superior weapon to the Mosin-Nagant. Some are good, some are pretty awful and freeze up every time you fire them.
In short, basing an opinion of Mosin-Nagants on a roughed-up and re-bored 91/30 is like basing an opinion of Mausers on a battered and re-bored Turk.
ojibweindian
Member
The one thing I don't like about the Moisin is its saftey; I HATE it! Were it not for that horrible saftey, I would have bought several Moisins years ago.
Cosmoline
Member
I love the safety! You just have to learn how to use it. I like it because it's basically impossible to switch off unless you really want to, and because it's absolutely silent.
You guys are making me want another Mosin! Stop it!
You guys are making me want another Mosin! Stop it!
I used to buy only Mausers with my C&R. Swede, Persian, Yugo, Czech, German, etc. But I started reading about the Mosins and they slowly grew on me. The Finns turned them into truly world-class weapons. 1.5 MOA at 100 yards open sights is no joke.
I find the Mosins are more fun to collect. Each of them has been re-arsenalled and reworked so many times that each has much more history behind it than any Mauser. Most of the Mosin tangs have a dozen or more arsenal stamps. They have been converted into carbines, maybe twice. It's amazing how many incarnations and theaters of conflict one 91/30 could have gone thru. The mosins are cheap (~$60-$200), shoot cheap ammo, and are generally very reliable.
Mausers have smoother, more refined actions, but Mosins are cheaper and have a more interesting history for each one. Some small Mosin parts are really soft though. I've broken the barrel band springs on my M44 before.
I find the Mosins are more fun to collect. Each of them has been re-arsenalled and reworked so many times that each has much more history behind it than any Mauser. Most of the Mosin tangs have a dozen or more arsenal stamps. They have been converted into carbines, maybe twice. It's amazing how many incarnations and theaters of conflict one 91/30 could have gone thru. The mosins are cheap (~$60-$200), shoot cheap ammo, and are generally very reliable.
Mausers have smoother, more refined actions, but Mosins are cheaper and have a more interesting history for each one. Some small Mosin parts are really soft though. I've broken the barrel band springs on my M44 before.
DMK
Member
One word: M/39
OK, technically that's not a word.
Sure the Brits were still using the No.4 Enfields with great effect in Korea, and Ruskies were still making 91/59 carbines in, well... '59 but the Finns were still making M/39s in the early '70s!
I don't know nothin' about Mausers though, except that it's probably the most copied bolt action design out there. That's gotta say something about it. You just don't see too many hunting rifles based on the Mosin or Enfield designs except for the occasional milsurp sporter.
Now every Cruffler worth his or her cosmoline know that if we're really serious about accuracy, we're asking for the Swiss K31.
OK, technically that's not a word.
Sure the Brits were still using the No.4 Enfields with great effect in Korea, and Ruskies were still making 91/59 carbines in, well... '59 but the Finns were still making M/39s in the early '70s!
I don't know nothin' about Mausers though, except that it's probably the most copied bolt action design out there. That's gotta say something about it. You just don't see too many hunting rifles based on the Mosin or Enfield designs except for the occasional milsurp sporter.
Now every Cruffler worth his or her cosmoline know that if we're really serious about accuracy, we're asking for the Swiss K31.
Tamara
Senior Member
Sir G,
Dude, I don't even own one. (Currently, that is...)
I do currently own two Mosins, though (a Russian '44 91/30 and a Hungarian '53 1944.)
To assume that the Mosin is crude due to some master plan for reliability or ease of operation is simply factually incorrect. It is crude because it belongs to an earlier generation of bolt-action battle rifles, closer to the Krag Jorgenson than the 98k or SMLE/No4MkI. It's not some bolt-action proto-Kalashnikov, designed to function in conditions that would choke nefariously overengineered Hun rifles (a Mauser, for instance, has much more camming force to extract stuck cartridges...) The loose tolerances of early war Mosins are due more to the fact that they were remanufactured Czarist era rifles that were nearly worn out than to any master plan to build uber reliable bolt guns.
Besides, just because they're not as nice a rifle as a Mauser or Enfield doesn't mean that they won't still kill you deader than a hammer. Plus, as the Russians are fond of saying, quantity has a quality all its own...
(You'll get a lot more enthusiastic response on the topic of super commie weapons engineering if you weren't talking to someone covered head-to-toe in cosmoline from fixing 100 defective CZ-52's today...
)
Dude, I don't even own one. (Currently, that is...)
I do currently own two Mosins, though (a Russian '44 91/30 and a Hungarian '53 1944.)
To assume that the Mosin is crude due to some master plan for reliability or ease of operation is simply factually incorrect. It is crude because it belongs to an earlier generation of bolt-action battle rifles, closer to the Krag Jorgenson than the 98k or SMLE/No4MkI. It's not some bolt-action proto-Kalashnikov, designed to function in conditions that would choke nefariously overengineered Hun rifles (a Mauser, for instance, has much more camming force to extract stuck cartridges...) The loose tolerances of early war Mosins are due more to the fact that they were remanufactured Czarist era rifles that were nearly worn out than to any master plan to build uber reliable bolt guns.
Besides, just because they're not as nice a rifle as a Mauser or Enfield doesn't mean that they won't still kill you deader than a hammer. Plus, as the Russians are fond of saying, quantity has a quality all its own...
(You'll get a lot more enthusiastic response on the topic of super commie weapons engineering if you weren't talking to someone covered head-to-toe in cosmoline from fixing 100 defective CZ-52's today...
)cool45auto
Member
One of you guys explain how the safety on a Mosin works please.
Mosin safety
Pretty simple to describe, just difficult (heavy spring) to do.
When the Mosin is cocked, grab the flat circular knob at the back of the bolt, like a 50-cent piece. Pull it straight back and turn it counter clockwise to about 10 o'clock, and let it slide forward until it locks.
The safety is now on. (Although needless to say, DO NOT TRUST a 60-year-old safety.)
To release, pull it back, give it a little clockwise turn, and let it ride forward.
Pretty simple to describe, just difficult (heavy spring) to do.
When the Mosin is cocked, grab the flat circular knob at the back of the bolt, like a 50-cent piece. Pull it straight back and turn it counter clockwise to about 10 o'clock, and let it slide forward until it locks.
The safety is now on. (Although needless to say, DO NOT TRUST a 60-year-old safety.)
To release, pull it back, give it a little clockwise turn, and let it ride forward.
I don't trust ANY safety.
However, this is one safety that is VERY effective. It takes as much force to engage the safety as it does to disengage. I think the Mosin and the Mauser both have very effective safeties, I trust them much more than a Remington or Winchester.
The only time I use a safety is when I first get a gun, just to make sure that it works. In the field, or on the range, there is no ammo in the gun unless I'm shooting it, and it is ALWAYS pointed in a safe manner. Follow the rules of gun safety and their will be NO problems.
YMMV of course,
Stinger
PATH
Member
Whilst I truly enjoy my Finnish Nagant I think my K98 is the better shooter.
Sorry Moisin fans.
Sorry Moisin fans.
Sir Galahad
member
Defective CZ-52s.....hmmmm...can relate. Repaired lots of M-16s in the army that fit that description.
Cosmoline
Member
The genius of the Mosin safety is that it locks the whole back of the bolt to the receiver itself. The only way it will fail is if the receiver or the bolt itself falls apart, in which case you should never have been trying to use the rifle in the first place because it must be a rust bucket. I agree that either a Mosin or Mauser safety are far, far, far superior to the modern tab safetys that can easily be clicked back and forth. With the Mosin, it takes a deliberate action to remove the safety.
The Mosins are extremely tough customers. The Finns re-used receivers from the 1890's right up to the 1970's, and those rifles are still fully functional.
Path, don't be sorry, just send me your Finn
The Mosins are extremely tough customers. The Finns re-used receivers from the 1890's right up to the 1970's, and those rifles are still fully functional.
Path, don't be sorry, just send me your Finn
cracked butt
Member
I too like the mosin safety- to me it feels very simple and secure, and is is to see if it is in safe position or not.
As I stated before I don't have much of a good opinion of 91/30's or M44's, but Finnish m39's are in an entirely different class that the others.. The finnish rifles were made with the highest quality and accuracy in mind, while the russian mosins were turned out as fast as they could be made in order to arm hoards of people. I'l admit that I have held a Polish M44 that was really a nice piece of work also, and would like to get my hands on one.
As I stated before I don't have much of a good opinion of 91/30's or M44's, but Finnish m39's are in an entirely different class that the others.. The finnish rifles were made with the highest quality and accuracy in mind, while the russian mosins were turned out as fast as they could be made in order to arm hoards of people. I'l admit that I have held a Polish M44 that was really a nice piece of work also, and would like to get my hands on one.
I own about 30 Mosins and Mausers and nothing comes close to the accuracy of my Finnish M39 B-barrel. I pretty much have abandoned collecting anything but Finnish rifles. They made em good!
I have had no problem using a Mosin safety and if anything they are quieter than a Mauser safety (especially important with deer).
I have had no problem using a Mosin safety and if anything they are quieter than a Mauser safety (especially important with deer).
- Status
