For those who don't think Mosins are accurate..


PDA






Cosmoline
February 20, 2006, 03:26 PM
Check out these results from the Talvisota match on the collector's forum:

http://n36sx.wheelsup.org/WinterWarHtml.htm

Look at the 91/30 scores and tell me those rifles are pipeplate shooters :D

You should take your remchester and see how well you do with iron sights at 100 meters using those same targets.

If you enjoyed reading about "For those who don't think Mosins are accurate.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
1 old 0311
February 20, 2006, 04:16 PM
They also worked REAL well against the Germans:)

Kevin

cracked butt
February 20, 2006, 04:22 PM
Show me a M44 or M38 carbine that will shoot those scores and I'll eat it:neener:

Cosmoline
February 20, 2006, 04:36 PM
M-44's were out for this match because it was pre 1940 firearms only. But in other matches Polish M-44's have been among the most accurate Mosins, giving MOA groups.

.45Guy
February 20, 2006, 04:40 PM
I see the Carcanos have placed well. Always nice to see that:D

Cosmoline
February 20, 2006, 04:46 PM
Come on. We all know he could never have made those shots with an old Eye-Talian rifle :D

OldWolf
February 20, 2006, 04:49 PM
I have a pair of M-28's that I am getting ready to shoot. I've had them for awhile but never got around to shooting them. :)

.45Guy
February 20, 2006, 04:58 PM
How exactly would one go about getting involved in said matches?

Cosmoline
February 20, 2006, 07:18 PM
These are just postal matches run through the Winter War reenacting group and the mosin nagant collectors forum.

http://www.gunboards.com/forums/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=1

If you're lucky enough to live in an area where there are surplus rifle shooting matches, that's another way to get involved.

1 old 0311
February 20, 2006, 09:49 PM
Come on. We all know he could never have made those shots with an old Eye-Talian rifle :D

Come on now. Most Italian rifles have never been fired......Just droped during surrender:evil:

Kevin

swingset
February 21, 2006, 06:46 AM
Any rifle is capable of accuracy....and there have been some accurate Mosins. Certainly the Finns did what the Russians didn't bother to (cull the accuracy out of the design), and even the Ruskies got lucky once and a while. Big whoop.

The problem is, that throughout the entire long history of their production, a whole lot of them shot like absolute CRAP. That's not up for debate. A lot of Mosins hurl the lead all over the place.

Now, contrast that with the M96 Swede, the K-31, the 03 Springfield. Nearly everyone that was made was accurate. Amazing consistency even in their day.

That's what people mean when they say the Mosin sucks. It's inconsistent.

All that aside, having hosted many postal matches, I can attest to some serious cheating. I had a guy who claimed a 10-shot group of less than in inch out of a K98K (with mil. ammo no less)....which is science fiction given the sights/trigger/ammo. Another guy that consistently dominated our postal matches came to a shoot once and couldn't hit a full-sized IPSC target at 300 yards....all day long.

Cosmoline
February 21, 2006, 03:39 PM
Most of the poor reputation comes from the fact that importers sell heaps of shot-out 91/30's with mixed parts. Couple that with the fact that most shooters never even bother to tighten the receiver bolts or check for stock impingment and you have the reason for many if not most of the pieplate shooters. I've been able to consistently turn cruddy shooting Mosins into solid performers by finding good handloads and checking a few points of the rifle.

As far as cheating, this is a well established forum where most of the shooting was done in groups. Besides, claiming that the results are the product of cheating is the argument of someone who has lost. Reminds me of the Dems in 2000 or 2004 :neener:

swingset
February 21, 2006, 04:58 PM
Most of the poor reputation comes from the fact that importers sell heaps of shot-out 91/30's with mixed parts. Couple that with the fact that most shooters never even bother to tighten the receiver bolts or check for stock impingment and you have the reason for many if not most of the pieplate shooters. I've been able to consistently turn cruddy shooting Mosins into solid performers by finding good handloads and checking a few points of the rifle.

As far as cheating, this is a well established forum where most of the shooting was done in groups. Besides, claiming that the results are the product of cheating is the argument of someone who has lost. Reminds me of the Dems in 2000 or 2004 :neener:

Don't get your panties in a twist. All I meant was that you can't take postal match results as gospel.

I have owned a huge number of Mosins, still do....from a Dragoon to an M27 and all the variations in between. Some are quite good shooters. Most are not.

Them's the facts. Sorry.

ghost squire
February 21, 2006, 05:13 PM
The problem is, that throughout the entire long history of their production, a whole lot of them shot like absolute CRAP. That's not up for debate. A lot of Mosins hurl the lead all over the place.

Now, contrast that with the M96 Swede, the K-31, the 03 Springfield. Nearly everyone that was made was accurate. Amazing consistency even in their day.

That's what people mean when they say the Mosin sucks. It's inconsistent.

You've got no argument from me...

Now I don't want to start a ????storm but its the same thing with the AK, innacurate, useless safety, fired a cartridge thats probably worse then the 5.56 in FMJ...

Its because of its very crudeness that people think its so great. If you had to pay 1500 dollars for one you might not be so enthusiastic. For some reason people think its a marvel that Russians can make a gun, period, much less a reliable one, because of propaganda in the US.

Guess what people in the 60's and 70's their fighters were probably as good as ours or better, and the cockpits were certainly often more luxurious and well made. This according to US fighter pilots that took a look inside.

Cosmoline
February 21, 2006, 05:19 PM
Don't get your panties in a twist. All I meant was that you can't take postal match results as gospel.

I have owned a huge number of Mosins, still do....from a Dragoon to an M27 and all the variations in between. Some are quite good shooters. Most are not.

Them's the facts. Sorry.

I don't know anyone who owns all the variations other than maybe Karl-Heinz himself.

Also, the fact that YOU could not get them to perform doesn't mean they were inherently flawed. You have to listen to your Mosin.

swingset
February 21, 2006, 07:35 PM
I don't know anyone who owns all the variations other than maybe Karl-Heinz himself.

Also, the fact that YOU could not get them to perform doesn't mean they were inherently flawed. You have to listen to your Mosin.

Look, jerky, I was generalizing...obviously I don't own every single variation but I own (or have owned) representative examples (most in excellent condition) of every model of Mosin. I can say the same about Enfields, Schmidt Rubins and I own quite a few Mausers and their derivatives. I'm not speaking out of my butt....and I've been shooting and building rifles for a long time, I know how to relieve stocks, accurize, bed and tailor handloads, thank you. I also shoot competively, and beside my house is my very own test range with a machine rest. I can effectively remove the human element when sussing out a rifle and it's accuracy.

You seem to want to fight about it. Apparently your love for the Mosin is personal. If you think that over the course many years of sloppy Russian production (and yes, by most country's small arms manufacture it was sloppy) that Mosins are as accurate as K-31's, Swedes, Springfields, etc. you just keep on telling yourself that until you believe it.

You've been listening to your Mosin too much, apparently. Maybe you should listen to some other rifles talk now and then. :rolleyes:

Cosmoline
February 21, 2006, 08:08 PM
What I take issue with is your conclusion that most Mosin-Nagants are not good shooters. I don't disagree that they are not as good on average as a K-31 or Swedish Mauser, but they are better than you appear to believe. Based on my experience, they range across the board from poor to excellent depending on numerous factors. A matching Mosin in good condition, particularly a Finn, is a match for any military Mauser. The best are as good as a K-31 or Swede. In addition, I have yet to encounter a beater Mosin who's accuracy can't be substantially improved with some basic work from keeping the receiver screws tight to slugging the bore. It takes effort, but it can be done.

I would also put the quality of the Russian arsenals against any in Europe and certainly any in the US. You seem to have written them off as second rate, as many others have done. This is a mistake.

I don't want to fight about it. You are the one who jumped into the thread with an allegation that the postal match participants must have been cheating. You then told me not to "get my panties in a wad" when I took umbrage at that rather defamatory allegation. And now you've taken to calling me "jerky." Not the worst thing I've been called, for sure. But between your posts here and elsewhere, your dislike of Mosin-Nagants is well established.

Personally, I have nothing against the other rifles you mentioned. Out of the box you will get better performance on average from a K-31 or a Swedish Mauser. My point is that Mosins are underrated because they tend to be a little more challenging to work with. Folks tend to get them as beaters and treat them as beaters, feeding them really horrible ball ammo made by chain smoking east europeans with ballpeen hammers. But I posit that underneath that beater there's a quality rifle still capable of solid if not outstanding performance.

KaceCoyote
February 21, 2006, 08:26 PM
Many M38s were made under wartime conditions, give them a break will ya?

My AK is, Accurate, Reliable, home to a useful safety and fires .30 caliber cartridge which destroys flesh. Its an excellent intermediate cartridge. You've merely shown us your ignorance of the AK's intended purpose.

The AK was designed to kill capitalists out to a maximum range of 300 yards. At 100 yards the AK will put 30 rounds into a chest, infact it will put 3,000 rounds into a chest at 100 yards without cleaning or bother.

AK sights are crude, and the Ammunition is no more or less effective than US .308 FMJ in the real world.


Both my M38s will casually empty their magazine into a pieplate all day long, in my experience there just isnt alot've good ammo for them.

ghost squire
February 21, 2006, 10:50 PM
I'm not going to get into a fight with the Commie Rifle Fanboy Club so forget it. :rolleyes:

KaceCoyote
February 22, 2006, 01:22 AM
I'm not going to get into a fight with the Commie Rifle Fanboy Club so forget it. :rolleyes:

Then dont pick fights, Rifle bigot.

swingset
February 22, 2006, 01:46 AM
What I take issue with is your conclusion that most Mosin-Nagants are not good shooters.

I never said that. I said some are very good shooters, most are not. Most are combat accurate, some are pitiful. That's just the reality of the execution of a gun made for conscripts and to survive combat. It's not a match gun, it's not made like the Ross or a Persian Mauser. It's a crude, reliable, indestructable gun I happen to admire greatly, but I don't believe for a second that on average a Mosin is as accurate as it's counterparts....precisely because they were not held to the stringent standards during manufacture that other rifles of its day were. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that.

It is what it is, but most are not tack drivers....nor were they meant to be, or built to be.

Cosmoline
February 22, 2006, 01:52 AM
Most military rifles from the period weren't tack drivers. Most were made for conscripts to survive combat. The K-31's and high-end Swedes are the exception, not the rule. Most Mosin-Nagants *ARE* good shooters for military rifles. Most are also well-made. They are on par with other military rifles of the period including SMLE's and Mausers. Your low opinion of them is common, but not borne out by my experiences.

Cosmoline
February 22, 2006, 02:02 AM
I'm not going to get into a fight with the Commie Rifle Fanboy Club so forget it. :rolleyes:

I had no idea the Czar was a communist!

cracked butt
February 22, 2006, 02:26 AM
Maybe not considered accurate, but they are good enough.

Sort of like the AK-47: they aren't exactly the most accurate military rifle but accuracy is traded off for simplicity, durability, cost of manufacture, ease of maintenance, and reliability. Sure there are some variants of he AK that are very accurate but the exception more or less proves the rule. The AK is good enough that probably 3/4 of the world is using it today.

swingset
February 22, 2006, 04:52 AM
Your low opinion of them is common, but not borne out by my experiences.

I don't have a low opinion of them. I happen to think they are a fine combat arm, hence my large collection of them.

All I have is a realistic opinion of the nature of the Russian arms industry, and the varying quality of Mosins as they came off the production line. Some were (as I've said how many times now?) very good. Others, and I know this hurts you deeply, sucked. Sucked BAD.

You haven't had a bad Mosin. Good for you. Stop trying to convince me that they're all wonderful if I only love them enough. I've had close to 100 so far, and I know better.

Cosmoline
February 22, 2006, 05:12 AM
"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?

Ash
February 23, 2006, 12:11 AM
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

swingset
February 23, 2006, 01:17 AM
"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?

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.

swingset
February 23, 2006, 01:22 AM
I would love to have it pointed out what design characteristics make the Mosin inferior to the other rifles as a marshal arm.

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
February 23, 2006, 01:31 AM
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).

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
February 23, 2006, 01:41 AM
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.

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
February 23, 2006, 02:56 AM
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.

swingset
February 23, 2006, 03:42 AM
blah blah blah.
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.

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
February 23, 2006, 04:05 AM
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
February 23, 2006, 08:30 AM
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

jeremywills
February 23, 2006, 10:25 PM
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.

M.E.Eldridge
February 23, 2006, 11:09 PM
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.

depicts
February 24, 2006, 02:47 AM
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
February 24, 2006, 03:05 AM
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.

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?

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.

swingset
February 24, 2006, 03:17 AM
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.

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.

swingset
February 24, 2006, 03:25 AM
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?

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.

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.

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
February 24, 2006, 03:53 AM
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.

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. :)

swingset
February 24, 2006, 05:45 AM
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:

There are Mosins that don't shoot, but it is silly to say most of them don't

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:

I said some are very good shooters, most are not. Most are combat accurate, some are pitiful.

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
February 24, 2006, 09:59 AM
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

AH-1
February 24, 2006, 10:32 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/txpete/rangem44m38001.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/txpete/russianM44003.jpg

my M44 shoots so bad I now use it to prop open the back door:)
pete
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/txpete/cobra-ani.gif

NineseveN
February 24, 2006, 10:51 AM
Originally Posted by Cosmoline
What I take issue with is your conclusion that most Mosin-Nagants are not good shooters.


I never said that. I said some are very good shooters, most are not.


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
February 24, 2006, 12:10 PM
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,

jeremywills
February 24, 2006, 12:54 PM
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 :)

Cosmoline
February 24, 2006, 12:59 PM
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
February 24, 2006, 01:04 PM
hey fellas, let it go. tis not worth the time or effort

read above, lets work together as firearms enthusiasts, not against each other

Pafrmu
February 24, 2006, 01:49 PM
This debate reminds me of the time I argued with my friend about who would win in a fight, the Starship Enterprise or an Imperial Star destroyer.

After much name calling, tantrum throwing and bitter recriminations we decided that we should forget about the argument and watch some movies together.

I think that the simple way to solve this would be to take 100 Mosin rifles vs. 100 Enfields. The Mosin Proponent would shoot the Mosins and the Enfield proponent would shoot the Enfields. The rifles would be provided by varios members of THR and we could see once and for all which is the "better" rifle.

Maybe we should move this thread to the Meetup section.
:)

AH-1
February 24, 2006, 02:22 PM
thats one of the main points I don't hang out here much.y'all are just like a bunch of old women..piss and moan..
which is better who gives a crap.I like them all:neener:
pete

Q-Lock
February 24, 2006, 02:28 PM
AH-1 wrote:
"y'all are just like a bunch of old women..piss and moan.."

Everyone has a passion for something...if you strongly believe something, you're going to argue with someone who doesn't agree with you. It's that simple. The main problem of this thread has been miscommunication and misconstrueing words written.

For the sake of the argument, agree to disagree...although I don't really think anyone is actually disagreeing with anyone else, just misunderstanding.

Anyway...lets have a drink and toast to the mosin nagant!

Regards,

Cosmoline
February 24, 2006, 02:29 PM
An Ivan v. Smellygun shootout. I like that!

Ash
February 24, 2006, 07:09 PM
A Star Destroyer, of course.

The assumption is that Mosins do not shoot very well, which means they shoot poorly. Not very well, you see, is the same as poor. My sister does not see very well, thus she has poor eyesight.

You chose to note my observation about the silliness of the arguement, and it seems I did not fully comprehend your statement that some shoot very well, while most do not shoot very well.

I like Enfields. The #4 has an inferior combat sight to the Mosin (with only two adjustments and a VERY LARGE ring). It's trigger is attached to the trigger guard, the front stock attachment is not very good, they have a history of craze-cracking, and are made to a lower standard than the #1 Mk 3 SMLE. I would happily take an M28/30, with its superior workmanship and vastly superior bayonet, stocking arrangement, and barrel floating.

But that's just me.

Ash

Cacique500
February 24, 2006, 09:47 PM
A Star Destroyer, of course.

A Battlestar would whup 'em both... ;)

I'll throw in for the Mosins (Finn M39 Mosins specifically). I have over a dozen of them and of the ones I've shot, they are tack drivers. I'm not that great of shot, but I can cosistently hit the small (not normal sized) sporting clays at 100 yards with my Finns using 30 year old milsurp ammunition. I've yet to shoot a Finn Mosin that couldn't hit the clay at 100 yards. That's certainly well within the 'minute of pie plate' being discussed.

And who in their right mind would pay $200 for 500 rounds of .303 when you can get 880 rounds of 7.62x54 for $65? ;) :D

As long as it was once slathered with cosmoline, I'll take it!

rangerruck
February 24, 2006, 10:19 PM
ahhhh, true love! ive had both enyys'and mossy's and love them both, but to be honest, i only have the mossy now, and it did shoot and feel like crap when i first got it, but i dremeled out the rear site, i slathered moly fusion on all the action/receiver, moving parts, did the trigger job. and waa laah! she is beauty! i can open the bolt in it's forward position, raise the front of the weapon 4 inches above horizontal line, and thwwaaaack! bolt slides to the rear with nice sound at the end! but yeah, the weapon was designed as a lead thrower for the peasants that would allways work. so most of them were made to "good enough" tolerances, and my god that weird length of pull with the grip area being about as big around as your thigh? you gotta put a slip on pad on the thing just so your wrist isn't in some kinda funked up position all day long. I hear , on other sites of course, that the stock was designed to double as a lever, shovel, or child's see- saw.

jeremywills
February 25, 2006, 05:26 PM
Thats the beauty of being a 120 lb 5feet 4inch guy :) Im more classified as a youth or a female shooter if you will, all shorter lop guns feel just right to me where other folks seem to think otherwise :) I guess thats why the Mosin just felt right to me :) It feels so perfect in my hands, YMMV of course :) most of my friends request the recoil pad, one they feel the stock is way too short, and two they are all whimps so scared of that 7.62x54R cartridge hahaha, not all that bad really. Not like some other scary stuff I have shot in the past.

Fire4Effect
February 26, 2006, 01:42 AM
on page one somebody got called Jerky... :D :D :D :D :D ... Now that's funny

.45FMJoe
February 26, 2006, 09:44 AM
on page one somebody got called Jerky... ... Now that's funny


^ What he said.

But in all seriousness I've been bitten by the C&R bug. :( :( As soon as my app gets here I'm in trouble! My paychecks won't know what hit them. :scrutiny: And yes, I have many Mosins on my "list o' cool stuffes to aquire.":D

If you enjoyed reading about "For those who don't think Mosins are accurate.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!