Wow, M44 is around $200 now? Not sure how much I paid for mine, but wasn't much over $100. I saw something that someone wrote that was kinda funny and true. You can't pay too much for a gun, you can only pay too soon. lol. Think about it.
Milsurp Rifle for Hunting/SHTF?
- Thread starter iLikethecold
- Start date
- Status
Having owned multiple types of all the milsurps listed here, let me say it is FOOLISH and exceedingly ignorant to make blanket statements about any of them.
To say things like "Mosins are roughly built" or "Mausers are like Cadillacs" shows a lack of any in depth experience IMO.
For Mosins, the difference between the typical $89 Izhevsk wartime round receiver and a pre-war Tula Hex are astonishing. The Finnish rifles are even better. The differences are literally visible from arms length - some of the round receiver guns aren't even round, where a good hex reciever model is not only true, but highly polished and showing no tool marks.
Mausers are every bit as diverse, having been produced for dozens of countries, over a wide range of time. A Turk is not a Argentine, is not a Mexican, is not a Swede.
Enfields were also made in a wide number of configurations at various arsenals in various nations.
There are examples of fine weapons among all of them, as well as shoddy wartime builds. Contrary to myth there are even some good carcanos out there.
Making a derogatory blanket statement about classic military arms is like saying "dogs have rabbis" or "cats are friendly. Its so short sighted, its silly.
To say things like "Mosins are roughly built" or "Mausers are like Cadillacs" shows a lack of any in depth experience IMO.
For Mosins, the difference between the typical $89 Izhevsk wartime round receiver and a pre-war Tula Hex are astonishing. The Finnish rifles are even better. The differences are literally visible from arms length - some of the round receiver guns aren't even round, where a good hex reciever model is not only true, but highly polished and showing no tool marks.
Mausers are every bit as diverse, having been produced for dozens of countries, over a wide range of time. A Turk is not a Argentine, is not a Mexican, is not a Swede.
Enfields were also made in a wide number of configurations at various arsenals in various nations.
There are examples of fine weapons among all of them, as well as shoddy wartime builds. Contrary to myth there are even some good carcanos out there.
Making a derogatory blanket statement about classic military arms is like saying "dogs have rabbis" or "cats are friendly. Its so short sighted, its silly.
ILikeTheCold - according to the game commission, you can't hunt with a semi-auto, but that does not restrict you to a bolt action. Use one if that's what you prefer, but you can use a lever action, single shot, bolt action, or pump - any manual action rifle.
I like Missouri's law. So long as it doesn't hold more than 10+1 and you use an expanding type bullet. In Illinois my Uncle can only use a bow or shotgun.
minutemen1776
Member
minutemen1776
Member
On a more serious note, after having owned about 20 different milsurps and still having a half dozen in the gun cabinet, none of them would be my top choice for defense or hunting. Yes, milsurps can be inexpensive, and that's often the draw for many. But as others have already noted, getting a good milsurp can still cost you a couple hundred dollars or more. For your money, you get something that's not particularly suited for defense or hunting. For defense, you'd be better suited with a pump-action shotgun or a police trade-in handgun. For hunting, a few hundred can get a decent modern rifle, either a bolt-action or a lever gun. You might not get a new one for that, but you wouldn't be shopping milsurps if you were insisting on something new. Still, when it's all said and done, something more modern will likely serve you better. Of course, if you're into milsurps, then get one and try it. Just don't expect it to measure up to high expectations if you're pressing one into a role it was never intended to fill.
I have an M-44 Mosin-Nagant, and I enjoy it for what it is...a very rugged rifle (carbine), meant to be used in tough times. I figure the I can use the bayonet extended to fend off 1 or 2 ahhhhhh 'unfriendlies' while I reload the magazine.
Don't forget... while it may be a bit difficult to find...Soft-Point or Hollow-point ammo for hunting. A lot of the "Game-n-Fish" folks take a very dim view of using Mil-Surp "ball" ammo for hunting.
By the way...whoever posted the "Monkey-Butt" target owes me for a diet-coke drowned monitor & keyboard....
Don't forget... while it may be a bit difficult to find...Soft-Point or Hollow-point ammo for hunting. A lot of the "Game-n-Fish" folks take a very dim view of using Mil-Surp "ball" ammo for hunting.
By the way...whoever posted the "Monkey-Butt" target owes me for a diet-coke drowned monitor & keyboard....
How would a milsurp not be able to fill this role, Minuteman?
Hunting- They may not be the best for hunting, but they work, I've taken 6 deer with my K31 before I took leave of hunting for a while.
Defensive? They were designed to fight wars, and more often than not, they were used in a DEFENSIVE position.
Please elaborate your views.
Hunting- They may not be the best for hunting, but they work, I've taken 6 deer with my K31 before I took leave of hunting for a while.
Defensive? They were designed to fight wars, and more often than not, they were used in a DEFENSIVE position.
Please elaborate your views.
minutemen1776
Member
I'm happy to elaborate. 
First, just to be clear, milsurps can, and often do, serve as both defensive and hunting weapons. There's no doubt that many hunters go to the field with milsurps and enjoy success. Likewise, I'm sure that a lot of homes are defended by old milsurp rifles.
All that said, my point is that these old military arms are not the best choice for either role. And, to expand on that, more suitable firearms can be had at a similar price point, for those who are budget-conscious.
On the hunting side, milsurps may work, but you may also be hobbled with iron sights that are designed for engagements that begin at 300 meters. And, unless you resort to drilling and tapping, most milsurps aren't compatible with telescopic sights, which are a huge plus for hunting at range or in low light. There are other drawbacks, but I'll stop there. My basic point is that, if you're going to spend a few hundred dollars on a hunting rifle, it makes more sense to opt for a used modern rifle that either has or can readily accept a scope. A milsurp may be up to the task, but it's not made as a hunting arm, and it's not the best choice for that role.
For defensive uses, you're right that military rifles were designed to fight wars and were often used in defensive roles. However, they were also made to fight wars on battlefields, with entire armies engaging at ranges far beyond what anyone would ever encounter in a home-defense scenario. When it comes to fighting in close quarters, most milsurps are far too long and too slow into action to be ideally suited for that kind of fighting. This, by the way, was known even when these rifles were still in use. That's why, when so many military arms were still long, bolt-action rifles, the armies that used them also used lots of subguns for closer work. I concede that shorter semiauto milsurps like the AKM, M1 Carbine, and some SKSs are good choices for home defense. Yet, most milsurps are not, because they're too long, too heavy, and/or hold too few rounds. So, again, the milsurp is generally not the best choice, even though it can be pressed into the role. For the same money, why not opt for a 12-gauge shotgun or a handgun that will better serve in that role?
Finally, I'll reiterate that I have no disdain for milsurps. I've owned many and still have quite a few. I enjoy shooting them, and many of them are fine rifles. Ultimately, though, I'll reach for something else first if I'm defending my home or going on a big hunt. In my opinion, there are just better tools for those specific tasks.
First, just to be clear, milsurps can, and often do, serve as both defensive and hunting weapons. There's no doubt that many hunters go to the field with milsurps and enjoy success. Likewise, I'm sure that a lot of homes are defended by old milsurp rifles.
All that said, my point is that these old military arms are not the best choice for either role. And, to expand on that, more suitable firearms can be had at a similar price point, for those who are budget-conscious.
On the hunting side, milsurps may work, but you may also be hobbled with iron sights that are designed for engagements that begin at 300 meters. And, unless you resort to drilling and tapping, most milsurps aren't compatible with telescopic sights, which are a huge plus for hunting at range or in low light. There are other drawbacks, but I'll stop there. My basic point is that, if you're going to spend a few hundred dollars on a hunting rifle, it makes more sense to opt for a used modern rifle that either has or can readily accept a scope. A milsurp may be up to the task, but it's not made as a hunting arm, and it's not the best choice for that role.
For defensive uses, you're right that military rifles were designed to fight wars and were often used in defensive roles. However, they were also made to fight wars on battlefields, with entire armies engaging at ranges far beyond what anyone would ever encounter in a home-defense scenario. When it comes to fighting in close quarters, most milsurps are far too long and too slow into action to be ideally suited for that kind of fighting. This, by the way, was known even when these rifles were still in use. That's why, when so many military arms were still long, bolt-action rifles, the armies that used them also used lots of subguns for closer work. I concede that shorter semiauto milsurps like the AKM, M1 Carbine, and some SKSs are good choices for home defense. Yet, most milsurps are not, because they're too long, too heavy, and/or hold too few rounds. So, again, the milsurp is generally not the best choice, even though it can be pressed into the role. For the same money, why not opt for a 12-gauge shotgun or a handgun that will better serve in that role?
Finally, I'll reiterate that I have no disdain for milsurps. I've owned many and still have quite a few. I enjoy shooting them, and many of them are fine rifles. Ultimately, though, I'll reach for something else first if I'm defending my home or going on a big hunt. In my opinion, there are just better tools for those specific tasks.
@minutemen
WHile they are long, with a bayonet they make a formidable threat, as a perp may not expect a 3-4 foot long spear as a defensive weapon. Gutting a perp would incapacitate him far better than a shotgun.
WHile they are long, with a bayonet they make a formidable threat, as a perp may not expect a 3-4 foot long spear as a defensive weapon. Gutting a perp would incapacitate him far better than a shotgun.
minutemen1776
Member
What's up with all the bayonet fantasies in this thread? Think about it. Are you really going to try wielding a 3 1/2- to 4-foot rifle plus a bayonet in the confines of your house? True, a "perp" would not anticipate that maneuver, but that alone doesn't make it a good strategy.
My house has long, narrow hallways and my bed room is at one end of the hallway. Perps in my area are almost always unarmed, or armed with an edged weapon. My K98 and VZ24 bayonet with its upward facing blade is my most easily acessible weapon. A perp coming down my hallway wouldn't know what hit him, after all who anticipates a 6 ft man with a 3 1/2 foot rifle Banzai charging you? I load lead ammo in that gun anyways so overpenetration is the least of my worries.
Minuteman1776 said:
Minuteman1776 said:
I could not disagree with you more Sir.
I find the ghost-ring sights on an Enfield No.4, or a No.5 carbine to be ideal for hunting in heavy cover - especially when stalking prey which needs to be flushed, or shots taken on a moving animal. An optic of any magnification would be inferior for this purpose, and the scant few 'hunting rifles' which are equipped with open sights use types which are not nearly as conducive to fast target acquisition.
Additionally, if a Mauser with iron sights is not an appropriate hunting arm, then someone should notify Ruger, Winchester, and Remington, who have been building dedicated 'hunting rifles' in similar configurations for many decades.
Some of your other postulations about milsurp sighting systems don't make sense to me either: You say you need an optic for long range, yet the irons on a milsurp are only good beyond 300 yards? Also, you say that milsurps need to be drilled and topped for scope mounts.
Those claims are not 100% accurate.
Many milsurps can indeed be adjusted down to ranges much shorter than 300 yards - yes, many will still shoot several inches high even when adjusted down to their '100 yard' setting, but this is largely negated with a 6 o'clock target hold. Even a Mosin which shoots 5" high on the 100 yard setting will place a bullet in the vitals of a deer whose silhouette is sighted on the 6, and windage set behind the shoulder. This is simple, and requires no guess work.
Secondly, several companies now offer solid no-tap mounts which replace the rear sight. An electronic sight can be mounted for close range, or a handgun scope added for longer range shooting. These are not only effective (as displayed by previous posts in this very thread), but do not permanently alter the gun.
It may well be that those things were not true when you started collecting milsurps 'back in the day', but they are true in the current world we live in. The evidence is here in this thread.
Also, its not the Jewish canines you have to worry about - it's the Buddhist goldfish.
Last edited:
You guys are forgetting a good in country milsurp... The 1903A3
My first one was sporterized but not bubbafied. It had been put into a
Fajen style monte carlo stock. The only modification had been drilling and
tapping the receiver for a scope mount. First thing I did was to replace the trigger
with a timmney. Later I had it pillar bedded and the front sight removed.
Everything else is still stock. I get about 1.5MOA at 100 yds... so for target shooting
not too bad.. For putting meat into the freezer it has harvested hog, deer, and javalina.
30.06 ammo is available just about anywhere....including a bunch of milsurp in cans.
Easy to reload and the variety of bullets makes it quite versatile.
Oh..... I bought it for $200
My first one was sporterized but not bubbafied. It had been put into a
Fajen style monte carlo stock. The only modification had been drilling and
tapping the receiver for a scope mount. First thing I did was to replace the trigger
with a timmney. Later I had it pillar bedded and the front sight removed.
Everything else is still stock. I get about 1.5MOA at 100 yds... so for target shooting
not too bad.. For putting meat into the freezer it has harvested hog, deer, and javalina.
30.06 ammo is available just about anywhere....including a bunch of milsurp in cans.
Easy to reload and the variety of bullets makes it quite versatile.
Oh..... I bought it for $200
A lot of 1903A3s are dangerous to fire, moreso than even Last ditch T99 Rifles. All 1903s I have handled/been offered are of subpar quality to the 1917 enfield and Gewehr 98 rifles, thats not to say some people have found some good ones, I have only found rubbish of them thus far.
While they may be inferior to a semi auto, they are still good rifles, Minutemen
Put it this way; Would you rather have a gun that you know well, and have had so much practice with it you can fire more than 25 roudns a minute, accurately with (Mosin or Mauser, and I can do this, but I'd like to improve) than to have a rifle I do not know or own (AK, AR, etc.) and have had no practice with?
Im more comfortable with my bolts, for now, and I'm far more proficient than the average thug.
Put it this way; Would you rather have a gun that you know well, and have had so much practice with it you can fire more than 25 roudns a minute, accurately with (Mosin or Mauser, and I can do this, but I'd like to improve) than to have a rifle I do not know or own (AK, AR, etc.) and have had no practice with?
Im more comfortable with my bolts, for now, and I'm far more proficient than the average thug.
Last edited:
1903's with sub par quality? Unsafe to fire? I have never heard of this, particulary because they have a Mauser based action.
K31 is an excellent weapon, and will generally hold 1 MoA with GP11 as long as you play your part.
Huh? In over 30 years of shooting '03 Springfield's, this is the first time I've ever heard of such a thing. There has been some concern voiced about the early single heat treated Springfield actions (under serial number 800,000) after which Springfield Arsenal went to double heat treating and subsequently nickel steel but I've never heard anyone state that an '03 was unsafe. All 1903A3's were made of nickle steel and even very few of the low numbered Springfield's have had documented failures.
Frank de Hass in his definitive work on Bolt Action Rifles states that the 1903 Springfield Action is the top choice of a military action when building a fine custom rifle. When the late P. O. Ackley did destructive testing on many military actions he found the strongest action to be the Jap Arisaka. But who on God's green earth would want a fine custom rifle built on an Arisaka action? I guess Griffin and Howe, Sedgley, and Paul Jaeger were all misinformed when they built all those beautiful '03 Springfield sporting rifles... 98 Mausers are a bit stronger due to their design but then I don't load to Bubba pressures of over 55,000 PSI anyway. Finally, to say that an Springfield action is "sub-par" to a Enfield in quality is laughable.
Yeah...that's not the case. As RickMD pointed out, you're thinking of the tales of the earliest batch of 1903s, not 1903A3s. And even those concerns are utterly moot if you understand what you're looking at.
Wow, that's really too bad. Even a few years ago when I picked up one from CMP, the condition and quality of the rifle they sent me was simply outstanding. Keep looking, there are beat up, worn out, or mistreated surplus rifles of all kinds out on the market, but as you get some experience you'll figure out when you're looking at a junker vs. an actual representative sample of the type.
@Sam1911
Yeah I really wanted to like the ones offered to me, but I haven't found one without some sort of off putting characteristic. One guy tried to sell me a 1903 his dad had brought back, which is great, except he sporterized it and <deleted naughty word> up the finish with steel wool. I would've given him not a penny more than $100, he wanted at least 700 too much.
Another one was a very nice late production gun, that I couldn't buy but tried to. The owner was of the false belief you have to sell a rifle to someone whose 21.
What I look for in a former military rifle is personality, in other words I don't want a pristine example, I love beaten up war trophies ( my G 98 is my best example) I also look at the bore, is it going to be a shooter or a wall hanger? I'm one of those guys who only enjoys guns i can shoot. Finally, I look at the price, is it a good bargain? If I really wanted it price is not as much a problem, but a good deal is a good deal
Yeah I really wanted to like the ones offered to me, but I haven't found one without some sort of off putting characteristic. One guy tried to sell me a 1903 his dad had brought back, which is great, except he sporterized it and <deleted naughty word> up the finish with steel wool. I would've given him not a penny more than $100, he wanted at least 700 too much.
Another one was a very nice late production gun, that I couldn't buy but tried to. The owner was of the false belief you have to sell a rifle to someone whose 21.
What I look for in a former military rifle is personality, in other words I don't want a pristine example, I love beaten up war trophies ( my G 98 is my best example) I also look at the bore, is it going to be a shooter or a wall hanger? I'm one of those guys who only enjoys guns i can shoot. Finally, I look at the price, is it a good bargain? If I really wanted it price is not as much a problem, but a good deal is a good deal
Last edited by a moderator:
minutemen1776
Member
Well, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Personally, I'm about done arguing my own. As I said before, I have nothing against milsurps. Most are great guns in their own right. However, for most hunting and home-defense applications, I think there are better options available, notwithstanding the host of milsurp fans who will forever argue that their rifle is the best tool for just about everything. I, for one, am glad to have more options that are better suited for the job.
Here's one last thing I want to address:
I still think that a Mosin or Mauser is a poor choice for a home-defense weapon, especially if used indoors or in close quarters. I hold that opinion regardless of your professed proficiency with the weapon. The better solution is to get a better tool for the job and then learn to be just as proficient with it as you are now with the Mosin or Mauser. To put it another way, no matter how good you might be with a hammer, I'd never suggest that you drive screws with it. I'd tell you to get a screwdriver and learn to use it, too.
Flame away. I'm done.
Here's one last thing I want to address:
I still think that a Mosin or Mauser is a poor choice for a home-defense weapon, especially if used indoors or in close quarters. I hold that opinion regardless of your professed proficiency with the weapon. The better solution is to get a better tool for the job and then learn to be just as proficient with it as you are now with the Mosin or Mauser. To put it another way, no matter how good you might be with a hammer, I'd never suggest that you drive screws with it. I'd tell you to get a screwdriver and learn to use it, too.
Flame away. I'm done.
LOL, Good show, Minutemen.
As far as my beliefs go, I'd rather be comfortable with the rifle, and proficient with it before I'd go and find something else that I have no clue how to work.
And I wouldn't use a Mosin indoors anyway, that's what I have a shotgun and a pistol for. The Mauser is way too long, standing on end it's a foot shorter than I (little shorter but that's what it feels like) and slicing the pie with that would be more like trying to use a hack-saw to remove a wedding band from someone's finger. The mosin would just blow out my ear drums.
As far as my beliefs go, I'd rather be comfortable with the rifle, and proficient with it before I'd go and find something else that I have no clue how to work.
And I wouldn't use a Mosin indoors anyway, that's what I have a shotgun and a pistol for
. The Mauser is way too long, standing on end it's a foot shorter than I (little shorter but that's what it feels like) and slicing the pie with that would be more like trying to use a hack-saw to remove a wedding band from someone's finger. The mosin would just blow out my ear drums. - Status
