What is it about Soviet Rifles...

I came late to the AK, after decades of deriding 'commie hardware'. And so yes at midlife+, I must admit ~ An AK is certainly no M-1, but an M-1 is *NO* AK. And there is truth in the Soviet axiom; Great is the enemy of Good. I've got almost 5K through my as yet un-cleaned Cugir AK over seven years; it hasn't failed once. Within 200 yards it is a terror.

Because that 7.62x39 round is so fun to shoot out of the SKS and AK platforms and the 7.62x54r makes a big boom too =)

In Soviet Russia, rifle collects you.

I got into them because they were cheap to shoot and interesting. I'm a WWII buff and love the history behind them. I've got a couple of Finn captured M91/30's and I know that they've been to war because the Finns couldn't afford for them not to be. It's also fun to be able to have a 70+ year old, $90 rifle that was considered obsolete by many at the time it was produced out-shoot a $1200 brand-spankin-new rifle. Doesn't happen with every one, but it does happen.

Matt

The Soviets were creative. Who would have ever thought about making a rifle with a muzzle blast so large, that upon firing, the enemy ducked for cover from incoming artillery fire. Long live the M44!

MachIVshooter said:

I prefer the M1 Garand to the SVT. It is a more solid, more robust firearm, and a bit more compact.

The Dragunov is a neat rifle, but performance-wise, it really can't hold a candle to the AR-10, so exotic looks and exclusivity are really the only things it has going for it compared to other DMR type rifles.

Click to expand...

You are of course entitled to your preferences. However, while I really like the Garand, I would like to see you shoot some 200 grain special purpose bullets through it side by side with someone shooting 200 grain marker or incendiary or tracer bullets through an SVT. How many rounds do you suppose you will get out the tube of the Garand before the weapon fails? How many rounds the SVT? If you were to say that the Garand is a heavier rifle, I would not dispute that. However, 8 rounds compared to 10, a detachable box magazine, ready acceptance of stripper clips, muzzle brake, all these features of the SVT are objectively better than the Garand. If you add in the early SVT model's ease of accepting optics, there really is no comparison.

In some ways advances in technology spares firearms. In other ways it doesn't. The Dragunov SVD is an early 1960s development, which has no parallel of which I am aware in the US inventory of that time. Closest thing to it is the M14 I guess, if decked out with a scope. Even then, scoping a M14 has been an elusive goal, until recent times. As a dedicated marksman's rifle, the SVD has pretty much held a solitary place in any Order of Battle until recently, vis the USA, which has only recently developed tactics which employ a DMR.

The SVD was eclipsed by the MSG90 by H&K as deployed in the German army, but until then, it was the best, and only, such rifle in any nation's inventory, AFAIK. (PSL excluded).

As far as an AR10 (not the first generation AR10 as designed by Stoner prior to the M16), this is a very recent development which exploits modern metallurgy and production techniques, along with a design which allows for a fully floated barrel. In rested accuracy with quality ammunition it will shoot tighter groups. Even so, I would only rate as "equivalent" an AR 10 to the SVD, and "inferior" if one evaluates optics side by side. The hasty "choke" rangefinder on .mil SVD allows for much quicker ranging, and the elevation knob allows for instantaneous range adjustment. Windage evaluation and compensation on any scope is going to be the same, and not readily addressed in any purely optical solution of which I am aware.

On the other hand, if one has the time, and is shooting from a prepared defensive position, the AR 10 with a mildot reticle, deployed with a shooter and a spotter, will probably be better suited to that type of tactics than a SVD. If on the offensive, the mildot reticle and mil/mil elevation knob is not as well suited to hasty SDM marksmanship as will be an SVD.

It is my opinion that even today, with the incremental improvements made to the SVD since its introduction all those years ago, it is a contender in its role. Other than the MSG90, which I deem slightly superior to the SVD, there is nothing in US inventory which is its better.

morcey2 said:

In Soviet Russia, rifle collects you.

I got into them because they were cheap to shoot and interesting. I'm a WWII buff and love the history behind them. I've got a couple of Finn captured M91/30's and I know that they've been to war because the Finns couldn't afford for them not to be. It's also fun to be able to have a 70+ year old, $90 rifle that was considered obsolete by many at the time it was produced out-shoot a $1200 brand-spankin-new rifle. Doesn't happen with every one, but it does happen.

Matt

Click to expand...

Matt:
Which $1200 modern rifle did your Mosin outshoot?

Cosmoline said:

If you want to see what happens when you combine the stalwart Russian designs with adaptive and innovative western approaches, you just look to the Finnish variants. Dozens of sub-types, many design changes and accurizing experiments. Some of the experiments like the "wings" in the M27 were a real failure. Others worked well. But in the span of a few decades the Finns made more changes to the Mosin than the Russians did over a century. It's a telling difference.
.

Click to expand...

The Finns built the Valmet submachine gun in 1926. The Soviet PPSh types were based on it.

Finland has long been home to a reputable firearm industry well beyond its own military capacity. Another example is the Czech Republic. That said, even the Finns are mortals. I bought once a Tikka rifle because of its super slick bolt action and the rep to boot. It turned out to be accurate for the first 15 rounds or so. When the barrel heated up, I couldn't hit a barn wall.
Russian firearms have this advantage, the expectations are low. So when they perform, they bestow happiness. When they don't, well, commie weapons, could be worse.

YZ said:

Matt:
Which $1200 modern rifle did your Mosin outshoot?

Click to expand...

Remington 700 of some type in 30-06 v. Hungarian M44. Both were shot with iron sights and handloads by the same person (Son-In-Law who is a great shot and has much better eyes that I do.) The Remington consistently had 2.5" 5-shot groups. The Hun consistently had sub 1.5" groups.

Once the scope attach to the remington, it wasn't even a contest but I wasn't going to put a scope on the Hun to continue the test.

My SIL's father wouldn't believe it and that's where the $1200 comes from. He complained for a week.

Matt

The sights on the Mosin are actually good for deliberate shots, and the rifle weight helps in a contest. I used to own an m44. It may be that the folded bayonet serves as a muzzle weight.
The infantrymen have always been encouraged to dial in the estimated distance. The only legacy part on the original ak may have been the Mosin rear sight.

I think the sights had a lot to do with it. I'd take the mosin sights over almost any mauser sight any day, even though I have more mausers. It gets more that way every year I get older.

Matt

My 1946 Izhevsk M44 was apparently unfired when I got it, but it shot high at any distance. From what I've heard, soldiers were not allowed to tinker, each had to learn his rifle and adjust his aim accordingly. There is an easy way to fix it though, if anyone reading this needs it.

The hasty "choke" rangefinder on .mil SVD allows for much quicker ranging, and the elevation knob allows for instantaneous range adjustment. Windage evaluation and compensation on any scope is going to be the same, and not readily addressed in any purely optical solution of which I am aware

I miss those hasty adjustments dearly. Would buy such scope in a heartbeat
, but all I've seen were AK mounted surplus at gunshows.

chrisTx said:

The Soviets were creative. Who would have ever thought about making a rifle with a muzzle blast so large, that upon firing, the enemy ducked for cover from incoming artillery fire. Long live the M44!

Click to expand...

Concussion grenade and falme thrower combo.

The reason that Russian & Eastern block rifles are so popular is because we ran out of the Surplus US stuff at the local gun store.

I remember as a youngster you could pick up a Garand or Springfield at just about any good gun shop. Back then you didn't see very many folks with SKSs or Mosins...Or an AK copy of any sort. It's the market that has made them popular...

I've demiled hundreds of Ex Warsaw Pact designed/produced firearms in all different flavors. I'll probably never see that many stamped and cast parts in one place in my life again...

The crates they came in were cool though.

I hear every now and then at work, "my teenage son wants an ak for his nteenth birthday!" I think the video games have a role here, badass images and all. When asked I suggested a new AR back when those were $200 more or so.

During my working life I was involved with eastern bloc small arms a great deal. I quickly learned there is a real genius about them. Even things that we first thought of as flaws or poor design was indeed an intended design feature. The first thing that comes to mind is the loose tolerances by our standards. We recognize that now as making them more dependable with a variety of ammo and the lack of cleaning. My involvement started in the 1970's when most Americans had not seen much less dis-assembled and mic'd an AK47 or a RPG. I went into it with an attitude that these things were certainly inferior to what we had. Other words typical American arrogance. I quickly gained a great deal of respect for their understanding of the intended users of these arms and their level of training or lack of training. This continued to the day I retired from firearms evaluation work. These folks are crazy like a fox. I don't think our government still fully appreciates their way of thinking and the design genius that results.

A friend of mine once described the Mosin-Nagant as "for peasants, by peasants." There's more than a little truth to that. It's as close to soldier-proof as a rifle can be.

I like my Mosins for their variety, for their history, and for being able to assemble a nice collection without breaking the bank. And I really like the fireballs the carbines make.

morcey2 said:

Remington 700 of some type in 30-06 v. Hungarian M44. Both were shot with iron sights and handloads by the same person (Son-In-Law who is a great shot and has much better eyes that I do.) The Remington consistently had 2.5" 5-shot groups. The Hun consistently had sub 1.5" groups.

Once the scope attach to the remington, it wasn't even a contest but I wasn't going to put a scope on the Hun to continue the test.

My SIL's father wouldn't believe it and that's where the $1200 comes from. He complained for a week.

Matt

Click to expand...

Sounds like your son in law needs to learn how to shoot iron sights. Adding a scope doesn't make the rifle any more accurate, it just makes the shooter more accurate. I would certainly agree that the mosins have a better sight picture than Mausers though, little contest there. That V/inverted V sight picture is absolutely awful for trying to lay down groups.

Last week at the range, I had my SA M1A Bush Rifle, my SA Garand, my Savage 10 in .308 with a weaver K2.5 scope, and my 1908 Brazilian Mauser. My buddy went out with me and brought his 1932 manufacture Tula M91/30 hex receiver. Using military ball ammo, the Mosin was the most accurate of the group. The M1A, the Savage, and the Garand all averaged 2.5MOA with HP and HXP surplus ammo respectively. The Brazilian shot about 3" groups with PPU ammo. I picked up his Mosin, and using Tula steel cased ammo, layed down a 5-shot 1.5" group at 100 yards. So yes, the Mosin was more accurate than a $1200 rifle (the M1A). Then again, the M1A is significantly shorter, a semi-auto, and utilizes detachable magazines and a sight picture that is much quicker to get on target. I also picked up a box of my handloads right afterwards and shot a 1.4" 5-shot group out of my M1A. I have no clue what the Mosin would do with handloads, because I don't load for that caliber. None of them would hold a candle to my Swede rifles however.

cal30_sniper said:

Sounds like your son in law needs to learn how to shoot iron sights. Adding a scope doesn't make the rifle any more accurate, it just makes the shooter more accurate. I would certainly agree that the mosins have a better sight picture than Mausers though, little contest there. That V/inverted V sight picture is absolutely awful for trying to lay down groups.

Last week at the range, I had my SA M1A Bush Rifle, my SA Garand, my Savage 10 in .308 with a weaver K2.5 scope, and my 1908 Brazilian Mauser. My buddy went out with me and brought his 1932 manufacture Tula M91/30 hex receiver. Using military ball ammo, the Mosin was the most accurate of the group. The M1A, the Savage, and the Garand all averaged 2.5MOA with HP and HXP surplus ammo respectively. The Brazilian shot about 3" groups with PPU ammo. I picked up his Mosin, and using Tula steel cased ammo, layed down a 5-shot 1.5" group at 100 yards. So yes, the Mosin was more accurate than a $1200 rifle (the M1A). Then again, the M1A is significantly shorter, a semi-auto, and utilizes detachable magazines and a sight picture that is much quicker to get on target. I also picked up a box of my handloads right afterwards and shot a 1.4" 5-shot group out of my M1A. I have no clue what the Mosin would do with handloads, because I don't load for that caliber. None of them would hold a candle to my Swede rifles however.

Click to expand...

He knows how to shoot quite well with iron sights, but the sights on the remington were lousy. He can shoot 1" groups all day with my 1903 and my Marlin 60 (50 yards for the 22).

Completely agree on the swedes. It's on my very long short-list.

Matt

morcey2 said:

He knows how to shoot quite well with iron sights, but the sights on the remington were lousy. He can shoot 1" groups all day with my 1903 and my Marlin 60 (50 yards for the 22).

Completely agree on the swedes. It's on my very long short-list.

Matt

Click to expand...

True, and deserving of correction. Some rifles have some really lousy sights that are not conducive to accuracy at all. Still, the Rem 700 is designed for use with a scope, with backup irons only as a dire necessity. Comparing the Rem 700 with cheapo iron sights not really designed to be used to a Mosin with very good iron sights designed to be used exclusively isn't very fair at all. I'd also think you'd be a bit hard pressed get anything close to $1200 for a used Rem 700 with only iron sights unless it had some serious work done to it. The Mosins are good rifles for what they are. Enfields, Mausers, Springfields, or good sporting rifles, however, they really can't compare to.

cal30_sniper said:

True, and deserving of correction. Some rifles have some really lousy sights that are not conducive to accuracy at all. Still, the Rem 700 is designed for use with a scope, with backup irons only as a dire necessity. Comparing the Rem 700 with cheapo iron sights not really designed to be used to a Mosin with very good iron sights designed to be used exclusively isn't very fair at all. I'd also think you'd be a bit hard pressed get anything close to $1200 for a used Rem 700 with only iron sights unless it had some serious work done to it. The Mosins are good rifles for what they are. Enfields, Mausers, Springfields, or good sporting rifles, however, they really can't compare to.

Click to expand...

Its a shame we are talking Soviet rifles.

A good Finnish Mosin would give a good run to all those you listed.

Maybe kicking the Nazi,s butts helped endear the rifles to the world.

meanmrmustard said:

Its a shame we are talking Soviet rifles.

A good Finnish Mosin would give a good run to all those you listed.

Click to expand...

Shooting at targets from a stationary position, yes. If you told me I was going into combat with one, Enfield hands down. Faster, smoother action, much better sights, and much easier to weild. Second place would fall to the Schmidt Rubin, and third place to a Springfield or Mauser of any type. The Mosin would come in a distant fourth, just ahead of the Carcano/Arisaka crowd. I don't have any experience with the French or Austrian crowd, so I wouldn't venture to rank those.

The Mosin Nagant was mass produced by a bloated and nealy bankrupt empire that was desperately trying to compete as a major player in Europe. The common citizen was extremely backward, and Imperial Russia's industrial complex was extremely poor at the time the rifle was designed and introduced. Things had improved slightly by the 30s and 40s when designs such as the SVT, SKS, and AK started to appear, but it wasn't until the post-WWII era that the Soviets had the industrial or technical skill to mass produce such designs. That of course also came on the backs of millions worked to death in forced labor camps to get there (as well as a lot of scientists, technology, and capital stolen away from occupied Germany at the end of the war). Little wonder that their main issue rifle was for so many years inferior to what the western countries issued.

I guess you missed the little notice that the USSR made more SVT-40's then the US made of the "technologically superior" M1 Garand.

The Soviet and Russian philosophy in general is to concentrate technology where it will make the greatest impact. On the battlefield, the two pieces of equipment that gets you the most results are Tanks and Artillery. Soviet designs excelled in both. Rifles and small arms were not given as much emphasis because they weren't what was consistently getting the biggest results.

Plus, the AK-47 was the first mass issued assault rifle. It wasn't untill the 1960's that the US caught up and started issuing an analogous weapon. M14 is a good rifle, but its also little more then a product-improved M1 Garand, whose design specifications were driven by the Revolutionary War concept of the marksman turning the battle from long range versus the reality of the short range firefights where the side with the most volume wins.

Again, which is why the USSR also manufactured over 6 million PPSh-41 sub machine guns.

cal30_sniper said:

Shooting at targets from a stationary position, yes. If you told me I was going into combat with one, Enfield hands down. Faster, smoother action, much better sights, and much easier to weild. Second place would fall to the Schmidt Rubin, and third place to a Springfield or Mauser of any type. The Mosin would come in a distant fourth, just ahead of the Carcano/Arisaka crowd. I don't have any experience with the French or Austrian crowd, so I wouldn't venture to rank those.

The Mosin Nagant was mass produced by a bloated and nealy bankrupt empire that was desperately trying to compete as a major player in Europe. The common citizen was extremely backward, and Imperial Russia's industrial complex was extremely poor at the time the rifle was designed and introduced. Things had improved slightly by the 30s and 40s when designs such as the SVT, SKS, and AK started to appear, but it wasn't until the post-WWII era that the Soviets had the industrial or technical skill to mass produce such designs. That of course also came on the backs of millions worked to death in forced labor camps to get there (as well as a lot of scientists, technology, and capital stolen away from occupied Germany at the end of the war). Little wonder that their main issue rifle was for so many years inferior to what the western countries issued.

Click to expand...

Smoother bolt than an M39? Surely you gist, sir.

Higher capacity...yup. Enfield has that down pat.

But one need only use M39 sights to experience superiority. 10 rounds doesn't amount to a thing if the other chap has hit you first. I don't know about you, but a Mosin bolt is quite fast, and doesn't operate on the "cock on close" principle. If I didn't love my M/38 Swede mauser so much, I'd be tempted to modify it.

Easier to wield? Jungle Carbine maybe? How's about an M44!

Thank you for the history lesson, but alas, we are talking Soviet rifles vs the World. The superiority of the Finnish refurbs must take a back seat on this one.

P.s: I do love me a K31. Talk about fast and accurate!