Mosins and “gracefully aging” THR members

Interesting morning
I ran across couple boxes of old corroded milsurp 7.62x54R cartridges this am. I pulled a couple of bullets.
Outside of cases heavy verdigris
Inside stick powder looked dry and non clumped
Bullets were 150 gr FMJ flat base .310
BRASS cases were BOXER primed, but sadly
with split necks
Primers were corroded fuzzy white
Head stamps was “REMINGTON 17”
Wow!

CapnMac said:

I have this memory that the UK No.1 MkIII rifle sights are calibrated with bayonet attached--but, I could be remembering that wrong. Also, from memory, the M44 was the first time the Soviets made any arrangement for carrying a bayonet other than affixed, as no scabbard was issued.

Click to expand...

I have the same recollection CapnMac. That’s why I bought the bayonet for my no 1 mk III, and because it only cost $1.99. (Ah the good old days).

as to getting the MN bug.. came close about 3 yrs ago a Tula Sniper for $250.00, but it just didn’t speak to me. (And I ALWAYS listen to the voices)

Rockrivr1 said:

Think you didn't understand the question. I asked what makes a rifle NOT a POS? The Mosin is accurate and you still think it's a POS. So what, in your estimation, makes a rifle NOT a POS?

Click to expand...

I didn't understand your question because you went on about stuff that wasn't pertinent.

What makes a rifle NOT a POS? Up to date technology, ergos to fit a human being, stocks not designed to turn recoil painful and an action that can be worked at speed. Before you start that "You can't compare 19th century armament to modern standards" nonsense, I'm talking about comparing the Mosin Nagant to its contemporaries.

Yes, I know how to work a bolt action at speed. My father saw to that. I won't claim I can work one as fast as Tommy works his Smelly, but I can hold my own. Almost all Mosin Nagants I've fired have awkward, clunky, sticky actions. No amount of "you just gotta" will change that.

Mosins have been used successfully on the battlefield. That's not a testament to the efficacy of the Mosin Nagant. It's a testament of the grit and fortitude of the soldiers cursed with going into battle with the Mosin Nagant.

MistWolf said:

I didn't understand your question because you went on about stuff that wasn't pertinent.

What makes a rifle NOT a POS? Up to date technology, ergos to fit a human being, stocks not designed to turn recoil painful and an action that can be worked at speed. Before you start that "You can't compare 19th century armament to modern standards" nonsense, I'm talking about comparing the Mosin Nagant to its contemporaries.

Yes, I know how to work a bolt action at speed. My father saw to that. I won't claim I can work one as fast as Tommy works his Smelly, but I can hold my own. Almost all Mosin Nagants I've fired have awkward, clunky, sticky actions. No amount of "you just gotta" will change that.

Mosins have been used successfully on the battlefield. That's not a testament to the efficacy of the Mosin Nagant. It's a testament of the grit and fortitude of the soldiers cursed with going into battle with the Mosin Nagant.

Click to expand...

Guess my 1903 Springfield is a POS, My Remington 81 in 300 savage total POS, and that 98k what a hunk of a POS. I think that anything designed at the turn of the century is a POS, it will not have "ergos to fit a human being" as humans are roughly a foot taller now then a century ago.

Lets see what other contemporaries are POS......hmm.

My krag carbine, what a pretty little thing, the wood almost cherry in color, that thing weighs nothing but boy let me tell you setting off a 30-40 is quickly turning recoil into pain.....hmm, trapdoor, what an antique heavy pile of a POS, 3 moa on a good day, not too much recoil......the fortitude of those guys hauling around that heavy trapdoor POS all over the great plains, and the native peoples had those fast shooting arrows that inside 100 yards are so much more accurate, 5 arrows from under a horses neck at full gallop into a torso at 50 yards....wow, and given the amount of training in shooting the whites got back then.....what grit they had.

It is simple, from your posts I assume if it is not made of some alloy, is nothing but plastic, and not one OZ of wood to be found you think it is a POS.....Fine you can have your view.

So again I ask why do you feel the need to come onto a thread only to put the S in POS in it. You bring nothing to the table but a very shallow reason to look for someone to validate your views. Shame people are so shallow to need to destroy what others enjoy just so they can feel better about their choices.

I dawn my flame proof suit, but have a feeling my post will get nuked in short order and the thread locked because someone has to trash on things others like.

Speaking of using the Mosin Nagant in combat...lol
The Ruskies are scraping bottom of the barrel big time if they have to call this old war bird back in action.

Megawatt maker said:

Speaking of using the Mosin Nagant in combat...lolView attachment 1067571
The Ruskies are scraping bottom of the barrel big time if they have to call this old war bird back in action.

Click to expand...

Eh ole putin wants his people to die giving them that garbage.

Remington1911 said:

Guess my 1903 Springfield is a POS, My Remington 81 in 300 savage total POS, and that 98k what a hunk of a POS. I think that anything designed at the turn of the century is a POS, it will not have "ergos to fit a human being" as humans are roughly a foot taller now then a century ago.

Lets see what other contemporaries are POS......hmm.

My krag carbine, what a pretty little thing, the wood almost cherry in color, that thing weighs nothing but boy let me tell you setting off a 30-40 is quickly turning recoil into pain.....hmm, trapdoor, what an antique heavy pile of a POS, 3 moa on a good day, not too much recoil......the fortitude of those guys hauling around that heavy trapdoor POS all over the great plains, and the native peoples had those fast shooting arrows that inside 100 yards are so much more accurate, 5 arrows from under a horses neck at full gallop into a torso at 50 yards....wow, and given the amount of training in shooting the whites got back then.....what grit they had.

It is simple, from your posts I assume if it is not made of some alloy, is nothing but plastic, and not one OZ of wood to be found you think it is a POS.....Fine you can have your view.

So again I ask why do you feel the need to come onto a thread only to put the S in POS in it. You bring nothing to the table but a very shallow reason to look for someone to validate your views. Shame people are so shallow to need to destroy what others enjoy just so they can feel better about their choices.

I dawn my flame proof suit, but have a feeling my post will get nuked in short order and the thread locked because someone has to trash on things others like.

Click to expand...

Not trying to flame you or anyone else here, but most of those old rifles you list are far and away superior to the Mosin Nagant.

Thats not saying the MN is a POS, because if you consider the reasons and conditions it was designed for, its not. When compared to other designs of the era...its the worst of the lot...but still did the job is was meant to do.

It was made to be CHEAP as possible, SIMPLE as possible, EASY to mass produce, RUGGED because its prime user was uneducated Russian peasants who were given the most basic instructions and training.

So..if you look at it like that, The MN was fine, but is it on the same tier as a Mauser 98? NOT EVEN CLOSE.

The rifles that have been sold here in the states for the last 30 or so years are rack grade refurbs. My grandfather had a Remington Mosin which has been passed down and I will put it against any war rifle bolt action made.

MistWolf said:

I didn't understand your question because you went on about stuff that wasn't pertinent.

What makes a rifle NOT a POS? Up to date technology, ergos to fit a human being, stocks not designed to turn recoil painful and an action that can be worked at speed. Before you start that "You can't compare 19th century armament to modern standards" nonsense, I'm talking about comparing the Mosin Nagant to its contemporaries.

Yes, I know how to work a bolt action at speed. My father saw to that. I won't claim I can work one as fast as Tommy works his Smelly, but I can hold my own. Almost all Mosin Nagants I've fired have awkward, clunky, sticky actions. No amount of "you just gotta" will change that.

Mosins have been used successfully on the battlefield. That's not a testament to the efficacy of the Mosin Nagant. It's a testament of the grit and fortitude of the soldiers cursed with going into battle with the Mosin Nagant.

Click to expand...

I see the uniquely quick SMLE action as just that -unique. It’s more ergonomic and fast (and holds more rounds) than the other guns of the era. And the Mauser is prettier/feels nicer.

But aside from the questionable utility of mad minute performance…. I’m hard-pressed to see that the Mosin actually underperforms in any real way compared to its contemporaries. You can shoot them fast enough to repel enemies in combat assuming your enemies are also armed with bolt guns and not submachine-guns.

I don’t understand where this idea comes from that the Mosin was “cheap.” It was cheap for us in the 90s-early 2000s, because they were being bought for just over scrap metal prices and hawked as a slow sell to Americans who wanted a cheaper alternative to an expensive sporting rifle ….but they are military guns and I do not believe they were “cheap” or “very economical” to make in the same way that a Carcano was. They were probably about as expensive to make as a Mauser. Were they as good as a Mauser? Subjective. For the connoisseur who wants “craftsmanship on a budget,” the Mauser will always seem like the better gun, because Mosins don’t have a light, crisp, effortless bolt feel. But they will kill the enemies of your country just as dead, can be very accurate, and really don’t give up a lot in practical terms.

Megawatt maker said:

Not trying to flame you or anyone else here, but most of those old rifles you list are far and away superior to the Mosin Nagant.

Thats not saying the MN is a POS, because if you consider the reasons and conditions it was designed for, its not. When compared to other designs of the era...its the worst of the lot...but still did the job is was meant to do.

It was made to be CHEAP as possible, SIMPLE as possible, EASY to mass produce, RUGGED because its prime user was uneducated Russian peasants who were given the most basic instructions and training.

So..if you look at it like that, The MN was fine, but is it on the same tier as a Mauser 98? NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Click to expand...

Why superior? The krag had the shortest service life of any us rifle short of perhaps the Lee Navy. All are built to be as cheap, simple, easy and rugged as possible.....every single one of them, One example got it's start by cutting up stuff that was even older, the trapdoor system defines cheap.

Everyone of them from that time frame will be par for the course on what they are designed to do, put a hole in something at X distance, and do it in a reliable manner.

I contend that the MN is really no different from any other service rifle at the time. Make no mistake I am not fan of russia not in czarist form, communist form, or the current form. However we are talking about an item. Looking at the item itself. Now looking at the worn out examples most of us have laid our fingers on....sure most still work, but are very far from mint....even far from in good shape. Way back when they got pulled from russian service ole Olga used a 40w bulb that the shade was once her husbands head to make sure the thing still was a gun that went bang, then it got stuck in a warehouse for a few decades to be sold off to americans. The examples most of us see fit into this group. People at one time said the exact same thing about Japanese rifles, French rifles are a dropped once, and Italy only made garbage, all this has changed. Gun Jesus on youtube made everyone look at french rifles differently, he likely had a hand in italy as well. Do you think that the russians are really that bad.

I will leave it with this.

I always thought carcano was kinda clunky, a bit junky, wobbly bolts and such.....but for some reason I don't know why I liked the little things. Perhaps because they are so cheap. Then I came across one that had spent its life in a museum dressed up like a LHO rifle.....I bought it for likely more then I should have. And it changed my view on the rifle. It is tight, crisp, and feels like no other carcano I have ever had. Having a good one changed my mind.

Then I bought a minty US mosin, I think I put pics up. That one (still not shot it yet) has a bolt that feels like no other mosin bolt I have ever touched, other people agree, this one feels so different, guess because it is american........or could it be because it is not rode hard and put away wet.

Remington1911 said:

Why superior? The krag had the shortest service life of any us rifle short of perhaps the Lee Navy. All are built to be as cheap, simple, easy and rugged as possible.....every single one of them, One example got it's start by cutting up stuff that was even older, the trapdoor system defines cheap.

Everyone of them from that time frame will be par for the course on what they are designed to do, put a hole in something at X distance, and do it in a reliable manner.

I contend that the MN is really no different from any other service rifle at the time. Make no mistake I am not fan of russia not in czarist form, communist form, or the current form. However we are talking about an item. Looking at the item itself. Now looking at the worn out examples most of us have laid our fingers on....sure most still work, but are very far from mint....even far from in good shape. Way back when they got pulled from russian service ole Olga used a 40w bulb that the shade was once her husbands head to make sure the thing still was a gun that went bang, then it got stuck in a warehouse for a few decades to be sold off to americans. The examples most of us see fit into this group. People at one time said the exact same thing about Japanese rifles, French rifles are a dropped once, and Italy only made garbage, all this has changed. Gun Jesus on youtube made everyone look at french rifles differently, he likely had a hand in italy as well. Do you think that the russians are really that bad.

I will leave it with this.

I always thought carcano was kinda clunky, a bit junky, wobbly bolts and such.....but for some reason I don't know why I liked the little things. Perhaps because they are so cheap. Then I came across one that had spent its life in a museum dressed up like a LHO rifle.....I bought it for likely more then I should have. And it changed my view on the rifle. It is tight, crisp, and feels like no other carcano I have ever had. Having a good one changed my mind.

Then I bought a minty US mosin, I think I put pics up. That one (still not shot it yet) has a bolt that feels like no other mosin bolt I have ever touched, other people agree, this one feels so different, guess because it is american........or could it be because it is not rode hard and put away wet.

Click to expand...

I didn't say or mean ALL on your list were superior, I said most. In fact, I'd be pressed to pick a worse rifle than the Carano, at least the shortened ones done is a shoddy manner from surplus ww1 examples.

My 91/30 is very very mint. Outside the finish on the stock starting to show its age, all the metal is about as pristine as I've ever seen on a MN. It took me hours to clean the preserving greece off it when I bought it. The bore is perfect, the scope is perfect, the stock cuts for the scope mount are perfect and age seasoned to match the rest if the stock, near as I can tell, everything about it is 100% correct, real, orginal, early import before knockoff 91/30s snipers started showing up in the early 2000s.

That said, its safe to say its the cream of the crop of all the surplus...doesn't get any better. Its a good shooter, with careful handloads, but the best it does is 2-2.5 MOA. Plenty plenty good enough to remove the heads off careless Nazis at 200 meters in Stalingrad, even good enough to hunt deer in PA, but it isn't, and can never be, anything close to what I'd call a tack driver.

On the other hand, I came across a 1942 matching numbers Mauser 98k that someone had drilled scopemounts into back before it was worth anything. It too has a perfect bore, and it was well cared for by whoever had it before myself. Since the damage was done, and its collector value null because of said drilled scope mounts...I went the rest of the way with it and put on a decent stock and trigger, and its a tack driver. Sub MOA all day long, any temperature, dang near any load save to worst surplus garbage.

Its a better rifle in every way...even before my mods were done to it. It was a great shooter before I put a dime into it.

The wood and metal finish, while not compatable to modern custom rifles or most commercial ones, on the original stock, where more than a few steps above the MN...and the action far smoother.

The Germans clearly put more time, better talent and material into the Mauser than the Russians did for the MN. Saying that doesn't mean the MN is crap, but it does mean its not on the same tier as a Mauser...or Springfield..or maybe even SMLE.

It was the tool best suited for Russian needs...nothing more.

Virtually all 91/30s sold here in the US are rebuilds. Externally they look great, decent bluing, usually “matching”. The shellac finish was a preservative and meant to be removed after they were called back into service. Hence it’s pretty flaky and ugly. That being said they’re not original factory matching, they’re almost always force matched (with the previous numbers nicely polished out.) Anecdotally this means internal fit and function isn’t comparable to an original matching gun.

Mosin77 said:

Virtually all 91/30s sold here in the US are rebuilds. Externally they look great, decent bluing, usually “matching”. The shellac finish was a preservative and meant to be removed after they were called back into service. Hence it’s pretty flaky and ugly. That being said they’re not original factory matching, they’re almost always force matched (with the previous numbers nicely polished out.) Anecdotally this means internal fit and function isn’t comparable to an original matching gun.

Click to expand...

The 91/30s had the scope serial either stamped or electro penciled on the receiver, and the number was also either stamped, or electropenciled onto the scope mount. This was done when the weapon was produced by the Soviets. which way..stamped or penciled, has no set standard because they were all produced during the war...and they gave zero farts about American collectors 70 years into the future. Forced matching on a 91/30 is not proof that its a rebuild or fake...because all orginals were that way. Its why its a bit harder to pick out the fake ones. Best way to tell is...the dates. Late war rifle with early war scope....is kosher (not always proof that its real, but its a big step to proving it)...Early or pre war date Rifle with late war dated scope...its a fake. They didn't start making them until 1942...so if you find a 1940 rifle with a 1943 scope...its no doubt a reproduction fake. The rifle and scope may both be correct..just not together. Another way to tell...its very closely look at the stock where cuts were made for the scope mount. The fakes are done sloppy, and the wood looks "fresher" than the rest of the stock..because the cuts were made in 2000 whatever compared to 1944. They are many ways of telling from the scope itself.. flat screws are a end give away that its a fake..the real ones have domed screws. Bolt handle on the rifle is another, but harder way to tell as well.

There are books on this subject..but rest assured there were a lot of real 91/30 snipers sent over.

Megawatt maker said:

I didn't say or mean ALL on your list were superior, I said most. In fact, I'd be pressed to pick a worse rifle than the Carano, at least the shortened ones done is a shoddy manner from surplus ww1 examples.

My 91/30 is very very mint. Outside the finish on the stock starting to show its age, all the metal is about as pristine as I've ever seen on a MN. It took me hours to clean the preserving greece off it when I bought it. The bore is perfect, the scope is perfect, the stock cuts for the scope mount are perfect and age seasoned to match the rest if the stock, near as I can tell, everything about it is 100% correct, real, orginal, early import before knockoff 91/30s snipers started showing up in the early 2000s.

That said, its safe to say its the cream of the crop of all the surplus...doesn't get any better. Its a good shooter, with careful handloads, but the best it does is 2-2.5 MOA. Plenty plenty good enough to remove the heads off careless Nazis at 200 meters in Stalingrad, even good enough to hunt deer in PA, but it isn't, and can never be, anything close to what I'd call a tack driver.

On the other hand, I came across a 1942 matching numbers Mauser 98k that someone had drilled scopemounts into back before it was worth anything. It too has a perfect bore, and it was well cared for by whoever had it before myself. Since the damage was done, and its collector value null because of said drilled scope mounts...I went the rest of the way with it and put on a decent stock and trigger, and its a tack driver. Sub MOA all day long, any temperature, dang near any load save to worst surplus garbage.

Its a better rifle in every way...even before my mods were done to it. It was a great shooter before I put a dime into it.

The wood and metal finish, while not compatable to modern custom rifles or most commercial ones, on the original stock, where more than a few steps above the MN...and the action far smoother.

The Germans clearly put more time, better talent and material into the Mauser than the Russians did for the MN. Saying that doesn't mean the MN is crap, but it does mean its not on the same tier as a Mauser...or Springfield..or maybe even SMLE.

It was the tool best suited for Russian needs...nothing more.

Click to expand...

I agree with you all the way, I am going to assume you would not call your mosin a POS. It is not, however calling it not does not mean that there are things that are not better. Sure there are better guns of that same generation. Even if you want to lay out perfect examples of all, and even if the mosin comes in last does not mean it is a POS.

A pos.....trying to think of what could be called a pos.....and how to define a pos. To me it is going to get the user killed.

Only thing I can come up with off the top of my head is the early M16 in vietnam. And at that I can't call the gun itself a pos, perhaps the better term would be the weapon system is a pos. We all know the story....or I assume we all do, powder changes and such. That got people killed, would stop when you needed it the most, you did not leave a round chambered as it would not want to come out again....stuff like that.....no chrome bore in a jungle.....I would say off the top of my head that initial offering was a POS.

Megawatt maker said:

The 91/30s had the scope serial either stamped or electro penciled on the receiver, and the number was also either stamped, or electropenciled onto the scope mount. This was done when the weapon was produced by the Soviets. which way..stamped or penciled, has no set standard because they were all produced during the war...and they gave zero farts about American collectors 70 years into the future. Forced matching on a 91/30 is not proof that its a rebuild or fake...because all orginals were that way. Its why its a bit harder to pick out the fake ones. Best way to tell is...the dates. Late war rifle with early war scope....is kosher (not always proof that its real, but its a big step to proving it)...Early or pre war date Rifle with late war dated scope...its a fake. They didn't start making them until 1942...so if you find a 1940 rifle with a 1943 scope...its no doubt a reproduction fake. The rifle and scope may both be correct..just not together. Another way to tell...its very closely look at the stock where cuts were made for the scope mount. The fakes are done sloppy, and the wood looks "fresher" than the rest of the stock..because the cuts were made in 2000 whatever compared to 1944. They are many ways of telling from the scope itself.. flat screws are a end give away that its a fake..the real ones have domed screws. Bolt handle on the rifle is another, but harder way to tell as well.

There are books on this subject..but rest assured there were a lot of real 91/30 snipers sent over.

Click to expand...

I was talking about 91/30s in general because they often get pooh-pooh’d for rough stock finish and sticky bolts, both of which tend more to be issues with postwar-refurbishment than “legitimate” complaints against the quality or original function of the rifles. But you’re right, there are many original snipers out there, and they’re very neat.

Remington1911 said:

I agree with you all the way, I am going to assume you would not call your mosin a POS. It is not, however calling it not does not mean that there are things that are not better. Sure there are better guns of that same generation. Even if you want to lay out perfect examples of all, and even if the mosin comes in last does not mean it is a POS.

A pos.....trying to think of what could be called a pos.....and how to define a pos. To me it is going to get the user killed.

Only thing I can come up with off the top of my head is the early M16 in vietnam. And at that I can't call the gun itself a pos, perhaps the better term would be the weapon system is a pos. We all know the story....or I assume we all do, powder changes and such. That got people killed, would stop when you needed it the most, you did not leave a round chambered as it would not want to come out again....stuff like that.....no chrome bore in a jungle.....I would say off the top of my head that initial offering was a POS.

Click to expand...

Jap Nambo pistol. Goes of by just bumping the disconnecter on the side of the slide. Springfield trapdoor 45/70. Had to dig the spent brass out with a knife after a few rounds. Ask Custer's men how that worked out...oh, that's right..the Indians didn't leave any witnesses...lol.

Remington1911 said:

Guess my 1903 Springfield is a POS, My Remington 81 in 300 savage total POS, and that 98k what a hunk of a POS. I think that anything designed at the turn of the century is a POS, it will not have "ergos to fit a human being" as humans are roughly a foot taller now then a century ago.

Lets see what other contemporaries are POS......hmm.

My krag carbine, what a pretty little thing, the wood almost cherry in color, that thing weighs nothing but boy let me tell you setting off a 30-40 is quickly turning recoil into pain.....hmm, trapdoor, what an antique heavy pile of a POS, 3 moa on a good day, not too much recoil......the fortitude of those guys hauling around that heavy trapdoor POS all over the great plains, and the native peoples had those fast shooting arrows that inside 100 yards are so much more accurate, 5 arrows from under a horses neck at full gallop into a torso at 50 yards....wow, and given the amount of training in shooting the whites got back then.....what grit they had.

It is simple, from your posts I assume if it is not made of some alloy, is nothing but plastic, and not one OZ of wood to be found you think it is a POS.....Fine you can have your view.

So again I ask why do you feel the need to come onto a thread only to put the S in POS in it. You bring nothing to the table but a very shallow reason to look for someone to validate your views. Shame people are so shallow to need to destroy what others enjoy just so they can feel better about their choices.

I dawn my flame proof suit, but have a feeling my post will get nuked in short order and the thread locked because someone has to trash on things others like.

Click to expand...

You know what? You didn't pay attention to a word I posted. You either know little about firearms history or are deliberately being obtuse. The Mosin Nagant is in no way as good as a 1903 Springfield, 98 Mauser or SMLE. The Trapdoor is in no way a contemporary. If you think the reason I don't like Mosin Nagants is because it ain't made of plastic (all metallic firearms are made of some type of alloy) your logic circuits are busted.

Megawatt maker said:

Jap Nambo pistol. Goes of by just bumping the disconnecter on the side of the slide. Springfield trapdoor 45/70. Had to dig the spent brass out with a knife after a few rounds. Ask Custer's men how that worked out...oh, that's right..the Indians didn't leave any witnesses...lol.

Click to expand...

Another very valid point. What we do with them is nothing even close to the original uses.

I seem to remember the "dig the case out" with a knife thing, and after digging it was a well yea it happened but was not that wide spread. I almost said not that big a deal, but if you are the guy that is trying to dig it out it is a very big deal to you.

To stay swayed off on that topic Custer got off easy. My latest deep dive into that history has made me pretty jaded.....I think I hit on this before.

You have me on the nambo, agreed. Can we say the krag as well when looking at the mauser next to it......I don't think we can....not to the POS end of the scale, same on the trapdoor, not to the POS end of the scale. We need to remember the state of things on the great plains, and the people and training at the time. Much of the blame can go to the loose nut behind the trigger.

MistWolf said:

You know what? You didn't pay attention to a word I posted. You either know little about firearms history or are deliberately being obtuse. The Mosin Nagant is in no way as good as a 1903 Springfield, 98 Mauser or SMLE. The Trapdoor is in no way a contemporary. If you think the reason I don't like Mosin Nagants is because it ain't made of plastic (all metallic firearms are made of some type of alloy) your logic circuits are busted.

Click to expand...

So now you are going from a POS to no where near as good. Keep the back peddle going you will get there soon enough.

Remington1911 said:

So now you are going from a POS to no where near as good. Keep the back peddle going you will get there soon enough.

Click to expand...

If you think describing the Mosin Nagant as a "POS" and "Not as good as" as back pedaling, then I'm back pedaling.

Let me back pedal again- The Mosin Nagant is a POS that isn't as good as such rifles as the Springfield, MLE, SMLE or Mauser 91/93/96/98

Mosins are not known for possibly blowing up with standard pressure ammo due to admittedly defective heat treatment, like our glorious Springfield ‘03. Just saying. They’re also not known for receiver stretch, or possibly rim lock issues, like Enfields. (Despite the fact that they use a rimmed cartridge.)

I don’t really have a comment on whether the Mosin or the Mauser is better. I’d probably rather spend my money on a Mauser and I’d probably rather be issued one…. But I’m not at all sure that at the end of the day they’re better guns. Germany’s target standards were pretty low, and I’ve anecdotally heard a lot more about tack-driver Mosins, surprisingly enough. They also work well in bitterly cold weather, and the firing pin protrusion can be adjusted for a solid strike (whether because the cold has reduced the length of the pin infinitesimally or because the primer is less effective in the cold, requiring a deeper hit.) Their main downside is the perception of cheapness (“How good can this commie gun be for $69.99?”) and the fact that they don’t have the pleasant bolt feel of the Mauser or the speed of the Enfield.

Mosin77 said:

Mosins are not known for possibly blowing up with standard pressure ammo due to admittedly defective heat treatment, like our glorious Springfield ‘03. Just saying. They’re also not known for receiver stretch, or possibly rim lock issues, like Enfields. (Despite the fact that they use a rimmed cartridge.)

I don’t really have a comment on whether the Mosin or the Mauser is better. I’d probably rather spend my money on a Mauser and I’d probably rather be issued one…. But I’m not at all sure that at the end of the day they’re better guns. Germany’s target standards were pretty low, and I’ve anecdotally heard a lot more about tack-driver Mosins, surprisingly enough. They also work well in bitterly cold weather, and the firing pin protrusion can be adjusted for a solid strike (whether because the cold has reduced the length of the pin infinitesimally or because the primer is less effective in the cold, requiring a deeper hit.) Their main downside is the perception of cheapness (“How good can this commie gun be for $69.99?”) and the fact that they don’t have the pleasant bolt feel of the Mauser or the speed of the Enfield.

Click to expand...

Both the Springfield and Enfield are both known to have those issues...but it very very...like almost unheard of for 40 years...rare.
I doubt there are very many of either of those out there left in hands that DONT know their rifles may have an issue.
The Springfield 03 heat numbers and serial number blocks where is an issue are very well published on top. Every article I've read in every gun rag that runs one on the 03 Springfield always make a point on mentioning this issue as well. Out of the what? couple million made, just a few have this defect. Even within the known serial number block...not all have bad heat treatment.

If we are going to compare QC between the Springfield and MN...Ill still trust the Springfield by far. Im sure...know it...that the commies had more than a few bad Mosins back in the day...they just didn't have a gun press to advertise this.

The advantageous of a Mauser or 1903 as it would pertain to combat effectiveness that I personally see are that the stripper clips are easier to load with compared to the mosin stripper due to the non rimmed cartridges, the bent bolt handle models are less awkward than a straight bolt, better stronger wood in the stock in case you need to use it as a club, and they eject more positively than the mosin does. As for actually shooting them I can't really see a glaring advantage for any of them except maybe the rear sight on a 1903A3. The mosins made during ww2 were really roughly built but consider the circumstances. To be fair you need to compare a pre war example.

An outfit up north here took some rough 91/30s and cut them down into faux M-38s. They did a good job and I decided to try one out. It has lots of exterior pitting and loss of bluing but the bore is ok. They welded a front sight block to the barrel with a dovetail at the right height. I'm 62 and was able to get some ok groups with my fuzzy eyesight.
Mosin purists will be aghast at this desecration of a historical artifact. Even mentioning this alteration will get you banned from the 7.62x54 forum. I think it makes a great truck, camp gun and have it with me quite often. My real M-38s don't get beat up that way.

Izhevsk's arsenal PU scoped 91/30's were numbered with the scopes number along the woodline on the left side of the barrel shank, with both the scope and rifles serial numbers on the scope mount.

Tula made PU scoped 91/30's with a Ch on the barrel shank. No scope numbers were stamped on the gun by Tula.

I know a few things after 34 years of useing a Mosin, often daily.
If you Mosin is "clunky' or stiff to work, gets sticky bolt, it is dirty, or was shot with corrosive ammo previously and not cleaned properly then.
That usually happens state side. Today, dealing with corrosively primed ammo by folks that have had noncorrosive priming for the last 70 years, often isnt what it should be.

Rearsenal weapons had to pass gauging and inspections.

A clean Mosin works just fine, smoothly and flawlessly.

Just an aside, but you cannot fire a Nambu Papa, T14 or Baby pistol by bumping the sear.
Your thinking of the Type 94 pistol, which, like the pocket Berretta's have the sear exposed along the side, but it takes serious effort to set it off, as its flush and moves back and not in.