91/30 Mosin POA

My limited experience with Mosins has shown me that most shoot at least 6" high at 100 yards. Lore has it that the soldiers who were issued the 91/30 were told to "aim for the belt buckle". That'd give a center-mass shot in most cases, and it gives you more "torso" in your sight-picture to gun for. Makes sense...but the origin story may or may not be true. Sorry this doesn't help much, but it is an interesting tidbit, I thought.

It's true.

Almost all military rifles of that era shot very high at 100 yards.

They were set up with a "battle sight" zero of 300 Yards/Meters/Arshins or more with the sight at the lowest setting.

And like you said, the intent was aim at the middle of the solders body and you would hit him somewhere at about any range you were likely to be shooting at him.

rc

I believe the Mosin Nagant was originally calibrated for what we call 'heavy ball' today. 170 grains or so.

Also, I think part of the reason they shoot high is because they were originally made for round-nosed ammunition, not the spitzer style we have now. The ballistic coefficient wasn't as good, so it might have been closer to the POA at short ranges.

Battle sighted for 300 Meters, like the Battle setting at the rearmost position on an AK-47 rear sight.

Point of impact on the 100 Meter setting will get you 5 inches high at 100 Meters, but dead on at 300 M

The Finns set point of impact to the setting on the rear sight, eg, 100Meter setting should have th epoint of impact at the point of aim, same as the American sighting, untill we adopted the Peep sight system.

This was because the "Target" of the day was an infantry mans belt buckle, at any range that will produce a Hit for a conscript.

They aim for the man's belly.

I keep hearing this, but it doesn't make sense to me; why would the Russians make a rifle shoot correctly at 300M when the sight is set for 100, when all the while the sight itself actually HAS a 300M setting? Why wouldn't they just sight the rifle correctly, and tell their soldiers to leave the sight at "3"?

Also, I didn't notice anything in the Soviet 91/30 manual about sighting at 300M.

The "aim for the belt buckle to produce a center of mass hit" thing makes the most sense to me - with this method, the sights only obscure half of your target, instead of averything below the chest. It's like a six o'clock hold with a torso-sized target.

Basically, they could aim at the belt buckle and score a hit to the chest. Easier way to aim for a conscript, I guess.

Cool info, never new this.

I think the "dead on at 300" thing is just a coincidence that happens to occur due to the high 100 meter zero. That, or maybe some special thing for medium-range marksmen? Who knows, it was Soviet Russia.

TurtlePhish said:

Basically, they could aim at the belt buckle and score a hit to the chest. Easier way to aim for a conscript, I guess.

Click to expand...

How is it easier to aim for a belt bucke than to aim anywhere else?

If you look at German- or other- WW1 uniforms, the coat completely covers the belt buckle anyway.

How is it easier to aim for a belt bucke than to aim anywhere else?

Click to expand...

No idea, I'm not an illiterate Soviet conscript.

It's easier to aim for the belt line than, say, the middle of the chest, because the irons will obscure everything below the POA. The less you obscure( ie, the lower your POA on a human silhouette), the easier it is to obtain a sight picture.

It's easier to aim for the belt line than, say, the middle of the chest, because the irons will obscure everything below the POA. The less you obscure( ie, the lower your POA on a human silhouette), the easier it is to obtain a sight picture.

Click to expand...

Yeah, what he said.