1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Mosin differences

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by bgrav321, Jul 29, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bgrav321

    bgrav321 Member

    Jul 31, 2007
    I know the main 3 russian variants are the 91/30, the 38, and the 44. I've heard of 59s but I've never seen one...sure they're nice...

    Anyways, i like the smaller size of the m44, but I've read several places that they cannot achieve maximum accuracy (although that's relative with a mosin, i know) without the bayonet extended due to barrel harmonics...true? Interested to see what the high roaders say.

    If this is the case then it would seem the m38 is the gun to get if you want a lighter and shorter one, but they seem more expensive than either 91/30s or 44s. Talk to me guys...
  2. chuwee81

    chuwee81 Member

    Apr 20, 2008
    i like the 91/30 although it's very long. mosin with bayo's can very accurate it;s just that the POI will change with the bayo extended and retracted. My 91/30 has the pig sticker style bayo and putting it on, the POI moved low and left, but the groups should be pretty close. If you want a handy bolt action (not full length) the m44 and m38 should be good enough for that.
  3. engravertom

    engravertom Member

    Apr 28, 2009
    Western NY
    I have found that if you remove the bayonet from the M44, the point of impactwill be centered on the target. Mine have been a bit low at 50 yards. Good groups though.

    91/59 is a 91/30 modified to carbine form, post war. IIRC.

    Then ther are the Finnish variations!

    Take care,

  4. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Dec 29, 2002
    Los Anchorage
    mosinnagant.net has all the various types and subtypes laid out in detail. There's nothing inherently inaccurate about the M44 platform. In fact the Polish M44's are often extremely accurate. The Soviet production tended to be less concerned about stock fit and other elements of accurizing.

    The differences are the product of the different combat experiences. The Finns are designed for greater accuracy but tend to be heavier and longer than contemporary USSR rifles. The Finns were fighting a fairly limited territorial conflict, not really the broader world war. They just wanted their land. It was open air rural and wilderness combat with great reliance on sniping and a fear of exposing positions with muzzle flash. They experimented with carbines but rejected them as ill-suited for their needs. In fact with the M39 they made even heavier, larger rifles than the ones before. You can take an M39 and fire a spam can of ammo through it until the barrel is smoking hot and it will still keep going. They're designed for accurate, sustained fire from reasonably fixed positions.

    The Red Army, in contrast, was fighting across vast territory in their own nation and eastern Europe. Esp. by 1945 the combat was intensely mobile and urban-centered. Try maneuvering an M91 long rifle inside some busted up concrete building. Shorter was in, and the need for 200 yard accuracy was not great. They were not fighting many battles from fixed positions, nor needing to fire hundreds of rounds at a stretch from bolt guns.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page