Mosin M44 Accuracy?

[Ash]

Eh, you need to check world championships: the Finns won the 1935, 1937, 1949 ISSF World Shooting Championships with the M28/30 and other Mosin Nagants. The Germans with their vaunted Mauser won only once. America won 8 times, the Swiss dominated early, but the Soviets won far more later - many of which were Mosins. Mosins have their own fair share of victories. But, that isn't opinion...it's fact.

Even so, compare the fit and finish of any Finn to the others. I have done so. I have owned every one of the rifles you mention except for the 1903 (did own a 1917). The Swiss might be nice, but it did nothing more than sit in armories and get paraded around from time to time between punching paper. The Mosin, on the other hand, went there, did that, and proved itself. Every one of the Finnish Mosins used to win the 1935 and 1937 world championships went on to see combat in the Winter War and Continuation Wars during WWII.

The Finns were not neutral - they tried to get US help against the Soviets but Roosevelt would not help them. The Soviets got kicked out of the League of Nations for invading Finland and to this day, they possess the land they stole from Finland.

The Finns, by the way, flew Brewster Buffaloes against the Soviets to impressive effect (far better than our own Marines fared in the same machines against the Japanese). One of the greatest snipers in world history was Simo Hayha with 503 confirmed kills and he use, get this, a Mosin. His didn't even have a scope. Not bad for a sundial.

 

[gunwatcher]

i absolutely love my m44, but mine doesn't shoot all that well. I keep hearing you are supposed to shoot it with the bayonet out since it changes the barrel harmonics. I havent tried that yet though... What it lacks in accuracy it makes up for in the huge fireball it creates

 

[carbine85]

i absolutely love my m44, but mine doesn't shoot all that well. I keep hearing you are supposed to shoot it with the bayonet out since it changes the barrel harmonics. I havent tried that yet though...

The rifles are sighted in with the bayo deployed. It doesn't make them any more accurate, it simply changes the point of impact. Removing the hunk of steel and resighting the rifle improves the accuracy.

 

[lencac]

Ash, I never let the facts get in the way of a good BS session.

From the sound of it looks like you are in love

Perhaps we could take up a collection so we can send you to the great white north in Finland

If you notice I gave the M39's their accolades.
But I still can't help but wind you up a little bit

However, any time you care to set up a course of fire I'd be more than happy to run one of my lowly, unvetted, fragile K-31's against your M39 say for a small wager.

Oh, BTW

MERRY CHRISTMAS

 

[Ash]

Heh, I don't own an M39 anymore as I have severely contracted my collection. But, I'll take my 28/76 to that match! And, ditto on Merry Christmas.

 

[lencac]

Oh, I see, now you pull the bait and switch on me. The ole switcharoo
Then I suppose you won't mind if I use my other 7.5x55 Swiss

 

[Ash]

No bait and switch, I stand entirely behind my statements. But here's a fine example of what a Mosin can offer in a more modern guise (still bone-stock military).

 

[lencac]

Very nice. I've always kept my eye out for one of those but never could come across one that was doable. Shoot, I think I've only seen perhaps one or two of those ever.
Sweet rifle
Far cry from the Russian incarnations.
Here's another one that is a super performer.
I sold it a while back. Wished I hadn't now.

 

[lencac]

Ok Ash. Here's how we do this. It is based on the honor system.
10 shots for score on a clean target with an 8" round Shoot N See stuck on top at 100 yrds.
I'll let you pick for offhand or from the bench. I shoot equally terrible both ways
Only hits on the Shoot n See count.
Then we post our targets on this thread for a $10 bill.
You use your very nice 28/76 and I'll use one of my K-31's with diopter sights.

Loser mails the $10 bill to the winner

 

[d2wing]

I doubt this has any bearing on m44 accuracy but let's see how this goes. Saves me the trouble of shooting mine again. Not very accurate as I recall, but I don't have the one the soviets, so honest they are, that killed 500 guys.

 

[jimherb]

M44, etc., are great for their intended purpose. I wouldn't modify one to "improve" it while I could buy a Ruger or Savage, etc. for less cost that would be more accurate out of the box.

 

[Joshua M. Smith]

Hello,

The M38 and M44 were carbines used to arm those who were not on the front lines, artillery crews and such.

Still, they were made to the same specifications as the M91/30 and, as such, are capable of the same precision as the longer rifle.

The thing is that it's harder to shoot them as precisely due to the shorter sight radius and increased muzzle blast (and, for the M38, increased recoil.)

Properly shimmed and pressure bedded, I'm sure some carbines are capable of sub-MOA groupings, just like the M39 and M91/30s are.

Out of the cosmoline, 2" at 100 yards is a superb grouping. If I recall correctly, and I may not, precision standards for the 91/30 were 6 MOA for infantry and 4 MOA for the sniper versions. Most did better.

The biggest problems I've found are poor inletting in the stocks (there is almost never contact against the recoil lug and the recoil cross bolt in the stock, for example) and the horrendous trigger (actually designed that way as the Russians of 1891 believed in instinctive shooting.)

I've found folks are astounded what their Mosins suddenly do when they add shims to the receiver, 5lbs of upward pressure to the end of the barrel, and lighten the trigger a bit.

Regards,

Josh

 

[Jcinnb]

The M-44 design is a result of fighting in sewers and blown out apartments of Stalingrad. The long, WWI trench design warfare optimized weapon was not needed, in fact, it was a liability in cramped and confined spaces.

I expect, based on the design and purpose, the Soviets would have been happy with a 5" group at 100 yards, probably a 10" would have been ok.

There is nothing in the M44 to enhance accuracy, but it was built for a purpose and it was PERFECT for its purpose.

 

[carbine85]

The thing is that it's harder to shoot them as precisely due to the shorter sight radius and increased muzzle blast (and, for the M38, increased recoil.)

Properly shimmed and pressure bedded, I'm sure some carbines are capable of sub-MOA groupings, just like the M39 and M91/30s are.

Shimming and trigger jobs go a long way with these rifles, however sub MOA out of a Mosin is going to be pretty difficult. I have seen plenty of guys with their snipers try and not achieve that. Most of these old dogs can't do it.
The muzzle flash happens after the bullet leaves so that shouldn't have any effect.
I use a recoil pad and check rest pad. I can put 50-60 rounds down range without any pain or suffering.

 

[Ash]

Okay, lencac, deal. It'll be that week after Christmas before I can get out to my range to do the shooting.

 

[j1]

Always try to remember that they were good for minute of Nazi. They are the gun which helped win WW II. The russians needed no more.

 

[lencac]

Ash, cool
I probably won't be able to get to the range for a couple weeks also because of the obvious things with Christmas and the weather.
Sounds like fun
Couple questions; Offhand or from the bench?
Do we want to invite others to participate?

J1, I don't need to try to remember. My father was a combat medic and his separation documents says his battle and campaigns included African Middle east, Italy, Normandy, Northern France, Ardennes, Rhineland, Central Europe.
Also keep in the so-called Russian army was nothing more than poorly trained peasants with bunches of crappy rifles with virtually no leadership as Stalin previously had executed most of his veteran military officers. The US sent Stalin millions of tons of military equipment so the Nazis didn't just outright demolish them until they could get their communist stuff together. Without US intervention the communist pukes would have been toast.
So try to remember the US was the hammer that broke the Nazi anvil.

So the saying; "minute of Nazi" is an offhand way of saying that Mosin 91/30's were known terribly inaccurate.

Like the saying my dad would use is this; "the Nazis had better stuff than anybody else, they just didn't have enough of it"

 

[Ash]

Except that their tanks had unreliable engines and their idea of a tank being there to fight other tanks was a mistake. The US concept of a tank supporting infantry (just as the machinegun was to support infantry, not vice versa) was the right one. Even though the M4 was inferior to the Tiger, it was better than the other tanks the Germans issued, could be made faster in greater numbers, and was fast enough and well-enough armored to support infantry assaults. Of course, the T34 was vastly better than the Tiger or Panther (the Panther being the German attempt at replicating the T34).

In any case, the Germans did have good equipment, but not the best in most cases. They lacked a heavy bomber, inferior navy beyond U-Boats (no operational carriers), planned on supporting machine guns with bolt-action armed infantry, and waged war against a nation that possessed 75% of the total war-making manufacturing ability of the world plus a nation that, while lacking the industrial capacity had the will to send its people into the meat grinder without pause.

Sure, they had good fighters and fielded a superb jet fighter as well as guided missiles (with pathetic guidance). But their wheeled transport was pathetic compared to the US.

 

[lencac]

Are you calling my dad a lier

The written and perceived history is one thing. A person who was there face to face is another.

 

[Ash]

No, my Grandfather, a combat engineer detached under Montgomery and Great Uncle who served under Bradley and went in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and southern France (at the same time as Murphy) were the only ones in Europe - the rest including Uncle Emmit who was German, served in the Pacific including my Uncle Jiggs who was a Paramarine, Uncle Dude who was in the navy on board DD's, and Uncle Hough, who was a flight engineer on B-24's - wait, he was in Italy.

However, German tactics were as I described and the Tiger did indeed have an unreliable engine. This isn't my opinion.

It is fact that the ME 109 was better than what we fielded in Europe until the P-47 and P-51. The P-38 shined only in the Pacific. Tank on tank, the Tiger was vastly better than the M4 in a tank-on-tank duel. A Tiger beat two M4's. The thing is, as good as the Tiger was, they didn't make all that many and indeed replaced it with the Panther before the war ended. Even so, there were many, many, many more Shermans, plus Churchills and other tanks in the war. But the Panzer III was not that good, the Panzer IV was not that great, either, and both tanks were what Hitler had for Blitzkrieg through France and Poland.

Also, bolt action infantry supporting a machinegun was an inferior strategy to semi-auto infantry supported by machineguns.

In any case, their Navy was inferior except in submarines, yet the Happy Time ended with the introduction of convoys and escort carriers.

 

[lencac]

My dad was one of three brothers who served in the ETO not to mention my mom was an Army nurse.

If both German and Allies had equal amounts of their own stuff, Germans win. Home field advantage. Had Hitler not made the blunder of attacking the Soviet Union and kept them as allies things very well might have ended up differently. The only thing the Germans lacked was a winning strategy. Thank God for stupid people

I find it interesting how similar the German military structure and American military structure was. We both were industrial nations. The main difference between us was language, oh and that thing about concentration death camps The Russians were by far more dissimilar. Stalin made Hitler look like a piker when it comes to slaughtering people. But war makes strange bed fellows. I think Patton was right. We should have finished them off too while we were there.
My dad would roll in his grave if he saw what were we are doing now

 

[Ash]

The Germans succeeded early with boldness. They prepared early and started hitting everyone before they were ready. When the Allies geared up, things changed. Germany lacked the war making infrastructure needed to win. They had u-boats, but little else as far as navies went. As a result, they could not control the sea lanes. Their superiority of weapons was not universal, made worse by tactical usage of the great ones.

Germany lost the Battle of Britain before the US got into the war and before their blunder in Operation Barbarosa. Sea Lion never occurred before their misadventure across eastern Poland. Thus, German would never be able to win the war.

But Germany lost the war the moment they decided to wage war against the United States, which was filled with terrible resolve and a deep, gutteral, sense of vengeance over Pearl Harbor. The US had 75% of the industrial war making capacity in the entire world. We had the best mechanized transport equipment in the world. We could better supply our troops over an ocean than the Germans could, sometimes in mere kilometers.

Wars aren't won by who has the best rifle. They are won by who has the best logistics and the best production capacity. The Germans had many good weapons at the beginning, but these things were good for tactics alone. French tanks during the Blitzkrieg were actually better than German (pathetic and indecisive leadership cost France their part of the war). British Spitfires were equal to ME 109's. German heavy bombers were no better than US mediums.

But the US ability to replace losses, plus the fact we made The Bomb first (the Germans weren't even close), plus the fact we could deliver the weapons of war to the war zones, was vastly better than Germany's. As a result, Germany could not win. The war was over for them the moment they declared war against the US, compounded a year earlier when they failed to take Britain. German's vaunted military could not invade and conquer Britain. They could not conquer Egypt. They could not make enough tanks or planes to replace their losses. The game was thus over for them.

 

[Voodoochile]

ASH;
While I am a very patriotic person I will not simply state that Germany lost the war just because of them declaring war on the U.S.A. or that it was only because of us Americans but a joint effort.

I do agree though that it was a lot to do with the tactical blunders that Hitler made that not only made his army stretched too far but in both man power & equipment but also due to the efforts of the British in keeping their own home front secure with also our efforts to help supply their efforts & the Russians eventual push that made the eastern front all but inhospitable all the way to Berlin.

But we are turning this into a debate of what happened in WWII instead of what the OP had asked.

 

[carbine85]

This thread started out as good conversation about the M44 but it appears to have gone south. Maybe it's time for a new thread?

 

[Ash]

I'm not waving Old Glory, just talking economics and the causes of victory and defeat. The same reason the South lost the Civil War is the reason the Germans lost WWII. Vietnam is more closely aligned with the Revolution. Tactics don't win wars, merely battles.

As to the original topic, yeah, the thread drifted. But, the OP question was answered quite a while ago