Mosin vs. Mauser, head to head

[Cosmoline]

I've been collecting and shooting Mosins and Mausers for a few years now, and I've complied this list of pros and cons. My own verdict is changing all the time, but right now I'm favoring the Mosins because they're still the better value.

Mauser

Excelent cartridge selection (7x57, 8x57, 7.65 Arg., virtually any known calibers can be had by installing new barrels)

Durable receivers

Limited interchangeability of parts between makes and models

Price range from $50 to $1,000 plus (Turkish to pre-war commercial)--on average more expensive than Mosins

Slow bolt

Short-barreled carbine versions tend to be rare.

Best version: Persian, $300 to $600

8x57JS selection tricky, with wide pressure differences, other standard chamberings range from very rare to common.

"what the hell?!" factor low (ie chances your hunting buddies are going to say "what the hell IS that?!" when you show up with one)


Mosin

Limited cartridge selection (54R plus some weird Finn wildcats) and no new barrels that I know of

Durable receivers

Wide interchangability of parts

Price range $50 to $500 (rough 91/30 to sniper)--on average a better deal than Mausers

Slow bolt

Short-barreled carbine versions common and inexpensive

Best version: M-39 Finn, $200 to $400

Ammo cheap and easy to obtain, still in current production by the Rooskies.

"what the hell?!" factor high

 

[goon]

I have examined this myself.
I have to agree with you on the Finns being the best MN.
The bolt on the Mauser is easier to work without taking the rifle down from your shoulder.
The MN uses a rimmed cartridge which can jam if you ain't careful when you load them. The Mauser has it beat there.
But I still like the MN. The russian ones have incredible balance for a military rifle. They just seem to find their way to my shoulder effortlessly.
I have both, and I like them both. I haven't got a chance to shoot either the russain MN or my M-48 yet. Just got them a few days ago and haven't found time yet.
I might go try them later today.

 

[cratz2]

Well, I have to admit to having shot very little actual military Mausers. I've done a fair bit of Mosin shooting mostly one of two carbines. I don't think the Mosins are as junky as some MilSurp snobs seem to act. I think several targets would be in a bit of trouble against an average shooter with a Mosin.

Of course, true MilSurp snobs extole the virtues of the Enfields and K31s.

 

[Okiecruffler]

Even tho' I've been spending alot more time with my M-48A lately, my Mosin's are still my favorite. Mine range from my Hungarian M-44 that will do 1.5'' groups all day long, to a realy well used 91-30 Tula that might hit an 8X11 target at 10yrds if the wind is just right. Possibly the ugliest rifles ever built, and just stupid simple. I don't think I've paid more than $60 for any of mine, but I haven't caught a bug for a Finn yet either.

 

[makdaddy03]

I'll put my Finn M39 Mosin Nagant up against a Mauser any day of the week.

 

[Stinger]

I have a Hungarian M44 and a Czech Mauser.

Both will put 3-5 shots into 2" at 100 yards. Neither are in pristine condition.

Stinger

 

[BHP9]

When speaking of the two rifles there are many angles to consider. If you are just looking at price and accuracy it is hard to beat the Mosin but if you are looking at design it is entirely a different can of worms.

Design wise nothing today or yesterday can even remotely compare to the king of all rifles the 98 Mauser. It gas protection system is unmatched even to this very day and its reliablity and accuracy are without peer and legendary. Easy of bolt operation goes to the 98 as does its take down. I would lean towards the 98 safety as being the better designed safety also and more convenient to use.

Most Mosin's and 98's have very good workmanship but the nod still goes to the 98 when we are talking of some of the contract rifles made for South American and the early pre-war 98 Rifles made in Belguim and Germany. Workmanship was breathtaking to say the least.

All though this is just my personal opinion the Mosin was largely pretty much an abortion of a rifle because it was only created to circumvent the patent laws that Russia would have had to pay foreign countries like Germany if it had adopted a variation of the Mauser brothers rifles that were being built at that time. Its single stack magazine was not adopted because of any superiority over the double stack magazine of the early Mauser rifles but it was created so Russia would not have to pay for any patent infringments to the Mauser brothers.

Design wise the Mosin took a very long back seat to the Mauser brothers rifles that culminated in the later invented world famous 98 action.

You will not see any pictures of old time world famous big game hunters carrying the sporting version of the Mosin rifle. They all carried the best there was because their lives often more than not depened on their rifle. What you will see in the pictures is that almost all of them that carried bolt rifles carried the sporting version of the 98 Mauser. For men who lived with rifles in their hands day and night this is the highest praise that can be given a rifle design.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Mosin magazine was designed to feed rimmed ammo w/o jamming by the use of an interruptor (which only lets one round come up at a time). better than Enfields in that respect.

Mosin bolts are weird but strong and very easy to maintain, incl. disassembly.

On the down side: Mosin clips, even the best of them, aren't all that great. Also, Mosin bolts are stiffer to work than Mauser bolts.

It boils down to ammo availability, personal preference (i.e. safety design...I dislike both Mosin and Mauser), sights (comparable), price (Mosins win there), etc.

 

[RON in PA]

People need to compare apples with apples. The Mosin is an 1891 design that for all practicle purposes did not change for its manufacturing life ( certainly into the 1950s and maybe into the sixties in China) while the 98 Mauser is the culmination of a decade long evolution from the 1889 Belgin to the gewehr 98.

Comparing the 1889 Mauser to the 1891 Mosin I think the only advantage the Mauser has is the use of rimless cartridges and that isn't much because the Mosin(as opposed to the Lee-Enfield) is designed to prevent rimlock and the short bolt handle.

But to get back to the original thread, the 98 Mauser is smoother in operation, has a better charger system and flush magazine and probably handles gas better.

In the context of the 2 World Wars and the average infantryman, there probably wasn't any major advantage of one over the other and they were not that important in the broad scheme of things.. After the advent of the machine gun and rapid firing artillery the main function of the foot soldier was to become a casualty.

 

[Cosmoline]

"What you will see in the pictures is that almost all of them that carried bolt rifles carried the sporting version of the 98 Mauser."

S.R. Truesdell does a detailed study of early big game hunters in "The Rifle: Its Development for Big-Game Hunting" and comes to some surprising findings. The .303 Lee-Metford and the 6.5mm Mannlicher, along with the nitro express rifles, were all the rage for many decades. He's got one pic of Major CER Radcliffe with a 1,200 lb. brown bear taken with a little bitty Mannlicher! It wasn't until after WWI that the Mauser '98 action became the preferred rifle, even then there was a lot of competition.

The Mauser Bros always made a point of selling their rifles anywhere they could. The Mausers became ubiquitous through good salesmanship as much as good engineering. Nobody pushed the Mosin-Nagant design in a smiliar way. And the Revolution limited its distribution further (until after WWII, when the Soviets spread it around the communist states). Mausers have an engineering edge on the Mosins becuase they were constantly re-developed and improved during the 1890's. But I don't think this edge is the chasm some believe. I've had many Mausers that jam up every other shot, and even some that don't feed correctly. On average they are more accurate than Mosins, but only on average. The Pre-War Russian Mosins, along with the Finns of course, can be extremely accurate and indeed have won many shooting competitions over the decades. Not to mention that the greatest snipers in world history used Mosins, including Simo Hayha (500+), Sukko Kolkka (400+), and Vasily Zaitsev (400+).

I love Mausers, but I don't think the Mosin is the antiquated relic it's often accused of being. The 91/30 in particular handles better than any Mauser, and balances so well it seems about two pounds lighter than it actually is. It just looks so WEIRD. That's a plus in my book, though

 

[444]

I have used my Finn M39 to go head to head with a wide variety of Mausers at our local Vintage Military Bolt Action Rifle matches. The month I shot my Finn, I took second; but I beat probably a dozen other guys shooting Mausers. I went head to head again yesterday with my K31 against the world. Took second again against an Israeli Mauser. Which rifle is better ? The only thing that matters is who is behind the trigger.

For sporting uses with old mil-surp rifles, I much prefer the Moisin. Every surplus Mauser I ever shot shoots anywhere from a foot high to some I have fired that shot at least six feet high at 100 yards. I have never understood this about Mausers. I have shot a couple dozen Mausers and own three myself and every stinkin one of them shoots so high it is incredible. Didn't the Germans have to qualify with thier rifle in boot camp ? Surely they didn't qualify at 1500 yards !!!!!!!!!!! Maybe they taught them to use a six o'clock hold on humans with the guys boot soles resting on the top of the front sight for a COM shot at 500 yards.

 

[Sir Galahad]

On hunting, in every picture I've seen on Siberian hunters, they mostly had Mosin rifles. Some had Medveds, but quite a few had Mosins.

The Mosin is a screaming deal when you consider that the ammo is going to be dirt cheap practically forever, the rifle will last practically forever as long as you take care of it properly, and it packs a good punch. It's a classic. The ammo is starting to crop up in more choices of loads. Plus the rifle is just rugged as a bear.

 

[goon]

Another plus of the Mosin is that you can find noncorrosive ammo just about anywhere and it is pretty cheap.
I have only found a couple places that have cheap noncorrosive 8mm ammo, and there are none in my area. I have to order it from somewhere, unless I want to buy Remington SP for 14.00 a box.
But I still like both.
I don't have a stock enfield yet, but I plan on adding one of those to the competition as well.

 

[AC]

Ron in PA has the proper way of comparing by looking at the time of introduction. Military designs continually evolve and the Mosin is basically stuck at 1891. The few improvements like the Finnish updates didn't change the basic action, just sights, barrels, and stocks.

For all that I'm a Mosin fan, too. And when you point to the superiority of the Mauser I just have to say the SMLE has it beat for battle efficiency. But here again the No. 1 Mk 111 (basic WW1 pattern) solidified about 1907 and then the single shot bolt cutoff was eliminated for WW1 production, I believe.

While a Mosin will never cycle like a SMLE it isn't that slow. I just hit the bolt knob up with my hand where index finger joins the palm and close it with the thumb. It doesn't need to be dismounted to do this at least with slightly longer than average male arms.

'Disadvantages' like the single column feed make it a great cast bullet platform for blunt nose bullets. If one is inclined to handload these rifles will really shoot. You need to search for what your rifle likes but I have sub 3" ten shot 100 yd. loads for even my M91/59 and Russian 91/30. The Finn versions have taken a half inch off that with selected loads and one reaches a point where the eyes are the limiting factor, though I'm perfectly happy with those groups. Just don't think surplus ball will shoot like that through them, though.

 

[Watchman]

Interesting disscusion.

Since I got bit by the Milsurp bug a few years ago, naturally my collection contains several of each. I usually bring at least one of eacy type to the range jus to play with.

Personally, I like them both.

The Russian Mosin that I own is very accuate. The sights seem to be dead on with the Russian stuff. It is a bit long, but I suppose that might be an advantage if one had the long bayonet on it and things got too close for comfort. It hold wells due to the balance of it. It is pleasant to shoot, more so than the Mauser.

The Mausers (Turk M38 and Yugo 48A) are exellent shooters as well. The Turk is very accurate, but with Yugo has a pretty apparent kick. Im not too crazy about the itty bitty V-notch sight, it seems like they could have done a bit better on it. The Turk is easier to shoot, perhaps because it is nearly as long as the MN.

I have a Hungarain M-44 that is a "blast" to shoot as well. Most people complain about the kick and the resulting fireball that comes from the short barrel but it is alot easier to handle than its full sized daddy. You'll definatley know that you are pulling the trigger on this one. I have several people at the range come over and look it over and shoot it. They like it and cant beleive that it cost less than 50 bucks.

Both the 8mm round (fully loaded European stuff)and the 7.62x 54 are nothing to sneeze at . Both of them have accounted for more than their share of "meat" than many other rifles of that period. Both of them often met each other in the heat of battle. I wouldnt feel undergunned with ethier one.

 

[BHP9]

For sporting uses with old mil-surp rifles, I much prefer the Moisin. Every surplus Mauser I ever shot shoots anywhere from a foot high to some I have fired that shot at least six feet high at 100 yards.

I have not found this to be my experience at all. If one uses the same type of ammo (bullet weight, style and velocity) with which the gun was originally sighted in with at the factory all the Mauser's I have owned shot dead on at the ranges marked on the rear sight. Many have sights that are graduated starting at 200 yards and some eary Mausers have sights starting at 400 yards, naturally they are going to shoot high at 100 yards.

 

[444]

Actually the first graduation on my K98 is "1". I am assuming that is 100 meters. My Sweedes of course start at 300. I am not sure about my M48 Yugo since I replaced the rear sight on it with a MOJO sight so that I don't have to hold low at 100 yards. My K98 shoot closest to POI at 100 yards. It shoots only about 8" high with the rear sight set at "1". In the 8mms I have only shot surplus ammo of various countries of origin. Since the ammo was designed to be shot from various Mausers, I don't think this is the problem. This problem of shooting high must be a local thing. When I got the bug to get into these military bolt action rifles, a number of my friends jumped on the bandwagon. They all bought various Mausers and all but one of them promptly sold their Mausers because they all shot so freaken high. One guy replaced his front sight with a taller sight from Brownells. Another of my friends has a number of Mausers. He has them from pretty much every country that ever used a Mauser. He buys them mainly as a collector, but he has shot them all at one time. He seldom takes them back out for a second time because they shoot too high to make it pleasureable. He is the one that has several Mausers that shoot at least six feet high. I think one problem with the ones that shoot extremly high is that most of them are carbines. It is my opinion that when they made these carbines they just used the regular sights intended for use on the full sized rifle. I may be wrong on this, but it makes sense to me.
The Sweedes all shoot high at 100 yards, but as you say, the lowest sight setting is 300 so this is only logical. However, the Sweedes shoot where they are supposed to; the graduations on the rear sight are pretty close to being on the money.

 

[HarryB]

I'll soon find out...

Started a milsurp hair and began with two rifles. The first is a 1935 Tula hexed Mosin 91/30 that was an ex sniper. The second was a 1911 M96 that has the Finn "SA" stamped on the receiver. Who knows, perhaps they faced each other sixty some odd years ago?

Hope to get out this weekend and answer the Mosin/Mauser question for my self. My money's on the Swede (trigger ).

I need a winch for the Mosin trigger...