InkEd
Member
"Correction" Correction:
http://www.millerhighlife.com/ageVerify.aspx
Personally, I like well-aged 2010 vintage. LOL
http://www.millerhighlife.com/ageVerify.aspx
Personally, I like well-aged 2010 vintage. LOL
What is it about Soviet Rifles...
- Thread starter InkEd
- Start date
- Status
jason41987
member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,293
as much as i dislike the color red, i absolutely love the red hue the russians use on their rifle... i absolutely hate the ergonomics of just about everything they make, but they still have an allure i cant ignore, leading me to own a bunch of soviet designed rifles (nagant, sks, AK-74.. might even get an SVT-40 or a ppsh-41 soon)
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
I had an M44 that looked like it had been carved from steel using a butter knife. Crude to say the least. But mostly it was the pitiful safety feature, virtually unusable, that I hated. Makes the AK safety seem so ergonomic and well designed. Maybe I should've kept it, but it was one more gun to feed and usually I keep only what I use. I am not a collector of guns. I like to abuse my stuff and see if it breaks. If I don't use it I pass it along.
meanmrmustard
Member
Who uses the safety on a Mosin?
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
Not me, I sold it after I saw how poorly designed it is. Need popeye strength to work that thing. I think I fired the gun twice.
meanmrmustard
Member
Fair enough.
Or...don't load it til needed.
Better yet: I leave the bolt in its forward, but unlocked, position when taking it out to my tree stand. This way I can safely carry the rifle about. If I spy a deer on the way, I can throw the bolt handle down, and squeeze off the shot.
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
my mosins perform much better, after I very carefully get the cosmoline out of the chamber. I've use every kind of solvent, but found a good old soaking in break cleaner (Non chlorine, test to make sure it doesnt remove bluing) and buffing of the chamber with a mop does the trick.
The bolt is then servicable (not enfield or mauser smooth, but very workable)
The bolt is then servicable (not enfield or mauser smooth, but very workable)
leadcounsel
member
Fantastic weapons. Russia made several of my favorites, the AKs, SKS, and Mosin Nagants.
The appeal is the simplicity and rugged design, effecitve at reliablility and acceptable accuracy for their purpose. What more does one want from a weapon?
I also like the Tokarev.
As another member mentioned, the calibers are also ideal for their purpose.
The appeal is the simplicity and rugged design, effecitve at reliablility and acceptable accuracy for their purpose. What more does one want from a weapon?
I also like the Tokarev.
As another member mentioned, the calibers are also ideal for their purpose.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well my apologies! (And Dimebag, RIP!)
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
^^^ I like them as well. I'm in the younger group that does remember the Cold war, and the last days of the USSR. You never saw anything from Mother Russia at gun shows. Perhaps it's that that makes them interesting.....
I think a lot of the faults we ascribe to the Soviet designs come from our frame of reference. They built things for huge conscript armies. These rifles they produced do 95% or better of what the West produced at likely 25% of the cost. Yes an AR is a bit nicer than an AK, but it's also a quarter the cost (Current prices and .gov regulations not withstanding). I think most honest gun enthusiasts will admit that most ww2 bolt action rifles were to some degree better than the Mosin Nagant 91/30. But nobody else made anywhere near the numbers of mosins produced. If forget the exact figures, but I think 1 year of Mosin Nagant Production (While the Germans were shelling the factories) is as much or more than the combined production of the other models for the entire war, by thier respective country.
I think a lot of the faults we ascribe to the Soviet designs come from our frame of reference. They built things for huge conscript armies. These rifles they produced do 95% or better of what the West produced at likely 25% of the cost. Yes an AR is a bit nicer than an AK, but it's also a quarter the cost (Current prices and .gov regulations not withstanding). I think most honest gun enthusiasts will admit that most ww2 bolt action rifles were to some degree better than the Mosin Nagant 91/30. But nobody else made anywhere near the numbers of mosins produced. If forget the exact figures, but I think 1 year of Mosin Nagant Production (While the Germans were shelling the factories) is as much or more than the combined production of the other models for the entire war, by thier respective country.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
The Soviet Union set up their factories to make things like Mosin Nagant rifles, SKS carbines, and AK-47s/AKMs/AK-74s, (along with heavier stuff) and simply go, go, GO. They made millions and millions, and sent them to every corner of their union, and to all their outlying puppet states -- and then sent the technology, including whole factories to those places as well, and told them go, go, GO!
The eastern bloc was very long on mass production and rugged reliability (with weapons at least) but very short on efficiency and inventory control.
If you get the chance, read C.J. Chivers' The Gun. Tons of great info in there about this stuff. I don't have the book right to hand at the moment, but he cites one of the ex-eastern bloc countries (Bulgaria I think. Maybe it was Romania.) as conducting an inventory during the last decade to try and figure out how much of their military gear was still sitting around and hadn't been stolen and/or sold on the black market. At the time, even with all the losses, they had on hand one hundred AKMs for every single soldier in their army.
Wow.
The eastern bloc was very long on mass production and rugged reliability (with weapons at least) but very short on efficiency and inventory control.
If you get the chance, read C.J. Chivers' The Gun. Tons of great info in there about this stuff. I don't have the book right to hand at the moment, but he cites one of the ex-eastern bloc countries (Bulgaria I think. Maybe it was Romania.) as conducting an inventory during the last decade to try and figure out how much of their military gear was still sitting around and hadn't been stolen and/or sold on the black market. At the time, even with all the losses, they had on hand one hundred AKMs for every single soldier in their army.
Wow.
undeRGRound
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 107
"Correction" Correction:
http://www.millerhighlife.com/ageVerify.aspx
Personally, I like well-aged 2010 vintage. LOL
:banghead: D'oh!
My bad, either I need to use my reading glasses on the computer now
or turn up the magnification LOL!!!
I'd have a High Life OR a Lite with ya, Bro!!!
Or even a High Life Light!
CHEERS, InkED!Good Post, wish I had a couple AK's instead of this really nice AR I got...
Ammo is so much cheaper and easy to get... saw 20rd for $6.99 at Gander,
10 box limit! Anyone know where is the best place to get a decent AK or SKS???
(Keeping the AR BTW)
Lj1941
Member
Soviet Weapons
I like the Soviet weapons because #1 They are functional #2 They are resonably priced #3 You can buy the ammo without taking out a a bank loan #4 Most of them are C & R weapons which I can buy without a lot of red tape.The calibers are fairly good for their designed purpose. I own 3 long guns and 3 handguns in Communist Bloc calibers.The rifles are in 762x54R and 762x39.The handguns are in 762x25,762x38R & 9x18. 2 of the three are good shooters and the 762x38R is a neat piece of history to look at.That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
I like the Soviet weapons because #1 They are functional #2 They are resonably priced #3 You can buy the ammo without taking out a a bank loan #4 Most of them are C & R weapons which I can buy without a lot of red tape.The calibers are fairly good for their designed purpose. I own 3 long guns and 3 handguns in Communist Bloc calibers.The rifles are in 762x54R and 762x39.The handguns are in 762x25,762x38R & 9x18. 2 of the three are good shooters and the 762x38R is a neat piece of history to look at.That's my story and I'm sticking to it!meanmrmustard
Member
Armslist is literally littered with SKS.:banghead: D'oh!
My bad, either I need to use my reading glasses on the computer now
or turn up the magnification LOL!!!
I'd have a High Life OR a Lite with ya, Bro!!!
Or even a High Life Light!
Good Post, wish I had a couple AK's instead of this really nice AR I got...
Ammo is so much cheaper and easy to get... saw 20rd for $6.99 at Gander,
10 box limit! Anyone know where is the best place to get a decent AK or SKS???
(Keeping the AR BTW)
Check your local listings. Bring us price information. Don't be gouged.
The bolt safety in Mosin rifles was built with no consideration whatsoever for the future needs of pampered American men. No Red Army soldier ever complained.
Seriously, safety features aren't exactly what the Soviet weapons of all kinds have been famous for. Beside that, the Mosin-Nagant was designed in the 1880's. It had already been outdated before WW2 began.
Seriously, safety features aren't exactly what the Soviet weapons of all kinds have been famous for. Beside that, the Mosin-Nagant was designed in the 1880's. It had already been outdated before WW2 began.
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
Summary execution is a great deterrent.
I think one of the draws of Russian weapons is also the different their manual of arms and a different view on weapons. As Ohi Gun Guy pointed out, the Russian philosophy is "it has to be good enough." The Mosin was a good enough bolt action rifle, the T34 was a good enough tank in WW2, and the AK remains a good enough assault rifle. Their true strength lies in their ease of manufacture and reliability. What the Russians learned in WW2 was that logistics and numbers win wars. The Panzer IV was a more refined and better tank then the T34, but the fact that the Russians built more T34's then Germany built tanks of all types gave the '34 a serious edge. The Tiger I, II, and Panther tanks were superior to anything on the battlefield...when one of them actually was reliable enough to get to the battlefield.
Likewise, the AR is a superior rifle versus the AK, but considering IzMash was able to make something like 40,000 AK's in a single day during the depths of the cold war meant that this slight advantage of the AR would be instantly buried under the sheer availability of the AK - and the AK could do 95% of what the AR could. I call that 'good enough'!
In some regards they AR-15 and the AK also have some interesting intersections. The AK was built as a throw-away rifle. It would be issued with 4 magazines, and the whole setup was bomb proof. When the barrel wears out, toss it in the scrap pile and get another. The AR was built with the idea of single use disposable magazines, but every other part on the AR could be switched out, changed, and replaced with minimal hassle. If the barrel is worn, replace the barrel, if the bolt is old, put a new bolt in. Standardized parts at its finest....except for the magazine. That whole single use magazine thing never panned out, and now we are stuck trying to make a throw-away magazine last many uses....oopse!
Likewise, the AR is a superior rifle versus the AK, but considering IzMash was able to make something like 40,000 AK's in a single day during the depths of the cold war meant that this slight advantage of the AR would be instantly buried under the sheer availability of the AK - and the AK could do 95% of what the AR could. I call that 'good enough'!
In some regards they AR-15 and the AK also have some interesting intersections. The AK was built as a throw-away rifle. It would be issued with 4 magazines, and the whole setup was bomb proof. When the barrel wears out, toss it in the scrap pile and get another. The AR was built with the idea of single use disposable magazines, but every other part on the AR could be switched out, changed, and replaced with minimal hassle. If the barrel is worn, replace the barrel, if the bolt is old, put a new bolt in. Standardized parts at its finest....except for the magazine. That whole single use magazine thing never panned out, and now we are stuck trying to make a throw-away magazine last many uses....oopse!
Inebriated
Member
I'm not too into Russian guns, but the AK will forever remain my favorite rifle.
undeRGRound
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 107
Thx MeanMrMustard!
Deus Machina
Member
I'm a fan of soviet hardware of most kinds.
Sometimes some countries' search of perfection or price-vs-quality leaves things unable to function or tough to repair (German methods, anyone?) when 'good enough' means it actually works.
When Germans need a part for Gewehr 1947 model E Mk3.6 and none else will work, and Americans may need that particular barrel wrench, and Japanese guns function when they're not supposed to (one of the Nambu pistols), Ivan can drop any of 27 million bolts into his rifle and go.
And if only 17 million of them would work, and those are on the Western front and he's on the Eastern, he can force-fit the stuff with tools that any basic handyman has in his garage.
As a practical engineer in training, the best design feature of any product is that it functions. All the time.
Sometimes some countries' search of perfection or price-vs-quality leaves things unable to function or tough to repair (German methods, anyone?) when 'good enough' means it actually works.
When Germans need a part for Gewehr 1947 model E Mk3.6 and none else will work, and Americans may need that particular barrel wrench, and Japanese guns function when they're not supposed to (one of the Nambu pistols), Ivan can drop any of 27 million bolts into his rifle and go.
And if only 17 million of them would work, and those are on the Western front and he's on the Eastern, he can force-fit the stuff with tools that any basic handyman has in his garage.
As a practical engineer in training, the best design feature of any product is that it functions. All the time.
stubbicatt
Member
I follow your historical bent on this thread InkEd.
I remember cowering under my little school desk in 1966, waiting for the mushroom cloud to appear that would vaporize my family, and I remember hoping that my mother could find a little desk to hide under and be safe like me. I remember all of the propaganda forced on me as a child in the USA, by my teachers, et. al. We were told so many different untruths. I remember being afraid to try to learn anything about the USSR for fear of being labeled a communist, which was illegal in those days. May still be illegal for all I know, though now they have created other bugbears to focus my fright upon, and which the .gov may joust with to show me that they have it "all under control."
No first amendment infringement by making membership in a political party illegal, now is there? Nah....
I think about the USSR in 1925 or thereabouts, when the Reds had consolidated power. The industrialization which took place in the following few decades is remarkable. To start from zero to producing weapons superior to long industrialized Germany by 1945. Give credit where it is due. The Germans copied many of the design points of the T34 in their Panther, and the SVT40 in their Gew 43, and even later in the G3 and the Belgians in their FAL.
Once I sort out the Xenophobia, and cull through our own propaganda, and try to see the accomplishments of those people of those days without filtered lenses, I can see great progress, remarkable in itself. It is unfortunate about the Stalinist death warrants etc...
(Not at all like the Patriot Act which allows warrantless arrests and the suspension of Habeas Corpus, nor the right to a trial, if one is designated an "enemy combatant," or the missile rather than a trial if you are an American accused of a domestic crime, residing abroad... but I digress.)
As far as Soviet weapons design goes, nobody in his right mind who has ever used or handled a SVT40 can call that design crude or non ergonomic. That is an elegant, refined, rifle, with technology way ahead of its time. And this was designed in the mid 30's, and built in the 1940's while bombs were dropping on the factory, in a country with no history of industrial endeavor, whose government initiated industrialization maybe 10 years earlier! The SVT 40 makes the Garand appear crude and stone age by comparison. Try shooting 200 grain 30-06 ammo in a Garand... You can shoot 200 grain or even 145 grain ammo in the SVT40 without any damage to the rifle whatsoever. Versatility and integrated design are apparent in that rifle.
The Mosin Nagant was hopelessly outdated by the time the war broke out, but again, nobody can persuade me that it was inaccurate, and it in many ways proved itself up to the task. The Soviet sniper corps performed remarkably in that war, and outshone their contemporaries in the field with that old, clunky, rifle, shooting ammunition with powder made out of old sweatsox and dirty knickers.
The Nagant "gas seal" revolver? Pretty anemic cartridge, but the NKVD and other death squads roaming the battlefield found it adequate for their nefarious purposes, and the design itself is certainly singular. It is fascinating to study. The PPsh, and other weapons, crude, but easily manufactured, and very effective. The PPS, manufactured in Leningrad while under seige, by a disparate series of little workshops scattered about the city, by people who had never manufactured anything in their lives. That is a testament to the will to survive, and not be enslaved by the "master race."
So to me, when I hold these weapons I can marvel at their design, and the ease of manufacture. They are effective when the tactics for their deployment suit their strengths. Given the place from where the designers started, very much an agrarian economy, with very little manufacturing ability, the designs are even more remarkable.
That the fledgling Soviet experiment was able to repel an armed force which up until Operation Barbarossa had been undefeated... whether by the Poles, the French, the British, or anybody, using these "poor quality" weapons, says a lot about tenacity and grit. I remember reading somewhere that of all the men born in 1923 in the Soviet Union, 3% survived the Great Patriotic War.
I remember cowering under my little school desk in 1966, waiting for the mushroom cloud to appear that would vaporize my family, and I remember hoping that my mother could find a little desk to hide under and be safe like me. I remember all of the propaganda forced on me as a child in the USA, by my teachers, et. al. We were told so many different untruths. I remember being afraid to try to learn anything about the USSR for fear of being labeled a communist, which was illegal in those days. May still be illegal for all I know, though now they have created other bugbears to focus my fright upon, and which the .gov may joust with to show me that they have it "all under control."
No first amendment infringement by making membership in a political party illegal, now is there? Nah....
I think about the USSR in 1925 or thereabouts, when the Reds had consolidated power. The industrialization which took place in the following few decades is remarkable. To start from zero to producing weapons superior to long industrialized Germany by 1945. Give credit where it is due. The Germans copied many of the design points of the T34 in their Panther, and the SVT40 in their Gew 43, and even later in the G3 and the Belgians in their FAL.
Once I sort out the Xenophobia, and cull through our own propaganda, and try to see the accomplishments of those people of those days without filtered lenses, I can see great progress, remarkable in itself. It is unfortunate about the Stalinist death warrants etc...
(Not at all like the Patriot Act which allows warrantless arrests and the suspension of Habeas Corpus, nor the right to a trial, if one is designated an "enemy combatant," or the missile rather than a trial if you are an American accused of a domestic crime, residing abroad... but I digress.)As far as Soviet weapons design goes, nobody in his right mind who has ever used or handled a SVT40 can call that design crude or non ergonomic. That is an elegant, refined, rifle, with technology way ahead of its time. And this was designed in the mid 30's, and built in the 1940's while bombs were dropping on the factory, in a country with no history of industrial endeavor, whose government initiated industrialization maybe 10 years earlier! The SVT 40 makes the Garand appear crude and stone age by comparison. Try shooting 200 grain 30-06 ammo in a Garand... You can shoot 200 grain or even 145 grain ammo in the SVT40 without any damage to the rifle whatsoever. Versatility and integrated design are apparent in that rifle.
The Mosin Nagant was hopelessly outdated by the time the war broke out, but again, nobody can persuade me that it was inaccurate, and it in many ways proved itself up to the task. The Soviet sniper corps performed remarkably in that war, and outshone their contemporaries in the field with that old, clunky, rifle, shooting ammunition with powder made out of old sweatsox and dirty knickers.
The Nagant "gas seal" revolver? Pretty anemic cartridge, but the NKVD and other death squads roaming the battlefield found it adequate for their nefarious purposes, and the design itself is certainly singular. It is fascinating to study. The PPsh, and other weapons, crude, but easily manufactured, and very effective. The PPS, manufactured in Leningrad while under seige, by a disparate series of little workshops scattered about the city, by people who had never manufactured anything in their lives. That is a testament to the will to survive, and not be enslaved by the "master race."
So to me, when I hold these weapons I can marvel at their design, and the ease of manufacture. They are effective when the tactics for their deployment suit their strengths. Given the place from where the designers started, very much an agrarian economy, with very little manufacturing ability, the designs are even more remarkable.
That the fledgling Soviet experiment was able to repel an armed force which up until Operation Barbarossa had been undefeated... whether by the Poles, the French, the British, or anybody, using these "poor quality" weapons, says a lot about tenacity and grit. I remember reading somewhere that of all the men born in 1923 in the Soviet Union, 3% survived the Great Patriotic War.
InkEd
Member
Great post!
The tenacity of the Soviets is one thing that is never questioned.
The tenacity of the Soviets is one thing that is never questioned.
Aaron1100us
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2012
- Messages
- 127
I love them as well if you can't tell?
Russian Dragunov Tiger
Bulgarian made but still Russian design. SLR-101S
Sent from my SCH-R760 using Tapatalk 2
Russian Dragunov Tiger
Bulgarian made but still Russian design. SLR-101S
Sent from my SCH-R760 using Tapatalk 2
- Status
