Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mosin Nagant's - New found REspect

I've always disdained the Russian Mosin Nagant rifles. They are plain ugly, awkward, cruedd and just not attractive (to say the least). I've been collecting WW2 era rifles for the past 10+ years and always turned my back on Mosins, I met a friend several months ago who shoots Mosin's in competition and I joined him, I've bought 2 Mosins and in dis-assembling them for cleaning, I've found a new respect.

They are well made, and very practical for their intended purpose. For a peasant army (think 1890's Russia), they are virtually indestructible, easy to dis-assemble for cleaning and fool proof to re-assemble. As for accuracy, I can easily keep all my shots on a man sized target at 300+ yards.

My only regret is that I did not discover them 20 years ago when they were less expensive. I've got a number of German, Yugo, Swiss, Austrian, etc. WW2 rifles, and I'm glad to add these to my collection.

What are your WW2 rifle experiences?

Like you, I find the Mosin Nagant's to be ugly, awkward, crude and unattractive. I agree that they were just what Dr. Zhivago ordered for the russian peasant army.

The Finnish M-39 is a much better built rifle, while still Mosinesque, and as accurate as all get out.

I am a fan of the 8x57 cartridge and the K98k Mauser, but if I were to be zapped back in time and had to hump a bolt action rifle in WWII, I'd be hoping to end up with a No.4 Mk1 Enfield. With a 10 shot magazine capacity and a properly mounted Peep sight, I'd much rather work with that, than a Mauser, Mosin or Arisaka.

When I was all so young, about 1961, my dad got the great Idea that I should learn to shoot, so dad being dad, never owned a gun or did any kind of hunting or shooting for that matter, bought me a Marlin Bolt 22 and a Mosin Nagant that came out of the armory in 1938. I still have both guns. The thing with the Mosins is that all they need is a little TLC. The Finn's rebuilt captured rifles and they are good ones. Mine is a carbine version. I would like to get a full sized one complete with a 3x PU scope and use it for deer hunting old gun style. Remington- Westinghouse made a bunch of them for the Czars Army during World War I and didn't deliver a bunch after the October 1917 Revolution. There were a lot of them around. I think Dad paid all of 8 dollars for mine, I know it was not much. its a fond memory of my youth. I even killed my first deer with that rifle, and it was only a few months after I got it, we didn't have a whole lot of deer around then. Snuck out Saturday while dad was giving my brother some lessons, I didn't expect to see anything and well this deer came by and I just brought the rifle up lined up the sights and well next thing I know I got this deer on the ground, and now what. My father didn't know what to do either, so he called my Uncle Felix , he was one of my mothers brothers and he took care of it and had me drink a shot, and put a tab of blood on my forehead and told me things would be different from now on. My that was 51 years ago. It would be a good 10 years before I would shoot my second deer in VT. One of the reasons I love 24 hr Campfire, I get to think about the days of my youth. In 67 months from that shot, dad would pass on. I was 12 and a 7 months at the time. The rest of the country was in a real crap fest in 1967 pretty much like the current crap fest. I'm just a whole lot older and maybe a little wiser.

Never cared for the safety on a Mosin Nagant.

I've owned a couple M-Ns, one a rifle the other a carbine. They are well built and reliable, and ugly and accurate. The carbine was decidedly unpleasant to shoot. I could shoot 5" at 100 yards, which isn't stellar, but was about as accurate as I can shoot with open irons.

The safety is reliable, and remindes me of a safety on a .22.

It is a pain for sure. I don't use it. I just carry with a cold chamber.

I could only imagine working the safety on an MN on a cold
winter day on the Russian Front. I still think they are neat
rifles, never owned one though.

You know, 5" for a combat rifle is not too bad; that's 10" at 200 yards. Assuming that under most combat situations, the enemy would be running or moving when exposed, a 200 yard shot is about all that could be made and a 10" group would probably hit him.

Sure, a more accuracy is not a detriment, but how much is sufficient under combat conditions? I worked with several WW2 paratroopers 55 years ago and one told me that he rarely took shots at over 200 yards.

I bought one and put a PU scope on it. ackward to shoot but fun.

Terry

Way,way under rated cartridge. look at the numbers it carries.

Mine have always shot well, if not trashed by time, and the Finn renditions , much more so. Better than some of my GI examples.

My feeling is the Horizontal bolt lock up is symetrical, balanced and helping a great deal for ballistic uniformity.

Michael

The Hornady #8 manual has an excellent write-up on the M-N. The rifles built for Russia by Remington, Winchester, and Westinghouse had .312" groove diameters. The rifles built by Finland had standard American .300"-.308" bore/groove diameters. Hornady shows data for both bullet sizes.

I agree wth you about the peep sight on the reciever. My favorite is my Springfield 03A3 made by Smith Corona.

I know a couple of guys that are always on the look out for
Finnish MNs when they go to pawnshops and gunshows.

Wtf? Can't you boys post up no pics?

Some years back during my C&R days I picked up three; two carbines and an M39. The carbines were a bit snappy in recoil and good for perhaps 4" at 100 yds. The M39 was pretty decent, 1.5" at 100. Toyed with the idea of slugging the bore on the 39 and handloading for it, and is showed promise using com bloc ammo

ihave a friend in germany that was/is a sniper for the german army. He is quite familar with rifles. Shoots a lot of competition in germany with a model of 1917 winchester. I asked him about k98 mausers, you would think they would shoot those. He said they prefered the model of 1917, a springfield, or a good enfield because they just shot better. I at one time kind of looked down on the enfields, until i finally clued on how really good they were

I got my first finnish mosin quite a few years ago. The finns used captured hex recievers and to some extent through the rest of the russian gun away. Free floated, adjustible front sight, and a sako barrel in my case.
I took it out of the box, cleaned the cosmo out of the barrel/chamber, and was sitting on the tail gate of my truck. Loaded in some russian mil/surp, and was looking at a one gallon folgers red coffee can at about 100yards. Offhand hit it 5 out of 5. the carbines are quite a kick to shoot.

One of the Peterson tactical magazines had a report on a sniping contest held in Europe where one successful contestant used a Mosin Nagant chambered in 300 Win Mag.

Not to steal the thread, but we could head off into the land of Ruger #3s now.

I have my Dad's sporterized M1917 Eddystone that is a shooter!

Also, I have owned a 1955 edition of the Polish M/N Carbine that was unfired when I got it. With surplus ammo it would shoot 2MOA consistently, with one lot of Russian 174gr it was an honest 1.5MOA gun.

It didn't care too much for the Chinese 123gr stuff that I found once.

My $0.02

Ed