discussion; mauser or mosin?
- Thread starter Prothe2nd
- Start date
Accuracy:
Depends on the model, and ammunition. Too vague. I'll put a Finn M28/76 or M39 up against any Mauser in the accuracy dept. (stock rifles).
Reliability to eject:
No difference IMO. Mauser will feed more reliably with controlled feed design and bottleneck cartridge vs. rimmed.
"Smoothness" of the bolt- no doubt goes to the Mauser. I hate everything about the MN bolt except for the floating bolthead design. The Mauser bolt design is still a work of art to me...
The 8mm Mauser is a bit more "powerful", being pretty similar to the modern .30-06, while the 54R falls in between the .308/7.62 NATO and the 06.
There are few new production rifles chambered in 54R- only one I know of is the Vepr semi (Kalashnikov design). Quite a few still being chambered in 8mm Mauser, though.
Depends on the model, and ammunition. Too vague. I'll put a Finn M28/76 or M39 up against any Mauser in the accuracy dept. (stock rifles).
Reliability to eject:
No difference IMO. Mauser will feed more reliably with controlled feed design and bottleneck cartridge vs. rimmed.
"Smoothness" of the bolt- no doubt goes to the Mauser. I hate everything about the MN bolt except for the floating bolthead design. The Mauser bolt design is still a work of art to me...
The 8mm Mauser is a bit more "powerful", being pretty similar to the modern .30-06, while the 54R falls in between the .308/7.62 NATO and the 06.
There are few new production rifles chambered in 54R- only one I know of is the Vepr semi (Kalashnikov design). Quite a few still being chambered in 8mm Mauser, though.
I have had a few Mosins that had the "sticky bolt syndrome", which is fairly common thing for new owners to encounter. As I understand it, it is from varnish from left over cosmoline getting baked into the chamber. Typically you can do a very through cleaning and reduce or eliminate the problem, but I remember one particular gun that I could never get to work smoothly. I never had this problem with any Mauser rifle I've had.
Accuracy depends on the rifle, but I don't think you could say one is particularly more accurate than the other. Some Mausers are more accurate than other Mausers, and some Mosins are more accurate than other Mosins. The 7.62x54 Mosin round is a more ballistically efficient round, so for distances it may be more accurate. The 8 mm round is slightly larger, so potentially more power for shorter distances, but I think for most rifles either will be more accurate than the shooter. With the Mauser you also can find a lot more caliber variations. 6.5mm, 7mm, 7.65x53, etc.
The Mosin will tend to be cheaper, so you may be able to buy 2 or 3 for the price of a Mauser, and get one really great shooter out of the batch.
If you are looking for the most accurate Mauser, consider a Swedish Mauser in 6.5 mm, or possibly a VZ 24 in 8 mm.
Accuracy depends on the rifle, but I don't think you could say one is particularly more accurate than the other. Some Mausers are more accurate than other Mausers, and some Mosins are more accurate than other Mosins. The 7.62x54 Mosin round is a more ballistically efficient round, so for distances it may be more accurate. The 8 mm round is slightly larger, so potentially more power for shorter distances, but I think for most rifles either will be more accurate than the shooter. With the Mauser you also can find a lot more caliber variations. 6.5mm, 7mm, 7.65x53, etc.
The Mosin will tend to be cheaper, so you may be able to buy 2 or 3 for the price of a Mauser, and get one really great shooter out of the batch.
If you are looking for the most accurate Mauser, consider a Swedish Mauser in 6.5 mm, or possibly a VZ 24 in 8 mm.
kilimanjaro
New member
Most bolt-action rifles made today are a descendant of the Mauser design. Not so with the Mosin-Nagant.
Much of the world adopted the Mauser when magazine-fed bolt action rifles firing Spitzer cartridges replaced the black powder rolling blocks of the day.
Only the Russians chose the Mosin-Nagant design.
Much of the world adopted the Mauser when magazine-fed bolt action rifles firing Spitzer cartridges replaced the black powder rolling blocks of the day.
Only the Russians chose the Mosin-Nagant design.
Yes, they did. And, they did so several years BEFORE the Mauser 95, and later 98 actions existed.
The Russians kept the Moisin Nagant for the same basic reason the Soviets kept it, COST. The Mauser is a superior design, but for an infantry combat rifle, it was not deemed superior enough to overcome the investment the Russians had in the MN. When the Soviets took over in 1917, the investment in the MN was even bigger, so they didn't consider a replacement, until years later, and under the pressure of looming war.
Oversimplified, but relevant:
* The Russians adopted the 1891 Mosin-Nagant a few years before the famous Mausers were available, but they could have adopted a different rifle. One issue is you just don't adopt a service rifle from someone you will likely be fighting a war with who could cut off your supplies of parts and replacements. Same reason the US adopted the 1903 Springfield. Same reason a lot of countries used something other than their neighbors did.
* The Soviets planned so far in advance and placed strict quotas on their factories that they hamstrung innovation and development.
* Yes, new designs occasionally made it through, but they built new factories because the older factories had to meet their quotas or some apparatchik wound up in Siberia.
* When you use peasant conscripts and train them to do frontal assaults, any stick with a bayonet on it works just as well as any other.
As far as "which is better", just look at how desirable Mauser rifles were for 60 years and then compare how desirable Mosin-Nagants were. During the Spanish Civil War, the Soviets and Italians had to give their rifles to the combatants, while both sides were buying Mauser rifles to fight with.
* The Russians adopted the 1891 Mosin-Nagant a few years before the famous Mausers were available, but they could have adopted a different rifle. One issue is you just don't adopt a service rifle from someone you will likely be fighting a war with who could cut off your supplies of parts and replacements. Same reason the US adopted the 1903 Springfield. Same reason a lot of countries used something other than their neighbors did.
* The Soviets planned so far in advance and placed strict quotas on their factories that they hamstrung innovation and development.
* Yes, new designs occasionally made it through, but they built new factories because the older factories had to meet their quotas or some apparatchik wound up in Siberia.
* When you use peasant conscripts and train them to do frontal assaults, any stick with a bayonet on it works just as well as any other.
As far as "which is better", just look at how desirable Mauser rifles were for 60 years and then compare how desirable Mosin-Nagants were. During the Spanish Civil War, the Soviets and Italians had to give their rifles to the combatants, while both sides were buying Mauser rifles to fight with.
reynolds357
New member
Machine work quality definitely goes to Mauser. Most Mausers I have encountered are quite accurate.(assuming their bore is still decent) An accurate Mosin has eluded me. Then there is the fact that the Mosin just looks like trash.
MountainBear
New member
I certainly wouldn't mind having a Fin mosin, but for me it's Mauser, Mauser, and more Mauser. I love tinkering with them. I love building them. Shooting them isn't bad either. Properly done they are hard to beat. At last count, I had over 16 Mauser rifles or actions. For my money, they are just hard to beat. I have one 93, three Chilean 95's, four swede 96's, four Czech VZ's, and the rest various 98's...
I have a couple of quite accurate Mosins (by period standards), for original rifles I think the accuracy for the better ones are not that far apart, particularly the pre-war ones. Some are certainly better than others.
Mauser 98s and slight variants are still being made today. Mosins haven't been made new since the 50s. There are some with newer dates, but they are reworks on older receivers.
Mauser 98s and slight variants are still being made today. Mosins haven't been made new since the 50s. There are some with newer dates, but they are reworks on older receivers.
98 220 swift
New member
Mauser all the way. Every mosin I have shot has been minute of man at 100 yards. Some mausers have been almost as bad but had terrible bores. The swede mauser is a sweetheart. I can put 5 shots in a 6" circle with mine at 300 yards. Heck I have a Czech mauser that can come close to that with surplus ammo and somewhat shot out bore. Not to mention the much better safety design. The stripper clips work much better for the mausers a well. The only thing I believe the mosin has for a advantage is the sights are slightly better. At least for my eyes.
I own both an 8mm Yugo capture K98 , and a Century refurbed Mosin 91/30. My Mosin is more accurate. My mosin kicks your shoulder slightly harder than the Mauser (which also whacks you pretty hard). 8mm ammo is harder to come by and more expensive. Even handloading 8mm is pricey. The build quality of the Mauser is far better than the Mosin. I love my Mosin, I "like" my Mauser. Both are very cool to own, but I give a slight nod to the Mosin.
The Mauser is a more refined rifle, and actually has a usable safety. The Mosin is clumsy and crude by comparison.
Zastava still makes Mausers, and the design serves as the basis of many modern sporting rifles.
8mm is surprising expensive, but the Mauser can actually be rebarreled.
Zastava still makes Mausers, and the design serves as the basis of many modern sporting rifles.
8mm is surprising expensive, but the Mauser can actually be rebarreled.
Gunplummer
New member
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the Carcano and Arisaka suddenly had unlimited cheap ammo 20 + years ago and the Russian guns did not. 8x57 is expensive to reload for? What, the 7.62x54R is not?