I Need An Answer To Why Is The Mosin Nagant Is So Popular ?

I have a confession to make: I picked up a VZ24 and a M/N Carbine last year and haven't shot them yet. They were at market value and it helped a friend of my dads out with some cash for a surgery.

I also have a 1895 Chilean Mauser [7x57mm], but that one was [poorly] sporterized in the 50s. I made it look good.

I personally can't hit anything with peep/apature sights. The post/notch sights of the Mosin and VZ24 work better with my astigmatism.

For me I like the cheapness of the ammo: as cheap or cheaper than 8x57mm Mauser, and cheaper than .223/5.56 or .308 or .30/06.

I like its reputation for reliability. I like the simplicity of design. [I HATE the safety!]

And I appreciate firearms used by the side that killed 2 germans for every 1 the US/UK/FR/ free Poles, free Norwegians, etc killed on the western front. 77% of all the ammo fired at the German military machine came from the firearms of the USSR. The only thing preventing the odds of my MN having killed more germans than any WWII M1 rifle is that there were SOOOO many MN rifles out there.

I do like the look, but in a weird atavastic way: I like old-fashioned as well as new-fangled designs.

However, I wouldn't spend $1000 for one while I might see myself doing that for a Springfield '03 A3 [in the right condition], or a pristine Mauser K98 with bent bolt.

The cost of the gun and 880 rounds of ammo was about the same as the cost of 900 rounds of 5.56 M885 ball ammo.

Cost definitely is a factor for me, but I REALLY like the sense of history too.
 
V said:
I have alwayse thought even before the Mosin became so plentifull, that the Sniper Version was a Cool Looking Weapon.
Click to expand...

Indeed :D

sniper.jpg
 
I own a mosin nagant 91/30. The best things about them are
#1 they are cheap got mine for $90 in '07. Cheap ammo too.
#2 They are powerful! I bought the heavier yellow tips (I think they were 185gr) russian surplus ammo. When I lived in Montana I would take it to the forest and never met a tree it wouldn't go through or a bowling ball sized rock it wouldn't turn into dust and pebbles.
#3 It is decently accurate. Standing at 120yds every round on a pie plate no problem, with a lot of potential for much better accuracy than that.
#4 Try to break it! It's a very simple gun. easy to break down and clean. Hard to do anything that'll keep it from going BOOM!
#5 It is easy to modify/sportify.

Only thing I didn't like is the rough action of the bolt...you have to manhandle that SOB.

If it's less than 150 buy it. I'd pick up another one if I saw it at the local gun shop.

BTW this gun made a few famous russian snipers during WW2, or they made the gun famous...either way.
 
The McDonalds business rule: Feed them garbage cheap with plenty of sensationalism and they will come.
Click to expand...

to call a mosin garbage is just opinion. like calling an ak garbage. or a makarov garbage... It just depends on what you are looking for. I've never met the owner of a mosin that wasn't happy with it.
 
Last edited:
My question is why anyone would expect a $100 rifle that is a modified 121 year old design to be as smooth or have as much accuracy potential as a new bolt action rifle that costs $500 or so?

A MN is what it is: cheap/reliable/minute of torso accurate. That is all it was really designed to do. Competition target shooting to hit the right eye of a silhouette at 400 yards wasn't it design parameter, so why should we be upset if it isn't that accurate.
 
I was interested in buying one. I found one for $99 and though GREAT, and then I picked it up and held it like I was going to shoot it, worked the bolt and my whole attitude changed. I just did not like the way it felt in my hands. I just can't explain it better than that. Purely subjective and not a standard that means anything to anyone but me.

BUT, having said that, my mind may change someday, who knows. I would not tell anyone not to buy one if it is what they want. To each his own.
 
I just bought my Mosin about 1 month ago and I havnt seen that movie, I looked at my son'd M/N and just had to have one.

Mine has a date of 1905 .... a friggin Czar was around then, this rifle had been through the Russian/Jap war, WW1, Russian Revolution and WW2, imagine the history of the diffrent people who used it in battle! For me that in of it self makes it worth owning.It was made to be handled and shot by peasents who more then likely had never traveled much past there own village and there experience with fire arms was probably non exsistant, so it was made simple and robust for the common soldier point, aim and shoot.

It may never be an expensive rifle but as time marchs on these relics of past ages will soon dissapear.
 
Who cares who likes them and who dont. I have 3. 1929 Hex reciever 91/30, 1953 Hungarian M-44, and a 91/59 built from a 1942 Izzy. Sure they arent MOA but after last halloween we rounded up several pumpkins and set then out at 75yrds. and had a fantastic time blowing them to pieces with my mosin nagants. I have also killed a doe at over 200yrds away with the M-44. They are more accurate than you think. You dont like them, cool. More of them for the people who do.
 
Last edited:
The guns are cheap, the ammo (military surplus) is plentiful, and cheap. They are great shooters at the range. Oh, and historically interesting.
Mine include:
91/30 Tula Hex
91/39 Ishy round91/59
Hungarian M44 (my first M/N)
I missed out on the M38's or I would have a couple of them.

They make a decent looking sporter if someone is so inclined, and does a good job. Not my cup of tea however. I like 'em just as they are along with my Mauser's. SMLE's, Steyr's. and other milsurps.
 
I plan on getting a M/N when I can afford the extra money . I know they are cheap at about $100 but right now that might as well be $4000.
 
alexmc22---

My reasoning behind not praying to Russian rifles? The only thing going for them is CHEAP. The whole gun is a bad design forced to be that way because of the rimmed ammo it used. Why millions produced? The Russians were sitting on mountains of rimmed ammo and stayed with the rifle. The Russians and Chinese do not care about quality. If I owned a Chinese model I would think twice about shooting it. Their heat treating leaves a lot to be desired even today. The rifles manufactured between wars use wood that looks like the wood used on "Last Ditch" Japanese rifles. Quantity is everything because their greatest resource is farmer/soldiers. Mass assaults were normal operating procedure. Reported sniper kills? At what average range? With all military surplus guns I have seen as many bad shooters as good. Now, according to some people, it seems every Russian rifle was manufactured to be a sniper rifle. Can you hunt with them? Yes. Been there done that. Do I want to? No. I was a kid and it was CHEAP. Pull the barrel? It really sucks. Cheaply side mount a scope? I might as well use my 6.5 Carcano. It is lighter, has an easy safety, and is just as accurate. I did one with a 30-40 barrel, filled in the split bridge so I could mount a scope decently, new trigger assy., and modified the bolt. A lot of work for a hunting rifle. Also did the 8MMx54R thing. I am hardly a virgin when it comes to Russian rifles. These guns have been around a long time. My question to you is where were all these experts when the cheap guns were there but the ammo was not? Buy one, go to the range and have a good time, but don't try to pawn it off as the greatest rifle ever built.
Other clunkers IMO: 30-40 Kraig, both Carcano's, Mas36 ,Austrian Mauser, Swiss K-31.....Never a line at the door to rebarrel these.
 
Last edited:
I have two an Izzy and a Tula. Mosin Nagants are far from the best military rifles every made. With that being said they are also far from the worst also. They are a solid, functional, cheap, and pretty accurate firearm. With the cheap price point and historical significance I can fully understand the cult following they have. I see some people bashing them extremely hard on here and I cant figure out why. Every one I have shot cycled (albeit a little sticky on the bolt action) and fired every time. Im glad I have my two.
 
I see some people bashing them extremely hard on here and I cant figure out why
Click to expand...

One of them at least, based on posts in this and another thread, appears to have a business bubba-ing military rifles for hunters, something the Mosin is not particularly well suited to because of the split bridge and difficulty mounting traditional scope bases.
 
gunplummer, sorry but virtually none of that is true.

The only thing going for them is CHEAP
Click to expand...

Largely untrue, this is already been addressed in this thread and has not been refuted.


The whole gun is a bad design forced to be that way because of the rimmed ammo it used.
Click to expand...

"Bad design"? It is not inherently less durable, accurate, reliable than any other rifle of its class/time... so what pray tell makes it a "bad design"?

Why millions produced? The Russians were sitting on mountains of rimmed ammo and stayed with the rifle.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. They also used that same round in a wide variety machineguns, in tanks, in aircraft, as used by infantry, etc... if they wanted to use up their mountains of rimmed ammo, they could easily have done so without retaining a rifle that they truly didn't like. By your logic, they would still be using the Mosin as they still have mountains of 7.62x54R ammo... which incidentally is no lesser a round compared to its western counterparts

The Russians and Chinese do not care about quality. If I owned a Chinese model I would think twice about shooting it. Their heat treating leaves a lot to be desired even today.
Click to expand...

Spare us this nonsense, please. The fact that there are countless specimens of these guns, some over 100 years old, and most over 60 years old, and they continue to function perfectly proves that there isn't some potentially dangerous lack in quality. There is no documented evidence whatsoever that a Mosin in good condition (Russian, Chinese, Finnish, Hungarian, or any other kind) is at all unsafe to shoot. One might even add that this isn't equally true of Springfield 1903's, by the way.

Now, according to some people, it seems every Russian rifle was manufactured to be a sniper rifle.
Click to expand...

According to whom? Who alleged this? Quotes please!

but don't try to pawn it off as the greatest rifle ever built.
Click to expand...

Not once in this thread could I find a single instance in which anyone has said that the Mosin is, "the greatest rifle ever built." The Mosin, as we've obviously established, has a lot of fans, but I would suspect a very slim minority would consider it, "the greatest rifle ever built." But it is in fact durable, accurate, hard-hitting, fun-to-shoot, reliable, and it is of significant historical interest, that all doesn't make the "best rifle ever" but it likely does make it the best rifle you can get for the money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top