tahunua001
New member
I would say that this is very untrue, though they are regarded as pretty much the hi points of the rifle world, they have definitely withstood the test of time and it hasn't always been because they were cheap.The only thing going for them is CHEAP.
how is it bad? these weapons were fired a lot by a primarily poorly trained army of conscripts and some served through multiple wars and yet after sitting in a warehouse for longer than my parents have been alive(yes I'm a young'un) and yet thousands, if not millions of them are still putting thousands of rounds through them a year. just what makes it a terrible design?The whole gun is a bad design forced to be that way because of the rimmed ammo it used.
this is not true at all. just because 99% of what you see at your neighborhood dollar store has made in china stamped on it doesn't mean that this has always been the case. believe it or not russia and china were the biggest players in americas dont make mad list....oh wait a minute... THEY STILL ARE.The Russians and Chinese do not care about quality.
I would say I need to see some quotes printed up. the english were renowned marksmen and yet enfields have a WIDE margin for hit or miss accuracy. enfield pattern 14s and american model 1917s had 2,5,and 6 channel rifling, try telling me that those did not offer a huge variability in accuracy?Now, according to some people, it seems every Russian rifle was manufactured to be a sniper rifle.
My question to you is where were all these experts when the cheap guns were there but the ammo was not?
back when I was barely able to squeeze a trigger I remember forcing my older brother to drag me around with all his highschool friends, back then an SKS was around $80 and 7.62x39 was less than 8 cents a round. every teenager owned one, hunted with it, plinked with it, bubba'd it, trashed it and all the parents didn't bat an eye because, hey, it's a cheap chinese or russian piece of... uh stuff. now SKS are going for $500 and 7.62x39 is around 19 cents a round... tell me one person that now claims that an SKS is a horrible design made by a nation that didn't care what it issued it's troops.
again... who has said this? both my little brother and I love our enfields to death and I would never in a million years choose a 91/30 over one. the bolt does lack a certain "click, snap, and smack" that I've always identified with the cycling of a bolt action and it doesn't seem to be built to the tightest tolerances but it is far from the garbage that you make it out to be.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.
I would love to see the opinions about mosins in 15 years when they are going to $250 and ammo is 30 cents a round.