Mauser 98K vs Mosin Nagant 91/30
- Thread starter Big Tom
- Start date
I'm pretty sure their rifles were not the deciding factor in the eventual Russian defeat of Germany on the Eastern Front.
I own both. I like them both. The Mauser does appear to be the more refined of the two. It also handles better being that it is shorter and more ergonomic IMO. You might want to consider ammo availability in your choice. Mosin is also a good bit cheaper if that matters. I would say pick a Mosin up just because they are so cheap.
I own both. I like them both. The Mauser does appear to be the more refined of the two. It also handles better being that it is shorter and more ergonomic IMO. You might want to consider ammo availability in your choice. Mosin is also a good bit cheaper if that matters. I would say pick a Mosin up just because they are so cheap.
I have a few of both rifles. My mausers feel more ballanced and fit my shoulder better but the most accurate out of the group is my M44 which was counterbored. The 91/30's that I have seem to be more accurate than the mausers, even my M24/47 with a brand new barrel. I also like the 7.62 round better since it seems to be more accurate farther out. I like the fact that I can drop a round into the Mosin Nagant chamber and close the bolt, and I can cycle the Mosin bolt faster because it has such of a short handle on it. I'll have to go with the Mosin Nagant M44 since I just love the way it looks and shoots, it sounds awesome and throws out a huge fireball. It's a little front heavy with the permanently attached bayonet but it just looks great.
It's the fighting men's spirit more than the tool used at play in that conflict.
It would be different if it were repeating rifles against single shots, or muzzle loaders... then the tool would be the deciding factor. The Comanches with their bows and arrows totally dominated the plains until the rangers acquired the repeating Paterson Colt pistol, then the Walker. That tool pretty much turned the tide.
My dad was in the Philippines in WWII, and had a couple of civilian brothers fighting with his company. He said they had one rifle between them. They got trapped under a bridge by several Japanese soldiers, and managed to rejoin my dad's unit shortly afterwards. The enemy soldiers did not. He said that one rifle sounded like a machine gun with those two brothers working it.
It's not always the tool.
I only have a mosin, but it depends on the individual rifle. I know Mausers are renowned for their accuracy, but if you get a good pre-war mosin that saw limited use, they are just as accurate. the mosin will shoot no matter what happens to it, has a much simpler action, and better sights. My vote goes to the Mosin Nagant, assuming its a pre war strait shooter.
FairWarning
New member
M-A-U-S-E-R
It isn't highly sought after and respected by accident.
And if we are going to discuss WWII history, please don't try to simplilfy things.
Hitler's arrogance and the same Russian winter that stomped Napoleon were the main causes for the German defeat, along with a massive population of fighting age Russian men with great spirit.
It isn't highly sought after and respected by accident.
And if we are going to discuss WWII history, please don't try to simplilfy things.
Hitler's arrogance and the same Russian winter that stomped Napoleon were the main causes for the German defeat, along with a massive population of fighting age Russian men with great spirit.TEEMEAD
I own a 91/30 and an 8mm oberndorf 1934 it's a bit longer than the k98 but i love both rifles. The nagant is easier 2 figure out but once you shoot the mauser a few times and get the sighting down it's a good shooting gun if you don't mind a black and blue shoulder but the nagant kicks pretty good itself. It's a hard choice but i think the mauser edges out the nagant on sheer beauty and craftsmanship. The mauser action is superior 2 the nagant but the nagant is rugged and a good gun. I like both but mauser wins in my book lol. YOU NEED 2 GO WORKOUT BE4 YOU USE THE NAGANT SAFETY BUT THE MAUSERS DOES GO CLICK BUT I DON'T THINK THAT MATTERS.
I own a 91/30 and an 8mm oberndorf 1934 it's a bit longer than the k98 but i love both rifles. The nagant is easier 2 figure out but once you shoot the mauser a few times and get the sighting down it's a good shooting gun if you don't mind a black and blue shoulder but the nagant kicks pretty good itself. It's a hard choice but i think the mauser edges out the nagant on sheer beauty and craftsmanship. The mauser action is superior 2 the nagant but the nagant is rugged and a good gun. I like both but mauser wins in my book lol. YOU NEED 2 GO WORKOUT BE4 YOU USE THE NAGANT SAFETY BUT THE MAUSERS DOES GO CLICK BUT I DON'T THINK THAT MATTERS.
Last edited:
Let's forget Hype and who won what carrying what for a moment....lets compare the individual rifles.
M98 S/42 1938 (Kar 98) 7.92x57 JS 43.70" OAL EW 8.6 lbs Barrel 23.62" 5 shot magazine
MV of 1940's era 7.9 mm Patr. S.M.K. 177.9 gr 2624 fps 5 shot average my rifle
Soviet MN 91/30 7.62x54R 48.43" OAL EW 8.82 lb Barrel 28.75" 5 Shot Magazine
MV of 1940's era Soviet light ball 147.6 gr 2800 fps 5 shot average my rifle.
Now the measured BC of each bullet is:
German .498 uncorrected for temp and altitude
Soviet .363 uncorrected for temp and altitude
At longer ranges the 7.92 bullet has an advantage
Handling, with or without bayonet the Mauser handles better than the std MN 91/30
Sights I cannot say one is better than the other, provided the sight hood is present on the Mauser, if not then the MN has the advantage.
Accuracy with war surplus at 100 meters both rifles held to about 3 +- inches for 5 rounds, which was probably more due to the shooters and the ammunition than the rifles ( I was running the Chrono that day as well as being the RO)
For issue to a conscript minimally trained army, they rate about the same, since it normally requires a Sergeant's boot placed strategically (usually more than once) to keep the rifles cleaned, until the Darwin effect of warfare thins the herd and clues in the rest, that take care of your rifle and it will take care of you....or until you can pick up an automatic weapon of some type and leave that heavy clunky rifle for someone else.
Fit and finish, pretty comparable up to 1942, then both sides took short cuts.
I like the controlled feed of the Mauser and magazine over that used in the MN 91/30 and the safety I talked to an older fellow who lives nearby who fought in the Soviet army and he said he never bothered with the safety, because by the time you wrestled off safe some......what he called them is not printable in any language...German grenadier was now sharing your position doing his best to kill you.
M98 S/42 1938 (Kar 98) 7.92x57 JS 43.70" OAL EW 8.6 lbs Barrel 23.62" 5 shot magazine
MV of 1940's era 7.9 mm Patr. S.M.K. 177.9 gr 2624 fps 5 shot average my rifle
Soviet MN 91/30 7.62x54R 48.43" OAL EW 8.82 lb Barrel 28.75" 5 Shot Magazine
MV of 1940's era Soviet light ball 147.6 gr 2800 fps 5 shot average my rifle.
Now the measured BC of each bullet is:
German .498 uncorrected for temp and altitude
Soviet .363 uncorrected for temp and altitude
At longer ranges the 7.92 bullet has an advantage
Handling, with or without bayonet the Mauser handles better than the std MN 91/30
Sights I cannot say one is better than the other, provided the sight hood is present on the Mauser, if not then the MN has the advantage.
Accuracy with war surplus at 100 meters both rifles held to about 3 +- inches for 5 rounds, which was probably more due to the shooters and the ammunition than the rifles ( I was running the Chrono that day as well as being the RO)
For issue to a conscript minimally trained army, they rate about the same, since it normally requires a Sergeant's boot placed strategically (usually more than once) to keep the rifles cleaned, until the Darwin effect of warfare thins the herd and clues in the rest, that take care of your rifle and it will take care of you....or until you can pick up an automatic weapon of some type and leave that heavy clunky rifle for someone else.
Fit and finish, pretty comparable up to 1942, then both sides took short cuts.
I like the controlled feed of the Mauser and magazine over that used in the MN 91/30 and the safety
I talked to an older fellow who lives nearby who fought in the Soviet army and he said he never bothered with the safety, because by the time you wrestled off safe some......what he called them is not printable in any language...German grenadier was now sharing your position doing his best to kill you.Sturmgewehre
New member
I would also vote for the Mauser. The Mauser is a very robust and reliable bolt action design. The Mauser's action was very strong, it could easily handle the high pressure of modern cartridges which lent it well to chambering in magnum calibers in the civilian world.
The Mauser inspired other rifle designs such as the M1903/1903A3 and the M1917 used by the United States in WWI and WWII. It was also the basis for the Japanese Arisaka rifle used by their armed forced in WWII. It was the basis for the British P14 Enfield, Czech Vz.24 and even the Chinese Zhongzheng Rifle.
Today the Mauser action is still quite popular in the civilian world. The Winchester Model 70 is based on the Mauser action and many custom sporter rifles built throughout the 20th century were based on its action.
The Mauser inspired other rifle designs such as the M1903/1903A3 and the M1917 used by the United States in WWI and WWII. It was also the basis for the Japanese Arisaka rifle used by their armed forced in WWII. It was the basis for the British P14 Enfield, Czech Vz.24 and even the Chinese Zhongzheng Rifle.
Today the Mauser action is still quite popular in the civilian world. The Winchester Model 70 is based on the Mauser action and many custom sporter rifles built throughout the 20th century were based on its action.
tahunua001
New member
HOLY ZOMBIE THREAD BATMAN!!!
as I tend to hate COO mausers I tend to hold them in pretty low reguard but in this case there is no comparison.
the 91/30 is a horribly designed rifle with a stiff action, rough tool marks, poor sights and a floor plate that allows the magazine to fill with dirt, snow, mud, soot and grime in a WWII type combat environment.
the Mauser also has horrible sights but the action is much smoother and the floorplate does a much better job of sealing the magazine from outside debris. the K98 is also a more compact design.
as I tend to hate COO mausers I tend to hold them in pretty low reguard but in this case there is no comparison.
the 91/30 is a horribly designed rifle with a stiff action, rough tool marks, poor sights and a floor plate that allows the magazine to fill with dirt, snow, mud, soot and grime in a WWII type combat environment.
the Mauser also has horrible sights but the action is much smoother and the floorplate does a much better job of sealing the magazine from outside debris. the K98 is also a more compact design.
Well the Mauser is a much more refined weapon, and of course has had more customs built on it then probably any rifle. Used all over the world as hunting rifle, in design.
But the Mosin is a great rifle in it's own right. You mentioned the floor plate letting in dirt, but I just went an looked at my M44 and you can remove the floorplate in 2 seconds and clean it out and put it back in in nothing flat. The Mosin is pretty well thought out and one thing that hasn't been mentioned is one of the most famous snipers that ever lived, killed over 500 of the enemy in 6 months time during the winter war between Finland and Russia. His favorite rifle was a reworked Mosin. He was Finish soldier and chose the MN over the Swedish 96 mauser for his work.
I would choose the Mauser, but the MN served it purpose well.
But the Mosin is a great rifle in it's own right. You mentioned the floor plate letting in dirt, but I just went an looked at my M44 and you can remove the floorplate in 2 seconds and clean it out and put it back in in nothing flat. The Mosin is pretty well thought out and one thing that hasn't been mentioned is one of the most famous snipers that ever lived, killed over 500 of the enemy in 6 months time during the winter war between Finland and Russia. His favorite rifle was a reworked Mosin. He was Finish soldier and chose the MN over the Swedish 96 mauser for his work.
I would choose the Mauser, but the MN served it purpose well.
tahunua001
New member
your point is well noted and for you and me out hunting or something a gummed up magazine is no big problem, a deer may get away from us but it's no big deal. in combat however, having to continually clean out your magazine is a serious problem and failures to feed during a firefight can prove fatal. also the Finnish M39 is a completely different animal from the 91/30. though they are both nearly identical, the Fins manufactured to much higher standards requiring both higher accuracy and tighter tolerances, leaving smaller gaps for dirt and debris to enter the magazine. I do acknowledge that the 91/30 is a decent rifle for it's intended use and served for over 75 years which is more than just about any other bolt action rifle. as stated I am no fan of the 98 style mausers(though I love 96 style mausers) and actually own a pair of 91/30s that I shoot and enjoy but I really can't try to objectively say that the 91/30 is a superior design to the K98.