Mosin M44 vs. Glenfield Marlin 30-30
- Thread starter YankeeIronSights
- Start date
Pathfinder45
New member
The best reply so far:
Really put a smile on my face.
Last edited:
The Mosin 44 is not the Mosin I would choose. There is a model, more rare, but I have one. I think it called a mod. 38 which is slightly longer then the 44 but shorter the 91's. And they also made a Finish Mosin which is shorter then the 91's but longer then the 44's, but also heavier.
There is a lot of junky Mosins out there and the bolts don't usually match the rifle, so headspace might be an issue. However, a good Mosin is a far better gun then one might first imagine.
And they have pretty good iron sights on them, however, the Marlin would be better for a scope, and the 30/30 rounds are cheap and easy to find, and about all 30/30 ammo is hunting ammo. Ammo for the Mosin is mostly military ball, and not suited for hunting.
The Mosin can be very accurate, and in the Finish/Rush winter war of 1939, one of the most famous snipers in the world, who fought for the Finn's, racked up over 600 kills in about 6 months, with a good many taken at up to 600yds with a Mosin. So that Mosin served in some of the most severe winter weather conditions, every encountered in combat and obviously worked. The Marlin Glenfield would not have held up under those conditions, I don't think.
But for hunting deer in the good old US of A, the Marlin would be probably the best choice. Why not own both if you can. The Mosin is one of my favorite milsurps, just don't plan on using the safety as it's too hard to manipulate.
I have been told that the 44 with the folding bayonet had the sights regulated to shoot with the bayonet, and would need to be monkeyed with if you take the bayonet off. I had one for a little but did not shoot it enough to verify that story, as that gun did have some headspace issues, and I gave up on it, but the rifle I have now works fine, and it's slight longer then the 44, and does not have a bayonet. Recoil is not bad at all, on my gun.
Bottom line, though, the Marlin would be a better deer gun.
There is a lot of junky Mosins out there and the bolts don't usually match the rifle, so headspace might be an issue. However, a good Mosin is a far better gun then one might first imagine.
And they have pretty good iron sights on them, however, the Marlin would be better for a scope, and the 30/30 rounds are cheap and easy to find, and about all 30/30 ammo is hunting ammo. Ammo for the Mosin is mostly military ball, and not suited for hunting.
The Mosin can be very accurate, and in the Finish/Rush winter war of 1939, one of the most famous snipers in the world, who fought for the Finn's, racked up over 600 kills in about 6 months, with a good many taken at up to 600yds with a Mosin. So that Mosin served in some of the most severe winter weather conditions, every encountered in combat and obviously worked. The Marlin Glenfield would not have held up under those conditions, I don't think.
But for hunting deer in the good old US of A, the Marlin would be probably the best choice. Why not own both if you can. The Mosin is one of my favorite milsurps, just don't plan on using the safety as it's too hard to manipulate.
I have been told that the 44 with the folding bayonet had the sights regulated to shoot with the bayonet, and would need to be monkeyed with if you take the bayonet off. I had one for a little but did not shoot it enough to verify that story, as that gun did have some headspace issues, and I gave up on it, but the rifle I have now works fine, and it's slight longer then the 44, and does not have a bayonet. Recoil is not bad at all, on my gun.
Bottom line, though, the Marlin would be a better deer gun.
Last edited:
HistoryJunky
New member
I'd take the Mosin. I have shot an M44 and used to have a 91/30. They are very fun guns to shoot even with the recoil.
I guess it depends on what you'll use it for. I personally enjoyed pretending I was a vodka-drunk Russian soldier with a commie rifle made by the millions fighting off the Germans.
X54R used to be pretty cheap in the spam cans and I think it is still considerably cheaper than .30-30. A lot flatter shooting too.
I'm not a particularly large man at about 150 pounds and I never found the recoil to get in the way of having a good time.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I guess it depends on what you'll use it for. I personally enjoyed pretending I was a vodka-drunk Russian soldier with a commie rifle made by the millions fighting off the Germans.
X54R used to be pretty cheap in the spam cans and I think it is still considerably cheaper than .30-30. A lot flatter shooting too.
I'm not a particularly large man at about 150 pounds and I never found the recoil to get in the way of having a good time.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Sure Shot Mc Gee
New member
Practical: Glenfield.
All milsurp: If you desire.
What the majority of sportsmen & woman prefer to use? Certainly isn't the latter. (above)
All milsurp: If you desire.
What the majority of sportsmen & woman prefer to use? Certainly isn't the latter. (above)
True, but is he a "sportsman"? From the first post, "mostly used as a range gun for plinking and maybe, hunting in the future."
For turning money into noise, the Mosin wins. For hunting, I would choose neither. An entry level bolt gun from any of the big players, would be better in my opinion.
Cheapshooter
New member
But certainly not in the opinion of millions of deer, and black bear hunters for more than a century.
Once, that was true. No more.
That $80 440-rnd spam can is now $219 IF you can find any, and it was only "blaster grade" ammo to begin with.
Hunting ammo? $16.99 for Winchester .30-30 soft points. $26.99 for Winchester 7.62x54R soft points. (and out of stock, limited production)
Just a quick check of Midway's site, 10 choices for 7.62x54 most out of stock.
32 choices for .30-30, with only a couple out of stock.
The days of dirt cheap milsurp available nearly everywhere are OVER. and, for a while, now.
And a good many of his kills were taken with a Submachine gun. It was the man, not the tools he used.
Be not so certain, there are more than a few Winchester & Marlin living in the arctic regions and doing well enough their users keep them. OF course, we're not talking combat conditions. Not quite fair to compare a rifle designed for COMBAT against one designed for sport hunting. Very much Apples vs. Oranges.
I didn't say it wasn't adequate, just that there are better options available, especially if the OP lives somewhere out west.
While not as cheap as it once was, blasting ammo is still cheaper. Look at SGammo, the cheapest in stock .30-30 they sell is 50¢/round, although most options are over 60¢. For 7.65x54R, they do have some surplus for 35-39¢ per round, and a few options of new production for under 50¢, with hunting ammo between 50-60¢/per round.
HistoryJunky
New member
There are always the soft points made by Wolf in x54R too. IDK how good they are but about 50 cents a shot.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
YankeeIronSights
New member
Hi folks. Thanks for all the feedback. I bought the Glenfield and could not be happier with the choice. I love the rifle and will share the range review in upcoming days. Thanks again for your suggestions and comments.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
PatientWolf
New member
Although I didn’t weigh in sooner, I think you made the right choice and expect you’ll have years of enjoyment from that Glenfield (Glendale?).
Not quite fair to compare a rifle designed for COMBAT against one designed for sport hunting. Very much Apples vs. Oranges.
While there have been lever guns used by some nations (Russia and Turkey used some Winchesters) and SOME lever guns were designed with the intent of selling them to the military (though the US never bought any significant quantity), the Marlin was not designed as a combat arm.
After Marlin's submission of a lever action .45-70 was rejected by the Army, Marlin turned their focus to civilian sporting arms, and all their subsequent lever guns, to this day, (including the Glenfield under discussion here) were designed as hunting rifles, not military combat arms.
Winchester made versions of their lever guns intended for military use, but our military was never interested, with one exception. During WW I, the Army purchased a number of Winchester lever guns, and used them to guard PNW fir forests against "communist sabotage".
Prior to WW I, from the 1870s on the lever gun was inferior to military single shots and bolt actions in all ways except firepower. They were complicated, EXPENSIVE, and fragile, compared to service rifles. Plus very few designs fired the military caliber, and about none (with certain Winchester variants being the rare exception) were made to use a bayonet.
The two piece stock of the typical lever gun was a serious drawback to being a combat weapon, because, though few people think of it today, in those days the soldier's rifle was meant to be used in hand to hand combat. And survive being used that way.
Also, military brass did not put a high priority on individual soldiers firepower until after the WW I lessons sank in, and even then most of the major WWII combatants still fielded a 5 shot bolt action as their standard infantry rifle.
the lever gun may have "won the west" but it didn't do in the hands of the US Army.
While there have been lever guns used by some nations (Russia and Turkey used some Winchesters) and SOME lever guns were designed with the intent of selling them to the military (though the US never bought any significant quantity), the Marlin was not designed as a combat arm.
After Marlin's submission of a lever action .45-70 was rejected by the Army, Marlin turned their focus to civilian sporting arms, and all their subsequent lever guns, to this day, (including the Glenfield under discussion here) were designed as hunting rifles, not military combat arms.
Winchester made versions of their lever guns intended for military use, but our military was never interested, with one exception. During WW I, the Army purchased a number of Winchester lever guns, and used them to guard PNW fir forests against "communist sabotage".
Prior to WW I, from the 1870s on the lever gun was inferior to military single shots and bolt actions in all ways except firepower. They were complicated, EXPENSIVE, and fragile, compared to service rifles. Plus very few designs fired the military caliber, and about none (with certain Winchester variants being the rare exception) were made to use a bayonet.
The two piece stock of the typical lever gun was a serious drawback to being a combat weapon, because, though few people think of it today, in those days the soldier's rifle was meant to be used in hand to hand combat. And survive being used that way.
Also, military brass did not put a high priority on individual soldiers firepower until after the WW I lessons sank in, and even then most of the major WWII combatants still fielded a 5 shot bolt action as their standard infantry rifle.
the lever gun may have "won the west" but it didn't do in the hands of the US Army.