Cheapshooter
New member
Thinking the "combat" in winning the West was not primarily military!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mosin M44 vs. Glenfield Marlin 30-30
- Thread starter YankeeIronSights
- Start date
Thinking the "combat" in winning the West was not primarily military!
True, a lot were taken with the Submachine gun, but he still took a lot of them with the Mosin and he had other choices available to him, but chose the Mosin over other milsurps, one in particular was the Sweedish 96 Mauser.
That would be Simo Haya and he did it all with IRON SIGHTS whether rifle or Suomi KP31 machine pistol!!....! His favored rifle was his issue Finnish Civil Guard Sako built Model 28/30. This rifle was built on a Mosin Nagant hex receiver and was an early 28/30...it differed from the 91 and 91/30s as the Finns modified sights, stock and better trigger. It was affectionatly known as the Pystykorva or literally "Spitz" as the front sights protective "ears" resembled that of the dog.[/QUBe 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.OTE]
Of course there are plenty of Winchester's and Marlin's in the artic regions, but like you said, a rifle designed for combat is often more reliable then one designed for sporting use, and probably easier to maintain under those harsh conditions.
Comparing the M44 with the Marlin (Glenfield) is apples to oranges. Both excel at what the were intended for and the intended purpose of each is quite different, without getting into it.
Also, the Finn MN rifles, besides the improvements mentioned, were also re-barrelled by Sako, Tikka, Valmet, etc. The only thing common between Finn MNs and the Russians would be the receiver. So although the original Mns are excellent weapons the Finn versions are usually considered an improvement
Last edited:
the lever gun may have "won the west" but it didn't do in the hands of the US Army.
The US Army is all that counts? The Nagant was not used by the US Army either.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/6/11/winchester-lever-actions-go-to-war/
Thinking the "combat" in winning the West was not primarily military!
I hate to tell you but if you are exchanging lead, you are in combat. How much maintenance do you think farmer Joe gave his Winchester?
As with many questions, what are you planning on doing with it?
Unless you are a collector, the Marlin is likely going to fit your goals better than the Mosin.
The Mosin will certainly kill things. But not as pleasant to shoot. Do you own picking and learn from it. I don't mean to sound uncaring, but all of life - including buying guns - is a learning experience and one must deal with all the hidden details others don't know.
Unless you are a collector, the Marlin is likely going to fit your goals better than the Mosin.
The Mosin will certainly kill things. But not as pleasant to shoot. Do you own picking and learn from it. I don't mean to sound uncaring, but all of life - including buying guns - is a learning experience and one must deal with all the hidden details others don't know.
As an aside, the last Czar Nicholas II, had a miniature Mosin Nagant specially built for his son Alexei, his would be successor... A scaled down model that his young son could handle, since the Czar was deposed in 1917, it had to be a scaled down M91.
Who knows, if it even still exists or where it might be but hard to imagine the collector price it would fetch today!
Who knows, if it even still exists or where it might be but hard to imagine the collector price it would fetch today!
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 speed of Information is much faster now ...... these days have much less patience with moribund convention ...... the lessons of WWI took decades to sink in .... but by 1940 ..... standard Infantry rifles .....
.... Garand (never had enough of em, so they pulled springfield '03's out of mothballs and Gave 'em to Marines, the low men on the funding totem pole .....) : 8 Rounds .... SMLE, the Standard of the Brittish Empire for DECADES by then, at the time? Ten. .... The Italian Carcano, 6 rounds ...... The Red Army had a huge stockpile of mostly hard used M91 rifles and lots of tooling for same, and in the name of efficiency, made the best of what they had .... hence the 91/30 (1930) standard ........ but by 1940 , had adopted the SVT 40 (10 rounds) as the way of the future ..... semi-successfully ..... and then their front wall got kicked in ....... the only major players left to talk about are the French, despite their Hero Petain's emphasis on Firepower, went with their mystic cult of "E'lan" and poured concrete.... and the Japanese, with their similar "Bushido" anachronistic fantasies ...... (Hey, propaganda, warm bodies, and generations of old hardware is cheaper and more politically marketable than R&D, Engineering and Production of a better gun ...... also considering that the folks in charge of those countries (the "EXPERTS") were old guys who, if ever, saw first person combat against 3rd World Indigenous people armed with at best, a commercially purchased Mauser ( which most certainly shocked the hell out of the Brits in South Africa 2 generations before!- and they reacted appropriately, IMO) ..... but more likely, an edged weapon or a black powder muzzle stuffer ........