People are a trip; especially when they think they know something that the other guy doesn't. Even more so when the know that they know something....
Now, ignorant me; I was under the impression that all repeating rifles have a magazine, as if the word magazine was generic, even if the word, "clip", is not. God forbid that I mention the phrase, "45 Long Colt", unless it is to correct the errors of others that speak such blasphemy.
A long time ago, when I was a kid in my Dad's barbershop, he let me know that it was bad form to correct my elders/betters, even when I knew I was right. I'm probably still trying to learn that lesson.
But concerning the Mosin-Nagant: Evidently it is one of the most successful bolt-action military rifles the world has ever seen with perhaps 37 million made. it's crude and homely but rugged and effective. From the viewpoint of the end-user, that is, the soldier, it works. Certainly there are better rifles, but in the grand strategy of war, perhaps not. What's it going to cost to train and arm your peasant and make a soldier out of him? Remember, he's perishable and likely to have a short service life, especially if he's Russian. So you arm such a soldier adequately but cheaply since he's being thrown against the Germans anyway; wish him luck as he goes to a virtual suicide mission. I'm sure the Russians could have built a, "better" tank too; but they might have lost the war if they did. Sometimes the winning strategy favors numbers over quality.
I don't have a Mosin, nor an Arisaka, nor a Lee-Enfield. I think they're all crude and ugly, myself. But they were not made for me and they were effective at the job they were intended for.
I think the results could pretty much be determined way before the encounter has begun. I don't think in CQC or even midrange skirmish where speed and volume of fire is more important than accuracy, the Mosin would hold it's own against the British Enfield SMLE, much less a Garand or M-14.
