Mosin Nagant in Korea?

Good lord, yes.

Russia gave millions of Moisin-Nagant rifles to the Chinese Communists.

The Chinese then made their own (often on Russian equipment).

Both the Chinese and the Russians provided arms, including Moisin Nagants, to the North Korean military both during and after the Korean war.
 
The M1 uses an enbloc clip. An enbloc clip holds the ammunition, and the entire unit (clip and ammo) is inserted into the magazine, where a follower provides spring pressure to feed the ammo.

When the clip is empty, it is either ejected (as in the case of the M1), or drops free (Italian Carcano, French Betherier).


It was my understanding that a lot of the cold-related problems encountered with the M1 in Korea were the result of post war lubricants that had been improperly specced and manufactured.
 
It was my understanding that a lot of the cold-related problems encountered with the M1 in Korea were the result of post war lubricants that had been improperly specced and manufactured.
Click to expand...

Hey guys, I grew up in Alaska, look up Northway AK. In those days we were so cold the Army came down from Fairbanks (Wainwright) to do cold weather testing.

After the Korean war.

I don't trust Army reports, that is the same Army that sent M-16 to Nam.

I have worked in -40 and worse.

You do not need sub standard lubricant to fail, it just has to be cold and they are not designed for it.

Synthetic lubricants were the long term answer, they did not exist back then.

Why do you think the tolerances on the AK-47 were so loose? It allowed them to work as the Russians did indeed know what sub zero did to equipment.

Equipment back then had to be left running full time or heated up so do so.

My take is they ran the M1 dry or found a super thin lube and used that. Short term wear and tear be damned, its better it worked.

What the small arms did was hold off the Chinese end NK so that artillery and air power could kill them.

Been in -40 stuff a lot, that is beyond tough even if prepped for it, let alone combat ops.

While I don't have a bit of sympathy for the Chinese or NK, you can bet they suffered far worse and half their losses would have been weather.

Its amazing they could operate at all. That would have been part of why they did not win, they were worse off than the US.
 
While I don't have a bit of sympathy for the Chinese or NK, you can bet they suffered far worse and half their losses would have been weather.

Its amazing they could operate at all. That would have been part of why they did not win, they were worse off than the US.
Click to expand...

Nobody really won, and the DPRK lost. They had failed their objective, which is to conquer the entire Korean Peninsula. The ROK lost too because they had failed to seize the initiative and take DPRK territory. The UN and the Eastern Bloc pretty much ended up with the same borders before and after the conflict.

The People's Republic of China had to get involved because the war had reached the Yalujiang and could have spilled over into PRC territory very quickly. If the roles were reversed and let's say Soviet troops were getting involved in a Mexican conflict, and the shooting moved right up into the Texas border, the US Military would have gotten involved, with swift and overwhelming force too.

What this war achieved, was getting the arms race kicked off and going at a very rapid pace, and because of this arms race, the Space Age began a lot sooner.
 
Communist put little value on the individual. The US may have had rate of fire advantage but that means very little in human wave attacks. In WW2 Russian troops would be gunned down by their own if they pulled back. Was a win or die
deal. Add this to the educational level of peon troops the Commies use and you
can see why Russians wanted a cheap, simple and robust rifle. I would guess it
would cost more to make a Mosin than AK today. Other than range toy I can't
see going out of your way to get a Mosin. There is nothing magical about gun or
cartridge. Very similar to 30/40 Krag. Cartridge is adiquate for game, so what, so is 200 other cartridges. If I had to shoot one of the rifles of this ilk it probably would be a Mosin. Back in 60s there were a lot of articles about Jap rifles being stronger actions than 98 Mauser. So what, they are ugly and crude. So is the Italian Carcano, French and several other military rifles. Unless Militaries are your hobby, you would be better served buying one of the new entry level bolt actions. When guys buy a Mosin and then proceede to buy after market stocks
and other accessories they no longer have a pice of history and have more in it
than a good used deer rifle of US make. There is a good bit of Hollywood hype
connected to Mosin.
 
about Jap rifles being stronger actions than 98 Mauser
Click to expand...

Arisaka action was called the most robust and rugged bolt action design there is. It is partly because of the extremely high "bolt block" that the bolt in it's battery position sits in. The entire bolt assembly is practically housed inside a bombproof metal sheath that locks it firmly in place once it is placed in the center slot. The Japanese ministry of defense also picked up many Remington built -03 actions from the US between 1921 and 1931, rechambered them for the Arisaka cartridge and placed them onto Arisaka frames and stocks. These rifles feature US-1903 lockwork, with no bolt block. They are commonly encountered in the Manchuria conflict of 1931-1933 and the "Iron wars" of Inner Mongolia (basically China's version of Bloody Kansas, 1931-1936, but instead of pro-slavery vs. anti-slavery groups, it was militant factions all trying to get control of ore mining land and metal deposits.)

I am not sure if this has been brought up before, but the Moisin was essentially a bolt action mechanism built into a Napoleonic muzzleloading military musket. The forend of the Moisin is identical to the Brown Bess .75 musket, complete with the cleaning rod/ramrod. And it's bayonet is a triangular blade design that is of 1700-1860 origin. That rifle is a living anachronism that was "forced" into a new and modern age, and it continued to function on, carving it's place in modern warfare long after the Space Age had begun. Truly incredible.
 
Last edited:
My reference to winning was purely tactical. The Chinese goal was to cut the US forces off and kill them. In that they failed due to magnificent efforts of the ground forces in conjunction with outstanding air support and artillery.

That went with good command decisions by Smith (?) the on scene ground commander was forced into that position by an idiot called "Almond. )

Certainly in my mind there was no question MacArthur's arrogance triggered the Chinese. There should have been an "understanding" and a stop line short of the border they would accept (50 miles? 100?)

Like Iraq 1, you should have a politico there to intervene in those kinds of decisions. It no longer is a military decision which can and often is disastrous.

Nobody really won, and the DPRK lost. They had failed their objective, which is to conquer the entire Korean Peninsula. The ROK lost too because they had failed to seize the initiative and take DPRK territory. The UN and the Eastern Bloc pretty much ended up with the same borders before and after the conflict.

The People's Republic of China had to get involved because the war had reached the Yalujiang and could have spilled over into PRC territory very quickly. If the roles were reversed and let's say Soviet troops were getting involved in a Mexican conflict, and the shooting moved right up into the Texas border, the US Military would have gotten involved, with swift and overwhelming force too.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top