Mosin-nagant, Mauser, Or Smle?

C

Cosmoline

New member
I've been on the lookout for a good bolt-action rifle under $200 for rough hunting. There are three in the local stores right now, one Yugo Mauser in 8mm Mauser, one SMLE from the '50's in .303, and one Finnish Mosin-Nagant from 1942 in that strange caliber they use. All are in good condition, with little wear in the barrels and pretty smooth actions. All have well-used stocks, but I don't care at all about that. All are $150-$200 (there's some inflation around these remote parts, so that's not a bad price).

I'm after a rifle that will do the following:

-Survive bushwhacking, rain, and general abuse with no problems.

-Be powerful enough for sitka deer and black bear, but not so powerful as to burst my eardrums when it fires (like my 1895G does).

-Take spitzer bullets

-Travel safely with a round chambered

-Be relatively easy to carry

The SMLE wins on weight and ease of carrying, but the MN seems to have the best safety for my purposes.

Which one would be best? Which one do you prefer? Any pitfalls I should be aware of?
 
I have examples of all three, and I'd take the Enfield out of the lot. The rifle is a bit quicker to operate than both the Mauser and Nagant actions, and .303 British is much more pleasant to shoot than both 8mm Mauser and 7.62x54R, while still being plenty powerful for all kinds of game. I actually prefer the Enfield safety as well, since it's a bit more intuitive: forward for fire, backwards for safe. My main reason for picking the Enfield, however, would be the fact that it'll thump a lot less than the other cartridges.
 
GRH,

I'm a big fun of MNs, and my hobby is to build custom MNs, but I'm afraid you misunderstood something about MN safety. MN safety is super safe, but very uncomfortable and taakes a good second or two to operate, particularly if you have deer standing 20 yards from you while you're sitting in a blind under the influence of a little nap...

To be short - take SMLE for hunting, it has very good safety
and many brands of good hunting ammo are available all over the place. Mauser is fine, but hunting ammo is not as cheap as the one for .303. MN is super good for killing bears, that's what they use in Siberia with 110% success...But in the US, my hunting weapon is customized SMLE, which I prefer to even more customized MN only because SMLE has better safety
setup.
 
I have all three of the rifles mentioned. I would probably go with the Enfield. I have several of them and they are probably my faviorite mil surp rifle over all. You don't mention which Moisin Nagant you are looking at. The Finns had a couple. They had the standard 91/30 just like the Russians. Then they had the M39 which was built on a Moisin Nagant action but is rebarreled and restocked. The Finn M39 is a very accurate rifle. I agree with all that has been said. The Enfield has a easier to use safety for me. The action is very quick. The caliber is certainly adequate, and ammo is readily available since it is still loaded by some major companies. It holds 10 rounds for whatever that is worth. The Mk.4, No.1 has a longer sight radius.
I have to say this even though you probably don't care. I see these mil surp rifles as an historical treasure. I really hate to see something like this modified or "sporterized". Yes, they are pretty readily available. Yes they are selling for pretty low prices. I know there is a big temptation to get one of these great quality rifles cheap and use it as the basis for a "custom" gun. This is just my personal opinion and you know what they say about that. I know that it isn't my rifle, so I don't have any say in it. I am just putting this out as food for thought.
 
I would just second the comment that the Mosin-Nagant safety is difficult to operate. My jaw dropped a little when you said the MN has "the best safety for my purposes" - I doubt that unless your purposes include fumbling in frustration trying to get the darn thing off :).

I like Mausers and don't think they would be a bad choice, but I have no experience with the Enfields, so will defer to those who like them so well.

Doug
 
The MN I'm looking at is a Finn '39, IIRC. It has the semi pistol grip. I'm not sure exactly what SMLE the other store has.

I'm surprised about all the negative comments re. the MN safety. It didn't seem that tough, but maybe it's worse in the field. I'll try it with gloves on. Can the safety on the SMLE get kicked back and forth by accident?
 
It's best to treat the MN as though it has no safety. Keep an empty chamber while moving, then lock and load when you're set up.

I'm going to vote for a Finnish Nagant or a near new Polish M44. I like the issue Nagant sights better than that of both the Enfield and the Mauser.
 
I'd get the SMLE. The .303 is very close to a .308 in performance. For a Spitzer, ... I don't know if any of these are available in a commercial loaded Spitzer. I wouldn't let that stop me, though.
 
Since you are trying to avoid burst eardrums, don't get the Mosin-Nagant 44 (or 38, or 53, or 91/59).
 
Another endorsement for the SMLE - - -

Member 444 mentioned the Enfield No. 4 rifle having a longer sight radius, which is true. The principal benefit of the sight on the receiver bridge is that it is more optically correct--You look THROUGH the sight, not AT it, which means you only need to place front sight on the target--Next best thing to a low-power scope sight.

The Enfield action is generally considered to be a bit quicker to operate.

The Enfield safety lies quite close to the left side of the receiver and is not really subject to accidental movement, even in rough use. It can be operated with only minimal movement of the firing hand, unlike the M-N, which requires a good deal more minipulation. This is usually accompanied by a bit of barrel movement, which can spook your prey.

Oris mentioned the M-N being good on bear, and I'm sure this is true. If you compare the ballistics figures, though, it is no better than the .30-06. Or the .303 for that matter. Plenty of .303 rifles in circulation, anywhere the Union Jack has ever waved. And the colonists as well as the military have used them successfully on everything from big bear to 'roos, Cape buff to heffalumps. Maybe not a great first choice cartridge, but it has served, and served well. Winchester offers a pointed soft point 180 gr. load, which runs pretty well with the sight markings set up for the Mark VII ball ammo. (BTW--While not recommended, the construction of the MK VII bullet makes this possibly the best military round for game hunting.)

In the discussion of the safeties, your statement,

-Travel safely with a round chambered
makes me wonder if you mean carrying it in a vehicle with a chambered round. This is pretty hazardous practice, and illegal in some jurisdictions. It takes almost no time to chamber a round from the magazine, and is less noisy than the act of dismounting from the vehicle.

Whatever your choice, best of luck.
Johnny
 
I know that 7.62x54R and 30-06 is very close, and .303 is just
a touch behind, may be only 5 - 10% in terms of energy. I meant that Siberian hunters use lots of MNs, usually in carbine version, and MN proved to be just about pefect bear stopper, although
much bigger white bear can be a bit tougher to kill with 1 shot.
No 30-06 or .303 in Siberia. And of course, .303 will take a bear...
 
I have to revise my statement earlier. While the you won't go wrong with the Enfield.....if I could only have one Milsurp it would be the M39. The story goes that these were not allowed out of the factory until they could shoot a 1 1/2" group at 100 yards. All of mine do that easily. I scoped mine and as long as I don't let the barrel heat up, it will shoot right with my Remingtons/Winchesters/Rugers. These things served well in military combat just as they were, but there are scope mounts and other accessories available for everyone of the rifles mentioned that doesn't require you to butcher these fine rifles. You can have your cake and eat it to. The addition of a scope let's you see just what the rifle is capable of and makes hunting a lot nicer. I was shooting at one gallon water jugs yesterday with my M39 (scoped) at 529 yards. I certainly wasn't hitting them everytime, but I was hitting them. You arn't giving up much to newer firearms by shooting a milsurp. One note on caliber. Various calibers were used throughout the world at that time (first half of the last century). Germans-8mm, Russians 7.62x54, Americans-.30-06, Great Brittan .303, .................. If you look at them on paper, they are all basically the same thing. They shoot different diameter bullets, but the bullet weights are the same. And they shoot them at similar velocities. One may be 100-200 fps faster or slower than another one, but very similar. The point being, don't base your decision on caliber for hunting. Game wouldn't know the difference between any one of them and you wouldn't either. Like any other aspect of shooting; reloading allows you to exploit these calibers to the fullest. As a reloader you can shoot anything from the Sierra BTHP match bullets - to softpoint hunting bullets. Some of the calibers are represented with "premium" bullets by manufacturers like Nosler, Barnes etc.
 
I took another look at the MN safety, and you guys are correct. I found some more at another store today, and the safety is an absolute nightmare with gloves on, and not much better with bare hands. The one I was looking at initially was either loose or I wasn't using it correctly. Plus, the beast is just too much of a tree trunk. So much for the MN.

What about a Yugo Mauser vs. a SMLE? IIRC, the 8mm Mauser American commercial loads are often underpowered. I handload a lot, so that's not much of a problem. Plus, I've seen some German loads that will equal the .30'06. Today I found a Yugo Mauser in near-new condition for $195 with a bunch of extras thrown in. They also had some very nice SMLE's, but they were priced at $350-$500. Looks like demand for SMLE's is increasing. If the choice is between the nearly new Mauser or a more beat-up SMLE, would you still go with the SMLE? I love the feel of both.

Thanks for all the feed-back, BTW.
 
Tough question. I have one of each. They are all nice guns. I bought the Mauser already sporterized though, so it doesn't really fit in.

That is tough one. Any of the rifles would be a great rough hunter. I like my Enfield, very smooth bolt, very fast. Decent accuracy. The Mauser is very accurate, and I have an aftermarket safety on it so there isn't that much difference between the two. My Nagant is a Russian M44. Short and handy little beast.

I don't think the recoil is bad in any of them. My Enfield doesn't have peep sights, it has receiver sights, but I have used an Enfield with a peep, and that is far better than the other kind. The Mauser is scoped.

Gosh, I don't know which one I would go with. Really you can't lose. :)
 
I have all three, the Masuers in spades.

I would choose the 91/30 Nagant for hunting.
I would hunt without a safety.

The Mausers are more fun to work on.
 
I'll add my thoughts here too. I own all three of the rifles listed, and have used them all for hunting at one time or another. All of the rounds are close enough in power. You won't be sacrificing or gaining much choosing one over the others. It seems that the 8mm has more "thump" than the others, but the ammo I fire through it is military surplus machine gun ammo, and is a bit more powerful than hunting loads.

The safeties on the Enfield and the Mauser are far superior to the safety on the MN. All are military weapons, and will survive pretty much anything you can do to them. The MN has a much simpler design than the other two, and is easier to break down and take care of. The Enfield holds more rounds, and is quicker to operate the bolt than the other two. The MN has a very awkward action to operate. The Enfield is also more manageble than the other two, if you are going to be hauling it around all day. The ammo is cheaper, at least around here, for the Enfield if you are looking to buy civilian loads. However, military surplus ammo is availible for the other two at low prices.

The Finn MNs are very accurate, and most Mauser rifles I've seen are accurate as well, if they are in good condition. Don't confuse the Finn MNs with the Russian ones; they are a totally different breed. The Finns completely re-arsenaled them, replacing barrels and many other parts. My Finn consistantly outshoots my Swedish M96, which was my most accurate rifle before I got the Finn.
 
Thanks for the input!

After all was said and done, I just couldn't pass up on the package deal for the Yugo Mauser. I probably would have gone with the Enfield, but the .303 isn't quite up to snuff for Alaska and they good ones are pretty expensive. After a late night I've cleared off most of the cosmoline. This is my first bolt action, and I'm astonished how much simpler the Mauser action is than your average levergun. It's hard to see what could go wrong with it. I've picked up a range of 8 mm ammo, from the weak American stuff to some very potent Swedish Norma ammo which is, appropriately enough, called "Alaska." With a comparable .30'06 running $500+ and a nice magnum rifle running $800+, I think my $195 was very well spent. We'll see at the range Friday. I've heard about the extraction problems, but I suspect this might be due to small imperfections in the chamber which should be smoothed out with use. These are, after all, *brand new* 50 year old rifles. Thank you Marshal Tito!

The bayonet is a nice touch, and a hell of a lot more nasty than I expected. I always thought these were silly antiquated relics, but with a moderate push I managed to run a fairly hefty book half way through without even trying! I figured it would just dent the side like a knife. Must be some potent physics at work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top