Mosin Nagant

[ninosdemente]

kraigwy or anyone... what is an acceptable bore condition?

I did a quick youtubu/google search for how to's for bore rifling/condition.

This is one I found of many out there (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ16YVhuHfY)

This is what I found on images for bad rifling:
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1...0.1.60....0.5sfkIxUGC_Y#imgrc=YcMmSyezFkh3cM:
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1...0.1.60....0.5sfkIxUGC_Y#imgrc=HHR0Q7ilgntT6M:
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1...0.1.60....0.5sfkIxUGC_Y#imgrc=adcMQm75aqhgxM:

Just trying to get an idea to get a better idea and to guide me to what to try and stay away from. Maybe I should start a new thread on this topic. Lol.

 

[JJ45]

You can find them with very goodt bores actually if you look hard enough and for much less $...

There used to be pristine specimens available usually covered in that Russian reddish lacquer(?) and/or cosmoline. Although this was some time ago I believe good ones can still be found if you look for one.

I even had a Fin capture from Samco that had a very good bore even though the rest of the weapon looked as if it had been carried during the Winter War and it probably was.

The best, IMO, are the Finnish M39s made on hex Mosin receivers that were re-barreled by the Fins during WWII, usually by outfits like Sako, Tikka, etc. They were also re-stocked in Arctic birch and are usually incredibly accurate.

I had a Sako M39. The bore was rough and frosted for about the first 4 inches, Nevertheless the rifle amazed me with it's accuracy and reliability despite the bore condition. The hex receiver was made in 1895 when the last Czar was still in power!

 

[RC20]

The only way you can tell on bore is shooting it.

They can look great and shoot bad. They can look bad and shoot great.

Many are just dirty, many are not even fired. Back in the day they could well be totally shot out, ala 50s, early 60s.

For 30-06 mil surplus they make a throat erosion and Muzzle wear gauge you can tell how much its been shot (if any).

With an MN you guys your tickets and you takes your chances.

 

[ninosdemente]

Thanks for the reply RC20.

 

[Fishbed77]

Always good policy to avoid Commie junk when possible.

More proof that anyone can say anything on the internet.

 

[Josh Smith]

Your hard-earned discretionary $$$$ are better spent on some form of M1 Garand - 30.06 or .308/7.62 ... take your pick.

Always good policy to avoid Commie junk when possible.

You can thank me later.

The Mosin-Nagant can be more accurate than the Garand. While the Garand is a great rifle, it was designed for a cartridge of lesser power than it ended up with.

It's more complicated and, by its nature, more fragile than the Mosin-Nagant.

It's all in what you're looking for in a rifle.

The Garand has it all over the Mosin for volume of fire, of course, and I'd choose it for a firefight.

If, however, I were going to be depending on a rifle with a minimum of supply and maintenance, it would most definitely be the Mosin-Nagant.

The Mosin is accurate/can be made accurate to better than 1moa for good examples.

The Mosin is not ammunition sensitive.

The Mosin isn't clip dependent.

The Mosin will run longer, on less, than will the Garand.

Again, it's all about the right tool for the job. Oftentimes that's a semi-auto; many times it's an old-design bolt rifle.

Regards,
Josh

 

[Josh Smith]

 

[emcon5]

Yeah there is lots of cheap surplus ammo. Thats what it is, cheap surplus ammo. Not what I would want in a "shooter"

I don't often disagree with Kraig, but this is really no longer the case, and hasn't been for some time. The days of $40 440 round spam cans are long gone, just like the days of $70 91/30s. Cheap blasting ammo is about the same price as .308 any more.

To the OP's question, what is it you are looking for?

I am a big fan of Mosins, but for the historical artifact that they are, not because they are awesome rifles. If you are wanting the Mosin as an inexpensive way to get a hunting rifle, you are probably better off holding out for a modern rifle, like a Savage Axis, Remington 700 SPS or Ruger American.

Mosins are generally not all that accurate by modern standards, although some can be made to shoot quite well with careful handloading and rifle tuning, the same way the Soviets did.

If you are planning on using it as a base for a sporter hunting rifle, add the price of the stock, scope mount (plus the labor to install it) and any other stuff you want to do, you will be well over the cost of the entry level modern rifles, and the new guns will be a better rifle in pretty much every measurable way.

It will be lighter, more accurate, have a better trigger, be set up for a scope from the factory, and will shoot a caliber that ammo is available off the shelf at your local sporting goods store/Wal mart. Manufacturing technology and metallurgy has come a long way in the last 70-125 years.

The days of modifying a military rifle to a sporter as a more economical way of getting a quality hunting rifle are gone. This made a lot of sense when they were a fraction of the price of the bottom of the line Remington or Winchester, and could be found by the barrel full in the local hardware store for $10. Those days are long gone.

If you want a shootable piece of history, that took part in at least one World War (possibly two), then Mosins remain the most inexpensive way to get a historic rifle, even at current prices.

 

[RC20]

The Mosin-Nagant can be more accurate than the Garand. While the Garand is a great rifle, it was designed for a cartridge of lesser power than it ended up with.

That is downright nonsensical.

The Garand is a semi auto vs a bolt would be the first major difference.

Both calibers it was designed/used with are more powerful than the Russian .62 x 54.

Of course some MN can be more accurate, but on the average and particularly for a semi autyo, the Garand was something else above and beyond.

All of which is irrelevant about MNs.

 

[emcon5]

Both calibers it was designed/used with are more powerful than the Russian .62 x 54.

What?

The 7.62X54R is essentially equivalent to the .30-06.

The Soviet 1908 load was a 147gr FMJ @ 27-2800FPS, depending on barrel length, and the post war Warsaw Pact light ball was similar, but had a boat tailed bullet rather than the flat base of the earlier round.

For comparison, the M1906 was a 150 gr bullet at 2700FPS, with the later M2 ball ~100 FPS faster.

The .30-06 could be loaded to a slightly higher pressure, but the ammunition produced for both over the service life was for all practical purposes equal.

The .276 Pederson was (according to Hatcher) a 125gr bullet @ 2700 FPS.

So neither are more powerful, and one is considerably less so.

 

[agtman]

It's more complicated and, by its nature, more fragile than the Mosin-Nagant.

"More complicated"? ... Only because the M1 Garand is an en bloc clip-fed 8-shot semi-auto.

"More fragile"? Not at all.

The M1 performed exceptionally well during the 'Frozen Chosin' Reservoir engagements which occurred in worse winter weather than you'd typically find in Siberia. Malfunctions, which were quite small percentage-wise (per # of M1s in action in Korea), were traced to lack of cleaning, not weather conditions. ***

The Mosin-Nagant can be more accurate than the Garand.

Your "can be" assertion is meaningless.

Rifle against rifle (as issued, not tricked-out), the Garand had, and arguably still has, the best and most repeatably accurate iron-sights of any battle rifle issued anywhere in the world.

The M1's aperture sight system makes it inherently more accurate than your average Mosin, which sports the type of antiquated iron sights that only a conscripted serf could be ordered to love.

*** Per 1952 Army report on 'Infantry Weapons in Korea': http://thegca.org/wp-content/upload...apons-and-Equipment-in-Korea-1952-reduced.pdf

 

[ninosdemente]

Thanks for the help. Not looking for a looking for hunting rifle. As stated... want a piece of history and able to shoot it was in while. Which is why I chose the MN. Still want one, just looking to see where I can possibly get one for less. At Cabela's, there are about 6 all at $350. Won't get those, but nice "inspect" those rifles.

 

[Model12Win]

If you're going to spend that much on a Nagant, get a Finn.

 

[M88]

Just had to chime in on this and agree with a few of the most recent posters here. I own 7 Garands and two Nagants... comparing the two rifles is truly apples and oranges. Both have pluses and minuses as all rifles do, but the Garand is truly a work of art from a design perspective. Nothing against the Nagant... I like shooting mine although neither of them is apparently tuned and in as good a shape as Smiths. Not saying they are not an accurate rifle, but they are an entirely different rifle and not even close to the class the Garand is in. Just my subjective personal opinion of course

 

[Josh Smith]

"More complicated"? ... Only because the M1 Garand is an en bloc clip-fed 8-shot semi-auto.

That's the point.

"More fragile"? Not at all.

There's this thing called an op rod...

The M1 performed exceptionally well during the 'Frozen Chosin' Reservoir engagements which occurred in worse winter weather than you'd typically find in Siberia. Malfunctions, which were quite small percentage-wise (per # of M1s in action in Korea), were traced to lack of cleaning, not weather conditions. ***

... lack of cleaning...

Your "can be" assertion is meaningless.

Not when it only takes a couple shims and a cork pad to get there, it's not.

Rifle against rifle (as issued, not tricked-out), the Garand had, and arguably still has, the best and most repeatably accurate iron-sights of any battle rifle issued anywhere in the world.

Finnish M27, M28, M39... Swiss K31...

Look: If you replaced "battle rifle" with "semi-automatic battle rifle," you'd have something. The Garand is better at volume fire, but the rest of it, no. The bolt actions are simply more rugged. I don't care if you're talking about the 1903, the Arisaka, the M98 Mauser, etc... you're still going to have a more rugged, simple, robust design in a bolt action.

At the time, the Garand beat out the other semi-auto rifles in all categories, yes.

If I wanted volume fire, I'd grab the Garand, yes.

If I didn't expect to be able to clean the rifle regularly or count on resupply, I'd go with the Mosin.

Regards,
Josh

 

[Josh Smith]

That is downright nonsensical.

Not in the parameters introduced by AGTMan.

The Garand is a semi auto vs a bolt would be the first major difference.

Agreed. I dunno why AGTMan threw a semi-auto into a bolt action discussion, but he did and I ran with it.

Both calibers it was designed/used with are more powerful than the Russian .62 x 54.

Czech 147grn ball clocks at 3,000fps in 7.62x54r. The Garand .30-06 runs a 150grn bullet at 2,600 to 2,700fps.

Of course some MN can be more accurate,

Correct. Again, I dunno why the Garand was brought up for comparison.

but on the average and particularly for a semi autyo, the Garand was something else above and beyond.

It sure was. I love the Garand!

All of which is irrelevant about MNs.

The Mosin-Nagant had its own charm and strengths. It's about the right tool for the job in the right setting... and that's all I was pointing out.

Regards,
Josh

 

[dakota.potts]

The Mosin is a fine gun if you're looking for a somewhat collectible piece of history that is fun to shoot once in a while (well, it's fun if you like being donkey kicked in the shoulder every time you pull the trigger on one lol).

Pre-war examples tend to be built better. Many Mosins suffer from a very difficult bolt after firing and the triggers really aren't great. The sights aren't great either and they tend to shoot high (up to a foot or so above point of aim). But a lot of these issues can be fixed depending on how much time you want to put in to it. They're pretty cool if you think of them like a more modern, bolt action musket. The fireball and muzzle report is pretty impressive, especially out of the carbine models.

I start to get a pretty good headache after shooting 50 or so rounds from mine on a bench. It's a combination of recoil, poor stock fit, and concussion that does it to me.

If you're interested in getting one, I'd say go for it. Do a little research on different models and years to make sure you get a decent price. Price seems to only be going up on these, if you take care of it you can probably expect to get what you paid out of it if you decide you want to sell it later.

 

[PlatinumCore16]

I would agree, that price is very high. Granted, I got into the Mosin game even after they were no longer cheap, but mine was a pristine subject at $200 from a local place. If you are looking for the cheapest avenue, go to a gun show. They won't have a whole crate of them for $50 a pop anymore, but you will probably find some cheaper than $300, maybe even $200. Just check the stock for cracks, the chamber and bore for rust/pitting, and the bolt for any other schtuff.

They are a fun piece of history to have, though, as everyone else has said, get ready for some fireworks and all the recoil your heart desires.

 

[kraigwy]

I like my Mosin, but there is no way its more accurate then the Garand, or worse, the Springfield.

Its simple to find out. The CMP has ventage rifle matches. Catagories are: Garand, Springfield, Militaray (all other pre 1955 military rifles) and Modern rifle.

The Modern Rifle Catagory is post 1955 military rifles and this catagory is dominated by the ARs.

But as to the others, the Scores are much higher in the Garand Catagory, Higher yet in the Springfield. The Military catogory, where the Mosin is used, from what I've seen is dominated by the US Model 1917 and the Swiss Rifles.

But again, I like my Mosin. When I first got it, it shot 7 inches high at 100 yards. I milled off the bottom of the rear sight where it sets lower on the sight base so as it would be zeroed at 100 yards when the sight was set on the 100 Meter setting. I've only shot it to 400 yards, to confirm the sight marks on the rear sight match the yardage I shoot. Since they match to 400 yards I have no doubts they will match the higher elevation settings.

As I said earlier, I wont use surplus ammo in my Mosin ( or any other rifle except for the M2 ball I get from the CMP.)

What shoots best as to factory ammo is the Winchester 174 gr ammo. I load 174s to the same velocity as the Winchester stuff ( a bit over 2400 fps) and its accurate in my rifle.

If one needed a cheap but good rifle to feed his family (as thousands do in Siberia and Western Alaska) the Mosin would suit that purpose. Also the Mosin allows just about anyone to be able to afford to shoot competition using it in the Military catagory of the CMP GSM matches.

I havent priced Mosins my self, I paid $99 for mine. But reading here and other places the prices are quite a bit higher. Some times exceeding the price of commerical rifles such as the Ruger American, which may replace the cheap rifle for those only needing to feed their family.

I paid less for my RAPs then I'm seeing people quoting Mosin prices. I can easly see something like the RAP in 223 replacing the Mosin and other rifles on the Bering sea of Alaska, esp since the natives can often get ammo from the NG (If they have the right commander).

Somewhere I have a picture of a Guard Member (native) shooting caribou with a guard M1C sniper rifle.

I dont need my Mosin to feed my family, I have too many other rifles for that. I orginaly got it because as a CMP MI, I thought I should know how to use it if I'm going to instruct clinic where the shooters would be using the Mosin.

I've found I enjoy shooting it. But contrary to some of the post I've read, its not more accurate then the Garand or Springfields. As a hunting rifle, at reasonable ranges using good ammo, it will do the trick.

Plus you have the bayonet if you want to shuskabob your catch.

 

[Josh Smith]

Kraig,

It's not going to be more accurate than a Springfield, no.

If you take a properly fitted Mosin and a properly fitted Springfield, I'd expect them to be very close.

I've never seen a service Garand that is as accurate/precise than any bolt action in comparable condition.

The Garand is easier to shoot well.

I suspect many here are confusing accuracy with precision. I submit as evidence all the discussion of the peep sight on the Garand, which has nothing to do with mechanical precision.

Another issue is ammo: The Mosin's rifling twist was designed for heavy ball, about 175grn to 212grn projectiles.

With the switch to the light ball rounds in, what was it, 1908(?) the rifling was still held at 1:9.5".

Worse, a lot of that ammo was held to 4moa. If I recall correctly, the original 212grn was held to 1.5moa. We're talking about the ammo's precision here, from a test barrel.

When the Mosins were refurbished, they got stocks swapped, parts swapped, shims lost, etc. Though the Russians never shimmed their Mosins to the degree the Finns did, they did do some shimming, especially of the sniper conversions.

The Garand is a really nice battle rifle. There are things I'd change on it, mostly making it closer to an M1a sold commercially today.

The Mosin is so friggin' easy to drop parts in, there's no reason not to. Most of the accuracy stuff done to Mosins is completely reversible, and more, it's very inexpensive to do.

There's just no reason NOT to have a Mosin, one that functions correctly, is 2.5moa capable or much better, and is ergonomic.

Regards,
Josh