So what's the Mosin Nagant?
- Thread starter w_houle
- Start date
That saying is an example of armchair quarterbacking. Like today, successful designs were copied and re-engineered to yield something that might earn as good a reputation as the original (people don't copy crappy designs intentionally).
The Springfield 1903 was a good example of a state of the art combat rifle of the early 1900s, even though it was a copy of a great combat rifle, the Gewehr 98. It became a target rifle after WWI due to the Army target team using it instead of the much heavier M1917 Enfield (which was actually a modification ofthe P14, England's design to replace the SMLE).
The K98k was a refinement of a successful design, the Gewehr 1898, and was one of the best (if not the best) bolt action battle rifle ever invented. Its durability, accuracy, reliability, and ease of maintenance are wishbook items even by today's standards.
The Lee-Enfield was a much-refined design dating back to the late 1800s, and had its share of problems, but it was a good serviceable rifle and the main battle rifle of the British Empire and Commonwealth nations (not because it was superior in any way, but because the British supplied arms to these other nations).
The Mosin-Nagant 1891 was a joint development of several nations, manufactured in several nations originally (notaby France and the USA), retired before WWII, then re-introduced because it was cheaper and more reliable than its replament. It is also a very serviceable rifle and infantryman-resistant.
Note also that of all these rifles, the only design that enjoyed a commercial revival was the Mauser 98 design.
The Springfield 1903 was a good example of a state of the art combat rifle of the early 1900s, even though it was a copy of a great combat rifle, the Gewehr 98. It became a target rifle after WWI due to the Army target team using it instead of the much heavier M1917 Enfield (which was actually a modification ofthe P14, England's design to replace the SMLE).
The K98k was a refinement of a successful design, the Gewehr 1898, and was one of the best (if not the best) bolt action battle rifle ever invented. Its durability, accuracy, reliability, and ease of maintenance are wishbook items even by today's standards.
The Lee-Enfield was a much-refined design dating back to the late 1800s, and had its share of problems, but it was a good serviceable rifle and the main battle rifle of the British Empire and Commonwealth nations (not because it was superior in any way, but because the British supplied arms to these other nations).
The Mosin-Nagant 1891 was a joint development of several nations, manufactured in several nations originally (notaby France and the USA), retired before WWII, then re-introduced because it was cheaper and more reliable than its replament. It is also a very serviceable rifle and infantryman-resistant.
Note also that of all these rifles, the only design that enjoyed a commercial revival was the Mauser 98 design.
Mosin-Nagant is a Russian rifle developed in the end of 19th century by a Russian designer Mosin. I believe in the US we call it Mosin-Nagant because some minor parts were also developed by a Belgian designer Nagant. There were no other nations involved. Some of the best rifles were handpicked and made into sniper rifles in the Russian/Soviet military but the best Mosin-Nagant sniper rifles were actually made in Finland. Those are also the most expensive. Russian rifles usually come with a bayonet but there are other versions like the one for Russian Cossacs (cavalry) - it doesn't have a bayonet and, if I remember correctly, has a shorter barrel.
This rifle is in my collection but I do not like shooting it because of a horrible recoil - which is common for most rifles of that period. Also, ammunition usually comes with a lead tip bullet and I do not like putting lead through my barrels. The best way to clean it after shooting is to use water and soap and that sounds pretty messy to me too.
This rifle is in my collection but I do not like shooting it because of a horrible recoil - which is common for most rifles of that period. Also, ammunition usually comes with a lead tip bullet and I do not like putting lead through my barrels. The best way to clean it after shooting is to use water and soap and that sounds pretty messy to me too.
stubbicatt
New member
Wow Kurbsky. I've yet to find the type of bullets you describe. All that I've found in the 7.62x54r have been jacketed, some lead core (commercial) or steel core (milsurp). Recoil is rather tame compared to some other rifles. The rifle does recoil, but it is not objectionable.
This is a fun surplus rifle to shoot. It is relatively accurate. The action is rather clunky requiring a certain determination to operate.
For what you pay for them, they are a good value rifle in today's market.
This is a fun surplus rifle to shoot. It is relatively accurate. The action is rather clunky requiring a certain determination to operate.
For what you pay for them, they are a good value rifle in today's market.
Last time I was buying ammo for Mosin-Nagant was 9 years ago in a gunstore in CA. I guess now there are better ammo choices.
I agree it is accurate and excellent value for the money but my personal perception of Mosin-Nagant recoil was that it was bigger than WWII Mauser recoil.
I agree it is accurate and excellent value for the money but my personal perception of Mosin-Nagant recoil was that it was bigger than WWII Mauser recoil.
I do not like recoil anymore than the next guy but do not find the MN to be that bad. As far as the ammunition you speak I'm not sure what you are trying to describe. It sounds like plain old soft points to me and that is no big deal, lol, the "lead tip" you speak of never comes in contact with your rifling.
If you have a lead phobia you are seriously missing out! So you don't shoot any soft point bullets at all, just JHP's and FMJ's?
As far as soap and water cleanup that’s a load of you know what. The best way to clean a barrel is always with solvents, oils, patches, and brushes if need be.
Actually it isn't a load of you-know-what if he is talking about cleaning up after corrosive primed ammo.
Here is one cleaning method:
http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/corrosive/index.asp
Kurbsky said:
Sergei Mosin designed the bolt, Nagant designed the Msgszine. Nagant's contribution to the design is significant because the Mosin is chambered for a rimmed round and getting rimmed rounds to feed reliably from a magazine was an obstacle in early repeating rifle design.
The Finns never actually made a single Mosin Nagant rifle. They rebuilt rifles captured from the Russians to their own (superior) specifications. There is no such thing as a Finnish made Mosin reciever.
The only lead tip (soft point) 7.62x54R ammo I've seen was commercial ammo. All military surplus is FMJ and usually corrosive. Soap and hot water is the best way I've found to clean rifles fired with corrosive ammo. Solvents that lack a water based compoinent won't dissolve the salts released by the primers.
Were you possibly talking about Czech silver tip ammo? It has a painted silver tip.
I've heard people call them Nagants, which strikes me as odd. Most people generally abbreviate the name "mosin-nagant " as "Mosin".
ScaryWoody
New member
I have an M44. I paid $45 and it was like new. Kicks like a mule and has a built in bayonet. The perfect zombie rifle.
srt 10 jimbo
New member
Got a 91/30 from 1936 Use Brown bear ammo . It dont kick to bad, damn thing weigh
s as much as an old VW , It's still a blast to shoot after having it for over a year now.
s as much as an old VW , It's still a blast to shoot after having it for over a year now.fisherman66
New member
Cannon fodder
finfanatic
New member
My MN91/30
My MN91/30 is very accurate. The very first shot at 50 yards was a bullseye.
I moved the target back to 100 yards and even with my aging eyes, I can put all the cheap surplus ammo in 4 inches.
The rifle was a $69 one from AIM and it looked like it had been used for a club, but the bore and barrel did not show any wear. I was going to order another one but they had sold out.
Now on the MN's recoil, I have to say this is one of those rifles that the recoil sort of creeps up on you. It doesn't seem THAT BAD but the next day, you can feel it.
After about 40-50 rounds, you start to develop a deep desire to shoot a .22.
I am looking a for a MN44 or maybe a 38. Century has some 38s I believe.
My MN91/30 is very accurate. The very first shot at 50 yards was a bullseye.
I moved the target back to 100 yards and even with my aging eyes, I can put all the cheap surplus ammo in 4 inches.
The rifle was a $69 one from AIM and it looked like it had been used for a club, but the bore and barrel did not show any wear. I was going to order another one but they had sold out.
Now on the MN's recoil, I have to say this is one of those rifles that the recoil sort of creeps up on you. It doesn't seem THAT BAD but the next day, you can feel it.
After about 40-50 rounds, you start to develop a deep desire to shoot a .22.
I am looking a for a MN44 or maybe a 38. Century has some 38s I believe.
Tucker 1371
New member
I know exactly what you're talking about
. Standing up or sitting it isn't so bad but prone or from a bench the recoil is a little rough.And I would agree with emcon's picture up there, compared to the other combat rifles of WWI the Mosin is a club that happens to shoot bullets... that said I still love my 91/30 very much.
Tikirocker
New member
Scorch,
Sorry matey but I have to correct you on a few points here ....
Please elaborate on what those problems were? The SMLE was thought to have problems (By political types with no practical experience) until WW1 came along; where it immediately proved itself to be a superb and rugged battle rifle. This is precisely why the P14 fell by the wayside after all.
I can assure you that the British quickly came to a unanimous approval of the SMLE when they saw it's effectiveness in the early years of WW1. My Great Grandfather fought with it in the trenches of France in 1915-18 and he had no complaints. My Grandfather and Uncles fought with its successors (No4 and No5) during WW2 and they too had no complaints.
Wrong ... the Australian Defense Forces manufactured its own Lithgow No1 MKIII rifles and supplied Britain with these at a rate of 10,000 a year at one stage. This was upped to a number of 30,000 after Dunkirk. Australia manufactured and used the same No1 MkIII/III* rifle throughout both WW1, WW2, Korea and the Malaya Emergency - not because Britain supplied them or because Britain was telling them to. The design was excellent and the rifle proved its worth. If you have any doubt go and read the accounts of the Australian Military service in the actions of all those wars and see for yourself the reputation of the Aussie fighting man ... they were carrying the No1 MKIII Lithgow rifle at all theaters.
Add to this fact, India also produced its own Enfield rifles ... these were not supplied by Britain. Canada also produced it's own Enfield rifles in the No4 and supplied both Britain and it's own Army with the No4. Many of the nations that bought and used the Enfield rifle might just have readily bought surplus from other nations and of other designs if they wished ... the Enfield had a reputation for reliability, accuracy and battle ruggedness, that is a huge part of the reason they found favour in over 70 nations and continue to see use to this day.
Tiki.
Sorry matey but I have to correct you on a few points here ....
Please elaborate on what those problems were? The SMLE was thought to have problems (By political types with no practical experience) until WW1 came along; where it immediately proved itself to be a superb and rugged battle rifle. This is precisely why the P14 fell by the wayside after all.
I can assure you that the British quickly came to a unanimous approval of the SMLE when they saw it's effectiveness in the early years of WW1. My Great Grandfather fought with it in the trenches of France in 1915-18 and he had no complaints. My Grandfather and Uncles fought with its successors (No4 and No5) during WW2 and they too had no complaints.
Wrong ... the Australian Defense Forces manufactured its own Lithgow No1 MKIII rifles and supplied Britain with these at a rate of 10,000 a year at one stage. This was upped to a number of 30,000 after Dunkirk. Australia manufactured and used the same No1 MkIII/III* rifle throughout both WW1, WW2, Korea and the Malaya Emergency - not because Britain supplied them or because Britain was telling them to. The design was excellent and the rifle proved its worth. If you have any doubt go and read the accounts of the Australian Military service in the actions of all those wars and see for yourself the reputation of the Aussie fighting man ... they were carrying the No1 MKIII Lithgow rifle at all theaters.
Add to this fact, India also produced its own Enfield rifles ... these were not supplied by Britain. Canada also produced it's own Enfield rifles in the No4 and supplied both Britain and it's own Army with the No4. Many of the nations that bought and used the Enfield rifle might just have readily bought surplus from other nations and of other designs if they wished ... the Enfield had a reputation for reliability, accuracy and battle ruggedness, that is a huge part of the reason they found favour in over 70 nations and continue to see use to this day.
Tiki.
sc928porsche
New member
Hey, anything with a steel buttplate and centerfire will give you a case of sholder groan the next day. Mauser, Enfield, Springfield, and yes, the garand.