Milsurp shootout Mosin 91/30 vs Enfield No 4 Mk 1

Clobbersauras

Clobbersauras

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
96   0   0
Location
Waaay out west.
Hi Guys - which is better for accurate long range plinking? A milsurp Mosin 91/30 or Lee Enfield No 4 Mk 1? Also - rifle designs aside, which is the better long range round, 7.62 x 54 or .303 British? I was begnning to think the 7.62 x 54 was better at distance but then read several comments that the .303 actually gets more accurate the longer out it goes :confused:(Snipers Paradise and other sources). Thoughts?
 
Clobbersauras said:
Hi Guys - which is better for accurate long range plinking? A milsurp Mosin 91/30 or Lee Enfield No 4 Mk 1?
Click to expand...

The Mosin Nagant action is stronger than the Lee Enfield action and therefore can take higher pressure loads. This makes the Mosin better for long range shots. The stocks of the Lee Enfield are inferior to the one piece stock of the Mosin.

Clobbersauras said:
Also - rifle designs aside, which is the better long range round, 7.62 x 54 or .303 British?
Click to expand...

The .303 brit and the 7.62 X54R are very similar, but form my own experiences I would say the 7.62X54 R has the edge and certaily so when comparing a Mosin with a Lee Enfield. If you were comparing the P14 and the .303 brit with the Mosin the story would be different.

Clobbersauras said:
I was begnning to think the 7.62 x 54 was better at distance but then read several comments that the .303 actually gets more accurate the longer out it goes :confused:(Snipers Paradise and other sources). Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think that whoever told you that has been smoking too much wacky baccy.:)
 
Ballistically speaking the 7.62X54R
Having said that
Most Mosin Triggers are horrible (up to 15 lbs)
You can't beat a nice crisp No4Mk1 trigger
The only exception are the M39 & M27 (which have a nice crisp 2 stage trigger)
 
:stirthepot2:

Quote taken from sniper central:

The No.4 Mk1(T) is a legend. It served the British during WWII as an absolutely remarkable sniper rifle. Rugged, accurate, and comfortable to shoot, the No.4 Mk1(T) was a sniper's dream! These rifles started as standard No.4 Mk1's that were hand picked for their above average accuracy. They were then shipped to Holland and Holland, H&H, where they were restocked, scope mounts added, and a scope fitted to the rifle. The quality of work done by H&H was superb. The accuracy was nothing to write home about by today's standards, the requirement was a 3" group at 100yards, but it is an accepted fact that the No4 Mk1(T) rifles actually get more accurate the further you go out. You might shoot 3 MOA at 100 meters, but it will likely drop to around 1.5 MOA at 600 meters. These rifles served superbly throughout WWII (from 1942 on, when they were introduced) and actually served up through 1991 as the L42A1 (A slightly modified No4 Mk1(T))


Quote from "the box of truth"

As we noted in an earlier post, the .303 British round is an old round with a lot of history. The British attempted to "improve" its lethality and accuracy in several ways. One was to cut off the nose of the bullet, as shown in the Dum-Dum Bullets O' Truth post.

This practice was outlawed by the Hague Convention, but the Brits didn't give up. They noticed that if you had a light-weight nose on the bullet, it would tumble (actually yaw) more easily. This would cause more destruction and make them more deadly. So, they often made bullets with a light-weight nose.

They also believed (correctly) that a bullet with a light-weight nose would be more accurate. (Modern BTHP rifle bullets like the Sierra 2200M, .30 caliber, 168 gr. bullet are also based upon this idea.)

The Brits were convinced that their bullets actually "settled down" at long distances and were actually more accurate at long distances. This idea was originally laughed at by American competitive shooters; until they watched the British shooters shoot tighter groups at long distances than at close distances.
 
Last edited:
Lee Enfield rifles were believed to "compensate". The vibration pattern of the barrel and action "compensated" for inherently lower quality ammunition at long range. This was believed to occur because as the bullet was passing through the bore, the barrel was vibrating in a vertical plane. Because of varying barrel times, bullets would exit at different points in the muzzles' oscillations. This was believed to reduce vertical dispersion at long range. Bullets with lower velocities tended to be launched slightly higher than faster ones. It had no effect on lateral group size. With quality ammunition, compensation was no longer a factor. It was not unusual for target shooters until about 15 years ago to have two rifles - one with a modern action for ranges to 600, and a Lee actionned rifle for 800, 900 and 1000. But once issue ammunition was no longer supplied and mandatory for competition, the Lees disappeared practically overnight.
A rifle that has total group dispersion of 3 minutes at 100 will not shoot 1 1/2 minute groups at 600. Lateral group size is not affected by compensation. At long ranges, vertical stringing was thought to be reduced. Groups became rounder.
There was a formal study done in the '30s, which confirmed what target shooters had observed.
The so-called "DumDum" bullet was a hollow point variant of the pre-Mk. VII cartridge. The name came from its manufacture at DumDum, an ammuntion plant outside, IIRC, Calcutta. This pattern of ammunition gained a reputation for effectiveness on the NW Frontier; the earlier pattern of 215 gr. roundnose bullet had a reputation for poor terminal ballistics. It was a standard pattern of cartridge, and was made in ammuntion plants throughout the Empire, including in Canada. The Hague Conventions, 100 odd years ago, did outlaw the use of expanding bullets for military purposes.
The Mk. VII bullet does have an aluminum or fibre tip under the jacket, which reduces the weight of the bullet, and changes its balance. I do not know if the primary purpose was to produce a bullet that would destabilize once it struck something. I suspect that this was not the case. Most countries went to pointed, higher velocity bullets at about the same time, and it was observed that these bullets did tend to tumble on impact, while the earlier heavy roundnosed bullets had greater penetration.
 
For AGES - the No.1MkIII* held all the long-range titles titles at Bisley - we're talking 1000 yard competition here. Essentially, modern rifles eventually dethroned it, but a properly match tuned SMLE is a thing to behold at long range.

The Mosin will also shoot very well, but I'm not aware of it holding any records. In fact, for olympic competition back in the day, the Russians used a modified Ross rifle received on lend-lease - NOT the Mosin.
 
Just on the higher QC of the No.4 and .303 ammo, it would be a more accurate rifle. Mosin haven't placed anywhere near the top in our milshoots, No.4's have won it consistantly.
 
Last edited:
Properly tuned SMLEs did perform well at long range, with issue ammuntion. Some shooters still used them into the 60s in preference to tuned No. 4s.
But it is the ability to use issue ball ammunition that was the advantage. Given high quality ammunition,a SMLE or No. 4 cannot, on average, compete with a modern target rifle. They have disappeared from formal competition. There was a flurry of interest in No. 4 rifles converted to 5.56 for target shooting, but that faded because of the nature of the competition, and the exclusive use of .308 at Bisley and in most international competition.
There is no reason that a MN should not be a good shooter, given decent ammunition. I would suspect that there is more variation between rifles and lots of ammuntion, than between designs. Lee Enfields have peculiar bedding, can have quite a bit of variation in bore dimensions, and some lots of .303 ball were pretty bad. I suspect that the sights on No. 4s give them an advantage over MNs. YOu cannot shoot any better than you can aim.
Some MNs, like the Polish carbines, and Czech VZ54 sniper rifles are beautifully made, and should shoot very well indeed with decent ammunition.
 
I think Tiriaq has a valid point - the peep sighted LE offers substantial advantage over the Moisins buckhorn sight...Now - put a peep sight on the Moisin and you've probably got a horse race.
 
Great info guys!

Now - the question turns to adding a scope to the mix - if the Lee and Mosin(bubba'd already of corse) were scoped - which would have the advantage?

I'm assuming from the lack of dicussion on calibre differences that that is a mute point?
 
One thing that always intrigued me, and could account for the seeminly lack of accuracy at short ranges was watching those old air to air dogfighting gun cams from ww2. If you look closely, the rounds look like they get to their targets in a corkscrew pattern, which makes me wonder if there isn't some sort of "ideal" velocity for any given bullet, go too fast and it corckscrews, go too slow and it tumbles .... Any ideas ?
 
Clobbersauras said:
Quote taken from sniper central:

You might shoot 3 MOA at 100 meters, but it will likely drop to around 1.5 MOA at 600 meters.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

I have dozens of hours of video (some in "The Screening Room") and lots of targets showing several different No.4(T)'s being shot at distances from 100 meters all the way back to 600 meters and that statement simply doesn't match any reality I've observed.

Regards,
Badger
 
Last edited:
RobSmith said:
One thing that always intrigued me, and could account for the seeminly lack of accuracy at short ranges was watching those old air to air dogfighting gun cams from ww2. If you look closely, the rounds look like they get to their targets in a corkscrew pattern, which makes me wonder if there isn't some sort of "ideal" velocity for any given bullet, go too fast and it corckscrews, go too slow and it tumbles .... Any ideas ?
Click to expand...

The corkscrew pattern you refer to is the vortex caused by the bullets, it is not the bullets themselves.

There is always an ideal velocity for a given bullet and barrel combination, it depends on several factors.
 
There's no comparison between my No4 LB and my Tula 91/30 ( iron sights)
The Longbranch easily outshoots the Mosin out to 300yd that I've shot.
Admittingly it could be just me , after all , the pipes are only as good as the piper...
 
you guys must have gotten some crap mosins, lol. 15lb triggers? jesus

i polished mine up and the trigger pull is far from that heavy. yes, heavier than a modern sporter but a very smooth 5lb-ish. my only gripe with it is the long travel, but i just ordered new magazine assemblies so that will be partially fixed (the overtravel part) with an overtravel screw on one of the 'extras'.
 
Hoo boy! The myths abound!
1. the moisen is stronger than the Lee? Sorry, the Lee enfield action is quite strong enough for the cartridge it used. Also note the No4 has been converted to .7.62 /308 and has no problem handling that round, and then there are the indian 2A's and 2A1's
2. The two piece stock is not as good? Bullpucky!
3. The british "cut off the nose" of a .303 round to improve it's lethality?
More horse####! The MkII round, originaly loaded at Dum Dum arsenal in India in 1897 had a hollow point, as did the MkIII, MkIV, and MkV round, in effect, a hunting bullet. The MkVI reverted to a round nose solid bullet and of course the Mk7 to a spitzer.

Going back even further, the Snider bullet was a hollow nose with the nose cavity being spun over to give the impression that it was a solid.
Cutting off the nose of a .303 DOES NOTHING to increase lethality because of the design of the jacket.

Last of all, "the .303 is a relic from the past? Wrong again, the rounds are contemporary. The 7.62x54 is only used in machine guns, NOT current rifles. Unless yoiu count the tons of these rifles sent to third world "liberation armies" One could say the same aboiut the .303 since we are encountering SMLE's and No4's in Afghanistan and Iraq being used by "holy warriors" who haven't managed to get their hands on an AK47. India is still using the .303, as well as the bad guys in Nepal, Pakistan, etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom