Toughest/most reliable small arm of all time

44 carbine Mosin Nagant.
Very compact, very stout, very reliable, very simple.

I don't think I've ever even seen a Mosin fail to feed or fail to fire (bad/non functional ammunition fail to fire aside), they just simply go bang every single time no matter what. I've seen some pretty brutal torture test videos on them. I've personally fired over a thousand rounds through my old 91/30 and my two M44's I've owned over time. They just work. Plain and simple.

Obviously very short second place to the AK47.

But I would put the SKS right up there with the AK47 if not just slightly behind.

But the 3 line rifle at the very top of the list Sir :rockOn:
 
I've had FTF with M/N 91's, M-39's and M-44's
Great guns but unstoppable? Nay, nay I say
Just ran 100+ through an M44 on Friday, maybe 3 FTF after reloading total
 
IMHO the Canadian rangers still issue the no.4 rifle because there is simply nothing else that will do it all at minus 40 and not break.
 
Y'know, I'd probably be inclined to say the AK-47 if it hadn't had the insight of two world wars influencing it's design. The SMLE probably wins, but I don't think we should exclude the Lebel from this discussion. That rifle took a huge ####-kicking right next to SMLEs, Rosses, Springfields, P-14/17s, Thompsons, Garands, Stens, etc. and stayed in the front lines just as long as any of them.
 
Every major army devoted a lot of time and money to develop weapons which would be reliable and effective in the hands of their troops, and most were reasonably successful in achieving this aim. Various operating systems and design philosophies were pursued with rigorous testing under both simulated and actual conditions. This involved engineering tests to expose the design to various hazards incl protracted periods of firing, both in a clean condition or when fouled with dirt, sand, rain, snow or water. Maintainability by troops in the field was also a major consideration. After the ordnance engineers thought they had it right weapons were turned over for troop trials in the field to validate design, maintainability and durability, another word for soldier-proof.

There have been 2 primary design philosophies apparent in small arms. One is intended to keep the weapon operational by attempting to keep foreign matter and fouling out of the action. The other seems to concede that fouling will inevitably make it's way into the action, so provisions are made to remove the fouling by keeping the breech/chamber exposed and easy to access to remove foreign matter/fouling. Looser tolerances are also a factor to keep operating parts moving when fouled. Simplicity by way of fewer parts and ease of takedown/field stripping is an important consideration. These 2 design approaches are readily apparent when examining various weapons. The P08 Luger, for example, is precision made to tight tolerances, so tight that it will foul very quickly under field conditions. The P38 Walther addressed these shortcomings with loose tolerances and a more open system which could be quickly stripped and cleaned in the field (forceful urination into the open action to remove sand and dirt was a recommended field expedient). The Mauser type bolt system appears intended to keep crud out, but when it gets into the locking lug areas and magazine it is a ##### to remove in the field. Same with the Ross. By contrast, the Lee-Enfield features an exposed breach and removable magazine which can be more readily accessed and cleaned. This "open design" is also apparent in the M1 Garand and the FN FAL. In modern times, the 2 Big Macs of the world's armies, the AK47 and the M16, exhibit the same differing views. The AK is loose and sloppy and can be broken down for quick and easy cleaning. The M16 strives harder to keep crud out of the action and will foul easier than the AK once fouling does enter the closed action.

Beyond design, troops must also be provided with suitable cleaning and preservation equipment for use in the field and must be well trained and supervised in the maintenance of their individual weapons to keep them operational. One of the big problems with badly fouled M16s in Vietnam was that troops were not issued with proper cleaning kits/brushes for the rifle. Even the most brilliant and rugged design will fail if it is not maintained. Ammunition is also a big determinant for reliability. Two classics were the Ross Rifle in WW1 where differing ammunition dimensions were a big contributor to poor reliability, and the M16 in Vietnam where ammo was supplied with ball powders, which deposited more fouling than the extruded propellants that were used when the weapon was developed. Brittle brass casings also plagued some of the early machine gun designs.

It's tough for us CGN folk to factor this all in when shooting our various pieces at the range on a nice sunny day, but I have seen folks at the range struggling with pi$$-poor ammo and dirty/corroded and poorly set up rifles. One thing to bear in mind is that, while in military use, weapons were kept under close technical control and proper serviceability was maintained. Most MILSURPs have been in civvy hands for many years now with unlimited opportunities to their various owners to #### with them.
 
Purple, I'm going to add one thing your statements about the 2 differeing design philosophies.

Loose tolerances, while allowing the firearm to keep functioning when fouled with mud, grit, powder residue, etc, etc, greatly affect accuracy at medium to long range. Tighter tolerances, while needing more field cleaning and maintenance, enhance the accuracy of the rifle.

The question is, do you want extreme reliability with less accuracy, or more maintenance with greater accuracy? The Soviets chose the former, while NATO chose the latter. Fortunately, it never came to a test of arms on the battlefield.

Myself, I would rather have more maintenance with greater accuracy, because when you get right down to it, you accomplish nothing if you don't hit your target. People can be trained to maintain their rifles (see the USMC philosophy-first you clean your piece, then you think of getting something to eat and a place out of the rain to sleep), but a less-accurate rifle doesn't help the soldier survive to fight again.

My opinion only, YMMV.
 
IIRC from USMC historical atricles, that they were much more stubborn and slower to adopt a new weapon platform as opposed to thier Army GI counterparts.
This actually worked against them in 1942(?) Guadacanal when the Marines stole US Army issued M1 rifles to augment thier bolt action Springfield rifles.
But kind of worked in thier favor in Vietnam, as I do believe the Marines held onto the M-14 rifle as long as they possibly could in wartorn SE Asia, and loathing the untrustworthy M-16 rifle. In the army for quite a while in jungle combat it was only issued with 3 magazines(!) and very few cleaning kits.(!?!?) I blame this mostly on the US Army Ordnance Board and partly Secretary of State McNamara.
 
Last edited:
Brutus said:
IIRC from USMC historical atricles, that they were much more stubborn and slower to adopt a new weapon platform as opposed to thier Army GI counterparts.
This actually worked against them in 1942(?) Guadacanal when the Marines stole US Army issued M1 rifles to augment thier bolt action Springfield rifles.
But kind of worked in thier favor in Vietnam, as I do believe the Marines held onto the M-14 rifle as long as they possibly could in wartorn SE Asia, and loathing the jam prone M-16 rifle.
Click to expand...

Also from reading historical articles, I get the impression that the US Army Ordnance Corps was responsible for supplying the USMC with small arms. Since the USMC was often viewed as a bastard stepchild of the USN by the Army brass, they were pretty low on the priority list (like at the bottom) for new equipment and gear.

The USMC also thought that the finest, most accurate rifle ever made was the 1903 Springfield, and they were hesitant to use something that, in their eyes, was heavier, less accurate, and less reliable (all those moving parts) than the 1903.

This attitude lasted right up until the US Army showed up on Guadalcanal, and the Marines saw how much faster the Garand could fire in comparison to the Springfield, and just about as accurately. Once that happened, well, the Marines wanted the Garand, and would take Garands (and ammo) from wounded or dead USA soldiers. They'd also grab whatever battlefield pickups of Garands they could.

For some reason, very few of those Garands the Marines got their paws on were returned to the Army. :p
 
For a bolt gun, I'd probably say a Mosin Nagant and for a semi, id have to go with the SKS. When i was a young boy, my dad and I found one that was in absolutely MISERABLE condition at my grandfathers and we took it to go shoot it and it still fired and fed reliably despite being rusted and pitted all to hell.

on the other hand, I cant wait for Smellie to get in on this thread ;)
 
Brutus said:
IIRC from USMC historical atricles, that they were much more stubborn and slower to adopt a new weapon platform as opposed to thier Army GI counterparts.
This actually worked against them in 1942(?) Guadacanal when the Marines stole US Army issued M1 rifles to augment thier bolt action Springfield rifles.
But kind of worked in thier favor in Vietnam, as I do believe the Marines held onto the M-14 rifle as long as they possibly could in wartorn SE Asia, and loathing the untrustworthy M-16 rifle. In the army for quite a while in jungle combat it was only issued with 3 magazines(!) and very few cleaning kits.(!?!?) I blame this mostly on the US Army Ordnance Board and partly Secretary of Statke McNamara.
Click to expand...
What more would you need to battle some farmers wearing goofy hats and bare feet. It was the lack of effort and the whining of I want to go home and I only have 3 weeks until I'm on that freedom bird. Instead of actually taking it to the enemy.
 
Claven2 said:
IMHO the Canadian rangers still issue the no.4 rifle because there is simply nothing else that will do it all at minus 40 and not break.
Click to expand...

Your right claven2 again! This guy is always on target. One think though I don't think anybody is going to attack Canada at -40. I bet they attack during the summer months probably middle of June and have everything wrapped up by the long weekend in July. With the new dictatorship we will have less taxes and be able to own AK's actually this sounds pretty good!
 
mrbeil said:
For a bolt gun, I'd probably say a Mosin Nagant and for a semi, id have to go with the SKS. When i was a young boy, my dad and I found one that was in absolutely MISERABLE condition at my grandfathers and we took it to go shoot it and it still fired and fed reliably despite being rusted and pitted all to hell.

on the other hand, I cant wait for Smellie to get in on this thread ;)
Click to expand...
What year did you find the SKS laying around?
 
shredder said:
Purple, I'm going to add one thing your statements about the 2 differeing design philosophies.

Loose tolerances, while allowing the firearm to keep functioning when fouled with mud, grit, powder residue, etc, etc, greatly affect accuracy at medium to long range. Tighter tolerances, while needing more field cleaning and maintenance, enhance the accuracy of the rifle.

The question is, do you want extreme reliability with less accuracy, or more maintenance with greater accuracy? The Soviets chose the former, while NATO chose the latter. Fortunately, it never came to a test of arms on the battlefield.

Myself, I would rather have more maintenance with greater accuracy, because when you get right down to it, you accomplish nothing if you don't hit your target. People can be trained to maintain their rifles (see the USMC philosophy-first you clean your piece, then you think of getting something to eat and a place out of the rain to sleep), but a less-accurate rifle doesn't help the soldier survive to fight again.

My opinion only, YMMV.
Click to expand...

Yes, its always a saw-off at some point. The M16 is tighter fitting and highly accurate, but it demands maintenance and does well in the hands of trained troops. The AK shoots "minute of just enough", but it can stand an unbelievable amount of abuse and neglect and keep on ticking, as we see in the hands of various hordes of poorly trained irregulars and gunsels around the world. What is interesting is that both ctgs have been found wanting in terms of ballistic performance at longer ranges based on the experiences of both the Soviets and NATO troops in Afghanistan. This has prompted a quest for something a little better in the 6.5-7mm bullet size. There isn't really that much new under the sun. Both the 120 yr old 6.5x55 and 7x57 Mauser had it pretty much right. The Brits got it right again in the late 1940s with a short 7mm in their EM2 bullpup semi-auto. Had this not lost out to US pressure for the 7.62x51, western infantry might just be carrying pieces chambered for that short 7mm today.
 
I read and earlier post Talking about the canadian ranger lee enfields
What about Greenlands Slædepatruljen Sirius and their M1917 enfields thats got to be worth something
If theres one place colder then hell its probably northern greenland. And (cfs alert)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom