91/30 accuracy (lack there of)

My $150 Nagant shoots 5" groupings with crappy Hungarian corrosive ammo off a bench with hardly any support, no mods. Definately something wrong here.

-Rohann
 
I just looked at a 1942 Nagant 91/30 yesterday whose receiver looked like it had been chewed into shape by a beaver on steroids. Thinking of you, I looked at it pretty closely as all my 91/30's are pre 1940 low-wall receivered guns that were rather well made.

The action screws were all tight, etc. but when I put the gun butt-down on the floor and grabbed the barrel, with effort I could wiggle the barrelled action up and down parallel to the stock, so obviously the fully tightened screws were still not allowing the steel to grip into the beding well enough. This rifle, I have no doubt, would have shot like crap.

Check and see if you barelled action is indeed tight in the stock. If not, you may need to put some shims under the trigger guard/mag so that the screws have enough travel to really grip the action down into the wood. See if that improves anything and we can go from there.
 
I was messing with my m-28 last night & I noticed the same thing, the barrel touched the front of the stock. This was odd because the finn floated these. Checked the fit with the front guard screw out & the action flopped loose. Turns out the rear pillar had crushed over time & the action was no longer supported in the rear shimmed the guard a bit to compesate for crushing of the stock & pillar & it was tight in the rear. One more shim behind the recoil lug & tightened it up, still touching under the nose cap. I noticed as I tightened the front screw the stock would flex in front of the recoil lug & touch the front of the barrel. Ok, take it apart again & put a small shim to support the part of the action in front of the lug & now the barrel sits 10 thou over the stock, just like new. Funny thing is, even touching the stock in front & loose in the rear it still shot pretty good(5" groups) even with a rough bore.
 
Desporterizer sold me a beautiful 1943 Fin. M91. after i figured out how the sights worked (i felt like an idiot when it finaly dawned on me) i was making 1.5-2" groupings at 100 yards.

I was actually amazed when the local gun shop had ammunition for this rifle. Some 147 grain SP rounds by Bell.
 
yaa...those Finn M-91s shoot sweeet...

Maybe I should just put the PU on my M-39...would that be bad?

I know I can shoot good from a bench with irons so even 5" groups wont cut it.

Whichever 91/30 I end up using it HAS to shoot under 2 inches before I drop the coin on mounting this scope
 
Worst case, get one of the Century guns and when you get the scope mounted, have your smith buff the billboard off and reblue the receiver matte.

Should be fine.

Then you can keep the innacurate one as an example of a pretty infantry rifle.
 
Lack of?... Hmmm...
SVT-40 is right. Here is good recipie. I've done pretty much the same

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/surplusrifle/vpost?id=522021
Also, as mentioned above, look at the bore: if it's worn out, there was an article on surplusrifle.com about re-crowning.

157291.jpg


Here is my poor/lazy-man's bedding kit
129414.jpg


258870.jpg


Hope it helps.
In any situation, last thing I blame is a rifle.
Oh, BTW, here is "out-of-box-no-tuning" result of mine 1937 Tula
129416.jpg
 
Last edited:
That Hungarian heavy ball was made for MGs in the first place, so it's handicapping you; you'd probably see a lot better groups with the light ball made for rifles (steel core, marked with a silver tip) or the original lead-core ball made with an indented base.
 
" probably see a lot better groups"
Let me diasagree. Brobably but not necessary. I wouldn't waste time on it now. Mosin was designed for heavy ball. For me, it does not make big difference up to 300m
 
Last edited:
"Mosin was designed for heavy ball."

There was no such thing as heavy ball when these rifles were being designed; the heavy ball load (what they called the "D" round, marked with a yellow tip; boat-tail 182-gr bullet) was made for machine-gun use, and intended for long-range fire. The rifle ammo adopted at the same time was the "LPS" round, a flat-based steel-core 150-gr ball bullet, but the issue ammo originally meant for the 91 was the hollow-base "L" round, a 150-gr lead-core bullet with an indented base. Don't believe me? Try them for yourself ;-)
 
you have to remove a piece of the stock on the left hand side of the receiver...

Of course I know that...small potatoes compared to the drill/tap/locating pins

have your smith buff the billboard off and reblue the receiver matte.

The import marks are nice actually....they arent puched into the metal...more like etched. They should be easy to hide
 
Last edited:
ALRIGHT!!

I will get a selection of ammo for test firing...

I still think the biggest issue is the rifle somwhere...that Heavy Ball shoots into 1.5" in my M-39 and those rifles have an identical rifling twist.
 
"There was no such thing as heavy ball when these rifles were being designed"
Oh yeah? The very first rounds adopted along with Mosins had
heavy (round nose on pix) projectiles. They were around 180, or even more.
"adopted at the same time" -- I'm talking about 1890s not 1950s or 30s ;).
And barrel twist AFAIK was not changed during modernization. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
mosin_ammo.jpg
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl03-e.htm

I'm using yellow tips most of the time and yes I have noted that probably their MG origin theory has some ground. However it has nothing to do with groupings.

Klunk
IMHO it does not really matter what ammo you will be doing you tests after accurizing. In mine Mosin it all gives comparable results. Expect the same.
 
Last edited:
Actually I believe the original 7.62x54r was loaded with a 210 gr, jacketed bullet over a compressed charge of black powder with a mv of 2200 fps. Check with 7.62x54r.net & mosinnagnt.net, they have all kinds of info on milsurp ammo, including the way some rifles shoot differently with some types of ammo. I want to duplicate the original load(black powder too) for an early 91 I am getting.
 
Hey, That's interesting. Keep us posted.
I dont plan to do that even I'd like to buy pre-1917 rifle made in Russia, since it's just historical experiment with no practical sense ;) : AFAIK rifle had not been modified in any way when smokeles powder cartrige was adopted. But, yes it would be interesting to hear. Where are you getting it from?
 
When they went to the newer spitz bullet (1909 I think) the russians changed the rear sights(curved style), added a crossbolt for recoil, added the sling cutouts(first rifles had swivels) & installed a hanguard. This rifle sits as built except for some minor bubba work to the stock. It will be interesting to see how well it shoots with bp(after the smoke clears, literaly). Post hyjack, sorry klunk.
 
V1 said:
Oh yeah? The very first rounds adopted along with Mosins had
heavy (round nose on pix) projectiles. They were around 180, or even more.
"adopted at the same time" -- I'm talking about 1890s not 1950s or 30s ;).
And barrel twist AFAIK was not changed during modernization.

And that's STILL not the same ammo he's trying to use now; the stuff you're talking about was constructed the same way the L ball was, with an indented flat base. THAT is what makes it more accurate than the boat-tail D load, not the bullet weight, and not the rate of twist in the rifle. When these flat-base bullets are fired, the bases "bump up" (obturate) in the bore, exactly the same way the Mk VII does in the .303.
 
Back
Top Bottom