Mosin 91/30 Snipers?

dgradinaru

dgradinaru

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 99.8%
415   1   1
Location
British Columbia
Ok i planning to buy a mosin m91.30 sniper rifle. I was looking at more pics of them and it seems like the scope and mount is quite high. Im wondering how comfortable it is to shoot?, When looking for one should i look for a early war year? And last what groupings can you get with one??
 
dgradinaru said:
Ok i planning to buy a mosin m91.30 sniper rifle. I was looking at more pics of them and it seems like the scope and mount is quite high. Im wondering how comfortable it is to shoot?, When looking for one should i look for a early war year? And last what groupings can you get with one??
Click to expand...
I have a repro sniper but didnt have the chance to try it yet. The scope is a little bit high but once you shoulder the rifle fews times, you get used to it. Grouping will depend of the bore, i guess 2 inch group or less is realistic. Try the search function, sure there's reviews on that.
Jocelyn
 
Are you talking about an ex sniper? Or just any old mosin with a scope mounted on it?

Yes the mount is quite high. It works, but I prefer the ol irons. Its personal preference though. The finnish sniper Simo Hayha didnt use a scope on his mosin because he believed his head would be too high and expose him to other snipers. Of the over 500 kills he had the kills he had with his mosin, it was all irons.

I have a 1944 ex sniper 91/30, which is a mosin that was a sniper in WW2 but afterwards was converted back to original configuration when it was stored. Mine has an excellent bore with hardly any wear.

On the other hand my cousin has a "sniper" mosin which wasnt a sniper at all in WW2. It was a high wall 1942, but drilled and has a repro scope on it. The bore is a bit dark, and its not as good of a shooter as mine even with a scope to aid in aiming.

Make sure your "sniper" mosin was actually a sniper, and has a good bore on it. The good mosins were hand selected as good shooters and made into snipers in ww2. There are things to look for. Original scopes and mounts are rare.
 
dannyd123 said:
Are you talking about an ex sniper? Or just any old mosin with a scope mounted on it?

Yes the mount is quite high. It works, but I prefer the ol irons. Its personal preference though. The finnish sniper Simo Hayha didnt use a scope on his mosin because he believed his head would be too high and expose him to other snipers. Of the over 500 kills he had the kills he had with his mosin, it was all irons.

I have a 1944 ex sniper 91/30, which is a mosin that was a sniper in WW2 but afterwards was converted back to original configuration when it was stored. Mine has an excellent bore with hardly any wear.

On the other hand my cousin has a "sniper" mosin which wasnt a sniper at all in WW2. It was a high wall 1942, but drilled and has a repro scope on it. The bore is a bit dark, and its not as good of a shooter as mine even with a scope to aid in aiming.

Make sure your "sniper" mosin was actually a sniper, and has a good bore on it. The good mosins were hand selected as good shooters and made into snipers in ww2. There are things to look for. Original scopes and mounts are rare.
Click to expand...


im talking about repro snipers.

I already have a nice 1935 tula hex , shoots amazing even out to 400 yards, i was thinking on a sniper style for hunting, and to have part of my collection. Im planning on using a mosin for moose hunting.
 
Well, I will tell you what I know:

The PU scope set up works for me with my build. It is a little high, but it works for me. I'm 6 feet tall.

I have a repro. It's a 43, and the thing isn't the prettiest rifle I own, but it's of my most accurate milsurps. I have got a few 1 moa targets - but realistically average 1.5-2 inch groups with PRVI commercial loads. The bore on my rifle is fantastic.

Keep in mind the mosin PU isn't really a "precision" rifle/scope combo. It is awesome for it's intended purpose - shooting man sized targets at distances enhanced by the 3.5x optics.

I got mine from westrifle and it's quickly become my fave rifle.
 
Mine is great. Without doing alot of work (about 8 shots) I was able to get mine to "hunting standards", as that is what I needed it for at the time, now that the new year has rolled around, I expect to be getting 1 to 1.5 MOA @ 200y (The length of my range). Also, while I had mine out deer hunting last fall, I F**KED up and and managed to bounce my scope loose (my bad, had nothing to do with the mount). I took the scope off for the remainder of the hunt (about 4 hours) knowing that my irons were good.

Few weeks later I had the time to put the scope back on and re-zero. At 150y I had a hand size group exactly where I was aiming, the same size as when I first zeroed it.

Also, it just looks cool sitting on the rack in the camp! :D
(before the hunt)
IMG_1345.jpg


(during the hunt)
3ff90196.jpg


(the heated "stand")
9c94e59d.jpg




dgradinaru said:
since the scope mount is high can you still use the rear sights below??
Click to expand...

Yes, you can! :D
 
I've got an original arsenal refurbed sniper with the pre-production silium bodied PU scope. Very high mount, not the most comfortable to use (I'm also just 5'6") but the irons are easy to use. I find the repro PUs have much better optics than my original so if you're looking for a shooter it's the way to go.
 
dannyd123 said:
The finnish sniper Simo Hayha didnt use a scope on his mosin because he believed his head would be too high and expose him to other snipers. Of the over 500 kills he had the kills he had with his mosin, it was all irons.
Click to expand...

I think that is one of few reasons he did not use a scope. Considering the weather conditions during the Winter War, scopes of the day were unreliable. At temperatures ranging from -20 to -40 degrees Celsius, these scopes tended to fog/ice up. Falling or blowing snow would also cause trouble. If moisture got in the scope, it would be rendered useless. Also, the scopes also reflected sunlight giving away your position.

Another thing to consider is that there isn't a lot of daylight during Finnish winters. I think iron sights were easier to use vs scopes in low-light conditions and contrasted better when the background is white with snow.

All things considered, he didn't have much trouble hitting his targets with irons.
 
Sorry but is it consider sniper if he did not use scope? Russia had many "shooters" who had over 1000 kills, but only ones with scope consider to be a sniper.


Suomi said:
I think that is one of few reasons he did not use a scope. Considering the weather conditions during the Winter War, scopes of the day were unreliable. At temperatures ranging from -20 to -40 degrees Celsius, these scopes tended to fog/ice up. Falling or blowing snow would also cause trouble. If moisture got in the scope, it would be rendered useless. Also, the scopes also reflected sunlight giving away your position.

Another thing to consider is that there isn't a lot of daylight during Finnish winters. I think iron sights were easier to use vs scopes in low-light conditions and contrasted better when the background is white with snow.

All things considered, he didn't have much trouble hitting his targets with irons.
Click to expand...
 
westrifle_sks said:
Sorry but is it consider sniper if he did not use scope? Russia had many "shooters" who had over 1000 kills, but only ones with scope consider to be a sniper.
Click to expand...

snip·er (snpr)
n.
1. A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place.
2. One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.

No criteria for a scope as far as I know. Snipers have been around longer than the invention of scopes.

Simo had 705 confirmed kills (505 with rifle, 200 with a Suomi KP/31 Submachine gun). That was accomplished less than 100 days during the Winter War, before he was shot in the jaw with an exploding bullet. He survived and lived to a grand old age of 96.
 
Capt.Canuck said:
From what I've read the Russians were notorious for inflating sniper killcounts for propaganda purposes.
Click to expand...

I agree,

My Grandpa Shot 75 Deer, Over the years and 10 Bears, and a a few wolves. Realist talley? It just seems like a huge talley, but mostly belive him.

On the Eastern Front where there are Millions of Soldiers many of which were in-experienced. I can belive that skilled Soviet shooters (and others) could have reached some of there talleys. In Stalingrad alone 2 million people were killed. Vassili Zaitzev had 400+, Some of these Snipers are probably the real deal, real heroes to there countries. But for Propaganda there was a lot of fakes.

Finnish shooter Simo Hayha, a-massed 500 kills with Mosin and 200 with a Sumoi Sub-machine gun. Had to make 7 kills a day to reach that. Just seems to high. But only they know forsure.
 
Last edited:
Yehaa propaganda for who? It is numbers that were send to main base. Was Zaicev propaganda too? You don't understand people were so trustful and real and that time. Lie even a small one were not an option you would get harsh punishment or go to Siberia. Most of the snipers by the way were from Siberia real hunters who hunt for living and not for numbers.
Anyway your comment of inflated numbers is out of line here.

Capt.Canuck said:
From what I've read the Russians were notorious for inflating sniper killcounts for propaganda purposes.
Click to expand...
 
westrifle_sks said:
Yehaa propaganda for who? It is numbers that were send to main base. Was Zaicev propaganda too? You don't understand people were so trustful and real and that time. Lie even a small one were not an option you would get harsh punishment or go to Siberia. Most of the snipers by the way were from Siberia real hunters who hunt for living and not for numbers.
Anyway your comment of inflated numbers is out of line here.
Click to expand...

No offense intended.

I believe you misinterpreted my comment. I wasn't suggesting that the individual Russian soldiers were inflating their own numbers. I have no way of knowing that, nor would anyone who was not present at the time.

I was simply stating that "official" numbers were whatever Stalin's Soviet propaganda machine (written about in countless books) wanted them to be.

For what purpose? Just like all other propaganda...to exert influence over people, to boost domestic morale, erode the enemy's morale, further the myth of one race's superiority over another etc...

These tactics during wartime have existed throughout history and the Soviets are not alone by any means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom