Mosin Nagant vs K98 vs Lee Enfield

Eaglelord17 said:
Not true, Mosins to me are a thing of beauty.

Personally I would choose the Mosin Nagant if given the option (expecially if I can pick the model). The reasons being I work the bolt faster as a lefty then the Lee Enfield or the K98k (Lee Enfield I have to take down from the shoulder, and Mauser is very difficult with the 90 degree bolt handle), it is more reliable than either the Lee Enfield or K98k (K98ks were freezing in the Russian winters well the Mosin was still going), it is fairly accurate expecially when fed proper ammo, and depending on the model (for example a 1907 carbine or M38) very handy to use.
Click to expand...


That argument is moot and has nothing to do with the gun itself. A Mosin bolt will freeze up just the same as any other bolt. The Russians mixed gasoline with gun oil to prevent freezing. Thats winter warfare 101. As for the Germans, they had dwindling supplies lines and could not afford to waste fuel. So they pissed on them which,only solves the problem temporarily.

Keep that in mind when you buy a RC K98 ;)
 
Last edited:
To be meaningful, these type of "which is better" questions have to have full context. Which is better, a horse, a mule, or a camel? It depends on where you are, and what you want to do. A horse is faster but will starve to death in the desert. A mule is the most resource efficient way to pull a wagon or carry a load.
Peacetime professional armies favor high tech sophisticated weapons. Lots of time to manufacture, lots of training require to optimize performance, costs are secondary because the volume is relatively small. In a large scale war, the ability to produce in large volumes and the time to train soldiers to a level of competence are critical. As much as money is no object in wartime, bills have to be paid. Post WW2, with the exception of the US and Canada, it was hard to tell the winners from the losers; the UK was bankrupt.
All three rifles were "good enough" but they were all camels at a horse race. Mechanized warfare made all three obsolete.
 
dante_mags said:
Mosin Nagant, Lee Enfield, or k98?

If you had to choose one of these three rifles to use during WWII what would it be? All these rifles are very close, but the deal breaker to me is the fact that the Lee Enfield holds the most rounds. If they all held the same amount of rounds, then id go with the k98. Take these factors into consideration

-accuracy
-caliber
-the bolt action
-toughness
-safety mec
-mag capacity
-ect
Click to expand...


This question is a no brainer for a rifleman, the No4 Mk1 of course.

This doesn't make a No4 a better war winning tool than any of the others listed however. Sound tactics, the orchestra of support from air,armour and artillery and LMG's plus don't forget individual courage and sacrifice, is what win's battle and usually War's.

What I'm saying is I'd pick the LE everytime/anytime because it has the all the nest qualities needed in a bolt action battle rifle, but a battle could be won and "an enemy closed with a destroyed" with the Mosin just as well in the right hands and and the right hands part of the right formation.
 
To me the interesting question is why the countries involved failed to have modern systems by inception of WW2. Great Britain never really tried (even though they had access to the SAFN-49 early in the war). The Soviets made a valient effort with the SVT38 and 40, which suffered only from lack of development. The Germans efforts were hamstrung by their own beurocracy making the G43/K43's arrival too late to be significant. Only the US pulled it off (ie virtually complete replacement of the bolt action). They may have simply gotten lucky as choices no. 2 and 3 in their selection process probably were disasters in the making which might have led to a desperate return to the 1903 design. None of the models discussed in this thread were retained due to any inherent great characteristics that make them competetive with a self-loader- the governments responsible simply hadn't been making adequate investments in their military. Of the 3 I would personally chose the Mosin or Mauser over the No. 4 due to the latters unique and goofy method of forend bedding which isn't conducive to simple, cheap manufacturing. I say this even though the Lee Enfields are my main collecting direction and they can be very accurate.

milsurpo
 
I would agree with Ganderite for a couple of reasons. Until you run optical sights--aperture sights are the best there is. Also the longer sight radius is a huge plus. The Enfield design proved it was the best design to run in a dirty environment. Of the three I like the mauser rifle for best accuracy potential if I am running optics and the Brits often used the Pattern 14 for this application because it is better for absolute accuracy but not when you are running iron sights in a combat environment. An old WW1 vet who had gone overseas and started with the Ross rifle told me that the best part about the Lee Enfield was that you could "piss it clean". Forward locking lugs are not always a blessing. As far as the Mosin it was a good tough rifle for issue to troops with limited training. Typical Rusian in that it was tough and effective and easy to service. But set the three rifles in front of me and I would pick the Lee Enfield in the #4 everytime.
 
Tough call. They are really 3 different beasts. I have them all, I like them all. For hunting and shooting, I give them all equal points, however I discount the magazine capacity as an issue because I don't normally take a second shot for hunting, meaning I either hit it or I missed and it spooked off.

Oddly, I slightly favor the Mosin (and variants for x54r) for its simplicity and availability of surplus ammo for dirt cheap shooting. I can't shoot my LE or Mausers for that cheap.
 
RememberTheSomme said:
What's that?

Aren't we are talking about WW2 BattleRifles.
Click to expand...

Hitler commissioned a study regarding the invasion of Switzerland before the war. The answer that came back was 400,000 plus casualties. The Swiss fought in wars from the dark ages to 1860 after which they had enough Fighting.
They were once the best mercenaries in Europe. They wanted no part in the stupidity that was WW1 and kept Hitler away from their borders in WW2.

The K31 is the fastest bolt action from that era, however like the rest of them a bolt rifle was WW1 technology. The Americans were the only ones who got it right with the M1 Garand as standard issue.
 
Last edited:
So the K31 could be called the Nuclear arsenal of the day, a MADD destruction of any challenger to Swiss sovereignty? I'd say the worlds bankers were off limits to everyone, even the Deutsche who had train loads of loot in banks there all stolen from interned citizens of home and occupied lands. Weren't Deutsche materials being manufactured there during the war as well, or is that a myth?

Anyhow,..the K31 for all it's complex and accurate glory was a no show at the match, so it's claim to the Greatest Battle Rifle is forfeited to the lesser contestants who made a show.

400,000 casualties,....how many were lost at Stalingrad alone, merely as an idealist token for the namesake with flank security for the Caucasus as the implied reason? The Ostfront meat grinder shows what depth Hitler was prepared to go to ensure his sprawling empire was fully equipped in terms of labour and material for a long stay in histories notorieties( Thousand Year Reich) and I don't think the K31 was all that stood in the way of this ambition in terms of the Swiss.
 
RememberTheSomme said:
So the K31 could be called the Nuclear arsenal of the day, a MADD destruction of any challenger to Swiss sovereignty? I'd say the worlds bankers were off limits to everyone, even the Deutsche who had train loads of loot in banks there all stolen from interned citizens of home and occupied lands. Weren't Deutsche materials being manufactured there during the war as well, or is that a myth?

Anyhow,..the K31 for all it's complex and accurate glory was a no show at the match, so it's claim to the Greatest Battle Rifle is forfeited to the lesser contestants who made a show.

400,000 casualties,....how many were lost at Stalingrad alone, merely as an idealist token for the namesake with flank security for the Caucasus as the implied reason? The Ostfront meat grinder shows what depth Hitler was prepared to go to ensure his sprawling empire was fully equipped in terms of labour and material for a long stay in histories notorieties( Thousand Year Reich) and I don't think the K31 was all that stood in the way of this ambition in terms of the Swiss.
Click to expand...

Hitler did not have the men and materials in 1939 that he had in 1941, they actually started the war earlier than they wanted to so he could not sustain such casualties and still invade the rest of Europe.

You cannot compare the flat terrain of Russia which a mechanized army can quickly advance trough to the alps. Getting troops through and over those passes is a nightmare. Bridges and roads will be blown, artillery concentrated on the approaches ( the same thing the Germans did to the allies in Italy). Any attack by paras would also end in disaster as no land route can be established for reinforcements and the fact that the Swiss army was well equipped, well trained and large enough to stomp out any potential footholds.

Anyone with any wealth at that time had Swiss bank accounts. they were the world bank, they asked no questions so yes, the nazi's had accounts there. That is not what stopped Hitler from invading, the deterrent of the alps and the Swiss army did that.
 
OP, your question doesn't surprise me at all. The point you and many others are missing isn't which of the firearms mentioned is best but how well the troops are trained to use them and the tactics they use them under. Then of course there is the question of climate and terrain.

For instance, every firearm listed will freeze solid under certain climatic conditions. Most of them will handle dirt or mud with a wipe down or wash down. I have seen firearms hidden in honey pits unwrapped, dug up a year later the were thrown into a river for a few hours and functioned perfectly. No finish left anywhere and badly corroded but they did what was asked of them.

Every one of the firearms mentioned will normally be very accurate as long as their condition warrants it. Especially the bores. Often, the reason a certain rifle isn't accurate will have to do with the ammunition it is being fed or whether Bubba has disassembled it and screwed up the bedding.

Last but certainly not least is the quality of training under all conditions the rifle is to be used in. Any thing from deserts, salt swamps of Malaya, Arctic in winter/summer, normal weather, at sea, from a vehicle etc. Then of course there are all of the regular firing positions from prone to standing off hand.

Troops well trained to maintain and use the rifle they are issued with in every condition they may encounter, along with good ammo are formidable indeed, no matter which nation they come from. Even under todays conditions and battlefields bolt actions would put on a pretty decent show. About the only place they would be at a disadvantage MIGHT be a direct frontal assault on the dead run.

That is just IMHO but I have seen how many just blast away with their semis and often its just lots of bangs with lots of misses.
 
desporterizer said:
Russian three line rifle crush toys of imperialist & fascist armies under back heel!
Click to expand...

You could do a lot worst than a Russian rifle in harms way this is for certain. I had absolutely zero interest in the Red Bears small arms more less due to their perceived inferiority and a rifle that was going to kill me in the Cold War for much of my shooting life.

Enter the Ukraine imports and.............

Now I have 5 in my safe and counting. Great collectors pieces inasmuch as their historical part at the very least and the prices where a lot of the 100 year old pitted steel should be in at the very most. The availability of decent quality reasonably priced ammo to feed them so they can be fired a lot, enjoyed and understood fully. Seeing LE's climbing into the 4 digits chasing the Garand just priced them out of my sights for the short term at least, so we will bide our time with two and fill a safe with Russian treasure for now.
 
Oranges are nicer than Apples but take more to peel, Banana's are a good all rounder (even though they're not round) but a nice Peach wins my vote.
 
If truly you wanted a excellent battle rifle though, I would have to go with the Arisaka Type 99. Good size, good round (basically a rimless .303), chromelined bore (first mass issued military rifle to do this, most those bores are still very good to this day, it also helped with the corrosive ammo of the time), easy to use sights (I find I shoot pretty good with that forward aperture sight), and easy to load (I find the M96 stripper clips/chargers are smoother than the M98). Also the action is stronger than a M98 Mauser, with the advantage of #### on closing and easy to disassemble bolt. It was even fairly easy to manufacture as there were very few parts to it (the bolt itself is only 6 parts total). If you took away the superficial stuff on the rifle it becomes even easier to manufacture (i.e. removing the anti-aircraft sights, monopod, and dust cover).

The only major flaw to the rifle was the crappy safety, but even then it was still miles ahead of things like the Mosin Nagant and even some Lee Enfields (as the Arisaka safety doesn't jam in place or slide off accidentally).
 
MauserMike said:
Russian 3 line rifle is too long and unwieldy. Its safety sucks and troops too often lost the bolts since all it takes is a trigger pull and an open bolt. My 2 pfennig :p
Click to expand...

Too long for Imperialist maybe but real man handle too long tool every time we piss. Only idiot & nkvd lose bolt in three line rifle, men with brains bigger than flea keep bolt closed on round ready to fire. What is safety?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom