OK, who is with me on this? Mosins Rule

Dosing

Dosing

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
76   0   0
Location
AB
This has been a slow burn for me, but it has reached the point I am really kinda pissed at the blithering stupidity of some people out there, and figure I may as well see who agrees with me.
Discovery (most of who's shows are so annoyingly pedantic they could make me wretch) did thier little Top Ten Combat Rifles, and well....:slap:
So just to be fair I buckled down and watched the list on Youtube, cuz I sure as hell wouldn't pay for cable to watch sputum like this.
Obviously being American the blinders and rose coloured glasses went on, and they came up with a list so inane and retarded that I still can't believe it!

1. AK47
2. M16
3. Lee-Enfield SMLE
4. M1 Garand
5. FN FAL
6. Mauser M98
7. Steyr AUG
8. 1903 Springfield
9. Sturmgewehr 44
10. M14

OK, I would begrudgingly accept the AK47 as #1 guess, maybe... the M16, yeah well I still say friends don't let friends own poodleguns, and then the Garand, 1903 and M14?? Not to mention the AUG?? I mean ok, WTF is going on here?
You see I watched this crap in 1 to 10 order, and so as they are getting closer to 10 I am waiting for the ........ Mosin Nagant. Nope, nada, not even on the list. Well I know jingoism is a disease with some people, and I spent most of the 70s and 80s reading about how the MN was an 'inferior Russian design', like MIGs and the T72.

Now I know that this board has a few people who are a 'little patriotic' when it comes to thier guns, and will be disgusted that the LEs didn't make #1, but that aside, how in the hell can anyone who is sober not rate the MN in the top 5, and frankly in my view above the 98 and the #1mk3 or #4mk1-2, let alone the 1903 Springy??
For a battle rifle it has the easiest bolt to strip and clean in the field (there is no way in hell the LEs can compete with that), a mag that easy to tear down and clean, good battle sights, a sturdy bolt thats a cinch to operate, a mag interupter, a good simple trigger, a hinged mag bottom you can't really lose and a reciever thats easy to clean. OK, I will say this, the safety is not the best, there the LEs win, and frankly the 98 isn't in my view much better than the MNs.

But really, who here thinks the MN doesn't rate in the top three of all time?
 
What's REALLY funny is that the M1 and the M14 are basically the same rifle in a different caliber and mag arrangement. The Springfield is basically a Mauser 98 with most of the faults of a Mauser 94 ;)

Bear in mind Americans crafted that list ;)
 
Claven2 said:
What's REALLY funny is that the M1 and the M14 are basically the same rifle in a different caliber and mag arrangement. The Springfield is basically a Mauser 98 with most of the faults of a Mauser 94 ;)

Bear in mind Americans crafted that list ;)
Click to expand...

I dunno much about Mauser 94, but what are the faults?
 
I can agree with the first four, although I'd put the SMLE in #2 (it's fought longer and more successfully in greater numbers and more wars than the M16). I agree though, the Mosin should be on there, there's beauty in its simplicity (I'll be adding more to my collection!)

For the 1903... I like mine, haven't shot it yet though. And from what others around here have told me, like tiriaq, the sights are horrible to set up and use properly - not a good feature on a battle rifle.
 
russian_babushka said:
I dunno much about Mauser 94, but what are the faults?
Click to expand...

Well, let's see...

1) 2 piece firing pin.
2) flimsier sfety with a ball-detent that can't be field disassembled.
3) a TARGET sight on a BATTLE rifle - wtf!?!
4) no recoil bolt.
5) GIANt and un-necessary cocking knob.
6) coned barrel with unsupported cartridge head
7) more complex to machine.

Granted, I like the rifles and even have a reall nice A3. But they aren't a better battle rifle than the Mauser 98 which they are supposed to be an improvement of ;)
 
I liked shooting my 1903 with the "C" stock but I always bite my nose with the straight stock so my 2 1903's are pretty much safe queens same as my M1 D and my 1955 M1 I shoot left handed and the damn enbloc always tunes me in the head .I'm going to take the m38 for a ride tommorow and see what she can do .as for my favorite it's in a bolt gun my Longbranch No4and No4*'s my second is my C1 A1 I have shot many M14's back in the day but they never turned my crank.
 
The MN dates back to the last Czar and I'm sure can still be found in some corners of the world battling it out. I do believe the 91/30 is still being used in sniper configuration in some areas. I know in my safe my four MN's rate in the top ten!:cheers:
 
Dosing said:
1. AK47
2. M16
3. Lee-Enfield SMLE
4. M1 Garand
5. FN FAL
6. Mauser M98
7. Steyr AUG
8. 1903 Springfield
9. Sturmgewehr 44
10. M14
Click to expand...

I'm with Calum on the M-14 and the 1903, they don't even belong in there for reasons already stated. If the Yanks wanted one of their old bolt actions in there, it should be the M1917. I'm not even sure about the Steyr Aug's place in that list. Sure it was revolutionary, but so was the G11.

G what?

Exactly.

My list would go something like this:

-AKM
-Lee Enfield
-M-16
-Mauser (K98, GEW, etc)
-Mosin Nagant
-M1 Garand
-STG 44
-Baker Rifle (look it up)
-Dreyse Needle Gun (look it up)
-FN FAL

I put the Baker in there because of it's use during the Napoleanic wars by the British. It was the predecessor of the Enfield Musket and the first rifle adopted by the British.

I put the Dreyse in there because it was the first breechloading bolt-action to be put in use, and was used by the Germans the Austo/Prussian and Franco/Prussian war. They built their empire with this rifle and attempted to expand it with the Mauser. It think it's a good choice.

The AKM and the M-16 deserve to be in the top three because variations of those models have been in use for 50-60 years and will continue to see use by the U.S. and Russia for the forseeable future. They may very well see 60 or 70 year service lives which is pretty amazing considering all the technological development over that period of time.

If the list allowed muskets, the British Long Land Pattern musket (aka Brown Bess) would be No.1
 
Last edited:
Tyler said:
My list would go something like this:

-AKM
-Lee Enfield
-M-16
-Mauser (K98, GEW, etc)
-Mosin Nagant
-M1 Garand
-STG 44
-Baker Rifle (look it up)
-Dreyse Needle Gun (look it up)
-FN FAL
Click to expand...

OK, thats a good list. I'm not sure if i'd put the mosin on it, but on the other hand I don't know what I'd replace it with either.., The G3 should probably be on there, the G3, FAL and AK are probably the most prolific designs of modern times, any of them have been adopted by more countries the the M16.
 
Dare i say that.....the mosin isnt on there because it is neither a revolutionary design, nor did it pose any remarkable advancements in rifle technology. In a comparison of USE of weapon it can be argued that it has seen many corners of the earth in many revolutionary activities, but in a hands on analysis of the rifle itself, there really isnt much there that tweaks the imagination in terms of progressive advancements or design.

As far as bolts go, the Mauser 98 action was revolutionary and continues to be used in modified form even to this day...the lee enfield proved the fastest firing bolt action of all time. Both those rifles have sometihng well above the rest. Unfortunately the mosin cannot say these things. It was a rifle that supplied the red army and much like the sks after it, was simple, non-fascinating and did its job. Thats about it. It works.

As best put by www.world.guns.ru...

The Mosin-Nagant rifle was relatively modern when it was first introduced, but continuous trend for "economy solutions" and minimal possible upgrades lead to the outdated and not too comfortable weapon by the standards of the first half of the XX century. The positive aspects of the Mosin rifles were the reliability and simplicity of both manufacture and service - a paramount for generally poorly trained, low-educated and poorly funded Russian army. This rifle also offered a decent ballistics and an acceptable accuracy, it was even used as a sniper weapon with the addition of the telescope sight and some minor modifications. But, on the other side, this rifle had some serious drawbacks. First of all, in all patterns prior to M1938 and except for Cossack rifles, all rifles were intended to be carried and shoot only with the bayonet attached. This caused the already long rifle to be almost as long as an average mans' height, awkward to maneuver and carry, especially in the woods and trenches. All rifles were zeroed in with the bayonet in place, so removal of the bayonet seriously affected the point of impact and effectively required the rifle to be re-zeroed. Original pattern bayonet mounts were prone to loose during the time, decreasing the accuracy. The horizontal bolt handle was short by necessity, so, in the case of the cartridge case stuck in the chamber this required a lot of strength to extract it. Horizontal bolt handle also was uncomfortable to carry and slower to reload, than bent down handle, which appeared only on the sniper versions. Safety switch, while very simple in construction, was uncomfortable to operate and required the rifle to be removed from the shoulder to apply or disengage the safety. Overall, this was somewhat typical example of the Russian mass produced weapon - cheap, simple, reliable and adequate for intended mission - but that's all.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'd disagree.

With extensive use by the Russians, Finns, Chinese, and even North Koreans, it has been an influential rifle. It won the Russian revolution, defended them from the Nazi's and has shown up configured as a sniper rifle in Vietnam and the Former Yugoslavia, as well as many other places, I'm sure.

It's an Eastern weapon and is largley ignored by Western writers and historians alike. With something like 17 million Nagants made, and for serving for 60 years with a largely unmodified action, that has to say something.

With practice I can cycle my Mosin bolt as fast as any Mauser without taking it down from the shoulder. I actually prefer the short and straight bolt, as it's easier to open the tight action with. I just wrap my hand over the action, push and rack.
 
Tyler said:
I'd disagree.

With extensive use by the Russians, Finns, Chinese, and even North Koreans, it has been an influential rifle. It won the Russian revolution, defended them from the Nazi's and has shown up configured as a sniper rifle in Vietnam and the Former Yugoslavia, as well as many other places, I'm sure.

It's an Eastern weapon and is largley ignored by Western writers and historians alike. With something like 17 million Nagants made, and for serving for 60 years with a largely unmodified action, that has to say something.

With practice I can cycle my Mosin bolt as fast as any Mauser without taking it down from the shoulder. I actually prefer the short and straight bolt, as it's easier to open the tight action with. I just wrap my hand over the action, push and rack.
Click to expand...

So, what is revolutionary about the rifle besides the fact that Russia made so many of them?
 
With extensive use by the Russians, Finns, Chinese, and even North Koreans, it has been an influential rifle. It won the Russian revolution, defended them from the Nazi's and has shown up configured as a sniper rifle in Vietnam and the Former Yugoslavia, as well as many other places, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

I redirect you to my previous statements.

In a comparison of USE of weapon it can be argued that it has seen many corners of the earth in many revolutionary activities, but in a hands on analysis of the rifle itself, there really isnt much there that tweaks the imagination in terms of progressive advancements or design.
Click to expand...

Just because its been used a million different places and seen a million different soldiers on both ends of the barrel, does not make it a great weapon.
A wooden club may have been used by millions of cavemen across teh globe, and its simple, effective and even a weapon of choice, but its still not a significant weapon in terms of great revolutionary design. It needed to be sometihng that CHANGED or ADVANCED the rifle to a point where it had to be historically noted as an advantage to that soldier. If one clan of caveman used a club of a lighter wood that was twice as strong as everyone elses club for example, it would be of note. A club that was used by all the rest of the cavemen and killed the most, does not make it a noteable club on terms of an effective weapon.

Name something on the RIFLE SPECIFICALLY that is of exceeding quality, design or of a progressive advancement in rifle design. Honestly, i can think of none. The ammunition was obsolete for its day being of the rimmed type, it was typically not made of the highest grade materials or workmanship for mass wartime use(with exceptions), the bolt was of the outdated straight style, the stock itself was of the outdated straight style and the list goes on.

But in the end, it worked, and it worked well enough. But a top 10 revolution in rifles it was not.
 
Last edited:
Chuck3436 said:
The ammunition was obsolete for its day being of the rimmed type, it was typically not made of the highest grade materials or workmanship for mass wartime use(with exceptions), the bolt was of the outdated straight style, the stock itself was of the outdated straight style and the list goes on.

But in the end, it worked, and it worked well enough. But a top 10 revolution in rifles it was not.
Click to expand...

So what? You guys are missing the point of the list entirely. Not every weapon on there is revolutionary in design or concept. If it was purely about technological leaps, then there would be 10 obscure rifles there and not the ones we are so familiar with.

Any number of those features such as a bent bolt or rimless ammo could have been readily adopted by the Mosin Nagant, but they weren't. Why fix something that isn't broken? The Russians still use 7.62x54r, don't tell them it's obsolete.

When you apply those same critieria to the Mauser or the AK, you should remove them from the list too.

The AK's role was envisioned with the StG 44, arguably it was only different in function. However, a gas piston powered rifle was nothing new at that point. The AK is on the list because it is so popular. When millions of people use something, it's because it works, and that says something about the design.

Same goes for the Mauser. The Germans developed the GEW 88 in response to the first smokeless powder rifle adopted by any large military, the French Lebel m1886. The first Mauser was developed as a single shot black powder rifle with a single locking lug. Nothing revolutionary there. Yet the French rifle is never mentioned because they would have lost without our support.

The Mauser went through many design changes to make it what it was, same for the M-16. The Mosin Nagant stayed essentially unchanged except for length from 1891 onwards.

Chuck3436 said:
Just because its been used a million different places and seen a million different soldiers on both ends of the barrel, does not make it a great weapon.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

If it wasn't that great, then they would have used something better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom