OK, who is with me on this? Mosins Rule

[Chuck3436]

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.

Rimmed cartridges are outdated. Period. Obsolete, inferior what have you. Over a hundred years now and counting.

If its not obsolete, why in the world arent we making more?

Ill take this over to another thread about whether rimmed cartridges arent obsolete and how you would like them to bring it back if you like.

Tell me you seriously dont think rimmed cartridges are obsolete.

By ww2 standards things such as the bent bolt and semi-pistol grip were all becoming the norm, eventually leading into full pistol gripped rifles such as the battle and assault rifles that came afterwards. Saying all these non-existant features are on a rifle that compares to others that actually have things going for them is non sensical. By your standards we all should be using rimmed cartridge, straight bolt, non pistol gripped rifles even to this day. It aint broke, dont fix it right? Saying it COULD have been added but DIDNT is accepting that the rifle was not up to par for even its day.

Also tell me the mauser 98 action isnt one of the benchmarks of all bolt actions. THen why in the world are so many bolt actions built aroudn the same basic design premise and not the nagant action? Why is it referred to as the strongest and most reliable bolt action system created?
You are arguing a totally different action than the specifically stated m98. Black powder single lug? Wrong rifle, sorry. I could start an entire thread where youd have to argue that the mauser 98 action isnt noteable in its own regard.

The Ak was the first mass produced assault rifle to actually function and work flawlessly. The STG-44 started it, the AK made it. As setting the standard for assault rifles for decades and to this day, it has something going for it.

A good way to know if a design is of great value, is its offspring. The AK family was so successful it spawned generations of generations of copies and mg variants and continues to make variants. The mauser as said before has spawned innumberable copies and continues to do so, as does the m16 family.

If it wasn't that great, then they would have used something better.

No, because nagants were practically given to them and it was practical among those specified countries to use that rifle. Much like nato and warsaw pact standarization. Sure, east germany had to use nagants after ww2, but was it their best choice? Did they not have these STG-44 and K43 and k98 rifles lying aroudn by the dozen? And its already stated and pretty much accepted taht the nagant design for russia herself wasnt exactly...better. It worked for Russia's army, being the low funded, peasant army it was.



Once again...mosin nagant........had stuff that worked. And there were lots of them. When layed down on a table beside all the other bolt action rifles of its period, it appears rather insignificant, other than its historical value. Historically well known, as a rifle, average.

 

[Tyler]

Better toss out my .22's, seeing as their rimmed design is obsolete

By ww2 standards things such as the bent bolt and semi-pistol grip were all becoming the norm

The Lee Enfield never had a semi-pistol grip, fired rimmed ammo, and was a weaker action than the Mauser, should we take it off the list too? Did someone forget to tell the British their rifles were obsolete? Bolt rifles will fire anything, rimmed or not. In a bolt action rifle with a 5 to 10 round mag it is irrelevant whether the ammo is rimmed or rimless. It goes bang and it's accurate.

The Mauser came out on top of the Mosin Nagant because Germany had the industrial might to make it so. The Mauser company was based in a wealthy and influential capitalist country and could market their rifles to anyone because it had the industrial capacity to equip Germany and other nations and civilians as well. Russia was a back water nation before the Revolution and an outcast after it. Arguably, if the Russians had the same industrial base and money to spend as the Germans did, they would have modified the Mosin Nagant accordingly and would have sold it to other nations instead of having to rely on American and French companies to make most of their weapons for them during WW1. The Russians designed rifles and kept them for themselves but Mauser was a corporation that sold their designs and tailored them for their consumers. Guess which one is going to be more popular?

The Russians equipped a peasant Army with a simple and effective weapon, they took the same approach with the AK and got the same result.

No, because nagants were practically given to them and it was practical among those specified countries to use that rifle. Much like nato and warsaw pact standarization.

And the AK and M-16 are different in that regard how?

The M-16 was junk when it was adoped and had to be shoved down the throats of the Military by the political administration, McNamara liked it, and so it goes. Are you saying the Mosin Nagant had no variations? Did the Russians force the Finns to make almost 10 different variants? Did they force the Chinese to make a variant? The Poles made them too, much like the AK was distributed among the ComBloc nations.

Anyway, the show's criteria were as follows:

-Innovation
-Handling
-Combat Effectiveness
-Accuracy
-Service Length

The Mosin Nagant would get high marks in all but innovation and maybe a mediocre score for handling. Try and tell Simo Hayha or countless Finns or Russian snipers that their Mosins's weren't combat effective or accurate. Service length? 1891 to 1946ish? Almost 60 years is a long time for any piece of equipment.

The Mosin Nagant deserves a spot on the list.

 

[Woodsman]

From a hunter and general shooter's perspective, I'd put the Mauser on top of all others. It's still the most sought after rifle Period! The most copied, reliable, and extremely strong action... and still sought after by scores of hunters and shooters. There have been "improvements" to the original design, if you can call them that, but that's about it.

 

[Cocked&Locked]

Better toss out my .22's, seeing as their rimmed design is obsolete

Obsolete dosen't mean non functional, just less then ideal. Also, the .22 is a special case, as it's rimfire and has to have said rim.....

The Lee Enfield never had a semi-pistol grip, fired rimmed ammo, and was a weaker action than the Mauser, should we take it off the list too? Did someone forget to tell the British their rifles were obsolete? Bolt rifles will fire anything, rimmed or not. In a bolt action rifle with a 5 to 10 round mag it is irrelevant whether the ammo is rimmed or rimless. It goes bang and it's accurate.

It also had an action that borrowed little from any before it. The rear locking lugs and #### on closing made it fast and smooth. But even the brits realized the rimmed .303 wasn't ideal, they also knew you can't change cartirdges as planned in the middle of a war. Missload a enfield mag and try to shoot her, the rimms tie up like mad. The mosin avoided this by staying single stack, but at the price of half the mag capacity. To be fair to the mosin, the system of relieving pressure on the top round to allow easier feeding was a worthwhile modification, though you can argue whether it was needed. Bolts will fire anything, but some things work better then others.

The Mauser came out on top of the Mosin Nagant because Germany had the industrial might to make it so. The Mauser company was based in a wealthy and influential capitalist country and could market their rifles to anyone because it had the industrial capacity to equip Germany and other nations and civilians as well. Russia was a back water nation before the Revolution and an outcast after it. Arguably, if the Russians had the same industrial base and money to spend as the Germans did, they would have modified the Mosin Nagant accordingly and would have sold it to other nations instead of having to rely on American and French companies to make most of their weapons for them during WW1. The Russians designed rifles and kept them for themselves but Mauser was a corporation that sold their designs and tailored them for their consumers. Guess which one is going to be more popular?

They also had a world class armed forces everyone admired, and prestige went with adopting the mauser. They also where more then willing to set up factories for any country that wanted to pay....alot like HK these days come to think about it

The Russians equipped a peasant Army with a simple and effective weapon, they took the same approach with the AK and got the same result.

I'd say the AK was far more ergonomic, but still an excellent design. Much more thought went into it.......can't argue with the result. I wouldn't exactly call it simple, it has no fewer moving parts then any other semi......

And the AK and M-16 are different in that regard how?

The AK carried on with milling from solid blocks of steel, making it very expensive to produce, and heavier, but durable as all get out.
The M-16 introduced aluminum forging and a gas system that hadn't be effectivly used before to make the lightest infantry weapon to be effective in a weight closer to that of a m1 carbine then a rifle.....

The M-16 was junk when it was adoped and had to be shoved down the throats of the Military by the political administration, McNamara liked it, and so it goes. Are you saying the Mosin Nagant had no variations? Did the Russians force the Finns to make almost 10 different variants? Did they force the Chinese to make a variant? The Poles made them too, much like the AK was distributed among the ComBloc nations.

I'd argue that most of the m16's problems on adoption stemed from 1) poor training of the troops it was issued to (vietnam was not a high water mark for american infantry capability ) they neglected to do things like CLEAN it. And more importantly 2) the original issue ammunition used a flash inhibitor (calcium carbonate I believe) that increase the rate of fouling dramatically, add this to 1) and you have a real problem. Give it good ammo and treat her well, even the first issue rifles are decent weapons....I'm not a huge fan of the m16, but you can't argue it works and is a damn sight more accurate then any AK ive ever fired.....


The Chinese got their factory for free once the ruskie's switched to AK production, before the revolution the mauser was their rifle of choice. Free makes the buying decision easier

Anyway, the show's criteria were as follows:

-Innovation
-Handling
-Combat Effectiveness
-Accuracy
-Service Length

The Mosin Nagant would get high marks in all but innovation and maybe a mediocre score for handling. Try and tell Simo Hayha or countless Finns or Russian snipers that their Mosins's weren't combat effective or accurate. Service length? 1891 to 1946ish? Almost 60 years is a long time for any piece of equipment.

The Mosin Nagant deserves a spot on the list.

I like the way the M44's handle but I have a great big weak spot for carbines , other then the pressure release on the first round, there really was no inovation, but man you cant argue about any of the last three! The can be as accurate as any rifle out there if you get a well made speciman (mine's a fin....) and they lasted a long time. , OK, leave her on the list then

 

[Joe Turner]

No matter how many times this subject comes up it is never settled to anyone's satisfaction. I have one " Imperial " Mosin-Nagant made by Sestroyesk in 1915. It is well made, accurate for my purposes and I shoot it almost as much as my other WW1 rifles. Do I like it less becasue I shoot it a little less? No. I like it for what it is and it doesn;t make any difference whether I think it is the best or worse of any list;Canadian, American, British, Australian,German, Russian, there will be as many " lists " as there will be people who collect and shoot. Getting riled up over the contents of a so-called "historical " TV show is like getting riled up over a movie that professes to be historically accurate-any serious historian can pick holes in them all day. Remember, its TV.. Joe

 

[Steppenwolf]

The Brit's had the Ferguson Rifle, patented 1776 - 100 made, and the 1776 Rifle, 1000 made. The Baker was in service between 1800 - 1823 and was the first mass issue rifle used by Britain.

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.

 

[Skippy]

Tyler,
It's noble of you to support the underdog here, and I agree with you that some of those rifles on the list are out of place. But even so, the mosin does not belong there in their stead.

Sure it served for ages, and functioned despite it's obvious drawbacks. But most of your argument depends solely on the fact that it functioned serviceably and was issued for ages, and that the Russians wouldn't have kept it around so long if it weren't a great rifle. You're operating on the false premise that suggests that the Russians had the luxury of choosing between the mosin and of a more moder design. This is false.

You'll have a very hard time convincing anyone, even the Russians at Tula, that they wouldn't have issued a better rifle if it were feasable for them to do so.

If the Russians could have pumped out K98k's the way the pumped out mosins they would have in a heartbeat. Unfortunatley they were relatively poor and disorganized when compared with the other European powers of the time, and were forced to issue an inferior because it was easier for a mongoloid dirt farmer to operate, and was just as disposable as said dirt farmer.

Mosins are fun to shoot, and they DEFINATLY belong in any righteous WWI or WWII collection, but there is a reason, as was stated further, that no one who can help it would choose to take a mosin into combat if they were given the choice between other WWI or WWII bolt rifles. Anyone who claims they would has obviously never had to depend on a rifle to ensure their survival in a combat situation.

 

[Stevo]

If the Russians could have pumped out K98k's the way the pumped out mosins they would have in a heartbeat.

Why? What, in your opinion, makes the K98 that much superior that the Russians/Soviets would have done that?

I can't imagine what the K98 does that the MN doesn't. And yes, I've owned and fired both extensively.

 

[Steiner]

I'm with Stevo on this one. If you had two armies slugging it out, and things being equal, except for one army had Mausers and the other MN's - the rifles would not be the deciding factor. They are both reliable and accurate. They are different, but accomplish the same task equally well. I have both and shot them alot. Technically speaking, neither one seems to have any real advantage over the other.

 

[Chuck3436]

Think of it this way. There is a car that is carbed and a car that is fuel injected. They will both run the same, both the same speed and power etc. In a day to day utilization issue, they are for all intense and purpose, the same.

But the fuel injection system is new, offered more advanced design and performance capabilities and didnt have little quirks, such as cold starting or being on a hill and not getting gas. Nothing youd notice through much normal use, but the FI did have its advantages.

Same thing here, sure the nagant in day to day use would prove the 2 to be practically near identical, but the design of the other rifles would pave the way to bigger and better things. It set a standard that will be remembered by, compared to or used even to this day in many forms.

As a rifle that compares in performance to other rifles of its day as mentioned, yes it did. But did it have anythign beyond just comparison to make it a top 10 rifle of all time?

 

[Stevo]

Technically speaking, neither one seems to have any real advantage over the other.

I think that's the key phrase here.

Chuck,
The only problem with your analogy is that both Mausers and MNs would be carbed cars. You'd have to have an advance in the tech to make your analogy work. IE: the larger mag capacity and sights of a No4, or the semi action/capacity of a Garand.

 

[Tyler]

You'll have a very hard time convincing anyone, even the Russians at Tula, that they wouldn't have issued a better rifle if it were feasable for them to do so.

What about the SVT 40?

It was a better rifle but it wasn't fit for the Red Army's doctrine. Poorly trained farmers and peasants didn't take well to it because it required maintenance and cleaning, once again they fell back on the Mosin Nagant. It was simple and it worked.

The Brit's had the Ferguson Rifle, patented 1776 - 100 made, and the 1776 Rifle, 1000 made. The Baker was in service between 1800 - 1823 and was the first mass issue rifle used by Britain.

.

True, but more than 20,000 Baker's were made and they served into the 1840's. The Ferguson was unique but it did not change anything. The Armies of the day stuck with muzzle loaders.

 

[bearhunter]

Other than the first offerings of pristine Westinghouse MNs there were very few MNs in north America. Shooters always knew the capabilities of the rifle and cartridge, but ammunition and components just weren't available in decent quantities to make anyone want to shoot them, also, there was an almost religous fanaticism about rimmed cartridges in a bolt rifle and many horror stories to go along with them. Someone, Bannermans I think, brought in a buch of MNs converted to 30-06. There was a huge write up in one of the gun rags about how dangerous the were and would blow up with the first round, causeing severe injury and even death. I had one of these rifles, paid the princely sum of $2 for it, the owner was petrified with fear by the article. We tied it to a couple of tires folled with dirt and proceeded to fire as much 4831, 3031 and 4895 as we could get in a case through it. It wasn't very accurate, but it certainly showed no signs of blowing up.
Another thing almost all of the first MNs that came into North America were off the bottom of the pile. We are only now getting the good ones. I can remember seing a pile of 15000 in Internationals warehouse, stacked on pallets and crossed over each other layer on layer, strapped down with metal banding and looked like they had been shipped here with the pallets stacked on each other and no protective sheet in between. A very few of them looked OK only on the outside, but try as I might, there wasn't a decent bore in the bunch. Only a very few of them had cosmolene in the barrels and even those were crap. I'm pretty sure that's the main reason MNs got such a bad reputation. The newer arrivals are mostly jewels in comparison. bearhunter

 

[Stevo]

Historical tidbit: Bannerman's did the .30-06 MN conversion in the US.

 

[Chuck3436]

Chuck,
The only problem with your analogy is that both Mausers and MNs would be carbed cars. You'd have to have an advance in the tech to make your analogy work. IE: the larger mag capacity and sights of a No4, or the semi action/capacity of a Garand.

Well i suppose the analogy was a bit stretched for this particular situation, but i will try to reiterate a little better. Both are about the same in performance, but one car has a system designed for it that set a precedent for all cars of its type. I parallel that to the M98 action. What is remarkable about the m98 action is its universally accepted as the premiere bolt action system ever created. Like said before, it is a standard by which bolt actions even to this day are based upon and compared to. That if anythign makes it a worthy and great achievment.

But were not arguing against the m98 or anything of the sort. Were talking directly about the Mosin Nagant and somehow the legitmacy of the enfield and m98 arose. Those rifles have specific and great points regarding their design that set them apart.

Im not arguing against the Mosin in anyway. It is like ive said before, a rifle that does everything asked of it, nothign more. It works, and works great, but I see nothing in it that sets it apart in any way.

Once again, i would like to backtrack and ask for statements as to what the Mosin Nagant has that sets it apart as a rifle that makes a precedent.

 

[Stevo]

Once again, i would like to backtrack and ask for statements as to what the Mosin Nagant has that sets it apart as a rifle that makes a precedent.

Given the widespread use, numbers produced, and longevity of service, the MN certainly deserved to be included on the list. It was definitely of greater significance than the '03 Springfield.

 

[Hitzy]

The 98 mauser is only 7 years more advanced then the old Mosin. There are gunshops in europe that build nice sporters on the mosin action, seen pics of some nice full stocked ones. The mausers biggest flaws IMHO is the way too big & overly rigid extractor, CRF (but pretty much all bolt actions of that era have this same design spec), the #### on opening, and the ####tiest sights ever put on a battle rifle. The LE is pretty much the perfected bolt action battle rifle, 10 rounds, #### on closing, good sights, decent accuracy, only flaw would be the rimmed cartridge is uses.
Mosin's and mausers are pretty much an even playing field, with slightly better sights on the mosin, but accuracy advantage definately going to the mauser.

 

[Skippy]

What about the SVT 40?

It was a better rifle but it wasn't fit for the Red Army's doctrine. Poorly trained farmers and peasants didn't take well to it because it required maintenance and cleaning, once again they fell back on the Mosin Nagant. It was simple and it worked.

If you'd read my post you'd see that I was refering only to bolt rifles of the time. The SVT-40 has no bearing on this debate, comparing a K98 or a mosin to a G43 or SVT is like apples and oranges. By your reasoning the Russians didn't adopt the K98 because it was overly complicated? Think about the implications of your position before you post.

Why? What, in your opinion, makes the K98 that much superior that the Russians/Soviets would have done that?

I can't imagine what the K98 does that the MN doesn't. And yes, I've owned and fired both extensively.

If you've owned and fired both extensively (which I don't doubt) you must've had the bolt freeze up #### stiff on you a couple of times making extraction a real pain. I've never experienced this with any mauser action, and I definatly wouldn't want to experience it with ANY rifle if I was in combat.

Also, no need to attach the bayonet to a K98 in order to retain the factory zero.
Also, the K98 is quite a bit more ergonomic than it's Russian counterpart.

My intention in posting wasn't to bash the mosin, it's obviously a tried and true design. It just isn't remarkable enough to be included in the original list that began the debate.

 

[Chuck3436]

Given the widespread use, numbers produced, and longevity of service, the MN certainly deserved to be included on the list. It was definitely of greater significance than the '03 Springfield.

Fair enough. To each their own, and I know theres alot of Mosin Nagant lovers out there who disagree with me on this subject, as seen here. But....then again there are those who agree with me.

I do agree however the 03 springfield doenst deserver to be on that list, esp being a copied 98 action in its own right. I smell the American bias on that choice.

The 98 mauser is only 7 years more advanced then the old Mosin. There are gunshops in europe that build nice sporters on the mosin action, seen pics of some nice full stocked ones. The mausers biggest flaws IMHO is the way too big & overly rigid extractor, CRF (but pretty much all bolt actions of that era have this same design spec), the #### on opening, and the s**ttiest sights ever put on a battle rifle. The LE is pretty much the perfected bolt action battle rifle, 10 rounds, #### on closing, good sights, decent accuracy, only flaw would be the rimmed cartridge is uses.
Mosin's and mausers are pretty much an even playing field, with slightly better sights on the mosin, but accuracy advantage definately going to the mauser.

7 years apart...but then again, i point out the that means nothign when comparing the action itself. Proving the point, its only a 7 year difference yet 1 rifle has lived on, and one has not. In regards to comparing rifles of ALL time, time of design is irrelevant when focused on the design itself.

I like the big bolt and positive extraction on the m98. But i do agree, the sights are absolutely abysmal.


And yes, the LE speaks for itself. One would be a fool to argue against the Enfield.

 

[Skippy]

I'd have to agree with you on the sight point too Chuck. There is a category in which the mosin definatly (at least in my opinion as a shooter) outranks the K98.