Question on 7.62x54r
- Thread starter tigger
- Start date
now that I think of it aiding in function is a likely reason. It may allow the little extra to make up for manufacture and rifle shortcomings. Plus the way it sits on the mosin boltface it would give dirt that may interefere with bolt closing somewhere to go!
Shortcomings?
Really which ones?
Methinks if one is going to start questioning the R&D of a 122 year old proven battle rifle and cartridge you might want to learn Russian and head over there to some Arms museums and spend a few months reading.
Short answer... The bevel face on the cartridge is probably there because it works.
Really which ones?
Methinks if one is going to start questioning the R&D of a 122 year old proven battle rifle and cartridge you might want to learn Russian and head over there to some Arms museums and spend a few months reading.
Short answer... The bevel face on the cartridge is probably there because it works.
I did not mean to question what works, as it all comes together quite well! I should have used the words simple or basic to describe the design, yes its reliable and perfectly fine! Russian engineering tends take a back to basics approach, which is in some ways superior to swiss watch precision in battle equipement!
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
you would need to compare it to other designs that were being developed at around the same time to see what the various centers of firearms and ammo design were thinking. I think the French also had a round with a bevelled head and the Russians did work with the French for several of their firearms designs so there is a starting point. You also need to remember that machineguns were also in their infancy and having a round that would feed easily for a machinegun would have been an important design feature, even though you might not know what feed mechanisms were going to be used.
Methinks other posters have nailed it.
From what I have read Russia needed a one cartridge does it all solution. Rifles and machine guns, troops to tanks.
I can't know for sure but based on his other creations I suspect Nagant was the real innovator in the design team.
Btw a world of caution... These rifles can be very addictive.
From what I have read Russia needed a one cartridge does it all solution. Rifles and machine guns, troops to tanks.
I can't know for sure but based on his other creations I suspect Nagant was the real innovator in the design team.
Btw a world of caution... These rifles can be very addictive.
Last edited:
I'm thinking it helps the round slide up the bolt face as well. Lot of strange things on the Moisin. Designers went out of their way to have to avoid paying royalties to foreign inventors, like the Mauser brothers.
Grizz
Fact is the Russians have so much of this ammo going back so many years that they in fact have designed their guns around the round.
It is considered a dated rimmed round that should have disappeared about 70 years ago. Now.. should I go into an anti commie rant?? LOL!!
It is considered a dated rimmed round that should have disappeared about 70 years ago. Now.. should I go into an anti commie rant?? LOL!!
The .303 British round was widely criticized for its rim, too (esp. regarding feeding in belt-fed firearms).
Nagant was the man with the money who paid bribes... but he did designed the mag in the rifle. Mosin won the competition, but government requested to redesign his rifle with new mag from Nagant's rifle.
I'm not saying that old rimmed ammo isn't fun and functional, it's just that every current military issue rifle today is rimless.
It's not just for a straight magazine profile, but mainly because of the historic feeding drawbacks of rimmed rounds in full or semi
weapons. Yes I know about the Drags, but look at what the rimmed 30.06 chambering in the French Chauchat did in WW1. You
won't find 30.06 chambered in an American arm today. It's still a good 'Bolt" round as is the Russian round, it's just that the
Russians still issue them and the yanks don't. It's still a shooter.. but a bit long in tooth.
It's not just for a straight magazine profile, but mainly because of the historic feeding drawbacks of rimmed rounds in full or semi
weapons. Yes I know about the Drags, but look at what the rimmed 30.06 chambering in the French Chauchat did in WW1. You
won't find 30.06 chambered in an American arm today. It's still a good 'Bolt" round as is the Russian round, it's just that the
Russians still issue them and the yanks don't. It's still a shooter.. but a bit long in tooth.
- Location
- Georgetown Ontario
Methinks other posters have nailed it.
From what I have read Russia needed a one cartridge does it all solution. Rifles and machine guns, troops to tanks.
I can't know for sure but based on his other creations I suspect Nagant was the real innovator in the design team.
Btw a world of caution... These rifles can be very addictive.
The x54 was designed in the 1890's and was designed for use in a bolt action rifle. There were no tanks or machine guns for it to be used in they just kept using it as technology developed over the years and it worked for them. Beltfed machine guns and SVT-38 and 40's and other semi/full auto's came well after it was designed.
