Why from milsurp world only Mosin rifles does not increase in price?

Yeah I think buddy really doesn't understand the difference between models. Going to be interesting to see how long it will be bumped for. The only M91s which should be in that area are legitimately rare M91s like Soviet manufacture in great condition and the French manufactured M91 (can't spell the factory name and it is too much of a hassle to get on my phone).

Personally I am getting close to completing my Soviet collection and when I do I will likely put my Soviet M91 Infantry and Dragoon up for trade just because my interests have changed a bit (WWI and early bolt actions are now my interest). I don't think I will put them up for sale as I honestly don't know what it would be worth in today's market. It is too many people buying who don't understand what or why they are buying, but it will cool down eventually just like the M1 Garands did.
 
Two decades ago there was only a trickle of Mosin rifles on the market, in the last few years millions of Mosins have left Russia. Low cost of ammunition has also fueled the rifle market. Nothing here is rocket science if you paid attention.
 
I picked up a JW25A last week and compared to any Russian mosin nagant it's is a piece of junk. The metal is softer and everything can be bent easily, even recieved it with warped sights. Quality - wise the Mosin looks like a $1000 side by side.
Criticize them all you want I own three and will keep them forever and they will likely outlive me (I'm 36)
 
I like the simplicity of the Mosin as well. This was the first real rifle I ever took apart and rebuild, it gave me the confidence to move on and work on others. Fantastic first rifle and a collectors item regardless of amount made. This will be my Moose rifle this year, Can't go wrong with a Mosin can't break em and they will always shoot, plus is by some disaster a meteor falls from the sky and scratches your rifle you can always buy another for about $200. For some people this is almost a single use disposable rifle price.
 
BeaverMeat said:
Snob?
Click to expand...

Lol. I don't think he's being a snob just because he has a different and valid opinion of the Mosin. I used to have a good collection of them including Finnish, Polish, and Russian. There were different levels of quality and accuracy among them obviously and I never really had an issue with the sights but I can see where people might consider them poor handling. I never did like the stock design on them or Lee Enfields for that matter. Those straight wrists are not my thing.
 
MN is just way too bloody long.

If the M38's were in the same numbers/price range as the 91/30's I'd own a couple of em.

Even though the MN is a rugged rifle ... for $189 I don't even want one.

I debate laying out the $ for an M38 .... but every time I do I end up talking myself out of it and just buying more .308 ammo instead.
 
jbmauser said:
Lol. I don't think he's being a snob just because he has a different and valid opinion of the Mosin. I used to have a good collection of them including Finnish, Polish, and Russian. There were different levels of quality and accuracy among them obviously and I never really had an issue with the sights but I can see where people might consider them poor handling. I never did like the stock design on them or Lee Enfields for that matter. Those straight wrists are not my thing.
Click to expand...

I had to write something... the post seemed a bias opinion which can be confused with fact. Anyhow, the straight wrist does suck, and the bolt isn't the smoothest but it gets the job done. Still prefer a Mauser over it any day of the week.
 
BeaverMeat said:
I had to write something... the post seemed a bias opinion which can be confused with fact. Anyhow, the straight wrist does suck, and the bolt isn't the smoothest but it gets the job done. Still prefer a Mauser over it any day of the week.
Click to expand...

As an aside, lots of mousers (the Vaunted Swedish M96?) have straight grips.
 
As with most things ; it is all about supply and demand....and right now there are more Mosins than demand . But much like the Enfields did , this will eventually change as time marches on .
 
Horilka said:
Interesting. I'm not a fan of MNs in general, but statements like this..... I like.
.
Click to expand...
- How come "poor sights" type was a standard type for most of European armies and served million of european soldiers very well. Nearly all mil-surps from the era DO have better, more refined sights. Im also not referring to standard iron sights, Im speaking of the sights of the standard 91/30, hence my comment's on the better versions.
- How come that for this type of sights operator can see clear vertical alignment and is doing the best to guess horizontal, while with LE or M1 peep type of sights operator have to guess both vertical and horizontal? Peep sight looks like very primitive design from technical point of view. I can tell you this for sure as I used to design devices for measurement and consider how users read them. Crude looking, yes but extremely effective, faster and more accurate. You don't guess L-R with a peep, they work by playing on the fact your eye naturally centers and blurs the aperature, completely eliminating the need to align your rear sight. One less thing to focus on, line up, or misalign. I don't think you do understand how a peep works. Take a look at competitive open sights and tell me what's more prevalent, open sights or aperture???
- How come most of users consider MN as accurate as any bolt action rifle of that period? Op stated MIL-surp world, not ww2. FWIW My No1mk3, No4, k31 and vz 24 all out shoot it with handloads. That's how I draw my conclusion.
- "Crude" and "bottom of the barrel"? Have you handled at least one rifle in original collectible condition with original fitting? Should I call "bottom of the barrel" all LEs because most I see are desportsterized or refurbished rifles? Yes, and it went back on the shelf. Looks the same minus the flaking varnish and bluing loss on everyone and their dogs. Everything on them looks rushed, crude finishing. Not saying this is exclusive to MN. Where does de sporterized examples or refurbs come in, that in no way speaks of the original rifles attributes
- Did you have a chance to compare MN with other firearm produced for 5-million army (before war) within underdeveloped economics, science and technologies? They're aren't any others are there, hence bottom of the barrel comment. Like you said underdeveloped and rushed economically, scientifically and technologically. Crap in, crap out.

It is what it is, not worse and not better, just a product of its time and circumstances.Agreed, and all the things I stated are the things I feel affect the demand The only reason for low price (or any price for any firearm) is demand and availability. Quality and personal assessments do not influence the price of firearm at all. Just look at the price of any crude late war G/K43
 
Last edited:
BeaverMeat said:
Snob?
depending on yearHow much can you polish a turd?

your a bad shot Everything else I have outshoots it, no matter the load. When I say inaccurate I talking 3-5 " from personal experience at 100 yards with hand loads, yes that is still accurate, just not tack driver IMO. I'm no Annie Oakley but I know my way around a rifle

your handling it wrongI can hold, load, aim, and shoot the gun just fine. A standard 91/30 is nearly 50"s long, try walking through think brush bush around here with that....not happening. Some of the shorter version are better in this regard for sure, I'm referring to the model I own, and the ones I see most frequently.

inaccurate poor sights think of them as hand gun sights on a rifle... and your still handling it wrong And this sounds condusive to good sights? Handgun sights on a rifle, says it all right there.
Click to expand...

All this aside, not biased and I like my mosin. Its has a role and fills it. I just don't put it on a pedestal like the CGN' red rifle crowd. You guys mention the strait grip sucks, yet many find a the strait grip of the Winchesters and marlin lever rifles very comfortable, maybe another sign of poor ergonomics due to a bad grip angle, not necessarily the style itself? Another poor design flaw of the mosin?
 
Last edited:
Horilka said:
Interesting. I'm not a fan of MNs in general, but statements like this..... I like.
- How come "poor sights" type was a standard type for most of European armies and served million of european soldiers very well.
- How come that for this type of sights operator can see clear vertical alignment and is doing the best to guess horizontal, while with LE or M1 peep type of sights operator have to guess both vertical and horizontal? Peep sight looks like very primitive design from technical point of view. I can tell you this for sure as I used to design devices for measurement and consider how users read them.
- How come most of users consider MN as accurate as any bolt action rifle of that period?
- "Crude" and "bottom of the barrel"? Have you handled at least one rifle in original collectible condition with original fitting? Should I call "bottom of the barrel" all LEs because most I see are desportsterized or refurbished rifles?
- Did you have a chance to compare MN with other firearm produced for 5-million army (before war) within underdeveloped economics, science and technologies?

It is what it is, not worse and not better, just a product of its time and circumstances. The only reason for low price (or any price for any firearm) is demand and availability. Quality and personal assessments do not influence the price of firearm at all. Just look at the price of any crude late war G/K43.
Click to expand...

Must be Ivan's brother.
 
It works well for its intended purpose. Just like the SKS. You (J_06) have a set methodology towards your firearms which is of the hunting variety. So I understand your opinions will be closely tired to your purpose of use. Tight groups or fit and finish don't matter to everyone and the "throw-away mentality" of Mosin owners is not entirely true. Some people just like to blast away for cheap. Some people like to have a cheap platform to practice gunsmithing... etc, etc. And yes, there are some of those people who will shoot 5 cases of corrosive surplus without cleaning it just to throw it away. But It's not every owner.
 
j_06 said:
Notice how it took a while to find someone who does.......This is like you celebrating a new kid on the short bus.
Click to expand...

Classy.

But if it's all the same to you, I'll take the short bus route to marksmanship that instilled enough fear in all concerned to keep the Swiss safe and neutral through two world wars.

Now go read a book, you're obviously short on education.
 
grelmar said:
Classy.

But if it's all the same to you, I'll take the short bus route to marksmanship that instilled enough fear in all concerned to keep the Swiss safe and neutral through two world wars.

Now go read a book, you're obviously short on education.
Click to expand...
And any of this is relevant how? No on said they can't be accurate, quote the opposite. And there was far more at play than simply trained marksman keeping the Swiss safe. I was simply saying that apertures are faster, more accurate and much more intuitive to use. Theres plenty of literature on the web regarding this if you'd care to read any. Watch any high power match, biathlon shooting, Olympic shooting, what stay of sight are the most accurate shooters in the world using?
 
I personally like the Mosin and I like hunting with it. I make my own reloads but I don't modify the gun or the sights. Out near the hunting cabin there are very few shots that can be taken over 150 yards. Its a good bush gun and should have no problem to hit a deer sized target up to 150yds.

 
Wow...that went downhill fast, guys.
I always have at least one incarnation of a M/N in my closet at all times. I find them somewhat graceful...the length is a product of the time it was designed, and a testament to Russians being 40 years out of style.
The sights are a bit simple, but made for 'Ivan Everyman'...the sights on a Ross MK 3 or Garand handily trump them anytime 'If you are trained to use them'...more than likely your average untrained person would understand M/N sights better. That doesn't mean they are superior, it just means they are simpler.
Ergonomically they are a product of the 1890's, not unlike a Krag or an M96. LE was a nice bridge between the straight and the pistol grip.
My M/N's were never super accurate, but let's step back and consider that perhaps the Russians / USSR realized (ahead of the curve)...' That your average Squaddie just isn't that good of a shot '?
BTW; even though I don't have one, I consider the LE to be the best battle rifle of the period...an AK-47 of the times if you would.
But Mosin's can be pretty cool, you just have to realize what was happening at the time in Mother Russia. They were designed for usage by overwelming numbers of semi literate people.
My 2 cents anyhow.
Stay safe
 
Pre ww2 mosin were very well made with tight bores, close tolerances & VG to excellent surface finishes. Other than the No4 & 1903A3, every other milsurp bolt action I can think of from that era had tangent sights & there is very little practical difference between them. All this talk of "crude", "poor handling" & "unrefined" is in the perspective of the writer & has nothing to do with the military suitability of any firearm. Most of these rifles have had thousands of bimetal bullets through them followed by poor cleaning & they still deliver 3-6" groups at 100yrds with garbage ammo designed for machine guns.

Edit, I forgot about the Ross & type 99! The sights on the Arisaka were so far away from the eye the sight was no improvement over tangent & the Ross sight would have bankrupted Canada if produced in the millions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom