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

[Claven2]

- 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

My two observations:

1) your Mosin is not statistically significant enough to claim other rifles outshoot mosins. My experience does not match yours. Accuracy test a few hundred of every model in fine condition and you might have an argument if your observations are upheld by the experiment. I doubt that though. At the end of the day, it's a well rifles bolt gun with the same dual lug lockup that all the other models you mention also have.
2) you cannot judge the whole class of firearms by a rushed WW2 expedient model made as Russia was almost losing the war. They made these guns from 1891 to 1948 and many of them were made to a very fine quality standard. The design is not sub standard, it's simple and elegant to my eye.

 

[Tyler]

Probably because they were produced in insane quantities(60 million~), are quite crude, poor handling, innacurate, poor sights. Holding side one side by side to most any other milsurp they really are bottom barrel rifles, granted there some ok-ish variations. People commonly joke they were put together by a drunk Ivan, that says a lot. The plus side is they are cheap, shoot cheap and powerful ammo and have probably introduced a lot of new shooters to firearms and hunting. I just couldn't see the average person who isn't a milsurp buff or seen enemy at the gates choosing it off the racks at the LGS all that often. We're in the generation of new shiny disposable crap.

LOL.

My 1942 Mosin is one of my most accurate rifles, and handles and cycles very well.

My only gripe is loading the mag with stripper clips.

 

[EL34/6L6]

Poor sites! Lol!
What was the 91/30 sighted in for...like 1000 yrds?

 

[howard2]

The surplus MN's will dry up eventually. My first m91 was $29.99 at SIR. Cant buy near that price now. Same goes for the ammo. One can still find 7.62 x 39 for around .15 cents per round. This too will pass and will all wish we had bought more. When I see the prices today I sometimes grab my old Century catalogue from the 80's and see what the original buyer paid. Remember the "Gunrunner" paper ? I found a few copy's the other day, man those were the days.

 

[grelmar]

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?

Actually, you indicated nothing of the sort in your original post, you just went straight for a personal insul - which is indicative of an inelastic mind.

I've read much about the wonders of peep sights over the years, and have tried them many times (still own several guns with them), and personally find them neither faster nor more accurate.

The only type of gun I find them advantageous on are shotguns - where I need to be shotgun accurate. In wh8ch case, yes, they are faster at getting a cloud of pellets in the general direction of a tarhet within 25 yards.

Also comparing diopter sights - of the variety used in high end competition - to peep sights is a false equivalency. They're an entirely different beast, that are designed to limit the field of view to force focus on the target. They work on your sight picture and view in subtle but very importantly different ways from peeps.

As for the "countless studies saying perps are the bestes sights evarrrr!" you're suffering from confirmation bias. Yes, these studies exist. But numerous other studies, conducted by militaries and others, indicate there is no practical difference, on a larger scale, from tangent sites.

And this bears out in the practical world where tangent sights are as common (more, actually) on even modern military rifles globally, and on sporting arms.

The truth, as hard to swallow as it may be for "true believers" of peeps, is that peeps are better for some people, tangents better for others, and for the majority of people, the difference is insignificant enough to be irrelevant.

(p.s. Excuse the raft of typos - sitting on a sunny deck staring at the ocean typing off my phone )

 

[camster]

Notice how it took a while to find someone who does.......This is like you celebrating a new kid on the short bus.

wow...I dunno how funny someone of this sort of wit calling anything else crude can be... Attention seeking behaviour, and I won't waste a lot of attention on it.

Mosins are what they are. Certainly of a class that stood it's ground through a few generations of more modern designs, and even still can fill a freezer every fall. What more could possibly be asked of such a critter? Coming full circle to OP: they are even still affordable to own and shoot!

 

[Horilka]

Back to the topic. Want to see real prices for Mosin Nagants? Find me all original, matching, non-refurbished sniper - be it PE, PEM or PU. And you will see sudden jump in price!

 

[GunsNotPuns]

I see that Tradeex have Mosins for 189$. 10 years ago was the same price. Mosins rifles will be forever 189$ ??

It's a lowly regarded rifle that despite the fetishization of some gun enthusiasts -- particularly the red rifle crowd -- is what it is and doesn't appeal to everyone. There are far rarer rifles out there from the same period that have also seen their prices remain static for decades simply because they have little appeal outside of a segment of the community.

Personally I don't mind the rifle. I have a couple of them and enjoy shooting them. I wouldn't, however, ever pay more than $200 for a bog standard M91/30.

That said, I think some of the slow price rise might also have something to do with the increasing number of palms that demand to be greased in the rifle's long journey from a warehouse in the Rodina to your LGS.

 

[Sir Plus]

The Mosin sights are poor compared to other open sights. And many other things were standard type for most of European armies and served million of european soldiers very well but are now obsolete.
Your point about peep being a two step operation is wrong, your brain knows to find center, and that's a one step operation and you don't have to adjust for vertical and horizontal, center is its own concept. This is why peep sights have been the standard in competitive target shooting for over 100 years.
I don't think I have met someone who thought a Mosin cold match the accuracy of any Mauser. It is scientifically unlikely as the Mosin barrel has the wrong twist rate for it's own ammunition... practical accuracy is still fine but that's a bad start if you're going to compare with the competition.
Compare an original condition Mosin made in 1891 and an original condition Mauser 1891. You will know that one IS cruder.

 

[05RAV]

Compare an original condition Mosin made in 1891 and an original condition Mauser 1891. You will know that one IS cruder.

What are you talking about? There is no “Mauser 1891”. In 1891 the German Imperial Army was equipped with the Model 1888 commission rifle (the Gewehr 88). The Mauser 98 rifle was introduced in 1898 (the Gewehr 98). The Gewehr 88 was inferior to the 1891 Mosin and quite obsolete in 1891. Thus, for more or less 7 years the Russian Imperial Army was equipped with a much better rifle than the German Imperial Army. I can agree that after 1898 the 91 Mosin was a bit less refined that the Gewehr 98 by comparison but nonetheless very effective.

 

[tokguy]

Well, perhaps he is referring to the Argentinian one. Which is quite a nice piece, trigger pull is a bit like a Cooey though.
But very finely made nonetheless

 

[Eaglelord17]

The Mosin sights are poor compared to other open sights. And many other things were standard type for most of European armies and served million of european soldiers very well but are now obsolete.
Your point about peep being a two step operation is wrong, your brain knows to find center, and that's a one step operation and you don't have to adjust for vertical and horizontal, center is its own concept. This is why peep sights have been the standard in competitive target shooting for over 100 years.
I don't think I have met someone who thought a Mosin cold match the accuracy of any Mauser. It is scientifically unlikely as the Mosin barrel has the wrong twist rate for it's own ammunition... practical accuracy is still fine but that's a bad start if you're going to compare with the competition.
Compare an original condition Mosin made in 1891 and an original condition Mauser 1891. You will know that one IS cruder.

The key word in your sight argument is target shooting. The reality is those sights are too fine for actual snap shooting, and there is a reason that most hunting rifles use notch sights still to this day. Everything has a time and a place. Can you be more accurate with a high end diopter sight than battle open sights, your right you can, however that doesn't translate to quick shooting, which for a military rifle is what is generally needed. Overall for open vs. peep sights it is generally personal preference. My personal preference is using a notch sight, yours might be a peep sight, but the reality is both have there pros and cons.

I do believe a Mosin and a Mauser in equal condition (standard military condition, not fancy bedded target rifles or otherwise modified) both with excellent ammo will shoot very close to each over. Most people who think the Mosin can't shoot, have never shot it with good ammo, are incompetent with iron sights or they have a poor bore.

And for your comparison between a original 1891 Mosin and a original Mauser 1891 (assuming your are referring to the Argentine Mausers), I am sure the Chatellerault M91 were excellently finished rifles (there French rifles were so I see no reason as to why there contract rifles wouldn't be). That being said, unlike the Argentine Mausers, the Mosin Nagant did see a ton of service, and none were left in 'as new' condition (how many pre-WWI German issued Gewehr 98s do we see in mint condition? I personally haven't seen one but based on the quality of other arms they were producing at the same time, I am sure it was high). Here is a link to show the nicest condition Imperial Russian Mosin I have seen (it is a prototype). Do I think the finish of the Mosin was ever higher or equal to most commercial Mausers, unlikely, that being said just because something is 'cruder' doesn't mean it isn't a well made and well finished firearm.

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthr...ГО-Rifle-Kholodovskii-M91-Prototype-1912-1916

 

[Claven2]

LOL... Mauser rifle vs. Mosin rifle. Let's just say that no army has EVER won a major conflict by fielding Mauser 91's or Mauser 98's. The same is not true of the Mosin. Yes there are other factors at play, but clearly no Mauser put someone over the top with some sort of game-changing "edge".

Frankly, there is no compelling argument that the Mauser 98 is a better battle rifle than a Mosin. I would argue they are bout tied in terms of utility and ease of use in war. You could argue the Mosin is superior as it could be more easily mass produced.

YMMV.

 

[05RAV]

Frankly, there is no compelling argument that the Mauser 98 is a better battle rifle than a Mosin. I would argue they are bout tied in terms of utility and ease of use in war. You could argue the Mosin is superior as it could be more easily mass produced.
YMMV.

That's what I said. I agree that in practical terms no difference on the battlefield between a Mosin 91 and Mauser 98 (forget about the Model 1891 "Argentine Mauser" which in reality was conceived as the Model 1889 "Belgian Mauser" which became the Model 1890 "Turkish Mauser"; they don't count, anyway).