Printable View
So I'm considering picking up a Mosin Nagant before the prices skyrocket to absurd levels. I've got a line on a
Hexagonal receiver 1891/30 with matching bayonet. As much as I'd like one, I don't want to get one just for the sake of having one if it can't shoot for ****. I'm not expecting 1 MOA and I know that accuracy will vary depending on each individual rifle, but on average what can I expect from these rifles?
They made snipers out of them. Granted, much depends on condition, but I never really had problems with iron sights on any of the five or six I owned except the first one, which was pretty much a smoothbore due to poor storage anyway. That goes for the 1891 and 1891/30s, not for the carbines as I never had one of those. I heard the fixed bayonet on the M44 did have an effect on accuracy.
You might consider the Model 1924 heavy barrel rifle rebuilt in Finland with either a German or Swiss barrel (they made standard and heavy barrels). It will cost more but
nice examples can still be found.
photo shows the Swiss Neuhausen heavy barrel on the Model 1924Attachment 80012Attachment 80013
expect minute of man and some times worse for your typical 91/30
Just because they made snipers does not make them inherently accurate. Think combat/military accuracy 5moa.
Plus shooting that surplus ammo is not going to help.
I reloaded for my mosins. Used hornady .312" SP 150 grains and on a good day could keep them in the black of a SR target.
Cast loads do a little better.
If you want a more accurate rifle the Finns and some of the newer production ones from Hungarians up to 1955ish
Mosin Nagants are actually one of the more accurate military surplus rifles. Most the inaccuracy claims are due to one or more of three significant factors. Factor one is inexperienced shooters, this can mean new shooters who haven't gotten the fundamentals down (Mosin Nagants tend to be a popular rifle for beginners due to the price point), or older shooters who don't know how to properly use iron sights. Factor two is crappy condition rifles, there is plenty out there which haven't been maintained and the bores are crap, this isn't a Mosin Nagant problem rather a issue due to condition that can be found on every type of rifle. Factor three is crappy ammo, many people shoot crappy surplus ammo through them (as it is cheap) and when the rifle can't group blame the rifle. Crappy ammo does that no matter the firearm, but it is more prevalent on Mosin Nagants as most of the other crappy surplus ammo that existed has been long since consumed.
Here is a photo of the shots I took with a M91 Infantry rifle and poor quality ammo (i.e. surplus ammo). With better ammo I am sure I could shrink those groupings significantly. I know with my M38 Carbine I did a 1" group at 100m with some handloads however I never snapped a photo of that. I think these are good representative photos of what can be done with crap ammo, and if you feed it better ammo those groups can shrink.
http://www.milsurps.com/
http://www.milsurps.com/
Best I've seen is around 2-2.5", and not from a Finn either. Realistically I'd say 4MOA is reasonable for a Mosin or any combat rifle. But it just depends how much vodka the person who probably rebuilt it had that day and how well it fits the stock. Some of those refurb stocks have absurdly generous inletting so even a gun with a great barrel will shoot like garbage.
I have several that I have shot and they were as accurate as my other surplus rifles. Condition is key as others have mentioned. Fine tuning the trigger and the rifle in general will help. The Finns made many improvements over the Soviet rifles and your best bet if you don't want to do it yourself would be to pick up a Finn Mosin.
So I found a line on a 1942 Izhevsk made Finn referbished rifle as well for about $70 more. I might at some point modify the rifle to be a faux-sniper configuration. If I do, I understand the HEX rifle would use a PE scope, and the round receiver would be the PU scope. The HEX rifle went thru referbished t in the 50's and seems to have been put in storage afterwards (I'm told it's coated in cosmoline). The Finn I'm told is clean and has a mostly bright bore.
So my question is, considering the above, is the Finn the better rifle to go with?
Not if you intend to modify the rifle, it has significant amounts of history and as such should be left alone.
Typically you are going to get somewhere about 3 MOA, but you can do things to ensure that your rifle shoots a lot better.
Of course, the barrel condition is critical, but you also need to ensure that the barrel is free floating. Improving the usually horrible trigger pull also helps.
Further improvements can be made by following the steps used to accurize the sniper rifles. This includes adding shims to certain areas in the receiver and perhaps creating a vibration node in the forend. The Russians usually wrapped about an inch or so if the barrel with oiled canvas in the area beneath the front band to do this.
Typically, Finn rifles have been already 'gone over' by a competent gunsmith, and they will usually be more accurate 'out of the box' than your bog-standard Mosin Nagant.
amadeus: I have a few Finn "refurbished" 91/30's and they're nothing special. Some of the Soviet refurbs are pretty decent with new pieces added as required and decently bedded (at least in the few I've owned). As an example, I have a refurbed '27 upgraded Dragoon that I got for a whopping $200 and used as a range gun along with playing with the bedding. Shot some of the best groups at 100 yards I have shot with a milsurp with the bedding it came from refurb with. Had fun trying various combinations of shims, wraps, etc but only improved it marginally. It would make an excellent repro sniper. Just try to make sure the bore in whatever you're looking at is good or better!
Rudolph
Go for it! They shoot well and, with good reloading, even very well.
If you have a bad trigger, they're easy to improve without making mistakes, just do it going step-by-step.
I made a nice trigger job on my M44, nice rifle with awful trigger. A few minutes and, without trouble, got a great one.
With my 91/30 I shoot as well as with any other rifle I own. The sights are easy to read.
If you have trouble with elevation, think about buying an adjustable front sight from a very nice guy in Canada. Look under euclideanmachine.com and get the one for you.
I first put a bic-pen ink tube on the original sight, then bought a new adjustable front sight from this guy and am now as happy with my soviet friend as I could be.
Rugged, badass and good enough.
I would define a MN this way.
Enjoy!
I see Bad Ace tactical is a sponsor here. I used one of their Mosin Accurizing kits with a $22 AIM scope and $20 scope mount I got from amazon that was made for air guns. I often get 1 moa out of it at 100 M with hand loads. Milsurp is 1.5-3 MOA typically.
I have a '36 Tula. It could be a SCW Mosin, no import marks or Made in USSR. It has a dark bore with good rifling and it shoots great and has one of the best triggers of any of my milsurps.
Mine all shoot as well as my o3A3,i.e. about 2 inches at 100 yards.
Jon
I wouldn't buy the Finn if you intend to modify it. You're paying even more to turn the rifle into something no one else will want. Collectors want original.
I agree with Aragorn. Don't touch a Finn MN. There are lots of Russian ones that are worth much less, although I would never ever touch a Milsurp.
I just treasure them all...............
If I wanted to tinker on one of them I guess I would buy one that has already been altered, so that my conscience would stay quiet.
Apart from that, have fun with that old horse.
I lucked into an ex-sniper for $69 at Dunhams a few years ago. Obviously won't find one for that these days but would be an option if you plan to put a scope on one. I did a do it your selfer with a repro scope and it came out nice. I have problems shooting it due to the eye relief and my eyes. To shoot it, I have to take my glasses off which makes me blind to anything but what is in the scope. So I haven't shot it yet.
There are a wide variety of Finn owned 91/30's ranging from all original matching parts/ finish to no original matching parts. The latter are cheap (up here, at least) but do have the advantage of looking like period correct rifles as opposed to the dip bluing and, often, unused replacement stocks of the Soviet refurbs. One of these less collectable Finns might make a great looking faux sniper.
Ridolpho
Actually before you say how accurate a rifle is you have to ask: what is the test condition? specifically:
A) How many shots in the group?
B) Do you define accurate by the average groups of "A" shots or the smallest achieved or the worst achieved? Different folks use all three measures to measure group size
C) With what ammunition? Factory surplus ball or hand loads using Lapua match bullets? That will have an effect on "B " above.
D) Do you make a differentiation between group size and center point of aim? Said another way, do you care or measure the deviation of the point of aim as a rifle heats up and over the sequence of a range session?
E) What influence does position hold points or sling pressure induce on the center of the group relative to the point of aim. Different designs show a marked difference in the influence of sling tension for example.
The above really affects the result:
Competitive shooters tend to evaluate groups sizes with 10 shots, take the worst group with any called flyers disregarded, match ammo and pay high attention to any deviation due to forend pressures or other influences that affect the fall of the shot relative to the point of aim.
A lot of guys test their guns by: 3 to 5 shot groups, of whatever ball ammunition is available , and more or less select for the smallest or average group size, while ignoring the deviation from the point of aim. That is where folks come up with 1 MOA rifles firing ball ammo.
As a general rule most WWII era rifles could be expected to put 5 shots in under 4.5 MOA at 100 Y/M for a rifle rest with an experienced rifleman.
Certainly the Mosin Nagant rifles could be accurate, as evidenced by the Mosin Snipers and Mosin match guns made up post war.
Older thread but it is at the top...and I am watching computers work....so.
I have 4....all different flavors. I generally talk a 5 shot group.....I have one that will do a fist sized group....one that will be lucky to put 5 shots on a 4x8 sheet of plywood....the rest in between.
Condition is so much to do with it....if you want a shooter get one that is the best mechanically that you can find....if you need something that will fill a hole in your collection you might get a sewer pipe.....and that is ok....it is not why you bought it in the first place.
They really are unique rifles, and non of mine have had any real issues in running the gun. They work fine, they are pretty smooth....they are still about the best bang for the buck out there for a full power rifle cartridge.
That all said remember you can go to walmart and buy a new savage axis that will shoot far better for about the same money.....I don't understand the bubba mentality in "improving" them...you never improve it to the point where it is going to shoot better then a new factory rifle....even something as lowly as a savage....and I LOVE savage, but you could toss ruger american and all the others in that price range.
That's not quite true...but I agree for sure about Nagant rifles. They're probably at peak from the factory.Quote:
Originally Posted by cherokee
They peaked when the Finns captured them and were finished with them. Otherwise, yes, they peaked at the factory.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I hear so many stories about 91/30's, the worst being having to beat the bolt open with a section of 2x4 after every shot, most likely because they are using cheap, steel cased and heavily coated shells that melt and stick. If I was only allowed to keep one Mosin Nagant, it would be my Finn 38. I also have a Finn 91/30 that probably had little done except a replaced front sight and a bit of trigger work. Previous owner claimed sticky bolt which was most likely shellacked shell casings because I haven't had an issue with it.
Don't forget failed to clean the cosmoline out of the chamber and locking lugs properly. If you fail to do that, you will cause all sorts of lovely issues to your rifles, such as the bolt being stuck shut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
To make sure I understand correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
You think an 80 year old rifle that is realistically going to cost you in stock condition $200, then you are going to put minimum $200 more, before glass into it is going to shoot better then say a Savage Axis II with glass that has a MSRP at a tick over $400?
If I understand that correctly I think you iz crazy.
I will take that challenge any day.
I can't imagine what you drank before not understanding what I said. No you don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by cherokee
Nagant rifles are at their peak from the factory. Civilian rifles have potential for improvement, bedding, sights, trigger packages...I would never put money into a cheap rifle to make it a target rifle. It's not worth it.
However, a cheap rifle might make a good candidate for can we blow this thing up? You Tube out there with a couple of guys trying just that with a Nagant. I don't think they ever fully broke it but they made it so it wouldn't work. Took something like 10 attempts and some very special powders packed fully into the case.
Agreed. Shows many things are over engineered...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
Since this thread got bumped, I discovered the hard way at a match last weekend that these were not designed to use a hasty sling... noticed when I used my sling my shots were way low, by the time it was over my rear sight was at 400 and still shooting about 2.5-3" low at 100. Had no idea why it happened, but in the middle of the night had a thought about the difference in doctrine, mainly how to the users of these rifles, a sling was just something to carry it with.
Next morning I checked the gun, and found it extremely easy to pull the fore end down when rigged up like that due to how thin the wood is, loose barrel bands probably not helping. Why it didn't happen my last match no idea, though I recall ditching the sling after sitting sighters because it was annoying me and too short for whatever reason that day. Next time I will probably just try to wrap the sling around the handguard and fore end together. Funny the things you learn...
Finn Rifles can of course be improved by making the same improvements the Finns made. The M/28 became a M/28-30 which IMO is the most accurate of the Finnish battle issued rifles. Then they were improved with the M/28-57. Stocks were shimmed and sometimes bedded. Rear Diopter was added and front tunnel. Then came the M/28-76 which they changed the stock, bedded some of them, and upgraded the trigger on some as well to the TKIV M/85 trigger. I just bought one of those triggers. I will likely install it in my M/28-76. So yes a Finnish rifle can be improved upon after it leaves the arsenal.
As for the Finnish Captured Russian Mosins such as the 91/30 they likely have had done to them all that can be done. I would not purchase one if accuracy was my goal unless I was on a very tight budget. I would choose a Swiss Rifle or Enfield instead.
Here is the M/85 trigger. Just a little different than your typical Finnish Mosin Trigger.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...406f6270-1.jpg
One way the Soviets could improve the consistency of the 91/30 accuracy was to wrap the barrel in felt around 7 inches from the end of the barrel, held in place by the upper band and the bands. It is essentially a nodal damping method. I forget but believe the felt was between 110 and 120 mm long. Apparently it was approved for use in both competitive and sniper rifles.
No idea on the average improvement, just read about it years ago and put down as a note.
The Soviets did make low end match rifles out of the 91/30 rifles, with the standard barrel. Some examples are shown in the book "Competitive shooting" A.A. Yur Yev. 1973.
They are shown on page 376 and include the AV, AVL, and BI 7.72, with the AV being nothing more than a regular 91/30 with a slightly shorten barrel, rear sight removed, restocked with a near military stock and an added target sight, set up for 300 m shooting. The sight adjustments were 1.5 cm at that distance on all of the 7.62 models, slightly better than the 2 cm which is standard with western European sight adjustments of that era (10 cm 10 ring @ 300 M).
As far as ammunition, "target" grade cartridges showing D100 of around 10~13 cm @ 300 M (20 shots). The extra cartridges were supposed to show under 9 cm 20 shot grouping at the same distance. The best "extra" lots will show grouping on the order of R 2.5 to 2.7 cm and D100 of 4.8 to 5.1 cm, which is right in line with the GP11 better production lots.
That said I have no idea about how well these rifles shot, as there is precious little information on them and the expected Extra accuracy combined with the various Mosin based match rifles or even the standard service rifle..
Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Ok, we are on the same page....it is flat stupid to pour good money into a 91/30 you are not going to make it any better. And that plastic Savage is going to get you a much better gun then you bubba-ing the thing to death.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by cherokee
I don't know if anyone pointed this out on this thread or not but 91-30's were designed to be fired with the bayonet on. You may want to try that at the range next time. I never could quite figure out in my head what difference the bayonet would make but I guess it changes the barrel resonance or something.
It will do that for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
Accuracy of any military surplus rifle is dependent on the condition. Accuracy in general depends primarily upon the rifleman, the ammo and the rifle. A lot of variables. Most Mosin-Nagant rifles are more accurate than most "riflemen." If you are looking for 1 MOA, buy a modern rifle and a nice scope. If you want a battle veteran rifle, buy a Mosin, or a Mauser, on an Enfield, or .........
All sound thoughts, most rifles are more accurate than their shooter...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainfire
I watched a movie titled "The Winter War" recently and it was truly noteworthy how the actors/re-enactors were struggling to cycle their rifles- often setting them down on the ground and pounding on the bolt handle. This is a characteristic of the standard M91 or 91/30, etc. My bent bolt sniper rifles are very smooth and easily worked due simply to the leverage gained from the longer bolt handle. As far as accuracy goes, I think it's always necessary to remember that the Soviet refurbs may or may not have had much attention payed to the bedding. Some are pretty good, others not so. With regard to bedding, original Soviet documents indicate that solid bedding is necessary under the barrel reinforce with shimming under the front receiver flat being strictly to avoid bending the receiver when tightening the main screw. Finn shimming often seems to not follow this rule, with shims at the front receiver flat and tang intended to simply lift the barrel up out of the channel (float it) without contact under the reinforce. Many of my Finn rifles give the impression of wartime expediency with brass shims tacked in as a quick and dirty method of getting a barreled action into a stock without lots of nitpicky woodworking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
Ridolpho