-
Legacy Member
Originally Posted by
30Three
Secondly the bolt! I'm sorry but that really is clunky and slow.
Again some are better than others, especially because the cock-on-open effort is dependent largely of firing pin spring pressure and internal bearing surfaces fit and finish. Even a bad one can be easily smoothed up, however, even the best MN bolt is not as fast as a rack grade Lee Enfield.
I have mine polished up in a manner that it will run very fast, but if trying to keep the weapon in the shoulder during cycling, the stiffness of the action and short bolt handle slows delivery down to nearly as slow as a Martini-Henry.
Given the circumstances, if it weren't for the rapid production guns such as the MN and the PPSH, the Soviets would probably been down to fighting with stones and pitchforks before long.
- Darren
1 PL West Nova Scotia Regiment 2000-2003
1 BN Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry 2003-2013
-
-
06-14-2016 04:40 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Legacy Member
It is interesting that the Russians originally designed the rifle NOT to have a clear point of release for the trigger. The logic being is it is supposed to be a surprise, and what better way to get a surprise than not having a clear break point (technically makes sense if you are following all the proper marksmanship procedures, practically not so much). However on the M91/30s one of the updates was to make it so there was a clear break point.
As mentioned the Mosin Nagant was very fast to produce, if I remember correctly about one produced from scratch in every 7 hours! It is likely a good thing they didn't have Enfields, I don't think they could have kept up.
-
-