MN 91/30 sniper rifle

[boltaction]

I picked up a nice 1943 MN 91/30 sniper rifle a couple of days ago, one of the ones which were likely FTR'd in the 1950's. It has a 1941 dated scope on it which has nice clear optics. I'm looking forward to taking it to the range some time (in the misty future) when I have time. I find it odd, though, that the scope mount is set up so high. Granted, the Lee Enfield #4(T) has a cheekpiece installed, but compared to the Lee, the Ross and most Mauser sniper rifles, it seems like you have to have your head held fairly high up to get a good sight picture through the scope on the Mosin--almost a "jaw weld" to the stock instead of a cheek weld. Is it my imagination, or would you have your head sticking up a little higher using one of these than you might like to? I collect mostly British, Canadian and German stuff, so don't know a lot about these. Was it an issue at all with Russian snipers getting their heads shot off?

Ed

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[TheSovietSamurai]

Apparently it wasn't an issue, the Soviet snipers were the most successful of the entire war, high mount or not.

[boltaction]

Oh, not arguing with their success. The Eastern Front was massive, with high casualties on both sides, and much close quarters fighting. I'm just wondering if the casualty rates were higher amongst the snipers than expected?

Ed

[Aragorn243]

Casualty rates among the Soviet Snipers were very high but probably due to their training or lack of it. They didn't really have a special school for it, if you shot well, you were sent off for a short training and sent to the front. I've read a couple of books written by Soviet soldiers during WWII and the total lack of regard for their lives by the higher ups is appalling to me.

Casualty rates for Soviet soldiers period were very high. They simply overwhelmed the Germans with numbers if everything else failed.

[fn111557]

Soviet infantry was in 3 ranks;
First rank – Rifle and ammo ( first in line, first to dye )
Second rank – more ammo and a pistol ( use the rifle of the dead guy in front of you, if he tries to turn & run, shoot him with the pistol and use his rifle )
Third rank – pick up whatever you can find to use and don’t turn around or the officers behind you will shoot you.

So I have heard . . .

[mike radford]

There were definitely schools for Soviet snipers. Vassilly Z. was head of such a school in Stalingrad and his students were referred to as "little hares". There were 2000 Soviet female snipers and all were trained in a special sniper school. Public schools had shooter programs for their pre-service age students, who also competed and were given shooters badges and awards. Many snipers were selected based on their prior experience, awards, etc.. They were starting with known talented marksmen and women.

The Soviets had the most advanced snipers and best equiptment when the war opened. They maintained their edge and the Germans never caught up. The early Soviet scopes were designed and licensed by Ziess, licensed and built on equiptment purchased from Zeiss. They learned, simplified and improved the designs. The PEM mount was espeially robust, as were the scopes. The PU was much less expensive, still rugged, simple and effective. It could be manufactured in huge numbers rapidly and cheaply. Huge numbers were effectively fielded. Qunantity has a quality all its own.

If anyone did not train their snipers, it was the US. Give a shooter a scoped rifle and call him the sniper.

[Devious6]

The Russians used their snipers differently than other nations. Get down into the prone position with a PU sniper and look down the iron sights - have a shot at 50 or 100 yards? 200 yards? Iron sights are perfect. Pick up a target at 300 yards or more? You can easily transition to the scope for the shot.

The placement of the PU scope made the rifle - and the soldier - multi-purpose. If you readZaitsev's book you will see that snipers accompanied the troops forward during attacks. In some cases they carried automatic rifles, too. Or, they could use the iron sights as neededuntil they were in position to provide eeper covering fire.

[mikero]

I love my MN sniper, great shooter, love the sight adjustment and sight picture. Re the high mounting, I guess it's simply a matter of access to the iron sites, they are high on the MN,
Mike

[Ridolpho]

boltaction: Getting back to your question, I was curious and placed my No. 4T and my M-N sniper on a rest and compared the "cheek weld". The M-N is lower but still in mid cheek along lower molars. No. 4 felt like a quarter to half inch higher at most- surprising. Actually tried to measure how high off the desk the top of my head was and essentially identical. So the M-N compares well position-wise and allows instant use of iron sights. Fails on aesthetics, of course, but as a weapon of war................

Ridolpho

[MJ1]

Not a big thing to overcome we in the West are spoiled..

300 Yards