PDA

View Full Version : Mauser 98K vs Mosin Nagant 91/30


Big Tom
August 15, 2011, 10:15 PM
Ok so I am writing a paper on the Mauser 98K vs the Mosin Nagant 91/30. I am doing this more for kicks as a research project. I wanted to get a poll on which one of the two rifles you find to be better. If you can state why I would appreciate it. In this we are going to assume ammo is the same in price. I dont want people picking one over the other due to $ involved. Tell me which one you think is the best all around and why. I am dying to know what others have to say on the subject!

hja4941
August 15, 2011, 10:21 PM
I own both and shoot both. I feel the Mauser is smoother in operation and has a better safety. However I think the Mosin holds steadier in off hand shooting. Both are good, but I give the edge to the Mauser.

warbirdlover
August 15, 2011, 10:29 PM
I've owned a couple 98 Mausers and many variations (Mauser Supreme action...Winchester 70... Ruger 77) and because it's the most copied action on the planet I voted for it. I never even heard of the Mosin Nagant until all the commotion in here on them. :)

sigshepardo
August 15, 2011, 10:47 PM
Ive had both rifles. Both were original, not frankenstein rifles. I vote for the mauser. Its smoother and more reliable. Though ballistically speaking, the mosin does have a better b.c. so in theory it would be better for long range. But overall I give it to the Mauser.

golfnutrlv
August 15, 2011, 11:09 PM
They are both good guns.
They both have a proven record of reliability, and service life.

However, in terms of workmanship, and design, from an engineering point of view, the Mauser 98 is altogether better. The Mauser action is one of the simplest, most reliable designs ever.

The Mauser at one point spanned the globe in use, before and after the world war era. During the Boer War, the British were facing Mauser rifles in the hands of the the Boers. The British were stunned by the accuracy and usefulness of the Mauser. The Mauser rifle nearly ended the Lee Enfield rifle prior to World War I, as the British started to develop a Mauser pattern rifle. The design was not ready for the First World War, so the Enfield became part of British history, not a Mauser.

Another example is the Model 1903 Springfield. The rifle is a very good copy of the Mauser action. So good a copy, that the United States payed patent infringment/royalties to Germany prior to World War I.

Finally, the Winchester Model 70 action is based, albeit loosely, off the Mauser action.

Would I hesitate to use a Mosin, no...but I would choose a Mauser every time given the choice.

jimbob86
August 15, 2011, 11:20 PM
Though ballistically speaking, the mosin does have a better b.c. so in theory it would be better for long range.

Bullets have a ballistic coefficient, not rifles ....... what bullet weights were used by the Wehrmacht and the Red Army?

Scorch
August 15, 2011, 11:34 PM
Hands down, the Mauser. Mauser rifles were the rifle to field for the militaries of the world from 1871 well up to the early 1950s. The Mauser brothers had an excellent design acumen, and were able to refine the rifles and field an excellent weapon from the very start. Rather than trying to sell rifles and manufacture them all themselves, they would sell rifles made to specification, or complete tooled up factories complete with consulting engineers (thanks to the excellent business mind of Loewe).

Mosin-Nagant rifles are an excellent example of a peasant-proof rifle, sturdy, and rugged.

MikeG
August 15, 2011, 11:59 PM
I find the Mosin's sights better, and it disassembles and assembles easier.

Daekar
August 16, 2011, 12:45 AM
The Mauser is a high-precision, beautifully designed rifle, and my example has good sights. Kicks like a team of ******-off mules - or feels that way, with the metal butt-plate.

My m44 Mosin Nagant is one of the simplest firearms I've ever seen, and works every time with commie ammo from heaven-knows-when. It is more accurate than I ever expected. Still kicks, but not like the 8mm.

If I needed a full-power carbine, it would be hard to pick between them! Neither of mine are scoped, and ballistically they're really not that different. I think I would take the Mauser hunting just because of the better sights.

Still, there's nothing like the unique smell of surplus Russian ammo from the Cold War. :D

kraigwy
August 16, 2011, 12:57 AM
I voted Mosin for no other reason that its just a heck of a lot of fun to shoot.

savage1r
August 16, 2011, 01:04 AM
Most 7.62x54r ammo is steel core and has a few hundred fps over 8mm. With a Mosin, you better hope you're hiding behind a very thick rock.

Bamashooter
August 16, 2011, 01:15 AM
I killed a doe at over 200yrds. with a mosin nagant m-44 with open sights that some commie put on that rifle along time ago. Comrade did a fine job.

CLC
August 16, 2011, 02:05 AM
I have 8 M/Ns and a couple of Mausers but the simplicity of the M/N wins hands down for me. Im not a soldier so I want a dead nuts reliable rifle with a good round.

twins
August 16, 2011, 06:08 AM
For trench warfare, bayonet-style fighting, I'll take the MN91/30 over the Mauser.

For everything else, Mauser for me please.

zombieslayer
August 16, 2011, 06:27 AM
I have both and prefer the Mosin. But my Mosin is a Finn M39.

ksstargazer
August 16, 2011, 06:35 AM
The common mauser and mosin are both 3-4 MOA rifles. However if you look at particular mauser variations such as the Swedish M96 and the Czech M98/22 or at the mosin variations such as the Finnish M39 or the M91/59 you will find that these rifles are 1-2 MOA. I have dozens of both rifles and enjoy the accurate ones best as I target shoot and hunt with these rifles. What separates the rifles for me is the much more available and generally cheaper 7.62x54 ammo. Both rounds are pretty close in power and ballistics and both were designed well over one hundred years ago. Except for the variations I mentioned above, prices for the mosin are generally much lower than the mausers.
Because of the Finnish mosins, I would have to vote for the mosin.

aarondhgraham
August 16, 2011, 09:14 AM
The guy with the Mosin beat the guy with the Mauser.

But that's Holly-Weird.

Aarond

Slamfire
August 16, 2011, 09:31 AM
When the Russians adopted the Mosin Nagant in 1888 the competition was not that much better. However in 1892 Paul Mauser released the M1892 action which was so advanced that every other military rifle actions became obsolescent. In its various forms, including the M1894/M1895/M1896, the 1892 stuck around until WW2. The Swedes were still making m1896’s during WW2.

The M98 action is the best overall bolt action every built. Given that all actions are compromises between strength, safety, function, cost, the M98 is still the best. Once the M98 went into production I will say that all other bolt actions were obsolete.

The Russian Nagant action is crude, clunky, five round magazine box sticking well below the stock, awful trigger pull, and it is uses a rimmed cartridge. The safety is positive but slow. There are better safeties. To the mechanically challenged, the bolt is easy to take apart but hard to put together. I was surprised that twice a retired Army Major, a Vietnam combat veteran, brought me his Nagant bolt to reassemble. Seemed obvious to me, but not so obvious to him. Some people have to be taught by rote how to do some simple tasks. It is better if the task is simple to start with.

However once a Government commits to a project, changing things costs just that much more. So the Russians stayed with the Mosin Nagant, the British the Lee Enfield, and the French the Berthier.

Antique Shooter
August 16, 2011, 10:06 AM
Tough choice. I have 2 Mauser's, and 3 Mosin Nagants. Accuracy is great for both, I get a 1 inch group at easy at 50yds with the Mauser's, and consistantly hit 6 inch plates at 300 yds with the Mosin's. One of my Mosin's is even a certified sniper.

The Mauser's action is a little smoother, has a bent bolt, safety is good, and it doesn't let you bolt if there isn't any rounds left. Mosin's safety is awful, has a straight bolt, and the trigger is a little heavy.

Don't get me wrong they are both great rifles, but I am going to go with the Mauser (Awful safety really hurt the Mosin.)

Antique Shooter

doofus47
August 16, 2011, 10:30 AM
I can't vote: I liked both of mine....

viciouskitty
August 16, 2011, 11:11 AM
I find the Mosin's sights to be much better than my mauser's I can hit at longer range and more rapidly than with a mauser. My hunting rifle a 98 mauser derivative and thats a great gun but in its stock wartime configuration in my eyes its the mosin all the way!!

hornetguy
August 16, 2011, 11:52 AM
Mauser.

No contest as to which is the "better" action/rifle.

The pre/early war mausers were absolute works of gunmaker art. Actions that were practically hand-fitted, no machine marks visible, smooth, SMOOTH actions, deep lustrous bluing... just beautiful. And they were BATTLE rifles. Positive controlled feeding, extraction and firing. Solid action, not a split rear ring.

I'm not that familiar with the "K" version, but the overall design is just head and shoulders above the Mosin.

.... and I LIKE the Mosin. But, as stated before, it was more of a "peasant-proof" design. It functioned well, but had some design compromises.

FrankenMauser
August 16, 2011, 02:38 PM
I can't vote, unless the scope of the question is narrowed a bit.

Best in terms of production cost and time?
Best in terms of battlefield performance?
Best in terms of reliability?

They are both good designs, but they both have their shortcomings and strengths.

The Mosin is a better rifle for arming massive armies of uneducated conscripts.

The Mauser has a better home in the hands of a precision shooter, or civilian.

Jo6pak
August 16, 2011, 04:31 PM
Didn't even hesitate to pick the K98.
Better handling, better round, better built, better safety= better rifle

Big Tom
August 16, 2011, 04:46 PM
I can't vote, unless the scope of the question is narrowed a bit.

The best all around is the best all around. You will have to figure that out. Everything is a factor in a gun. That's why some choose the AR and others the AK.

tahoe2
August 16, 2011, 06:49 PM
I have 4 mausers; 2 Spanish(1 rifle 1 carbine), 1 Yugo, & 1 German 98k.
Love them mausers, well balanced, accurate, and 100% reliable and plenty
of power. 2-7x57mm and 2-8x57mm. the yugo is sporterized (stock, trigger, scope, low bolt handle & safety) 1-1/2" @ 100 yards, the rest are in military guise 2"-5" open sights @ 100 yards , all with handloads (no hot loads).
Never shot a Mosin, but those that I know, who have, love them.

Hawg
August 16, 2011, 06:58 PM
Mauser hands down. The MN is clunky, chunky and crude.

sc928porsche
August 16, 2011, 07:35 PM
I own a lot of mausers - 91's, 93's, 95's, 96's, and 98"s. I also own some mosins - 91/30's and 44's. The mosins are crude but simple and reliable. The mausers are much more refined but still very reliable. If price were of no concern, the obvious choice would be the mauser. There is good reason why so many rifles are built from their design (both military and civilian).

FrankenMauser
August 17, 2011, 02:36 AM
The best all around is the best all around. You will have to figure that out. Everything is a factor in a gun. That's why some choose the AR and others the AK.

"Best all around" seems like a simple concept, but military requirements (and military "best") are vastly different than civilian requirements (and civilian "best").

Best military: Mosin.
Best civilian: Mauser.
;)

Gunplummer
August 17, 2011, 01:44 PM
Why don't you add the Arisaka to your paper? The Russian bolt is a nightmare compared to an Arisaka bolt. Most of the ones I have shot that were 1943 and older shot pretty good. The Arisaka is just as strong as a Russian and weighs a lot less. I just sold a type 99 at an auction that was reworked during the Korean war by the U.S. to 30.06. The Koreans could not deal with complicated guns like the M-1 so they reworked thousands of Arisakas. The Russians actually bought Arisakas and I think England may have at one time also because I have some old Knyoch (spelling?) military ammo in 6.5 Japanese. The Arisaka is the easiest of all three to sporterize and throw a scope on. If you look at all three, the Russian does not have a lot going for it. I vote Mauser-Arisaka-Russian

hornetguy
August 17, 2011, 02:45 PM
Why don't we do a list of "known" issues with both designs?

Mosin is known to have trouble feeding, due to the rimmed case. There are fixes, but it is a known problem.
Mosin is known to have accuracy issues if the bayonet is not mounted and extended (with some models)

Mauser.... I don't know of any "known" issues with it. It feeds cartridges like butter, no matter how energetically (or not) that the bolt is cycled...and accuracy is not dependent on any accessories being mounted or not..

Controlled round feeding and an extractor that grabs a HUGE amount of rim should make it quite a bit more reliable under battle conditions.
In "dangerous" situations, the Mauser style or its variants are nearly always the choice. Dangerous game rifles (bolt action) nearly always require controlled round feeding and a mauser style claw extractor. I have NEVER heard of a dangerous game rifle being built on a Mosin action.

Like I stated earlier, I really like the Mosin, but if I had a choice between those two rifles to carry into combat, I would choose the Mauser everytime.

hornetguy
August 17, 2011, 02:48 PM
I don't have any experience with the Arisaka rifle, but I've heard that in testing to destruction, it was one of the strongest actions found.

Gunplummer
August 17, 2011, 03:38 PM
It was the steel they used. I think the Chec Mausers were the only WWII rifles with a better grade steel. Some of you Mauser types might know if it was the Chec's or the Polish Mausers that had special tool steel receivers, I am not sure anymore which it was. Other than that, the steel and heat treating process seems about the same for Mauser or Russian receivers. Nothing wrong with it. The case hardening makes the Mauser and Russian more resistant to abrasive wear and does make the action smoother.

Bamashooter
August 17, 2011, 03:44 PM
I have a Hungarian M-44 thats a beautiful mosin nagant. I did a homemade bedding job on it and even though the mauser is more refined and generally accepted as the better rifle I would put the M-44 against any mauser in the accuracy dept. Its that good of a shooter.

meatgrinder42
August 17, 2011, 05:00 PM
K98, there is a reason the Mauser's action made all others at the time obsolete and is the most copied action in the world. It's action has an extra locking lug, the long claw extractor which also helps with controlled feeding, oiling/failed cartridge gas ports which divert the gas into the magazine vs. along the bolt's length into the shooter's face, and the three position safety. I would also add the bent bolt handle but that's more of a personal liking.

I'm not saying the M91 is a bad rifle, I've owned one and it was fun to take out to the range but I hated the sights.

People keep saying the M/N is easier to disassemble than the Mauser. How do you figure? 99% of bolt actions disassemble the same, pull the bolt catch and remove the bolt from the rear. The bolt is harder to take apart but you don't need to in order to oil it, via the two 'failed cartridge' gas reliefs in the bolt's body.

To me it's a hands down Mauser, I would have no problem carrying a Kar98 into battle in WW2.

FrankenMauser
August 18, 2011, 12:14 AM
Mosin is known to have trouble feeding, due to the rimmed case. There are fixes, but it is a known problem.
Mosin is known to have accuracy issues if the bayonet is not mounted and extended (with some models)

Mauser.... I don't know of any "known" issues with it. It feeds cartridges like butter, no matter how energetically (or not) that the bolt is cycled...and accuracy is not dependent on any accessories being mounted or not..

Malfunctioning Mosins have trouble feeding. A properly functioning Mosin feeds better than a Mauser (every case is in exactly the same position, before being pushed into the chamber).

Mauser accuracy is dependent upon proper inletting for the stepped barrel. Take any shortcuts, and the POI starts to walk, as the barrel heats up.
And feeding can take a quick turn for the worse, when dirt gets into the magazine box (usually causing more issues when feeding from the left, than the right).
Mausers should also be considered incapable of being single-loaded with any reasonable speed. The claw extractor was not designed to snap over cartridge rims, with any regularity. As such, cartridges must be single-loaded into the magazine. The Mosin does not suffer from the same issue.


They're both great rifles, in their own right. ...But they're very different rifles, designed for very different usage and maintenance. ;)

Josh Smith
August 18, 2011, 05:12 AM
Hello,

Ever hear of the Tkiv 85? It's a modern sniper's rifle, but uses old receivers. Very precise.

It's a Mosin-Nagant.

Made to the same quality (say, pre-WWII MN91/30 vs M98), the Mosin-Nagant will usually beat the Mauser in the accuracy/precision department if one can get past the MN's trigger.

Additionally, the MN is conscripted-peasant-proof, and dang near indestructible.

Sticky bolt is caused by cosmoline. Clean it out.

Either will shoot more precisely than the operator, but the precision edge does usually go the Mosin-Nagant (properly manufactured).

Reliability may go to the Mauser due to its large extractor claw and controlled-feed design. This is theoretical, however. The Mosin-Nagant is put together in such a way that the push-feed does not cause malfunctions.

Massage the trigger, wrap the barrel in oiled felt, change out the sights to something better, and proceed to outshoot modern sporter rifles.

Josh

ohen cepel
August 18, 2011, 05:36 AM
I have fired them side by side and prefer the Mauser much more than the Mosin because of the ergonomics of the Mauser. The bolt operates much easier/better for me, especially from the bench. The safety is also easier to use on the Mauser and the overall length (the M91) of the Mauser makes it much easier to handle/maneuver.

The Mauser went on to be come a highly successful and copied action used by many companies and countries all over the world. I'm not aware of the Mosin having any commercial success and their military contracts were to states with no other options (many puppets).

For me, it's the Mauser hand's down.

hornetguy
August 18, 2011, 08:39 AM
Massage the trigger, wrap the barrel in oiled felt, change out the sights to something better, and proceed to outshoot modern sporter rifles.



Perhaps that's true, but put the same amount of effort into a Mauser (which is unnecessary, by the way) and you would probably get a corresponding improvement.
I believe the OP wanted to discuss the two rifles as they were put into service... not what they COULD become with lots of TLC.

Wrap the barrel in oiled felt? What?? :confused: Where do you even FIND oiled felt? How do you keep the oil from getting all over everything? What does it do? Do you wrap it tightly? Counter-clockwise? How often do you have to change the oil? :p

Seriously... still, hands down, the Mauser. AND, I'll still take my Mosin out nearly every time I go to the range. Along with my Swedish mauser deer rifle, and my 1909 Argentine mauser .35 Whelen elk rifle. Hopefully, someday, I'll even get to USE it on an elk :D

Josh Smith
August 18, 2011, 09:43 AM
Perhaps that's true, but put the same amount of effort into a Mauser (which is unnecessary, by the way) and you would probably get a corresponding improvement.
I believe the OP wanted to discuss the two rifles as they were put into service... not what they COULD become with lots of TLC.

Wrap the barrel in oiled felt? What?? Where do you even FIND oiled felt? How do you keep the oil from getting all over everything? What does it do? Do you wrap it tightly? Counter-clockwise? How often do you have to change the oil?

If you were to shoot pre-WWII specimens, one of each, chances are good the Mosin-Nagant would have the edge right from the factory (and I say pre-WWII because quality was going to crap on both sides, especially from '42 on).

As for the felt thing:

1. Find felt at Walmart or your fabric store of choice.

2. Lightly oil it.

3. Tightly wrap it around the barrel until it fits tightly between the handguard and lower forearm.

Floating a barrel is a good thing -- IF it's not a pencil-thin military barrel. If it is a military barrel, you want to try to make it one with the handguard to eliminate harmonics as much as possible. I use rubberized cork gasket material. The Soviet Snipers used felt -- same idea.

In fact, many German snipers tossed their 'scoped K98s in favor of the Mosin-Nagant sniper's rifle when fighting over that way. A bit more precise and not nearly so many problems in inclement weather as the Mauser.

The Mauser does have improved ergonomics and a stronger extractor, but that's really about it.

Josh

Webleymkv
August 18, 2011, 10:14 AM
Assuming we're talking about a Kar98k pattern rifle (I would include the Czech VZ-24 and Yugo M48 in this category), I'd say it's six in one hand and half a dozen in the other. Both rifles have proven themselves to be boringly reliable, both are more accurate than most shooters are capable of appreciating, and the difference in terminal performance between 7.62x54R and 7.92x57 is negligable. I find the Mauser to have a more easily manipulated safety and it is smoother to load with stripper clips. The Mosin-Nagant, on the other hand, seems to me to have a smoother bolt throw and iron sights which I can see better. While the Mosin is much longer, it doesn't seem to be as muzzle-heavy as I would expect and thus both rifles balance about equally well in the hand.

Jimro
August 18, 2011, 01:09 PM
The Tkiv 85 was a sniper rifle only used by Finland. The vast majority of Mosin sniper rifles were on the PU pattern.

However, the Mauser is not without it's sniper brethren. The C3, Parker Hale M85, and Israeli Mauser are also still in use as sniper rifles. The Norse still use a Mauser based (Santa Barbara action if I remember correctly) sniper rifle.

And heavy barreled M98 "sniper" rifles are still being manufactured for public consumption by Zastava. I don't know of any current manufacture of Mosin pattern rifles.

That being said, the Canadians have been retiring the C3, the Brits moved on to the Accuracy Internation platform, the Finns moved on to the Sako TRG, and the Israelis relegated the Mauser to a reserve Police unit.

So when it comes to which is better, the Mauser is still being manufactured, and the Mosin is not. The market has spoken.

Jimro

Gunplummer
August 18, 2011, 03:31 PM
The Germans "tossed their Mausers in favor of Russian rifles". Where do people come up with this nonsense? Running out of 8mm ammo might be the cause of that rumor. Way too many people watching movies and "Myth Busters". The truth is the Russians wanted to dump that rifle not long after it was put into service. With internal problems, being broke and getting into wars they just could not manage it. Look at the junk they came up with when they tried to make a semi-auto. The Russians had such a stock pile of rimmed ammo they tried to design the rifle around the cartridge. Their bolt actions are the same way, designed around the cartridge. There is nothing special about Russian rifles, they are around so long because it was not practical to get rid of them. Most other countries got rid of the rimmed cartridge as fast as they could.

Bamashooter
August 19, 2011, 01:00 AM
I have a 1929 Izhevsk Hex reciever, 1953 Hungarian, A 91/59 made from a 1942 Izhevsk rifle. The '29 and Hungarian are very well built rifles. Fit and finish is good, not like wartime made rifles. The 91/59 is very light and accurate. Good carbine. The Hungarian is a little more accurate but alot heavier. I always have fun shooting them. So does alot of other folks. Fun factor is high.

I like Fabrique Nationale mausers and this one in 7.62 Nato would be a good one to have in the collection.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=247090530

Josh Smith
August 19, 2011, 09:14 AM
Hello,

The Mosin-Nagant is still being manufactured. Give me time and I'll find the link between building sights and messing with this Gewehr 88.

Josh

Gunplummer
August 19, 2011, 11:07 AM
Anybody know for sure if the Finns manufactured Russian receivers? I believe they " inherited" so much Russian equipment that they just adopted it for economic reasons.

44 AMP
August 19, 2011, 12:47 PM
The Mauser action had been made in dozens of cartridges, millions of sporter rifles are patterened on, if not made directly from the Mauser action. I have had Mauser sporters in calibers ranging from .22-250 to .458 Win Mag.

The Moisin Nagant action has been made in only one caliber, and the only sporters made on it are the ones done my individuals.

I find the russian action to be clunky and awkward.

Both rifles in military trim served well, and both are capable of adequate accuracy. Comparisons between individual rifles only tell you about the individual rifles. One cannot truthfully say one is more accurate than the other, just because the one you have shoots better than the other.

The Mauser is more refined, and vastly more versatile when you go beyond straight military issue.

One reason there is a myth about the Mauser not being good in the extreme cold of the Eastern Front is because of the oil the Germans used. Not the rifle itself. What still works ok around freezing can turn to glue at 20+ below zero. The Soviets had extensive experience in this area that the Germans did not. The Germans learned, and compensated, but it took some time, so the legend got traction.

Personally, and speaking only of rifles in issue condition, I find the Mauser to be easier to use, especially those models with a bent bolt handle.

TCL
August 19, 2011, 03:11 PM
Josh - that's the first I've ever heard of the Mosin still being in production. Where are they still being made?

Gunplummer - Finland did not manufacture receivers. All of their Mosins were built on Russian/Soviet receivers. They inherited a large quantity of Mosins from Russia; they also inherited many Mausers and even some former Austro-Hungarian Mannlichers at the end of WWI, and did a lot of horse-trading with other newly-independent European countries during the 1920s and 30s. Most of these new countries had a mix of these weapons; some standardized on Mausers, some standardized on Mannlichers, and some had a little of everything, but only Finland standardized on the Mosin.

An example of some of the travels these Mosins saw, from my collection: I have a Finnish 91/30 with a 1944 Tikkakoski barrel and a 1914 Izhevsk receiver marked AZF, which is an Austrian arsenal mark. The original rifle, either an M91 infantry rifle or an M91 Dragoon, was captured by the Austrians and overhauled during the war. There's no telling where it was when the Hapsburg Empire collapsed, but somehow the rifle - or maybe just the receiver - ended up in Finland, where eventually the receiver was used to build my shiny like-new 91/30.

Jimro
August 20, 2011, 07:53 AM
Josh, you posted this over at "gun and game" http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/mosin-nagant/120640-new-2011-production-mosin-nagants-sks.html and even there you can't do anything but point to a company selling "sporterized" mosins.

Seriously, no one is making new Mosin Nagant receivers, it isn't economically rewarding when you can buy the whole dang rifle for less cost. Russians may be new at capitalism, but they aren't stupid.

Jimro

obxned
August 20, 2011, 08:48 AM
Stalingrad answered this question.

Scouse
August 20, 2011, 08:59 AM
I recently wrote my undergrad dissertation on the Lee Enfield in the First World War, so a similar sort of thing really. Sounds like an awesome project!

For my money, the Mauser gets it, I can't really think of an area in which the Mosin is substantially better. Both are generally accurate, reliable and tough. The Mauser is generally more accurate, no less reliable and equally tough. The Mauser has a better, smoother bolt with a nice controlled extraction . . . there is a reason its action and variations thereof have dominated the sporting rifle world.

The Mosin was good when it was designed, for what it was designed for, arming Russian conscript armies round the turn of the 19th Century. It performed sterling service in two world wars, as did the Mauser. The Mosin is a very simple piece of technology, ideally suited to mass production and citizen armies . . . but its not like the Mauser is difficult!

All round, the Mauser is a better rifle and is surely one of the all time classics of firearms history. Well, thats what I reckon anyway . . . and I have only shot these rifles a couple of times, would love to own them both one day.

Good luck with your project!

Eghad
August 20, 2011, 09:19 AM
I own both....

I would have to give the Mauser the nudge in terms of finish workmanship.

The both still go boom when I pull the trigger which is important for a military rifle.

Jimro
August 20, 2011, 11:46 AM
Saying that Stalingrad decided the mosin/mauser debate is like saying Vietnam decided the AR/AK debate...

Whereas Mauser 98's have been continually manufactured for the last 113 years, and Mosins have not.

Jimro

LOUD
August 25, 2011, 05:57 PM
I find this question akin to comparing a mercedes to a donkey cart. Hands down MAUSER . And yes I own both!............LOUD

Glockgrabber
August 25, 2011, 08:12 PM
Mauser, one can cycle it faster, and it has a safety.

Josh Smith
August 25, 2011, 08:46 PM
I cycle the Mosin-Nagant and m88/05 Commission Rifle the same speed -- quickly.

The Mosin has a safety, and it's not as loud to use! ;)

Josh

radom
August 25, 2011, 09:46 PM
I have to go 98 also but I tend to not much care for the Nagant.

fatwhiteboy
August 26, 2011, 10:24 PM
I pick the Mosin. You can use the barrel for a jack handle to change a tire, the bayonet for a tire iron and not lose any accuracy...

svaz
August 28, 2011, 12:32 AM
For the individual soldier, I'd say the Mauser. For an army of over 5,000,000, the Mosin.

graysmoke
September 5, 2011, 06:00 PM
Smedish Mauser 6.5x55 caliber sniper rifle.....The Best

troopcom
September 5, 2011, 10:51 PM
The only thing I can say is that I like the action on the Mauser, but the Russians did beat the Germans carrying the Mauser! Now that might open a whole other can of worms, but you got to hand to the Ruskies!!!

Doug S
September 5, 2011, 11:53 PM
I'm pretty sure their rifles were not the deciding factor in the eventual Russian defeat of Germany on the Eastern Front.:)

I own both. I like them both. The Mauser does appear to be the more refined of the two. It also handles better being that it is shorter and more ergonomic IMO. You might want to consider ammo availability in your choice. Mosin is also a good bit cheaper if that matters. I would say pick a Mosin up just because they are so cheap.

mmontag
September 13, 2011, 05:45 AM
I have a few of both rifles. My mausers feel more ballanced and fit my shoulder better but the most accurate out of the group is my M44 which was counterbored. The 91/30's that I have seem to be more accurate than the mausers, even my M24/47 with a brand new barrel. I also like the 7.62 round better since it seems to be more accurate farther out. I like the fact that I can drop a round into the Mosin Nagant chamber and close the bolt, and I can cycle the Mosin bolt faster because it has such of a short handle on it. I'll have to go with the Mosin Nagant M44 since I just love the way it looks and shoots, it sounds awesome and throws out a huge fireball. It's a little front heavy with the permanently attached bayonet but it just looks great.

hornetguy
September 13, 2011, 08:27 AM
The only thing I can say is that I like the action on the Mauser, but the Russians did beat the Germans carrying the Mauser! Now that might open a whole other can of worms, but you got to hand to the Ruskies!!!

It's the fighting men's spirit more than the tool used at play in that conflict.

It would be different if it were repeating rifles against single shots, or muzzle loaders... then the tool would be the deciding factor. The Comanches with their bows and arrows totally dominated the plains until the rangers acquired the repeating Paterson Colt pistol, then the Walker. That tool pretty much turned the tide.

My dad was in the Philippines in WWII, and had a couple of civilian brothers fighting with his company. He said they had one rifle between them. They got trapped under a bridge by several Japanese soldiers, and managed to rejoin my dad's unit shortly afterwards. The enemy soldiers did not. He said that one rifle sounded like a machine gun with those two brothers working it.
It's not always the tool.

zbones6
February 27, 2012, 05:32 PM
I only have a mosin, but it depends on the individual rifle. I know Mausers are renowned for their accuracy, but if you get a good pre-war mosin that saw limited use, they are just as accurate. the mosin will shoot no matter what happens to it, has a much simpler action, and better sights. My vote goes to the Mosin Nagant, assuming its a pre war strait shooter.

FairWarning
February 27, 2012, 08:33 PM
M-A-U-S-E-R

It isn't highly sought after and respected by accident.

And if we are going to discuss WWII history, please don't try to simplilfy things. :o Hitler's arrogance and the same Russian winter that stomped Napoleon were the main causes for the German defeat, along with a massive population of fighting age Russian men with great spirit.

TEEMEAD
February 27, 2012, 09:13 PM
I own a 91/30 and an 8mm oberndorf 1934 it's a bit longer than the k98 but i love both rifles. The nagant is easier 2 figure out but once you shoot the mauser a few times and get the sighting down it's a good shooting gun if you don't mind a black and blue shoulder but the nagant kicks pretty good itself. It's a hard choice but i think the mauser edges out the nagant on sheer beauty and craftsmanship. The mauser action is superior 2 the nagant but the nagant is rugged and a good gun. I like both but mauser wins in my book lol. YOU NEED 2 GO WORKOUT BE4 YOU USE THE NAGANT SAFETY BUT THE MAUSERS DOES GO CLICK BUT I DON'T THINK THAT MATTERS.

greeenie
February 27, 2012, 09:30 PM
so far, the Mosin is a great rifle, finish is terrible(redoing it) but it functions flawlessly and i do enjoy it. Seems the mauser is a better rifle, but not quite as cheap. I paid 100 bucks for my mosin and i really cannot complain

Mueller
February 27, 2012, 09:34 PM
Let's forget Hype and who won what carrying what for a moment....lets compare the individual rifles.

M98 S/42 1938 (Kar 98) 7.92x57 JS 43.70" OAL EW 8.6 lbs Barrel 23.62" 5 shot magazine

MV of 1940's era 7.9 mm Patr. S.M.K. 177.9 gr 2624 fps 5 shot average my rifle

Soviet MN 91/30 7.62x54R 48.43" OAL EW 8.82 lb Barrel 28.75" 5 Shot Magazine

MV of 1940's era Soviet light ball 147.6 gr 2800 fps 5 shot average my rifle.

Now the measured BC of each bullet is:

German .498 uncorrected for temp and altitude
Soviet .363 uncorrected for temp and altitude

At longer ranges the 7.92 bullet has an advantage

Handling, with or without bayonet the Mauser handles better than the std MN 91/30

Sights I cannot say one is better than the other, provided the sight hood is present on the Mauser, if not then the MN has the advantage.

Accuracy with war surplus at 100 meters both rifles held to about 3 +- inches for 5 rounds, which was probably more due to the shooters and the ammunition than the rifles ( I was running the Chrono that day as well as being the RO)

For issue to a conscript minimally trained army, they rate about the same, since it normally requires a Sergeant's boot placed strategically (usually more than once) to keep the rifles cleaned, until the Darwin effect of warfare thins the herd and clues in the rest, that take care of your rifle and it will take care of you....or until you can pick up an automatic weapon of some type and leave that heavy clunky rifle for someone else.

Fit and finish, pretty comparable up to 1942, then both sides took short cuts.

I like the controlled feed of the Mauser and magazine over that used in the MN 91/30 and the safety:eek: I talked to an older fellow who lives nearby who fought in the Soviet army and he said he never bothered with the safety, because by the time you wrestled off safe some......what he called them is not printable in any language...German grenadier was now sharing your position doing his best to kill you.

Sturmgewehre
February 27, 2012, 10:47 PM
I would also vote for the Mauser. The Mauser is a very robust and reliable bolt action design. The Mauser's action was very strong, it could easily handle the high pressure of modern cartridges which lent it well to chambering in magnum calibers in the civilian world.

The Mauser inspired other rifle designs such as the M1903/1903A3 and the M1917 used by the United States in WWI and WWII. It was also the basis for the Japanese Arisaka rifle used by their armed forced in WWII. It was the basis for the British P14 Enfield, Czech Vz.24 and even the Chinese Zhongzheng Rifle.

Today the Mauser action is still quite popular in the civilian world. The Winchester Model 70 is based on the Mauser action and many custom sporter rifles built throughout the 20th century were based on its action.

Mosinka
February 28, 2012, 01:50 AM
Mosin is fun to shoot. Mosin-Nagant M44 has muzzle flash longer than gun. Here is comrade friend shooting my M44. Nice. Kill deer and cook deer with one shot!!!

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/417318_1960770715857_1740503818_1008110_71163046_n.jpg

zbones6
January 6, 2013, 07:07 PM
I now have a Yugo M-48 mauser. Early production, never fired by anybody except me. My Mosin is a 1938 Izzy round, beautiful bore and excellent finish. I, once again, give my vote to the Mosin.

tahunua001
January 7, 2013, 06:51 PM
HOLY ZOMBIE THREAD BATMAN!!!

as I tend to hate COO mausers I tend to hold them in pretty low reguard but in this case there is no comparison.

the 91/30 is a horribly designed rifle with a stiff action, rough tool marks, poor sights and a floor plate that allows the magazine to fill with dirt, snow, mud, soot and grime in a WWII type combat environment.

the Mauser also has horrible sights but the action is much smoother and the floorplate does a much better job of sealing the magazine from outside debris. the K98 is also a more compact design.

Blue Duck
January 7, 2013, 09:13 PM
Well the Mauser is a much more refined weapon, and of course has had more customs built on it then probably any rifle. Used all over the world as hunting rifle, in design.

But the Mosin is a great rifle in it's own right. You mentioned the floor plate letting in dirt, but I just went an looked at my M44 and you can remove the floorplate in 2 seconds and clean it out and put it back in in nothing flat. The Mosin is pretty well thought out and one thing that hasn't been mentioned is one of the most famous snipers that ever lived, killed over 500 of the enemy in 6 months time during the winter war between Finland and Russia. His favorite rifle was a reworked Mosin. He was Finish soldier and chose the MN over the Swedish 96 mauser for his work.

I would choose the Mauser, but the MN served it purpose well.

tahunua001
January 7, 2013, 10:04 PM
You mentioned the floor plate letting in dirt, but I just went an looked at my M44 and you can remove the floorplate in 2 seconds and clean it out and put it back in in nothing flat. The Mosin is pretty well thought out and one thing that hasn't been mentioned is one of the most famous snipers that ever lived, killed over 500 of the enemy in 6 months time during the winter war between Finland and Russia. His favorite rifle was a reworked Mosin. He was Finish soldier and chose the MN over the Swedish 96 mauser for his work.


your point is well noted and for you and me out hunting or something a gummed up magazine is no big problem, a deer may get away from us but it's no big deal. in combat however, having to continually clean out your magazine is a serious problem and failures to feed during a firefight can prove fatal. also the Finnish M39 is a completely different animal from the 91/30. though they are both nearly identical, the Fins manufactured to much higher standards requiring both higher accuracy and tighter tolerances, leaving smaller gaps for dirt and debris to enter the magazine. I do acknowledge that the 91/30 is a decent rifle for it's intended use and served for over 75 years which is more than just about any other bolt action rifle. as stated I am no fan of the 98 style mausers(though I love 96 style mausers) and actually own a pair of 91/30s that I shoot and enjoy but I really can't try to objectively say that the 91/30 is a superior design to the K98.