PDA

View Full Version : mosin nagants for mall ninjas?


tahunua001
July 16, 2012, 10:22 PM
hello all.
over the course of the spring I have been trying to turn a mosin nagant into a modern hunting rifle. about $400 in and I now have an ugly, heavy, long, inaccurate, and hard to cycle excuse for a thumbhole, sporter rifle.

ok lesson learned, or has it?

ran into these (http://www.cbrps.com/Products.html) bullpup kits for them. kinda spendy to dress up a 150 dollar rifle but an interesting concept given some members plans to manufacture modern tactical style stocks.

I am usually against bullpup conversion kits because they all have horrible triggers, move the muzzle blast 12 inches closer to the shooters face and tend to eject brass into a left handed shooters face but for a bolt action with a 31 inch barrel and an already horrible trigger, all of these problems are either negated or already present in the current design so I am actually interested in trying one out.

anyone ever used one of these?

nimbleVagrant
July 17, 2012, 12:12 AM
It looks awkward to me, but then again, being a lefty, almost all bullpup weapons look awkward to me. The Mosin Nagant action does not lend itself to the bullpup configuration and hanging that 31" barrel out there(which it was never designed for) does not seem conducive to improved or even continued accuracy.

But if you've got money to blow, why not? Might be fun to tinker with it.

.

impalacustom
July 17, 2012, 01:56 AM
It was said best in the movie Christine, "you can't polish a ****"....

L_Killkenny
July 17, 2012, 10:47 AM
Ya, ya learned your lesson and now move on. Mosins are fine if left stock or modified free of charge by home gun smiths but once you start spending money on them you're just better off getting a sporter. Heck, for $50 - $100 more than the $150 stock you can get a used Savage or Stevens that will shoot circles around the mosin and handle like a sporter should.

What you have now is a $400 **** do you really want a $550 ****?

tahunua001
July 17, 2012, 06:13 PM
haha kilkenny, that is exactly where I'm at when I think of sporterizing a mosin.
I would be better off buying a rem 700 from walmart than spending the time and money on a mosin nagant sporter. the bullpup is a slightly different concept though I really can't seeing that project turning out much better.

gun nut
July 17, 2012, 07:10 PM
I'd save the money for a "better" modern hunting rifle. Some of the savages & howas can be found used for pretty good prices.

tobnpr
July 18, 2012, 12:42 AM
Assuming you're talking about the most common 91/30, barrel length is 28-3/4"...

Ugly, is in the eye of the beholder...
Inaccurate? Well...that's relative. IF you have one with a good bore, sharp lands, and good crown, they can shoot minute of angle with handloads- mine does.
If you've got a sewer pipe, ain't gonna happen. Nor, is it gonna happen with milsurp ammo.

Before putting money- and/or time- into a Mosin, you need to find out if it shoots, first...

If you put it into a Richards or Boyd's thumbhole, did you at least bed the receiver? Install pillars? These are things you would do with any rifle-especially one with an aftermarket stock that is only partially inletted. You need a precision fit of receiver to stock-with any rifle- for consistency.

The crappy trigger doesn't help the shooter, either. Anyone that's serious about accuracy from their Mosin installs a Timney- and you get a useable safety to boot.

There are many who have "sporterized" their Mosins and have had decent success with them. I regularly shoot mine at 600 yards...

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/tobnpr/IMAG0583.jpg

Typical 300 yard target, low right was my fault...less than minute of angle...

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/tobnpr/IMAG0617.jpg

The rifles are capable if you start with a solid foundation, and have the minor smithing skills to improve them.

Yung.gunr
July 18, 2012, 01:09 AM
Very interesting to say the least.

Would I put it on my Mosin? Maybe, if it were given to me.

I had lots of plans for my Mosin, but right now I'm working on my Saiga that is pretty much all bolt on stuff. I think I'm working up my confidence and skills to then move onto more smithing with the Mosin. (it makes sense in my head)

johnwilliamson062
July 20, 2012, 11:37 PM
Gold medals have been taken with Mosins.
I think the bullpup trigger usually multiplies the trigger problems more than adds to them.

shaunpain
July 21, 2012, 12:30 AM
I think what you need is an opinion from someone who has done exactly what you're inquiring about. Anyone here bullpupped a Mosin?!?

Josh Smith
July 26, 2012, 11:38 AM
Hello,

I do not recommend putting a Mosin in a bullpup stock.

You need to concentrate on the things that make Mosins work. They are not polished turds. They are, in their Russian form, vehicles for the bayonet.

In the Finnish form, they are finely tuned riflemen's arms. The M39, for example, had to shoot a max group of 1.3MOA to be accepted into service.

You can go to my website, http://smith-sights.com , and study what works. Most of my stuff is based on the Finnish model. Some things are updated, like the M39 trigger; I made mine with needle bearings instead of static pins.

But, it's still in its original stock... and it works just fine with stripper clips, too!

Figure out what you're doing wrong. What does the bore slug to? You ARE handloading at least 0.310" bullets, right? Not trying to squeak by with 0.308", are you?

http://i1147.photobucket.com/albums/o560/Smith-Sights/Targets/June2360yardsmeasured.jpg
Open sights, 60 yards, 20/55 vision

I just got glasses and need to do this at 100 yards.

Your Mosin will shoot fine if it has a good bore and crown. Figure out what you're doing wrong and fix it. It's probably something very simple. Try putting an inch-long piece of cork under the barrel and firing it again. Chances are you'll see a vast improvement.

Regards,

http://www.smith-sights.com/resources/llc%20sig.jpg

Colonel Custer
July 27, 2012, 10:17 AM
Some Mosins were set up at 2000 meters so check the range sights.

Josh Smith
July 27, 2012, 11:24 PM
Colonel Custer,

What?

Regards,

Josh

tahunua001
July 27, 2012, 11:33 PM
Some Mosins were set up at 2000 meters so check the range sights.
I must also ask the question"WHAT?". I always hear all the fanboys that say "if you get one with a bright shiny new bore, and you lock it in a benchrest, on a clear day, on the 3rd saturday in june, and use matchgrade ammo, the mosin nagant can easily be a 2 MOA rifle" .

the much maligned "cheap, poor quality surplus ammo" was the go to stuff back when they were still building the rifles. your average rifle that shoots 4-6 MOA with cheap surplus ammo now is the exact same "ingeniously designed, expertly crafted, masterpieces of russian engineering and high quality, war grade ammo".

if you find me a 91/30 straight off the rack at the local pawn shop, load it up with that spam can ammo from youbuycheapbullets.com and hit me tourbus at 2000 meters inside of one magazine and I will shake your hand and buy you a beer.

Josh Smith
July 28, 2012, 12:01 AM
Hello Tahunua,

That's not exactly what I meant.

From the way he made it sound, they are sometimes on at 2000 meters when set at the 100 meter mark.

Precision of the rifle aside, the 2000 meter mark on the sight is for plunging fire; for massed volley fire at massed enemy formations.

Given your "6 inches at 100 yards", that would translate mechanically into 120 inches at 2000 yards.

Plenty to hit a buss or massed formation.

I did the following with open sights and military surplus:

http://i1147.photobucket.com/albums/o560/Smith-Sights/Targets/March27sightinscored.jpg

That was after I built the first Smith-Sight and sighted it in. Prior to that, the groups were about 12" high, but had the same tightness.

Today after shimming the action and barrel typical groups consist of touching holes.

It was still pretty precise compared to other military rifles when it was stock, though. The trigger and short LOP were the main hindrances.

The Russians regarded rifles as mainly a vehicle for the bayonet and executed the design poorly. To them, these were simply pikes that happened to go "bang", much as their Berdan rifles had been.

To the Finns, who were riflemen, the Mosin was a rifle. It became an excellent rifle, possibly the best bolt action of WWII, with the Finns and their M39. That rifle was required to shoot a maximum of 1.3MOA to be accepted into service. This was a requirement that's not even been surpassed today, to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps the best M4s do this now, but the Garand did not and I don't know that the original M16 rifles did. The M14 was capable of it after being worked over.

Anyway, many were mechanically capable. You just have to get past the straight wrist, which seems designed to drive a bayonet home!

Regards,

http://www.smith-sights.com/resources/llc%20sig.jpg

impalacustom
July 28, 2012, 04:01 AM
M1 Garand, M16 of past, M4's of today and M14 is more than capable of that kind of accuracy with out of the box with LC ammo.

JRI
July 28, 2012, 08:58 AM
M1 Garand, M16 of past, M4's of today and M14 is more than capable of that kind of accuracy with out of the box with LC ammo.


So is the K 31 Swiss,and its of much better quality and better looking than the so called rifles you mentioned.

Josh Smith
July 28, 2012, 03:19 PM
I'd be interested in seeing a stock Garand put all of them into 2MOA (in reading, they seem to be 4MOA).

A friend who was very familiar with shooting was given an M16 in the sandbox as he was in the rear. It shot a couple inches at 100 meters. He was disappointed in it.

The K31 Swiss is a nice rifle. No need to talk bad about the Mosins though. They did well enough against the Germans. Additionally, many pre-war rifles were extraordinarily well finished. They stopped polishing when guns were being taken directly from the factory to front line. I can see their reasoning..

I'm interested in what can be done with these Mosins when put together properly, not what they do churned out of some communist factory.

They are nice, robust rifles, the AK of the bolt action world. They are not fancy, but they hold together with minimal maintenance.

I admire American rifles for precision, and Russian rifles for their near-indestructible qualities.

Would you rather drop a 1903 or Mosin in the mud?

You do know the US has used Mosins... we've issued them, right?

Tell you what: If any of you all are interested in an online postal match, informal of course, I'll put my Mosin against any rifle of that era you have. Open sights, folks.

I do not admire my Mosin because it was inexpensive. Hell, you've heard of the 1888 Commission rifle, right? Some call it a Mauser 88, but that's a misnomer. More of a Mannlicher than a Mauser, it combines the best features of both.

I have one made in 1892 Amberg. It's been updated with the "S" conversion as well as the 88/05 conversion. The sleeved barrel is a version of floating, almost, for lack of a better short explanation, and it's factory pillar bedded.

Very, very accurate, and I'd likely go so far as to say it's the most precise standard-issue military bolt rifle manufactured. It really is that good.

Problem was maintenance. The barrel sleeve trapped moisture and ruined barrels from the outside in. The action, while strong enough, could not stand up to the new spitzer ammo for long. It had been designed around a 220 grain (or so) bullet at around 2000fps. This new spitzer 1905 round was much hotter. Lugs cracked.

Still, it was an excellent rifle, and many were used successfully with spitzer ammo. Depended on the steel.

I use that rifle's precision as a template for my Mosin's precision. They both shoot about the same now, and the Mosin now has a slightly better 2-stage trigger (modified M39 style).

Just some ramblings, but you get the point.

Any takers on the postal match thingy?

Regards,

Josh

38splfan
July 28, 2012, 03:55 PM
I'm a big fan of doing things simply because you can. That bullpup setup looks interesting and could be a lot of fun once all the nits are picked out. If you have the money and energy, then why not?

impalacustom
July 28, 2012, 10:35 PM
I have no intention to start a ******* match but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The M1 Garand can't be all that bad when 3 of the highest ranking generals applaud it for everything it did, and the chief ordinance officer of the US Army states that the accuracy is better than the average service rifle and on par with National Match Rifles, of the time.

An M4 or M16 is beyond the capabilities of the rifles of yesterday for accuracy. Tolerances are much closer in the ammo and guns themselves.

If I can pry my dads XM16E1 from him I'll take you up on the postal shoot.

Josh Smith
July 29, 2012, 03:06 AM
Impala,

I would be very interested in that.

I like the Garand. It was something else! But it was a semi-auto and with any sort of combat accuracy would be better than most bolt actions just for the hit probability.

I just try not to compare bolt actions to semi-autos unless they armed different militaries at the same time, say, the M39 Mosin and the K98 Mauser. Both fought on the same side in the same war.

I'd actually like to have a WWI and WWII rifle shootoff. It would be a fun board event I think.

Josh

Mr2005
July 29, 2012, 10:52 AM
Tobnpr,


Is that a mosin.? What stock is that?

tahunua001
July 29, 2012, 11:30 AM
looks like a monte carlo stock.