$250 Scout Rifle... a story with pictures.

[govmule84]

So...

I wanted to get a dedicated deer/longer distance rifle. I have plenty of handguns, and an old break-open shotgun, and a .22 squirrel rig, but NO rifles. I wanted something in a caliber that would take most, if not all, North American game.

I'm also a working man. I'm young (25), and I have a wife and child, so I don't have a lot of discretionary income for futzing about with a gun. Some, but not a ton, and with the recent uptick in ammo prices, it's been precious little that I get to shoot anymore.

If you don't like "bubbas", sporters, or messing with "history", skip the post. Just keep going. If you think a hundred-buck block of reliable Commie steel makes a great platform to build something cool out of, you might want to continue. For you purists who weren't following directions... it's a '43 Izhevsk, about as common as dirt. I believe they made about seventeen million of these, so don't ride me about it.

So anywho... I decided to build me a little something. Here's the parts list, with prices:

• Mosin-Nagant M91/30 Rifle -- $99.00
• ATI Sporter Stock -- $59.97
• Scope Rings for Dovetail Tip-off Mount -- $11.99
• Long Eye Relief Scout-Style Scope -- $49.99
• Sling (w/swivels - ATI stock has swivel mounts drilled and tapped.) -- $14.99

So... here goes my story. I brought this thing out rock-stock at the range to see what she would do. Iron sights on it didn't work for me. I have decent eyesight, I just can't hit anything with any degree of confidence. The front sight was staked in poorly, so it moved around on me... and I got frustrated. It was long (28" barrel!) and bulky, and heavy - this was an infantry rifle? Really? I would imagine troops hating this thing! It was just unwieldy.

I installed the new stock, lopped the barrel, and read about mounting a scope. The barrel chop went well - my thanks to member goatwhiskers, who encouraged me to do it myself (the shop wanted sixty-five bucks, which just sounds loopy to spend on a hundred buck rifle.) I hacksawed it off, and leveled it using progressively finer files, then sanded it down, and finally polished it. Following that, I cut a crown with an oversized Phillips head screw chucked in my drill with jeweler's rouge, and the result was professional looking, and it shoots great.



After trying a crappy, cheap eBay scope mount and consequently trashing it, I found that by removing the rear sight leaf and base, I was able to access -- lo and behold -- a dovetail. It's 3/8", so I found a very nice set of all-steel Burris tip-off mounts. (Which are really high quality. They were pricy, but I recommend these heartily!) I cranked down a no-name scope, and I was off to the races. (AIM is the brand...a very basic 3-7x piece of glass.)

I loaded up some ammo. Now, this is a weird process for the 54R... brass is hard to come by (except S&B, which I was told sucked for reloading. I can confirm this IS true, because I apparently cannot learn through the mistakes of others.) Also, you gotta slug your bore - I've read of bores from .308 out to .317! I wanted something good for temperature swings, and I don't like barn-burner loads - I want to use as little componentry as possible, because the point of reloading is shooting more for the same money. I used some S&B brass with Varget (3.1cc) and CCI primers. I topped the whole mix off with 174 gr. Sierra Match Kings (.311 diameter - looking for bullets for a .303 British yielded what I was looking for.)



So today, I took the whole shebang to my local indoor range (100 degrees. I am not shooting outside, sorry.) The back of the range is 25 yards (look, I live in a major urban city, and to find any range that is private is hard...but an indoor one that lets you crack off 54R? Take what I can get.) The scope was walking off the rails, which I sort of expected. The rings are designed for a .22, and the recoil of a cut-down Mosin Nagant is pretty hefty. Anticipating this, I bought steel rings - all steel. I cranked them down HARD, and finally, they sat down and bedded in a little. I dialed this thing in for 2.5" high (I can't sight for a hundred, and as I know these barrels incline up a hair, I figured it would be a good starting point.) I am pretty sure the results speak for themselves. It's five-shot group. I just chucked my rifle case down on the range shelf, and steadied my hand on the case from a kneeling position, so it's not even a truly rested group. Center-to-center on the two farthest measures .435". The black dot way at the bottom of the square isn't a flyer, it's a mark I made for to aim at (because I was dialing in for a hundred).



So... what do you guys think? I'm really pleased. I could not care less what the rifle was/is worth, how I ruined its value, or the like. I COULD care about the fact that I now have a really nifty woods gun that I don't have to care too much about.

[ndking1126]

Sounds like a fun project! There's just something fulfilling about doing these things yourself. Hope you enjoy it.

What length did you cut the barrel to?

[govmule84]

It's at 18".

It's what the M44s were at (the carbine version of my rifle), so I figured it would be a good starting point.

Muzzle blast is not bad, and I think (by my calculations) that I should have lost about 500 FPS. But, considering the greater emphasis on portability, the ability to handload, and the newer, much less beat-up crown, I think I can look past the drop in velocity.

-L.

[dreamweaver]

very nice! how bout a better pic of the gun?
i have a bubba'd/sporterized 303 enfield that is one of my most accurate rifles. it definitely is the most accurate at 200 yards. i think i have about $200 in it w/o the scope.
can't find any more milsurp .303, so had to break down and buy some dies so i could keep shooting. where do you get bullets?

[Bamashooter]

good choice on bullet. i bought some S&B ammo about 5 yrs ago for my mosin and it was 174gr. sierra smk. the most accurate bullet ive ever shot out of my mosin's. it's a 100 dollar rifle so do what you want to it. sounds like you have a good shooter. congrats.

[jaughtman]

on your barrel-shortening steps - sounds fascinating! When you say you "installed a crown with a phillips" tell us more.

J

[govmule84]

That's about the limit of my photography skills. SWMBO says she will attempt a better photo a little later.

The ammo is awesome. I can't compare it to factory, because there is so little, and I haven't shot it, and it is so expensive compared to mil-surp, but for the time being I think I'll stick with it.

The crowning process involved a hacksaw to cut, and then drawing finer and finer files over the leveled surface, and finally sanded and polished. The crown is like a beveled edge installed on the rifling lands and grooves to evenly expel the gas traveling behind the bullet. From what I understand, a spinning round object always finds its center, so the screw head is used to hold cutting compound against the muzzle face to evenly "finish' the muzzle.

-L.

[phil mcwilliam]

Seems like reasonable results so far for your project. My concern would be how long this combination will remain on target. It worries me that people spend under $50 on a variable scope for a recoiling rifle & expect them to be trouble free.

[govmule84]

Well, now that I know it shoots I'll drop a little coin on a better scope if this one shoots craps. I've got my eye on a Nikon Prostaff for my other rifle... I'd like to find out if they make a pistol scope for this thing...

[kraigwy]

Nice project, except I just hate to see these old military rifles getting chopped up.

I understand the reasoning, its just me.

[govmule84]

Look, dude...I read a lot of your posts. I respect the fact that you have a metric ton of firearms training. Heck, I think being a policeman up there in Snowtown sounds like one hell of a fun job...

But I have to disagree here. I put a disclaimer in! It's a common-as-dirt rifle. It was affordable. I wouldn't have shot a boat oar that was long enough to hang a flag from with crappy sights. Now I got a shooter that I'll burn some ammo through, where I won't be attempting a dicey shot at a creature that deserves a little better. If I could have gotten a civvie version cheap, I'd have hacked it up. I don't care what I chop, but this was supremely affordable.

I wouldn't buy a truck and not haul, and I wouldn't have a motorcycle I kept stock. My stuff is mine; I build it to be what I want. If someone else doesn't want what I want, then I encourage them to build their own (or pay me to).

If it makes you feel any better, my cousin bought one at the same time, and wanted to chop his up. I took my old stock and carved it up into a sporter for him, so his rifle can be returned to stock if he likes.

Any better?

[kraigwy]

Whoa,

I think you misread my post, I said "I see where you are coming from" I was not condemning you. I've done similar, I turned a 1917 Remington Enfield into a 416 Rigby. I turned a wonderful Swedish Mauser into an Across the Course Gun.

It's just now, in my old age, I've drifted into Vintage Military Rifle shooting as put endorsed by the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program). The M91/30s are excellent shooters for that match.

But again, again, nice project, but you shouldn't be so offensive.

[govmule84]

Nah...I'm not trying to offend. Lo siento. Rather, I just don't get the adherence to 'as issued' condition. Everyone has reamed me a new one for doing this, and it makes no sense.

In the fifties, a sporter was the bees knees - because it got a job done better than the original incarnation. Nowadays, those things ain't worth squat, which is so stupid - the work on a lot of them was top-notch, and you'd have to shell out a mint now to get the same custom touches.

I am guessing that guys have tuned their weapons for years - even on their 'as issued' pieces.

As to being offensive - not my goal. I usually dig your posts... it's pretty clear you're not a gunshop mouth warrior. I just think that if someone has to tinker on something, what am I supposed to use? I'd have bought a new Remmy 700 if I could afford it, but Lord, then I'd be afraid to beat on it and work on it and ...generally use it.

I'm into Plinking. It's similar to Vintage Military, but with far fewer rules and far more smiles over busted pop cans :-). I understand the purist point of view...but God, can there be a more bland, mass-produced rifle than this one?

Again, sorry to offend...not my intent. To really offend you, I'd like to tell you about my next project... a Chilean Mauser sporter. (Sacrelige. But it would be one hell of a good sporter!)

-L.

[jgcoastie]

Gov, sounds like you've done right well for yourself.

Kraig, now he's just foolin with ya!

[bamaranger]

I've thought about a M44 scout myself.

One thing though, if you're 2.5-3" high at 25yds, your gonna be WAY high at 100. I'd respectfully suggest you put it "on" at 25, and some day, when you get out of town and can shoot at 100, establish what ever zero you want.

Once you get the zero you want at 100, shoot it again at 25, and measure EXACTLY where the group lands reference a 25 yd center hold, record that somewhere, like on the rifle, or sling or something. ( I can't remember nuthin' anymore) If you ever wack the rifle and want to verify your 100 yd zero, its easy to shoot at 25 over a log or stump or whatever, at a barked spot and verify a working 100 yd zero. I believe I read that in a Jack O'Connor book,
can't remember.

[govmule84]

Now, my conceptual understanding of physics is weak, but I was under the impression that ALL bullets begin falling as soon as they exit the barrel.

I also understand that rifle makers counteract this by slightly angling rifle barrles up - which is why if a rifle gets zeroed to 100 yards, shorter shots appear to shoot 'high'. It's an illusion.

I have been given to understand most rifles are to shoot zero at either one or two hundred yards, with one hundred being far more common. Ergo, if I zero at 25 yards, a hundred yards will leave me low, because the gun is set up to shoot a very slight 'rainbow' arc at that distance.

Right, or dead wrong?

[arizona98tj]

You have to take into account the interaction you have between your scope being mounted some distance above the barrel and the barrel itself? What is required to get the point of impact (barrel) to match up with the point of aim (optic)? If the center line of these two (barrel and optic) are say 1.5" apart, how does one get the bullet to hit the desired point of aim at a specific distance? Then....what happens if that distance chances....say going from 25 yards to 100 yards?

It is all about that math stuff that a person never thought they would need after getting out of school.

[govmule84]

Well, it's also my understanding that the greater the distance from bore axis to center axis, the greater that margin for error. My scope nearly touches the receiver (I had to relieve the scope cover!)

I guess I could probably end all this conjecture by taking the damn thing out...

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Long Eye Relief Scout-Style Scope -- $49.99.

Interested in hearing a follow-on report from you on how the scope stands up to Mosin-Nagant recoil over time. I mostly see the $49 scopes on .223s and they don't often do well even there, so I'm curious to hear more about your experience with this one.

[govmule84]

Some Chinese junker that was laying about. Looks a lot like a copy of a NcStar. (Why you'd COPY that is beyond me, but who knows.)

Held up ok the first outing...but we'll see - the Mosin tends to recoil fairly violently.

[collector rob]

"I also understand that rifle makers counteract this by slightly angling rifle barrles up - which is why if a rifle gets zeroed to 100 yards, shorter shots appear to shoot 'high'. It's an illusion."

Rifle barrels aren't angled up. Barrels are manufactured seperately from the receiver and screwed into place. It would be darn near impossible to get the barrel to properly index and headspace at the "angled up" postion.
The rainbow trajectory is merely a representation of the trajectory the bullet will take to a target at a pre-determined range. Those trajectory pictures usually show a level level rifle with the bullet leaving the barrel at an upward angle. What they should show is level sights. The rifle will be angled based on the zero of the sights.

Here is a link to a Army training film on the M1 garand that mentions this.

http://www.archive.org/details/Rifle...rt_1?start=0.5

By the way nice sporter, I'm thinking of doing the same thing.

[govmule84]

Thanks...It's a really fun gun!

Having said that, how in God's name does a rifle shoot high? I've sighted in for a hundred before, and wound up shooting high at lesser distances. The rifle must angle up a little - there's no way to explain a bullet landing ABOVE point of aim, and most rounds have little or no perceptible drop out to a hundred...

-L.

[Rob228]

Long story short, the bullets trajectory crosses your line of sight twice, here is a pretty good explanation of everything.

http://www.frfrogspad.com/extbal.htm

[govmule84]

Ok, so now I read that, and feel unbelivably dumb.

So, the gun should shoot highest at 25 yards, and the barrel IS canted upward to achieve that, right? My sighting-in procedure is not psycho?

-L.

[ndking1126]

Ok, so now I read that, and feel unbelivably dumb.

Hey now, there's no reason for that! TFL is our name, learning is our game. We all were uninformed once!

But to answer your question, there is no set distance at which your bullet will be highest. Personally I like to think of the bullet path as a constant. As you change your zero, the arch is tilted up or tilted down.. for example if you set your zero at 800 yards, the highest point of the bullet path will likely be between 550 and 600 yards (just guestimating, I didn't check any ballistic charts).