The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 5, 2008, 02:14 PM   #1
P99AS9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2008
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 612
What are the differences between the Mosin Nagants?

What are the differences between the 91/30, M38, and M44 Mosin Nagnt?
P99AS9 is offline  
Old June 5, 2008, 02:19 PM   #2
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 12,344
91/30 is the long one, also used as a 'sniper' rifle. M44 is shorter with a permanent bayonet, pretty heavy. M38 is short sans bayonet...and I have one. Carbine length. Brutal recoil, huge fireball.
chris in va is offline  
Old June 5, 2008, 02:32 PM   #3
Ralph2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 250
The basics are the 91/30 is the long gun. Long barrel. Also the original pattern of the guns. They were the ones used as sniper rifles. See Enemy at the Gates for one in celluloid action. The M44 is a shortened carbine version with an attached swing out bayonet. Sighted in to be fired with the bayonet deployed like the 91. You would have to adjust the sights slightly to counteract the harmonics of the rifle without the bayonet. It works, it's weird and it freaks out people at the range.

The M38 is a carbine without bayonet. Many might be cut down 91's. Most of them were supposed to be deployed in non combat assignments like embassy guards and similar so they didn't need the sticker.

I have one of each and can't really tell much difference between felt recoil or accuracy. Accuracy is fine on each of mine and they don't seem to kick hard but my shoulder is all blue after a day's shooting. The big plume of flame out the muzzle and the big bang make up for the bruise.

I type slow it seems. Dang phone at work needs to stop ringing.
Ralph2 is offline  
Old June 5, 2008, 02:44 PM   #4
TheManHimself
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2008
Posts: 731
There's also a few variants the Finns made from captured Russian guns, generally more accurate than the Russian models.
TheManHimself is offline  
Old June 5, 2008, 02:56 PM   #5
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,265
Quote:
The basics are the 91/30 is the long gun. Long barrel. Also the original pattern of the guns.
The 91/30 isn't the original pattern. It's actually the 3rd shortened version of the Russian Mosin-Nagant. The original rifle was the Model 1891, but the Russians soon realized that it was too long for soldiers on horseback to wield effectively, so they shortened the barrel by 3" and issued two variants: the Dragoon (with bayonet) and the Cossack (no bayonet). The 91/30 is a Dragoon with some engineering improvements (notably the shrouded "globe" front sight) that the Soviets decided to standardize. Most pre-existing rifles in the Soviet inventory were subsequently upgraded to 91/30 standards, leading many people to erroneously conclude that the 91/30 was the original version.

This doesn't even touch upon the Finnish versions of the rifle!

Go here to learn almost anything you want to know about these guns...

http://www.surplusrifle.com/russianm...9130/index.asp
http://www.surplusrifle.com/mosincarbine/index.asp
http://www.surplusrifle.com/finnishm28/index.asp
http://www.surplusrifle.com/finnishmosin/index.asp
http://7.62x54r.net/
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old June 5, 2008, 08:03 PM   #6
ChicagoTex
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2008
Location: DFW Metroplex
Posts: 1,909
What amuses me the most was how the original 1891 Nagant had a rear sight graduated out to 3200 Arshins (an insane ~2,500 yards ), the 91/30 variant switched over to meters and I believe backed off to a more "realistic" 2000 meters, my 1944 Carbine is still more "realistic" at 1000 meters.

It all kind of amuses me because I figure any variant with iron sights has an effective range of 300 yards at most.
ChicagoTex is offline  
Old June 5, 2008, 08:07 PM   #7
Stephanie B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2008
Location: NWern SE Missouri
Posts: 277
Chicago Tex, have you ever seen how far out the ladder sight on a M1903 can be set to?
Stephanie B is offline  
Old June 5, 2008, 08:32 PM   #8
Ralph2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 250
I knew it wasn't the first but it was close to quitting time so I hurried. Longer plus a spike made for a longer pointy weapon when one ran out of ammo.
Ralph2 is offline  
Old June 5, 2008, 08:44 PM   #9
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,762
Quote:
This doesn't even touch upon the Finnish versions of the rifle!
Those are the M39's. They were mainly built on captured Russian receivers but rebarreled by the Finns becuase they didn't feel that the Russian barrels were accurate enough. These are supposed to be the most accurate of the Mosins.

Quote:
What amuses me the most was how the original 1891 Nagant had a rear sight graduated out to 3200 Arshins (an insane ~2,500 yards ), the 91/30 variant switched over to meters and I believe backed off to a more "realistic" 2000 meters, my 1944 Carbine is still more "realistic" at 1000 meters.

It all kind of amuses me because I figure any variant with iron sights has an effective range of 300 yards at most.
300 yards with iron sights may be the effective range for an individual solider, but with late 19th Century tactics and WWI trench warfare, volley fire or "harassing fire" at extended ranges was quite common.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old June 5, 2008, 08:47 PM   #10
ChicagoTex
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2008
Location: DFW Metroplex
Posts: 1,909
Quote:
300 yards with iron sights may be the effective range for an individual solider, but with late 19th Century tactics and WWI trench warfare, volley fire or "harassing fire" at extended ranges was quite common.
While this is absolutely true, it also wasted an awful lot of ammo.
ChicagoTex is offline  
Old June 5, 2008, 08:53 PM   #11
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,762
Quote:
While this is absolutely true, it also wasted an awful lot of ammo.
Is it wasted if it keeps the enemy's head down while you manuver? One could argue the same thing about squad-level LMG's and 'supressive fire,' these tactics were their ancestors.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old June 5, 2008, 09:45 PM   #12
ChicagoTex
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2008
Location: DFW Metroplex
Posts: 1,909
I suppose you have a point, certainly in the modern context.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that regardless, 2500 meters is an unrealistic expectation under any circumstances.

I'd figure the outside range for a trench warfare style environment with a 7.62x54 outta be around 1000 yards.
ChicagoTex is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08530 seconds with 7 queries