Archagnel Mosin stock

[Cy4ka]

You all seen this yet?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUeR4QhBs6U

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EUeR4QhBs6U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Won't embed but...


I kinda want one. Why didn't they just make it use Vepr mags though?

[tahunua001]

man, I am starting to get sick of this stock.

in all fairness I guess this discussion hasn't been around the block here on the firing line all that much but on the SKS boards in the C&R section it's been a nonstop discussion ever since shot show.

this is just my personal take on the matter so please don't take this too close to heart.

the mosin nagant is one of the crudest designs in history. the tool marks are ugly, the bolts are stiff, the handles are too short to offer any real leverage and the leaf sights are horrible. add to that, the fact that the soldiers that used them were uneducated, untrained conscripts, trying to 'wing it' when it came to maintenance so bores were carved into ovals by steel cleaning rods. add shot out oval bores, crude designs and then the fact that most ammo you can get is either inaccurate and corrosive surplus or just plain inaccurate wolf/tula and it's THEN you want to put a tacticool sniper stock on it?

the only real thing that it has going for it is a 10 round box mag which actually sounds pretty appealing but the overall concept is just flawed. if they would have tried to go with a standard sporter style stock and kept the 10 round mag then it would have a little more practical application as far as I'm concerned but as is, it's a pretty poor idea.

but that's just me

[Hardcase]

I guess that if I had an MN with a really boogered up stock and had nothing better to do with it, I'd give it a try. It's just hard for me to get into the plastic stock because they've got no character to me. But I also know that there are plenty of folks out there who really like it, so there you go.

[johnwilliamson062]

It isn't like an MN has ever won an Olympic event or anything...

YOu could build a nice rifle off the action, or spend time accurizing what is there, and this stock would be a great part of such a plan.
Most peopke will probably throw an off the shelf cosmoline stuffed firing pin gun in them and it will be a a waste of money.

[deerslayer303]

Yeah we've heard about em. I'm not interested in one of them though. I leave my old crude war horse mosins as they are. Except for a few accuracy enhancing modifications. I LIKE WOOD AND STEEL. I did the whole plastic stock thing to my first enfield, which was a beautiful rifle to start with ( which I think that today, but didn't when I was 14).

[DMK]

I'm not against it, I have my share of plastic furniture on some of my guns. But I don't see where it improves anything. Get good with stripper clips and the original mag is fine. It's a bolt action and not the smoothest one at that. I just don't see where a ten round mag is necessary. The rest of the stock doesn't do anything at all for me.

He should have made this stock for something easier to scope IMO.

[tahunua001]

I did the whole plastic stock thing to my first enfield, which was a beautiful rifle to start with ( which I think that today, but didn't when I was 14).
not to sidetrack the conversation but my younger brother has a ramline plastic stock on his longbrach no4. he assembled the entire gun from a huge tack of parts and couldn't find a wood stock that fit properly so he went with the synth. it's not the prettiest gun around but it'll keep up with my savage no4 all day long. his is lighter and more practical for hunting with and he uses it for that quite often...

[tobnpr]

Trying to walk a fine line here because I make stocks for the Mosin...and don't want to be seen as critical...

Without getting into the aesthetics, or ergonomics of the stock itself, I just think they've eliminated a large potential market by designing a stock that can't utilize a bent bolt for a "modern" low profile scope mount like the ATI, Rock Solid, or JMeck. This stock is meant to keep the rifle with it's iron sights.

The stock cannot be inletted for a bent bolt because of the hardware for the DBM.

They apparently felt a DBM was a bigger deal than being able to mount a scope.

For me, no optic means it's a non-starter. And no offense to the guys that like pistol scopes on rifles, it's not for me...

I just don't get the big deal with the DBM, but then I never have even with our long-range precision rifles. I'm more about practical, than "tacticool".

And while the Mosin is certainly not a precision rifle, one with a tight action and good barrel CAN shoot minute of angle with handloads (esp. when sporterized)- I'm not the only guy that has one that does...
And a "good one" can make a fun project. Don't underestimate them- the Russians won the Olympic Biathlon with one in '76...and the Finns still use a modern version of it as a sniper rifle- the TKIV 85.

[tahunua001]

I personally hate the ATI bent bolt that requires inletting but the ones available through Ebay that follow pu profiles shouldn't require inletting unless the stock is too bulky even for that...

unless I'm mistaken... the rear sight LER scope mounts would still work but this type of stock and that heavy of a finished rifle would be horrible as a scout rifle...

[m&p45acp10+1]

I prefer to leave mine looking like this.

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/centexan254/012-1_zpse6027bae.jpg


Mine must be defective from the way people say how crappy they shoot.

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/centexan254/mosinnagantgroups009_zps071e8d3d.jpg

3 shots at 50 yards with iron sights in heavy wind that was moving the target. Shot in a semi seated position using my knee to rest my elbow on. It could do better with someone that has better eye sight, and is steadier than I am.

[tahunua001]

Mine must be defective from the way people say how crappy they shoot.



3 shots at 50 yards with iron sights in heavy wind that was moving the target. Shot in a semi seated position using my knee to rest my elbow on. It could do better with someone that has better eye sight, and is steadier than I am.

is that supposed to be comical?
you are shooting from a non stable platform, with heavy outside influences further increasing instability and shooting at a moving target and then you think that because your shots randomly landed near eachother at 50 yards that it is accurate? 100 yards is the standard, non moving targets, stable shooting surfaces, and little outside interferance is how you calculate accuracy. you pretty much voided your entire argument.

even if that group was done in the specified conditions, that 1 1/4 inch group at 100 yards equates to 2 1/2 MOA, not exactly a tack driver.

[tobnpr]

Those are some really odd looking bullet holes...almost like they're keyholing....

[jsmaye]

is that supposed to be comical?

Well, sarcastic, at least. I think he was stating that he was getting good accuracy (actually, a firearm is consistent, a shooter is accurate) in less then ideal circumstances from a rifle that 'people say how crappy [it] shoots'

[Cheapshooter]

you are shooting from a non stable platform, with heavy outside influences further increasing instability and shooting at a moving target and then you think that because your shots randomly landed near eachother at 50 yards that it is accurate?

You negated your entire argument all by your self. With those conditions that is excellent accuracy from a surplus military rifle!

[mapsjanhere]

If that's only three bullets he clearly is keyholing - at 50 yards. Talking of accuracy either way if you can't make round holes is meaningless, at 100 yards those wouldn't be on paper.

[deerslayer303]

I'm leaning toward that is more than 3 bullets. More like a few dang near in the same hole. Won't know till he chimes in. But I say that is excellent for an old warhorse. Some of you guys LOVE to pounce all over someone for being proud of how well their Mosin shoots. Just suck it up buttercup, and ADMIT you love em just as much as the rest of us!!! :D

[tahunua001]

FWIW, I own 2 mosin nagants. with the exception of a MAS36 they are the least accurate milsurps I own.

[m&p45acp10+1]

That was not key holeing at all. Two shots were touching. The target board, and paper target got wet the night before I went to the range. It was rainy and crappy for three days.

With the iron sights shooting for the smallest groups I limit to 50 yards. At 100 yards I would most likely get 3 to 4 MOA out of a match rifle with my eye sight. At 100 yards I hit minute of torso most times.

This was 8 shots with my hand loads on a calm day at 50 yards from a sand bag front rest with the stock on my shoulder.

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/centexan254/009_zpsa2fc604a.jpg

[Mausermolt]

i think i would pick one up just for a fun little project....that is if they figure out how to get a bent bolt and a scope on the bugger. they are taking pre-orders this friday....think ill wait on the 200$ stock until they have all the t's crossed. my project was going to be "the poor mans sniper rifle" then i started thinking about the cost. $100 for a mosin (but ill find one with a nasty stock and try to get a bargain), ill bend the bolt myself, 200$ for the stock, 25$ for a 10 round mag, 90$ for a Timney trigger, found a cool no drill no tap mount for 75$ that is on its way already, and ill put a 200$ 4X12 Nikon Prostaf on it probably. coming to a grand total of: $690.....so much for the "poor man sniper rifle" but what the heck! ill have the ugliest Mosin ever!

[Mauser8mm]

I want it so bad!! I hope it doesn't cost too much!!!

[tahunua001]

i think i would pick one up just for a fun little project....that is if they figure out how to get a bent bolt and a scope on the bugger. they are taking pre-orders this friday....think ill wait on the 200$ stock until they have all the t's crossed. my project was going to be "the poor mans sniper rifle" then i started thinking about the cost. $100 for a mosin (but ill find one with a nasty stock and try to get a bargain), ill bend the bolt myself, 200$ for the stock, 25$ for a 10 round mag, 90$ for a Timney trigger, found a cool no drill no tap mount for 75$ that is on its way already, and ill put a 200$ 4X12 Nikon Prostaf on it probably. coming to a grand total of: $690.....so much for the "poor man sniper rifle" but what the heck! ill have the ugliest Mosin ever!
I tried the same thing you did pretty much. the thing is a POS and I didn't worry myself with nodrill type stuff so it's nice and mangled but yeah... for the price of the mosin I could have bought a weatherby vanguard and my 300 WBY mag vanguard already has a 4-12 prostaff on it... great elk gun :D
it's cool to build yourself something that not a lot of people have and it does add a certain satisfaction seeing what all your hard work brings but odds are it will probably never be as good as a quality, factory new rifle.

my stock 91/30 gets a lot more trigger time and even without a scope seems to hit stuff easier at range.

[Justice06RR]

the mosin nagant is one of the crudest designs in history. the tool marks are ugly, the bolts are stiff, the handles are too short to offer any real leverage and the leaf sights are horrible. add to that, the fact that the soldiers that used them were uneducated, untrained conscripts, trying to 'wing it' when it came to maintenance so bores were carved into ovals by steel cleaning rods. add shot out oval bores, crude designs and then the fact that most ammo you can get is either inaccurate and corrosive surplus or just plain inaccurate wolf/tula and it's THEN you want to put a tacticool sniper stock on it?


I don't really know what you expect from a rifle designed in the 1800's that was mass-produced by the millions.

The rifle works well and it shoots a very capable round. It was given to mostly untrained soldiers so MOA accuracy was not required since they cannot shoot it to begin with. you cannot expect it to be as nice as a $1k+ Remington 700...

[tahunua001]

I don't really know what you expect from a rifle designed in the 1800's that was mass-produced by the millions.

The rifle works well and it shoots a very capable round. It was given to mostly untrained soldiers so MOA accuracy was not required since they cannot shoot it to begin with. you cannot expect it to be as nice as a $1k+ Remington 700...
you know other rifle designs that were designed in the 1800s that are not half bad designs and blow the mosin nagant out of the water?
winchester 1894
Mauser 1896
Mauser 1898
AND...
the Krag rifle

all were designed before 1900 and none are as crude, stiff, and poorly machined. also there were some countries that made the mosin design half passable, by paying closer attention to detail, machining to tighter tolerances and rejecting anything that didn't meet strict accuracy standards. russia and china never did any of those things so the vast majority of mosin nagants(made by those two countries) are exactly as described. there is no comparison whether you compare them to rifles made that same year or rifles designed in the same decade...

a 1943 91/30 is not anywhere near the quality as a 1943 1903A3, nor is it the same quality as a K98K, Enfield no4, a M38(swede), or type 99 Arisaka... the MN goes bang, and served nobly for the better part of a century but there is not a person alive that can fire all of those rifles side by side and say with complete objectivity that the mosin nagant design is not at the bottom of that list.

[tobnpr]

FWIW, the Mosin-Nagant, action re-barreled for 6.5 x 54R...won the biathlon in the Olympics in '76 for the Soviet Union.

Granted, the actions are sloppy and crude. But it's not difficult to get a good one to shoot minute of angle (handloads of course) with the usual bedding/pillars/Timney yada yada.

Put a match barrel on it, and a good action will shoot sub-minute. These actions can be trued just like any other. Point is, it's not worth paying a smith to do it, but they are a fun DIY project.

I know mine gets some looks at the range when I'm banging a 10" gong with it at 565 yards. It's only when they see the telltale mag that they realize it's a Mosin.
Think I'm gonna chop that sucker down! I single-load at the bench, anyway.

[Justice06RR]

you know other rifle designs that were designed in the 1800s that are not half bad designs and blow the mosin nagant out of the water?
winchester 1894
Mauser 1896
Mauser 1898
AND...
the Krag rifle

all were designed before 1900 and none are as crude, stiff, and poorly machined. also there were some countries that made the mosin design half passable, by paying closer attention to detail, machining to tighter tolerances and rejecting anything that didn't meet strict accuracy standards. russia and china never did any of those things so the vast majority of mosin nagants(made by those two countries) are exactly as described. there is no comparison whether you compare them to rifles made that same year or rifles designed in the same decade...

I have not handled those other rifles you mentioned above, so I cannot comment on that. I'm sure there are many better rifles than the Mosin. But can you post the price of those rifles above?

[tahunua001]

I have not handled those other rifles you mentioned above, so I cannot comment on that. I'm sure there are many better rifles than the Mosin. But can you post the price of those rifles above?
most of those are pretty expensive, over $1000 in good condition however in all fairness, pre WWI era 1891s like remingtons and N.E.W.s fetch close to $500 which is about the same price range as the 96 mauser.

[jake99]

I have two Mosins, an M94 made in Poland in '53, and a 91/30 made in Russia in '43. Both actions slide like silk, so I'm not sure what the stiff action reputation is about. Maybe some people don't clean their guns as often as they should.. The bolt handles don't need more leverage, a longer one would only create torsional forces on the action, so I don't get that story either. The '43 was probably machined by children, while their other factory in Tula was taken over by the Nazis, so I look at the rough machining (where it doesn't matter) on that one fondly. Both bores shine like mirrors. The workmanship on the M44 is flawless. Ugly rifles? I think they're quite beautiful. Simple, clean lines, functional. You might say the wooden barrel covering is luxurious.. :D
As for the surplus ammo, I've heard five people say it's excellent, for every one that calls it inaccurate (or inconsistent..). At eighteen cents a round delivered, I think it might be making some peoples grapes go sour.
That's my take on it. I don't have the experience with other rifles that many on here do, but when I go to the range my Mosins make me happy.

[tahunua001]

I have two Mosins, an M94 made in Poland in '53, and a 91/30 made in Russia in '43. Both actions slide like silk, so I'm not sure what the stiff action reputation is about. Maybe some people don't clean their guns as often as they should.. The bolt handles don't need more leverage, a longer one would only create torsional forces on the action, so I don't get that story either. The '43 was probably machined by children, while their other factory in Tula was taken over by the Nazis, so I look at the rough machining (where it doesn't matter) on that one fondly. Both bores shine like mirrors. The workmanship on the M44 is flawless. Ugly rifles? I think they're quite beautiful. Simple, clean lines, functional. You might say the wooden barrel covering is luxurious..
As for the surplus ammo, I've heard five people say it's excellent, for every one that calls it inaccurate (or inconsistent..). At eighteen cents a round delivered, I think it might be making some peoples grapes go sour.
That's my take on it. I don't have the experience with other rifles that many on here do, but when I go to the range my Mosins make me happy.
being happy with your guns is all well and good, I do not begrudge anyone the right to be happy with their toys. if you can't enjoy it then it's nothing more than a tool and what's the point in a safe full of tools?

however without anything to compare it to, it is difficult to accurately describe and gauge your experiences.
you don't understand the stiff action reputation because you have nothing else to gauge 'stiffness' off of.
you can't accurately gauge accuracy because you haven't shot anything else to compare it to.

you do have a good point with the surplus ammo however it's corrosive... leave your gun too long without cleaning and it rusts... some people don't like having to give their guns windex baths/hot baths/mineral spirits baths, that leaves them new factory ammo that brings the total to closer to 45 cents a round.

and a longer bolt handle wont do anything to the receiver, if your receiver is damaged by operation of the bolt regardless of force exerted then you have serious problems. the average bolt action rifles bolt handle is twice as long as the mosin nagants and the PU snipers have an elongated bolt handle so I think that whole topic lies on thin ice.

the 'wooden barrel covering' is called a hand guard and is present on just about every military service rifle all the way up to the late 40s.


now... with all that said. I own 2 mosin nagants, I shoot them a lot, I even shoot corrosive surplus ammo out of them, they are actually a really pretty design when in decent shape. they go boom and I don't begrudge anyone that likes theirs but for the purpose of this thread, they are just too crude of a design to be paired with this stock set and make a practical target rifle.

[jake99]

The way I see it, the only time a longer bolt handle makes a difference in effort, is while rotating it. You could have a bolt handle six inches long and it doesn't make a bit of difference when chambering, or ejecting a round. There's no 'leverage' involved. My 43, that was made in the worst of the war time, operates exactly like my 53, smooth. Both are smoother than either my .22 Marlin, or my .22 Mossberg WMR. Saying that it's a bad design is nonsense, IMHO. But, you're entitled to yours.

[tahunua001]

The way I see it, the only time a longer bolt handle makes a difference in effort, is while rotating it. You could have a bolt handle six inches long and it doesn't make a bit of difference when chambering, or ejecting a round. There's no 'leverage' involved. My 43, that was made in the worst of the war time, operates exactly like my 53, smooth. Both are smoother than either my .22 Marlin, or my .22 Mossberg WMR. Saying that it's a bad design is nonsense, IMHO. But, you're entitled to yours.
yet again, I am not saying it is a bad design, I'm saying it's a crude design. you are also comparing a centerfire design to a rimfire, two totally different sets of requirements for construction. if you ended up with smooth actioned mosins then good for you, but you need to understand that they are the exception, not the rule.

and there is leverage while cycling a round, rotating the bolt handle upward 90 degrees is the action that cocks the rifle and no matter how you want to look at it, you exert leverage when lifting while cams force the firing pin back and lock it to the rear. that is the only time you need leverage so yes when chambering and ejecting you don't need the longer handle but during cocking there is a serious need of a longer handle.

look at just about any discussion involving the mosin nagant and you will see countless people tell you that it requires the shooter to slap the handle upward with their palm to apply the necessary force to reliably chamber a new round, there isn't a person alive that will tell you that this is necessary for a springfield, enfield, mauser, arisaka, carcano or any other rifle from that time period.

[jake99]

This looks interesting.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=UNwoeW6yJcE

[tahunua001]

I actually like that mag, I'm on the mailing list for whenever they get past prototypes and actually move into full production. itd be a nice addition to my sporter...

best part about it is it doesn't have to be incorporated into a proprietary stock design.

[jake99]

I wonder what the hold up is on it, seems like they could sell a trainload of them.

[tahunua001]

toolshed enterprises usually take a while to get rolling, R&D all are done out of pocket and then business loans to buy more equipment and materials.... it takes time...