March222014
whiskeyandspentbrass:

Eight rounds of Freedom!

whiskeyandspentbrass:

Eight rounds of Freedom!

(via gun-porn)

March212014

Picked up my heeler today.

Best companion dog in the world, you really couldn’t ask for a better pup.

March202014

weaponslover:

some gorgeous subs..

(via gun-porn)

7PM
Picking up a blue heeler pup tomorrow.

Picking up a blue heeler pup tomorrow.

(Source: 500px.com, via handsomedogs)

1PM

(Source: teuf-spyder, via gun-porn)

March92014
March82014

(Source: elpatronrealg, via gun-porn)

10AM
2AM
12AM

Anonymous asked: Got an opinion on the Mosin-Nagant? How does it compare to its competition of the day, Mausers and Enfields?

first-in-firearms:

peashooter85:

first-in-firearms:

peashooter85:

I will be blunt and people will crucify me for it; it sucked.  The Mosin Nagant was a good design for the early 1890’s.  By World War II it was terribly outdated. In fact shortly before World War II the Soviets tried to replace the design. Of course they were too late and couldn’t do it before the Germans invaded.

I will compare it to the 98K Mauser, which is what I know.  The bolt is overcomplicated, when I strip Mosin bolts I feel like I need three hands to reassemble it.  By contrast I can stip and reassemble Mauser bolt one handed in about 30 seconds.  The action of the Mauser was much tougher and more reliable, it had much better accuracy, and it had much better range. That damn stubbly little bolt is an annoyance, and because of it the Russians had to make special sniper models with a turned down bolt because they could not mount a scope otherwise.  Most German 98K Mauser had a turned bolt that was very comfortable to operate. Not to mention the 8X57 cartridge had a lot more stopping power compared to the 7.62x51.  The 7.62 was also a rimmed cartridge, which can be picky and demand precise placement (staking) in the magazine or stripper clip, lest you end up with a jam.  If it jams you usually have to release the magazine from the bottom, a which point cartridges spill everywhere, then its hard to get the magazine closed.  The 98K Mauser has a simple double stack internal magazine that you insert the cartridges into, no worries.  Finally the ergonomics of the thing.  It long and heavy, uncomfortable to hold, especially if you are a large dude like me.  The 98k is short, light, compact, and forms nicely with the shoulder.  All around Mausers just seem to be better made and of better overall quality.

That being said I love my Mosin and I love to shoot it as much as a Mauser.  However going into combat I would chose the Mauser.  Over both I would choose a Lee Enfield because of its fast action and ten round magazine.

My Mosin top pic, my dad’s all original German 98K, bottom pic

The Mosin bolt is not as complicated as the K98, and is certainly not difficult to strip. Its floating bolt head design is better for accuracy and years ahead of its time, still used on some of today’s finest sniper rifles, and in a mass production scene it allows for easy headspacing.

The straight bolt arm was not a disadvantage, but a plus, because it simplified production and allowed one to open it easier in the frigid Russian winter.

The rimlock issue is not a problem with the Mosin design, as its cartridge interruptor is designed to stop it. It simply isn’t properly adjusted in weapons where rimlock occurs, often a result of production conditions.

As for the straight bolt being a problem for snipers?
It didn’t stop them from fielding more snipers than any other nation in WW2, as well as the Mosin and 7.62x54r being the weapon and cartridge used to achieve the highest bodycounts for any individual sniper on any front in the war, as well as in history.

Yes it was longer, but that simply makes it a better bayonet weapon.

Most importantly of all, which rifle won? The Mosin still fights around the globe, and the 54r is STILL produced, used and fielded by numerous industrialized nations. The Mauser may be a much nicer design, but it is not necessarily a better design.

It may not have stopped them from from fielding more snipers, but it might have hindered them due having to have a special separate line to produce sniper rifles with complicated scope mounts.  The funny thing is that the Mosin is going back into production by a few specialty rifle producers, and all new models have a turned down bolt.  The reason why, people handle a turned bolt better!  Plus the success of Soviet snipers wasn’t because they had a superior rifle, but because they had a hell of a lot of snipers.  While they claim the highest sniper bodycounts of wwii, they also have the highest sniper mortality rates.

If they incorporated a system to solve rimlock issue, but were not able to successfully carry it out, then what is the point?  My Mosin is a prewar manufacture, when Soviet industry produced without having to supply the worlds largest army ever fielded, and yet I still have a problem with rimmed cartridges, especially since I am a clutz.  I have never had a problem with a Mauser before. Insert cartridges, work bolt, enjoy the smooth functioning of the bolt, ahhh.

As for its length, would you want to have to lug that rifle around in the tight confines and spaces of urban warfare?  There was a reason why almost every nation in the world, with the exception of the Soviet Union and Japan, shortened their main service arms in between World War I and World War II.  The reason being, shorter and lighter was all around better for the nature of 20th century warfare.

Most importantly of all, the rifle did not win the war.  The gargantuan power of Soviet industry and the willingness of the Soviet Government and people to incur ungodly high casualty rates won the war.  If they were armed with pikes and muskets they probably still would have won just through numbers and shear force of will.  World War II was a war of economics, and the Soviets won that war because they had a much larger industrial infrastructure that was not being bombed day and night, and an even larger pool of manpower from which to conscript soldiers and labor from.  For every tank the Germans produced, the Soviets produced 20, for every infantryman the Germans fielded, the Soviets fielded 100. They also had the highest casualty rates of the war, over 25 million people dead. The only advantage the Mosin had over the Mauser was that it was mass produced to a far greater extent. Not because it was a better design or of better quality.

The Mosin is still used, but generally only by people who cannot afford anything better.  7.62x54r is still produced, but how many rimmed designs are still in production compared to rimmless?  Let’s face it, the rimmed cartridge went out of fashion with lever actions, because that is what is was specifically designed to be used for.  Finally the Mauser is still being used today in way.  Almost every bolt action design created after World War II uses some form or derivation of 98 Mauser action.  

So Russian mortality rates also apply to Simo Hayha? The “white death”?
Remember, that while it is easier to affix a scope to a Mauser Kar98, that a scoped rifle doesn’t always make for a better sniper; or change the rifles accuracy.
I believe that all of Hayha’s Nagant kills were done without optics, proving that the straight bolt Nagant still had some punch well into world war 2.
Given the fact that the turned down bolt, on a standard production rifle is a boon;
The Mosin Nagants lack of such does NOT make it any less effective than the Mauser.
Close quarters? Take an m38 or an M44
Don’t mind lugging the extra weight? 91/30.
Hell, a Finnish M29 even! {Especially ;) }

Sure the Mauser 98 action is a lil nicer, feels slicker, and looks more appealing.
But, The Mosin family of rifles {which are just mausers anyway} was just as effective, hell, IS just as affective as the 98k

As for field stripping that Mauser bolt in 30 seconds with one hand; I’d like to see it mate?
I can’t do it with mine.

And may I just add that while the Mauser 98k is a more expensive gun; that price does not always equal quality.
The fact that Nagants are cheap rifles should not detract from the marvelous miracles of machination that they are.
A Nagant may only cost 100 bucks, but a well made one will hold it’s own against the 98k in feeding reliability, durability, and accuracy any day of the week.
As for the Mauser style bolt being the most commonly produced bolt action of today; why is that?
Is it because it’s a stronger action?
No.
What was the strongest bolt action rifle of ww2?
(The arisaka surprisingly)
Is it because it’s cheaper to produce?
No.

It’s for one reason; and I’ll just use the gun manufacturers in the USA as an example here. Remington, savage, Stevens, etc etc use the Mauser 98k action because it’s fucking German.
Americans love to buy German shit.

Any Nagant action tooled to the standards of today’s production rifles, would hold it’s own against a Mauser, and feed a lil more reliably while doing it.

(Sorry for two posts, I’m on mobile, and apparently it’s not as easy as it looks. Lol)

← Older entries Page 1 of 83