Let's settle it once for all...MAUSER vs. MOSIN NAGANT

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by LDBennett

If a person likes ugly then the Mosin-Nagant is the gun for them. I'll take the lines of a Mauser, a Winchester Model 70, a Ruger Model 77, the new Remington 798 (is that the right number?), and many customs that all emulate the Mauser design. The Mauser design is still alive today. Where's the Mosin-Nagant? Well, its been relegated to a has-been surplus rifle that you get at Big Five Sporting Goods stores for $90. Even surplus Mausers are worth a couple hundred dollars and much more in some cases.

I couldn't have said it better myself, LDB!

[polishshooter]

Now LD...

You explain to ME what the market would be like today if Germany had used the Mosin Nagant design, and the only Mausers were used by a closed Feudal society from Russia, that was replaced by an even more closed secretive Communist one....

Imagine....Sergie Mosin was as much of a huckster as Paul Mauser, and virtually gave away hundreds of thousands of rifles chambered in any proprietary cartridge your banana republic desired for a song...

...The Spanish had outshot our Krags in Cuba with Mosin Nagants...

...And the 1903 Springfeld was roughly patterned after the Mosin Nagant...

...And while the only Mausers we ever saw was a few thousand "curiosity pieces" made by Remington or Westinghouse for the Czar, but hundreds of thousands of captured Mosin Nagants came back from WWI right after hundreds of thousands of GIs had finally embraced the Bolt action and suddenly sportsmen in the US decided Bolt Actions were better than their beloved levers....

...And suddenly about 60 years later, Communism falls, and about 12 Million MAUSERS stored away in salt mines for a future war suddenly get dumped on the US Surplus market in a relatively short time for cash...

Guess what, we would see a LOT of beautiful Mosin Sporters, and you would be thinking Mausers looked wierd, especially in the barrel at Big 5 for $75.....


Now beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I have a couple of "sporterized" MNs that I personally think look BETTER than any Mauser sporter, if only that they look a little different...



But then I always liked the Remington 600 or 788 better than the 700 too....

[LDBennett]

polishshooter:

"..And the 1903 Springfeld was roughly patterned after the Mosin Nagant..."

And that's why the US government lost an internation lawsuit and ended up paying Mauser for patent infringement until the start of WW I ?????

The M-N's are like the ugly child that only a mother could love.

I have a Mosin-Nagant and a K98 Mauser. Here's a list of "problems" I have with the M-N:

1). Magazine is ugly hanging below the receiver, is single column, not stacked like a Mauser (read not modern).

2). Bolt opening is hard during extraction (I don't know why but mine and the several my son-in-law owns are that way, even with different ammo ???)

3). The gun seems spindly by comparison to a Mauser (read not robust).

4). The trigger is terrible (but I suppose the Mauser is too but my Mauser has a Timney trigger that's perfect .... no such option for M-N ???).

5). The common M91/30 is too long (30 inch barrel designs are from pre-1900 ... K-98 Mausers were a more usable 24 inch and were the standard most of the WW-II period while longer barreled Mausers were the norm during WW I, I suppose). I know there are shorter M-N but not so readily avaialble as the K98's, at least in my local.

6). Turns out that the "correct" diameter bullets (according to Hornady and Speer as relayed to me via email) are not avaiable (at least to me where I looked). With a bore of 0.314 inches my gun should use bullets of that size. The closest I can get is 0.0311 or 0.312 inches. Accuracy has to be impacted, I would think. My M-N sure doesn't like 308 bullets!

We all get to choose, don't we. I do have a M-N (added PE clone sniper scope for effect) and a K98 Mauser. If I had to choose just one it would most certainly be the Mauser. But that's just me. You would obviously choose the M-N.

As for a war being won or lost by the particular bolt action rifle in use on the two sides: I think it is a little more complicated than that! Germany had limited resources. Hitler's plan was to capture European countires to get what he needed. He did not expect the US to get into the fight or understand fully that the US had such a huge industrial base (the Japanese failed to recognise that too). We out manufactured both Japan and Germany and that's how we won, not because our particular gun was better than theirs (the Garand was, by the way, and for a WW II gun it was absolutley the best of all the guns in large supply). Russia won with the help of the weather, Hitlers extremely poor impaired judgement, and lots of people who were either driven to win by their own defense mechanism or by Stalins officers pushing them forward and killing those that ran back. Stalin soldiers had to win or die trying. Captured Russian soldiers were treated as cowards when they eventually returned home. That's motivation to succeed!

Again, nothing personal and we all get to choose. I happen to like my choice better than yours. You obviously feel differently, and you have the right to do so.

LDBennett

[Indian Creek 1]

...The Spanish had outshot our Krags in Cuba with Mosin Nagants...

...And the 1903 Springfeld was roughly patterned after the Mosin Nagant...

Polish I think you are confusing the Nagant with the 93 mauser.
But the Nagant does make a good fireplace poker.

A.J.

[polishshooter]

GOSH, LD and Indian Creek, you BOTH missed the operative word of my post!

IMAGINE

Go back and reread it IMAGINING IF....everything I posted is WHY the Mauser is better known than the Mosin, I flipped it and asked you to imagine if it was the OPPOSITE....

The Mosin would be the one with the devoted following, and you would all be arguing with the "Mauser Nuts" extolling the "Mauser-Commie Junk."

GEEZ!

And since you brought it up, LD...

It was NOT a "Patent Infringement Suit" over the Springfield...all we did was pay Mauser $200,000 for a LICENSE fee, and the only argument was over the "rotary" MAGAZINE which Mauser claimed was his and his alone. It was decided it was EASIER to pay the licensing fee (pretty common at the time) then fight it, even though if we COULD have simply ignored him, and all he could have done is sued us in international courts, with no jurisdiction at the time in the US....


Second, that same rotary magazine that does not protrude, while granted, some guys like you think are "sexier," especially for a "sporter," (no argument hear, I think Mausers make GREAT "sporters...") but is the reason Mauser had to develop RIMLESS rounds.

OK, rimless rounds are AGAIN great for sporting rounds....BUT...

RIMMED rounds are the best for military bolt actions, there is NO argument. Headspacing ease, throat wear is not dangerous, easier to produce with less resources....

All RIMMED rounds MUST have straight mags, or at best staggered feed mags like the Enfield.


The PROBLEM with rimmed rounds is feeding that rim OVER the rim of the round under it, which the Enfield never completely solved, but Mosin DID. That magazine is STATE OF THE ART for rimmed rounds, with the simple, foolproof and ingenious interrupter....it's is one of the FEW designs that does not need "directional" strippers, or special care to insure each rim is in front of the one under it, like Mannlichers, or Enfields...SOooo to insure foolproof feed of RIMMED rounds, that magazine is the best one ever designed....

Your extraction is tight? Not surprising, since the Mosin probably was shot a HECKUVA lot more than any Mauser

Just polish the chamber, (if you need advice I can tell you how with a drill and a 20 guage swab...it's probably due to cheap green lacquer steel cases fed through it, again because they COULD be due to the rimmed cases) and it will operate and extract smoothly. One of the REASONS it was better than the mauser in the cold of Russia is because it DID operate better in rough conditions...it would open when the Mauser WOULDN'T.

The barrels on the 91/30 are a little over 27", a lousy 3 inches longer than the K98, and shorter than the Gewehr 98, so isn't THAT big a deal, and I think they balance better than the 98 (OK just my opinion) but you forget the millions of M38 and M44 carbines when you talk about length...the 91/30 was actually about as long as any other infantry rifle of the 1930s...

But the key is longevity, the Mosin Nagant was standard issue in several Armed Forces of the world, and not ONLY Warsaw Pact ones, until the 1990s...while ACTUAL K98 Mausers were relegated to sporterization/collecting much earlier. And the 8mm Mauser is NOT in service, and hasn't been for a while, while the 7.62x54 not only is STILL the issue sniper and Medium MG round of MANY nations, it was the last "foreign" round to kick the butts of our USMC Rifle team in International HIgh Power competition, FROM accurized Soviet 91/30s by the way, the last in 1980. The round is STILL being developed, and has a lot of promise for accuracy. It is one efficient round. Now granted, it IS frustrating to get the RIGHT bullet at least HERE, but they are not HARD to find, and as more people begin loading it, there will be more available. But, you can't use .308 buddets in a 8MM Mauser either, and we ARE talking BATTLE rifles; not rechambered/rebarrelled sporters...

No Timney triggers yet, but the Huber is pretty nice, adjustable, crisp, I expect as more people come to know and love Mosins, more and more aftermarket stuff will become available, there wasn't very much Mauser stuff available yet in 1920 or even 1946 either...

Remember, LD, we are talking BATTLE rifles....I won't argue the Mauser makes a nice, probably the best, sporter in the west at least (with a wink to Enfields in Canada and Australia ) , and many great rifles are based on it's action, the Mosin Nagant is THE sporter used to take everything from Deer to Musk Ox to Polar Bears to Siberian Tigers in the EAST.

But for a BATTLE rifle, the Mauser didn't hold a candle to Mosins, in manufacturing ease, strength, "idiot proof" operation and maintenance, battlefield practical accuracy, and ultimate repair and refurbishing.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Indian Creek 1

But the Nagant does make a good fireplace poker.

A.J.

A good summary, Indian.

Face it folks, arguing that the Mosin-Nagant was even in the same class as the Mauser is absurd. By way of proof, simply ask how many rifles have been patterned on the Mauser design and how many on the Mosin-Nagant in any of its variations. Modern rifles still use the basic Mauser design, but try asking the dealer next time for a rifle built like the Mosin-Nagant. After he stops laughing that is.

[polishshooter]

There you go again, PS, pure hyperbole at it's BEST!

But I would have expected no less from the (not-so) hidden Germanophile lurking so near to your epidermial surface! You think the King Tiger was an actual tank, and not merely the Kraut's interpretation of a Maginot Line fortification on undependable slow tracks...JUST because it was made by your beloved "superior" GERMANS.... And I have heard your GLOCK arguments too....


I'm sorry to disrupt your comfortable "Conventional Wisdom" existence AGAIN by making you look at the raw unvarnished facts and not just what others chose to teach us, I know how it makes people uncomfortable when long held beliefs are challenged...

I LOVE your "excuses...." "How many other rifles are based on the Mosin?" Give me a BREAK, Mosins were RARE in the west before 1989! Give it time man, at LEAST the 80 years headstart American shooters and gun designers have had with the MAUSER action.... You guys ALWAYS IGNORE any such discussion of, say, the MANY variations of the M4 tank insisting on comparing ONLY the 1942/43 EARLY dry versions against your LATE WAR Nazi tanks (Dumbo Heavies, 76mms, 105mms with HEAT, Wet storage, 47 degree armor, applique armor, HVSS, etc etc etc) when slamming IT when comparing it to your "vaunted" Panther and Tigers, but revert to MODIFICATIONS and SPORTERS and SNIPER variants made up to 80 or 90 years AFTER it was adopted by the "Fatherland" to compare it to STOCK Mosin Nagants?

Now GRANTED, I also have cited the Israeli "Super Sherman" as STILL a "viable' MBT, but at least that was a direct modification of an existing WWII Sherman!

Gosh, you guys remind me of the Army test board in the 80s who took off the rack 1911A1s, none of them made AFTER 1945, all of them worn out and rebuilt at least SEVERAL times, and shot them against newly made Berretta 92s, with factory technicians tweaking them between each string, and at the end of the test declare the 92 SUPERIOR as a "Military Pistol" to the 1911A1 in accururacy and dependability!

Get over it, the Mosin Nagant IS WAS AND SHALL EVER BE in the same class as the Mauser, much less any other successful Bolt Action battle rifle ever made, always to be listed in at least the top 4 or 5, and will be listed ABOVE the Mauser as a Military rifle on that list, based on production numbers. ease of manufacture, ease of use, ease of maintenance, accuracy, dependability, longevity, as a BATTLE rifle....

[Pistolenschutze]

Polish, I'm not even going to bother to answer that. Frankly, it's not worth the trouble. AIM has plenty of Mosins on sale. You could probably get a good deal by the case. Maybe one of them will shoot.

[polishshooter]

I just so happened to be at AIM and SOG the other day, and trust me, ALL of them would shoot, but I can't say the same about the Mauser AIM had on the wall for sale though...but what was FLYING out the door was the $99 "Shooters Grade" Ishapore .308 MK2A Enfields...

And I distinctly remember a Mauser guy posting here commenting on here about how surprised he was when he fired his first 91/30, at how ACCURATE it was, as good if not better than his Mausers...was that YOU by any chance PS? Nah, I must be mistaken, memory gets foggy you know....




What I really think is kind of neat is after all this time, the poll is 50-50...

After this long, we need to remind everybody of the PREMISE of the poll...


Your are serving on the Eastern Front in WWII, EITHER as a German or a Russian Infantryman, and you ONLY had the choice of a K98 Mauser or a Mosin Nagant to carry as a personal weapon...which do you choose?

[Pistolenschutze]

Polish, if you like Mosins, then it logically follows that you should buy them instead of Mausers. Case closed so far as I am concerned.

[greenspear]

Originally Posted by LDBennett

greenspear:

"Has the Mauser ever won a war?"

YES. The commercial war!

Virtually ever sucessfull bolt action today uses the basic design of the Mauser. What gun today looks or is designed like the Mosin-Nagant?

If a person likes ugly then the Mosin-Nagant is the gun for them. I'll take the lines of a Mauser, a Winchester Model 70, a Ruger Model 77, the new Remington 798 (is that the right number?), and many customs that all emulate the Mauser design. The Mauser design is still alive today. Where's the Mosin-Nagant? Well, its been relegated to a has-been surplus rifle that you get at Big Five Sporting Goods stores for $90. Even surplus Mausers are worth a couple hundred dollars and much more in some cases.

Just having fun with the M-N vs. Mauser topic. I couldn't resist. Please don't take offense.

LDBennett

So by your reasoning a Ruger 10/22 is a good battle rifle. Any country that picks a rifle based on looks better have a lot of soldiers to spare. The Mauser side claims that the Mauser is better designed and was in better trained soldiers hands. So how did a poor and poorly trained army with poor rifles beat a country with better rifles and better soldiers? And bigger tanks a bigger airforce a bigger navy, etc... So why did all those Germans pick up the MN and run back to Germany? I'm not sure but I think that a sniper with the MN has the most recorded kills.

Also why didn't the M16 win in Vietnam against the MN, SKS and AK?
Doesn't the M16 follow your same logic? Better rifle and better soldiers with an airfoce and navy loose to unskilled and starving soldiers armed with MN, SKS and AK?

Wasnt the russian/german front more like MN vs. Tigertank, Luftwaffe and the better soldiers with Mausers? What edge did the Russians have that defeated the Germans?

[polishshooter]

Thanks for the backup, greenspear, but it had a LOT to do with numbers on the Russian Front...while many people think the Russians simply threw a lot of untrained conscripts at the Germans until their red hot and warping MG34 and MG42 barrels couldn't be switched any more (That actually DID happen at times...but not as much as is commonly thought) the main reason the Germans lost was really similar to how the South lost to the Union in the East in our Civil War...they finally faced Generals better than theirs, who KNEW how to use their superior numbers and resources, with aid from the Western Allies playing a big part for the Soviets, in grand offensives, reinforcing success, not reinforcing failure, but keeping the pressure on on all fronts, so attrition alone would have beat Germany, even if they weren't "out-Generaled" by Zhukov and Timoshenko, and others at the end.

It was not SIMPLY raw numbers, Stalin had a LOT more well trained and well equipped reserves at the beginning of the war than anybody ever knew about, even the RUSSIAN Generals at the start of the war, even Historians until the 1990s and the end of the Cold War when the truth started to come out.

And even the Germans give respect to Russian Soldiers, I just read a book by a German General of the General staff that said " Russian Soldiers proved to be soldiers LEAST concerned with their own death and discomfort in any battle or any weather, than any in the history of the world, that could survive on little support or logistics, uncomplaining, 'children of the earth' who would disappear unseen into the ground within minutes of halting, with a burning hatred for their enemy carried deep in their hearts, regardless of political propaganda...."



The OTHER main reasons they lost in the east was German arrogance, and Adolf Hitler...

[TRAP55]

I'm not sure but I think that a sniper with the MN has the most recorded kills.

Russian sniper Lyudmila Mikhailovna Pavlichenko. 309 confirmed kills, 36 of them German snipers. Most made with a 91/30 Mosin and a 4x PE scope. That's an SVT-40 she has in the pic.

[Pistolenschutze]

Matthais Hetzenauer had 345 confirmed kills, Trap, and he used a Mauser, mostly a K98 with six-power telescopic sights.

[LDBennett]

Germany lost WWII for several reason and one was NOT because the Mauser was inferior to Mosin-Nagant. Germany had few natural resources and the only way Hitler could win was if he invaded and captured countries that had the natural resources he needed. He needed the oil of Russia, so he invaded Russia. He need all weather sea ports so he invaded western Europe. We won because we could out produce both Germany and Japan combined and had abundant natural resources. Hitler and Japan grossly under estimated our ability to produce war needs and our desire to enter the war when provoked. A major reason Germany lost is that it was commanded by a demented WWI corporal with a giant ego backed by a personal brutal army, the SS.

While Russian soldiers were fierce fighters, they had reason to be. Firstly, they were being invaded and secondly, they either fought to live or die to the Russian officers if they retreated. Captured Russian solders returned to Russia after WWII were treated as outcasts because they had not died rather than be captured (pointed out in recent documentaries).

Interviews with US Sherman tank crews in other recent documentaries pointed out that the Sherman tank was under armored and under gunned. In fact those crews called them death traps against the German tanks. German tanks could knock them out before the Sherman got into range to use its gun. Numbers alone saved the tank war. Again we simply out produced them. And they ran out of fuel supplies late in the war due to the Germans failure to capture the Russian oil fields.

The standout regular military rifle of WWII was not the Mosin-Nagant or even the Mauser. It was the M1 Garand. For every Russian or German sniper there were thousands of GI Joes well armed with M1 Garands. While snipers must have had some impact, it was the GI Joes that won the war, not the snipers with their mere hundreds of kills.

But I don't have to fight a war with any of my guns. So I get to choose what I want based on my personal likes. I like my Garands and the one Mauser I have. I own a Mosin-Nagant and I'll be the first to point out its UGLY. I have it because it is a piece of history, it was refurbed very nicely, and it seems to shoot well enough. And it was CHEAP! If it were priced at the Mauser level, I never would have bought it because it is UGLY.

My earlier point was that commercial guns are a reflection of demand. Few UGLY guns survive the gun market place. But the Mauser design is the design all bolt guns are meausred against. Mosin-Nagants are never used as a comparison to modern commercial guns because their design is not superior to the Mauser for cartridges we use today, rimless. Having a magazine system that is the best for handling rimmed cartridges is analogous to having the best horse drawn carriage in todays world of automobiles.

The real bottom line is we all get to choose. What's UGLY to me is beautiful to others.

LDBennett

[Pistolenschutze]

Excellent points, LDB, and all right on target. Germany's defeat was most assuredly not due to "inferior" weapons. Quite the contrary, her weapons technology overall was superior to any of her enemies. That's why both we and the Soviets were so eager to acquire it, and the scientists who came up with it, after the war. In the final analysis, Germany possessed neither the population numbers nor the necessary resources to defeat the enemies she so foolishly decided to engage. Quantity has a quality all its own, as we proved so clearly with the M4 Sherman tank. No one in his right mind would defend the Hitler regime, least of all me. Yet to deny the ingenuity of the Germans and the quality of their equipment is both patently absurd and the height of arrogance. Fortunately, Hitler was also an arrogant fool, else most of Europe would be German speaking today.

[greenspear]

Through the whole war Germany was getting lots of steel and explosives and other equipment from the USA. Look up trading with the enemy act. Germany had plenty of rescources to win they just built the wrong stuff like K98s.

[greenspear]

Also a big reason why the Mauser is so popular in the US is because of the huge number of wana be White/Arian nationists. When you got a million retards pretending to be Hitler your gonna sell a lot of Mausers.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by greenspear

Through the whole war Germany was getting lots of steel and explosives and other equipment from the USA. Look up trading with the enemy act. Germany had plenty of rescources to win they just built the wrong stuff like K98s.

Not at all, Green. Check your history. The U.S. traded with Germany during the First World War, at least up until the time we entered it, but not during the Second. Indeed, even before the outbreak of hostilities in 1939, the U.S. embargoed many supplies critical to Hitler's plans. The reason the Zepplins of the 1930s, for example, were filled with hydrogen instead of helium, was because the U.S.--one of very few suppliers of this element in the world--refused to sell to the Germans. Further, the U.S. was effectively waging an undeclared war with Germany against the U-boats two years before we entered the war. Roosevelt ordered our destroyers escorting convoys to Britain to "shoot on sight" any German U-boats encountered.

[greenspear]

[QUOTE=Pistolenschutze;278590]Not at all, Green. Check your history. The U.S. traded with Germany during the First World War, at least up until the time we entered it, but not during the Second. Indeed, even before the outbreak of hostilities in 1939, the U.S. embargoed many supplies critical to Hitler's plans. The reason the Zepplins of the 1930s, for example, were filled with hydrogen instead of helium, was because the U.S.--one of very few suppliers of this element in the world--refused to sell to the Germans. Further, the U.S. was effectively waging an undeclared war with Germany against the U-boats two years before we entered the war. Roosevelt ordered our destroyers escorting convoys to Britain to "shoot on sight" any German U-boats encountered.

Look it up. Many banks and companies are involved through the whole war.
Ford, IBM, the Bush Family and many many more.

[greenspear]

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fa...my_Higham.html

here is the first page I found real quick. It says from 1933 - 1949
You can actualy find a lot on this issue but I'm only going to give this one example cause I don't want to be here all day. Check it out you may be dealing with US GI killers even today.

[TRAP55]

Matthais Hetzenauer had 345 confirmed kills, Trap, and he used a Mauser, mostly a K98 with six-power telescopic sights.

Ivan Sidorenko of the Russian 1122 Rifle regiment, at 500 confirmed kills, holds the record for the Russians.
Vasiliy Zaytsev from Enemy at the Gates, only had 242.
Ludmilla had the record for female snipers.
Lt. Simo Haya (The White Death) of the Finn Army had 542 confirmed, 705 unconfirmed, and he did it with iron sights!

[LDBennett]

Still another conspiracy theory!

Anyone can write whatever they want especially when they don't tie it to facts through footnotes and bibliographies.

The fact is Germany made many advanced weapons. The scientist that gave us the Atomic bomb were mostly German Jews who Hitler chased from Germany in the early 1930's. Our space program is thanks to German scientist taken from Germany after WWII. Russia took the German rocket scientist to Russia too but didn't treat them so nicely. Before WWII Germany was the center of the engineering and science world. The official world "engineering/science language" before WWII was German.They designed and made good stuff.

The Russians were still trying to become industrialised in that period. The Russians were so far behind the curve that even by the post WWII period they had to steal a B-29 to copy it to have a bomber of that class (as pointed out in a TV documentary). The only way they caught up to us so quickly in the Atomic bomb race was through a spy that was in high places of the Atomic bomb development during WWII.

Germany lost the war due to lack of resources (particularly fuel) and because Hilter was demented. In fact, a recent documentary stated that the British had plans to assassinate Hitler but dropped the idea because the thinking of the time (late WWII) was that Hilter would hurt Germany more alive than dead.

How naive to say "White/Arian nationists" buy Mauser and make them popular! The Mauser Model 98 was a revolutionary rifle when first released to the world and many modern popular rifle designs of today use features of that Mauser design. Some are diredt copies! It is a landmark firearm and the Mosin-Nagant is NOT! In the early years of the rifle Russia did not have the ablitiy to build the Mosin-Nagant rifles in Russia and we built them in the USA (Remington and others) for them! The pre-WWII Mosin-Nagant rifles are known to be better made than those made in Russia during the war.

Mosin-Nagnats are crude and ugly compared to a Mauser. That's my opinion and others here might or might not agree. But we all get to have our opinions, don't we.

LDBennett

[Pistolenschutze]

Green, just because someone posts something on the internet, doesn't make it factual. Conspiricy theories are a dime a dozen with specials offered on Saturdays.

[greenspear]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

Green, just because someone posts something on the internet, doesn't make it factual. Conspiricy theories are a dime a dozen with specials offered on Saturdays.

Funny thing is I already had it checked out by a University and it is very true. I said that the link was the first one I came across and not close to the only one. You should probably take your own advice about what you read cause you only seem to know government issued history. This is very very old news.