Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by Charlie the sniper, Jan 16, 2009.

  1. Could anyone here help me ? I have seen articles on the internet, that say the Mosin Nagant 44 carbine, shoots more accurate with the folding bayonet extended! Is this just a myth, or is there some truth in it ? Something to do with the sights being re-aligned, because the side mounted bayonet, effects the bullet when it leaves the barrel.
  2. pinecone70

    pinecone70 Active Member

    Jul 30, 2008
    Minnesota Gal!
    Mine shot like crap either way. I had to put a scope on it but now it's dead-on. Honestly I haven't seen a huge difference in leaving the bayonet folded, but my tests are not all that scientific either!

  3. graehaven

    graehaven Well-Known Member

    May 26, 2007
    Rochester, NY
    the prevailing thought is that the russians originally sighted the rifle in with the bayonet extended, due to the fact that they so often went into combat with bayonets out, ready for h2h combat.

    the idea was that when it's not extended, it's putting a slight amount of stress on the barrel, thereby affecting it's accuracy (as I understand it).

    of course, putting a scope on it entirely bypasses having to use the iron sights, so, the choice is up to you.
  4. JLA

    JLA Well-Known Member

    Feb 26, 2007
    Heart Of Texas
    we slaughtered one to make a quick handling deer gun. we removed front and rear sights, recrowned the barrel, installed a fiberglass stock, drilled the reciever for scope mounts and ordered a bent bolt handle for scope clearance. We mounted a simmons 3-9X 40MM tube and it shoots nice 2 inch groups at 100 yds with factory ammo. im sure we could get better groups with handloads but its not my rifle and the owner doesnt handload...
  5. TRAP55

    TRAP55 Active Member

    The arsenals sighted then in with the bayo extended. It does affect barrel harmonics, and the point of impact. Some rifles show no change, while others will hit 6" to the right with it extended at 50yrds.
  6. HughLukeJr

    HughLukeJr New Member

    Jan 17, 2009
    does anybody know for sure how to id a mosin nagant as for as what model?
    It is a long gun, no baynot, 1944 stamped on the reciever, a triangle with an arrow pointing upwards stamped on the reciever, several different #s stamped all over the gun, rear site goes to 200, front site is a pin with a circle dovetailed into the barrell, Russian sicle and hammer stamp,.
    Gun shoots awsome and with out a scope you can drive nails at 100yards,
    I put a synthic stock on it and am hoping to put a scope on it with out permanility alternating the gun.
  7. polishshooter

    polishshooter Well-Known Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    Hugh, you have a Izshevk Arsenal Model 91/30. The "Triangle with arrow' is the Izzy post-1928 arsenal mark you should find stamped on many if not all of the parts somewhere if you look, sometimes they are really small, like on bolt handles.

    The main Izzy marking is the hammer and sickle in wreath on the top of the receiver.

    The only other arsenal making them in 1944 was Tula, and their marking is a five sided star in place of the wreath and smaller stars usually replacing the triangle with arrows.

    But in fact, any 1944 Tulas actually probably were also made a Izshevsk, since when the Germans were threatening Tula just before Stalingrad, the Russians moved all the machines from the Tula arsenal east over the Urals to the "new" (er) Izzy Arsenal, and started making rifles on them, with any made on the Tula equipment stamped as if they were made at Tula.

    This incidentally was one example cited by Stalinist propagandists that developed into the myth that still is quoted today, that the Russians in the face of the German invasion relocated "whole industries" over the Urals and started wholesale production in record time. The Soviets ALREADY had modern production centers and factories east of the Urals in full production, (Tankograd, for example.) What they shipped was as much machine equipment as they could east, as much as to keep it from falling into German hands as to use it, and some of it was used to "expand" the capacity of already existing factories. So like many "myths," there is a grain of truth to it.

    The other reason speculated why they made them at Izzy with Tula markings was to try and confuse the Germans, much as the Germans used "codes" to hide where their weapons were made. They didn't want the Germans to know that the entire rifle production was "all in one basket" in case they ever developed cpability to bomb them.

    When the Germans were driven back, Tula resumed manufacturing, but only pistols and machine guns, there is no record of them making any more Mosins after 1942 actually AT Tula, even though you can find Tula marked 91/30s, 38s, and 44s with Tula markings.

    Anyway, the Izzys are the most common, but are every bit as good a shooter as the Tulas. Tulas have a reputation for accuracy, and some claim most Russian "snayperskaya" weapons were based on Tula rifles, but this is not true. The Russians produced over 8-900,000 scoped sniper rifles during the war, had whole REGIMENTS of snipers, and MOST of them are Izzys, about the same proportion as production.

    91/30s are VERY accurate rifles, depending mainly on bore condition, trigger, and ammunition used. But they are surprisingly accurate given the first two, with some really shoddy milsurp ammo too.

    Also, your 1944 should be a "wartime...." The Russians after 1942 took a lot of measures to save production time, such as not milling out the scallop on the side of the receiver making it what is called a "high wall" receiver, is a lot "straighter" with less overall milling, and didn't polish it at all, so you should stilll see a lot of milling machine marks all over it. In addition, "Wartime" stocks are slightly different than "pre-" or "post-" war ones too, less shaping, less inletting for the receiver, etc.

    Yours MAY have been restocked after the war, but probably not.

    Put it up against an early 1942 or earlier 91/30 and you will see many differences, some very subtle.

    I have a 1941 Izzy and a 1943 warime Izzy and they are neat to compare. Incidentally, they took NO shortcuts when it came to reliability or accuracy, my 1943 "wartime" is the best shooter I have had among all the 91/30s I have owned.

    By 1944, the M44 was in production and being issued en masse to line infantry as well as artillery, cavalry, etc, so one of the reasons yours may shoot so well like mine, is they didn't see a whole lot of use/abuse like earlier ones.

    And similarly why M44s shoot better than M38s....virtually ALL M38s saw HARD action for the whole war, whereas ANY M44s that saw action saw at best a year of use. The bores are better therefore.
  8. polishshooter

    polishshooter Well-Known Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    Oh by the way, about the bayonet extended on the M44....;)

    I do not believe the "maxim" that they were "designed to shoot" or "were sighted at the factory" with the bayonet extended.

    They WILL hit to different points of aim, when shooting OFFHAND, or unsupported, and this coupled with the old Czarist decrees that bayonets must be "fixed" at all times, and that they didn't issue scabbards for 91s or 91/30s, led to this "myth."

    But if you fire from a BENCHREST, you will NOT notice that much, if any at all, difference in point of impact.

    SO in my opinion, (for what it's worth,:p) I think the bayonet affects the SHOOTER more than the RIFLE, although it CAN affect the rifle as well!

    It's just like hanging a barrel weight on the end of your barrel. It makes it steadier, at least slows the oscillation in your hands.

    Or else like hanging a bipod, or anything else with any weight, flashlights, lasers, whatever, directly to the barrel, instead of indirectly to the stock, or gas tube. Points of impact will change on ANY rifle you do that to.

    But "Sighted at the factory?" Come on, WHAT factory, "sights in" rifles? Or else, what rifleman does not sight in his rifle for HIM?

    They probably shot them for function, period.
  9. TRAP55

    TRAP55 Active Member

    Polish, all rifles were clamped in a rest and fired with five rounds, test fired if you will. They had to be within a certain grouping tolerance, if they weren't, they were adjusted or sent back to fix the problem. Any 91/30's that showed exceptional accuracy were fitted with a PU scope.
    When the M44's were clamped in the rest, the bayo was extended.
    I'm a "hands on" kinda guy, so I had to test that theory myself with two Russian Izzy M44's, and a Hungarian M44 clamped down in a rest. The Hun with the bayo extended moved the point of impact 6" right and 2" up. One of the Izzy's moved 4" right, and the other only moved 2" up.
    The range was a measured 50yrds, the rest was anchored in sandbags on a concrete table, ammo was 80's Hungarian Silvertip light ball, 5 shots with bayo folded, and 5 shots with bayo extended, with a cooling period between shots.
    The 1953 Hun was in mint condition, and looked like it had never been fired. I was pretty disappointed with that one. The Russian with the most use showing on it, turned out to be the most accurate.
    We also got a butt chewing from the range master for shooting with those "assault" bayos extended. We should have realized they could accidentally go off and stab someone.:rolleyes: Gotta love the political correctness at Calif public ranges.:)
  10. polishshooter

    polishshooter Well-Known Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    Funny, Trap, from a rest I found little or no difference with the bayonet extended on any of them I've fired, including a Type 53 Chinese. The point of impact moved on some of them, sure, but not very much, from a rest, but not enough for me to know it was the bayonet or me!:p

    Of course, it wasn't a Ransom rest, mine is a Lohman Sight Vise, so that may have been some of the difference.

    But I DO see the difference, which can be dramatic, when I shoot offhand, but it also meant slightly smaller groups too, from being easier to hold steady, which led me to my opinion.

    The 5 round test from what I have read was for GROUP size on the 91/30s, they did not care where it was on the target since they would get scoped.

    Funny about your testing, I had some REALLY ratty virtually no finish Hunkies in my first batch I bought from SOG when they had the Polish/Hungarian 5fer $175 deal in 2000, and THEY were the slickest, most accurate ones I ever fired, except for one Polish that I got in that same batch. (Which is the only one of that batch I still own, I wish I didn't sell those Hunkies!) Those Hungarians were also the smoothest to take strippers too, even though they looked like they saw hard service in the Hungarian Revolution! And I've had PRETTY virtually unfired rifles that didn't shoot worth a darn. About the only thing you can say with certainty is that looks don't necessarily shoot!

    The other thing I've found is MOST "wartime" M44s I've fired, in just about any condition, will outshoot post-war Russians even if they are in better shape. It's to the point where I won't even look at a Russian M44 if it's NOT a wartime, I'm funny that way.

    About the only other generalization I have found from firing about 50 or so M44s and about a dozen M38s is that ANY M44 will outshoot just about ANY M38, and you have to really look for and shoot an awful lot of M38s to find one that will do as well as a "typical" M44. I have one 1942 M38 that I kept, it will do a little over 4" at 100 from the rest, which is the best I've found. I had ONE that wouldn't do 12".:eek: OF course every M38 I've owned had the counterbored dark bores, too.

    It all comes down to triggers for me, and not even so much the bores! I've had some really dark bores with GREAT (worn?) triggers that printed excellent groups, and some with pristine bores and ratty triggers that wouldn't group worth a darn. (So it MIGHT be me...:eek:)

    The REALLY funny thing is when I got the bright idea of switching the triggers, pins, sear/stops, and sear spring screws, and even the BOLTS from a great triggered rifle to one with a better bore....

    9 times out of 10, the one that had a crappy trigger with the original parts STILL had a crappy trigger with the parts from the good one, and the one with a GREAT trigger still had a DECENT trigger with the parts from the crappy one....go figure!

    That is about my only complaint about them, the WIDE variance between triggers on similar rifles. The only ones that are consistent are the Finnish two stage ones. I have a bunch of spare Russian trigger parts that I plan on trying to drill and insert the pins like the Finns to see if I can duplicate them whenever I can find the time or motivation:p.

    Outside of polishing and shimming, it's tough to do much with a Mosin stock trigger outside of lightening it a little.

    I'm down to only 4 91/30s now, but every one of them has a GREAT trigger. I like to think I was pretty discerning and savvy about my "collection," but I wonder if subconsciously I only kept the ones with good triggers?:p
  11. TRAP55

    TRAP55 Active Member

    Triggers and ammo make a BIG difference!
    I had about given up on any hope of a half way accurate Mosin until I got my first M39 Finn. The Russians should have taken lessons from them!
    I have the blueprint for the Finn two pin trigger mod here.

    This Hungarian was the first one I'd seen that didn't look like everyone in their army had used it, so I jumped on it. I "think" I have the accuracy problem narrowed down to bedding/stock fit, but it's such a clean example, I haven't brought myself to mess with it yet.
    I have a real clean 1939 Tula 91/30, and an unissued Polish M44 on the way. This is one sick addiction, I have two safes and no more room!:D
  12. pinecone70

    pinecone70 Active Member

    Jul 30, 2008
    Minnesota Gal!
    The information here sounds about right to me, I was absolutely stunned at the accuracy of my 91/30 compared to the M-44. I can do pretty well freestanding with the 91/30 at 150 yards (even though I can't see the target too clearly). My M-44 had problems the gunsmith couldn't fix, it shot high and right for everyone regardless of where the bayonet was, so I put a scope on it and it's much better, but groups are tighter with the longer-barreled 91/30. I like both rifles, I have trouble not buying them when they're that inexpensive!
  13. polishshooter

    polishshooter Well-Known Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    I need to pick up a few more soon myself. I used to have a REALLY nice collection of M44s for a few years from all the ones I've owned, at least one from every country including China, with two Poles and three Russians, a wartime, a post- and one wartime laminated, but over time they all went away to either an offer I couldn't refuse, or to other branches of the collection.

    All the others I bought, cleaned up, shot, and if they didn't really please me I immediately sold or traded them and bought more. At one time I was REALLY hooked.:p

    Now I'm "back up" to a Russian Wartime I "rehabbed" from parts when I was off with my heart attack last year that shoots and looks (now) pretty nicely, a Romanian I picked up for a song at a show that also needed rehab and refinishing badly, but after I epoxied the cracks, and got ready to sand, I noticed many of the "scratches and dings" weren't so much from abuse as much as a bored Romanian conscript carving names and notches in his's got a lot of history carved into it so I Tru-oiled it and left it as is. It's not much to look at but it shoots well too...

    Other than my original 1952 "Korean sent but not delivered" Polish which is from the first buy I ever made with my "new' CRFFL, I have another Pole which I have in a synthetic stock, freefloated, trigger job, bent extended and polished bolt, with an ATI scope mount and a Rocky Mount bipod...with an old used $15 4x Bushnell I shot 1 1/2" at 100 with it with Igman and S&B (WInchester) factory 150 grain sps, and 2" with Polish Surplus, but a buddy who is a real rifle shooter go a group down to almost 1 1/4"...but since I replaced the scope with a new 3-9x for some reason it isn't shooting so well, about 2-3 inches, even with my handloads, so that project went on the backburner again....:cool:

    I have a Russian wartime that I was making into a "Scout" to replace the one I did before and wasn't happy with and sold, but after getting the stock all done and freefloated, that project got backburnered too...:p

    I also have 2 more M44s left over from when I bought them for $9.95 each from Century as "Ufixems" that I will get around to "rehabbing" someday....

    I saw a decent Hungarian at a show last week for $125, that I even showed my son the markings, that I never even considered buying until I left, and then kicked myself....I only needed a Hunky to have at least one from all four Euros again....:mad:

    I only have 4 91/30s left, from the 20 or so I have owned, none from the "recent" batches of rearsenaled ones around for the past 3 or 4 years...a 1920 Izzy Transition with all the Czarist markings, a 1931 Tula, a 1941 pre-war Izzy, and a 1943 wartime Izzy.

    I also used to have a nice Sesty 91 Finn, a nice Finn capture 91/30 with just the SA stamp and the Finn arsenal hang tag dated 1940, and a nice VKT wartime M39, but I let them all get away too....:mad:
  14. TRAP55

    TRAP55 Active Member

    Pinecone, shooting high is common and an easy fix.
    Slip a piece of automotive wiring heat shrink tubing(from Napa,your choice of colors too) over the front sight post. Apply some heat from a match or lighter and it's on. Use a razor blade to trim to the right height. If you cut too much off, it comes right off. The colored tubing works pretty good for old eyes. I've used the hollow plastic tube from a Q-Tip before too.
    Hammer and a brass drift punch for windage.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Military Arms & History Forum Mosin nagant lover Feb 4, 2014
General Military Arms & History Forum What kind of Mosin Nagant is this? Jun 28, 2013
General Military Arms & History Forum Bought my first Mosin Nagant M44 carbine Jan 18, 2013
General Military Arms & History Forum 1913 mosin nagant Dec 8, 2010
General Military Arms & History Forum mosin nagant Dec 10, 2009