OK, OK, all you Mauser guys are ganging up on the accuracy part, but all I know is I HAVE read from a (granted only one) German source from the Eastern Front who claim the Mosin was more accurate than their Mausers. I have read NO Russian sources claiming the contrary. (Although I do think whatever the Russian word that translates to "shot to the back of the neck" has something to do with THAT.
)(Which is one thing the Nagant Revolver WAS good at BTW!
)
I myself have found just the OPPOSITE, but then again, most of my Mauser shooting was when I was younger and less experienced, like BEFORE I shot DCM matches and learned HOW...or better yet, what I was doing WRONG
)
But as for SIMPLER? I can't give you that, LD. The Mauser is a MUCH more complicated weapon, just count the parts. There are probably more parts in the mauser bolt and safety than in the entire bolt, safety, trigger, ejector, interrupter, magazine and follower including the SCREWS on a Mosin.
Couple THAT with the Mauser guys who started the "Matching numbers on the bolt" premium...it IS important on a Mauser for function. But a Mosin that saw ANY service will probably NOT have matching numbers. The US Troops issued them in 1919 for the "Expedition" against the Reds found out their Westinghouse and Remingtons worked BETTER in the cold when they traded the stock bolts for Russian ones.....Trade bolts on a Mauser? You better have headspace guages or a friendly gunsmith handy!
(Granted, I WILL concede that the Mauser has a better safety...
)
But the fact remains the Mosin is MUCH simpler to make, maintain, and keep functioning in the field than the Mauser, especially with cold tired hungry, CONSCRIPTS. Which leads us back to the question...
Which is the best BATTLE RIFLE....(Keep your Mukluks on Bunny...of the TWO
)
Hands down, the Mosin....
But the Enfield beats it, and I for one do NOT think they are "ugly" either...
And just for the record, the 03 was only carried by the USMC in WWI, the rifle that won it for US was the P17 Enfield....
But K98, that is interesting about your father. My father went in late because of a deferment for a "War Essential" industry, right at the start the factory he was working in converted to stamp out triggers for 1919 Brownings. When the contract was filled, he was drafted in late 42, and after training was assigned to the 29th Infantry. He was literally called out of the line of soldiers waiting to go up the gangplank in 43 for England, because "his teeth were in...." and after he got them "installed" the division had sailed for England, so they reassigned him to artillery, to a new towed 105 unit at Bragg that never shipped out, and then finished the war guarding German POW work parties all over North Carolina. The 29th was DECIMATED at Omaha, and Dad always told us if he had had good teeth we wouldn't be here.
But I heard all the stories growing up, and thought he would be thrilled when I showed him my DCM Garand in the 80s. His reply was "What's this?"
I was FLABBERGASTED, until we talked about it. He and his buddies were trained on, and more importantly were CARRYING 03s when they boarded the ship for England, and as far as he knew carried them ashore at DDAY. He said he LOVED it, it was accurate and powerful, a great weapon.
After he went to Artillery he was issued the carbine, which he called a POS, "not accurate like the Springfield" and also carried that on the guard duty, and said he was lucky none of the Krauts tried to run, he probably would have missed him with the carbine.
But he had NEVER SEEN a Garand, much less SHOT one, according to him!
I was confused, until I read Canfield, and saw the PICTURES of all the 03s and 03A3s all over Europe as late as late '44.
More GIs carried and fought with them in in every theater of WWII than most people think.
But I digress...
For the SAME reasons the Mosin is better than the Mauser, is why we ALMOST made the 03 substitute standard in 1918! The "simpler" P17 Enfield was more reliable, easier to use and maintain, and train recruits with, AND we had a whole LOT more of them after WWI than Springfields, so it would have made fiscal sense, especially with all the military budget slashing that went on in the 20s...
The only reason we DIDN'T was the USMC and USA Rifle Teams, and the NRA support of same. If they would have made * grade barrels and National Match rifles (and sights) in the P17, the Springfield MAY have been retired a LOT sooner....