https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-mosin-nagant-never-stopped-fighting-5122644b0d2c

LOL, the morbidly obese American with the "Bubba-fucked" tard rifle as the article pic!

Photo credit appears to claim Bubba is Ukrainian:

"At top?—?a pro-Russian separatist fighter with a Mosin-Nagant in Slovyansk, Ukraine on June 11, 2014. Andrei Petrov/AP photo"

I suppose "pro-Russian separatist fighter" could mean "pro-Russian 'Murican Bubba who somehow smuggled his favorite CustomTacticoolSpetznazTapcoSniper 91/30 into Ukraine", but I don't trust AP news any more than Reuters: the photo was probably taken in the U.S. and stolen by AP.

That scope mount is interesting

They are tapcofucking stuff now, too, so it could be legit.

The arguments about the Mosin being awsome because it is still in use is basically nonsense. The Mosin sees wider action then others because it was Russian, and hence they made a huge number of them.

It is a typical bolt action rifle of its era, and one that didn't see as many advances as its Western contemporaries. This is actualy a sign of Russian clear headedness in a sense, it was sufficient to its task and they didn't invest the energy in redesign that you see in Anglo-Saxon rifles. I suppose our efforts at redesign (Brit and American) reflect a cultural desire to give Johnny the best gun so he has the best chance to return home, while Ivan gets what he needs to win the war (or lose it) and if he doesn't come back not such a big deal.

That photo is from over there. There are a few more out there as well.

Interesting article.

I like the Mosin Nagant a lot for what it is. A simple, robust, and reliable bolt action rifle. I do not think that it is particularly crude or simple to manufacture. It was state of the art when introduced, and it does have all machined steel parts. I'm positive it is a far tougher action than 90% of the modern rifles sold.

It's inexpensive now because so many were made, and it's obsolete compared to a modern sporter rifle. Its a fairly obscure caliber and not amiable to optics, as a modern rifle should have.

But the design is sound, and with all the machined parts, I'm sure it would cost as much as Winchester Model 70 today to produce. Probably more.

It was ahead of its time in that it had a floating bolt head, and a centerfeed magazine (like many modern actions). The Mosin is fine for what it is, and has a strong reputation for reliability in adverse conditions. I bet if Ivan chambered it in our 30 caliber, a true 308 bore, it would have a bit more acceptance in the US.  A Mosin is a solid rifle, only handicapped today by lack of optics and a thin and simple factory barrel. If you needed to survive in Siberia, a Mosin would be fine. An M1917 would be a bit better. And if Bubba got to the M1917 and milled the receiver for a scope, collectors would cringe, but you would have a great rugged rifle.

But I will always like my Mosin rifle.

It may have been state of the art when introduced, but it was passed up well before the decade was out.

The things to compare it too are the Mausers and Lee Enfields, etc., not modern sporting rifles which benifit from modern tech but also reflect a rather different goal usually defined by bench rest accuracy with the benifit of a scope or firing modern magnum rounds.

All of the old school military rifles I can think of were solid. Even the often despised Carcano.

The interesting debate, to me, is between the Mauser '98 and the Lee Enfield family.  The Lee Enfields became probably the best military bolt action battle rifles ever made, although really an older design and with a number of flaws that were largely irrelevent to the purpose. The Mauser achieved near perfection from a certain point of view, becoming the base for most later civilian sporting bolt actions, whether intended for big game hunting, long range shooting or exceptional groups. Yet the Lee Enfiled was the better battle rifle.

The modern advantage of the Mosin is related to production quantities and the resulting economics. I remember the $39 Mosins and Turk Mausers at Big 5, and wish I picked up a few.

I agree with you. I mean that the Mosin was (and still is) a solid and reliable rifle. It doesn't take a scope readily, has a really awkward safety, and the open reciever would mean it will probably not be a bench rest gun ever. But you can still tune a Finn to shoot reliably under an inch at 100 yards, so it works for most practical uses.

A Lee Enfield is a better battlefield rifle with it's larger magazine, and the rear lugs on the bolt must have made it far easier to keep the action clean and reliable under hard use. Sights and safety were much better too.  But the rear lugs of the Lee Enfield have really never been used on any more modern action, so I imagine that feature is evolutionary dead end for modern hunting and target bolt actions. If I had to carry a bolt action in WW2, it'd be a Lee Enfield. Unless it was in Siberia, like I said, then it'd be an M1917.

Modern bolt guns are reliable for moderate use, and accurate, but are built for low cost and ease of production first. For high end actions, a company is producing an action called the "Mausingfield" that combines features of the Mauser, Springfield, Savage and Remington. Everyone's list of best features for their ideal rifle is different, but this new action has really pulled together some good parts from different designs. If I had the $ I'd get one.

No 4 sights are much better, but SMLE sights are not. But the SMLE actions is much faster, with better bolt location, etc.

The Lee Enfield action is a dead end in that the trend in bolt actions has been towards high pressure rounds and benchrest like accuracy, not rapid fire. Hecne what was probably the best combat bolt actions was also a dead end . . .

With respect to the frozen north, Canadians have found the Lee Enfield to function well there.