User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/7/2018 4:16:20 AM EDT
[#1]
Some may of been better than others, for comparison I have a 1942 91/30 that the bolt has always been stiff and a 1945 M44 which has the smoothest bolt of all my rifles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2018 4:28:17 AM EDT
[#2]
That's me at 100 yards with my Kiv/39. 
That sight isn't a target sight. That's a COMBAT sight. Shoot faster on more fleeting targets and it suddenly makes a lot more sense than the M91/30 arrangement. Interestingly, the French hit the same conclusion, and they went even wider for the front sight than the Finns. The sights were proven in war with opponents using the "better" sight as well... Bonus, actually taking a caliper to the sights: 91/30 Angular size of the rear sight notch is 0.275° That's 17.306" wide at 100 yards. Angular size of the front sight is 0.130° (2.311 mil). That's 8.162" wide at 100 yards. Kiv/28-30 Angular size of the rear sight notch is 0.311° That's 19.521" wide at 100 yards. Angular size of the front sight is 0.162° (2.880 mil). That's 10.175" wide at 100 yards. Kiv/39 Angular size of the rear sight notch is 0.362° That's 11.365" wide at 100 yards. Angular size of the front sight is 0.151° (2.684 mil). That's 9.477" wide at 100 yards. That's not much difference at all. Especially since shoulder to shoulder is about 24". This is also why you learn math, to shut people up about the huge differences in things when they're really quite small. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2018 9:41:20 AM EDT
[#3]
I like mine. As said the sight is a combat sight. Also when you hit about forty this super thinsights for target shooting like say that razor on the front of a M1903 Springfield will just disappear before my eyes. Decidedly unhandy if you need to pick off a Hun machine gunner at 300 yards across no man’s land.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2018 10:34:38 AM EDT
[#4]
I also have a sneak M39. Neat rifle.
The Finns did a nice job, but in the end it's still a just a Mosin. Not on par with the '98 Mauser, SMLE, M1917 or M1903 by any means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2018 12:13:08 PM EDT
[#5]
Angular size of the rear sight notch is 0.362° That's 11.365" wide at 100 yards. Angular size of the front sight is 0.151° (2.684 mil). That's 9.477" wide at 100 yards. Therein lies the problem. There is too little gap between the front blade and rear notch. Does that mean the gap is only 2" at 100 yards? You can still shoot them. I didn't say the sights were unusable. My point was that the sights aren't any better but people keep saying that they are. And speaking of a combat sight, why do you need so many notches between marked distances? The number of notches also doesn't seem to make any sense if you count how many there are between 150 and 200, 200 and 300, etc. Top group sucked, bottom group tightened up: 
Best group of the day with reloads: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2018 2:40:20 PM EDT
[#6]
Combat sights: Work better for combat in combat conditions. Will nearly always not work as well at the range.
You're taking to the range and seeing that. Find some rabbits you wanna annihilate. Suddenly the sights work better. It's a psycho-optical thing. Like I mentioned earlier, the French did the same thing, and their front sights are wide as buses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2018 3:04:23 PM EDT
[#7]
They were great when they were cheap and surplus ammo was like $45 for a 440 rd tin.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2018 4:29:54 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They were great when they were cheap and surplus ammo was like $45 for a 440 rd tin. Just got some Wolf Extra Match, which is LVE ammo with a 200-grain bullet (which looks like it has a very similar ogival radius to the D166 bullet). I've heard that the ballistics are much closer to the D166. I've heard that Lapua makes loaded cartridges of the correct type, but I've never seen them for sale and what I have seen for sale in the same class is stupid expensive. I'll definitely have to reload now that I cannot mail order ammo (I sure ain't finding the LVE stuff or D166 at any local store). I've had a couple of the same issues with the M39 as the OP. With a cartridge chambered the bolt handle is not quite horizontal and it is springy when you try to push it horizontal. There also must be a burr or something because the bolt head is catching somewhere in the receiver, although it gets better and better with continued cycling. The trigger is light, but it is mushy and most of the time you can't really feel the second stage point. On the rare occasion that I do, it is rather crisp, though, and even lighter than the take-up, it seems, so you have to be gentle if you want to stop right at the second stage. The magazine floorplate is also loose and rattles; it's very worn, though. Other than that it's a nice rifle. Mine is on an Izhevsk 1905 receiver with the Imperial eagle intact and with Steyr markings and a serial number that I'm pretty sure was applied by Steyr, as it's in the right location for that and uses the same font as my M95 (this is in addition to the Finnish M39 serial). Mine has one of the B barrels with the SA partially cut off and which is plum-coloured. Post-war stock with arsenal repairs to the butt. Definitely not in unissued condition. It definitely saw service and has a lot of the same sort of wear as my K-31, especially around the butt and muzzle areas. Most of the stock's metal furniture looks brand new, though. Looks like it could have an interesting history, and I wonder if it saw action (the receiver, anyways) during the two wars with the Soviets as an M91 or some other configuration before being converted into an M39 (post-war, if I understand the history of the B barrel M39s correctly). It obviously saw action during WWI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2018 5:05:45 PM EDT
[#9]
I have a 1937 91/30 that shot high, I used a small piece of insulation off a copper wire after removing the copper and slid it over the from sight so I could "adjust" it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2018 5:10:47 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a 1937 91/30 that shot high, I used a small piece of insulation off a copper wire after removing the copper and slid it over the from sight so I could "adjust" it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2018 6:32:13 PM EDT
[#11]
Sure sounds like you got a crappy one. Over all fin mosins tend to have about the smoothest actions short of maybe the polish m44s.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2018 4:13:05 AM EDT
[#12]
Please stop the “sneak” nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2018 8:14:30 AM EDT
[#13]
Mine has a Sako barrel and shoots very well with commercial ammo. Decent trigger but not match quality .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2018 5:00:14 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure sounds like you got a crappy one. Over all fin mosins tend to have about the smoothest actions short of maybe the polish m44s. My 91/30 and M44 have slick actions. Using the 91/30 bolt in my M39 fixes the stiffness. My M44 bolt doesn’t headspace correctly in the M39 so I can’t use that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2018 5:01:45 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Combat sights: Work better for combat in combat conditions. Will nearly always not work as well at the range. You're taking to the range and seeing that. Find some rabbits you wanna annihilate. Suddenly the sights work better. It's a psycho-optical thing. Like I mentioned earlier, the French did the same thing, and their front sights are wide as buses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2018 2:28:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please stop the “sneak” nonsense. As for quality, I have a SAKO M39 with excellent fit and finish. The Finns did not make receivers. I doubt they ever made the main bolt part. However, at one point or the other, they did make some of the small parts. The cocking piece on mine is beautifully-made with a very clear SAKO cartouche on it. As for other rifles being better.... The Mosin system worked very well on the Eastern Front especially in brutally cold weather in which other rifles would freeze up. A beautiful Mauser of SMLE that can’t be cycled is an inferior MBR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2018 1:50:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
All of the content on the internet sings high praises of the gun. The Finns took a clunky Russian piece of crap rifle and turned it into a jewel capable of competing against any military rifle of the era. I have not found anyone say anything bad about the gun. My M39 is a 1967-dated "sneak". It looked unissued, unfired, and unused when I got it. The bore still had bluing, and there was no bluing wear even on the contact areas of the receiver. The stock is immaculate. It's safe to say that I got a good specimen. The bolt is made from a hodgepodge of recycled Russian parts from different factories and different eras. The bolt parts are quite poorly fitted, and the bolt rattles considerably when out of the gun. In fact, it is so loosely fitted that the bolt does not even function 100%. About half of the time when I pull the trigger, I get no 2nd stage wall - the trigger breaks like a double-action. The bolt also will not close fully: the handle is at a noticeable 20-degree angle instead of being horizontal. Oh, and did I mention that extraction requires a hard slap every time? Yet, I keep hearing about how the Finns smoothed out the action and the M39 has a much slicker action than the 91/30. I actually borrow the bolt off my 91/30 and use that when I shoot my M39. It functions much better. At the end of the day, the M39 is still a Mosin Nagant action, and the misfit recycled parts can make the action even worse than what you find on 91/30s. Next the sights. Oh how much have I heard about the sights being superior. I think the sight picture is awful. I have never seen a thicker front post on a milsurp, and it is paired with a tiny rear notch. The gun is quite accurate, but the sights are a real letdown and I have to really do my part to get the gun to group well. The 91/30 has far superior sights. Just grap some calipers and measure the sights... On a positive note, the stock and barrel are awesome, and the gun is very accurate (if I do my part with the crappy sights). It's a 1-1.5 moa gun with the right ammo. I think Finnish Mosins are overrated mainly because of Finnish exploits during the Winter War to humiliate the Russians. Somehow, that supposedly means their rifles are that much better. This is kind of like how French guns are looked down upon because France surrendered 6 weeks after Hitler invaded. Am I the only person to think Finnish Mosins are way overrated? I've just been itching to get my thoughts out there since I have not seen anyone else share my views. I'll give you $100 to take that POS off your hands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2018 2:46:02 PM EDT
[#18]
They live up to their reputation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2018 7:04:25 PM EDT
[#19]
Have you tried brass-cased ammo like PPU in it?
I do tend to agree with the OP that it's overrated. Not bad, but people probably get just a little bit too excited about them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 10:13:05 AM EDT
[#20]
I've had half a dozen or so of the M39, a couple of the M28/30, many 91/30, and several of the original M91. Of the lot, I'd take a good condition M91 over the rest. Be it imperial Russian or Finnish. Of my remaining mosins, that's all I have left. They just work better for me.
In full disclosure, I've been shedding mosins for mausers over the last several months. It's a real toss up over which I prefer more. A nice M91 mosin, or a nice 98 mauser of some variety. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 12:04:45 PM EDT
[#21]
gots to say i have two. One new with a tag and another in great shape. Love them. Yes it is a Mosin but the Finns did great work on these and the trigger is wonderful!!!
Just my two cents |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 10:57:12 AM EDT
[#22]
I have eight Mosin Nagants. Five are Russian (M38, M44, and three M91/30s) and three are Finnish (one Remington M91, and two M39s).
The M39s are, by far, the best. I don’t think your sample size of one with a bad bolt is indicative. Neither of mine have bad bolts, and neither are "sloppy". I don’t know that they’re any “slicker” though. Regarding slapping the bolt, sticky bolt can occur with any Mosin – or any rifle for that matter. Sticky bolt comes from firing steel cases that do not seal the chamber well and allow firing dirt to enter the chamber and get stuck between the case and the chamber wall. The idea that it’s “old hardened cosmoline” as the ARFCOM mythology often insists is absurd. For one, when your gun gets hot, the cosmoline isn’t hardened. It melts. Second, why does it come back even after you clean it out? Why is it specific to Mosins? Why don’t other types of cosmoline filled rifles get sticky bolt? I’ll tell you why…because people aren’t shooting exclusively steel cases through their Springfields and Enfields. Steel cases for them are fairly uncommon. I get REALLY back sticky bolt with my Savage if I fire a lot of steel cased .308 in it. My Turkish Mauser gets sticky bolt upon firing steel cased 8mm. I can shoot Yugo or Turkish brass cased ammo all day. Remember the Old Painless steel/brass case tests? What did we learn? That steel cases allow dirt around the casing that brass cases don’t. After firing steel cases, if OP fired brass cases and they came out filthy. Why? Because they were expanding into and grabbing all the dirt the steel cases were leaving in the chamber. This is not an anti-steel case diatribe. I shoot a ton of the stuff. The point is that ALL Mosins and in fact ALL bolt action rifles can suffer from sticky bolt when fired with large amounts of steel cased ammo. Brass cased ‘54R is uncommon or expensive, most people shoot surplus steel cased ammo exclusively. The flat, checkered sights are superior to the rounded post and rear sight on the 91/30. I don’t find the size of the sights to be problematic or notable. Versus other Mosins the M39 is definitely the best. Versus an Enfield No1 Mk3, I think they're pretty equivalent. The sights are similar and I really don't like cock-on-close bolts, but that's me. Versus an Enfield No4 Mk2, I think the Enfield is better due to the better sights. Versus a Mauser I think the M39 gets close. The action of the Mauser is definitely smoother and faster/easier to cycle than a Mosin and the double stack magazine is easier to load. There’s also no interuptor to prevent rimlock, which doesn’t always work right (though it does on all of my Finns). Versus a Springfield 1903A3 I think the M39 is inferior. The Springfield has the superior action and magazine of the Mauser but sights that are much better than either of them, and the Springfield is no slouch accuracy wise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2018 6:47:34 PM EDT
[#23]
1.5 MOA for a mid 20th Century re hash of a 19th Century design, for a general issue infantry rifle is amazing, IMO. Especially when shooting military issue ball (assuming USSR surplus).
Think about that for a second. I read on another gunboard that the 1903 Springfield was acceptable for service with 3" at 100 yards. Not saying many (or most) of them didn't shoot better, but that's acceptable at the time it was in general issue. For a fighting rifle, issued to Infantrymen, it's good performance. Again, IMO. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
