Armory Sponsor
Posted: 8/17/2009 7:53:59 AM EDT
|
I'm really spoiled by my swiss rifles and think I might wind up not shooting a MN much in comparison but I'm still tempted to give one a try. I think it would help if I got one of the lighter models that wasn't so heavy since I like to shoot off hand a lot. It looks like the m38 would be the best bet. The only thing I'm concerned about is that I hear these are often iffy shooters and are usually very throughly used. Is that true? Anyone have them other than century? The prices seem a little high for what might be a gamble on shootability.
I hear the 91/59 and 91/38 are also cut down lighter rifles but how is their availability? I may just wind up with a 91/30 since they are so cheap but figured I'd see what was out there for the shorties first. |
| If you're used to shooting the Swiss rifle, I think you will be disappointed with any Mosin carbine. I would at least go with a 91/30 and a Finn M39 would be optimum. The 91/30 can attain excellent accuracy, but the chances of getting it "out of the box" are better with the M39. Just my opinion. |
|
It depends on what sort of accuracy you would want to get, while shooting offhand. The 91/30 is comfortable to shoot offhand (for me anyway). It's length can be deceiving, because it also balances quite well. With the right ammo (finding which load your rifle likes, even with surplus, and every rifle is different), most of my 91/30s will group in the 1.5-2 inch area, from the bench. Some are MOA rifles; again, from the bench. There are guys who will tell you that their M44, M38 or 91/59 will shoot MOA, but it's highly unlikely that you will get one that's capable of that. I'm not saying I don't believe them, because it is possible. It's just that it's very rare, even if fired from a bench.
Personally, I feel that the M39, even with it's extra weight, is better for offhand shooting, because of the trigger, which is MUCH better than the trigger on the 91/30 or any other Soviet Mosin. Not to mention that they are inherently more accurate to begin with. |
|
Quoted: It depends on what sort of accuracy you would want to get, while shooting offhand. The 91/30 is comfortable to shoot offhand (for me anyway). It's length can be deceiving, because it also balances quite well. With the right ammo (finding which load your rifle likes, even with surplus, and every rifle is different), most of my 91/30s will group in the 1.5-2 inch area, from the bench. Some are MOA rifles; again, from the bench. There are guys who will tell you that their M44, M38 or 91/59 will shoot MOA, but it's highly unlikely that you will get one that's capable of that. I'm not saying I don't believe them, because it is possible. It's just that it's very rare, even if fired from a bench. Personally, I feel that the M39, even with it's extra weight, is better for offhand shooting, because of the trigger, which is MUCH better than the trigger on the 91/30 or any other Soviet Mosin. Not to mention that they are inherently more accurate to begin with. +1 I believe that M39s are the top of the evolutionary ladder for the MNs M39 - http://www.gunsnammo.com/ MosinNagats 1891- 1891/30 http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/Russian_1891_30_7.62x54R_Mosin_Nagant_Rifle.html |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Finn M39. As a reminder, I'm looking for light weight for pleasant off hand shooting. I'm not sure that heavier than the 91/30 is the best choice for those criteria. Finn M28 or M28/30. They're slightly longer than the M38 and should shoot pretty darn good, assuming the bore isn't trashed. Of course, finding one is the trick and finding one that looks reasonably priced next to the Russian model is like winning the lottery. Still, you should be able to find one on Gunbroker for $300-400, which is probably out of your intended range. The M39 isn't bad at all for off-hand shooting (I like shooting it off-hand, actually) and you have to LOOK to find one that shoots bad. The Finn M27 and M91 would tie at third for me. M27s are hard to find and can be expensive. M91s are bigger, but I like them A LOT, despite their length. I really don't think they're all that bad off-hand, either, considering their size. If you're looking for a less expensive MN that has a fairly good chance of being a good shooter, I'd look at the post-war years M44s. A lot of these carbines were shot very little and have basically brand new bores on them. A lot of people seem to have a lot of luck especially with the 1948s, many of which are reported to be in new condition. The M91/59 would also be an option. Many of them are reputed to be good shooters and I believe most of them saw very little to no use as well and many are reputed to have good triggers, too. Overall, you have a better chance to get a shooter with the Finns, but there are Russian rifles out there that will shoot as well. Keep in mind that you're being spoiled by the Swiss. Russian weapons just weren't built with the consistency the Swiss rifles were. They were also USED hard and rebuilt by armorers who were probably conscripts themselves. Operation was probably the number one concern. If accuracy came with it, so much the better. I doubt they went looking for it. The Finns cared far more about being able to shoot straight and that shows in the quality of their arms. |
|
Quoted:
So are the stories about m38's being a real crapshoot actually true? Anyone with them in stock other than century? Most M38s saw REALLY hard use and cleaning. For your intended uses, I'd look at the 91/59 instead. You can find M38s that shoot, but I'd think you'd have an easier time finding a 91/59 that shoots. |
|
Quoted:
If all else fails buy a m44 and nix the bayonet and hardware....... I suppose thats an option too. What all is involved in breaking the m44 down to m38 weight? Does it come apart fairly easily or does it turn into a bubba "get out the dremel" kind of job? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If all else fails buy a m44 and nix the bayonet and hardware....... I suppose thats an option too. What all is involved in breaking the m44 down to m38 weight? Does it come apart fairly easily or does it turn into a bubba "get out the dremel" kind of job? There's just a screw to remove the bayonet. The mount, I've not dealt with. I don't know if it can be removed without permanent modification. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Finn M39. As a reminder, I'm looking for light weight for pleasant off hand shooting. I'm not sure that heavier than the 91/30 is the best choice for those criteria. Pleasant off hand shooting and MN are not a standard combination as far as I'm concerned. The lighter your rifle, the less pleasant. |
| 91/30's actually handle pretty nice for me. Plus the sights are a real plus for us old farts. If you want better chances at a decent shooting short version, look for a 91/59. These are basically cut down 91/30's or even a few cut down M91's or Dragoons have shown up too. A big plus is that they worked on the trigger group so they are smooth operating. Accuracy of mine is pretty good too. Definitely good enough for hunting. The first M38's into the country had that rode hard and put away wet look to them. Almost all of the were counterbored. A year or so ago better one started showing up in the country. I don't like the M44's as they bayonet really affects the balance of the rifle. Also be prepared for a BIG BOOM from the shorter rifles. They are loud and when I first fired one at the range I use it turned lots of heads. Sounds more like a magnum load going off and if it is close to dusk, you get a great pyrotechnics display as a bonus. When I first started taking MN's to the range some years ago, almost nobody had heard of them. Lots of them showing up now. People really enjoy shooting them. |
|
shimming the action and wrapping oiled cloth around the barrel / in the stock channel of an MN can increase accuracy TONS.... also- try to find the best bore ( obviously )
i have a 1944 M44 that is counter bored, that gets roughly 3" groups at 100 yards with surplus and my poor vision. |
Armory Sponsor