Quoted:
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.

Quoted:
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.

Quoted:
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.

Quoted:
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.