Gun Hub

Gun Hub (http://gunhub.com/forums.php)
-   Curio and Relic (http://gunhub.com/curio-relic/)
-   -   Mauser vs. Mosin (http://gunhub.com/curio-relic/5516-mauser-vs-mosin.html)

fm2176 07-25-2004 11:03 AM

Mauser vs. Mosin
 
Which do you like better? I got the idea from an article in a magazine that's out now. The author reached the conclusion that the Mosin-Nagant 91/30 was a better rifle than the K98k that he tested it against. Some of the things I notice with my rifles are:
-The Mauser has a better "feel" to it, I have a G24(t), vz24 and two K98k's.
-The Mosin seems much more rugged, like most Russian weapons, I have four M44's, an M1891, a 91/30 and a Finnish M28.
-Accuracy wise, I'd give the edge to the Mausers, though the article concluded that the 91/30 was the more accurate.

I personally feel that the Mauser is a better weapon overall, though the M-N is close behind it.

kivaari 07-25-2004 11:28 AM

Mosin vs. Mauser......
 
Better.....no....just different....yes...

I have many Finnish Mosins but I can't look myself in the mirror and say it's a better rifle than the Mauser...

An apples for apples test would have been two rifles with comparable sight radius and ammo, for example. Putting a 91/30 against a 98/22 would have been more fair.. There's no comparison to the workmanship, feeding, fit, bolt operation, finish...no way... To draw the conclusions from the article, you'd need to test, say, 7 rifles of each kind, to statistically even begin to infer his conclusions.

They're just two different "schools of thought" produced by two different cultures equal in lethality but not in some aspects of quality.

JR 07-26-2004 08:57 AM

I'm not sure about the fit and finish of Mausers being quite as good as most people think. I've seen an awful lot of them afflicted with terrible triggers, hard bolts, and the sights are typical of WWI thinking. Much too fine to be practical.

The Mosins I've owned ran from great to terrible. That said, I think that BOTH rifles suffered greatly from the expediencies of war. As to which is better, that's akin to the 9mm vs. .45 ACP debate. :D

gas trap 07-26-2004 09:02 AM

I don't think that one is better than the other. They are both rugged enough, accurate enough and reliable enough for their purpose.

If was given my choice of the two and sent into battle I would not worry too much one way or the other.

I wonder which was cheaper to produce.

How did he test them? My experience with firearms tests leads me to believe that you can prove whatever you want to. Just design the test to favor whichever one you want to.

A truly fair test would involve weeks or months of dragging them through dirt and mud and beating them against rocks etc.

Edited because I type like a chimp.

gbob01 07-26-2004 10:06 AM

My personal leaning is towards the Mosin/Nagant rifles. I own a 1938 Turk and yugo24/47 Mauser, and I find both of them to be in no higher quality than any of the other battle rifles in their class. Both are fine shooters, but not outstanding. Actions on them, I find a little stiff. They did and would still serve their purpose.
Both of my Mosins, 91/30 and M44, are both re-arsenaled. This may be why I feel they are the better of the two types, both are excellent shooters, with nice smooth actions.
All four of them have VG to Ex bores and shooting side by side I would put the 91/30 out front, followed by a tie with the m44 & 24/47, and the 1938 pulling up the rear.

JR 07-26-2004 04:20 PM

Fortier's article is in the latest issue of Shooting Times. He spent at least two winter months, in Maine, hauling both of them around. Shooting would have been representative of moderate combat conditions. :D

rek41 07-26-2004 07:11 PM

Give the M39 a try. Good Feel, Very Acurate, Low Cost Ammo!

Bob K

Rick the Librarian 07-27-2004 03:57 AM

If I wasn't so involved with Springfields (and now Krags, too - ugh!) a Finnish M39 would be a real treat - heard nothing but good about them. I also like a nice Mosin M91 (not 91/30). Unfortunately, I recently sold mine to buy another Krag!

steveinct 07-27-2004 02:24 PM

Haven't made up my mind yet. That's why I own both :P

OnTargetFL 08-04-2004 07:35 PM

Mausers combine brute force and an unparralleled elegance that you see copied on all the great rifles.... USGI, British, Winchester, and 100 other nations.....

Moisins are work horses... crude but effective.

BushRat 08-04-2004 09:21 PM

I think a couple of comments made about war-time production says a lot about the rifles. I have a M98/29 "Persian" Mauser that exemplifies the beautiful workmanship from BRNO before WW2. There are some things I don't like about it (sights, for one) but overall the fit and finish are superb.
Also remember that Mausers were built by different factories and nations: Swedish; German; Czech; Belgian; American; ect..
My Mosin was built in Tula in 1942---Stalingrad was under seige. I would never hold fit & finish against it considering the fate of that nation was in the balance at that point. Its a fine rifle.
However: if the Mosin is a "superior" weapon to the Mauser, why is it not the basis for almost every hunting rifle ever built like the Mauser is? That is a tough point to argue...
--BushRat--

Jacobite 08-04-2004 10:19 PM

However: if the Mosin is a "superior" weapon to the Mauser, why is it not the basis for almost every hunting rifle ever built like the Mauser is? That is a tough point to argue...
--BushRat--

I must agree with that line right there.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2014 Gun Hub. All rights reserved.