>>65190590
Not sure if trolling, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

It is called the M1891 because it is the model of 1891, it is a rifle design dating back over 130 years. At the time, the Soviet Union was basically a corrupt Czar and a bunch of farmers/peasants, so the fact that they could build a reliable and halfway accurate rifle at all by the millions is kind of a Military/Industrial miracle in itself. For it's time it was decent, but less accurate than the Mauser rifles out of Germany or the Springfield rifles out of the USA, but the fact that they could build rifles to rival industrial powerhouses like the USA and Germany is actually pretty impressive. The mosin served by the millions in both WWI and WWII and is still in limited use today.

Yeah, they are called "Moist Nuggets" and "Garbage Rods" by people on this board, but this was done with the same loving irony with which one might tease a little brother (or 130 year old grandpa who was a veteran of two world wars.)

TL;DR: You can buy MUCH better rifles today, but show some fucking respect.

>>65190590
I don't care I love mine and I love how shitty nuggets are in general

File: 1077.jpg (23 KB, 320x320)

23 KB JPG

b8 used to be believable

>>65190609
>the fact that they could build a reliable and halfway accurate rifle at all
Neither is true for Russian Nuggets, anon.

>>65190609
>Yeah, they are called "Moist Nuggets" and "Garbage Rods" by people on this board, but this was done with the same loving irony with which one might tease a little brother
People bought them because you could get them for 25 bucks and a kiss on the cheek. They were never good. They were never mediocre. They never "rivalled" Springfields or Mausers.
They were always trash, the extensively modified Finnish ones being the only exception.

>>65190650

Both are correct, but only for new, non-wartime production rifles. The main problems with Mosins nowadays are absolutely trash ergos, ridiculously worn out/mismatched parts, poor maintenance, and shot-out barrels. I've got a 1943 M1938 carbine with an absolutely horrifically hand-filed bolt handle that takes significant force to operate, but it works every time you pull the trigger. Accuracy is also very meh because despite the chromed bore it was shot heavily with corrosive ammo during the war and cleaned rarely. Good news is I got it for eighty bucks even after prices went up; like most Mosins it's a tough, rough gun that shoots minute of man (barely) at 50 yards every time but it is exceedingly unpleasant to shoot.

Trash, no. But a very meh experience if you're not using it under fire.

>>65190740
>Both are correct,
Wrong.

I don't respect anyone on this board who has not shot 5 boxes of mil spec x54r in less than an hour out of a bone stock full length.
And since the only person I know who has done that is me, I respect none of you.

>>65190590
The pre-war and post-war rifles were decent infantry rifles for a 19th-century design.

>>65190590

>Trash rifle
>Still being used effectively in the modern age and current conflicts

>>65190889
Ya by poor nigs and wiggers

>>65190650
my 1938 and 1943 russian mosins are both smooth, have been 100% reliable and about 4 moa

>>65190954
I'm glad somebody took the time to unfuck your smoothbore "rifle," anon.

File: __mosin_nagant_girls_fron(...).jpg (1.21 MB, 1653x1240)

1.21 MB JPG

>>65190590
don't care, she's hot

File: mosin-monik.webm (812 KB, 854x480)

812 KB WEBM

>>65190889
>>Still being used effectively
Uh huh…

>>65190740
I have one that's a gorgeous wall hanger, picked it up for $80 years ago. Made in 21' reissued in 43 and 54. Barrel is so shot out it's basically a smoothbore.

>>65190974
I hate to be a colorized picture poster but that really does give me vibes of some guy in a WW1 trench taking pot shots at an airplane buzzing his trench before the pilot hurls a bomb at him.

>>65190590
is the spanish 1893 masuer worth 500 bucks? i see the ammo is pretty expensive

>>65191065
No. Buy a Swedish mauser instead. The ammo is relatively common still and not super expensive. And they're also almost all in perfect condition and were excellently made

>>65190974
is he ok

>>65190590
>How did the Russians come up with such a bad rifle?
With the help of a Belgian, a long design process and multiple revisions/trials. They also collaborated with multiple countries such as France and the United States.

It isn't a stellar design, but by 1891 standards it's not that bad. You need to compare it to the Lebel, Mauser 1891 and Carcano.
>How did they win WW2 with it
It didn't need to be perfect, just good enough to do the job and cheap enough to be made in large numbers. By the time the USSR entered WW2 in earnest they already had a semi automatic rifle (SVT-40) meant to replace it, but simply couldn't afford to do so what with getting invaded/bombed and all.
>>65190609
Early Mosin-Nagant production under the Czar was split between ramping up domestic production augmented by contracted models from Remington, New England Westinghouse and either Belgium or France (I'm a little fuzzy on those). Initially only a minority of M91s in service were actually Russian made, though production did scale up over time.
>>65190658
If you compare the M91 to say a Modelo Argentino Mauser 1891 the gap between the two is much narrower. Mosins were roughly middle of the pack for 1890s military rifles.
The 1898 was much more refined, but it had a few more years of development to get there. Technological progress was very rapid at this time so this made a big difference.
>>65190740
Post-war Mosins are surprisingly smooth/accurate too. I had a Chinese Type 53 that was superb because it just sat in storage in Albania for it's entire life. All matching, good condition, good rifle. A 42 Izhevsk made under the stress of wartime conditions with worn bore/parts and mismatched bolt is going to yield much worse results.
>>65191065
The Spanish made ones kinda sucked. Crap steel that was soft and would wear out quickly. Mostly this means little things like the safety fail, but you'll notice the action feels much worse than a German/Belgian/Yugo 98 pattern or a Swedish 93.

Out of everything available in the 1890s it was perfectly adequate

>>65191213
>Early Mosin-Nagant production under the Czar was split between ramping up domestic production augmented by contracted models from Remington, New England Westinghouse and either Belgium or France (I'm a little fuzzy on those).
The Remington and Westinghouse contracts didn't come about until decades after adoption when they still couldn't make enough for WW1. But all the major powers bought guns from the US for WW1. Remington alone built P14s for the UK, Berthiers for France, and obviously Mosins.

>>65191222
if you just said 1891, sure. I mean the Krag was probably better, you lose clip loading but it's not like the Mosin is particularly good at that so I'd consider it a wash, action and accuracy are miles better on the Krag.

But the 1890s? You're insane. The Swedish Mausers mog it. It's not even a contest. You've got the Gewehr 98. It's so over it's unreal. I'd probably take an M95 over it. I guess it's on an even footing with the Carcano and French shit lmao

>>65191236
fair

>>65190970
Is this the kind of thing you sickos fap to? Disgusting. I'll be in my bunk.

>>65191222
Even the Carcano 1891 was better despite being made by a country that was equally poor.

It is ok, but your mileage may vary. It was long in tooth in WW2, which is why it was supposed to be replaced. The ones we have in the US from the USSR were mostly mixed up and forced matched rebuilds post war. Things may not fit just right at that point. Mine is ok, but you definitely slap the bolt open rather than just turning it like on my other WW2 rifles.

File: columbus_is_a_hero.png (460 KB, 934x787)

460 KB PNG

>>65190590
>In this house the nugget is a hero, end of story!

>>65191247
>>65191236
I guess im using "perfectly adequate" loosely. I have a whole lot of 1890s actions so my pool to compare is fairly wide. Im maybe giving it too much credit, but up against everything else I have, its a "its just fine" kinda feeling from me. I recongize the superiority of the others theres no question. But given the overall package and history its gets a perfectly adequate, which I could summarize as "eh" if thats more suitable to you

>>65191267
Would it feel more fair if we stated the bigger issue might be with Russian manufacturing quality rather than the rifle’s design itself? Meet in the middle?

File: 343242424.jpg (18 KB, 512x384)

18 KB JPG

>>65191282
Yea thats good I can agree to that.

>>65191291
Cheers, anon. This is one of the better talks I’ve had on this website lately.

File: 1409439292711.gif (2.96 MB, 350x349)

2.96 MB GIF

>>65191295
np fren. I always like a good talk on this. My experience with lots of the "shit rods" has always been good. But I recognize its slightly skewed because they are all in great shape. Not the norm, but also examples that its in some cases indicative of other factors rather than inherited in design flaws (of which there are plenty of these too)

>>65191267
Honestly, I agree. I'm probably too negative from years of Mosin dickriders running around unchecked, so overcompensate. It's definitely at least adequate, I mean people still use it today. It's not THAT bad, and that's almost what's so infuriating. It's annoying to use a lot of the time. Sure, it uses clips, but you're going to experience rimlock and it just acts like it doesn't want to feed from clips at all. Sure, it's a modern smokeless cartridge, but it's rimmed and kinda ass. Sure, it's a robust bolt action, but it's clunky and just flat inferior to the Mauser designs that would come a few short years later, and face against it for decades to come.

It's so close to either being good, or flat unsuitable for its era. If the action was smoothed out a little bit, it played a little nicer with clips, and the barrel was made while Ivan was just drunk enough to function properly but not so drunk he started fucking up, it could be a really great rifle.

File: moist nugget.png (3.78 MB, 2039x2893)

3.78 MB PNG

Don't care, still neat

>>65190658
>They were never good.
They were plenty good in 1891 when a ton of people were still using black power breechloaders and not even remotely "bad" until the M98 came out and mogged everything else to death. If they'd been made with more love and less vodka they'd be on par with the Lee-Meford IMO. The best apples-to-apples comparison is the M1891 Carcano and frankly I think the Mosin wins that match-up.

They are nearly indestructible. You can abuse a mosin to the point proof loads jamming the bolt so hard it needs a sledgehammer to free it and it still works.

Mosins will be on Mars. Mosins will possibly still exist 1,000 years from now.

>>65190755
What a compelling non-argument.

Still kicking myself for not bubba'ing the 1934 prod M1891 I had with an archangel stock. Sixty Five whole dollars in the great year of 2013 for a 3.5MOA shooter, sold when I had to move.

>>65191794
When you're right you're wrong, when I'm wrong I'm right. That's how it works.

I've heard there was a story between belgian frearm makers and russians, when a belgian engineer from FN came up with the gun he made and the russian was "oh the gun is so cool, can I check it out?" and he killed the belgian LOL

>>65190590
Some of the best snipers in the world could make it work. Sounds like yours needed some tuning. Or maybe you're just a bad shooter.

>>65191901
>Some of the best snipers in the world could make it work
Can you name any that aren't part of soviet propaganda and were later shown to be unable to shoot straight at all?
>inb4 Simo
Very different kind of nugget.

>>65190590
mine's action is on par with my krag (buttery smooth), sucks to suck

>>65192473
Post proofmarks.

File: 1780065486621140240130300(...).jpg (848 KB, 2000x1648)

848 KB JPG

>>65192474

>>65192490
What's the window and flag/P marking?

>>65192554
i'm not a huge mosin guy, so i don't know, probably arsenal marks however
after a cursory glance, the circled y means smokeless powder proof tested, and the arrow in a triangle means it was made in Izhevsk though
apparently its also a sniper(?), but its got a shorter barrel, an integral bayonet, and i didn't see any scope mount marks either

>>65192578
>and the arrow in a triangle means it was made in Izhevsk though
I checked for the double dectangle and letter (?) below it but didn't find it among the Izshevsk marks. It was probably modified somewhere some way later

>>65192581
yeah, i'm guessing it was refurbished at some point or maybe it was a non-main production rifle (they needed a non-sniper at a factory that made snipers so they made one, etc)
its in great condition, the barrel has absolutely no visible wear at all, rifling is mirror smooth

>>65192590
>rifling is mirror smooth
>smooth
should have said clean, not smooth

>>65190590
Slap a timney trigger and an archangel stock on them and make sure to keep them clean and well lubed and they were solid cheapo guns. Everyone knows they're garbage rods. As others have said a big part of why they became board /k/ulture is because in the past you could buy one and a spam can of 54r for half a paperclip, a bit of string, and some pocket lint. For a long time it was the only rifle in it's caliber group you could get for basically nothing. A comparable .308 or .30-06 would've been hundreds more at the register. I love mine even though sometimes it really does take a 2x4 to work da bolt.

The Russians were on the winning side because they didn't care how many Russians died or why and had the might of US industry over-supplying them through lend-lease during critical points of the war. The wartime nugget was a cheap gun you could quickly shit out in great numbers to arm your massive mostly conscript force and could use both smokeless and black powder cartridges just fine if shit really got hard.

Every damn time I try to post I get this damn "Please unblock spur.us and mcl.io to proceed." shit regardless of browser and have to fight with it to get one post off. I'm not blocking this crap. I just want to talk about guns and warfare like I have for years dammit.

>>65190609
They were always junk but they used to be $70 junk ($50 if you bought a crate of 12) and ammo was $20 for a can of 1000 rounds. You got what you paid for. Since every retard could afford one, they became the internet's favorite gun because the internet is full of broke retards.

>>65190590
So first off, the Nagant is really a WW1 rifle that got used in WW2 because Soviets gonna Soviet. In fact, the Mosin was outdated by WW1 but Imperial Russia was even more fucked up than Soviet Russia. Some of these rifles are closing in on 150 years in age.

Second, C&Rsenal does a good breakdown on Mosin Nagants and it really comes down to this one guiderail that really should be made extra stiff and high tolerance but really isn't.
https://youtu.be/nqmkRZOIlfY?si=UXiWLZKPs5x6LqUG&t=2411

>>65190840
>trust no one, not even yourself

>>65191259
>tripfag falling for b8
pottery

>>65190590
>>65190609
There's an old fudd saying about WW1, that "Having learned from observing the French Lebel, the Germans brought a hunting rifle, the Americans brought a marksman's rifle, the British brought an infantryman's rifle, and the Russians brought a rifle." and I think they managed to get it right.

>>65193409
That's complete nonsense.

>>65193316
How bout' dat pricks face when he saw da satirical post?

>>65190590
Nuggets were only good when a rifle and a crate of ammo was 150 bucks

>>65191236
better than the mosin:
mauser
springfield
smle
us enfield

arguably better:
schmidt rubin

arguably worse:
krag

worse:
carcano
mannlicher steyr
that shitty rifle the japs had before the arisaka

>>65193419
>>65193409
Basically, the Germans went for power and reliability. Americans went for accuracy. The Brits went for rate of fire. The Russians went for the bare minimum.

>>65193596
What about the Lebels?

>>65193685
The issue with that is that while the US gun is probably the most accurate, the German rifle is so close behind that the difference becomes meaningless in practice and that the british rifle being able to shoot fast doesn't exactly make it an infantryman's rifle in WWI since there weren't really any meaningful scenarios where you'd meaningfully just dump ammo with a rifle in a general direction.

File: Steyr M.95 Range Day 10-0(...).jpg (2.21 MB, 2611x3273)

2.21 MB JPG

>>65193596
>worse
>Mannlicher Steyr
Having shot both an M.95 and a M91/30, I would easily take the M.95 over the Mosin. Even the surplus 8x56R ammo is more reliable than the surplus 7.62x54R I've shot.

>>65193689
>Lebels?
Lebel was obsolete by 1890

>>65193720
Did you forget the mad minute? Or whatever they called FPF after creeping from their dugouts when the rolling artillery barrage passed.

>>65193780
idk the magazine system just sucks ass

>>65193827
>Did you forget the mad minute?
I was specifically thinking of that, actually

>>65193596
>carcano
You couldn't have killed a president with a Mosin.

>>65193139
Correction I shot six 20 round boxes of prvi 174s in under 30 minutes, steel buttplate and nothing but a t shirt.
The bruise was massive.

>>65194029
Learn how to shoulder a rifle.

File: 298-1.jpg (71 KB, 1024x523)

71 KB JPG

>>65193830
>idk the magazine system just sucks ass
The en-bloc clips are super easy to use and they only go in one way so it's impossible to mess up. No chance of getting rimlock and I've only had one clip fail to get the last round high enough to feed, all the others I've shot have been fine for function. Do you think en-bloc clips in general are ass?

>>65194114
>Do you think en-bloc clips in general are ass?
there's a reason they stopped using them

>>65194150
yeah, detachable magazines became a thing.

>>65190590
>rented a Mosin Nagant
For what purpose?

>>65194029
You either need to learn to shoulder a rifle like the other anon said, or put some muscle on skeletor. The only people that I've seen get hurt by recoil shooting my surplus bolt actions, Mosin included, are softies/lanklets and people not shouldering them right.

>>65193720
We did mention it was Fuddlore.
>able to shoot fast doesn't exactly make it an infantryman's rifle in WWI since there weren't really any meaningful scenarios where you'd meaningfully just dump ammo with a rifle in a general direction.
Now THAT is bullshit. Just about any time one side or another tried to take a trench would demand fast shooting.
>>65193817
Still served in WW1

>>65194150
By that logic stripper clips are obsolete and the Steyr is no worse than any other WW1 rifle.

>>65191213
Moreover the russians had a shit ton of excellent SMGs and arguably the best LMG of the war in the form of the DPM which compensated for having one of the least inspiring standard issue service rifles of any major combatant.

>>65195030
>Now THAT is bullshit. Just about any time one side or another tried to take a trench would demand fast shooting.
You don't kill people by shooting fast, you kill people by hitting them and if you actually aim at a moving target the difference quickly becomes meaningless among the rifles discussed.
There's a reason we invented machine guns, anon.

>>65195047
And much of the fighting happened within 20 meters which didn't require a lot of aiming. Much of the running was also directly into the enemy trenches as you'd want to get out of no-man's land as fast as possible.

>>65195158
>20 meters which didn't require a lot of aiming
>20 meters
>didn't require a lot of aiming
Hello, british anon. Thank you for confirming you never touched a gun before.

>>65195158
20m at a moving target on a stressful battlefield while trying not to get shot at or blown yourself isn't a shot you'll easily make with a bolt-action rifle without being careful.
Get a buddy to pull a large beach ball behind him on a string while running and see if you hit it while another throws shit at you.

>>65195030
>Still served in WW1
doesnt mean it wasnt obsolete, just means the french were retarded

>>65195037
a crossbow and a trapdoor springfield are both obsolete, but that doesn't mean they're both the same

File: IMG_2354.jpg (194 KB, 600x600)

194 KB JPG

>Spears suck because the halberd exists

It just werks

>>65195185
That 20m moving target gets to 15, then 10, then... The target's only getting bigger.