Why do people act like the Mosin is a piece of shit comedic relic worthless on the battlefield? Its an accurate bolt action with a big bullet. Same with the older tanks, they still serve quite effectively in fire support.
>>65561009Because if you're LARPing as the 2nd most powerful military on the planet you shouldn't be handing nuggets to your troops when you've spent the last 30 years proclaiming you have the best weapons in the world.
>>65561009>pretty accurate>cheap(still to this day, just not peanuts like it used to be)>easy to use>mass available ammo>will last longer than youRetards i guess
>>65561009All bolt actions are functionally worthless on a modern battlefield excepting specialist roles. It's better than not having a gun. That's it.
>>65561029In their defence, russian army always potray themselves as army of the people where the russian citizen in general ready to enlist and fight while make do with whatever equipment available like their great grandparents did. So handing old mosin nagant is pretty in character for them.
>>65561042Don't armies worldwide still issue bolty guns? I only remember because there was an issue with an army bolt gun that had ND issues
>>65561009>Why do people act like the Mosin is a piece of shit comedic relic worthless on the battlefield?Not worthless, more why do you need to use one. There are more modern bolt action sniper rifles, there are semi-automatic DMR's, why are you using surplus. God forbid you are handing it out as a service rifle. No one would be surprised if a third world nation used a Mosin sniper rifle, a modern military on the other hand.>Same with the older tanks, they still serve quite effectively in fire support.If this is about Russia then the question is less about older vehicles and more why they are using them when they are supposed to have thousands and thousands of more modern tanks in storage. Russia's tank force has depleted quite a bit.Using whatever you have in a defensive war is practical, using outdated shit in an aggressive war of choice when you spent the last 20 years larping as a Superpower is worth laughing at.
>>65561044Discount marine corps>Hurr durr our equipment sucks but that’s because we don’t need it to be goodThe difference being Marines cope that they have superior training and soldiering and are able to use those to overcome mediocre logistics (really only true against pirates and Muslims) while Russians just view their soldiers getting killed as forcing the enemy to expend precious ammunition on a worthless conscript.
>>65561052In turd world you can get them for dirt cheap vs those modern guns youre talking about
>>65561049Pretty much only as sniper rifles. Frankly America showed in WW2 that bolt actions were already outdated at the time and all modern bolt action precision rifles are accompanied by improvements to every other part of them to improve performance. Better chamberings, better barrels, better frames, better optics.
>>65561009It is very far behind the technology curve to the point where issuing them to somebody expected to fight in a modern conflict demonstrates that whoever is doing it is either extremely desperate, doesn't care about throwing away the life of that soldier or both.The M91 was perfectly adequate in 1891, 1918 and 1945 but even as far back as the 1930s the Soviets were already trying to replace them with automatic rifles. That was nearly a century ago. The simple fact is that when infantry fight volume of fire, suppression and maneuvering matters a lot more than trading volleys at 1000+ meters. That just doesn't happen. When infantry see a target that far away they call artillery and air support. Within 100-300m whoever has an AK is going to have a huge advantage over anyone with a Mosin every time.It would be one thing if AKs were rare, but they absolutely aren't. Once the USSR put all their chips in on 7.62x39mm they made millions of SKS, AK and AKM rifles. They should have plenty in reserve to issue.It would be another thing if every M91/30 dusted off was tuned up into a budget sniper rifle and issued that way. That's a viable use for them if hand selected for accuracy and fitted with a modern optic, perhaps a chassis stock as well. But no, these are iron sighted wood stocked rifles from WW2 featuring ruined barrels and mismatched bolts with random headspace. These are not accurate nor reliable rifles. They would barely be considered adequate for Inuit fishermen to use for seal hunting, let alone a high threat environment full of assault rifle equipped infantry and drones.Anybody being issued one is getting "an gun" which is the modern day equivalent of issuing some poor bastard in WW2 a spear. It isn't totally harmless, but you would really be better off just not having that soldier do something other than infantry combat until you can equip them with a viable weapon.
>>65561009because bolt action guns are 100 years outdated for war, issuing Mausers or Enfields would get you laughed at as well
>>65561044>>65561052As a counterpoint to this and my own point, the only place I've seen pictures of Mosins being used today have been informal militia units.In Ukraine it was Donbass militia units on the Russian side and TD units on the Ukrainian side. Both mostly early in the conflict. By this point it seems an incredibly rare sight to encounter an iron sighted WW2 vintage bolt action on either side because of simple attrition. They had other weird shit like VZ61s, MP40s, O/U hunting shotguns and PPS-43s too but those seem to be a rare sight nowadays too, outside of rear echelon units. The only odd weapons seen on the front nowadays seem to be semi automatic shotguns specifically for drone defense.The only other place I've seen Mosins was a citizen's militia in Venezuela, but they aren't exactly a cutting edge combat unit for a lot of reasons.>>65561049Not really. They are relegated to extremely low volume issue to trained snipers. Those rifles are tuned for long range accuracy and are leagues more advanced than a Mosin.That said, a Mosin CAN be made into a viable sniper rifle. Finns did it all the time. But the gulf between an off the shelf ratty M91/30 and say a US issue M40 is like trying to race a Nissan GT-R in a Yugo. If you replace everything in the Yugo to the point where it's basically no longer a Yugo you just might get beaten slightly less badly.
>>65561009because it is. It was outdated less than a decade after it was first released.>b-but it still shoots a bullet!That's great.
>>65561129someone posted drone footage of a Russian firing at a drone with a bolt action rifle here as late as 2024 but I neglected to save it
>frogpostingIs this just another russian cope thread?
>>65561009>Why do people act like the Mosin is a piece of shit comedic relic worthless on the battlefield?Because it's not 1891 anymore.>Its an accurate bolt action 4MOA is considered good for a Nugget.>Same with the older tanks, they still serve quite effectively in fire support.Bro, you look at some fucking WW1 era tank and it'll get taken apart by an M2HB, you look at any WW2 tank and an AT4 will make its armor look like it's a fucking BMP-1 IFV. Combine with fuel inefficiency, and they are best used as pillboxes in the rear echelon if they have to be used for anything at all.>>65561049Only as sniper's rifles, where only a Finnish Nugget would have what it takes to have decent (by modern standards) accuracy.
>>65561009It's not worth it in the modern day since you can buy any other rifle for just as much while it still being just as good or even better. If you got them for a Benjamin, then it's fine.
>>65561009Because the Russians made a crude weapon but then also had zero standards during production. Crude is fine if you're a poor nation needing to arm your troops, but the tradeoff is that you can't be total mongoloids about production to the point where men are having to kick actions open.Add silly people insisting that it's one of the greatest weapons of war ever because they liked buying it for 100 bucks as one of their first weapons, and you have ample reason to mock it.
>>65561009>accurate
>>65561682>4MOA is considered good for a Nugget.To be fair, that's in line with the selection standards of most service rifles at the time. It's not especially inaccurate. It's just that WW2 service rifles are woefully inaccurate compared to the cheapest, most plasticky Savage Axis.
>>65562002I think people like to forget that 4 TO 5 MOA was considered average for an m1 garand.
>>65561034>mass available ammo
>mismatched refurb mosin with century billboard: $500>used remington 700 which is superior in literally every way to the mosin except for (((collectability))): $500
>>65564024In the US its artificially constrained, same for 7.62x39 and 5.45 theyd be available for peanuts if they didnt gimp them with import restrictions
>>65561009uh, russia bad?
the only reason nuggets (and SKS) were good is because you used to be able to buy and shoot them for dirt cheap as long as you were willing to put up with a little more maintenance than a modern tard-proofed gun
>>65561034>pretty accurateIt has mediocre accuracy by modern standards. A Nugget is only better than nothing at all.
>>65564005With wartime M2 Ball, you'd get that, but with pre-war manufacture ammo, it was loaded nicer and you could easily shoot 3MOA with an M1 eating that stuff.
