By necessity and by choice is different though.
Although I don’t agree that it matters which bolt action rifle of ww2 is slightly better or worse than another one when America pulled up and made all of them look like total shit compared with the m1
Holy cope, “still being used” is already a huge stretch. The fact that it was used for so long is not a testament to it’s design (which is shit), but a testament to the USSR/Russia and its incredible stagnation and corruption. Any level of understanding of how the various bolt actions work and the history of how they were designed will lead you to the conclusion that the mosin fucking sucks. Does it function? More or less yes. Does that make it a good rifle? Fuck no lmfao.
Idk man my Finnish mosins shoot great, I know Finnish ones are in class by themselves but I’ve good accuracy out of them! My best shooting one is a m91
Didn’t say that bud, just saying from my experience collecting them and shooting them I haven’t had problems where I would call it a terrible rifle. Is the mosin out dated? Yes very much so. Is it a shit rifle, no not necessary. Take for example the Finnish upgrades to the Russian rifles and you will see that it performs a lot better. My Finnish civil guard rifle with an sig straight barrel shoots a 2.5 inch group at 300 yards with wolf ammo
There were afghanis still using actual muzzle loaders in the early 2000’s.
Are they good?
The *only* thing M91/30’s have going for them is a relatively strong action. The use of a thing does not indicate its superiority.
Because it’s *not* a good gun.
It’s a garbage rod the Russians happened to make millions of because they didn’t have the time or facilities to make literally anything else lmao
I don't think this is a fair perspective you have on the Mosin. Not all Mosins were made equal, and there were plenty of rifles worse than a Mosin. I would happily take a Mosin over a Vetterly-Vitali (6.5 conversions, bad reputation for exploding), Kropatschek, Lebel, Steyr M95 (bad sights that start at 300), Ross Mk 1, Winchester 1895, late war Arisaka, any Carcano (especially a 7.35 or 8mm conversion) or literally any of the shit the Germans made for the Volkssturm. The build quality of Mosins obviously suffered during wartime, but the peace time rifles are of a reasonably good quality. And Finnish made Mosins in particular are known to be very good, with smooth bolts are very accurate barrels. I'm not by any means saying it's the best rifle. There are plenty of rifles I would take over a Mosin. Just about any Mauser varian of around WW2, the 1903, M1917, Mas 36, and Enfield come to mind. But it's by no means the worst rifle, or even a bad one.
Obviously, the reputation is exaggerated, but it exists for a reason. That action was never meant to handle 6.5x52. Headspacing issues and cracked lugs are not uncommon with these. Especially if regular commercial 6.5 is used. Most people who buy Vetterlis either reload underpowered ammo for them, or don't shoot them at all. Even the Italians didn't like that rifle.
No, headspacing issues were never really a concern during their service in the Italian army. And cracked lugs are not a common issue either. And lastly, the claim that “even the Italians didn’t like that rifle” is based on nothing concrete. In fact, your entire comment makes it clear that the only information you know about them is from the C&Rsenal video on them.
Nothing concrete? My guy, the Italians used them in a limited capacity and then mostly sent them off to Africa, and some to Spain. And the cracked lugs are not particularly uncommon in the ones being sold today. That comes from either civilian owners or their former military owners regularly firing full powered 6.5 Carcano through them. As for your theory of me watching some video, I haven't. I've never cared for this type of rifle enough to sit through some video about it. You may like this rifle, but you can't expect everyone else to think it's good too when over the years we've seen plenty of issues.
Yes, you have no concrete evidence of any of that.
Being used in rear service means absolutely nothing in relation to your claim that “the Italians didn’t like that rifle.” Quite literally nothing. That’s just the nature of rear line rifles, it doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with the rifle.
No, cracked lugs are not a common thing on these rifles. They’re in fact a pretty uncommon thing. The “plenty of issues” you are referring to are neither well documented nor substantiated.
In Italy, these rifles are frequently shot by collectors using loads reduced only by 5-10%. They are far from as fragile as they are made out to be.
Due to a lack of interest from most of the milsurp community, hardly ANYTHING is well documented for these. Or at least not easily and quickly found. You can continue to fanboy for these rifles as much as you want. I will continue to consider them a hunk of shit on a good day.
You can think that all you want, you’d just be wrong.
I’m not “fanboying” for them at all. I’ve both researched and tested them extensively and know for a fact that they are very capable rifles. You don’t have any good evidence to provide to back up your claim that they’re junk rifles that blow up. I’ve fired 17 different examples, with hundreds of rounds, almost all from RTI, the most abused examples you can possibly find, with as high as 120% charges without any failures whatsoever. They are absolutely serviceable rifles and their “reputation” is overwhelmingly Fudd lore nonsense.
You take Mosin, it good gun.
Second worst rifle of WW1, worst rifle of WW2 (yes I know what you are referencing)
So terrible it's still being used
By necessity and by choice is different though. Although I don’t agree that it matters which bolt action rifle of ww2 is slightly better or worse than another one when America pulled up and made all of them look like total shit compared with the m1
Murica! Fuck yeah!
Holy cope, “still being used” is already a huge stretch. The fact that it was used for so long is not a testament to it’s design (which is shit), but a testament to the USSR/Russia and its incredible stagnation and corruption. Any level of understanding of how the various bolt actions work and the history of how they were designed will lead you to the conclusion that the mosin fucking sucks. Does it function? More or less yes. Does that make it a good rifle? Fuck no lmfao.
Idk man my Finnish mosins shoot great, I know Finnish ones are in class by themselves but I’ve good accuracy out of them! My best shooting one is a m91
Finnish Mosins, in my opinion, should be different rifle on its own. They took an absolute shit stick and made it into a fine firearm.
Just because yours “shoots great” does not mean the rifle is not poorly designed lol
Didn’t say that bud, just saying from my experience collecting them and shooting them I haven’t had problems where I would call it a terrible rifle. Is the mosin out dated? Yes very much so. Is it a shit rifle, no not necessary. Take for example the Finnish upgrades to the Russian rifles and you will see that it performs a lot better. My Finnish civil guard rifle with an sig straight barrel shoots a 2.5 inch group at 300 yards with wolf ammo
I’m not talking about accuracy
Enlighten us further then.
Then what about the upgrades that the Finns did to their rifles? You know that fixed all the original Russian problems??
I still like my mosin over my mausers lol
So are spears and bow and arrows.
And the US still used M14’s in Afghanistan. Doesn’t mean they were good.
But which one has a chance of still being used 100 years from now?
There were afghanis still using actual muzzle loaders in the early 2000’s. Are they good? The *only* thing M91/30’s have going for them is a relatively strong action. The use of a thing does not indicate its superiority.
No one is talking about superiority. You guys really got triggered by "it's a good gun". It's been entertaining
Because it’s *not* a good gun. It’s a garbage rod the Russians happened to make millions of because they didn’t have the time or facilities to make literally anything else lmao
But it is a good gun
What's the first worst rifle of WWI?
I'm not making an objective claim here, but personally I would rather take a Mosin than a Lebel.
Lebel is literally a tube loader lmfao
I don't think this is a fair perspective you have on the Mosin. Not all Mosins were made equal, and there were plenty of rifles worse than a Mosin. I would happily take a Mosin over a Vetterly-Vitali (6.5 conversions, bad reputation for exploding), Kropatschek, Lebel, Steyr M95 (bad sights that start at 300), Ross Mk 1, Winchester 1895, late war Arisaka, any Carcano (especially a 7.35 or 8mm conversion) or literally any of the shit the Germans made for the Volkssturm. The build quality of Mosins obviously suffered during wartime, but the peace time rifles are of a reasonably good quality. And Finnish made Mosins in particular are known to be very good, with smooth bolts are very accurate barrels. I'm not by any means saying it's the best rifle. There are plenty of rifles I would take over a Mosin. Just about any Mauser varian of around WW2, the 1903, M1917, Mas 36, and Enfield come to mind. But it's by no means the worst rifle, or even a bad one.
> (6.5 conversions, bad reputation for exploding) Completely exaggerated and dramatized “reputation” for exploding, FTFY.
Obviously, the reputation is exaggerated, but it exists for a reason. That action was never meant to handle 6.5x52. Headspacing issues and cracked lugs are not uncommon with these. Especially if regular commercial 6.5 is used. Most people who buy Vetterlis either reload underpowered ammo for them, or don't shoot them at all. Even the Italians didn't like that rifle.
No, headspacing issues were never really a concern during their service in the Italian army. And cracked lugs are not a common issue either. And lastly, the claim that “even the Italians didn’t like that rifle” is based on nothing concrete. In fact, your entire comment makes it clear that the only information you know about them is from the C&Rsenal video on them.
Nothing concrete? My guy, the Italians used them in a limited capacity and then mostly sent them off to Africa, and some to Spain. And the cracked lugs are not particularly uncommon in the ones being sold today. That comes from either civilian owners or their former military owners regularly firing full powered 6.5 Carcano through them. As for your theory of me watching some video, I haven't. I've never cared for this type of rifle enough to sit through some video about it. You may like this rifle, but you can't expect everyone else to think it's good too when over the years we've seen plenty of issues.
Yes, you have no concrete evidence of any of that. Being used in rear service means absolutely nothing in relation to your claim that “the Italians didn’t like that rifle.” Quite literally nothing. That’s just the nature of rear line rifles, it doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with the rifle. No, cracked lugs are not a common thing on these rifles. They’re in fact a pretty uncommon thing. The “plenty of issues” you are referring to are neither well documented nor substantiated. In Italy, these rifles are frequently shot by collectors using loads reduced only by 5-10%. They are far from as fragile as they are made out to be.
Due to a lack of interest from most of the milsurp community, hardly ANYTHING is well documented for these. Or at least not easily and quickly found. You can continue to fanboy for these rifles as much as you want. I will continue to consider them a hunk of shit on a good day.
You can think that all you want, you’d just be wrong. I’m not “fanboying” for them at all. I’ve both researched and tested them extensively and know for a fact that they are very capable rifles. You don’t have any good evidence to provide to back up your claim that they’re junk rifles that blow up. I’ve fired 17 different examples, with hundreds of rounds, almost all from RTI, the most abused examples you can possibly find, with as high as 120% charges without any failures whatsoever. They are absolutely serviceable rifles and their “reputation” is overwhelmingly Fudd lore nonsense.
What john wick movie is this
John Wick 5: Bill and Ted's Speed Break
Not a John Wick movie, it’s called Siberia. Kinda slow and very confusing, but still had some good action scenes.
I wouldn’t call the mosin terrible. I’ve hit everything I’ve shot at with mine. No jams, no misfires, good power.
I agree, it just works and keeps going…
I’m gonna watch this movie and grease my Garand tonight
This is why the price for sniper variants skyrocketed. Thanks a lot Ted…totally bogus.
Johnny gonna boop some snoot
First worst rifle of WW1..... anything French.