1935 Mosin, is it worth putting a scope on ?
[IMG]http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n632/nhirte101/IMAG0038.jpg[/IMG]
50 yards iron sights
[IMG]http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n632/nhirte101/DSC01086.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n632/nhirte101/DSC01084.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=UrbanSniper10;27985559]1935 Mosin, is it worth putting a scope on ?[/QUOTE]
Not with those kinds of groupings. It is a mosin after all
[QUOTE=TheSupahero;27985628]Not with those kinds of groupings. It is a mosin after all[/QUOTE]
The front sight needs to be adjusted some more, i have had better luck shooting at 100 yds
:smug:
i think my dad finally broke down and is going to get an upper and lower so we have an ar15
prob .223 since we have like 100 boxes of .223 rounds.
Damnit, now I want a FAL.
Hey guys, my Nagant sling is missing one of the dog ears(the part that attaches the sling to the rifle itself for those not in the know). Any idea if/where I could find a spare, or if it would just be better to buy a new sling?
Pic for those who have no idea what I'm talking about
[img]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_WLPuiaTbrZ8/TVUzUsWyYjI/AAAAAAAAAFE/p6nPrSTbXJM/s800/2011-02-11-07.59.03.jpg[/img]
Make one, it's not hard.
[QUOTE=capgun;27987705]Hey guys, my Nagant sling is missing one of the dog ears(the part that attaches the sling to the rifle itself for those not in the know). Any idea if/where I could find a spare, or if it would just be better to buy a new sling?
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.kalinkaoptics.com/tactical-gear/slings/original-russian-soviet-army-mosin-nagant-sling.html[/url]
[QUOTE=c0nk3r;27987666]:smug:
i think my dad finally broke down and is going to get an upper and lower so we have an ar15
prob .223 since we have like 100 boxes of .223 rounds.[/QUOTE]
Just make sure it is a 5.56 upper and not a .223 upper. I'm not sure if they even make proper .223 uppers still, but avoid them if possible.
(Yes, there is a difference. 5.56 chambered weapons fires both, .223 only safely fires .223. Note that 5.56 will likely suffer a mild performance decrease when firing .223 when compared to weapons which shoot it natively. You can also get a something like a Wylde chamber, which will fire both without suffering any noticeable performance loss with either.)
I suggest a BCM upper, they seem to be the best bang for your buck.
[QUOTE=SBD;27988018][url]http://www.kalinkaoptics.com/tactical-gear/slings/original-russian-soviet-army-mosin-nagant-sling.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Holyshit that site sells everything awesome
[QUOTE=ewitwins;27984319]I've been looking for one of these incredibly sexy things for quite some time now, with very little luck whatsoever, so here's my question for you guys:
[img_thumb]http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k70303_Russian%20SVD%20Dragunov%207.62x54R%20sniper%20%28or%20DMR%29%20rifl.jpg[/img_thumb]
Have you ever seen one of these at a gun show, or for sale anywhere?[/QUOTE]
There's a genuine Tigr down at my local gunshop. Damn, is it pretty. $3000, though.
I picked up the 74 today.
Gun is lightly used but in great shape. Checked the usual mess ups Century does with their AK and found that this one held none of them. No front sight canting even. My WASR-10 even has minor front sight cant (but it's much older...)
So far I'm fairly impressed. I'll have to take it out and shoot it, Sunday is my next day off so I'll pop off a few rounds and report back then.
Pictures likely to follow then as well.
[QUOTE=UrbanSniper10;27985559]1935 Mosin, is it worth putting a scope on ?
[img_thumb]http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n632/nhirte101/IMAG0038.jpg[/img_thumb]
50 yards iron sights
[img_thumb]http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n632/nhirte101/DSC01086.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n632/nhirte101/DSC01084.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
NO
Do not modify it in any way. At all.
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
Seriously, what's with the impulse to fucking scope everything? I hate shooting with irons too, I can't hit the broad side of a barn with them, but I'm not going to go buy a scope, have a milsurp rifle drilled and tapped (read: permanently devalued), and then shoot that just because.
The only things you put scopes on are new production rifles or ex-snipers (and I mean [I]actual[/I] ex-snipers). If you really must put one on anything else, at least use a no-smithing mount so you don't fuck the rifle.
[QUOTE=UrbanSniper10;27985559]1935 Mosin, is it worth putting a scope on ?
[img_thumb]http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n632/nhirte101/IMAG0038.jpg[/img_thumb]
50 yards iron sights
[img_thumb]http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n632/nhirte101/DSC01086.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n632/nhirte101/DSC01084.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
You can make it more accurate by putting cork padding in between the barrel and the wood, google it up; it's got to do with harmonics and the barrel heating up or something, but it does work.
As for a scope, only if it's one of the original PE or PU scopes they put on the sniper variant...
[QUOTE=rossmum;28003339]NO
Do not modify it in any way. At all.
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
Seriously, what's with the impulse to fucking scope everything? I hate shooting with irons too, I can't hit the broad side of a barn with them, but I'm not going to go buy a scope, have a milsurp rifle drilled and tapped (read: [b]permanently devalued[/b]), and then shoot that just because.
The only things you put scopes on are new production rifles or ex-snipers (and I mean [I]actual[/I] ex-snipers). If you really must put one on anything else, at least use a no-smithing mount so you don't fuck the rifle.[/QUOTE]
I don't plan on drilling and tapping it, but my Mosin was $99 I don't think I can lose much value there.
The price is only going to go up though, and even if it didn't, you're wasting time and money trying to put a scope on a 3-4 MOA infantry rifle.
Additionally;
[QUOTE=Error_404;28003395]You can make it more accurate by putting cork padding in between the barrel and the wood, google it up; it's got to do with harmonics and the barrel heating up or something, but it does work.
As for a scope, only if it's one of the original PE or PU scopes they put on the sniper variant...[/QUOTE]
I don't know what this guy's shooting is like and I don't know what that rifle's bore is like, but I'm going to go ahead and say that unless it's been totally shot through the rifle is not the one to blame here. My No.4 outshoots me effortlessly, and I know this because the one or two times I've been on good form I've put rounds through the same holes at 100 (beyond that I can't see the kind of targets we use through the irons, I need some Fig 11s). Other days it shoots exactly like this guy's 91/30 and I know for a fact it's down to my own lack of experience with irons, my inability to time my shots properly, and general bad habits I need to cure with more range time.
Putting an original PE or PU (do you even realise how [I]much[/I] original WWII sniper scopes cost?) on a bog-standard infantry rifle is a total WOFTAM. At best you'll see a minor increase in accuracy because there will be no more parallax error, but it won't magically make [I]your rifle[/I] (or even you outside of aforementioned lack of parallax) any more accurate. Even putting a repro scope on there will run more money than the rifle itself is worth and drilling/tapping for even the most bargain-bin, cheapo-model of modern scopes will then serve to fuck any potential future value the rifle would have if aliens came and abducted all our pre-war 91/30s.
Short version: mounting optics on infantry rifles is stupid and wasteful, mounting original scopes or repros on ex snipers is costly but at least justifiable, if you want a goddamn tack driver go out and buy a modern rifle designed for accuracy and not a 76-year-old military rifle designed to be operated and maintained by illiterate Siberian farmboys.
[editline]13th February 2011[/editline]
fuck, my automerge
Tnoutdoors9 has upgraded his ballistic testing methods BIG TIME.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moon3cdV5CE&feature=feedu[/media]
[QUOTE=ewitwins;27984319]I've been looking for one of these incredibly sexy things for quite some time now, with very little luck whatsoever, so here's my question for you guys:
Have you ever seen one of these at a gun show, or for sale anywhere?[/QUOTE]
Seen quite a few. Too much money for what they are.
Get a PSL and work it over, better gun in the end. SVDs are overly praised for what they are.
Fuck, mine even looks better.
[img]http://i51.tinypic.com/b51fgw.jpg[/img]
I'd also be willing to put money on my rifle being the more accurate of the 2.
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bean-O;27984451]Hadn't seen any but then again they're banned in CA so that's probably why. I wouldn't bother though. The prices I'm seeing on gunbroker are way too high for what you're getting. You can get a high-end M1A for less and it will shoot better. If you want something like an SVD just get a PSL. It'll set you back 600-700$ and while it won't be quite as accurate as an SVD it will be far better value for money. Just be sure to get an all-original PSL, NOT a Century Frankengun with US-made parts.[/QUOTE]
You do realize the PSL is every bit as accurate as the SVD and in some cases more-so, right?
Suggesting a non-century gun is a bit unrealistic, almost all of them will have to have US made receivers to be legal for import, yes there's a handful that made it in before being banned. The century ones are fine, mine is a century, it just takes a little TLC and handpicking to make sure it runs good. It also has the toughest receiver of any AK I've ever worked on, I ruined 10 drill bits trying to drill 2 holes for my bipod set up.
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;27989780]Just make sure it is a 5.56 upper and not a .223 upper. I'm not sure if they even make proper .223 uppers still, but avoid them if possible.
(Yes, there is a difference. 5.56 chambered weapons fires both, .223 only safely fires .223. Note that 5.56 will likely suffer a mild performance decrease when firing .223 when compared to weapons which shoot it natively. You can also get a something like a Wylde chamber, which will fire both without suffering any noticeable performance loss with either.)[/QUOTE]
Why don't you explain the throating differences between the 2 chamberings since you seem to think you know what you're talking about?
All of that is bullshit. Minor accuracy loss is about the worst you can expect.
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=rossmum;28004530]The price is only going to go up though, and even if it didn't, you're wasting time and money trying to put a scope on a 3-4 MOA infantry rifle.[/QUOTE]
Crown job, lose the top barrel cover, bed the receiver and float the barrel.
It won't be a 3-4MOA rifle any more, I promise. With the 3,5x22 PU scope, that's not enough magnification to really call it a "scoped out benchrest gun." It's just a light fast handing bolt action rifle. The original scope set up was actually quite nice, I'm building a clone sniper for a friend at the moment.
[QUOTE=rossmum;28003339]NO
Do not modify it in any way. At all.
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
Seriously, what's with the impulse to fucking scope everything? I hate shooting with irons too, I can't hit the broad side of a barn with them, but I'm not going to go buy a scope, have a milsurp rifle drilled and tapped (read: permanently devalued), and then shoot that just because.
The only things you put scopes on are new production rifles or ex-snipers (and I mean [I]actual[/I] ex-snipers). If you really must put one on anything else, at least use a no-smithing mount so you don't fuck the rifle.[/QUOTE]
It's a 1935 Mosin, give it a break
Not like there aren't hundreds of thousands of others lying around
[QUOTE=DrMortician;28007471]
Why don't you explain the throating differences between the 2 chamberings since you seem to think you know what you're talking about?
All of that is bullshit. Minor accuracy loss is about the worst you can expect.
[/QUOTE]
Which is exactly what I said, genius. Unless you want to step in and correct me somewhere, in which case go right ahead. Yes, I am aware that many weapons chambered in .223 can withstand the pressure of 5.56, but you have to check on that or you run the risk of a serious problem. There is zero reason to be an asshole here.
Does anyone know much on Russian SKS's? If it's still there when I get my Saiga, I plan on buying one. It's 275 USD and I swear it is completely custom built. It looks like a cross between a SVD and well.. I can't really explain it. I've never seen an SKS like it, It's got a modern look to it while having an old-style wood crafted parts.
[QUOTE=Mr 23;28011228]Does anyone know much on Russian SKS's? If it's still there when I get my Saiga, I plan on buying one. It's 275 USD and I swear it is completely custom built. It looks like a cross between a SVD and well.. I can't really explain it. I've never seen an SKS like it, It's got a modern look to it while having an old-style wood crafted parts.[/QUOTE]
Weird.I heard standard Russian SKS' cost around 400 bucks. Could we see a picture, maybe?
[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;28012754]Weird.I heard standard Russian SKS' cost around 400 bucks. Could we see a picture, maybe?[/QUOTE]
I didn't think about that at the time, but it's very unique in the fact that I've never seen an SKS look like *that*. The front of it was similar, if more blocky than an SVD, and the stock was an open rectangular 'tube' with a chin rest
[QUOTE=DrMortician;28007471]Crown job, lose the top barrel cover, bed the receiver and float the barrel.
It won't be a 3-4MOA rifle any more, I promise. With the 3,5x22 PU scope, that's not enough magnification to really call it a "scoped out benchrest gun." It's just a light fast handing bolt action rifle. The original scope set up was actually quite nice, I'm building a clone sniper for a friend at the moment.[/QUOTE]
Yes let's all put money into 'improving' a 1935 infantry rifle instead of going out and buying a rifle designed from the outset to be accurate.
I really will never see the appeal of sporterising service rifles in this day and age. It made sense immediately postwar with the flood of cheap rifles onto the market, but now there are far better options which are inexpensive enough to make it economically unwise (and just plain unwise in general).
[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;28009351]It's a 1935 Mosin, give it a break
Not like there aren't hundreds of thousands of others lying around[/QUOTE]
I'm sure that's what people said before they permanently destroyed the handful of Pratt & Whitney pre-production SMLEs for SAF Lithgow, too, since they outwardly looked just like any other SMLE and we know how common they are. Turns out those are actually worth hundreds of thousands each since there were only 100 made in total. The museum has one complete (no.2) and one barreled action missing too many parts to repair (no.28). They can't find the rest and I would put my life savings on at least a few of them being bastardised because someone thought "well it's only an SMLE".
There is not a single legitimate reason to fuck with milsurp anymore. It's not the 50s. If you want a cheap deer rahful, there are plenty of better options. If you want a tack driver, you shouldn't even be looking at milsurp in the first place. If you want something fun to plink with then by all means buy it but you don't need to chop it down. I know people like to be absolute pussies about any extra weight at all, but 8-10lbs is practically nothing, even for a beanpole like me. Humping a 20lb+ LSW or full-sized MG around all day gives you cause to complain about weight, not carrying an 8lb surplus rifle for a few hours (or hell, even all day).
[editline]13th February 2011[/editline]
Another sporterising horror story (which I wish I could find the photos of): a Mosin in a synth stock, rust all over, drilled and tapped for a modern scope and with a cut/re-crowned barrel and horrible weld job on the bolt handle to turn it down. This in itself was enough to make me cringe but by your logic is perfectly fine.
It had a serrated rear sight. Under all the rust, from the right side, the Latin letters 'TON' and a '7' were visible.
It was a 1917 Remington-made 1891, and would've fetched a pretty decent sum had it not been totally ratfucked. But because it was 'just another cheapo commie rahful' a rare example was irrepairably destroyed and devalued from several hundred dollars (at least) to maybe 50 if you're lucky. Of course, the owner was trying to charge something like $300 anyway.
hey everybody
keep your military surplus rifles normal
buy a rifle that isn't milsurp and shit on it.
Course, there's a fair bit of difference between an original SMLE and a Mosin which was rearsenaled after or even during the war then some bastard at the ATF electro-stenciled all over half a century later. That pretty much ruins the rifle from the get go if you ask me.
If anything, a Mosin makes a good practice dummy that won't hurt your wallet if you fuck up with it.
Guess what I'm doing tomorrow!
I'm going to a gunshow.
Maybe not buying a gun, but I will if it is within a $150 range.
Will post pictures if I get one.
ATF stamps are the reason that if I ever move to the US, I'm not bringing my No.4 with me. I would be an objectively horrible person if I forced an otherwise unfucked-with rifle through that.
I still hate seeing milsurp fucked with though, even your brand of dot-matrix defaced milsurp. It's just something you shouldn't do. If you want to fuck a rifle, get a new one, don't ruin some old soldier's best friend which saw them through a fucking world war just because you're too cheap to buy yourself a halfway decent modern rifle.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.