Mosin Nagant fail video

[Cjwise5]

Don't rip me apart too bad on the history guys. I'm not an expert on that. Was just out trying to have fun with a friend's gun. He said they had no trouble hitting a turkey sized plate at 400y with it using iron sights. It wasn't hitting anything while using the scope. 3-5MOA groups at 100y and then I was never able to get it past 300y.

 

[acudaowner]

practice makes perfect if it was that bad a gun no one would have ordered them by the millions for as many years as they were in service .
if these people could get that gun to work so can you , they were at war being shot and actively hunted , you on the other hand have an unlimited amount of time to hit a paper target that aint moving anywhere . They did not get high end ammo or as near perfect shooting conditions as you do , they did not make excuses , they just did it .
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/wwii-snipers-and-the-rifles.html .
yea the gun is not a modern accuracy international what is , that would be like me saying my m1 is junk cause i can't hit a 100 yard targets x ring on my target where I was aiming it that's not the guns fault , I am not able to shoot it's the shooter , me , my fault not the guns . Like a guy told and showed me you just need a hell of a lot more practice with it just as he put 8 rounds in the x ring of my target with my gun while standing . But all in all thanks for sharing the video I love seeing older guns used even the old black powder guns its nice to see people still using and collecting them .

 

[Cjwise5]

@acudaowner I understand what you're saying, and I wish I could have found more ammo to test through it. It's also just as likely this gun was a giant turd like so many other Mosins. I've heard most of them had a 5MOA requirement for military service back in that generation. This was getting about a 5" group with this crappy ammo at 100y. When I tried to stretch it out though, that's when things got interesting. I'm not claiming to be a pro, but the chances of this gun being junk are higher than me being a poor shooter at this point.

 

[hlee]

Mosins were shot a lot, for a long time, using corrosive ammunition, by a conscript army. Any one of those can take a great rifle and turn it into a tomato stake. Most mosins have shot out barrels, or are “frosted,” darkened, pitted, and otherwise abused by time and the environment. Countersunk crowns, etc. And, that’s before talking about the horrid trigger, shrunken stocks that don’t fit correctly anymore, and the bolt that may need a hammer to open.

Snipers were effective with these weapons because the top shooting rifles were culled to be made into sniper rifles. And, the snipers operated within the bounds of rifles.

 

[UpSideDown]

practice makes perfect if it was that bad a gun no one would have ordered them by the millions for as many years as they were in service .
if these people could get that gun to work so can you , they were at war being shot and actively hunted , you on the other hand have an unlimited amount of time to hit a paper target that aint moving anywhere . They did not get high end ammo or as near perfect shooting conditions as you do , they did not make excuses , they just did it .
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/wwii-snipers-and-the-rifles.html .
yea the gun is not a modern accuracy international what is , that would be like me saying my m1 is junk cause i can't hit a 100 yard targets x ring on my target where I was aiming it that's not the guns fault , I am not able to shoot it's the shooter , me , my fault not the guns . Like a guy told and showed me you just need a hell of a lot more practice with it just as he put 8 rounds in the x ring of my target with my gun while standing . But all in all thanks for sharing the video I love seeing older guns used even the old black powder guns its nice to see people still using and collecting them .

You say that like the soviets fought a successful infantry-led ground war. How many tens of millions of troops did they lose? Yeah, I wouldn't say the Mosin was a gift from the heavens.

M-4's are 4MOA baseline soooooo…..

 

[Skunk]

I thought Mosin's were always considered to be shit.

 

[Random Guy]

Every once in a while, against all odds, it has been reported that a random Mosin-Nagant M91/30 will be discovered that somehow doesn't totally stink in the accuracy department... However, pretty much all Russian Mosins have rough bores and show rough handling, but in their defense, for a lot of WWII rifles, 3-5 MOA was good enough given the distance for many battles. The US Army's M1903A4s with little 2.5x scope and M2 ball ammo wasn't much better back then. (Today's match ammo makes a big improvement).

If one wants a good shooting Mosin, then a Finnish version is a much better choice (and prices reflect that). They were re-barreled by the Finns, much more carefully made and individually fitted to the stocks, and and were much better cared for in service when compared to the typical Russian issued M-N. I have seen a few Finnish M39s made into replica snipers with 4x PE scopes, known as the "M39SOV," and those are probably decently accurate rifles, if the scope mount is well done and the scope works okay, both of which can create all kinds of issues.

 

[Skunk]

If one wants a military bolt action, there are few valid answers for not bettering yourself with ownership of a 1903 Springfield.

 

[hlee]

If one wants a military bolt action, there are few valid answers for not bettering yourself with ownership of a 1903 Springfield.

Nyet, garbage rod is fine.

(Too lazy to make meme)

 

[sirhrmechanic]

(Too lazy to make meme)

Not every rifle is an AI or a TRG or an SP66.... But apparently, not every one needs to be.

And given that a ton of the imports are, well, imports from third world armories. You can't judge the breed by $88 gunshow specials (that's what I paid for each of the three I have... Got $10 off each for buying three. Oh the days!).

Sirhr

 

[UpSideDown]

I guess a few hundred million rounds in the general direction of the enemy was good enough.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

^^^ There was a Soviet saying, often attributed to Stalin, but likely not his original thought (he was not a deep thinker...)

"Quantity has a quality all of its own"

The Soviets had quantity. And in some cases real quality. Like the T-34. Like their winter uniforms and boots. Yak fighters were first rate (check out airshows today where they are speed demons). Katusha rockets.

Yup, they lost a lot of troops. But after they recovered from the retreat in the face of Barbarossa, they retrieved more territory in 2 years than the rest of the allies put together. Be interesting to do the math on troops lost per square mile taken from the Nazi's. I bet their troop losses would not look quite so bad.

If you did that math for the Marines in the Pacific (losses per square mile of land area) it might look like the Soviets losses were low. Be an interesting exercise!

Sirhr

 

[Guthwine]

Don't forget that most of them are not sold in their original stocks, but were slapped into very loose fitting stocks at the arsenal.

I would say in terms of combat accuracy the Mosin was equal to the Mauser. No one was shooting groups with them.

 

[tomcatmv]

I have two M-38's and one 91-30 all have been torn down re-finished shimmed and corked and all shoot pretty well. I'd guess about 2-3 moa at 100yds. I used to have a pot-bellied Tikka barreled Finn that I sold off to fund a .308 build. Would love to have that one back.

 

[Random Guy]

I would say in terms of combat accuracy the Mosin was equal to the Mauser. No one was shooting groups with them.

Well, to be fair to the historical record concerning Swedish Mauser rifles, during WWII they actually did accuracy testing with all of their M96 rifles, and the most accurate one's were converted into the M41 sniper rifles. While I can not find the accuracy testing requirements for an M41 or post-war M41/B, I suspect it was likely in the in the 1.5 to 2.0 MOA range. (Attached is some info on the M/41 ammo, which contributed greatly to the M41's reputation for outstanding accuracy.) This article also reflects that, with accuracy testing showing ~ 1 MOA at 100, 200 and 300 yards.

Sniper Supreme: Model 41B Swedish Mauser - Guns and Ammo

According to Garry, the Swedish Model 41B Mauser may well have been the best sniper rifle of its

www.gunsandammo.com

....The Swedes of course never had to fight an actual war with their rifles, and the level of fit and finish on a surplus 1950s era Swedish M41/B shows that fact, but just wanted to note that 'Not all Mauser's are created equally'. Apologizes for the digression...

FWIW, the K98 accuracy requirement (circa 1939) was at least 3 of 5 shots with "S" cartridge within a 8 x 14cm rectangle at 100 meters, and all 5 shots had to be within a 12cm overlay. Hard to decipher that testing methodology with today's metrics, but I suppose that's somewhere in the 3 to 5 MOA range. I don't know what the Russian military required for M91/30 accuracy tests, but I kind-of doubt it would have been as strict as Germany's testing at the beginning of WWII. (As for the Finnish military, they re-barreled and carefully re-bedded their M39 rifles, and the accuracy requirement was 3-shots into 1.3" at 100 meters).

 

[Guthwine]

According to the soviet manual shots had to be within a distance of 5cm to each other and the whole group had to be within a 15cm circle. (or 15x15, I'll have to look it up) That would be 5MOA as the allowed maximum.

But in times of need I would think that both sides were not as concerned about regulations.

 

[Random Guy]

Thanks for that info. So 15cm divided by 2.5 (= ~ 1 inch, or 25.4 mm to be exact) = 6 MOA (Minutes of Angle).
So, a Russian M-N was held to approx ~ 6 MOA accuracy standard/requirement. Sounds about right.

 

[Guthwine]

One MOA is about 2,9cm, but yeah 5-6MOA.

But to contrast I know that the Austrian Army has the minimum requirement for the Steyr AUG of 10cm group sizes at a 100m. And I know the AUG shoots alot better than that. So requirement does not always mean actual accuracy.

 

[sandwarrior]

Wow! I'm going to have to totally give up on going out and having fun with a Mosin-Nagant because one guy on youtube can't shoot one. He does have the best scope (PE) of all the ones put on those old snipers, though. Funny, he can't just read the drum and see that you zero the scope, set the drum, and dial it to distance with the markings on the drum. It's a BDC pure and simple. That makes me much more confident in his ability to shoot...~ ~

No, they are not the ultimate precision rifle. Which says that anybody who thinks they are, doesn't know Russian tactics. Sniping isn't about precision hits, it's about hits. FWIW, I had two that would shoot 2moa. An Izzy and a Tula. But, you had to feed them good ammo. I bought some Norma brass for each and they shot that well. I had one can of Russian ammo that shot almost that good. And, another can that didn't shoot well at all. For $89 and $125 I don't think I did too bad for a "go out and shoot it bolt-blaster. Not to mention the cans of ammo were only $39 back then (2014).

IMO, the first of these to come over were NOT the best examples of these. Thus why the reputation is so bad. It's wasn't hit or miss, it was one hit for every ten misses. But, those were non-refurbed or captured/turned in rifles. The ones in storage, that had gone through an arsenal refurb, were the last to make it over here, and those were like 10 hits to one miss for the kind of 'good' accuracy you'd hope for out of a milsurp.

That said, if I had to take one or the other between this and a Rem 700 to a match, I'd take the 700. If I went into an incident and needed a sub-moa rifle, I'd really prefer that rifle was built to a 1/4moa standard. Which you can do with a Remmy and cannot do with a M-N. If I wanted to just have some fun at a range, I'd take either. Actually, you can do that with an M-N, just look at the SV-98. It's a descendant of the M-N. All the right things have been done though, and the only thing it still has common to the M-N is bolt and receiver. I still wouldn't take it over a precision rifle built in the Western world.

 

[SN13]

My first rifle was a 1939 Finnish Mosin Nagant.

I have, with open sights, hit bowling pins at 400 yards using shitty ass WOLF ammo.

I actually kept one for a while as the soft point was just BARELY hanging on as it came out of the back end.

Point being, some are good, some are right shit.

For being a $100 gun, with 500rds of ammo for another $200. It was a great starting point as an 18yo with no money.

But that was more than 20 years ago....

NowAdays I prefer a recoil pad over the metal plate.

It was a great learning rifle with a VERY LONG (like 1"+) first stage, and a short, squishy but predictable, second stage..... maybe that's why i prefer 2 stage triggers.

 

[Random Guy]

One MOA is about 2,9cm, but yeah 5-6MOA.

MOA on wikipedia: "It is especially popular as a unit of measurement with shooters familiar with the imperial measurement system because 1 MOA subtends a circle with a diameter of 1.047 inches (which is often rounded to just 1 inch) at 100 yards (2.908 cm at 100 m)."

In the USA, 1.047 inches = ~ 2.659 centimetres, as the yard is the unit of underlying measurement for MOA, but as you noted, 2.908 centimeters is used in the calculations in Australia, and the rest of the world, that is on the metric system. (So, assuming I did my quick math correctly)

In Australia, with the meter as the unit for MOA measurement, 15cm group = approx ~ 5.5 MOA for a Russian M-N accuracy requirement
But in the USA, with the old yard as the unit for MOA measurement, 15cm group = approx ~ 6 MOA for a Russian M-N

Just a random math-based observation given that 1 meter's is 9.4% longer than 1 yard and how that impacts MOA calculations...Apologizes for the digression.

***

That said, if I had to take one or the other between this and a Rem 700 to a match, I'd take the 700.

I hear you, but sticking to the WWII-era snipers, between a nice repo Finnish M39SOV and a real Swedish M41/B, I'll take the Swede, even though it lacks windage adjustment on the old 4x cope. I sold the repo M39SOV in this picture to fund an M1A sniper rifle build, but the new owner told me he developed a handload that was giving him 1 MOA performance, so he was happy. The Finn M39s are pretty nice shooters as far as old M-N are concerned.

That said, as noted way back in post #8 by Skunk about 1903 Springfields, I prefer like that classic as a sniper replica. Obviously in WWII snipers were not shooting for X-rings or ringing steel at 500 yards, but when competitively shooting for score at 300 or 600 yards - and using a 1953 or earlier military sniper rifle, its my M1903 w/ 8x scope that I trust over all others. Its a 1-MOA rifle, if I do my part...and while I am not a great shot, sometimes I'll do okay with my trusty M1903. (A couple of pics from CMP vintage sniper match in 2019. The 2020 match was canceled due to COVID-19, but hopefully 2021 will be different...hopefully).

 

[Lange Carabine]

According to the OP, the actual owner of the rifle claims to be able to make hits on a "turkey sized" target at 400y with open sights. If true then there ain't nothing wrong with the rifle itself.
From what I gather this isnt an original sniper rifle but rather a put together replica PE/PEM using repro scope and mount?????.
If so, that explains a lot.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

My experience with Mosins suggests that they weren't a slouch when used as a basic battle rifle.

But battle rifle accuracy and sniper rifle accuracy are both different and sometimes diametrically opposed.

Battle rifle Massed Musketry fire and maneuver doctrine depends upon natural dispersion to blanket a targeted area with randomly impacting fire. That randomness is what makes fleeing such fire into such a terrifying crap shoot. It's what you use when you can't scare up a genuine Sniper.

But Sniper Riflery doctrine cannot tolerate such dispersion.

My experiments with a modernized version of corking brought dispersion well below average in my three Mosins.

As for the video, I am not at all surprised. Those sight mounts which replace the rear sight blade are horrifically unstable and flimsy.

I grasped an obscure Internet post about taking off the entire sight, base and all, and replacing it with a pair of high aspect air rifle rings clamped onto the barrel's sight mount grooves. That produced a rock solid scope mount.

Then, the customary cheapo Chinese Scout scopes had abysmal clarity. I replaced mine with a high quality 'Trophy' handgun scope. It still lacked rifle quality magnification, but conversely provided a reliable sight adjustment capacity, so the trade was a fair one.

Don't let anyone tell you that a Mosin can't be adequately and cheaply modified to respectable accuracy.

The only honest joker in the deck is bore wear luck of the draw. You could cure that by cutting off some of the barrel, but noise and flash become intrusive. A heavier duty bloop tube could help with that.

Most Mosin ills are consequent to a near-century's worth of softwood stock shrinkage. I found that corking and trigger housing shims were the most logical and effective remedy for that, including rim lock issues.

Handloads that worked for me used the Hornady '303 caliber' 150gr Interlock, PPU brass, IMR-4064, and mildly increased 308 load recipes (start low, etc...), I forget how much 4064. My SIL has been whacking between a quarter to a half dozen deer a year with that load in one of my former three Mosins. I gave him two hundred rounds of my handload along with the rifle.

My remaining Mosin has the above mount, scope, and an Archangel stock.

The ten round Archangel magazine stays in place (just like the Enfield), and I can load better with two strippers than by changing out mags when one considers that one has to load those magazines to begin with. That's why I stuck with the Scout Scope mounting system; some compromises make sense from a practical point of view.

I consider it my perimeter defense, and scare 'em off with the bang, rifle. If I wanna bag 'em; they ain't gettin' away. But sheesh, does Mamushka pack a kick.

But:

This guy is the real Mosin expert.

Greg

 

[Guthwine]

Since the soviets had a sniper program before the germans did, I guess that they would have noticed at some point if their rifles were not up to the task.

 

[Lange Carabine]

I traded into an original all matching but well worn(mechanically and cosmetically) 1943 Izhevsk PU 3-4 years back. Wont shoot worth a flip with surplus and only so so with new factory stuff.
Handloads are a whole nuther ball game.
What surprised me the most is it shoots just as good a groups with .308" projo's as it will with .311" or .312", which average 1.25" 5 shots @ 100m.
Settled on a 150gr load that by chance matches up with the scopes BDC grads out to 600yds.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

I could be wrong but Im pretty surde the SV98 dont use a Mosin action. The SV98 action looks a lot different than the Mosin action, to my eyes at least.
The Finns used the TKIV 85 tho until the TRG came out.

 

[Flint62a1]

Our club has a very large bunch of surplus rifle fans. We run several shoots each year that are only for these great rifles. I have a 33 Izzy that I converted to a sniper last year. With surplus ammo, 6 inches or more at 100 yards is common, maybe it's the ammo, not sure. With handloads it gets alot more interesting.
There are a few Swedish mausers in the group, and those rifles just flat out shoot. Ball ammo is scarce, but between handloads and factory stuff, the accuracy of the Swede is really amazing. I have a Finn M-39 that is also a very accurate rifle- with handloads- not so much ball ammo.
The point I suppose is that these guns will all shoot, like any rifle , given the proper ammunition.
And they are so much fun to shoot!!

 

[Sooter76]

I’m not the biggest fan of Mosin’s but they really do have an undeserved reputation as ‘garbage rods’. I have two that shit for shit when I got them. I cleaned them up and bedded them according to the the old Soviet doctrine for the sniper rifles and now both are roughly on par with any of my other milsurp rifles.

 

[Colorado S14]

View attachment 7377019

Not every rifle is an AI or a TRG or an SP66.... But apparently, not every one needs to be.

And given that a ton of the imports are, well, imports from third world armories. You can't judge the breed by $88 gunshow specials (that's what I paid for each of the three I have... Got $10 off each for buying three. Oh the days!).

Sirhr

Sounds like you got yours from AIM Surplus. Lol.

 

[sandwarrior]

I could be wrong but Im pretty surde the SV98 dont use a Mosin action. The SV98 action looks a lot different than the Mosin action, to my eyes at least.
The Finns used the TKIV 85 tho until the TRG came out.

I got a much better youtube look at one this time and the description I was given some time ago is pretty much wrong. The only thing the SV98 seems to share is the lineage. It's made by Izmash (JSC Kalashnikov?) which was a combination of Izhevsk and Kalashnikov? Anyhow, there's lineage, but it ain't the same.

No split rear bridge on the receiver, not to mention it's bigger and heavier. And, the bolt has three lugs not two. The extraction system is different as well.
Much more than an AI copycat than a M-N.

 

[Son of Dorn]

I got a much better youtube look at one this time and the description I was given some time ago is pretty much wrong. The only thing the SV98 seems to share is the lineage. It's made by Izmash (JSC Kalashnikov?) which was a combination of Izhevsk and Kalashnikov? Anyhow, there's lineage, but it ain't the same.

No split rear bridge on the receiver, not to mention it's bigger and heavier. And, the bolt has three lugs not two. The extraction system is different as well.
Much more than an AI copycat than a M-N.

For some reason I always thought an SV-98 was a modernized M91/30 too, but I'm not sure where I ever got that idea. Maybe 'cause I only knew it to be a Russian-made bolt-action in 7.62x54R? Wonder how difficult it would be to replicate one...

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Sounds like you got yours from AIM Surplus. Lol.

Local gunstore. They had cases of them. I was building a WW1 Armoured car at the time and needed three for the rifle racks.

Thus the odd number and the "Three for $10 off each!"

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[sandwarrior]

For some reason I always thought an SV-98 was a modernized M91/30 too, but I'm not sure where I ever got that idea. Maybe 'cause I only knew it to be a Russian-made bolt-action in 7.62x54R? Wonder how difficult it would be to replicate one...

Only because the company (concern) who built the 91/30 builds this. They are bolt actions is about where the similarity ends.

I think I got my info about 5-7 years ago when researching modern Russian Sniper rifles. Something I'd seen on a gun show or something. And, it pops up as the lone bolt action. But with a stellar reputation.
I didn't see the rifle up close. Certainly not as good of detail as today, so I assumed what I read/heard to be correct. It was not. But, what I see today is much more formidable I think. I know the verbiage about it says .308 or 7.62x54R, but I think the Russians have more rounds in store for this rifle.

 

[Son of Dorn]

Only because the company who built the 91/30 builds this. They are bolt actions is about where the similarity ends.

I'm not even sure I was aware it was built by Izhmash, tbh. I never looked deeply into the design, I just knew it existed.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Yes, the Soviets had a Sniper program up and running, but under a quite different definition of Sniper.

Their definition(s) had similarity to the modern DMR mission, as well as entire units composed solely of Snipers; who they dispatched as independent roving solo sharpshooters as well as sometimes large multi-person teams. Moreover, their equipment better suited those roles, with mass production being deeply factored in. Such approaches could possibly work better in Guerrilla Warfare context, and the Soviets did not fail to pick up on the concept.

The German Snipers adhered to being closer what we'd call a Sniper these days.

The same simple base rifle with mass marketed economically affordable upgrade features is a concept very much like the AR rifles I have been building for myself. They have identical ergonomics and operating controls, and mine are optimized for my gangly frame, longer distance accuracy, bag riding, and should be easy to replicate given a ready supply of those mass market optimization parts. Mine are range queens, and will stay there; but it wouldn't take much to reconfigure them slightly for more mundane purposes.

Soviet doctrine operated with new rifle shipments being delegated to all be accuracy tested by the unit's best marksman. Those which shot best were allocated for accuracy tasks; and sometimes, for upgraded capabilities. Soviet doctrine did not well support the precision equipment approach and usually had no or only rudimentary rifle field maintenance capability. Often that best marksman did a lot of the small unit rifle maintenance work by himself. Sometimes, nobody did. Soviet Infantry did exactly what they were told to do, and only that.

Stalin was wedded to the argument that the perfect was the enemy of the adequate. He wanted great masses of adequate men and materials, and treated manpower as just another consumable. For his purposes, the 91/30 was perfect. No other purposes counted.

In some ways, the Soviets thought like Marines (and others among the US Services), with severe emphasis on the teamwork; but they do not appear to have gotten the idea of individuals having value. They believed in the power of numbers following a grand centralized plan. Our forces shared the goals, issued plans, and then left execution and ad-hoc revision to the troops on the ground. We were trained to think our way out of the roadblocks; they were taught to wait for new orders. The Germans had the fancier gear, and maybe the better people; but the Soviets' numbers overran them anyway.

SMEAC.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

All your Mosin-Nagant 91/30 questions answered.

 

[Lange Carabine]

All your Mosin-Nagant 91/30 questions answered.

If not theres also mosinnagant.net
Lots of info on the sniper variants there.

 

[FredIII]

7.62x54R Archives | Modern Arms International

modernarmsinternational.com

This is pretty good Ammo.

 

[crackerbrown]

7.62x54R Archives | Modern Arms International

modernarmsinternational.com

This is pretty good Ammo.

Smith-Sights.com has an accuracy kit on sale. A trigger spring and shim package.

 

[mjmd11]

The real ones, rifles selected for accuracy and so marked, in original period correct sniper stocks, shooting the correct loads, with correct and original ww2 optics and mount, will easily repeat on silhouettes at 600. They killed more German's than any other sniper rifle by a factor of 10.

 

[nagantguy]

Cast boolits , sometimes sized for as large .314 will cure a lot of the misery from old sewer pipe bores, fit is king. A heavy for caliber “fat” powder coated cast boolits at lower end 308 speeds can still delivery accuracy and plenty of deer/ pig killing horse power.

 

[mjmd11]

Was the rifle in the video:
- stamped as a sniper rifle with a Cn or CH
- was it still in it's original stock
- did the rifle go through a refurbish process
- if it was a sniper rifle were the four sheet metal plates (their version of pillars) still in place above and below the action
- were the action screws torqued properly
- was the barrel still wrapped with burlap under the front stock retaining ring
- what was the quality of the after market scope on it (most are junk)
- was the aftermarket scope base installed properly on the rifle and soldered
- was the scope aligned properly on the base to the center point of the barrel
- was it zeroed before this test?
- what was the barrels condition?
- was the barrel slugged and were readings taken.

-There are plenty of videos on you tube showing properly set up original mosin snipers hitting targets consistently at 300-600m
-The mosin snipers killed more of the enemy than any other fielded sniper system mostly due to the fact that the Russian Army bore the brunt of Germany's military might. Had the allies faced the combined power of the German Army the outcome of the war would have probably been different.
- 148 grain ball is horrible ammunition. Especially when it comes out of a worn mosin barrels.

 

[Lange Carabine]

Appearantly you didn't watch the video.
At about 40 seconds in the the guy says the owner put a lot of time and effort into making the gun as period correct as possible.
This tells me it's either a full blown fake/replica or at best a reactivated ex-sniper fitted with a cheesey repro scope and mount.
So, I doubt it meets any of the criteria
listed above.
FWIW, my original refurb '43 Izhevsk PU meets practically none of it.
Although it's a matching rig I'm certain the scope and mount( 1944 Progress in an Izhevsk mount) were fitted as a replacement during refurb.
Stock is Izhevsk, matching ser # grease penciled in bbl channel and HG but it's of the pre war type with the screwed sling eschuteons so not original to the gun. No barrel wrap. Never seen one with it either. Cant remember if it has shims or not. Want to say no but it's been so long since I've had it out of the stock I cant recall.
Bore is mirror bright but well worn with light to moderate pitting at the muzzle end.
Shoots .308" bullets in the 150gr to 180gr weights just as good as the same weights in .310,.311 or .312", with handloads 5 shot 100m groups right around 1", give it take. Mostly give.
150gr .311" Speer FB( BC is nearly identical to the WW2 148gr Russian bullet) over a charge of RE-15 at 2800 fps that seems to match scopes elevation drum grads out to 600m pretty close.
The PU has no click detents so precise adjustments and repeatability is a joke.

 

[Guthwine]

Last week I was at the range with my Mosin. Standard infantry rifle + a russian replica mount+scope. I shot 180gr bulk FMJ from Sellier and Bellot. Sadly I had not enough ammo to shoot much but here are a 5 shot 100m and 3 shot 300m group (+ a view through the scope at 300m with my shitty mobile camera)
And I just bedded the stock and let my gunsmith mount the scope. Built in 1936 and still doing pretty well I would say.

 

[mjmd11]

Appearantly you didn't watch the video.
At about 40 seconds in the the guy says the owner put a lot of time and effort into making the gun as period correct as possible.
This tells me it's either a full blown fake/replica or at best a reactivated ex-sniper fitted with a cheesey repro scope and mount.
So, I doubt it meets any of the criteria
listed above.
FWIW, my original refurb '43 Izhevsk PU meets practically none of it.
Although it's a matching rig I'm certain the scope and mount( 1944 Progress in an Izhevsk mount) were fitted as a replacement during refurb.
Stock is Izhevsk, matching ser # grease penciled in bbl channel and HG but it's of the pre war type with the screwed sling eschuteons so not original to the gun. No barrel wrap. Never seen one with it either. Cant remember if it has shims or not. Want to say no but it's been so long since I've had it out of the stock I cant recall.
Bore is mirror bright but well worn with light to moderate pitting at the muzzle end.
Shoots .308" bullets in the 150gr to 180gr weights just as good as the same weights in .310,.311 or .312", with handloads 5 shot 100m groups right around 1", give it take. Mostly give.
150gr .311" Speer FB( BC is nearly identical to the WW2 148gr Russian bullet) over a charge of RE-15 at 2800 fps that seems to match scopes elevation drum grads out to 600m pretty close.
The PU has no click detents so precise adjustments and repeatability is a joke.

LOL I did watch the video. I guess my point was the accuracy of that rifle which is set up as a top mount PE would be determined by any of a number of elements in the way it was set up. They are not junk. If you were a ww2 russian sniper and you were assigned a top mount pe, your rifle would probably have been set up that way. I believe the actual russian specs mentioned the burlap/oil wrap placement (topic open to debate /could be wrong.) All of my original Pe's, PEM's and PU's (battlefield condition, meaning un-refurbished and unmolested since storage after ww2 ) have the metal shims in them and two that did not get field replacement stocks show remnants of oil in the front ring area. (I am speculating on the wrap issue and this topic is open to debate)Some people have had great success using this barrel harmonics adjustment
You obviously knew what you were doing when you set it up if it shoots a moa and built the correct round for your bore. If your rifle is not shimmed add them imo . This suggestion is offered as a polite recommendation. As a PU the elements I mentioned in mounting the scope base and mount (on PE and PEm's) for proper scope alignment with the bore do not apply given that is handled by adjustments on your PU mount . A museum quality unmolested PE in original factory matching condition would be a $25,000+ rifle imo. Unfortunately I do not believe any exist outside of maybe one or two in russian museums and maybe not there either..

 

[Lange Carabine]

As far as setting it up goes, it's just the way I got it from the importer. All I did was clean it up and do some load development to find a combo that worked the best with the least amount of fiddling with the scope.
It's not at all uncommon for matching rigs to shoot to or very close to point of aim at 100m right out of the box, depending on the ammo.
My Enfield L42a1 was spot on right out of its chest with issue Radway Green L2a2 ammo.

 

[mjmd11]

then shim the rifle lol. you have a keeper.

 

[Lange Carabine]

It's one of the Molot refurbs ATI and others imported 10-12 years ago.
It may well have the shims, I simply dont remember. Whatever the case I'm leaving it just the way it is.
All the others I've owned were either fakes or mismatched originals.
The fake was a beauty, cobbled together by Century Arms using a minty 1944 Finn Tikka 91/30 with an original wartime Russian scope and mount. A shame really, that Tikka wouldve been much more valuable in original trim than it ever would as a fake sniper. It looked really good but never did shoot near as well as the originals did.
As for the unmolested PE's, I know of a few around among fellow collectors, they are not a common find.

 

[...]

so something to keep in mind...accuracy standards for "sniper rifles" were a lot different during WW1-WW2 than they are now...

3-5 MOA was actually the norm form most sniper rifles of the era.

occasionally some were hand selected and/or modified for accuracy.....but by and large, most were general service rifles with a scope slapped on.

'Snipers' as we think of them today, are really more an invention of the Vietnam war.....up until then, most 'snipers' were deployed much like a 'designated marksman' is today...as such, 3-5MOA is actually quite sufficient.

 

[Deej]

According to the OP, the actual owner of the rifle claims to be able to make hits on a "turkey sized" target at 400y with open sights. If true then there ain't nothing wrong with the rifle itself.
From what I gather this isnt an original sniper rifle but rather a put together replica PE/PEM using repro scope and mount?????.
If so, that explains a lot.

I was there and was one of the shooters of the rifle. And we was banging the turkey at 400 consistently. I think the issue was the ammo. We were using 174gr. Might be a scope issue as well