Historic Carbines

[Brian Macgyver]

Right here in my home I have two of the most historic rival guns in history. They were pitted against each other in one of the most historic battles in WWII. The approach to Moscow, and the retreat was one of the greatest man-to-man battles in modern times.
I have a Mosin-Nagant Russian bolt-action carbine in .762x54 caliber. It has a pig-sticker on the front and a scope on top. I also have an 8mm Mauser German bolt action carbine rifle. Both are WWII era. Both are models that were used at close quarters in the war.
I have noticed that the Russian rifle is far superior to the German gun. It is not better-looking, softer, or kinder. It just works better. It simply shot more soldiers than the Mauser did. That was not good for the Nazis. But it was better for the rest of us. They lost. and the loot and guns were sold. I got my bit!

 

[RHINO]

i have a few historic rifles myself. of the mosins i have a russian made M44 and a finnish M91 with tikkakoski barrel, its the real long barrel mosin. is your mosin russian made?

 

[tucson_sailors]

Historic carbine

The 91/30's from earlier in the war are quite nice, though I have seem some nice model 38's and 44's. Friend has a Mitchells mauser, and he's quite fond of it.

I actually have a chinese model 53? which is the chicom manufactured M44. Its had the bolt and action really well polished, and it cycles very smoothly. The barrel and wood is really rough, but what can you expect for $75?

Taken them out to a range yet?

Oh, I'm guessing you got them at J&G? Being up in Prescott, you should swing by there if you already haven't - they'll have the 7.62 x 54r for ya. Consider all of that ammo mildly corrosive, and clean the barrel and action really soon (1 day or less) or the residue can eat the steel. Modern ammo doesn't do that, but most of what is out there for 7.62 and 8mm kraut from that time period is corrosive. Windex works pretty well for neutralizing it, or most modern cleaners - Hoppes, Sweet 7.62, Parsons, etc.

Glenn in Tucson

 

[splitshot]

Enemy At The Gates comes to mind..

 

[msahr]

Sweet... no pics?

 

[Brian Macgyver]

No, no pics. Actually the earlier Nagant M91 Russian rifle is a better Deer or hunting rifle if you can find a clean one. It was longer and a lot heaver to carry. It is the 1891 model. The longer barrel gives a longer accurate range. There are still plenty of them around, but they are old (circa 1891-1942).
The Nazis were just up-close and personal in their fighting style. So the Russians had to reinvent the entire arsenal to deal with that. A part of it was the shorter version of the bolt-action carbine that I have. Once the rifle was shortened, and lightened, it became a formidable weapon, partly by luck.
The 8mm Mauser that I have from the same late war era is a much inferior rifle. The action is similar, but the stock doesn't fit as tightly, and the iron sights suck. The Russians won simply by being able to hit targets more consistently at longer range, with a lighter rifle. In the last two years of the war, the Russians had a better rifle and they were far more pissed-off! The Nazis were conscripts, and the Russians were defending the land.
Those are the little things that win wars.

 

[Brian Macgyver]

My Nagant is a model built in Hungary near the end of the Korean War. It is apparently one of the rarest of M44 (1944 model) Nagants. Of course, no Russian Troops were ever admitted to be involved in the Korean war, but we all know better. This rifle shows scars from that war.
Mine sits in a display made of solid oak, that has a historic description in a window for viewing. It is modified with a scope and the bent bolt necessary to fit it, as well as a pad on the back of the stock.
My New England Father-in-law once asked me if the old gun was real and still worked. I just suggested that he not pull the trigger! It would put a hole in my house, and piss off the neighbors! I keep it loaded with the pig sticker extended. It's an old carbine with no safety catch. It is above the reach of children. I shoot it every so often, just to be familiar with it. It's fun to hit targets a half-mile away! It is just tedious to drive so far to pick up the debris.
The M91 (1891 model) Nagant is about 10 inches longer. It is the predecessor to the M44. If you can find one with a clean barrel, it is a better rifle for deer or elk hunting. It was not better in war, hence the shorter M44 version. The M91 is available at a lower price, if you can find one in decent condition. Steve and I recently found one in pristine condition at J&G, and bought it as a gift for his son. They are still available. The one that we got for Steve's son is nearly 100 years old. Yet it is as solid as the day that it was new. It still had the original grease in the cavities of the stock that was put in by the original manufacturer in Russia. It had at most, 500 rounds put through it. Unlike my M44, it was never used in combat, had never seen field use. It is a really clean rifle. Since Mike likes to shoot Bambi, rather than buying him at Fry's grocery, the M91 Nagant works well for him.

 

[Exiled]

Not to be a stickler, but *far* more Russians than Germans died in the Eastern front during WWII, during all phases of the battle, even the retreat and the Battle for Berlin. All combatants in WWII relied heavily on conscript armies, but after Stalingrad and the surrender of the Sixth Army, the Germans just couldn't keep up with the Red Army's sheer numbers.

 

[tucson_sailors]

Historic carbine - thought

It's an old carbine with no safety catch. .

On the Nagants M91/30 and M44 that I have (Tula) the safety is actually part of the bolt mechanism. If you pull back the round knob, and then turn the tongue counter clockwise about 25 degrees, it will lock in place to the left of top dead center, and thus be unable to fire. There is not a trigger safety, just the one on the bolt. To release, pull back, and put the tongue at TDC. Its generally very stiff (probably never been used) so be careful with any fingernails you're really attached to.

Let me know if this works on yours as well.

Glenn in Tucson

 

[Rocky_LC]

I've got the model M-59, which has a l;ight beechwood stock, and the barrel has been cut down. The sights are machined off so that I can only shoot it out to 1000 "arsins" or somithing (the russian equivalent of a meter).

It's pretty cool, but the top of the handguard comes off every couple of shots. I don't think it ever saw much action after they finished the modifications.

OBTW: $75 at Big 5 about 10 years ago....


Rocky


PS. Dod you hear that song that Marvin Gaye's dad wrote for him?

"I Heard It Throught the Carbine..."

 

[Brian Macgyver]

On the Nagants M91/30 and M44 that I have (Tula) the safety is actually part of the bolt mechanism. If you pull back the round knob, and then turn the tongue counter clockwise about 25 degrees, it will lock in place to the left of top dead center, and thus be unable to fire. There is not a trigger safety, just the one on the bolt. To release, pull back, and put the tongue at TDC. Its generally very stiff (probably never been used) so be careful with any fingernails you're really attached to.

Let me know if this works on yours as well.

Glenn in Tucson

You are correct, sir. The only real "safety" is in having the bolt open. My example is displayed with the bolt closed, therefore, ready to fire. I keep it loaded on its display stand. It is loaded with low-powered target rounds, while the hollow-point war-shots are displayed below. The low-power rounds are only deadly within a half-mile. The war shots are somewhat more.
My daughter has a real understanding of the rifle. She has been near when I fired it. She knows than no gun is a toy. She will never touch it.
I really do not believe in offering toy guns to kids. Guns are not toys. I don't like cap-guns, squirt guns, and such. Guns are serious. They are tools for killing. There are no toy guns. To introduce children to them, start them when they are ready for the truth. Guns kill. That's what they are made to do! If the kids aren't ready for that, don't let them play with guns of any kind.
They'll get around to it when they are ready. Then they will do it with some respect.

 

[Brian Macgyver]

Not to be a stickler, but *far* more Russians than Germans died in the Eastern front during WWII, during all phases of the battle, even the retreat and the Battle for Berlin. All combatants in WWII relied heavily on conscript armies, but after Stalingrad and the surrender of the Sixth Army, the Germans just couldn't keep up with the Red Army's sheer numbers.

Not to be a stickler, but every personal account of the Eastern war has the personal touch. Those Russians may not have loved the government, but they loved the land. The Nazis were invaders, and were not to to be tolerated.
Far more Russians than Germans died during the German advance toward Moscow. But once the tide was turned, the higher casualties were on the German side. That Russian rifle is much of the reason. There are many stories about the brutality of the German retreat in that winter. A number of Nazis simply froze to death in the trenches. The rest were shot at longer range than the German rifles were able to reach. OOPS! Such is war!
I am affected some by my marriage to an historian. The WWII Russo-German battle was the last real war of attrition in Europe. The nation with the most young men to sacrifice wins. Who can kill more young men?
Every war since has begun to be a contest of technology. The nation with the better equipment wins. That would usually be US! In the words of Mel Brooks; It's good to be the king!

 

[tucson_sailors]

Student of History

The nation with the better equipment wins. That would usually be US! In the words of Mel Brooks; It's good to be the king!

True, but only when you consider traditional war. The Russian/Afghan tussle of the 80's introduced a vast technology gap, and the Soviets still lost. While we supplied the opposing side with high-tech, there were many more factors that contributed to the USSR getting out of there.

Stories from that invasion are pretty chilling. As rotten as the Ostfront must have been for the Germans retreating from Stalingrad, no Russian wanted to be captured by the Afghans. (General statement, individual exceptions to that rule, as always)

Glenn in Tucson

 

[Brian Macgyver]

You have a valid point. In war there is no possible replacement for real men who just don't want their home taken over by invaders. Really pissed-off people are the worst kind of enemy.
Historically, no outside power has ever been able to control the area that is Afghanistan, in the past 2000 years, until we showed up after 9-11. We are the only nation that has had the ability to invade and hold that country in all of history. That says a lot about our military ability.
But what does that say about our ability to build a country?
The only reason that we have some semblence of control there is that we offer businessmen and families something better than was offered by the regime that we ousted. The minute that the advantage that we offer diminishes, we will lose that war as all others have before us.
Afghanistan, and a lot of other places, need something different from what we have. They need self-government, but in a different way from ours. We need to work on that.