Mosin Nagant (With Pics)
- Thread starter BlueOvalFitter
- Start date
- Status
I spent quite a bit of time restoring this one to a near show finish. It really looks awesome in person. However, it's not accurate at all.
That rifle is beautiful Cujet!
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I spent quite a bit of time restoring this one to a near show finish. It really looks awesome in person. However, it's not accurate at all.
That stock is beautiful. How did you restore it? Also, did you have the barrel Nitride finished?
I spent quite a bit of time restoring this one to a near show finish. It really looks awesome in person. However, it's not accurate at all.
That stock is beautiful. How did you restore it? Also, did you have the barrel Nitride finished?
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I spent quite a bit of time restoring this one to a near show finish. It really looks awesome in person. However, it's not accurate at all.
That stock is beautiful. How did you restore it? Also, did you have the barrel Nitride finished?
The stock was a near disaster. I used a heat gun to melt the grease out of it, took forever. Then used water on the dings to swell them. Sanded, heat gun, water, over and over. Then Birchwood tru-oil gun stock oil. Rubbed on many coats, rubbed with steel wool. It's glass smooth and if you look in the pic, you can see that it reflects the grass.
The barrel was in cosmetically great shape, and needed very little. Wiped the crown with bluing and oil.
It's the best looking M44 I've ever seen. Too bad it's so inaccurate.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I spent quite a bit of time restoring this one to a near show finish. It really looks awesome in person. However, it's not accurate at all.
That stock is beautiful. How did you restore it? Also, did you have the barrel Nitride finished?
The stock was a near disaster. I used a heat gun to melt the grease out of it, took forever. Then used water on the dings to swell them. Sanded, heat gun, water, over and over. Then Birchwood tru-oil gun stock oil. Rubbed on many coats, rubbed with steel wool. It's glass smooth and if you look in the pic, you can see that it reflects the grass.
The barrel was in cosmetically great shape, and needed very little. Wiped the crown with bluing and oil.
It's the best looking M44 I've ever seen. Too bad it's so inaccurate.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I spent quite a bit of time restoring this one to a near show finish. It really looks awesome in person. However, it's not accurate at all.
Beautiful job ! Have you tried shooting it with the bayonet extended ? Everything I've read about the M44 notes that is how the USSR designed it to be used. I have a post war 1945 and a 1948 - both shoot nice with the spike extended, or removed.
I spent quite a bit of time restoring this one to a near show finish. It really looks awesome in person. However, it's not accurate at all.
Beautiful job ! Have you tried shooting it with the bayonet extended ? Everything I've read about the M44 notes that is how the USSR designed it to be used. I have a post war 1945 and a 1948 - both shoot nice with the spike extended, or removed.
Originally Posted By: HouseTiger
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I spent quite a bit of time restoring this one to a near show finish. It really looks awesome in person. However, it's not accurate at all.
Beautiful job ! Have you tried shooting it with the bayonet extended ? Everything I've read about the M44 notes that is how the USSR designed it to be used. I have a post war 1945 and a 1948 - both shoot nice with the spike extended, or removed.
Of course, I've read the same claims, in this case, it's impossible to tell. It can hit paper at 50 yards once. Then it's off the paper and I can't find where the round goes. I see the dirt plume, but the backstop is so far away, I can't tell if it's up-down-left or right.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I spent quite a bit of time restoring this one to a near show finish. It really looks awesome in person. However, it's not accurate at all.
Beautiful job ! Have you tried shooting it with the bayonet extended ? Everything I've read about the M44 notes that is how the USSR designed it to be used. I have a post war 1945 and a 1948 - both shoot nice with the spike extended, or removed.
Of course, I've read the same claims, in this case, it's impossible to tell. It can hit paper at 50 yards once. Then it's off the paper and I can't find where the round goes. I see the dirt plume, but the backstop is so far away, I can't tell if it's up-down-left or right.
I don't know whether it applies to the M44, but as I understand it the 91/30s have an offset front sight if they're meant to be fired with the bayonet attached: the post is set a little to the left of centre to compensate for the effects of the bayonet, whereas the sniper rifles (which didn't have bayonets) have a central post.
It's supposed to be one of the quick ways to spot a fake 91/30 sniper.
It's supposed to be one of the quick ways to spot a fake 91/30 sniper.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Of course, I've read the same claims, in this case, it's impossible to tell. It can hit paper at 50 yards once. Then it's off the paper and I can't find where the round goes. I see the dirt plume, but the backstop is so far away, I can't tell if it's up-down-left or right.
If the rifle won't print on the paper consistently at 50 yards, something is drastically wrong. As far as shooting it with the bayonet on or off, yes, there are barrel harmonics that come into play. But certainly not enough to keep the rifle from hitting the paper at such a close range.
If everything on the rifle is tight, could it possibly be the stock applying uneven pressure? You could try relieving the barrel channel. A type of, "poor man's free float" job, if you will. These rifles were pretty much thrown together. Especially during war time. Other than that, the only thing I would suggest is slugging the land and groove diameter to see if the barrel is drastically oversize, or some other anomaly. Or else have a good look at it with a bore scope to check for any severe pitting, stripped rifling, or even a bent barrel. It's odd because most of these things shoot pretty good. Not MOA, but acceptable accuracy for a bolt action battle rifle.
Of course, I've read the same claims, in this case, it's impossible to tell. It can hit paper at 50 yards once. Then it's off the paper and I can't find where the round goes. I see the dirt plume, but the backstop is so far away, I can't tell if it's up-down-left or right.
If the rifle won't print on the paper consistently at 50 yards, something is drastically wrong. As far as shooting it with the bayonet on or off, yes, there are barrel harmonics that come into play. But certainly not enough to keep the rifle from hitting the paper at such a close range.
If everything on the rifle is tight, could it possibly be the stock applying uneven pressure? You could try relieving the barrel channel. A type of, "poor man's free float" job, if you will. These rifles were pretty much thrown together. Especially during war time. Other than that, the only thing I would suggest is slugging the land and groove diameter to see if the barrel is drastically oversize, or some other anomaly. Or else have a good look at it with a bore scope to check for any severe pitting, stripped rifling, or even a bent barrel. It's odd because most of these things shoot pretty good. Not MOA, but acceptable accuracy for a bolt action battle rifle.
If the barrel appears to be oversize or shot out, you can sometimes get around it by handloading some .311 dia. .30 caliber bullets intended for the .303 British Enfield. I know Sierra makes .311 diameter bullets. And they're easily obtainable. (They also produce .311 dia. 125 grain and such for handloading the 7.62 X 39 MM AK round). I've heard of guys doing that and squeezing a bit more mileage out of a shot out barrel. If you do try that, be sure to start out with the most reduced load listed, and gradually work up. And only do it if your barrel slugs out accordingly.
Originally Posted By: jjjxlr8
I think the 7.62x54R bullets are .311-.312 in diameter, despite the 7.62 designation. Just like the 7.62x39 round.
Yep, there was a spate of people rechambering .303s into 7.62 Russian for cheapness...which made no sense.
I think the 7.62x54R bullets are .311-.312 in diameter, despite the 7.62 designation. Just like the 7.62x39 round.
Yep, there was a spate of people rechambering .303s into 7.62 Russian for cheapness...which made no sense.
Originally Posted By: jjjxlr8
I think the 7.62x54R bullets are .311-.312 in diameter, despite the 7.62 designation. Just like the 7.62x39 round.
A lot of manuals list bullets from .308 to .312 diameter for handloading the 7.62 X 54 MM. Many of the Finnish produced rifles were barreled for standard .308 diameter bullets. This kind of variation can and does cause severe accuracy problems. Several 8 MM Mauser rifles were afflicted with the same problem. Because of it Privi Partisan 8 MM JS Mauser loads are very anemic, because they don't know what barrel diameter they are going to be fired in. Slugging the barrel should be the first thing in attempting to figure out what is causing this. A .308 bullet rattling down a shot out .312 dia. bore isn't going to help in the accuracy department, that's for sure.
https://www.chuckhawks.com/30Russian.htm
I think the 7.62x54R bullets are .311-.312 in diameter, despite the 7.62 designation. Just like the 7.62x39 round.
A lot of manuals list bullets from .308 to .312 diameter for handloading the 7.62 X 54 MM. Many of the Finnish produced rifles were barreled for standard .308 diameter bullets. This kind of variation can and does cause severe accuracy problems. Several 8 MM Mauser rifles were afflicted with the same problem. Because of it Privi Partisan 8 MM JS Mauser loads are very anemic, because they don't know what barrel diameter they are going to be fired in. Slugging the barrel should be the first thing in attempting to figure out what is causing this. A .308 bullet rattling down a shot out .312 dia. bore isn't going to help in the accuracy department, that's for sure.
https://www.chuckhawks.com/30Russian.htm
We are getting slightly off topic, but I think the Finnish DID use standard Russian spec size bores in just about everything except in the M28-76 target rifles. All of the Finnish military rifles that I own(M27, M30, M39, & M91) have bores for the .311-.312 bullets, not .308.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Of course, I've read the same claims, in this case, it's impossible to tell. It can hit paper at 50 yards once. Then it's off the paper and I can't find where the round goes. I see the dirt plume, but the backstop is so far away, I can't tell if it's up-down-left or right.
You might consider slugging the barrel. Both my M44 rifles (fortunately) go at .311 and .3115. I've had a few over the years, all WW-II high wall production, that went as high as .315. None of those shot all that hot. If there's any damage at the muzzle, that can mess things up as well. Just an idea.
Of course, I've read the same claims, in this case, it's impossible to tell. It can hit paper at 50 yards once. Then it's off the paper and I can't find where the round goes. I see the dirt plume, but the backstop is so far away, I can't tell if it's up-down-left or right.
You might consider slugging the barrel. Both my M44 rifles (fortunately) go at .311 and .3115. I've had a few over the years, all WW-II high wall production, that went as high as .315. None of those shot all that hot. If there's any damage at the muzzle, that can mess things up as well. Just an idea.
Originally Posted By: jjjxlr8
All of the Finnish military rifles that I own(M27, M30, M39, & M91) have bores for the .311-.312 bullets, not .308.
IIRC, Both Sako and Valmet M39s here slugged out at .310 + or - .0005(ish). The 39 was a tack driver, for a Mosin.
All of the Finnish military rifles that I own(M27, M30, M39, & M91) have bores for the .311-.312 bullets, not .308.
IIRC, Both Sako and Valmet M39s here slugged out at .310 + or - .0005(ish). The 39 was a tack driver, for a Mosin.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
