I like to standardize my stuff. Will it be a good idea to shoot I mosin since I try to only shoot the ak? It seems that they have similar sights. Is a Mosin the most durable rifle in a third world country field enviornment? I am looking for the ak47 of bolt actions.

Some countries still use the Mosin , that I know.

redo

Ah man....  this post is filled with fan boy misconceptions.

Nothing wrong with a Moison-Nagant, but it ain't magical.  Neither is the AK.  Any quality mil-surp bolt action will serve you well.  an SMLE, a Mauser... whatever.

The sights on a M-N and an AK are indeed similar.  Which is why I prefer some thing else.  My old eyes just can't use open sights.

My bolt gun choice is a Springfield 1903-A3.  Or an SMLE with the peep sight.  The 3rd choice would be a M1917 Enfield.

Nothing wrong with the Mosin action, though it is a bit crude.  I just like to be able to see the sights.

Mauser action is considered the strongest bolt action by most..Sights are similar also, not the same but close enough.

Mosin is a fine rifle, made by peasants for peasants. They are durable, powerful, accurate, and heavy. Furthermore, they are cheap to buy. If you don't like the one you bought go buy a few more. Mosins are still found in use in Afghanistan and other areas of the mid-east.
Mosins are not magical, nor perfect. They work well for their intended use at the time of their creation.

I am looking for a powerful bolt action that will drop anything that walks in North America. I love the ak but dont want to haul it when in northern maine on hikes.

I am considering the 1903, Mosin, and Enfield. Which one of these is easiest to guerilla gun smith? If you took them all through a torture test which would run the longest? I am a Glock/ AK guy looking for a bolt action that is as simple, easy to fix, and hardcore durable.

If you're looking to bubba it buy a Mosin.  1903's and Enfields are too valuable to WECSOG.

The Mosin extractor is a potential weak point and the magazine interupter can be an issue if it loses spring tension, but otherwise it is rock solid.

The 91/30 Mosins are quite accurate but are a little on theong side with a 28.75" barrel.

But then if accuracy is the pre motivator, a Lee Enfield No 4 MK I or a 1903 Springfield are both accurate as long as either is in good condition. The Lee Enfield No 5 "Jungle Carbines" are light and handy, but are not exactly tack drivers, and originals are comparatively rare and expensive.

The advantage of the '03 is light weight, but shooting 60-70 rounds per session with one may start to get your attention as recoil is fairly sharp (by AR-15 girly-man standards) as the rifle is fairly light for a .30-06. The '03 is also for all intents and purposes a knock off of the '98 Mauser with minor improvements such as a coned breech.

The Lee Enfield cock on closing approach and rear locking lug arrangement makes for a very slick and fast operating action that is superior to the '98 Mauser, '03 Springfield or Mosin in terms of speed, but it is weaker and generally less accurate.

All that said, an M38 or M44 Mosin is comparatively light, battle rifle accurate (3-4 MOA) and available for a lot less money than a Springfield, Mauser or Enfield. Plus surplus ball ammo is relatively cheap for it at the moment.

.30-06, .303 and 7.62x54R are all fine calibers for deer sized game, but on Elk they are a short range only proposition, not a great idea for Moose and a non-starter for larger species of bear.

I own a bunch and do like them, but they are far from perfect. The best shooting Mosins typically are the Finns. If you can find a Mosin M44 built by Poland, or Hungary pick one up, they were pretty well built as well


as to one of the best bolt action battle rifles ever built, take a good hard look at the Lee Enfield No4 mk1 and mk2. I own a Canadian Long Branch No4 and am VERY impressed

Just buy an M39 in near-unissued condition and be done with it.

Fill your basement with milsurp crates of ammo for cheap while it lasts. You can practice with it for next to nothing in cost.

If it likes Brown Bear 205gr soft points, that should anchor pretty much anything in the lower 48 fairly reliably and very inexpensively.

The Jap Ariska is by far the strongest action. But ammo is hard to come by and most examples I've seen are pretty shitty.

Mosin M38. Lightweight, powerful and parts are cheap. Just buy a couple of M91/30 for "spares".

I was going to post something with a bit more information...but it would have been glazed over and completely disregarded anyways.  This pretty much sums it up.

 

If you want to bubba it, why do you not look for a already sporterized rifle unless that's the point?
Here in Europe lots of used sporterized Mausers are still in use, I assume it would not be difficult to get an used Springfield or M1917 based hunting rile in America?

The ammo is cheap, that's about it.

You do realize that the AK will be lighter and smaller than all of the bolt actions you listed right?

Ammunition is also a consideration. If you are looking for a surplus bolt gun. Try a FR8 or a Ishapore Carbine, both are .308 Win. If you want a longer gun with a alittle more power, try the P17 Eddystone. Of all my surplus bolt guns, I would grab the P17 first. 8mm, 303 Brit, 7.62x54 will be hard to come by. The calibers of  308 and 30-06 will be easier to find.

It is my feeling that the lack of any real safety makes the Nosin Nagant a range rifle only.

The SMLE is a far superior rifle and just as "rugged" if that's all you are looking at.

There are many different variations of bolt actions.

The classic definition of the AK is = The rifle most often used by untrained yahoos against superiorly armed and trained world powers.

If that is the definition you agree with then the 7mm Mauser Models 1893, 1895, & 1897are the ak-47's of bolt actions.

These rifles were mostly made in Germany though many were made in other countries like Spain. They were used against the US Army in Cuba, Luzon & Mindanoa.  The 2nd Boer War they deciimated the British were still common across Africa and South Asia well into the 50s.

Before that the "AK" was the 1853 Enfield.  Used in Afganistan the Confederacy, and across Africa, Pakistan,  & The South Pacific. I have one my battle buddy pulled out of an Afgani haystack in 03. made in 1869

Now if you mean ruggedness then any bolt will do that none are delicate.  I beleive the SMLE is the best combat bolt action but ammo is too rare anymore to use in that role.

The most protected sights no a military rifle has to go to the M1917/P14.  

The Soviets called the knob on the end of the striker the "hammer" but when pulled back and rotated to counterclockwise, it rests on the right side of the rear of the receiver and creates a very effective mechanical safety.  Short of the striker actually fracturing and allowing the firing pin to move forward under spring pressure, it won't fail. And while it looks different and is simpler in execution, the operating principle is the same as on a Mauser or Springfield.

The big difference is that it is not obvious how it operates or that it is in fact a safety, so many casual handlers and probably more than a few Mosin owners probably don't realize that it has a safety.

I agree with you on the SMLE, at least with regard to the No 4 MK I, being the best overall bolt action infantry rifle.

That is some of the silliest shit I've read today.

Take it for what ever you think it's worth, but I would not recommend trying to take a 700-800 pound bull Elk in one of the big flat states at 350-400 yards under real world field conditions with any of the above mentioned calibers as it borders on irresponsible. However, you are free to do what ever you think is best.

They would also not be on my list of choices for any bear other than a black bear.

+1

Soldiers of empire have used the .303 to drop Elephants, Hippos, Tigers, Lions, etc.

Context is important.

For example, we used to use a .22 magnum to kill 1500 pound steers for butchering.  It works really well with a point blank shot to the brain and creates a quick and humane kill with minimal mess.  I would not however attempt to use one to hunt a 1500 pound game animal given that i can't sneak up on it, put  a halter on it and shoot it point blank in the brain. Different context = different minimum requirements.  

Similarly, if a soldier armed with a .303 is faced with a charging hippo, elephant, lion, tiger, etc, he is going to use what he has and strive for really good bullet placement to stop the charge - but it's still an act of desperation.  No doubt a percentage of the time, he will stop the charge, however what also must be considered is the percentage of troops who failed to stop the charge (and consequently got mauled or stomped into the dirt) and also the percentage who wounded the animal but failed to stop it and lost it in the bush.

In the latter context of a desperation/defensive situation, a wounded or lost animal is an acceptable outcome but it is nothing more than irresponsible slob hunting if you're intentionally using too little gun on a planned hunt.

The reality is that many countries specify a minumum caliber for various dangerous game and calibers like the .300 H&H mag and/or the .375 H&H mag usually form the floors in most of those cases.  Of the three military cartridges in question the .30-06 is clearly superior to the other two and while I might be (minimally) tempted to use a .30-06 derivative in the form of a .35 Whelen, I would not use a .30-06.

In short, it's just not relevant how many soldiers of the British empire took down large game with a .303.  Any assumptions drawn from such an analogy would be based on nothing more than a logical fallacy.

Not to go off topic.

But the 30-06 has taken many an elk and moose. and probably quite a few bears too....

Black most definitely, and I am sure more than a few grizzlies.

Maybe my logic needs to be calibrated, but I fail to see the fallacy. Hunting in Africa is generally regarded as more extreme in every category vis a vis the same activity on this continent. If a cartridge performs well in those environments, there is little reason to believe it would not perform similarly here in North America. I'd wager that far more game animals in Africa have been taken with service rifle cartridges- in particular, .303 and .308 (7.62 NATO)- than all the rest combined, and I'm not talking about soldiers on patrol using what is on hand to defend themselves against an agitated critter.

Of course, as with any cartridge, shot placement is critical. Even a .416 Rigby is not going to have the desired effect if you can't put the bullet were it needs to go. .270 Winchester is commonly touted as a suitable elk cartridge. If that's the case, why would a .30-06, .303, .308, or 7.62x54R not be likewise suitable?

Actually, M1903 Springfields are somewhat hard to come by.  I've only ever seen one locally with my own two eyes once.  They aren't super rare, but Mosins are ridiculously easy to find.  By far the most common milsurp on the commercial market in the US.

30-06, 308, 303, and 7.62x54r lose steam at longer ranges more quickly than .270.  270 was optimized to shoot flatter and for longer shots.  Since elk are frequently hunted in places where longer shots are made, 270 is very much superior for hunting elk as compared to the others.

I still consider 270 too light for elk for some of the longer shots.  7mm remington magnum has the needed power and range to take elk at any reasonable distance.

As for previous talk of these rounds being used in Africa....Walter Bell killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of elephants with the lowly 7x57 Mauser.  Walter Bell, however, is perhaps the greatest hunter who ever lived.  I don't know the OP personally, but I am going to wager that he is NOT the greatest hunter who ever lived, or anything close to it.

Elk should be hunted with a small bore magnum (6.5mm Remington magnum, 7mm Remington Magnum, 284 Winchester, 300 Win Mag).  Grizzly should be hunted with a medium bore rifle like 338 Win Mag.  Dangerous African game should be hunted with .416 Rigby and up.  Non-dangerous African game can be hunted with any North American deer caliber.

I have to highly disagree.

There is nothing on any continent that cannot be killed with the lowly .30-06. Especially with new developments in bullet design.

The 6.5 Swede is commonly used on CXP3 class game in Europe with no issue. While ballistics on it is great, I think the idea of using a Magnum on any except the biggest CXP4 class game is overkill. Those crazy Russians have no problem taking bears down with 7.62x54R, and the old .30-30 is used on moose & elk with no issues.

As mentioned the old 7mm Mauser was highly successful in Africa. The new 7mm Super Duper Ultra Short Double Magnums are just killers to your wallet & shoulder.

YMMV.

The .270 is only superior because the shooter is inferior. As alread pointed out, a 30-06 or 6.5 swede can do it all, and do it all well.

Too often hunters are poor shots and/or lack any real knowledge in ballistics, or even how bullets perform. Doubt what I say, but go stand around in the ammo isle at Cabelas and listen to the stuff that people say... Its shocking.

When I got to North Dakota, I was told to go get a .270 or .300 WM, as my 30-06 rifles (I have 4 of them) are all "brush guns", because that "dang bullet just drops too much". What they really mean with that statement is "I'm a poor shooter, and use different calibers in order to offset that disadvantage".

The solution is to shoot, and to learn what your bullet is doing. I'll take an '06 any day of the week.

Mauser 98 was once described as a miltary hunting rifle.  Made for the field with a rugged action and powerful cartridges.  It's sights are a bit crude, but battlefield tough.  Many sporting rifles are based on this strong action.  The forward locking lugs, beefy extractor and back-up lug make this a very safe action for heavy calibers.

The Springfield 1903 (a Mauser 98 knock-off) was once described as a military target rifle.  The US got sue for patent infringement.  Pretty much a Mauser with finer sights.

The Enfield was described as a battle rifle.  It's large magazine capacity, bolt-over-hand location, and smooth cycling action made it one of the quickest and best for sustained volley fire.  The open action made it pretty dirt tolerant.  The weaknesses come in the rear locking lugs and rimmed cartridge.

The Mosin Nagant was designed in Czarist times, but most were made after communism took hold.  They are durable but the short bolt handle can lack some leverage.  The rimmed cartridge is not the best design for bolt guns but the ingenious magazine design with a built in interupter helped make it more reliable.  It shares an open action like the Enfield that can be a bit weaker than the tubular action of the Springfield and Mauser.  Bore diameter can vary somewhat as quality assurance was not the best.  Still a rugged battle field tested and proven rifle.

If I had to pick one I would go with the Enfield in a No. 4 MkII.
Mauser second.

Mosins are attractive because of the cheap buy in and cheap ammo right now.

Ammo is another consideration.  Generally the Germans, Brits, and Americans are more consistant in their ammo manufacture than the former Warsaw pact nations have a reputation for.

You won't really go wrong with any of the above though, as long as you learn the system and it's limitations.  All are tough enough for the roughest use most folks would subject them to.  They are accurate enough and powerful enough for some really long range shooting.  I just figure the Enfield is a better "general" rifle than the others.

A bit of trivia here but during the Russian winters it was not uncommon if the very precisely machined  and tight toleranced Mauser 98k to seize in very cold weather.  In contrast the comparatively loose tolerances in the various Mosins allowed them to continue to function reliably.

So...there are pros and cons to precision machining and the Mosin scores points for achieving a good degree of balance between accuracy and reliability.

The above mentioned magazine interrupter works as advertised and creates excellent feeding with the highly tapered and  rimmed cartridge, but the Soviets dictated the rifles be racked with the bolts open to relieve tension on the interupter's spring.

The interrupter was also the only contribution of Nagant to the "Mosin Nagant" design, but the Russians paid him a royalty anyway to keep him happy given his in involvement in Russian revolver designs.

I'd like to point out that during post war tests of different rifle designs, the Arsaka action (a Mauser action) was the strongest, followed closely by the Mosin action.  The Mosin action is VERY robust.

Another thing I'd like to point out: 7.62x54r does decently with heavier bullet loads like .30-'06.  The standard Finnish D166 load utilized a 200 gr bullet and one of the contemporary Rusian sniper loads also uses a 200 gr bullet.



I'm fairly sure that they did this for safety reasons as well as to allow airflow through the bore.  Springs do not wear out from a contant compression that is significantly less than the elastic deformation of the metal.

True.  The Arisaka is a very strong action.  The safety is somewhat hard to manipulate, and they aren't quite as plentiful as Mausers.  But they are fine rifles.

Karamojo Bell killed many elephants with 7x57.  As I've said before, however, he's probably the greatest hunter that ever lived.  So if he walked up to me and said he was going to go hunting cape buffalo with a 22 lr, I'd offer to let him use my rifle.

The rest of the world needs to stick to appropriate calibers for appropriate game.  Using .30-06 to hunt Cape Buffalo, for example, is asking for a horrible death.  Many African countries specify .375 H&H as the legal minimum to hunt dangerous game, and they do so for a reason.  Mainly is that there's lots of paperwork involved every time someone gets splatted by an elephant.

I don't care how good a shot I am...if I'm hunting something that dangerous, I want a rifle firing a projectile that has enough energy to shoot all the way through the target and out the other side.  The long way.

Finn M39 and 204gr. soft points kill deer dead.

Ironically, the Arisaka was a fine, high quality bolt action rifle.  This is in stark contrast to all the other shit they made.  Everything I've read about their subguns and GPMGs suggests that being behind one was as dangerous as being in front of it.

The japanese never fielded any subguns only prototypes, The GPMG they fielded were copys of the Bren's mother or the Hotchkiss.  None of the japanese small arms were bad.  They just became worse as the war progressed.

??????????????????????????

Type 100  Submachinegun.                 Type 94 Handgun.  It dropped on the sear it would go off.

You don't know about numbers or issue policies then.  By 1945, only 24,000 to 27,000 Type 100s had been built only about 7000 were issued outside of Honshu (which was never invaded). The type 94 was only issued to pilots, plane cremwn, tankers, intel officers in the Phillippines.  The capture numbers for these were very high because so few were ever issued to combat troops.  Also They began production of the type 94 in 1934 there were fewer problems with the early guns and they became worse like all jap small arms as the war progressed. It is also the case with Nazi K98s G43s, by 45 they were very poorly made.

Related pic:

Interesting. I just used a .30-40 Krag Winchester 1895 to hammer a bear that was coming in my back door after my kids. It was on the ground 5 feet from where I shot it in just over a second and dead in about a minute.

.30-06 has been used to take bear and moose in Alaska since the cartridge existed. Fish and Game surveys show that cartridges like .30-06 and .308 are some of the most likely cartridges to be successfully used take moose and bear each year. Many kids here shoot moose and black bear with .243s and .223s, and I have friends who successfully take moose with 7.62x39, .30-30s, and brown bear with 7mms.

In fact, the Fish and Game did a study in which they surveyed and tracked hunters who they observed on the range. They tracked what rifles they used, how many rounds they used to zero and practice before hunting, and how many rounds they shot each year. They then surveyed them on their hunts. What they found was that those who used .308, .30-06, 7mm-08, and similar cartridges shot way more (several boxes) than those who had magnum chambered rifles (3 or 4 rounds, average) in preparation to hunt. Those shooting the magnums also shot far less (or not at all) throughout the year than those shooting standard cartridges. They then asked each shooter to take a couple shots on a life-size moose target at 100 yards. The majority of those shooting .30-06 and similar cartridges hit the kill zone without problem. A majority of those shooting magnums did not hit the kill zone.

The only advantages a .300 Winchester magnum has over a .308 or .30-06 is the necessary velocity to expand a bullet at very extended ranges - beyond which most hunters have the skill to engage a target, or in the case of some animals, even identify a legal animal, or the ability to shoot the heaviest bullets. For most practical hunting ranges, the .300 Win Mag will never have a practical advantage over a .30-06. Remember that killing requires one of two things: disrupt the central nervous system or destroy an organ necessary for the immediate survival of the animal, or cause the animal to bleed out. A .slower 30 caliber bullet hitting the animal in the same place as a faster.30 cal. bullet will kill the same, and may actually stay together better or penetrate deeper, depending on the bullet.

Any of the military cartridges mentioned in this thread will work fine for any animal in North America (Brown Bear if necessary) as long as bullet placement is good. If bullet placement is off, a larger caliber usually does not help much. On brown bear, I would lean toward .30-06 or a similar cartridge with heavy bullets as the minimum for hunting, and a much larger caliber, like .45-70 preferred for bear protection.

Up in Kanchatka Siberia, the hunting guides use old Mosin M44's commonly for back country rifles...for hunting and protection against polar- brown bears and tigers. These rifles are WELL used, used daily for many decades in all kinds of horrible weather...well taken care of, and cleaned...these things still work reliably after incredable hard use.

It's too long to quote but if the point is that:

1) people who shoot more pre-season tend to shoot more accurately during the season,
2) people who are recoil sensitive shoot magnum calibers badly, and
3) bullet placement matters more than energy or penetration,

then there is no disagreement as none of those points are controversial.

But it's a separate argument from how optimum various rounds may be for various large game.  I'm not arguing that the above mentioned calibers can't be used for anything in North America, but I am clearly stating that they have significant limitations that need to be respected if you are going to use them on some larger animals, and that there are better choices.