Quote:
Originally Posted by pro-nra
Absolutely agree! That's exactly my point that an out of the box $90 Big 5 special Mosin is no sub MOA even with a cork and shims under the receiver but don't tell that to Josh Smith.
Mosin served its purpose during the war and held well throughout the war. IMO the Mauser is just a better design. If the Mosin were a superior design a commercial version would still be made today. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't know of any commercially made Mosin based design being made today. However, Mauser based rifles are still being made today in the thousands and the Remington 700 is just one of them.
|
Just for grins and giggles, before the last time I went shooting I free floated the barrel of my best shooting 91/30 how the Soviets did it, with oiled cloth around the forward portion of the barrel. Although I haven't done any tests for grouping with decent ammo, the POI was noticeably different with 40's Soviet surplus ammo. Instead of shooting roughly 6" high under 200 yards, the POI is now equal to the POA.
Point being, I suppose with an excellent like new barrel and crown, plus whatever combo of shims/free floating works for the rifle, good ammo, and a competent shooter a 91/30
could approach MOA. I doubt it's the case with most 91/30s, but the possibility still is there.
As for the mauser being a better design....they were both intended to be battle rifles originally so that's how I compare them. Like I said in my opther post, they were both very good at their intended jobs.
The mauser is still produced today because it's easier to hunt with. It's also easier to modify for hunting use than the M/N. I'd also say that companies started making mauser based hunting rifles because the US adopted the 1903, and many people would be familiar with that platform when the mauser based hunting rifles went into production, but that's speculation on my part.