Beiruty wrote:Again, Other than its collectible value. Any new $300 bolt rifle from Rem, Rug, Savage would outperform this bolt rifle.
As is, this rifle no longer has any value as a Mosin Nagant collectible, but allow me to put that statement into perspective.......
As I mentioned at the top, I own a Mosin 91/30. Mine is considered
somewhat more collectible for the following reasons: it has the more rare pre-war Hex Receiver from Tula Arsenal, and it is in
extremely good condition, with a clean bore. The buy-in price of this collectible masterpiece? $175.00. That's right.
Half of the price of a cheap bolt rifle from Reminton or Ruger. Furthermore, 91/30s were manufactured in the
millions.... waaaaaaay more than Remington or Ruger have manufactured of $300 commercially mass-produced bolt rifles. Economies of scale, and all that.
Turn-of-the-century/WW1 battle rifles were produced in large quantities, as they were designed for mass land warfare using the tactics of the day, and limited by the technologies of the era. In comparing the American '03-A3 Springfield, the German K98 Mauser, and the British MLE/SMLE Lee-Enfields, it was said that the Americans had the best target rifle, the Germans the best hunting rifle, and the Brits the best battle rifle. But the Mosin, and other battle rifles of the era are often overlooked, which is nothing more than pure cultural chauvinism. We compare the Germans and Brits to ourselves, because they are culturally like us, and we discount the Russians and the Finns because they are not.
The two greatest snipers who ever lived used Mosin Nagant variants, and
one of them, the one with the highest total of kills by any sniper ever in the history of sniping,
scored most of his kills using IRON SIGHTS!!!
Anybody remember Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä?
Brief Background On Simo Häyhä
http://www.mosinnagant.net/finland/simohayha.asp
In fact, of the TOP TEN snipers in WW2, Simo Häyhä was #1, while #2 through #10 were Russians. Americans and Brits weren't even close..........and ALL of those top ten were armed with a Mosin Nagant variant. The fact that an 80 year old Russian rifle might not be as accurate as a 1 year old Ruger might well have as much to do with a wornout bore and the effects of time than anything else, so you are not comparing apples to apples. But if you have an example with a good bore, shooting hand loads that work well in that rifle, a Mosin is capable of surprising accuracy. I met a guy at my gun club (Parker County Sportsman Club) who shoots impressive groups at 200 yards, using an iron-sighted 91/30.
So if you divorce yourself from the idea of instant out-of-the-box gratification, it is certainly possible to have a 100 year old rifle that shoots just as well as any modern lower-end rifle. You may have to invest some time and effort into getting there, but it certainly isn't a waste of time......any more than it is a waste of time to make a 1970 muscle car go as fast as a modern muscle car. In that case, it is about touching at deeper emotional undercurrents than just being about the numbers.
This rifle is beautiful. To
my eye it is prettier than the original. We don't actually know how it shoots because the builder didn't say. We do know that it has been recrowned, so it is most probably more accurate than it was. "
Outperform"? I don't know. 7.62x54R is
roughly the ballistic equivalent of .308 Winchester, and if you buy reloadable ammo and can tune loads for the rifle, you might wind up with impressive performance. Out of the box? No. But that's not what this rifle is about.
And like ELB pointed out, this is a gift from son to father, an expression of care and love for the man conveyed in the care and love that went into building it. If my son did this for me, this rifle would have a special place of honor in my safe and I would never part with it. It is inconceivable to me that a son who put this much thought and care into making the rifle beautiful would have ignored how well it can shoot.
