Mosin mess!

zackmars

Well-Known
Nov 4, 2015
1,478
113
Texas
Mausers are nice, but when the best sniper with one went against the best Mosin sniper, the Mosin won.
For the price they are unbeatable.

Maybe 3 years ago, but mosins are going for Enfield and mauser prices

Also, your sniper claim is ridiculous
 

motorcarman

Compulsive Collector
Feb 13, 2015
2,677
113
Rural Wise County, TX.
Last edited:

zackmars

Well-Known
Nov 4, 2015
1,478
113
Texas
Vasily Grigoryevich Zaytsev (Soviet Sniper during WWII)
He was a real person.


He even wrote a book (mostly unreadable).

eBay has new copies.
Zaitsev's kill records, as with all Russian sniper numbers, are hard to belive because the Russians lied about EVERYTHING.

No one is saying that Zaitsev wasn't real, or that he didn't kill a buch of Germans, but if you think the USSR was for one second honest about his record, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you

And to cap it all off, the idea that a high kill record means the superior rifle is pure nonsense.

Sorry, but even a tiny amount of objective thought blows your argument out of the water
 

Maverick44

Certified All-American Gun Nut
Some guy's just love old war relic firearms. You couldn't give me a truck load of them,especially a Mosin.
I do get it though,Most guy's are real cheap when it comes to buying and shooting firearms. I'll stick with shooting high quality,well built modern rifles with nice optics mounted on top of them.
Cheap probably isn't the right word for them anymore. They have tripled in price, and a lot of other surplus guns are going up too. Really, if you don't have a genuine interest in their history, there is no point in getting one anymore. You can get a T/C Compass or other budget rifle for around the same price, and those will out shoot a surplus gun easily. My Compass is sub MOA. Unless you are extraordinarily lucky, a Mauser, Mosin, or whatever isn't going to do that. I collect and shoot them because they're interesting. I damn sure don't shoot them because they're high quality tack drivers.

Mausers are nice, but when the best sniper with one went against the best Mosin sniper, the Mosin won.
For the price they are unbeatable.
Maybe 3 years ago, but mosins are going for Enfield and mauser prices

Also, your sniper claim is ridiculous
The best German sniper was Matthäus Hetzenauer who had 345 confirmed kills. He died in 2004 at the age of 79.

The best Soviet sniper was Vasily Grigoryevich Zaytsev who had 225 confirmed kills, 11 of whom were snipers. He died in 1991 at the age of 76.

To my knowledge, they never fought against each other.

If you are referencing the movie "Enemy at the Gates", then the sniper that Vasily Zaystev faced off against was Erwin König, the head of a German sniper school. That movie was mostly fiction. Zaystev claimed that this "duel" happened, but there is no historical documents or other evidence to prove that it did. In fact, it cannot even be proven that Erwin König ever existed. There is no record of him ever heading any sniper school, and despite his alleged (by the Soviets) kill count of over 400, there is no Germen records of this. It was likely Soviet propaganda.

Now, an interesting thing about the rifles used back then is that they are not as good as most people think they are. Not even the snipers. The BEST sniper rifle in 1945 would be considered bottom tier by today's standards. A $300 budget rifle with a cheap Chinese scope is going to outshoot them every day of the week easily. That's just how it is. Our ability to make high quality, precise firearms has vastly improved in the last 80 or so years.

During WWII, the standard of accuracy most countries used was around 4-5 MOA for a run of the mill rifle. The snipers were better, sometimes. The British required that their sniper rifles be capable of putting 7 rounds in a 5" group at 200 yards. That's 2.5 MOA. They would pick out the best shooting rifles out of all of the regulars ones being made, test them to see if they passed their accuracy standard, and would make them into No. 4 Ts. From what I understand, the Soviets did something very similar.

The Germans didn't do that. They required that 50% of all shots hit within a 20cm (7.9") circle at 300m (328 yards). 94% of shots were to hit within a 40cm (15.75") circle at that distance. So that's a bit over 5 MOA. That's for a run of the mill rifle. Surely they would pick out the best one for their snipers right? Nope. They just picked random rifles as they were made and used those as sniper rifles. So their sniper rifle was on average capable of about 5 MOA.

German snipers were pretty unhappy with their rifles. Believe it or not, they were actually a bit jealous of the Soviets with their PU snipers, which were pretty darn good sniper rifles for the time. It was enough of an issue that post D-Day, they sent a letter to Mauser requesting that they make better rifle for sniper use. One that would be capable of 60-70mm (2.4-2.75") groups at 100m (109 yards). That's pretty well in line with the No. 4 Ts and their requirement of 2.5 MOA accuracy. They wanted a better rifle bad enough that they only required that the gun be a repeater. They even specified that Mauser could do what they want and could change the caliber if needed. That is how bad they needed a better sniper rifle. They were willing to change to a non-standardized caliber, in the middle of a massive two front war, that they were currently losing.

So in that regard, yes. The PU Mosin sniper was a better rifle than the Mauser 98K with a ZF41 scope. If I was the average soldier using an average rifle though, I would still pick the Mauser. It's just the better design overall.

I hope you're still awake. There's going to be a quiz on this later. :p
 
Last edited:

Sponsors

Greeneye Tactical
Texas Gun Forum Ad
silencers
third coast
Ranier
Tyrant Designs
DK Firearms

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
94,801
Messages
2,096,657
Members
30,279
Latest member
GlockMan43x
Top Bottom