# Was the Mosin Nagant ever considered for USA use?



## The Basket (Jan 29, 2017)

Seems feasible that Mosin should have seen use on the front lines with American forces.
Please enlighten


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2017)

You would think, with how easy they are to find here in the US.

Can easily pick up a good quality one for $170.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 29, 2017)

But in WW1 ? We'd have to make them ourselves, the Russians couldn't even keep themselves supplied.

If we made them ourselves, why do it ?

I've fired 2 different Mosin-Nagants, accurate enough, but the roughest bolt action of any military rifle i've ever tried. 
Maybe I had the bad luck to get my hands on two bad examples.

But i've had a No 4, Mk I for many years, got my first deer with one when I was 15. 
Maybe that spoils me.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 29, 2017)

Yeah in ww1
America could have equipped its own forces with Mosin Nagants.
But chose the P14.
So...Mosins were made in USA by Westinghouse and Remington from a 1915 contract with Czarist Russia so why not carry on making them as USA was short of rifles at the beginning of ww1?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 29, 2017)

They probably chose P14 because it fired the same round as their western front allies.

They would have either had to set up their own logistics for their ammo supply and parts, or change their manufactor process and make some Mosins in .303. 
They chose to do neither.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 29, 2017)

what advantages does the Russian weapon have over either the enfield or the springfield, if any?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 29, 2017)

I did not have a good shooting experience with a Mosin Nagant but then again it was old and not in the best of shape.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 29, 2017)

I know some snipers ran up some tremendous scores with the Mosin .

But did they have a choice of rifles ? No.
I think they could have done more or less the same, no matter what they were armed with, within reason.
It was the men, not the rifle .


----------



## The Basket (Jan 30, 2017)

USA was short of rifles hence use of P14 /m1917 
So the Mosin was available and availability goes a long way.
However any Mosin would have to use the 30-06 round which I don't know if that's a big job. Or that the P14 was simply the better rifle.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 30, 2017)

The US Army did buy 280,000 of the undelivered Mosins, used them for training, and supplied the forces sent to Murmansk .
Plus supplied the Czech legion with 50,000 thru Vladivastok .
The Russians ordered over 3 million Mosins from US arms makers, but less than 1/2 million was delivered before the treaty taking Russia out of the war. Remington and others were in a bad way, no one saw a penny from Russia for the Mosins.

Why more use wasn't made of the rifles that were on hand, or could have been on hand I have no clue.


----------



## soulezoo (Feb 1, 2017)

As indicated above, Moisins do not have the best actions. Nor triggers. Nor barrels. Accuracy is average at best with a bolt action.

As far as the snipers go, they even had a terrible scope (WW II not I) compared to German/Austrian/US offerings. The comment above about the man and not the equipment is valid.

The rounds (7.65 x 54R) compare favorably (in ballistics) to .30-06 and is slightly better than .303. However, they are a rimmed cartridge as opposed to the .30-06 which is rimless. Rimless rounds make for much better feeding into the chamber from the magazine. Rimmed cartridges must be careful in the staggering of rounds in the magazine or they will not feed. Also, this means a completely different bolt must be made to make a .30-06 work in a Moisin... not just a different chamber. This negates any practical reason to use the Moisin with .30-06.

Overall, the Moisin was, like most Russian fare, simple, reliable and rugged. A stone axe amongst scalpels elsewhere. Enfields and Mausers were much better. And that Moisin kick is harder than the sum of its parts. It wouldn't be my last choice in a rifle if given a choice, but nowhere near the top.


----------



## soulezoo (Feb 1, 2017)

It is instructional to note that the US came into WW I rather unprepared and under equipped. Enough men perhaps but not with enough equipment. So it came to be that the US was saddled with many different weapons in order to "make do". The range of weapons went from the very sad and infamous French light machine gun (chauchat) to even lever action rifles! Moisins were employed along with Enfields and older Krags. Mostly used, and most recognizable, is the M1903 Springfield in .30-06. This was a fine rifle modeled from Mausers.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 2, 2017)

I believe the Mosin wasn't used by USA in combat on the western front. Only as training back home. The only reason US government bought Mosins is to help the company after the collapse of the deal.
I did assume that Mosins couldn't be converted to 30-06 or that they had a dim view of the rifle.
The P14 / M1917 was certainly one of the best rifles if not the best. Far more numerous than the Springfield but not standard issue as such.
The Chauchat is not that bad in 8mm Lebel. I rather like it


----------



## soulezoo (Feb 2, 2017)

The Basket said:


> I believe the Mosin wasn't used by USA in combat on the western front. Only as training back home. The only reason US government bought Mosins is to help the company after the collapse of the deal.
> I did assume that Mosins couldn't be converted to 30-06 or that they had a dim view of the rifle.
> The P14 / M1917 was certainly one of the best rifles if not the best. Far more numerous than the Springfield but not standard issue as such.
> The Chauchat is not that bad in 8mm Lebel. I rather like it



I agree with you... except on the Chauchat. Terrible contraption. The 8mm Lebel cartridge, while having decent ballistics, was a very odd duck indeed and its very shape and rimmed features made it poor for use in a stacked magazine. The magazine employed was of a open skeleton design that allowed mud and other field debris to muck up the works. No thank you! I am of the opinion that the gun probably killed more of its users than it did enemy in the field due to the frequent malfunctions.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 2, 2017)

No doubt Chauchat had flaws.
But it's gone down as the worst thing that's ever fired a bullet.
So....I ain't justifying the Chauchat as the perfect weapon system and certainly the American version was terribleness.
Just to have an open mind.
I am sure that on a nice sunny summers day it was wonderful!


----------



## soulezoo (Feb 2, 2017)

Let's agree the Lewis was a much better choice in a light MG.

One didn't find any Chauchats mounted on an airplane anyway.


----------



## yulzari (Feb 3, 2017)

The Basket said:


> No doubt Chauchat had flaws.
> But it's gone down as the worst thing that's ever fired a bullet.
> So....I ain't justifying the Chauchat as the perfect weapon system and certainly the American version was terribleness.
> Just to have an open mind.
> I am sure that on a nice sunny summers day it was wonderful!


The Chauchat had it's faults to be sure. In quality and magazine. The 8mm Lebel was a quick lash up of the .43 Gras black powder round tapered down for 8mm smokeless use. However, in French service with the 8mm Lebel it was a workable LMG. The worst aspect was the open magazine followed by quality control but it remained in French service post war and was a standard LMG in 7.92mm Mauser in Poland, Belgium and Greece for example.

The USA 30-06 version was badly done and was beyond the existing weapon's capability. Not to mention being from a particularly poor contractor. In the Anglophone world the eminently justifiable complaints of USA troops drowned out other users being satisfied with the Chauchat in other forms. Training 8mm Lebel versions were taken away from US troops for action and they were not at all pleased to have to use the poor 30-06 versions in battle.

So the Chauchat had it's weaknesses but it was an adequate LMG of it's day and many of the weaknesses were progressively addressed, but the USA 30-06 one was uniquely bad however it should not cloud the sterling work done by the rest.

Rimmed cartridges do need care taken in loading magazines to be sure. But if you take the care they are fine. British Commonwealth etc. and Soviet etc. forces used rimmed rounds in bolt action and LMG magazines as well as belted service with little problem. Rimless is better but the difference is less critical than one might think.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 3, 2017)

I've run into the rimmed round problem with my .303 No.4 Mk I, you have to be careful when hand loading a magazine. If a rim on a upper round is behind the round below it, it will catch on rim below it when you work the bolt, and jamb the action. Usually not difficult to clear, but if your life was at risk i'm sure it would cause loose bowels.

It won't happen if you use the stripper clips, it has only happened to me if I hand loaded one of my magazines. And only with one of my magazines. One magazine you have to make extra effort to insert a round wrong, the other, looser magazine, will let you insert rounds either way.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 3, 2017)

On a lot of these bolt action rifles the actual manufacturing standards/quality control mean a lot more to their accuracy and shoot-ability than the actual "design". Manufacturing tightened up tolerances quite a bit from the 1890s to the end of WW I. War time and peace time manufacture can also differ substantially. 

The 30-06 cartridge is about 7mm longer than the 7.62 X 54Rin overall length. This means it is quite possible that you _cannot_ convert the Mosin-Nagant to 30-06 without stretching the receiver out in length. Which means throwing out a fair number of the jigs/fixtures used to manufacture the receiver/bolt and magazine.
The P-17/P-13 was _designed _ to hold the British .280 cartridge which was similar in size to the 30-06. It was bit over sized for the .303 but was able to hold the 30-06 with only minor modifications to the bolt face/extractor. This allowed for common ammunition. Using two different rifle rounds in the front lines is certainly less than than ideal. 

.


yulzari said:


> So the Chauchat had it's weaknesses but it was an adequate LMG of it's day and many of the weaknesses were progressively addressed,



It's day was pretty much 1915 to around 1924-25. Pretty much any LMG is better than no LMG and the main redeeming feature of the Chauchat was that it was cheap. It allowed the purchase of more Chauchat LMGs for the same money as buying better designs. I would note that the Poles and Belgians replaced it with versions of the BAR which was hardly a first class LMG either. Although they may have used a changeable barrel version instead of the fixed barrel US version.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 3, 2017)

P14 was and is fantastic rifle.
The Finns used Mosins but that was pure force majeure.
Chauchat also had long recoil operation same as some early John Browning semi autos. Issue is if you dump a lot of ammo through the Chauchat quickly the barrel will heat up jamming against the barrel sleeve and jamming the gun. You would literally have to wait until barrel cools and you hear clunk before firing again.
Chauchat fired very slow for an auto but it is far better than its reputation suggests.

Watch a Chauchat or Remington Model 8 in very slow motion. Heath Robinson contraption it is!


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 3, 2017)

You seem to have a real fixation on the P-14 rifle. The only real advantage it had over most of it's WW I contemporaries is a better back sight. That isn't enough to elevate to the "fantastic" catagory. Most everything else is quality control of the rifles or ammo. 

The other _issue*s* _with the Chauchat are 1. if it jams with the barrel in the rearward position (or close to it) the ejection and feed ports are blocked off making working on stuck cases or double feeds rather difficult. 2. you have several pounds of barrel bouncing back and forth with every shot over a distance of nearly 3 inches (if not over on some versions) making for a LOT of vibration. Which combines with a rather spindly bipod to make long distance shooting difficult. 
To be fair the Chauchat was NOT a light machinegun. It was an automatic rifle which is a different and often misunderstood catagory. 

And what works on commercial hunting weapons firing 2-5 rounds may not be the type of action you really want to use on a combat automatic weapon.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 4, 2017)

It would take a very French man to say the Chauchat is brilliant but the idea is to say the Chauchat wasn't that bad.
I agree that the Chauchat was a hybrid between LMG and heavy rifle but considering the tech and wisdom of the day the Chauchat was certainly novel.
The long recoil system was chosen by the French and why I don't know. I chose the Model 8 purely as another example of the operation. There are advantages and disadvantages to everything so I would assume the choice was based on either solid engineering or the French being French. Which means they do as they wish!
Clearing a jam does look a nightmare but I'm sure that could be said for many other guns of ww1.
The recoil in full auto would be better than a AK-47 due to length, weight, bipod and very low rate of fire and would expect weapon to be fired prone. The metal mass movement is said to be lessened and the slow fire means it doesn't run away from the user. Long range probably isn't what the Chauchat was designed for.
The Chauchat was designed with a loader which is why it has the open mag so that would be more LMG. 
As a British internet rifle fan, the P14 ticks all my boxes. Only I should really leave my true fanboy status for the P13!


----------



## yulzari (Feb 5, 2017)

I think that we can sum up that the Chauchat was certainly not a good LMG but neither was it a bad one and there were better but the US version was much worse. Would it be my choice from period designs? No but it was far better than relying on rifle fire if you have enough of them. Were this a poll for best WW1 LMG I would go with the Madsen. Expensive but excellent.

The Mosin Nagant was cheap, sturdy and accurate enough for it's task but offers nothing that could not be found with other period rifles. Again, were this a best WW1 poll, I would stick with the SMLE. Accurate enough, sturdy enough and a 10 round magazine. The P13/14/17 were the right answer, but to the wrong question as it turned out.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 5, 2017)

Considering the sheer volume of P14 and M1917 made then I would say right question and right answer.
Had it all gone to plan the British Tommy would have fought in the trenches with a 7mm P13.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 5, 2017)

Nothing really to add to the thread. It seems all has been covered.
Just can never let a thread about the Mosin go by without including *this classic piece of humor*.
It's a few years old now, so the prices are a bit out of date, but when this was created, they were selling at those prices.
...read the chart from left to right....


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2017)

For just about all the bolt action rifles of the era, the practical differences in design are minor. Execution being more important. Quality in actual manufacture. Throw in the quality of the ammo or variations and trying to claim a design was better than another in combat with, for most part, poorly trained troops doesn't really work very well. Way too many variables.
P-13 series had about the best rear sight in WW I but that only counts if the troops are really trained to use it and if they actually do use it in combat. It's heavier barrel may have resisted pressure from warped wood better.
The SMLE was easier to clean the dirt/mud out of when (not if) you got crud in the action.
And so on.
Uniform barrel dimensions and good chambers had more to do with accuracy than the actual design of the action. However oversized chambers were more tolerant of dirty ammo. Rimmed cartridges tolerate oversize chambers better. 
If all had gone according to plan the surviving British Tommy's would have done more than hang the committee members who voted for the P-13 in effigy. 
Numbers don't mean a whole lot. They made more Hungarian M1895 Mannlichers than they did P13/P14/1917s.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 6, 2017)

Of course, with the way history went then yes taking on the P-13 would have been a mistake and glad they didn't.
Had there been no ww1 then with the ammo issue resolved then the P-13 would have appeared sometime maybe 1916. Since it's basically a Mauser then it's no better or worse than a K98 or the M1917 the Americans used.
This is one of those what ifs where the alternative history is worse than what actually transpired. The SMLE was kept on and that was the better outcome.


----------

