Duplicating Original 7.62x54r Loads with Lead?

[Josh Smith]

Hello,

I've been thinking about casting for my favorite Mosin-Nagant for a while.

I will want to run the original full-power load. I think I can do this without leading; or if I do get leading, I can use gas checks.

This Mosin slugs to 0.309, coning down toward the muzzle. I'm thinking a 0.311 mold? Or would you go 0.312 since it's larger near the chamber end?

What I would like to find is a 212grn round nose bullet mold that has the lube grooves near the base so that I can keep them in the case neck. I'm just not a fan of exposed lube grooves.

I might also tumble lube in Alox, sort of double up, if needed.

My goal load will send a 212grn bullet at about 2100fps.

Any thoughts?

Thank you,

Josh

[bruce drake]

Lee makes a .309" 200gr mold and Lyman makes a 200gr mold in .311" and another in .314" (#311299 and #314299). To go heavier may require a custom mold. I have all three of the molds I listed and they work very fine in my Lee-Enfields, Mosin-Nagant 44 and my Arisaka Type 99 which are all .31 caliber rifles. With these three molds and with most sizing dies you can cover a range of bullet diameters from .308 right up to .314".

As long as you have a good high-speed lube you should be able to make 2100fps with those bullets.

I just reloaded 100 cartridges of the 7.62x54R today. Its bore is wider than yours by a bit. My M44 rattles .311" bullets into a 12" group at hundred but when I use the .314" bullets the groups shrink down to less than 3" and at times will provide tighter groups when everything comes together on the range.

Fifty were loaded with 35gr of Hogdgon 380 with a Lyman 314299 sized at .314". It should give me 2100fps with the LEE Reduction calculator.

Another 50 were reloaded with a 165gr bullet sized to .314" as well. The 165gr mold is a Lyman 323470 sized down to .314" from its original .323". It handled the resizing because its Louverin Design with all of its lube groves filled when gave up plenty of lubrication for the .009" resizing. Its powder load (32 gr of Hogdgon's BL(c)-2 and bullet weight replicate a standard 32 Winchester Special factory load.

decent start for load data?

[Tackleberry41]

I have used the lyman 200gr .311 in my mosins.

[Hamish]

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?330838-NOE-s-awesome-312299&p=3998589#post3998589

[GhostHawk]

I load mine light. 20 grains of IMR 4895 under the Lee .312 leemented out to .314 and gas checked and run through a .314 sizing die.

My bore slugged at .312 and the .314 tightened things up a lot. No long range reports of iron sights and good accuracy as my eyes are simply not up to the task. But the last time I shot them it was putting 5 in a coffee cup at 50 which IMO is minute of deer and good enough for a rifle older than I am. I have 2, a 43 and a 44, both look awesome, but have some battle scars. Wish they could talk.

[leebuilder]

Hi. I would go .312 or a smeck bigger. 185 Lee has been my go to in mosins. 160 Lee TL is the next best. I have no croney so I can only guess and look at the book for velocity. Been up to 42gr 4895 with 33gr to 35gr the best loads, I have a few mosins what works in one may not work in another. Love mosins and their history, they were made for a long time and can be found from gutter pipe to fine condition. It was once said the Mosin faught against itself and won evertime.
In short your proof will be down range, and leading may or not happen.
Be well

[Larry Gibson]

Given the NOE 314299 or the Lyman 314299 cast of a good alloy with GCs and a good lube getting 2100 fps out of a longer barreled MN without leading will be easy. Getting 2100 fps with the best accuracy will be hard. It can be done though with useable accuracy at least equal to milsurp accuracy.

Larry Gibson

[Multigunner]

"It was once said the Mosin faught against itself and won evertime. "

The Finns have only one ethnic joke.

"How do you tell the difference between a Russian and a Finn?..... You can't, but a Finn can at 200 yards over open sights in a driving Blizzard."

[LAGS]

I have loaded several types of Boolits all powder Coated, and sized to fit the bores of each of my M N's.
I can hit a 24" gong at 600 yards with them with the scoped rifles.
I will have to find my loading data, but mostly I am now using reloader 7 for all cast loads.
28 grains seems to ring a bell.
No pun intended.

[LAGS]

I did a qiick check of my Data.
28.0 is the starting load on the heavier boolits.
The best accuracy was the Lee 155 gr GC powder coated at 100 yards.
But I have good results with the NOE 198 Spirepoint GC powdercoated and the equilivent in NOE to the 316-299 202 gr at up to 33 + gr sized to fit the bore .

[tomme boy]

Like Larry said. Good luck. You are going to hit right about 2000fps and the groups are going to get very big very fast. Not saying it can't be done, but I wish you every bit of luck you can get. The 9.5" twist is the limiting factor.

[LAGS]

You can get higher Volocities if you use a Super hard lead alloys to prevent or Lessen the bullet from stripping off the rifling.
But at the higher volocities, comes the higher Pressures.
The lead , even with a Gas Check, is limited to how much pressure it can take before starting to deform and that effects accuracy.
The higher volocities and pressure may give you distance.
But if you cant keep the bullet going straight , then you are not going to have accuracy.
So why have a Hard Hitting , Flatter shooting bullet, if it wont stay on target. It is still a Miss.

Did anyone ask Why, someone would want to duplicate the Factory or military loads in this round with lead ?

[tomme boy]

I like my 215gr running at 1950fps. It shoots right at 1.5" at 100yds and that is a 10 shot group not a 3 shot like everyone likes to show. After that things start to go south FAST. I have shoot them with straight linotype and it made no difference. It is the fast twist. I know some here don't believe in Larry's RPM threshold but what else would it be? It seems that everyone hits a wall around the 2000fps mark in the 30 cal. with 10 twist.

If I want to shoot faster, I load up 174gr HPBT Sierra Matchkings and shoot them at 2400fps out to 1000 yards.

[Ken in Iowa]

I have a 311331 that pretty much covers what you want to do. It works fine with the standard Russian throat.

NOE specs are .311 on the bands with a .301 nose, 214 grains for the GC version with WW. Magnum or hard ball alloy would get you a fatter, lighter boolit meeting your specs.

i bought an NOE 311284 to try in D throated Finn barrels. I'm not concerned with the exposed lube grooves there.

[Josh Smith]

Thank you gents.

What is this super-hard alloy?

Regards,

Josh

[iplaywithnoshoes]

Not exactly a Mosin Load here: I gave a Lee 309-170 mold a try in my Rem 700. Sized to .309 and tumbled generously in Alox. I pushed to 2000-2100fps without any issue so far and great groups on paper. I used Lyman #2 which is softer than Linotype or Super Hard. I figure that sizing to .311 with Alox, yours may have similar success.

shoe

[Josh Smith]

Thank you sir.

[mac1911]

I don't know what you expect for accuracy.
My goal for any surplus rifle with cast loads is
Best accuracy , least expensive trouble free alloy.
Does not lead up the barrel...
Accuracy is measured by shooting either off the bench or prone supported. Standard if I can put 80% or better into the SR1 10 ring the rifle and load are most likely shooting better than I can place them.

My mosin is .312"+ factory ammo what ever it is surplus to norma is about 8moa on a good day.
314299 sized to 314" gas checked,2500 lube and H4895 at 28 grains is about as fast as I can push then and still have about 4moa.
I have had slightly better accuracy with 16 grains of 2400 but they are about 1500fps...

[Maven]

Thank you gents.

What is this super-hard alloy?

Regards,

Josh

You can heat treat CB's cast of WW's in an oven to equal or exceed the BHN of linotype: Google it (Dennis Marshall has written extensively about it) or search this site. Trust me, the method produces very hard CB's

[Josh Smith]

I don't know what you expect for accuracy.
My goal for any surplus rifle with cast loads is
Best accuracy , least expensive trouble free alloy.
Does not lead up the barrel...
Accuracy is measured by shooting either off the bench or prone supported. Standard if I can put 80% or better into the SR1 10 ring the rifle and load are most likely shooting better than I can place them.

My mosin is .312"+ factory ammo what ever it is surplus to norma is about 8moa on a good day.
314299 sized to 314" gas checked,2500 lube and H4895 at 28 grains is about as fast as I can push then and still have about 4moa.
I have had slightly better accuracy with 16 grains of 2400 but they are about 1500fps...

My accuracy requirements are the same I ask for jacketed: MOA or slightly better for that weight boolit at its prescribed velocity.

Regards,

Josh

[Hang Fire]

IIRC, the original load for the MN 7.62x54r was a 214 grn. RN bullet powered by compressed Black powder.

[Josh Smith]

IIRC, the original load for the MN 7.62x54r was a 214 grn. RN bullet powered by compressed Black powder.

Hello,

212grn copper-nickel jacket bullet pushed to 2100fps by smokeless.

The last black powder arm was the Berdan II in .42 caliber.

Regards,

Josh

[arlon]

I have a ton of Mosins. This is all helpful info. Tried to get in on the NOE order, not sure if I made it or not. Might be a good bullet for the Finns. Most are .309-.310. Never shot cast in them but that is going to change soon I hope. Thanks for the OP.

As to the smokeless thing, I didn't realize the standard was smokeless in Russia in 1891..

[Josh Smith]

Hello,

The French invented the Lebel in 1876. This made the rifles currently issued in Europe obsolete.

In 1888 the Germans came out with the Gewehr 1888 Commission Rifle which fired the predecessor of the modern 8x57mm round. That was the 7,92x57 m88 cartridge, and it was to the 8x57 what the .30-03 was to the .30-06. The m88 round pushed a 220grn bullet to around 2000fps.

The Russian rifle was the M1891 Three-Line Rifle. It took a 7.62x54 rimmed round.

The European rifles of the early 20th Century were all very similar and stayed that way through WWII. In fact, in my experiments, I found that a K98 Mauser rear sight will fit a 91/30 Mosin-Nagant with very, very little modification.

These were all new technology, though, and took a while to implement. A lot of Europe stuck with black powder arms, going so far as to come up with what we consider today as black powder substitutes.

Militaries like to stick with what works.

The Lee-Enfield was designed as a smokeless arm and the .303, a smokeless cartridge. I have read that it was loaded with blackpowder as smokeless was originally in short supply.

Though the Mosin does indeed generally carry a blackpowder proof cartouche, I cannot find any evidence of the 7.62x54r ever being issued blackpowder loads.

The Mosin-Nagant was originally manufactured in the USA and in France. Most ammo was manufactured in England at the same time. However, the Mosin didn't see widespread issue into WWII -- and even then, lots of old Berdan II rifles were still in service on the front lines.

It's never easy for a military to do a complete paradigm shift in small arms thinking, and this is exemplified in early smokeless military arms. I think a large part of my fascination for them comes from seeing what they got right, and what they got wrong.

Regards,

Josh

[Josh Smith]

Hello,

The French invented the Lebel in 1876. This made the rifles currently issued in Europe obsolete.

In 1888 the Germans came out with the Gewehr 1888 Commission Rifle which fired the predecessor of the modern 8x57mm round. That was the 7,92x57 m88 cartridge, and it was to the 8x57 what the .30-03 was to the .30-06. The m88 round pushed a 220grn bullet to around 2000fps.

The Russian rifle was the M1891 Three-Line Rifle. It took a 7.62x54 rimmed round.

The European rifles of the early 20th Century were all very similar and stayed that way through WWII. In fact, in my experiments, I found that a K98 Mauser rear sight will fit a 91/30 Mosin-Nagant with very, very little modification.

These were all new technology, though, and took a while to implement. A lot of Europe stuck with black powder arms, going so far as to come up with what we consider today as black powder substitutes.

Militaries like to stick with what works.

The Lee-Enfield was designed as a smokeless arm and the .303, a smokeless cartridge. I have read that it was loaded with blackpowder as smokeless was originally in short supply.

Though the Mosin does indeed generally carry a blackpowder proof cartouche, I cannot find any evidence of the 7.62x54r ever being issued blackpowder loads.

The Mosin-Nagant was originally manufactured in the USA and in France. Most ammo was manufactured in England at the same time. However, the Mosin didn't see widespread issue into WWII -- and even then, lots of old Berdan II rifles were still in service on the front lines.

It's never easy for a military to do a complete paradigm shift in small arms thinking, and this is exemplified in early smokeless military arms. I think a large part of my fascination for them comes from seeing what they got right, and what they got wrong.

Regards,

Josh

[arlon]

Hello,


The Mosin-Nagant was originally manufactured in the USA and in France. Most ammo was manufactured in England at the same time. However, the Mosin didn't see widespread issue into WWII -- and even then, lots of old Berdan II rifles were still in service on the front lines.


Regards,

Josh

US guns were made 25 years after they first came out unless someone has been hiding info. I have never seen or heard of a US made 1800's dated Mosin Nagant. Chatternault made some in 1892-95 but only a few of them. All of the first run Mosins were from Russian builders like the Tula arsenal. Chatternault was contracted to supplement production early in the game.. Lets start a new thread on the subject so as not to hijack this one.

[Josh Smith]

Arlon, you are correct. Three arsenals in Russia (Tula, Izhevsk, and that S one I can't pronounce) did indeed produce them. I was oversimplifying and condensing time for the sake of brevity, but maybe I shouldn't have.

Russian production couldn't keep up and so production was outsourced. How's that for brevity? :)

I'm not concerned about hijacking the thread. The gun discussion informs the ammo discussion, and besides, it's my thread! :D

Regards,

Josh

[arlon]

Arlon, you are correct. Three arsenals in Russia (Tula, Izhevsk, and that S one I can't pronounce) did indeed produce them. I was oversimplifying and condensing time for the sake of brevity, but maybe I shouldn't have.

Russian production couldn't keep up and so production was outsourced. How's that for brevity? :)

I'm not concerned about hijacking the thread. The gun discussion informs the ammo discussion, and besides, it's my thread! :D

Regards,

Josh

25 years of production when considering the issue of black vs smokeless is a LOT of brevity. Saying that Mosins were originally made in the USA goes way beyond brevity to me. My guess is the 9.5 twist was designed for black powder considering when and where it was done.

ALSO if you happen to be lucky enough to have a Finn 28/30, it will have a 1-10 barrel and very close to .308 bore rather than the standard 1-9.5 and .310+ (maybe + a lot) bore.. The 28/30 might be the best Mosin cast bullet shooter available.

Glad we aren't hijacking then! (-:}

[Josh Smith]

My brevity was also due nervousness. My potty-training little girl was sitting on my lap and squirming like she had to go!

The point was that Russia was still replacing the Berdan II all the way through WWI and, I believe, when the Bolsheviks took power and withdrew from the war. Just a massive military.

I once believed, as you do, that the 7.62x54r was loaded with blackpowder, and was quickly corrected by collectors.

If you can provide evidence of issue blackpowder rounds for the Mosin, I'd be very interested in seeing it. Though I'm considered by some to be an expert, I'm really just a student of any arm I study. Being an expert would be boring, I think, and would probably make me seek another learning opportunity.

Regards,

Josh

[arlon]

Never suggested they actually used black powder (maybe the very early prototypes), just that the rifle was designed with black powder in mind. They were working with the knowledge base at hand. There just wasn't any smokeless experience and everything about the MN was designed with folks that new nothing other then black powder. That's a guess. Maybe Old Mosin and his pal Nagant were cutting edge techie types of the day and been up to date on the latest developments. I think Smokeless powder was patented around the time they were developing the Mosin Nagant.

I'd just think that the best accuracy for an older Mosin Nagant using a heavy cast bullet might be obtained by trying to get closer to BP ballistics than more modern smokeless. Slower heavy bullets, slower bulky low pressure powders.. Just a thought since I haven't tried it yet. Hard enough to get it done with a jacketed bullet. Another issue is going to be bore size if you have more than a few Mosins. I have rifles with bores from .309-.318.. Impossible to ever come up with a single load or even bullet that's going to work well in all of them.

Another consideration is barrel length. If they designed the gun for smokeless, they wouldn't have made such a long barrel on the early guns. You don't need that much barrel to burn smokeless.

I'm still chuckling about the lap thing. Been almost 30 years since I had that issue!

[mac1911]

God bless you and count your lucky stars if you got a mosin nagant that will shoot sub moa with any ammo.

[Josh Smith]

Never suggested they actually used black powder (maybe the very early prototypes), just that the rifle was designed with black powder in mind. They were working with the knowledge base at hand. There just wasn't any smokeless experience and everything about the MN was designed with folks that new nothing other then black powder. That's a guess. Maybe Old Mosin and his pal Nagant were cutting edge techie types of the day and been up to date on the latest developments. I think Smokeless powder was patented around the time they were developing the Mosin Nagant.

I'd just think that the best accuracy for an older Mosin Nagant using a heavy cast bullet might be obtained by trying to get closer to BP ballistics than more modern smokeless. Slower heavy bullets, slower bulky low pressure powders.. Just a thought since I haven't tried it yet. Hard enough to get it done with a jacketed bullet. Another issue is going to be bore size if you have more than a few Mosins. I have rifles with bores from .309-.318.. Impossible to ever come up with a single load or even bullet that's going to work well in all of them.

Another consideration is barrel length. If they designed the gun for smokeless, they wouldn't have made such a long barrel on the early guns. You don't need that much barrel to burn smokeless.

I'm still chuckling about the lap thing. Been almost 30 years since I had that issue!

OK, Arlon. I get you, and I think we're saying the same thing, mostly.

The Mosin-Nagant was designed with smokeless in mind as evidenced by the dual locking lugs on the bolt head with the massive backup lug that the bolt handle attaches to. If anything, it's overbuilt even for smokeless. A case can be loaded with a compressed Bullseye charge and fired in a Mosin, and the action will hold. It'll weld the lugs, but it won't open. This was tried by first a gunsmithing school then by YouTube Yoohoos.

The gunsmithing school actually did this multiple times, and eventually the receiver stretched far enough that the firing pin wouldn't contact the primer. But the action held. Take this as anecdotal as I cannot readily supply a reference. (I lost it some time back.)

The Gewehr 88 had an action better suited to blackpowder pressures, and I'd accept that argument there.

The barrel was long due to the long-standing tradition of the bayonet. Military doctrine is slow to change. For the US, that doctrine was an emphasis on individual aimed shots which kept target sights and rapid fire out of the hands of the common soldier.

For Russia, the reliance on the bayonet and the use of the rifle as a pike that happened to fire bullets was their doctrine. They clung to the massed bayonet charge because that's what worked for them in the age of muskets and single-shot breechloaders.

Even through WWII, Russian/Soviet military doctrine stated that no rifle would be without bayonet affixed at any time unless it was totally impractical to have it affixed; ie, storage or transport. The Mosins were even sighted in with the bayonet affixed, and removing it will usually cause high-right impacts. This is why my business came to be!

However, doctrine also indicated, in most countries in the late 19th Century, that relatively slow, heavy bullets were what were needed to do the best job from a rifle.

This had the majority of nations pushing what we now consider heavy-for-caliber bullets in 6mm to 8mm at moderate (about 2000fps) speeds. Remember, 2000fps was considered fast for the time, and the equation E≈MV^2 was only a fairly recent discovery, mid-19th if memory serves.

Therefore, the function of velocity didn't seem to be largely recognized outside the scientific community, though the 2000fps was considered very fast for the time.

The French started pushing things faster with the Balle D round, followed by Germany in 1905 if memory serves (~150grn 7,92x57is -- Infantry Spitzer -- also the first evolution of the M88 round toward that which we know today as the 8x57 Mauser load) and the Russians in 1908 with their 7.62x54r light ball load. (In 1906 on this side of the pond, the US dropped the .30-03 round in favor of the improved .30-06, thus the designation.)

There is ample evidence that nitrocellulose's potential was not well understood. Examples of this include the previously-mentioned relatively weak action on the Gewerh 88, and the lack of a recoil lug cross bolt in the stocks of the first Mosin-Nagant rifles.

So yes, I'd say you're partially right. The rifles of the time were based on the general understanding of nitrocellulose gun powder, and that understanding was derived from an understanding of the latest evolution of black powder. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say these early smokeless military pieces were designed around an understanding of holy black, but rather a lack of full understanding of the new nitrocellulose-based powder.

Regards,

Josh

[arlon]

Get into the 1900's and I think everyone had pretty much figured out the smokeless gig. Just compare an 03 to a M91 (rifle and ammunition). Few years difference may as well have been a century.

Do you know of anyone shooting cast bullets in an SVT? Have a finned SVT that would be fun to try in cast as well.

[Josh Smith]

Get into the 1900's and I think everyone had pretty much figured out the smokeless gig. Just compare an 03 to a M91 (rifle and ammunition). Few years difference may as well have been a century.

Do you know of anyone shooting cast bullets in an SVT? Have a finned SVT that would be fun to try in cast as well.

No, Sir, I do not. I think, until now, the issue of using cast with a gas system, combined with the availability of inexpensive surplus ammo has kept casters from using boolits in the SVT.

However, I'm not so sure they won't start. The data is needed; maybe you could be one of the first?

Regards,

Josh

[tomme boy]

That sighting with the bayo attached is the biggest bull that is spread on the net. I have had over a hundred of these rifles in just about every configure there is and NONE of them shot to the right. NONE!!!

Let me guess, the ammo sticks in the chamber because of old dried cosmo and lacquer??? I have news for you, it is the steel cases that have aged and become hard. The steel cases do not contract like brass does. Plain and simple. I was the person that tried to snuff out the old BS with scrubbing the heck out of your chamber with emery cloth at first then everyone switched to steel wool. But that is not what was the cause.

Sorry but I hate the misinformation that keeps getting spread by everyone. I have some Czech silver tip that will lock up ANY Mosin. I just have not got around to pulling it apart yet. All of this ammo after WWII was made for machine gun use. The Mosins were an after thought, they were a 3rd line weapon. That is why they had to keep the bayo attached. As long as it got the first shot off that is what mattered. After that is was too late and you were in hand to hand combat.

[Josh Smith]

Not so much.

Do your Mosins shoot high?

Affix the bayonet. Now, does it shoot to point of aim?

Now, pull out an M38 and a PU.

Shoot them without bayonets. They hit to point of aim, right?

PU snipers and M38 carbines did not have bayonets. Their front sight posts are about 1mm taller than the 91/30s' posts.

The myth going around the internet is the belt buckle hold, or the 300 meter sight-in.

That latter actually has a little truth to it, though. The rifle's rear sight was set to 300m and the rifle was fired at 100m. It had to impact correspondingly high on the target.

My information doesn't come from the internet. It comes from conversion with Russians and Finns, and study of documents of the time.

Is usually not lacquer locking things up, granted. And it's not necessarily steel cased ammo. I can cycle steel just fine.

Go to my website and check my videos. There are explanations there. Most of the problems come poorly fitted refurbished rifles.

Josh

[Larry Gibson]

"The myth going around the internet is the belt buckle hold, or the 300 meter sight-in."

Not a myth. That is exactly where they were instructed to aim with combloc (and Tsarist) MNs and other weapons, especially SKS/AKs with the rear sight set all the way back on battle sight zero. Of course with a 300 meter zero the impact would be higher. My M91/28 with bayonet attached does not bring the zero down to 100 meters. I've tested a lot of MNs with an without bayonets and some do change POI with the bayonet and some don't. Only a few actually brought the POI into zero at 100m.

Most M91/28s and earlier models have the rear sight in arshins starting at "400". "Arshin" basically means "step" and those, even though remarked in meters, are actually zeroed a bit farther than 300 meters with "L" type ammunition.

The M91/30s and later models were zeroed at 100 meters.

If you have official Russian, finish or Chinese manuals showing a different aim point would you please copy and post? I have seen the official Soviet Manuals.

Larry Gibson

[Josh Smith]

I'll see if I can dig them up. They're digital and stored elsewhere. My reference is not so much a manual as it is a picture of a sight-in target.

By belt buckle hold, yes, it's a convenient place to aim. However, it's not meant to shoot a foot high.

Procedure:

1. Unit marksman is used to sight in at a range of 100m.

2. Rear sight is placed on "3".

3. Four shots are fired. They must hit in a box 15cm (I'll have to check that number) above the point of aim. That's about 6 inches. Group size needs to be about 15cm as well; again, check this or I'll have to find time to do so.

This should roughly equal point of aim at both 100 and 200 meters, but might still be a little high. Not a foot, though!

Now, a couple caveats:

First, there were alternate sight-in procedures using shorter ranges if 100 meters were not available.

Second, refurbishment. Barreled actions were removed from stocks and stripped.

Good parts went into bins. Bad parts were trashed.

Good rifles were assembled using new and used parts. A minimum of hand-fitting was done, and front sights were often not put back on their correct rifles.

Some shoot low. Some shoot high, and some shoot very high. I've seen some very short sight posts come through here, too, indicating special adjustment.

If you follow procedure on a Mosin that's properly inletted, using a new sight and affixed bayonet, and then take the bayonet off, point of impact will change. How radically depends on the tickle rifle and barrel length. On 91/30 rifles, impact usually rises.

Regards,

Josh

[LAGS]

The first M N that I bought way back in like 1976 had a taller sight then all the other 1891's that I bought since.
The first one made in 1896 was Spot on at all ranges, either using the Arshin Scale or what was Re marked in meters.
But all the 1891's since shot high and had shorter front sights.
I attributed that to them Re Dressing the sight Blade or a Bent rear sight leaf when being refurbished or Re Armored
Not all of them had the same Curve to the rear sight leaf, probably from being dropped at some time.

[Josh Smith]

The first M N that I bought way back in like 1976 had a taller sight then all the other 1891's that I bought since.
The first one made in 1896 was Spot on at all ranges, either using the Arshin Scale or what was Re marked in meters.
But all the 1891's since shot high and had shorter front sights.
I attributed that to them Re Dressing the sight Blade or a Bent rear sight leaf when being refurbished or Re Armored
Not all of them had the same Curve to the rear sight leaf, probably from being dropped at some time.

Sir, it sounds like that may be a Finnish Mosin.

The Finns marked out Arshini and stamped meters. They had high blade sights, often stacked using risers. I have a couple risers in my shop, in fact.

Finnish Mosins are often, but not always, marked "SA".

Regards,

Josh

[Larry Gibson]

"3. Four shots are fired. They must hit in a box 15cm (I'll have to check that number) above the point of aim. That's about 6 inches. Group size needs to be about 15cm as well; again, check this or I'll have to find time to do so.

This should roughly equal point of aim at both 100 and 200 meters, but might still be a little high. Not a foot, though!"

Might double check on the ammunition used for "zeroing". Most "D" ammunition I've tested in M91/28s will hit about 6" high if the sights have not been changed. That is right at a 300 meter zero with that ammunition. The lighter weight and higher velocity of "L" ammunition does make it hit higher, about 8 - 10" at 100 yards/meters. If "L" ammunition is used then the rifle must be zeroed for that ammunition. With original M91/28 or earlier sights that were in arshins they are actually zeroed (if correct) at 400 arshins; about 330 meters. Thus they will hit even higher with "L" type ammunition.

M91/30 sights are different having shorter range sight setting allowing for the zeroing procedure you mention. No way of knowing with milsurp rifles if they were correctly zeroed and what ammunition they may have been zeroed with. It's a **** shoot.

Larry Gibson

[Josh Smith]

P.S. No idea why my phone likes to capitalize "arshini". That's plural, though. Singular is "arshin". About 28"; a soldier's stride length. Rgds, JS

[Larry Gibson]

"3. Four shots are fired. They must hit in a box 15cm (I'll have to check that number) above the point of aim. That's about 6 inches. Group size needs to be about 15cm as well; again, check this or I'll have to find time to do so.

This should roughly equal point of aim at both 100 and 200 meters, but might still be a little high. Not a foot, though!"

Might double check on the ammunition used for "zeroing". Most "D" ammunition I've tested in M91/28s will hit about 6 - 8" high if the sights have not been changed and they were properly zeroed to begin with. That is right at a 300 meter zero with that ammunition. The lighter weight and higher velocity of "L" ammunition does make it hit higher, about 8 - 10" at 100 yards/meters. If "L" ammunition is used then the rifle must be zeroed for that ammunition. With original M91/28 or earlier sights that were in arshins they are actually zeroed (if correct) at 400 arshins; about 330 meters. Thus they will hit even higher with "L" type ammunition.

M91/30 sights are different having shorter range sight setting allowing for the zeroing procedure you mention. No way of knowing with milsurp rifles if they were correctly zeroed and what ammunition they may have been zeroed with. Assuming all refurbished ComBloc MNs were zeroed after refurbishing is a false assumption. About like assuming a bore sighted rifle is zeroed.......[smilie=l:

Larry Gibson

[Josh Smith]

"3. Four shots are fired. They must hit in a box 15cm (I'll have to check that number) above the point of aim. That's about 6 inches. Group size needs to be about 15cm as well; again, check this or I'll have to find time to do so.

This should roughly equal point of aim at both 100 and 200 meters, but might still be a little high. Not a foot, though!"

Might double check on the ammunition used for "zeroing". Most "D" ammunition I've tested in M91/28s will hit about 6" high if the sights have not been changed. That is right at a 300 meter zero with that ammunition. The lighter weight and higher velocity of "L" ammunition does make it hit higher, about 8 - 10" at 100 yards/meters. If "L" ammunition is used then the rifle must be zeroed for that ammunition. With original M91/28 or earlier sights that were in arshins they are actually zeroed (if correct) at 400 arshins; about 330 meters. Thus they will hit even higher with "L" type ammunition.

M91/30 sights are different having shorter range sight setting allowing for the zeroing procedure you mention. No way of knowing with milsurp rifles if they were correctly zeroed and what ammunition they may have been zeroed with. It's a **** shoot.

Larry Gibson

Larry,

So we're on the same page, what is a 91/28? I assumed it was a typo, but you've used it since. Do you mean a Finnish M28?

You're right about pre-WWII rifles. Most had a low sight setting of 300 to 400 meters. Reports from WWI had soldiers shooting over the enemy's heads during trench warfare when only the heads we visible, so the next battle rifle evolution saw 100 to 200 meter settings given to sights.

Regards,


Josh

[Larry Gibson]

P.S. No idea why my phone likes to capitalize "arshini". That's plural, though. Singular is "arshin". About 28"; a soldier's stride length. Rgds, JS

Yep, it's a "step", a "stride", the distance between two feet when walking, etc. or whatever you want to call it but it is about 28" and is the measurement of range settings on MNs pre'28. After 1930 and the adoption of the metric system by the Soviets most of the rear sights were either replaced during rebuild or restamped with meter range designations.

"So we're on the same page, what is a 91/28? I assumed it was a typo, but you've used it since. Do you mean a Finnish M28?"

No it was not a typo, I was just dating myself on discussions of MN sights. Back in the day M91/28 referred to those Tsarist/Soviet MNs (models '91 through M28s) with sights marked in arshins pre adoption of the metric system by the Soviets and adoption of the metric correct rear sight on the M91/30, sometimes referred to in older books as the M18191/30. I should have said M91 through M28s.....just showed my age is all, my bad.......sorry.

Got my 1st M91 Dragoon in November of '65 (still have it) when the previous owner didn't need it anymore. Been shooting cast bullets in it and other MNs since '69. These days I mostly shoot my Finn M39 with cast in CBA Military Rifle matches. I shoot my M91/30 Sniper with 174 MKs replication the "D" load out to 1000 yards. My M91 Dragoon and Chinese made M1953 I shoot cast in now and then just for fun. Used to shoot a lot of the cheap milsurp in the M91 Dragoon but, alas, it has dried up and I've shot up most of what I had. Only got a couple hundred rounds left.

Larry Gibson

192943192944192945

[LAGS]

My original 1891 Was a Finn Rebuild, and I still have the original Bands and Sling Swivels for it.
The guy I sold it to cut it down and then had me make him a stock for it, plus a side mounted scope mount and a custom Bolt handle.
I had two others and still have one of them that were Finn Rebuilds.
The one I have currently is Date Stamped on the barrel 1942 that is in original condition

[leebuilder]

Hi. Got two finned m91s both have the moded original sights. I read somewhere the arshin was the Czars pace 27 inches and change, 28 inches for all purposes. Both mine wear the 1942 barrel dates. Those I was told were just barrel dates and could have been fitted on m91s as late as the seventys. Could be true both mine are near new.
They are fine rifles. The 185 Lee @ .312 works well with 4895.
Be well

[Josh Smith]

P.S. No idea why my phone likes to capitalize "arshini". That's plural, though. Singular is "arshin". About 28"; a soldier's stride length. Rgds, JS

Yep, it's a "step", a "stride", the distance between two feet when walking, etc. or whatever you want to call it but it is about 28" and is the measurement of range settings on MNs pre'28. After 1930 and the adoption of the metric system by the Soviets most of the rear sights were either replaced during rebuild or restamped with meter range designations.

"So we're on the same page, what is a 91/28? I assumed it was a typo, but you've used it since. Do you mean a Finnish M28?"

No it was not a typo, I was just dating myself on discussions of MN sights. Back in the day M91/28 referred to those Tsarist/Soviet MNs (models '91 through M28s) with sights marked in arshins pre adoption of the metric system by the Soviets and adoption of the metric correct rear sight on the M91/30, sometimes referred to in older books as the M18191/30. I should have said M91 through M28s.....just showed my age is all, my bad.......sorry.

Got my 1st M91 Dragoon in November of '65 (still have it) when the previous owner didn't need it anymore. Been shooting cast bullets in it and other MNs since '69. These days I mostly shoot my Finn M39 with cast in CBA Military Rifle matches. I shoot my M91/30 Sniper with 174 MKs replication the "D" load out to 1000 yards. My M91 Dragoon and Chinese made M1953 I shoot cast in now and then just for fun. Used to shoot a lot of the cheap milsurp in the M91 Dragoon but, alas, it has dried up and I've shot up most of what I had. Only got a couple hundred rounds left.

Larry Gibson

192943192944192945

Thank you, sir.

The impacts you note for the original M91 are, of course, correct.

I had never heard the designation 91/28 for the original M91 rifles. That's very good to know, and clarifies a lot of my confusion. We were talking about two different evolutions of the rifle!

I never considered the original M91 beyond the Finnish variation because relatively few escaped modification to full 91/30 specs. I've heard tell of 91/30s in Russia retaining their original Czarist sighting equipment, but yours is the first I've actually seen. The rest were Finnish.

Did your examples ever see Soviet refurbishment? I'm guessing not, but would be very interesting if they did, keeping their original sights!

Regards,

Josh

[Josh Smith]

Hi. Got two finned m91s both have the moded original sights. I read somewhere the arshin was the Czars pace 27 inches and change, 28 inches for all purposes. Both mine wear the 1942 barrel dates. Those I was told were just barrel dates and could have been fitted on m91s as late as the seventys. Could be true both mine are near new.
They are fine rifles. The 185 Lee @ .312 works well with 4895.
Be well

Thank you.

How fast are you pushing those?

Regards,

Josh

[Josh Smith]

My original 1891 Was a Finn Rebuild, and I still have the original Bands and Sling Swivels for it.
The guy I sold it to cut it down and then had me make him a stock for it, plus a side mounted scope mount and a custom Bolt handle.
I had two others and still have one of them that were Finn Rebuilds.
The one I have currently is Date Stamped on the barrel 1942 that is in original condition

I really have nothing to say beyond that these sound really nice. I was born just a bit too late!

Regards,

Josh

[tomme boy]

Lots of M91 rifles came into the country in the 90's. But the trick was to find one that the Finns did not rebuilt. Just about all of the M91 Dragoons were sold to the Finns and they rebuilt them. I had 2 1917 Remington's at one time. Neither were Finn marked. Wish I still had them. But they did not shoot well and at the time I was after shooters not collectors.

Seems The ones that the Finns did not get were made into 91/30's. Pretty easy to spot a M91 on a rack with other Mosins. Look at the one about 4 inches longer.

[leebuilder]

Thank you.

How fast are you pushing those?

Regards,

Josh

I have no chrony. I assume 1900-2000 fPS. What ever 33-35gr gives you. That's about the limit before you make keyholes and fliers.
They like the Hornady 174gr fmj .3105 ones.
Be safe

[Remiel]

I have no chrony. I assume 1900-2000 fPS. What ever 33-35gr gives you. That's about the limit before you make keyholes and fliers.
They like the Hornady 174gr fmj .3105 ones.
Be safe
I use the Sierra. 311 in my mosins (1891, 91-30, &M39) over 45gr of imr4064, im hoping once I move in can start casting for them


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[leebuilder]

I use the Sierra. 311 in my mosins (1891, 91-30, &M39) over 45gr of imr4064, im hoping once I move in can start casting for the


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Never tried 4064. I am hooked on 4831 with my j-thingys.
Be well

[Remiel]

Never tried 4064. I am hooked on 4831 with my j-thingys.
Be well
4064 was the only thing I could get for a while, that and somtimes blc2


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Larry Gibson]

Lee's "new" C312-185-1R

05-14-2016,01:31 PM

Many years ago, back in the mid '70s I picked up a Lee C312-185-1R from a sporting goods store going out of business in then Baker, Oregon. I recall paying $5.95 for the single cavity moulds, I also got my Lee C457-500-FN at the same time for the same price but that mould is another story for another time. The C312-185-1R served me well for many years using bullets cast from it in a Finn M91 and a M91 Dragoon I had got from it's previous owner in SEA. I also used it in several M91s and M1909 7.65 Argentines that were going through my hands at the time and an occasional 7.7 jap and SMLE .303s that came along. It was a very good bullet in all but the occasional oversized 7.7 and .303s. In the Finn M91 (I subsequently traded for a pristine M91 Argentine) and M91 Dragoon the Lee bullet excelled. I shot many a load with that bullet over 28 gr of various 4895s with a Dacron filler w/o much load development. When I picked up an Ishevsk M91/30 sniper and then the Finn M39 I also picked up a single cavity 311299 which also shot okay in both those but not well in the M91 Dragoon. Point is after you get used to 2, 4 and 6 cavity moulds using a single cavity is about like watching slugs race........I got a CBF group buy C314291 and it is a good mould. I also got a new Lyman 314299 and it does extremely well in the Finn M39 and M91/30 sniper. Still I longed for the old Lee 185 which had done so well. So while placing a Midway order a couple months ago I saw the double cavity C312-185-1R was in stock so I got one.

I really like the new design of Lee's double cavity moulds. The bottom now fits the slot in the Lyman Mag 20 mould guide perfectly. Wasn't long before I pulled the Lee mould out, disassembled it, deburred it, cleaned it thoroughly, lubed it and re-assembled it. While doing that a Mag20 pot of #2 alloy was "brewing". I cast up a bunch and WQ'd them. Using the mould was a dream, I encountered no problems what so ever. The bullets dropped out in excellent condition 2 after 2 after 2 after...........First thing I noticed while doing a visual cull was the new bullet was different than the original. The original had a long GC shank and a shorter nose with longer bearing surface. You can see that on the old cull original C312-185-1R which is the top bullet in the photo. I was some what concerned the new bullet wouldn't shoot well. I shouldn't have been concerned. I could find no dimensional difference between bullets out of either cavity nor was there any weight discrepancy. For practical purposes the bullets from each cavity were identical........doesn'tget any better than that.

193317



Still not being certain about the performance of the "new" C312-185-1Rs I did not weight sort the bullets as I had never weight sorted the "original's" either. I loaded 4 test strings over 28 - 31 gr milsurp IMR 4895 with a 3/4 gr Dacron filler. Testing in the Finn M39 with the Weaver T-6 scope did not let me down. The accuracy of all 4 test loads is excellent with the 29, 30 and 31 gr loads in need of further testing at 200 yards. All 3 would have scored 100 on the CBA 100/600 target. I was very pleased with the new bullet and will be doing more testing in the Finn M39 and the M91/30 sniper.

193318

Larry Gibson

[leebuilder]

312br was one of my first molds. Then got away from it once I got lyman 314299, to me it looked superior in lenght and form compared to the 312br. I had problems from the start with size played with alloy to increase size/cavity fill out. Played with beagling and had astounding success with both, but their were limits, I figure it was due to the amount of grooves in some rifles, my beagled boolits shot insanely well in my 2 groove No4 but not in other rifles with better or tighter bores. Then I got into PC and had less under size issues, the 312br PCed and sized to .314 is a solid preformer ever since. I wish they could make a .315 version.
Be well

[Josh Smith]

Hello,

Would a 1:9.5" twist stabilize a 220grn boolit at 2000fps?

I personally prefer to keep in the same general velocity:weight range as original loads, meaning, about 3000fps for 150grn bullets, 2700fps for 170grn to 180grn, 2100fps for 200grn to 212grn, and 1900fps for 215grn to 225grn in .30 caliber.

After I establish my full-power loads, then I'll back off to find what I need. For example, I was pushing SST bullets to around 3000fps with about 1.5moa precision. Because I didn't need that speed or flat trajectory, I backed it off to an estimated 2500fps (45 grains of Varget).

It's nice to know, though, that I can push it faster if I need to.

Even if I don't run a cast boolit to 2000fps, I'd like to know I can push it that fast with acceptable results if that's what's needed.

Regards,

Josh

[leebuilder]

Honesty Josh you are going to have to try your loads. That's what I do, trial and error. Many work, some don't, please share your results. I will post my results as the summer goes on I have a few 54r casings saved up and plan to pursue a 100m hunting load before the fall. I don't care which boolit I end up with as long as it has predictable accuracy and acts as a meat missle should.
Be safe

[Larry Gibson]

Hello,

Would a 1:9.5" twist stabilize a 220grn boolit at 2000fps? .....Josh

If the bullet is less than 1.65" in length it will stabilize.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

BTW; Russian manuals say nothing about fixing bayonets when the MN M91 or the M91.30 "is brought to normal zero". Pictures in the manuals also do not show bayonets fixed in pictures showing the various shooting positions.

What the manuals do say with regards the M91/30 in particular is the rifle is zeroed at 100 meters with the rear sight set on 300m. For the M91/30 to be considered "zeroed" with the M1908 light ammunition ("L" Ball ammunition) Shooting 4 shot groups the center of the group should be (I'll roughly convert from CM to inches) 4.75" to 8.6" high above the point of aim and deviate not more than 2" left or right. Maximum group size for the 4 shot groups is 6 moa.

The manuals indicate this zeroing procedure is conducted at unit level with unit armorers assisting by replacing front sight posts and drifting the front sight for windage if needed. The manuals say nothing about the rifles being zeroed at the arsenals. Thus with all the arsenal reconditioned MNs imported many, if not most, may not have been zeroed by actually shooting at all.

Larry Gibson

[james6600]

Why does Josh Smith live in Wabatucky and I live across the county line south of LaFontain ( pronounced La-Fountain ) yet I have heard of no such critter by that name?

[Josh Smith]

I'm not famous or anything... Why would you have heard of me?

I guess I'm confused.

Regards,

Josh

[Josh Smith]

I should add:

Since you're that close, I'd be happy to go to the Bass and Bucks range with you. I can bring a couple 1911 pistols, a Mosin, maybe a Gewehr 88/05, but I'd rather leave the muzzleloaders home. I need to make 45acp brass so I can reload 'em! :D

What toys do you have to bring? I need more time on the AR platform.

Regards,

Josh

[Josh Smith]

BTW; Russian manuals say nothing about fixing bayonets when the MN M91 or the M91.30 "is brought to normal zero". Pictures in the manuals also do not show bayonets fixed in pictures showing the various shooting positions.

What the manuals do say with regards the M91/30 in particular is the rifle is zeroed at 100 meters with the rear sight set on 300m. For the M91/30 to be considered "zeroed" with the M1908 light ammunition ("L" Ball ammunition) Shooting 4 shot groups the center of the group should be (I'll roughly convert from CM to inches) 4.75" to 8.6" high above the point of aim and deviate not more than 2" left or right. Maximum group size for the 4 shot groups is 6 moa.

The manuals indicate this zeroing procedure is conducted at unit level with unit armorers assisting by replacing front sight posts and drifting the front sight for windage if needed. The manuals say nothing about the rifles being zeroed at the arsenals. Thus with all the arsenal reconditioned MNs imported many, if not most, may not have been zeroed by actually shooting at all.

Larry Gibson

Larry,

I've often wondered the same thing about whether the refurbs were ever truly sighted in. The sights with cast base and sheet metal good are WWII. We see so many of these on pre-war Mosins that I suspect they were all thrown in the same Mixmaster bins as everything else.

If you reference Russian military procedure manuals of the time, you'll notice reference to bayonets being always affixed. It's therefore logical that the rifles would be sighted in with the bayonets on.

Supporting this theory are tests done be myself and others, and supported by taller sight posts on M38 carbines and PU sniper models, neither of which were issued with bayonets.

Regards,

Josh

(I'm really enjoying this conversation. Thank you!)

[Larry Gibson]

Josh

"If you reference Russian military procedure manuals of the time, you'll notice reference to bayonets being always affixed. It's therefore logical that the rifles would be sighted in with the bayonets on."

That may seem logical to us but it is really an assumption. I have viewed and had translated manuals of the time and found no such reference to rifles being "brought to zero" (that's how the translation of what we call zeroing the rifle is from Russian) with bayonets attached. Actually an early (1930s) Soviet soldiers manual gave instructions on when to fix bayonets and when not to. It also demonstrated how to slide the bayonet on past the front site base, twist locking in place, sliding the locking collar over the front site, turning the collar to line up with the bayonet and then tightening the screw down with the combination tool. The bayonet for the M91 was not a easy take on take off bayonet.

193726

As I stated earlier, I have searched high and low for many years having several manuals translated by Army MI Russian interpreters and have yet to find any reference in Russian manuals about M91s being zeroed with bayonets on (internet web sites, on the other hand, are redundant with the assumption though). To the contrary, in the very few Russian manuals that reference zeroing M91s or M91/30s it was always demonstrated (illustrated) without bayonets on the M91 rifles. You might also note the Finnish M91 are very seldom seen with bayonets on them and there is no mention of zeroing the M91s with bayonets fixed in Finnish manuals either that I could find.

I also worked for a company that used also used very experienced Russian Army veterans (Spetsnatz) who were trained in the use of all Soviet weapons. When I queried them at a range while shooting M91s and M91/30 they said they'd never heard of such a thing. Their actual response translated came out as "b*lls**t" (bovine manure if the program deletes that).

However, I am always interested in learning and factual research. Can you provide the titles of the manuals, a translation of the zeroing procedure with bayonet fixed and perhaps a scanned picture of the illustrations? That would really be helpful. For the M91/30 you might read the zeroing procedure for the iron sights (it is the same on the standard M91/30) in this manual as it has already been translated from the Soviet original published for Russian soldiers, and probably other combloc soldiers,in 1954 by The Ministry Of Defense of the USSR.

193727

Larry Gibson

[Ken in Iowa]

Excellent thread for many reasons!

Josh, was your original stated goal to duplicate the ballistics of the old Round nose cartridge, prior to the 1906 light ball spitzer loading? Just wondering.

[Josh Smith]

It Ken, yes sir, that's correct. I've been thinking about knocking off the 91/30 rear sight and using the long, heavy round nose bullet on one of them. Arshini not struck, if I can find one.

Larry, I'm not ignoring you. I'd composed a response on my phone, then brushed the touch screen and lost it. I've been busy and have been trying to find time to reply using the computer. Maybe this weekend.

Regards,

Josh

[Josh Smith]

Why does Josh Smith live in Wabatucky and I live across the county line south of LaFontain ( pronounced La-Fountain ) yet I have heard of no such critter by that name?

Hello,

Offer stands if you see this in time. I'm making some time for myself this weekend to either shoot or bass fish.

If you'd like to try some of my products, my favorite Mosin is equipped with my two-stage bearing trigger, my Classic Target sight, shims and pillars, and fitted ejector. I have plenty of light ball-style handloads.

My only stipulation is that you help police up brass from the 45s.

Regards,

Josh

[Larry Gibson]

Absolutely no problem Josh, didn't figure you were ignoring me. I've been trying to track down confirmation via any official Tsarist, Soviet, other combloc or Finnish sources that the M91s were brought to zero with the bayonet fixed for probably 25+ years. I have not been able to find any official source. Thus if you have found one I certainly would like to know of it. It's been a quest of mine to track it down if it exists for quite a long time........so far it's been like hunting for bigfoot.....:D

Larry Gibson

[Ken in Iowa]

It Ken, yes sir, that's correct. I've been thinking about knocking off the 91/30 rear sight and using the long, heavy round nose bullet on one of them. Arshini not struck, if I can find one.

Larry, I'm not ignoring you. I'd composed a response on my phone, then brushed the touch screen and lost it. I've been busy and have been trying to find time to reply using the computer. Maybe this weekend.

Regards,

Josh

Very Well!

there is little for me to add after the excellent responses above other than to say that I'll be following this thread closely.

[james6600]

Sorry for the late reply I've been doing the spring cleaning thing. I've only been to Bass-n-Bucks once, years ago looking for recurves, I need to check it out again. I have a few toys, if there's something you're interested in let me know and if you are asking to shoot an AR I can do that too. I would like to see that 88. I sold my 09 Argentine many years ago along with my 7.7 Arisaka bring back MUM still in tack.

[Larry Gibson]

I've recently reviewed probably the last published (1961) Russian manual on the M19/30, M1938 and the M1944 MNs. While it doesn't specifically state the bayonet is mounted on the M91/30 or the M1938 it infers they are always mounted except when "traveling". Thus I pretty much agree the zeroing is probably done with the bayonet mounted. I do not have a M91/30 bayonet to test but did a retest with 2 different M1908 rounds (the "L" ammunition) with my M91 w/o bayonet and with bayonet fixed.

The manual does mention when bringing the rifle to normal zero the bayonet is locked in the combat position on the M1944. It also says there will be lateral shift if the bayonet has a round screw retention hole vs an oval one.

The manual proscribes that M1908 ammunition be used to bring the rifle to a normal zero. Two different lots of M1908 ("L") ammunition were used n testing the POI shift on my M91 with and w/o bayonet: S&B Check "silver tip" and Albanian. The rifle was made in 1928. Left rear sight is in "Arshins" which are marked out. The right side is marked in "meters". Sight was set at "300" as per the manual.

194844194845194846

Both lots of 7.63x54R "L" delivered acceptable accuracy based on the manual criteria for a maximum 5.9" group for 4 shots. The wide flyer at 10 o'clock with the S&B was called. There were 3 split necks when the Albanian cartridges were fired. All 3 resulted in the flyers left an low on that test. There was a shift of 7" low and 7" left with both lots of M1908 ammunition. Both lots of ammunition would not have met the zero criteria as to POI with or w/o the bayonet with the rear sight set on "300" as per the manual.

194847194848194849

Had the rifle been zeroed with the bayonet mounted the front sight would have hung out to the left off the base. May be some bedding issues which I will check. If so and they can be corrected I will retest.

As per the manual regarding the point of aim; ""The aimpoint, as a rule, is in the middle lower edge of the target".

The M91/30, M1938 and M1944 rifles is most often used with 400 meter "battle sight range" or a 300 meter "battle sight range" when "engaged in intense moments of combat, when there is not time to change the rear sight setting".

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

The zero's on my M91/30 PU sniper are such.

194852

To properly zero the PU scope the reticle is center in the field of view with the top of the horizontal stadia centered and the tip of the aiming post centered in the field of view. The range disk is then adjusted so it is on "4" (400m) with the reticle so centered. The range is then set at "1" (100m) and the external mount adjustments are used to bring the rifle to a 100m zero. As you see I adjusted mine so the final zero group (yes it does shoot that good) is just above the tip of the aiming post. The windage scale is then set at "0".

Zeroing correctly will provide a centered reticle (I'd bet 99+% of the M91/30 PU sniper reticles aren't centered when zeroed), especially when set on "battle sight range" of 300m or 400m. At 100m the reticle is just a bit higher in the field of view and even at the max range of 1300m the reticle is lower in the field of view but still usable. Zeroing as such actually positions the reticle in the field of view giving the best performance for normal shooting out to 1000m.

194853

I'm using a "heavy ball" load "D" load with the 174 gr Sierra MK. At 100 yards with the rear sight set on "1" that load hits about 4" high. Was a time before my eyes went south I could put that load into 1.5" instead of the 2.2" (center group in X and 10 ring) we see here. A very usable zero with the iron sights actually. I've no bayonet for the M91/30 PU sniper and according to the manual they were not used with the bayonet anyway.

194851

Larry Gibson

[Josh Smith]

Excellent sir. Thank you.

Again, been really busy and not checking in as I should.

Would you like me to send you a 91/30 bayonet?

Regards,

Josh

[Josh Smith]

Sorry for the late reply I've been doing the spring cleaning thing. I've only been to Bass-n-Bucks once, years ago looking for recurves, I need to check it out again. I have a few toys, if there's something you're interested in let me know and if you are asking to shoot an AR I can do that too. I would like to see that 88. I sold my 09 Argentine many years ago along with my 7.7 Arisaka bring back MUM still in tack.

Sure, sounds good. I need to hit the indoor archery range there, too. I bought a bow a few years ago, one that I always wanted as a kid but could never afford -- an Oregon! Far from state of the art today, it's still a good bow. I usually shoot it outdoors but need to confirm zeroes again.

Also thinking about a recurve for small game.

I'll dig up some ammo for the 88. I've not shot it in a year I bet. I think I've got most of it in Mauser ammo pouches on stripper clips. It needs shot.

Regards,

Josh

[Larry Gibson]

Excellent sir. Thank you.

Again, been really busy and not checking in as I should.

Would you like me to send you a 91/30 bayonet?

Regards,

Josh

Might be interesting to see what the change to the poi is on the M91/30 sniper. If you want to ship one to me I'll test and send back? If so PM me for address.

Larry Gibson

[Josh Smith]

Larry,

PM sent!

Regards,

Josh