The Russian Mosin Nagant Forum

I know that Mosin-Nagant sniper rifles were regular infantry rifles that got scopes slapped on them. (An oversimplification, I know.) And I know that poor quality milsurp ammo is the major factor in the perceived limited accuracy of the rifle. But out of curiosity what is the average accuracy one would expect out of a sniper configured Mosin-Nagant?

Minute of man with good ammo at 400 yards ought to be pretty doable. Underpowered era correct optics are the biggest limiting factor IMO

I shoot in vintage sniper matches and a good Mosin is no slouch. I shoot a Swedish m41/B, and the more I shoot against folks the more I think my Swede needs a Russian brother. Accuracy, well I will put the M41/B over the Mosin but I'm a Mauser snob.

If you read Soviet sniper stories, they generally speak of 400 yards as being the maximum effective range. There are certainly many shots made at far greater distances, but the snipers admit that there was a lot of luck involved in them. Under 400 yards head shots were common. Germans who exposed their heads for more than a couple of seconds ended up with splitting headaches. Sepp Allerberger (sp?) A German sniper who shot a captured PU for some time, spoke of pretty much the same results.

So essentially no better than any other mosin rifle...

They were fine tuned, we had a post showing how to wrap the barrel in bed material and a couple other tricks not long ago. Anything with a good scope, even 3.5 is going to make you more accurate and able to see targets you might miss with the naked eyeball.

Can they do 5 out of 5 on a pie plate at 200 yards?

I've been thinking of getting one..

With decent ammo that ought to be a cake walk.

websterz wrote:With decent ammo that ought to be a cake walk.

She's a good moose rifle then.

Sonny wrote:Can they do 5 out of 5 on a pie plate at 200 yards?

I've been thinking of getting one..

I've got several I can do that with iorn sights, 1 or two I might get 4 outa 5 skeet.

steelbuttplate wrote:

Sonny wrote:Can they do 5 out of 5 on a pie plate at 200 yards?

I've been thinking of getting one..

I've got several I can do that with iorn sights, 1 or two I might get 4 outa 5 skeet.

haha...right on.

My old eyes get blurry with iron sights after a bit..

Generally speaking, the weakest variable regarding accuracy with any firearm is the operator.

GS

In the Soviet Union, the 91/30 PU rifle was expected to shoot 10 shots into 3.5 cm (1.38") at 100m, 7.5 cm (2.96") at 200m, 18 cm (7.09") at 400m, and 35 cm (13.79") at 600m. So, if you get an original PU and it's still in reasonable condition, you should be able to get something like the above, if you have those type shooting skills. I highly recommend using match grade commercial ammunition, unless you happen to have a stash of Soviet 7N1. In which case I would like to know...


GS

The translated Soviet manual suggests that the sniper rifles were more accurate than the infantry rifles, even with both of them using their iron sights. The optic gave the sniper rifle more precision in aiming, especially at longer ranges, but the manual definitely suggests the sniper rifle had better accuracy and consistency even with the iron sights.

It says the sniper rifles were expected to shoot an 8 cm group of four shots at 100m, centered around the point of aim, using their iron battle sights or the optic.

Meanwhile the standard infantry rifle was expected to shoot a 15 cm group of four shots at 100m, deviating from the point of aim by no more than 5 cm, using of course the iron battle sights.

This all suggests that the sniper rifles were inherently more accurate, owing their accuracy to more than just their optic.

As I understand it, the rifles with the best accuracy were set aside for sniper conversion. That might mean a regular 91/30 that had the rifling cut by new tools or by a master machinist rather than the new 16 year old on the old machine. All rifles were test fired, so the good ones would have been easy to spot.

Soviet logistics were not the greatest, especially before mid '42. Snipers generally had to shoot with the ammo they could get. Their stories do tell of the supply folks holding back the good stuff for them, but it was not a certainty. They also speak of keeping a stash of exploding rounds for special cases. These rounds, the sniper rife, the log book and any uniform devices would be disposed of if capture was imminent. Known snipers were not well thought by the enemy, and received "special" treatment on capture. A quick orchidectomy and penectomy with a rusty ration can lid can might precede an otherwise nasty death. (stuff like this happened on both sides)

Different people will get different results from the same rifle. Shooting skills were one of many skills necessary to make a successful sniper. Successful meaning surviving a few weeks longer than another sniper.... Owning a sniper rifle does not a sniper make.... I know, I own one and I still don't shoot worth a damn.

My wife is the shooter. I'm the gunsmith. She once shot a 3" group at 450 yards with match grade ammo with her Mosin. With her Glock she can put all 15 rounds through the red dot center on a bullseye target at 25'.

this is what my 1977 PU Izhevsk can do at 100 yds, using my handloads, with 165 Sierra Gamekings .308 projectiles.
Group measured from center to center.

Nice shooting.

Very nice shooting. My 1943 Ishvesk shoots the best of the two PUs that I own. I am always putting rounds down range for Postal competitions at 100 yards, and I am now getting shot groups of 5.5 MOA. With the flyer making it a 5 inch grouping.

Practice and more practice is needed. And I am shrinking that grouping.

The snipers were not just M91/30's that "shot well" and then marked as a sniper rifle. You can dramatically see the difference in the machining of the barrel shank and receivers between the M91/30 standard rifle and M91/30 sniper rifle. This would indicate that they took extra care and time to machine the snipers over the standard M91/30's. There was a higher standard in machining, and that came before they were tested or "shot". Like Steve said above, they probably used the best equipment and men to make the snipers during machining. That extra care may have also included the rifling in the barrel during machining giving it a little more accuracy. But none of this is written anywhere. But the evidence indicates this.

Most of the accuracy did not come from the rifle, it came from the operator. THAT is the real "sniper". Just look at the Finn snipers, not many of them used optics at all. Their #1 guy didn't.

Dolk