Advertise with us Click for Rates
Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Member asdaven is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58

    Default Mosin Nagants: 91/30 VS. M44 VS. M39

    I want to get another Mosin Nagant. I currently have a WWII production 91/30 with a round reciever from the Izerversk factory.The accuracy is only fair. I use Russian Surplus and I don't want to buy more expensive ammo, so Ill be happy if I can get the most accuracy I can using Russian Surplus Ammo. So, with that, should I spend the $$$ on a Finnish M39 if all I use is Russian Surplus Ammo? Can 7.62x54R be used and is accurate in a Finnish Nagant, which were 7.62x53?? And it concerns me its .308 chamber on the Finn's vs the .310-.311 bores on the Russians and the Russian surplus ammo is like .310........ OR should I just find a better quality 91/30 that is a Hex Reciever and is from the Tula Factory? Which was supposed to produce higher quality mosins and the Hex Recievers were pre-war and better made. Or are the M44's worth it and are better made? Why does everybody talk more about M44 than 91/30's?
    Thanks-

  2. #2
    Senior Member therewolf is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pasco Cty,Fl.
    Posts
    616

    Default

    I have the M44s. I like the Polish one I bought so much, I got a Russian one, too.

    I prefer the carbine-size of the M44s.(M38s are pretty much the same gun, built 7 years

    earlier, without a built-in bayonet.)

    I've left the built-in bayonets on, although personally, I've yet to find they actually influence

    the accuracy of the weapon, except to hold the muzzle down better during firing when

    extended.

    The M38s (many of them) fought the war, whereas many of the M44s, if they saw

    service, didn't start till the last year of the conflict and are generally in better shape and

    easier to find.

    The Finnish M38, IMO, is too accurate for crate ammo. I've tried some of the

    PRVI Partizan ammo, and there is a big difference. IF you are that much of a collector,

    IF you desire accuracy that much, then maybe a M38 is for you.

    I feel the cheap ammo limitations are part of the challenge of combloc milsurp.

    I would try a M44 some time, while I feel it's worth the extra money,

    I doubt a M38 would be your cup of tea.

    I really like the M44 because it's @8" shorter than the 91-30, and makes a great

    truck gun.
    Last edited by therewolf; 10-04-2011 at 01:05 PM.

  3. #3
    Member asdaven is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58

    Default

    M-38 or Finnish M-39? If I got one of the carbines, it would probably be a m44 over the m38. I like the fold out bayonet, its kinda a neat feature that the others don't have. For the Finnish m39s, can you use comm bloc 7.62x54r ammo? Are thought the finns bore was .308 over the Russians .310-.311 bores. And I thought the Finns used a 7.62x53 round?

  4. #4
    Member asdaven is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Alright, I decided the Finnish M39 as nice as they are, are out of my price range for my purposes. So, im looking for another Mosin for under $200. So, its gotta be either another 91/30 or a M44. I feel that the 91/30 is half the price of the M44 and thats twice the gun for half the price. The M44 must just cost more because its rarer. On the other hand, I want something different, which would be the M44 with the carbine length barrel (full size by todays standards) and neat fold out bayonet. I am mostly a range shooter and hunt a little, so size and weight is not an issue. But, im just looking at the M44 because its different. On the other hand, I could find a real nice Hex reciever Tula Manufacture 91/30. I have read that Tula made and Hex reciever 91/30's are better made, which could equal a more accurate, better operating gun as far as the 91/30's go. Most Hex reciever guns were made during peace time also. So, how much does the M44 sacrifice in accuracy and range over the 91/30? Also, which tend to be in better condition/less used, 91/30's or m44's? Would an Hex Reciever Tula Manufacture 91/30 be better made over the M44's?
    Thanks-

  5. #5
    Senior Member therewolf is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pasco Cty,Fl.
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Either one is a great shooter.

    IMO, IF you're only going to shoot to 100 yards with iron sights, and prefer

    the carbine sized weapon for any reason, it's worth going for an M44.

    My personal experience is I got two post-war M44s which didn't get beat up

    too badly, probably because they never saw service use.

    I personally have a hard time finding 91-30s which haven't "been through the war".

    There was a major reduction of Mosin 91-30 manufacture post war, as

    many countries were embracing SKSs, M44s, Ppsh 41s, and other more modern

    weapons.

    The 91-30 is a great shooter, inexpensive, and has a lot of fans to

    recommend it, also. Both are great guns.

    If you're looking for a hex 91-30, expect to see either wear, or a higher

    price tag.

    You're also more likely to find matching serial #s on M44s.

    Check before you buy.

  6. #6
    Member asdaven is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58

    Default

    I think I'm gonna go for the Finn M39. Not the cheapest Mosin, but one of the best. I know I shoot Russian surplus, although not match grade, I find it to do very well. Especially better than a lot of the new production non corrosive modern ammo. And i honestly think the surplus is of higher quality. The only ammo that's probably better that is offered in a 148 grain is Wolf Gold, but I only had slightly better results. I have not tried the Bulgarian surplus yet, there has been a recent influx of that into the market lately and have heard It might even better than the Russian. I've tried Romanian but id say Russian surplus has a slight edge. I firmly believe shooting what was made for the gun if its available.

  7. #7
    Senior Member therewolf is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pasco Cty,Fl.
    Posts
    616

    Default

    I know both my Russian M44 and Russian SKS are a joy to shoot.

    Accurate and fun.

  8. #8
    Member asdaven is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    58

    Default

    I have a Yugo SKS, fun shooter and a cool gun, extremely accurate even at 100 yards and at 50 yards almost sub MOA with good ammo. Almost as good as a AR-15. But, can hold somewhat tight out to 200 yards or more with good ammo. My Mosin 91/30 is my least accurate gun, but seems to be decently accurate for short periods of time, then not so much others. Maybe something to do with the barrel heating up?? The M39 for $300 sounds worth it for the really good accuracy. My 91/30 with slightly worn rifling does good with Russian Surplus. So, hopefully if I get an M39, it will too. I would call the Surplus Russian ammo better quality than the new production "non corrosive" Wolf stuff. Not match grade, but not junk either, the surplus russian is pretty good quality stuff.

  9. #9
    Senior Member therewolf is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pasco Cty,Fl.
    Posts
    616

    Default

    IME there's "more corrosive" and "less corrosive" ammo.

    "Non-corrosive ammo" ? Right up there with "military intelligence",

    "ethical lawyer", and "honest politician"...

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Search tags for this page

91/30 vs m44

,
m39 vs m44
,

m44 vs 91/30

,
m44 vs m39
,
mosin nagant 91/30 vs m44
,

mosin nagant m44 accuracy

,
mosin nagant m44 vs 91/30