why did the soviets use the terribly outdated mosin nagant when

>>32761791
Cost ?

>>32761797
no ?

Rifle is fine Tovarisch
Also it is Conscript-proof who would use their guns as shovels, hammers and other crazy shit

>>32761791
Because you're just shitposting and the Mosin is/was fine.

>>32761791
bolsheviek incompetence, not sure why the Tsar wanted them when the 1889 mauser existed and the 1891's as well, but the bolshevieks were pants on head retarded

>>32761846
Tsar wanted a domestic rifle design because fuck the g*rmans Russia strong

>>32761842
>mosin
>is fine

Just because you can afford it while working at mcdonalds doesn't mean it's fine.

>>32761866
>Being this new
OK champ. Let me know when you wanna stop shitposting.

>>32761874
>tripfag
>fell for the mosin meme
>calling anyone new

k

Is this just a shitposting about Mosins thread?

>>32761818
The Mosin was inferior to the Enfield, K98, Garand, MAS-36 and Arisaka. The only thing it was superior to was the Spaghetti Carcano.

>>32761898
Yup. So much shitposting these days.

Because they had them and they went bang.

>Arisaka
>Good
wew lad

>>32761903
It's also superior to the M95 Mannlicher.

But your statement does not mean the Mosin is bad. Because it isn't.

>>32761925
It's also superior to a liberator pistol, that doesn't mean it's good. Because it isn't.

>>32761992
Okay, so how is the Mosin terrible specifically?

>>32761801
Yes.
Everything was already in place to pump out mosins by the millions, why stop doing that and re-tool for unproven designs while you're fighting a war with a 1500 mile front?

>>32762008
>Durrr
>Commie gun
>Muh Mauser
>Hurr
>Uhhhh, jews? Yeah jews! No like jews!
>Rimmed ammo!
>Sticky bolt (I don't know what causes this but I know only Mosins have it)!
There you go.

>>32762031
0/10 At least try

>>32761911
this.

>>32762040
dipshit, he was insulting the poster calling the mosin shit by making a list of stupid arguments one might use to call the mosin bad. I swear /k/ is the most dense board


I mean you thought he said
> (I don't know what causes this but I know only Mosins have it)!

sincerely? jesus fuck you're stupid

>>32761791
They were in the process of equipping with SVT's when the war broke out

Because they was in a middle of adopting semiauto rifle when SHTF. AVS-36 SVT-38 and SVT-40. Mosin just returned in production for cost and manufacturing reasons.

garbage rods lol

>32762102
Garbage posts lol.

>>32761914
The arisaka Type 99 was arguably the best rifle of WWII.
>Mauser action
>Fantastic aircraft sights
>chrome lined barrel
>incredibly accurate
After the war, it was discovered that Arisakas had some of the strongest actions of any bolt action rifle ever devised. Rest were conducted where the barre would have a plug welded, and a round would be fired, and despite the huge amount of pressure, the receivers would remain intact. K98Ks and 1903s failed these same tests. Additionally, no other standard service rifle of the 40's had chrome-lined barrels, a very nice feature.

As for OP,
In Stalingrad, Mauser actions often froze and led to damaged or ruined rifles. This was only observed by the Germans, as the mosins continued to function. Incidents like this inevitably led to the German loss, as there were many situations where the Germans were unable to fight back with their rifles.

Mosins may be rough, but they have their merits and it would by silly to pretend that they were not effective during WWII.

>>32762133
Fuck,
>*tests
>*Leningrad

>>32762013
>Everything was already in place to pump out mosins by the millions, why stop doing that and re-tool for unproven designs while you're fighting a war with a 1500 mile front?

This is the answer. Babies think a massive military can switch guns to the flavor of the month. Fecking tards.

>>32762118
garbage poster lmao

>32762175
Noguns redditor

>32762208
Noguns 4channer

Cause they were arming a bunch of dudes and were already producing mosins in many factories. So to quickly and cheaply arm all their soldiers to send them to war they cranked out the 2x4 with a pipe glued to it like crazy. SVTs were in production but to produce enough in time to arm their soldiers without spending a lot of money was unpossible.

>>32762208
>>32762219
>>32762118
did you forget how to reply to posts ?

File: tmp_18571-wbrioRN934877970.png (751KB, 837x556px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 837x556px

>>32761801
Yes.

>32762268
>giving noguns garbage rod owners (you)s

After having a lot of Mausers I got my first Mosin. I like the simplicity. It feels and looks more rugged than a Mauser. Its bore is crap and I don't expect it to shoot well but it's the shorter barrel model. I'm strangely attracted to it as a brush gun.

>32762268

>Giving a (you) to the unworthy

>>32761874
>tripfags being autistic
intriguing

What the fuck kind of differences are there between different bolt guns of the era anyways? t. nogunz redditor

>>32762469
Most nations used a variant of the Mauser.

>>32762469
Minimally important ones. Some are cock on close, some are cock on open. Some have front locking lugs, some have rear locking lugs. Some have aperture sights, some have tangent sights. And so on.

>>32762436
>nobody, not even the anon, knows who you're replying to, or could possibly care enough to check
pick your puzzle pieces up and put them back in the tin

>>32762490
tripfag with a bullshit answer as always.

>Here's a gun that's extremely proven and reliable in our climate and geography, and cheap to boot
>is plenty accurate out to any range you'd hope to reasonably RELIABLY engage an enemy
>is still competitive with plenty of nations' front-line rifles (5 round internal magazine, clip-fed, bolt-action)
>is balls-easy to take down, clean, and care for
>AND we have already had the tooling and manufacturing down pat for the past half-century...

>Nah, lets spend tons of our defense budget and create a couple years-worth of logistical hell for ourselves in wartime for designs and technologies that are still relatively unproven, underdeveloped, and complicated.

>>32762469
Mostly it all comes down to the bolt. Cocking mechanism (whether the pin cocks on open or close), locking lugs and mechanism, straight-pull, etc. Aside from those factors, the differences are similar to any other type of firearm (sights, mag style, style of rifling, etc.)

File: m9130round-crate.jpg (52KB, 664x482px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 664x482px

>>32761801
Yes, you fucking idiot.

They had Mosin Nagant rifles, they had the tooling and logistics to make those rifles, and given that most infantry rifles during WW2 were five shot bolt-action repeaters, it was seen as adequate (and it generally was).
The 91/30 was their new pattern of rifle, and they had neither time or logistics to replace it with something else.

They experimented with automatics such as the SVT40, but it turned out to be a bit shitty for general infantry use, so they said FUCK IT and just churned out as many 91/30 Nuggets and subguns as they could because that's what they could do. It also helps that if you fuck up and lose those subguns and Nuggets, they're not expensive or difficult to replace.

The Soviets were not all that wealthy, that's what happens under Socialism.

>32762268
>Giving them (you)s
They don't deserve it

File: carcano.png (38KB, 505x270px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 505x270px

>>32761846
Because cost and national pride.

>>32761903
Yeah, it was, but a rifle is a rifle is a rifle, if it shoots straight and can be loaded easily, it's enough for infantry issue, especially in the day, again, most infantry rifles were manual repeaters with similar magazine capacity.

The Americans were quite ahead of their time using a self-loading battle rifle with a fast reload of en-bloc clips.

As for it being better than the Carcano, well, it's more the Carcano being a victim of circumstances which would have absolutely fucked up any other rifle's performance, if you had a consistent supply of consistent ammo, the rifle would probably have done alright.

>>32762133
>After the war, it was discovered that Arisakas had some of the strongest actions of any bolt action rifle ever devised
It's more that the chamber was incredibly well-supported that made it such a strong gun.

>>32762241
Another reason was that it was found that conscripts were a bit too dumb for the SVT40.

>>32762469
Nothing especially important.
You pull the trigger, it goes bang, then work the bolt, repeat at least 5 times then reload.

>>32762502
He's right though, it's just design differences, a manual repeater is a manual repeater.

Mosin was aging, surely. But it was also reliable in Soviet winter, spring and autumn conditions where most of the other rifles of the era weren't. I can't imagine the Russkies, even with bottomless treasure chests, would have switched to k98s or LE's or Springfields. And with the SVTs turning out to be lethally unreliable, what were they to do? BAR is perhaps the only superior alternative I can think of back then but I have no idea how well it works in -40C or after a mud bath.

File: SALUTO CUBUM NECIS.jpg (214KB, 1500x678px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1500x678px

>>32761791
>Terribly outdated
It was a .30 caliber bolt gun with an effective range of at least 500 meters like just about every other bolt gun of the war, talk about how much better designed the Mauser was as much as you want, the point remains both guns fulfilled the tasks that were required of them pretty much the same.

Why the fuck would you spend an absolute fuckton of money to re-outfit your entire army that consists of a handful of decently trained troops and a mountain of borderline subhuman conscripts just to get a rifle that's difference is in reality so marginal you're basically changing nothing?

Now if the Soviets managed to outfit the entire army with SVT-40's like they wanted and could train all their troops in its proper use that would have indeed made a huge difference, but the things took three times as long and three times the price to make, and at the time they needed to produce crates of rifles by the hour to outfit people who were taken directly from some middle of nowhere village and told to go charge the enemy, this little bit sticking out at the bottom shoots the boolit.

Is this what passes for shitposting these days?

>>32761866
tell me, whats wrong with the design?

>>32762133
>In Stalingrad, Mauser actions often froze and led to damaged or ruined rifles. This was only observed by the Germans, as the mosins continued to function. Incidents like this inevitably led to the German loss, as there were many situations where the Germans were unable to fight back with their rifles.
thats because the Russians cut their rifle oil with diesel because they didnt have enough. the Germans were well supplied but the higher viscosity of their uncut oil caused it to freeze

File: 1485197599528.jpg (76KB, 718x1024px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 718x1024px

There is no practical differences between a mosin and whatever fancy rifle you want to compare it to.

Because in the reality of war, the rifle a force is issued doesn't make a shit bit of deference as long as it reliable and is some what comparable to the enemies.

>>32761914
the Arisaka was the best bolt action of the war

>>32762553
ive heard that another reason the Carcano had shit accuracy was because they were made with progressive rifling (spin got faster as it neared the muzzle) and when they cut them down into carbines that fucked up the trist rate of the round

>>32762570
and the bolt lugs had more locking surface area than the Mauser

>>32762915
>There is no practical differences between a mosin and whatever fancy rifle you want to compare it to.
that is not entirely true. the Lee Enfield action can be worked much faster, and has a magazine of double the size

>>32762972
watch these :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zngrvMQKFY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG3-iqICPlk

They were shit because they were made by a barely industrialized poor country (comparatively). They were good enough.

>>32762914

This, and the greater complexity of the Mauser mechanism. Far more metal surfaces that can get glaced or stuck together. By comparison, the Mosin is the bolt design ever produced with as few components.

>>32762031
Why even post this? Not a single argument.
>>32762512
>>32762727
These are the only correct answers.

The mosin had its place in history. Its a cool gun to have for historical value and for a cheap plinker.

If you cant appreciate it for what it is/was you are fucked.

>>32762929
>2nd best bolt action of the war
FTFY.

>>32763060
And yet it was a tiny pebble that completely shut down the Mosin in InRange's mud test.

>>32762631
>BAR is perhaps the only superior alternative I can think of back then but I have no idea how well it works in -40C or after a mud bath.
The BAR was kind of a shit weapon, as a light support weapon it's pretty heavy and the 20 round magazines were not very dependable, it also had a rate of fire selector instead of being select-fire like the WW1 models, something which is fucking asinine for a weapon feeding from detachable box magazines.

>>32763001
Well yes, of course higher capacity and rate of fire offers a real advantage, the M1 was automatic with an 8rd capacity and very fast reload, the SMLE had 10rd capacity and had a fast action, that will give you an advantage over any regular 5 shot manual repeater like a Mauser, Arisaka or Nagant, especially with troops trained to take advantage of their speed.

Then you of course have the Stg44 with detachable 30rd magazines and selective fire, being more than powerful enough for the distances that infantry fighting happens at (the lesser recoil, lighter ammo, and high practical rate of fire is an enormous advantage in infantry combat)

However, when it comes to war in general, it's a small detail, there's so many other things which matter more, air support, logistics, artillery, etc. The Nazis had one of the best infantry fighting rifles of the war, but it just doesn't make up for all their shortcomings in logistics.

>>32763060
>Mosin is the bolt design ever produced with as few components.
Not even slightly.

>>32763092
>And yet it was a tiny pebble that completely shut down the Mosin in InRange's mud test
Getting pebbles in your action is bad news for just about any weapon ever.

>>32763115
According to servicemen, the only gun that worked in Korea's frozen mountains was the Thompson.

File: IMG_0801.JPG comp.jpg (38KB, 448x183px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 448x183px

>>32763137
Turns out a milled box of steel with an unlocked open-bolt blowback action inside it is pretty idiotproof and retard simple.

>>32763159
imagine what would have happened if either the soviets or nazis had AK-74M rifles for every soldier. what are your predictions?

>>32762545
git

>>32763092

Ah yes, the single most trustworthy information source ever: tv programs.

>>32763188
The AK I imagine could perform pretty well, a long-stroke piston and rotating two-lug bolt, with a simple double-stack magazine such as that.

The action is durable and also designed to be overgassed, so it can deal with some fair degree of bullshit.

File: mos[1].jpg (84KB, 600x407px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x407px

>>32763118

Let's check. At least briefly.

What was the best service rifle of ww2 excluding the garand? For me it looks like it was the enfield, looking at it's capacity and slighter faster cycle rate, but I could be totally wrong since I am a filthy no gunz.

>>32763228
>TV

Russia had as many SVTs as America had Garands. So in a sense they were very modernized. The difference is Russia had a fuckload of soldiers and had to arm the rest of them with SOMETHING

>>32761903
The Ford focus is inferior to the Ferrari, Lamborghini, and F150.
It is still a good car.

>>32763247
I want to say the SMLE because of the fast action and having twice the capacity of most rifles, loading reasonably fast with two stripper clips.

The Swiss K31 is a quite good rifle, but it didn't ever see action in the war.

File: K98-explo[1].jpg (48KB, 1110x797px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1110x797px

>>32763118

Hm, it looks from these two schematics that the k98 has fewer parts than the Mosin. Which means, I have been misinformed. Helmet's off for you good man.

>>32763247
Mas 36.

>>32761866
name one thing "wrong" with the mosin's design, faggot
>>32761903
in what ways was the mosin inferior to those rifles? Also, no way in hell it was worse than the underpowered arisaka.

>>32763247

Define best. Highest quality? Highest reliability, or durability? The fact remains that most civilian bolt rifles manufactured since ww2 have been based on the k98. Most military used bolt rifles have been Mosins, due to immense stocks and distribution to soviet friendly states.

>>32763279
>Someone admitting they were wrong on 4chan
Holy shit

>>32763265
Also the war started for the USSR before it did for the USA, remember that marines sent to Guadalcanal in 1942 were armed with bolt-action Springfield 1903 rifles. Meanwhile the USSR has lost 5,550,000 rifles and carbines by January 1 1942.

When you just lost over five million rifles individual quality suddenly become rather unimportant.

Okay, let me qualify that - the SMLEs were pushed on one hell of a lot of Brit friendly countries after the war; India in particular were using them, and eventually also Pakistan.

>>32761791

>cost
>it just worked

>>32763247
Depends. Enfield has a firepower advantage over all the other rifles, but then again its still a bolt-action so the advantage is minimal. The k98 was built very well and had the least chance of mechanical malfunctions, so long as you too care of it. Arisaka type 38's are underpowered but lighter, since they were designed to be operated by people who were on average a lot smaller and scrawnier than their western counterparts.

>>32763357
>Type 38
In WW2 the Type 99 was the standard arm of the Japanese and the Type 38 was supplemental.

>>32763087
no, it was the best

>>32763334

Gah. Memory like a sieve. Of course, Garands were spread all over europe after ww2 through the Marshall program. The actual volumes I don't know. But I know for a fact that my own country Norway during the late 40s and 50s were utilizing Krags, SMLEs, k98 and Husqvarnas plus Garands - at the same time. The ammo supply officers must have wept.

>>32761791
They were literally perfectly on par

Because the party loves its people and wanted them to have a study reliable weapon!

That and the commies got caught with their pants down.

>>32761911
/thread

>>32763387
not quite. Japan wanted to completely switch over to the Type 99 but the Pacific war for in the way, and the Type 38 was manufactured until Japan lost its factories in Chyna. they served side by side for the entirety of the war

>>32763323

*shrugs* Admitting to being wrong hurts far less than realizing you have been wrong.

>>32761857
Didn't the tzars family have some German in their bloodlines just like the English monarchy? What made both royalties do virulently anti-german?

>>32763429
Never said they didn't, but it was much like the m1917 and M1903. The 1917 was a supplemental rifle.

>>32763408
This. And the design was a generation older than what their enemies were using. The only reason some mosins are shit is because soviet wartime quality control was terrible for obvious reasons

>>32763247
The flammenwerfer

>>32763317
For a service rifle probably reliability, since everyone uses them. I just assumed the enfield worked well enough for general use and that it had a slight advantage over the other rifles because of it's capacity and speed, but I don't know shit about how reliable it is.
>>32763291
What makes it so good? A fast search for it told that it was an amalgamation of everything that worked well for a bolt action from that time

>>32763357
>>32763312
>they fell for the 6.5 jap is underpowered meme
Its got twice the energy of .223. Itll easily kill a man. Switching to 7.7 was one of their worst logistical mistakes of the war and they did it over japanese fuddlore.

>>32763557
>What makes it so good?
Nothing in particular. Hes just got a boner for them for some reason.

>>32763467
>but it was much like the m1917 and M1903. The 1917 was a supplemental rifle.
true, but millions more 1917 rifles were made than 1903s

>>32763557

The SMLE is a good, rugged rifle. Within reason; it is the only prewar design I can think of that had a screw on shoulder stock rather than a full length stock. But it also heavy and long - like the Mosin - , which iirc was addressed in the IV which was essentially a jungle carbine.

>>32763247
>>32763275
One thing to keep in mind with the SMLE and No 4 that I never see anyone talking about is the fact that the magazines don't actually hold 10 rounds. I always see posts like "hurr 2x as much ammo, 2x as good gun". As a owner of several Enfields, they struggle to hold 10 rounds. In fact, they are very prone to jamming if you attempt to load more than 7 or 8 rounds in the magazine at once. Sure, theoretically, it can hold 10, but it is a VERY tight fit and often leads to problems when cycling until you knock the second or third round out of the mag. Historically, most British soldiers didn't load more than 5 rounds in their enfields because the stripper clips only held 5, and it was more trouble than it was worth to try to use a second stripper clip after loading the first. On top of this, British doctrine at the time was to carry rifles unloaded until in combat, so most soldiers would only drop the first 5 in.

That said, Enfields tend to have very smooth actions, good accuracy, and are hardy and reliable provided you don't try to load all 10 rounds.

My vote for second best rifle goes to the M1 Carbine, though, simply because it has most of the benefits of the Garand in a significantly lighter and more compact package.
Also, inb4 "low stopping power", consider that .30 carbine has 1,300J of muzzle energy, while .357 tends to be under 1000J.

>>32763672

Gah. Again. It was number V that was the jungle carbine, not the IV.

>>32763693
This
M1 Carbines don't get nearly as much love as they deserve.

File: tovarisch get the PPSh.jpg (40KB, 590x401px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 590x401px

>>32763720
why should they? every euro SMG is loads better than that POS.

>>32763720
They are fantastic little rifles. But, the paratrooper stocks are absolute hot garbage.

>>32763557
>What makes it so good?
It's a light, maneuverable rifle in a solid caliber with receiver mounted aperture sights that is incredibly simple to maintain and manufacture. The only "flaw" it has is that you can't easily adjust the sight for windage. For a infantry bolt action rifle it can't be beat.

>>32763745
Elaborate.
I'd venture to say that the M1 Carbine is objectively better in every metric than any European SMG with the exception of magazine capacity.

>>32763271
>ford
>good vehicle
Bullshit

>>32763648
Yes but that's not the relevant part of the comparison.

>>32763693
I think the ability to just drop a five round clip in before you're empty is an underrated or unconsidered advantage though, you duck down with a round or three in your gun, drop another clip in, proceed as normal without wasting time or ammunition

>>32763775
granted.
i would postulate that the term "reserve rifle" in the case of the Arisaka and the 1903/1917 is just a formal classification, as both Arisakas saw service at the same time and in close to the same numbers, and while the 1917 was the supplement, the 1903 did the supplementing

>>32763720
>>32763693
The M1 is pretty good but it has a bit short of a range for infantry combat.

I guess it's better than a subgun in many ways though.

>>32763745
Not really.

>>32763856
It's more along the lines of an ideal clashing with reality. IDEALLY the Type 99 would replace all the Type 38s in service. But reality is another matter, and the largest war in human history kinda required a change of plans. Still, by WW2 the majority of Japanese rifles were Type 99s, especially units fighting against the Americans.

>>32763886
what would be a good price for a Type 99 with a ground mum?

>>32763938
$300- $700
Lot of variables involved, and I'm not an expert in them. A couple of the guys in the milsurp thread are though.

>>32761911
Fucking this

>>32763188
The Germans would've absolutely exploded their supply lines trying to get that much ammunition out into the field. The Soviets would've fared a bit better given they already produced subgun ammunition in absurd quantities.

>>32763474
A lot of people seem to forget this, the Model of 1891 had been under development in some form as early as 1883. By 1889 it was finalized and Armstrong was building the tooling for Chatterault to use, the Mosin-Nagant belongs to the same generation of rifles as the Krag-Jorgenson, 1886 Lebel, and Gewehr 88. Even as early as 1912 there were advanced prototypes in testing to update the Mosin but the perennial budget issues of the Russian military killed the project before it went anywhere.
Look at the Finnish Mosin Nagants and how they turned out, I don't think any soldier of World War II would have felt disadvantaged if they had been issued an M39 in place of their normal service rifle. Well maybe a US GI because the M1 is pretty damn sexy but my point still stands.

>>32761874
>>32761883
>>32762458
>You tards not realizing how many funs he has.

>>32761791
SVT-40 had minimal success in winter war, and they only had a small number of them.

>>32761791
>Soviets have massive amounts of simple, marginally less-effective technology
>Nazis have limited amounts of complex, marginally more-effective technology
>Soviets win
really makes you think

>>32767417
>too expensive to outfit entire army with
>takes too much time to outfit entire army with to be practical
>too advanced for inbred alcoholic conscripts that makes up most of the army
>is actually not very good in the hands of said vatniks because the 91/30 is already at their upper limits of understanding

>>32767483
Arguably by attrition. You can keep killing Russians but there's always more of them, and eventually you're gonna run out of Germans.

The Nazis also had absolutely abysmal logistics which plagued them throughout the war and really was one of the big reasons for their defeat.

The Russians weren't perfect with logistics, but they were much more consistent, they didn't have billions of substitute standards because of a shortage of everything.
It also helps that there was just MORE Russians and that everyone else was ganging up on the Germans together with Russia.

>>32761925
How? How the fuck was it superior to the M95? Are you fucking retarded? The M95? which came out 4 years after the mosin, used enbloc clips that were more ergonomic than the mosin's "stripper clips," and featured a likewise superior straight pull bolt design? How fucking stupid are the people on this board?

>>32761914
>First military-issue chrome-lined barrel
>bad

>>32762008
1.Shit Safety
2. Rim lock if loaded incorrectly
3. Shit stripper clips which require manual removal.

>>32762553
>loaded easily

>>32767869
>1.Shit Safety
It works.

>2. Rim lock if loaded incorrectly
Then don't load it incorrectly.

>3. Shit stripper clips which require manual removal.
Then remove it manually.

>>32767930
>abloo bloo blooo, I rimlocked myself because I got too little oxygen at birth
If a braindead Vatnik can load his Mosin without trouble, then what excuse do you have?

>>32768006
No contemporary rifles had these issues. The mosin sucked. Don't get me wrong, it did the job. I love my mosin, but it is clearly a shit rifle when compared to its peers.

>>32767587
This
The Russians had more soldiers than the Germans had ammunition.

>>32763767
Might not like it, but it's true. Focus' are great little things. Kinda like Honda civics. Absolutely boring, but annoyingly good cars

>>32763465
I believe Czar Nicholas was cousins to Kaiser Wilhelm.

>>32768095

Manual removal of stripper clip was/is necessary with all Mauser bolt-action rifles...

0/10 for level of knowledge.

>>32769977
Nope, you can just slam the bolt forward on a Mauser and the clip will fly off.

>>32769977
>0/10 for level of knowledge of Call Of Duty

File: IMG_4430.jpg (80KB, 500x672px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x672px

>>32763115
The BAR was pretty outdated by the time WWII rolled around and wasn't really meant to be a LMG.

Its an automatic rifle, perfect for when it was introduced in WWI, outclassed by WWII.

We can't deny the fact thay Soldiers and Marines made it work anyways though

>>32763862
>bit of a short range for infantry combat
Not for the time, how many US troops could reliably hit, on purpose, a man sized target past 300 yards?

>>32761791
Small arms don't win wars.
I'd dispute the idea that the Mosin was meaningfully worse than any other bolt action rifle, but still: The soviets had an excellent Semi-Automatic battle rifle in the form of the SVT, but they abandoned production in 1942. Ultimately, the SVT was more expensive than the Mosin, and the extra money was better spent on things like Mortars and and Artillery, because small arms don't win wars.

>>32761791
They were in the process of replacing them with SVT-40s. Most of the SVT-40s were captured by the Germans as they came in, and production of the more complex weapons was abandoned to produce more Mosins. The logistics of the USSR was terrible, with terrible rail lines.

If you'd skimmed wiki for more than 30 seconds you'd have learned this.

>>32761791

The only country that produced more self-loading rifles than USSR during WW2 and the years before was the USA.

Also Mosins weren't really "terribly outdated" there are literally no features it lacked in comparison to basically any other repeating rifle of the time, it was just that the quality was shoddy(as evidenced by Finnish Mosins which are much higher quality and feel like actual quality rifle).

inb4 rimmed ammo was outdated - rim makes ejection in very cold conditions easier, something Russians had to take in account.

>>32762605
>Another reason was that it was found that conscripts were a bit too dumb for the SVT40.
The problem was little more complicated.

Back in those times armies used several ammo loadings. You've had light loadings, heavy loadings, sniper loadings etc. SVT is super light for its period(it weights the same as SKS which uses weaker round) so they couldn't make it super-tough and had to add gas regulator to take those different loads into account, otherwise the rifles would beat themselves to death too fast. Nowadays armies don't do stupid shit like this exactly because they can't depend on grunts to know which setting they should set on the regulators.

Then the problem was that Mosin was used for good 50 years now and a conscript that had his time 20 years ago could use it perfectly well after minimal training(disassemble, clean etc.) because hell - he has seen this shit before, which helped with training newly mobilised soldiers. SVT was brand new and the gas piston is little bit tricky to take apart, so you have to waste more time to train those people how to maintain it.

The most important part of it is - small arms aren't that important. It was better to use the mapower to make tanks or artillery pieces than SVT's.
>>32762553
Lots of bad press Carcano gets comes from bubbas cutting it down without realising that it has progressive rifling.

>>32763465
Most European monarchs by the early 20th century were related to each other, a lot of this thanks to Queen Victoria.

Look up King George V and Tzar Nicolaus II. They looked basically the same.

That being said it didn't mean they, as rulers of Russia wouldn't want to use indigenous rifles, it was partially matter of prestige.

>>32763693
The attitude towards M1 Carbine helps with distinguishing POGs from grunts.

Grunts hated the carbine. It wasn't very reliable, it couldn't kill a man as easily as 30-06. Obviously people like mortar crews etc. used it because it was light but if this was your primary weapon, well, you probably hated it.

POGs loved it because the jams were easy to clear and they've rarely shot in anger so who cared if they've got jam every 40 rounds or so, or that single bullet wouldn't stop a man, they could plink with it just well and it didn't get in the way in like Garand would.

File: m39pair.jpg (26KB, 973x362px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 973x362px

>>32761791

Rifle is fine.

>>32763557
>What makes it so good?
Relatively light and short, with good sights(for military use)*, decently-smooth action that's very strong(comparable to Mausers) and reliable. Uses ammo that's basically .308 ballistics-wise. Also super-fucking-simple bolt.

*while many people will rave about lack of windage adjustment - for militaries it doesn't fucking matter. One of the mistakes of American military was depending too much on competition shooters when picking their sights, for example original BAR sights were supposed to be simpler and better than what it eventually got, but DERE IS NO WINDAGE so it got adjustable windage and shitty sight. But hey - who cares about having good sight when you can make the rifle good at shooting static target at known distance! For ordinary user being able to zero the rifle without going to gunsmith is obviously a pro, but for military? Zero it and don't dare to fucking touch it, it's good that way.

>>32770615
Russians were also known for taking things and building local, unlicensed copies. IIRC Russia built more S&W #3 then S&W did.

>>32770634

The advantage of the .30-06 is greater range and better performance vs barriers. Stories of winter coats and LBE stopping .30 carbine rounds aside, either depends on shot placement for lethally.

Carbines issued to paratroopers were accepted well and were functional weapons.

>>32770422
They made it work, but it was hardly ideal.
Taking off a lot of the dumb additions to the gun to save weight, and making it select-fire proper would go a long way.

Also making the bipod not shit.

>>32770468
That's the thing, the M1 really isn't dependable out to 300yds, it really kind of tops out at roughly half that.

Look at Korea for an example of how this was a problem, the M1 and M2 were meant for distances of like 150yds or so, because it was basically the PDW of it's day, but when it was used for infantry combat, performance was sometimes rather poor, because of it being used past it's effective range.

Within 150yds, it's a little devil, basically a .357 Mag automatic with soft recoil, high capacity and box magazines, but at 300yds the bullet will have lost a very significant amount of it's speed (and it'll generally be harder to hit, these things weren't exactly sub-MOA), leading to rationalizations such as .30 Carbine being stopped by wintercoats or that it wasn't very deadly at all.

In WW2, this was a much less significant problem because it was generally not used as an infantry rifle by anyone if they could help it, thus it was a satisfactory weapon that filled it's intended role well.

>>32770656

You know I never really got the whole idea of windage adjustment for rifles that aren't meant to be marksman material. It seems like a really worthless feature like those 2000m sight notches.

Is someone really going to be needing to adjust for windage for something they are sighting with naked eye ironsights?

>>32770741
>like those 2000m sight notches.
The idea comes back to line warfare, really.

Basically if you could tell the relative range at which the enemies are, you could order your men to fire a salvo at lets say 1200 metres/yards/we and expect that salvo to hit at least somebody.

If it wasn't for it, nobody would ever care about adding those. You'd have 2-positions flip sight or even fixed one and that's it.

Windage as I've said - comes from shooting clubs. When they fired at fixed target at known range it made lots of sense. In combat it's mostly useless.

>>32767638
Enblocs are 100% inferiror. Yeah they're a tad faster to load with, but they're delicate (compared to stripper clips) and having the feed lips independent from the magazine makes them more vulnerable to damage. Not to mention that it also leaves the magazine open in thr bittom, allowing mud and dirt and whatever else to enter the action.

Additionally the sights of the M95 are much worse than the Mosin, disassembly is more difficult, and it's more costly/difficult to manufacture. It's a worse rifle.

>>32768095
>No contemporary rifles had these issues
Enfields could get rimlocked. M95s could get rimlocked. Enfield clips are shitty too, and the M95 and Carcano both use enblocs.

>>32767506

The battle of Stalingrad could have been won by the Germans if only small events had gone in their favors by the luck of the dice. If a couple of railroads had been wrecked at the right time, if a couple of tanks had shown up in the right street, if the right handful of steam boats had been Stukaed, if if if.

Production. They had tons of Mosins and they were pretty simple to make, didn't require re-arming the millions of infantry soldiers with something more intricate like the SVT-40

File: 1482821246196.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

>>32761801

This is apparently what counts as an "argument" on this board now.

Great.

>>32770773
Windage adjustments remained useful for sniping and marksmen shooters when scopes were unavailable or unreliable

>>32771470
>command economies
>cost

No.

>>32771486
Still costs the government you retard, they have to bring the material in and send the manufactured guns out. Even if you eliminate all economic factors, time (i.e. opportunity cost) to supply the entire Red Army with new service rifles would have been riduculous

File: 1482589355397.jpg (152KB, 1280x1381px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1280x1381px

>>32771486
>the materials and labor required to make something are magically free if you're a communist

Just come over here and bash my head in, I don't want to live on this rock any longer.

>>32771486
>workers don't need food, or housing, or material possessions of any kind (like clothing)
>rifles are not made with metal or wood or anything at all
>transporting these non-materials to the imaginary factory where people work for free, forever, costs nothing in terms of fuel or infrastructure

>>32771501
>labor cost
>cost
>in a command economy

The concept of ‘cheap’ or ‘expensive’ has no meaning in a command economy. The reason being that the pricing mechanism is controlled by the government. If Moscow wanted a weapon to cost x amount of roubles it would cost x amount. Command decisions were made at the top and did not take into consideration free market concepts like return on investment, opportunity cost etc etc

The same issues affected, in a lesser way, the German, US and British war economies.
This makes it impossible to directly compare weapon systems by looking at the official prices. In general trying to compare the costs of weapon systems built in different countries under a command economy is very hard and prone to errors. Even using other indicators such as man-hours and input of raw materials can be misleading.

Just to give an example the ‘cheap’ T-34 had an aluminum engine. The Germans with more industrial assets than the SU and significantly higher aluminum production reached the conclusion that they could not provide their own tanks with an aluminum engine. It was simply too costly for them. This shows the different capabilities and priorities that countries have.

>>32762515
>The Soviets were not all that wealthy, that's what happens under Socialism.
Slavland was not wealthy before they became Soviet, nor after.
Being Socialist doesn't make you poor, being poor makes you socialist.

This doesn't apply to America because everyone in America is rich, or soon to be rich.

>>32762553
>The Americans were quite ahead of their time
Ha.
The only thing America had that the other antagonists didn't was logistical capacity to spare.

If it doesn't beep or fly, the United States is decades behind.
This has been true for the past 100+ years.

>>32771452
There's nothing wrong with enblocs. Enblocs are better than the mosin's stripper clips.

>>32769977
Retard alert

>>32769703
I have a focus and that's blatantly false. The transmission stutters when I put my foot on the gas even after having it replaced by ford several times (as part of an extended warranty program they have, because a lot of people have this problem.)

>>32771452
>M95 could get rimlock
Have you ever fired one? They rounds don't fit on the clip if the rims are locked. Rim lock isn't an issue with m95.

>>32771707
Yea every one here is rich, right.

>>32771707
>Being Socialist doesn't make you poor
Sure it does, look at Venezuela, the worlds largest oil reserves and yet they're fucked by their socialism. They could be a first world nation if it wasn't for socialism, their economy and quality of life took a HUGE hit.

>inb4 old vs new definition of first world
>inb4 Venezuela isn't socialist

>>32771783
All I'm saying is that up until the later part of WW2, the M1 Garand was modern and relatively ahead of time, the Americans were the only major power who fielded a self-loading rifle as their main infantry rifle and entered the war as such.

Everyone else had manual repeaters as standard, if they had automatics, they were limited use or not for the general infantry.

But yes, they had a lot of shortcomings, the BAR in the A2 configuration was a hunk of shit, and the Garand wasn't even fitted to fire grenades at first (which they eventually solved).
The M1A1 was very expensive and heavy if you compare what could be done by then, leading to the Greasegun (which, I feel is a little bit TOO cheap in it's design, but it filled it's purpose of being much lower cost and faster to make than the Thompson).

>>32771535
Except that isn't what cost means in this case.

What cost means in this case is a mix of manufacturing time, materials, skilled labour and other such factors required for the assembly, use and maintenance of the weapon.

It "costs" less to make a mosin in resources, it "costs" less to make a mosin in labour, it "costs" less to make a mosin in time, it takes less to maintain and therefore "costs" less than a more advanced weapon.


Say that your nation can produce 500 bolt action rifles in a day for $3000 worth of time, materials and labour. They can also supply the ammo and maintenance equipment for them for about another $750 and $200 respectively.

Then you have a brand new gun design, it fires faster, more accurately and is all around "better" on paper. It, however, "costs" about the same as 1.3 of your standard rifle in time, resources and labour to produce. The ammo and maintenance equipment as well also "cost" a similar increase.


Thus your nation finds it wiser to stick with the standard rifle, as was the case in the soviet union, as it is a greater restraint to the number of forces you can field in the war the amount of guns you have, than the number of men or thanks to a lack of time / resources / manpower / industry to produce it.


The soviets had enough men to throw at the enemy, they had enough resources to make guns, enough men to work the factories (generally, though they did suffer from shortages in certain higher skill roles at times) but what they lacked was sufficient time and industry to produce their newer weapons; either thanks to a lack of ready industry tooled to their production or a genuine lack of industrial capacity not required for other purposes like tanks.


Before anyone gets angry at my numbers, they are just random values not actual costs for such a production.

>>32774082
>Sure it does, look at Venezuela, the worlds largest oil reserves and yet they're fucked by their socialism.

Nigerai also is a major oil producer, capitalist af, shadowrun styles corps ruling the country, rampant corruption, and I'd prefer a 100 times more a life in Venezuela than in the shithole that is Nigeria. They even have river and blue water pirates ffs.

Venezuela's real problem is foreign mind games, and shit leadership.

>>32761791
Because logistics wins wars.

It was cheap to produce, and they already had the factories. The Russians' main problem was arming their shit ton of conscripted peasants--they couldn't arm them all as it was. If they'd tried to use a more complex and costly rifle, they'd have been even worse off.

>>32771460
If my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle.

>>32761791
Because they had more conscripts then guns and they needed to produce as many rifles as they could as fast as they could.