Talk:Mosin-Nagant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Correct spelling

Dear Author!

Please note that the Russian name is correctly Moisin. You should correct this page accordingly.

Hearthiest welcome

(Millisits)

"Mosin" is the spelling I find most common and is consistently used by the authorities I trust.

The most accurate transliteration is, in fact, Mosin. Мосин -->Mosin, see? :) it's either that or Moseen, and that doesn't look as good. Zytsef 10:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The man's name is Мосин, the transliteration of that is Mosin. I've never ever seen it spelled "Moisin", and only heard it pronounced that way by one person. It's definintely "correctly" spelled Mosin, and unless you have citations from several sources I haven't seen, it's not even an acceptable variant.
It's good that you're interested in the Mosin and in Wiki, tho! Keep editing! CumbiaDude 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Design

Something needs to be said about the design of the rifle. Especially the peculiar and idiosyncratic feeding mechanism.Veritas Panther 14:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where to find good info on the mosin-nagant rifles.

Dear author, I own a Mosin-Nagant rifle and it took me awhile to find http://www.mosinnagant.net/ and it is a really informative site on the history and makings of the rifle and the bullet. You can find out alot of information on this firearm there. Hope it helps you out with expanding this page.

[edit] Influx of Mosin-Nagants

I recall that two American armory, one of which should be Remington, had produced the Mosin-Nagant for the Russian during WWII. However, many are undelivered, and end up as surplus.

This is correct. I've seen Remington Nagants for sale in gun stores before. CynicalMe 23:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

New England Westinghouse (NEW) is the other American manufacturer. Never refer to the rifle as a "Nagant"--it is a Mosin Nagant. "Nagant" refers to the pistol only.

[edit] Foreign rifles

The length of the table of contents sort of bothers me, I was thinking of making the name of each entry under this sub-section bold instead of sub-sub-sections. I've also been considering whether the sub-section name is a little POV. Other editors' opinions on this? --Zytsef 18:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible vandalism

Today's edit by 212.159.98.189 comes from an address with many vandalism warnings, although different users may share the same address. The rifle caliber of .33 mm is to tiny to fit the ammunition, although he may have meant .33 inches which is 8.382 mm. Art LaPella 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mosin-Nagant 2.4 Finland

and from Nazi Germany's stockpile of arms. Many of these rifles were simply reissued for use.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the guns captured from the germany accruired from the Lapland War? If so, link to Lapland War would be nice (I didn't add it because I'm not sure....)

No, Finland bought captured soviet-Mosins from Germany in summer of 1944. --81.197.239.57 21:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper pronunciation

Would anyone be willing to record the proper pronunciation of "Mosin-Nagant" for this article? I am aware that there are websites out there that type out how to pronounce it, but I would like to listen to someone say it correctly.

It is pronounced mo-SEEN Nahgahn. Rhymes with "knock-on" not "wagon".

>It's interesting you should say "Nahgahn", as in this article the native Russian is mentioned as being Мосин-Наган, without the т. Everywhere else I've done reading in the rifle in the internet, including Russian pages and forums (though I don't speak the language) have spelt it as "Нагант". Is this some kind of common bastardization or is the dropping of the T in pronounciation a bastardization? Or is the above simply wrong.

I've also noticed a dropping of the "T" in some translations from the Russian, both in regard to the M-N and to the Nagant M-95 revolver. I'm not sure if this is coming from the Russian spelling, or is a reference to the origanal French pronunciation of "Nagant." It is after all the last name of a Belgian.

It's from the French pronunciation of the designer's surname, but the pronunciation in Russian even with the T at the end, would sound nearly the same as the French "Nagahn". The problem comes from Anglophonic tendency to stress the "T" syllable in most words, with the best example being the French loanword "restaurant"; it's pronounced in French as "resta-rahn", but most English speakers will say "resta-rahnt" due to the T at the end. In Russian, the stress is on either the first or second А's of Наган, so even if spelled as Нагант it will be pronounced just the same. PaZuZu 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

ive heard it been prnouced Moi-saaan Nagant

[edit] Minor edit

I changed: "an archaic Russian measure (3 linii equals 0.3 inches or 7.62 mm)" Into: "an archaic Russian measure (3 linii equals 0.30 inches or 7.62 mm)" Due to .3 caliber barrels commonly being known as .30 caliber. Changed to avoid confusion. PaZuZu 16:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

"This rifle was designed to be fired with the bayonet extended, which increased accuracy due to harmonic vibrations created when a round is fired" Never heard of this happening before. I know standard infantry rifles were sighted for firing with bayonet extended, but I'm in doubt about increased accuracy due to it. Anyone have a good source for this claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zytsef (talk • contribs) 21:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC).


Never heard of 'harmonic vibrations', hardly ever hear of a bayonet adding to accuracy either. In rare cases though, like with the M44 Carbine, the added the weight with the bayonet extended reduces muzzle flip. Izzy1985 03:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed the claim since it seemed pretty outlandish and no one wanted to support it. Zytsef 11:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true in the case of the M44, but not due to vibrations of any sort. The rifle's accuracy was factory set to be fired with the center of gravity changed by the attached bayonet's weight. PaZuZu 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SVD Statement

This rifle was not replaced by the SVD because the SCD is not a sniper rifle, it's an infantry support rifle much like the USA's SR-25 or USMC's DMR, it was replaced by what I think is the SV-98 off the top of my head. Is there a source that supports that the SVD was the replacement for the Mosin-Nagant? --Semper Fidelis 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The SVD was used in all precision shooting roles, including designated marksman and sniper... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veritas Panther (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Also to help you out later never use anything you know about say american sniper doctorine in anothers countrys sniper weapon as the doctorine is differnt and what might be true for one is competly differnt for other.(ForeverDEAD 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Mosin-Nagant 1891/30 page merge

The result was to merge Mosin-Nagant 1891/30 into Mosin-Nagant. -- Zytsef 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The article on specificly the Mosin-Nagant 1891/30 seems very incomplete and slightly out of context on its own. I'm suggesting that the unique information from it be merged into this article since that's what makes sense to me. Alternately the M1891/30 article could be vastly expanded, maybe so that it mentions something more than sniper rifles. Zytsef 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

soport I sopport the move becuase its a version thats inheritly no differnt from any of the others. its not like we have a M16A4 artical seperate from the m16 page.(ForeverDEAD 20:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Trench Magazine

Perhaps some reference to the rare tench magazine would be of interest. [1]68.116.112.64 03:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that this rifle has been in active service for so long by so many different people I'm not sure it's a great idea to include the various unusual and rare magazines and other modifications that have been seen. The article is probably about as long as it should be, and I've actually been considering parring it down a little. I have concerns about the "is of appropriate length" part of WP:PERFECT. Might be appropriate if we start breaking out to separate articles for each variant. Zytsef 06:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request Model Images

I would like to request in the "Variations produced in Russia and the Soviet Union" section that their be pictures for each model or at least better descriptions of what sets them apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.185.118.22 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Results of major overhaul

You may have noticed that I just finished a fairly large rewrite/restructure of the article. I hope you like it, I think it flows better now. Anyways, unfortunately it leaves a big chunk of information out in a very obvious way: the Variants section. I basicly took all the variants listed in the infobox (which used to be massive!) and stuck it in a list with some random information that I no longer felt was worth mentioning in the history prose about the Russian/Soviet rifles. I feel like this is a more equitable treatment of the subject. Long-story-short, I currently know nothing about the Finnish and Czech models, so if you do please lend a hand. I'll try to add what I can when I get my hands on Lapin again.

Also, if we can, instead of listing out what each of the variants is called in each country, maybe it could be listed under the original version with something like "also known as". I dunno, I didn't really follow that with the T53. I'll have to think about that. Let me know what you think.

I tried my best to reintegrate all the information that was in the old "Foreign Mosin-Nagants" section into the new "History" and "Variants" sections were appropriate, but I feel like I may have lost something important. If you like the new layout consider adding info from a previous version of the page to an appropriate spot instead of reverting. Hopefully we can avoid the huge blocks of prose that made the old version fairly unreadable.
--Zytsef 06:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Simo Hayha

Asams10 has been vigorously deleting any mention of this Finnish sniper. I'm going to make the case for his inclusion in the article. I think we can make the claim that he was at least very successful as there are sources in his article that claim he was the most successful sniper in history. I see no reason to cite it again here but wouldn't be opposed to including it. Notice that the phrasing of the article as it stands now makes no claim as to the superiority of the rifle Hayha used, just that he was a good sniper and used an M28. Seeing as how otherwise we have absolutely no other information about that particular model at hand (I still haven't found my copy of Lapin) I certainly see no harm in leaving things as they are. Zytsef (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

First, one des not 'vigorously delete'; I am deleting inappropriate content without prejudice. I'm also not deleting any mention, the model number is there like any other version. Sources that say this rifle are the most successful in history are biased and unreliable. If you make extreme assertations like "Most Successful", you must then provide extreme support for said statement. Doesn't pass the bullshit test... that is, if I say, "BS" then you have to convince me. Don't get me wrong, it's a fine rifle, but I'll make the assertion that the Winchester Pre-64 model 70 was the best sniper rifle ever and I can provide proof... that doesn't mean it's true. --Asams10 (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read the material you removed again. There was never a claim that the rifle was the most successful or anything of the sort. The claim was the Hayha was very successful. I'm not saying the M28 was better as a projectile weapon than a simple slingshot, nor an I trying to convince you of that. Moreover, it is not my assertion that Hayha was very successful, but the editor of the wikipedia article on him and serveral historians making that claim. Efficacy as a sniper (ie: the person) != a superior rifle was being used. The mention should stay. Zytsef (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 91/59 legitimacy

I don't know if this will help any, but I own a 91/59 that has Izhevsk 1942 markings, with all matching serial numbers and parts. The importer's (Century Arms) serial markings are quite different from the original serial markings, so I doubt that the 91/59 was a commercially made rifle. My rifle also has a marking that displays the cycle and hammer inside a semi-circle of wheat leaves (or something similar). (72.155.206.251 (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

I'm afraid that doesn't help much. Parts from a rifle made in 1942 could have been refurbished and reassembled into a carbine by the Soviets or anyone else along the line before it came into your hands. Also, any conclusions that we might come to based on the markings on a rifle would constitute original research. Thanks for the info, though. Zytsef (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wars listed in infobox

Regarding the recent exclusion of conflicts from the infobox; using the logic that only wars in which Mosins were used by regulars, I believe Vietnam should also be excluded. I have never seen a source claiming that Mosins were regular issue to the NVA (if you know of one, please provide it). I do know that they were provided to Viet Cong, but as they weren't regular forces they don't seem to meet the criteria for inclusion. The Soviet war in Afghanistan might be in a similar position, although I feel far less certain about what DRA forces were using in the 1980s. It's a pretty good bet they weren't using Mosins and the mujahideen certainly weren't regulars. Zytsef (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm conceding the Vietnam point after doing a little more reading. It's pretty certain that NVA troops used mosins as sniper rifles. Afghanistan goes if the logic is staying, though.Zytsef (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge from M/52 (rifle)

I'm proposing the merge of M/52 (rifle) into the appropriate section here. There's nothing that makes the M/52 notable on its own and it's exactly the same as an M1891/30 sniper. I don't think we need 50 articles describing the same weapon. Zytsef (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I made the M/52 page and I wouldn't have any problem with it at all. B4Ctom1 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the input. Zytsef (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian Use Section

An anon has been adding the same content over and involving a buying guide and hunting advice. This is against Wikipdeia and WP:firearms policies and guidelines. He refuses to explain his edits. Here's your chance, give a justification for your edits below. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M1891/10

I belong to a Forum called Gun and Game, and users there have made frequent reference to a M1891/10 carbine, and one person claims to have one, and I have looked at it, and it has the correct features that match it to the M91/10.

Search for Ordinance Corps Mosin Nagant Manuals and find one that is in PDF format, and read thru it, the M91/10 is there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theburbonator (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved this from my talk page so other editors can get involved. After doing a little more digging I turned up some pictures of alleged M91/10s rifles. It looks like they're the result of upgrades to original M1891s and later production runs of them. This is mentioned in the article in the M1891 section already (removal of the hand guard, reinforcing bolt through the finger groove, "dog collar" slings, etc). I'm also uncertain about whether the Russians differentiated the original configuration of the M1891 and all the improvements and modifications it went through with different model numbers. The model number in question doesn't appear in Lapin or other texts I've seen which leads me to believe that the M91/10 designation is a colloquialism used by collectors to differentiate original configuration M91s from the upgraded/modified form. Zytsef (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree, but that doesn't automatically mean it's unencyclopedic. Were a good reference or two to use this designation, it would be acceptable even if not official. Many acceptable designations started out as colloquial, for instance the, "Grease Gun". In no way should you construe this as my endorsement of the M19/10 designation, though. I don't think it's official or accepted enough to include. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)