# Mosin Nagant 91/30: Pros and Cons



## GunsKnivesSurvival

The Mosin Nagant 91/30 can serve well for several functions. If you want a "Doomsday Prepper" rifle to bury in your back yard in a PVC pipe, this is an inexpensive way to go as long as you have access to ammo or can reload your own rounds.

Also, this can be a very cheap deer rifle if you hunt in brush country like I do (I say this based on the iron sights). I hate to say "cheap," it's a very sturdy piece of equipment.

Home defense? Not the best choice of all the firearms out there. But, if you can only throw down $100 to defend your family, it can certainly be a deterrent against bad guys. Remember the news story where the guy ran off a bunch of punks that were trying to get into his house? It was with this gun.

Another thing about these rifles is that the price will go UP in time. Remember how cheap SKS's were a few years back?

Also, one of the most important reasons for owning a 91/30 is that it's fun and different.

One drawback that I didn't think of when making the video: Overall length. This is the longest rifle I've owned. I'm sure it helps accuracy, but it can be unwieldy. This does take away from the "brush gun" role, of course.

I've also heard people complain that this rifle has a short length of pull. If you're pretty tall or just have long arms, I could see this being an issue. I'm OK with it.

Here's a video with some other pros and cons as well:


----------



## survival

I really love this idea about the pvc tubing. I'm assuming to get two capped ends and some pvc pipe cement, wrap the gun in plastic, throw a big buch of silca gell in it, wrap the whole pvc again in plastic and burry it lenghtwise. 

From what I've seen, there are a lot of "so called survivalist/preppers" out there that will laugh at the mosin nagant just because of its looks, cheap price etc. For that reason, I haven't gotten one. That was shallow of me for that mindset. BUT, when I saw your video on youtube and how you described it, I'm going to go ahead and get me one! Like you said, the price will only go up in time like the sks.


----------



## acidlittle

If you don't like the length, look at the M44 it's a carbine version, but it commands probably double the price, up to $300 so it kind of shoot the inexpensiveness out the window. Shoots the same ammo as the 91/30.

I have a 91/30 and man it's fun as hell to shoot! Accurate and you can put a bayonet on it! I have an AK and and AR and I would rather take my Mosin to the range then either, it's a fun gun and great to learn how to shoot on. 

If you have a problem hitting right on your target, it's because the guns were originally sighted in with the bayonets on them (hand to hand combat was fairly common over there in Mother Russia) I should do a video on my rifles, but I have been lazy.

Anyways, good review on the Mosin, shoots a large round, and makes a loud noise. I've heard of some preppers stocking 20 of these because they are cheap and they are SUPER easy to operate, that way everybody in their survival group will have something to defend camp with!


----------



## acidlittle

Don't they make those air tight vacuum bags for guns? thought i saw them in cheaperthandirt, that would better for long-term burial then silica bags i would think...


----------



## acidlittle

I heard from thearmorychannel on youtube about brassstacker.com and they have a sweet little scope mount for the Mosin where you don't need to change your bolt out!
http://brassstacker.com/mosin-nagant/scope-mount/

If you get like 5 of these rifles with those scopes on them you could arm your whole family for the price of an AR15, and have change to buy a boat load of ammo! Get a proven sniper rifle!


----------



## jraynabua

Mosin Nagant Stock Options ? War Gun Mods this site has the things that you needed for your rifles.


----------



## M118LR

About the Original question. Why did America need to keep their arms dealers afloat after the Mosin Nagant deal? If you are foolish enough to bet your life and those that rely upon you, their lives on a Mosin Nagant? Why didn't America field this rifle in any action? Is there a question why this rifle costs so little? Guess why you spend so little? First loser isn't part of the American Doctrine. The 1903 Springfield with the 30-06 was kicking every Mosin Built back in the day, so jump up and add to the loser cause while you supposedly are protecting those that depend on you! Need I say More? Save all those republic credits. dead man don't have a need to spend much. JMHO.


----------



## SDF880

A 91/30 and several M-44's call this home! My rifles shoot better than I can and ammo is avail on-line and at the big retailers.
I keep them in my "Break glass in case of War" collection and shoot them a few times a year. My Polish M-44 1952 model is my favorite!






Check out the movie "Enemy at the Gates" for some Mosin scenes.


----------



## Boss Dog

M118LR said:


> About the Original question. Why did America need to keep their arms dealers afloat after the Mosin Nagant deal? If you are foolish enough to bet your life and those that rely upon you, their lives on a Mosin Nagant? Why didn't America field this rifle in any action? Is there a question why this rifle costs so little? Guess why you spend so little? First loser isn't part of the American Doctrine. The 1903 Springfield with the 30-06 was kicking every Mosin Built back in the day, so jump up and add to the loser cause while you supposedly are protecting those that depend on you! Need I say More? Save all those republic credits. dead man don't have a need to spend much. JMHO.


But the U.S. did field the weapon, here for training and guard duty; and in Russia by an American Expeditionary force sent to protect U.S. interests in the north of Russia.

NRA Museums:

The American Mosin Nagants

Mosin-Nagant M91 Was Used By US Military - Handguns and Ammunition Forums

The Mosin is good for what it is, a tough & simple to operate rifle with decent accuracy and plenty of punch. The only problem would be a reliable and cheap source of ammo. Make sure you have plenty in stock and get some reloading dies for it.


----------



## Oddcaliber

There is a major difference between cheap and inexpensive. I consider the 91/30 as inexpensive. It's accurate,and tough as a 5 cent stake! If that's all one can afford it's better than not being armed at all. Buy a crate full and one can outfit a squad. I for one would not want to be down range of a 91/30!


----------



## csi-tech

I have a type 53 and an M44. The problem is the ammo. I was buying crates (880 rds) for under $200.00. It was surplus, corrosive and abundant. All gone. Commercial ammo makes the rifle much less attractive. I managed to stock enough for my two old gals though. I just won't shoot them as much as I used to.


----------



## darsk20

Holy thread revival Batman! Not that it isn't pertinent.


----------



## Slippy

It may not be the perfect weapon but should you need it, you'll be damn glad you have one.


----------



## Camel923

Remember that the Mosin Nagant was issued to all the Russian field armies as THE primary rifle in two world wars, and countless other actions and revolutions. It was issued to masses of peasants who were illiterate and maintenance was spotty yet it proved rugged and reliable in the most abysmal conditions imaginable. The famous Russian mud and snow didn't stop millions from being produced. Do not turn your nose up if offered one.


----------



## M118LR

Why Mosin's cost so little: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin–Nagant
"United States[edit]
U.S. Rifle, 7.62 mm, Model of 1916: Due to the desperate shortage of arms and the shortcomings of a still-developing domestic industry, the Russian government ordered 1.5 million M1891 infantry rifles from Remington Arms and another 1.8 million from New England Westinghouse in the United States. Some of these rifles were not delivered before the outbreak of the October Revolution and the subsequent signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which ended hostilities between the Central Powers and Russia. When the Bolsheviks took over the Russian government, they defaulted on the Imperial Russian contracts with the American arsenals, with the result that New England Westinghouse and Remington were stuck with hundreds of thousands of Mosin-Nagants. The US government bought up the remaining stocks, saving Remington and Westinghouse from bankruptcy. The rifles in Great Britain armed the US and British expeditionary forces sent to North Russia in 1918 and 1919. The rifles still in the US ended up being primarily used as training firearms for the US Army. Some were used to equip US National Guard, SATC and ROTC units. Designated "U.S. Rifle, 7.62mm, Model of 1916", these are among the most obscure U.S. service arms. In 1917, 50,000 of these rifles were sent via Vladivostok to equip the Czechoslovak Legions in Siberia to aid in their attempt to secure passage to France.
During the interwar period, the rifles which had been taken over by the US military were sold to private citizens in the United States by the Director of Civilian Marksmanship, the predecessor agency to the current Civilian Marksmanship Program. They were sold for the sum of $3.00 each. If unaltered to chamber the US standard .30-06 Springfield rimless cartridge, these rifles are prized by collectors because they do not have the import marks required by law to be stamped or engraved on military surplus firearms brought into the United States from other countries."

The cons of the Mosin are exemplified by it's contemporary "03" Springfield which mimicked much of the Mauser designs. I realize that an "03" Springfield will be a much larger dent in the wallet, but sometimes it seems that you get what you pay for, and if you only had 1 rifle to defend yourself with I think I'd have to save enough to get the best instead of relying on the cheapest.

In support of my point of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1903_Springfield

" Adoption[edit]
Springfield began work on creating a rifle that could handle higher loads around the turn of the 20th century, and adopted some of Mauser's features. A prototype was produced in 1900, and the rifle went into production in 1903, thus gaining its nomenclature. There was actually an interim rifle that almost entered production, the Model 1901. Springfield was sure enough that the Model 1901 would be accepted that they began making some parts, but it was not accepted and further changes were asked for. The design was further modified and accepted, type classified and entering production in 1903. The M1903 became commonly known among its users as the "ought-three" in reference to the year '03 of first production.
The War Department had exhaustively studied and dissected several examples of the Spanish Mauser Model 93 rifle captured during the Spanish-American War, and applied some features of the U.S. Krag rifle to a bolt and magazine system derived from the Mauser Model 93, to produce the new U.S. Springfield Rifle, the Model 1903. Despite Springfield Armory's use of a two-piece firing pin and other slight design alterations, the 1903 was, in fact, a Mauser design, and after that company brought suit, the U.S. government was judged to pay $250,000 in royalties to Mauser Werke.[2]
By January 1905 over 80,000 of these rifles had been produced at the federally owned Springfield Armory. However, President Theodore Roosevelt objected to the design of the sliding rod-type bayonet used as being too flimsy for combat. In a letter to the Secretary of War, he said:
"I must say that I think that ramrod bayonet is about as poor an invention as I ever saw. As you observed, it broke short off as soon as hit with even moderate violence. It would have no moral effect and mighty little physical effect."[3]
All the rifles to that point consequently had to be re-tooled for a blade-type bayonet, called the M1905. The sights were also an area of concern, so the new improved Model 1904 sight was also added.[4][5]
The retooling was almost complete when it was decided another change would be made. It was to incorporate improvements discovered during experimentation in the interim, most notably the use of pointed ammunition, first adopted by the French in the 1890s and later other countries. The round itself was based on the .30-03, but rather than a 220-grain (14 g) round-tip bullet fired at 2,300 ft/s (700 m/s), it had a 150-grain (9.7 g) pointed bullet fired at 2,800 ft/s (850 m/s); the case neck was a fraction of an inch shorter as well. The new American cartridge was designated "Cartridge, Ball, Caliber .30, Model of 1906". The M1906 cartridge is better known as the .30-06 round used in many rifles and machine guns, and is still a popular civilian cartridge to the present day. The rifle's sights were again re-tooled to compensate for the speed and trajectory of the new cartridge. As further testing revealed that the M1906 cartridge was effective with a shorter, all-purpose barrel length of 24 inches (610 mm) in length, the decision was made to issue the Springfield with a 24-inch barrel length to both cavalry and infantry forces, an idea already adopted by both the British and German armies.[4]"

So I can't really give in to the "The Russians fielded them so they have to be good" side of this discussion. As this is a pro/con thread, I think it's only appropriate to rate the Mosin to other rifles that were it's contemporaries.


----------



## Camel923

Mauser 98s, 03 Springfields ( Mauser copy), lee enfields, arisakas and Mosin Nagants are all reliable bolt action rifles, tried and true. Just saying robust reliability and durability are a desirable features. We all have favorites but it does not mean everything else is a hunk of junk.


----------



## M118LR

Camel923 said:


> Mauser 98s, 03 Springfields ( Mauser copy), lee enfields, arisakas and Mosin Nagants are all reliable bolt action rifles, tried and true. Just saying robust reliability and durability are a desirable features. We all have favorites but it does not mean everything else is a hunk of junk.


Your point is well taken. So to be more specific the two piece bolt, worst trigger imaginable, and the horrid Russian sight system are some of the cons associated with the Mosin. But even the wiki article has mention of ways to improve, but they add costs that are already included/incorporated into other rifles.

" With the fall of the Iron Curtain, a large quantity of Mosin-Nagants have found their way onto markets outside of Russia as collectibles and hunting rifles. Due to the large surplus created by the Soviet small arms industry during World War II and the tendency of the former Soviet Union to retain and store large quantities of old but well-preserved surplus (long after other nations' militaries divested themselves of similar vintage materials), these rifles (mostly M1891/30 rifles and M1944 carbines) are inexpensive compared to other surplus arms of the same era.
There is serious collector interest in the Mosin-Nagant family of rifles, and they are popular with target shooters and hunters, with their durability and reliability being legendary, though a downfall of these rifles in their new hunting and target shooting roles are the coarse Soviet military-style sights. The notched rear tangent iron sight is adjustable for elevation, and is calibrated in hundreds of meters (Arshins on earlier models). The front sight is a post that is not adjustable for elevation. Windage adjustment is done by the armory before issue, but a dovetail mount allows for corrections in the field.
The lack of fine adjustment leaves some hunters with the desire to add a scope and, as of this writing, two companies make adjustable sights for the Russian version of this rifle, Mojo and Smith-Sights. Generally viewed as highly accurate, these rifles show a capability of two-inch groups or better at 100 yards/meters when used with good ammunition and are capable of taking all game on the North American Continent when correct ammunition is used.[34] If the barrel is free-floated or bedded and has a sound bore, and if the trigger is worked on to lighten it and improve let-off, minute of arc accuracy (1.047" at 100 yards) is possible with scoped Model 91/30s. Several companies make scope rings that can be mounted to the dovetail under the rear sight of the Model 91/30, sight bases that can be mounted to the dovetail, and scope mounts that can be fixed to the rifle without drilling or tapping."

Once you accomplish most or all of the modifications listed even by wiki than you have a rifle worthy of taking afield. Without any of the modifications hunk of junk would be pretty close to a correct description Camel923. I forgot who it was that coined the phrase "Only accurate rifles are interesting"?


----------



## Camel923

I agree that there are better bolts sights and triggers. If your goal is a match type rifle or you just can not stand the basic issue stuff, you are better to look elsewhere or spend on modifications. As is, you get bang for the buck if you can live with the warts. I have other choices for a tack driver. Even the 03 Springfield has a national match version vs several general issue versions. Depends on what you expect and are willing to spend. My view for SHTF rifle is something rugged and reliable.


----------



## LunaticFringeInc

When the guns could have been had for 119.99 each if not less and a 880 round case of ammo could be had for less than 50 bucks plus shipping, they were a fabulous deal. I bought one then and several cases of ammo. If I knew then what I know today I would have bought a crate of them and a pallet of ammo. That was then and this is now. Now...your probably not gonna find one in decent shape for less that 200 bucks and the ammo is getting right on par with run of the mill mil-spec 7.62x51. Right now there are a lot of modern fire arms that are entry level, higher quality metal, that shoot more modern and efficient rounds that are much much cheaper to reload for than the Mosin Nagant and just about as accurate if not more accurate that can be had for just about a 100-120 bucks more. Couple that with the fact that I have seen entry level AR's at Academy for 500 fun dollars and the Mosin Nagant aint near the bargin it once was. Still not a bad deal but not the bargin it is most famous for being in the past.

Mosin Nagants are hard hitting and reasonably accurate. They are a work of art in simplicity and ruggedness for which few fire arms can even begin to approach. With a little skill and some time in the garage, you could probably reproduce most of the parts to this gun with hand held tools! But when you consider I can buy something like Mossbergs Patriot in 308 Winchester in a camo composite stock and 24 inch fluted barrel with a bolt already bent and a receiver already drilled and tapped for a scope and a much better trigger than I can find on a unmodified Mosin Nagant for just a 120 bucks more the Moin Nagant doesn't have as much appeal to me as it once did and still does to an extent. While I was able to get ammo last week at Cabela's on sale for the Mosin Nagant for 35 cents a round, this week the same ammo is almost double that price. Couple that with the fact that I can now buy ZQI boxer primed brass case 308 for less than I can buy Hetgers 7.62x54R ammo this week, the Mosin Nagant is again loosing a lot of its budget priced appeal at a pretty quick rate.

Now if your a reloader like I am I can come up with a lot more reasons to buy a more modern entry level gun that uses some of the more common and cheaper to reload ammo. For what I can buy 100 brass boxer primed cases in 7.62x54R I can get about 250 7.62x51 cases. Bullet selection...there are a lot more choices in bullets in 308 caliber vs 311-312, especially when it comes to expanding hunting grade bullets. There is a ton more reloading data out there for the 308 than there is for the 7.2x54R!

The Mosin Nagant is a great fire arm it has a rich past and history, its still reasonably budget priced and its built like the proverbial brick crap house as far as durability goes and its still good enough to "pick up the check" 8 days a week don't get me wrong on that point, but many of those qualities are shrinking in todays gun market by the day making it less competitive against other options now days available.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

What is up with the slip on recoil pad on the M44 in the video? Are those lads sissies?
And the bayonet has been removed, too. I guess they are sissies.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

M118LR said:


> About the Original question. Why did America need to keep their arms dealers afloat after the Mosin Nagant deal? If you are foolish enough to bet your life and those that rely upon you, their lives on a Mosin Nagant? Why didn't America field this rifle in any action? Is there a question why this rifle costs so little? Guess why you spend so little? First loser isn't part of the American Doctrine. The 1903 Springfield with the 30-06 was kicking every Mosin Built back in the day, so jump up and add to the loser cause while you supposedly are protecting those that depend on you! Need I say More? Save all those republic credits. dead man don't have a need to spend much. JMHO.


Actually, the Model 91/30 was more accurate than the Springfield.
Guns Magazine and Mike Venturino put some WWII sniper rifles to the test a couple years ago. Using WWII optics and WWII issue ammo. Tested were a Springfield 1903A4, a Mauser K98k, an Enfield No4MkI, and a 91/30.
The Mosin was consistently more accurate at ranges from 100 yards to 800 yards. And just as an experiment, a 4' X 8' sheet of plywood was painted white and placed as a target at 1,000 yards. The Mosin was the ONLY rifle to even hit the target.


----------



## csi-tech

When comparing the M1903, the K98K and the Mosin 91/30 I believe the Mauser action gets the credit for most innovative design that lived well beyond WWI. Hard to say it wasn't the best overall bolt action rifle ever produced. The Mauser action was implemented by pretty much everyone in some form after the war. My personal favorite was the M1903. I actually had the parade version in Navy boot camp.


----------



## Ikean

I love the moisins, I wish I would have bought more when they were cheap. i love watching people jump when I shoot it. I love watching the flame when other people shoot it. It is just fun to shoot.


----------



## M118LR

rice paddy daddy said:


> Actually, the Model 91/30 was more accurate than the Springfield.
> Guns Magazine and Mike Venturino put some WWII sniper rifles to the test a couple years ago. Using WWII optics and WWII issue ammo. Tested were a Springfield 1903A4, a Mauser K98k, an Enfield No4MkI, and a 91/30.
> The Mosin was consistently more accurate at ranges from 100 yards to 800 yards. And just as an experiment, a 4' X 8' sheet of plywood was painted white and placed as a target at 1,000 yards. The Mosin was the ONLY rifle to even hit the target.


That would be an interesting read if you could link me rice paddy daddy. Especially since lesser .308 Winchester chambered bolt actions are scoring near perfect scores daily on F-Class Ranges across America. From an accuracy standpoint I guess these are the "Good Old Day's".


----------



## rice paddy daddy

M118LR said:


> That would be an interesting read if you could link me rice paddy daddy. Especially since lesser .308 Winchester chambered bolt actions are scoring near perfect scores daily on F-Class Ranges across America. From an accuracy standpoint I guess these are the "Good Old Day's".


You have to compare apples to apples - which is exactly what Mike Venturino and his co-author (from Hornady Ammunition) did.
WWII rifles, outfitted with original optics, firing WWII ammo. NOT handloads. WWII issue ammo.
Go to Guns Magazine.com Guns Magazine | Guns Magazine.com look in the archives back around April or May of 2014 and find the article.


----------



## M118LR

Closest thing I found was "Guns of August 1914" in the august 2014 edition which Guns Magazine can't find. Perhaps a hint as to what the title of the article was would be helpful, Thanks rice paddy daddy.


----------



## Josh Smith

M118LR said:


> Closest thing I found was "Guns of August 1914" in the august 2014 edition which Guns Magazine can't find. Perhaps a hint as to what the title of the article was would be helpful, Thanks rice paddy daddy.


Hello,

Please try GUNS Magazine Digital February 2011 .

My personal favorite C&R military rifle _for precision_ is the Gewehr 88/05. That sucker is built like a match rifle.

My _overall_ favorite is the Mosin-Nagant. With shims and barrel pads, it is almost as precise. It's also well-suited to abuse, unlike the Gewehr 88/05.

In my view, the 1903, Mausers (except for Swedish Mausers!), Lee-Enfields, and most of the rest are compromises. The Finnish M27, M28 and M28/xx, and M39 are up there with the Swedish Mausers and Swiss rifles.

Russian Mosins have more potential off the line, I think, than most other general issue rifles, but that's debatable. I think Mosins the only ones that take to easy accurizing without sacrificing durability.

Regards,

Josh


----------



## M118LR

Thank you Josh. It is quite an interesting article/shooting test. Perhaps there are some typo's? I can understand that 4 inches at 200 yards can equate to 10 inches at 500 yards, but how can the group size reduce to 7 inches at 600 yards with the same rifle and ammunition? The test results definitively display the effects of time upon the quality of ammunition. Take particular note of the change in group size when it was asterisked that different boxes where used. I don't want to disagree with the scribe, but any group larger than 8 inches wouldn't be considered sniper accuracy. But the 10 inches at 500 yards would be considered accurate enough to get the job done out to that range. It almost goes without saying that all of the group sizes would have probably been tighter when the ammunition was first produced.


----------



## Josh Smith

M118LR said:


> Thank you Josh. It is quite an interesting article/shooting test. Perhaps there are some typo's? I can understand that 4 inches at 200 yards can equate to 10 inches at 500 yards, but how can the group size reduce to 7 inches at 600 yards with the same rifle and ammunition? The test results definitively display the effects of time upon the quality of ammunition. Take particular note of the change in group size when it was asterisked that different boxes where used. I don't want to disagree with the scribe, but any group larger than 8 inches wouldn't be considered sniper accuracy. But the 10 inches at 500 yards would be considered accurate enough to get the job done out to that range. It almost goes without saying that all of the group sizes would have probably been tighter when the ammunition was first produced.


Pulling down surplus ammo generally finds you with different weights in both bullets and charges in 7.62x54r surplus.

I'm not 100% certain if a special sniper's ammo was used in PU snipers. I don't _think_ it was, but my memory's foggy on that so I won't say with certainty.

I do know that we, the US, shipped lots of IMR powder (4895, I think) to the USSR during WWII.

You might consider that the Finns did make quality ammo, and they required the ammo/rifle combination hold 1.3moa or so to be issued. Granted, the M39 had a new barrel that was slightly heavier than the Russian Mosins. Still, the 91/30 barrels stabilized well with wrap and/or shimming.

I think there were a couple differences in making snipers. First, we (and presumably the Germans) tried to build sniper rifles from standard rifles. The Russians selected Mosins which were already proven to be precise, and made them even more so. That would explain a lot: Cherry picking the rifles first. I can't find any reference to the US doing that to build the M1903a3.

A second item of interest is that the separate bolt head of the Mosin-Nagant allows the lugs to make even contact (given a true bolt face!) With Mauser actions, you must lap the lugs to get equal contact.

Regards,

Josh


----------



## M118LR

One of the biggest problems was our governments decision to abolish the sniper programs at the end of every War. It wasn't until the USMC began creating the M40 during Nam that snipers had rifles specifically designed to their tasking, and our government didn't repeat the mistakes of the past. While there is much in print about the accuracy specifications of today's sniper rifles, from what little hands on knowledge I have had, I can assure you that 0.5 MOA or better can be expected. The continued evolution of the US Sniper Programs has led to advances that couldn't even be considered during the WW eras. The precision rifles fielded by the troops today would have had every WW Sniper Standing in line begging to get their hands on one. While the Mosin-Mauser debate rattles on, Neither has found it's way back on to the Battlefield. Guess that stands as testament to modern manufacturing and technical improvement.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper

Josh Smith said:


> I'm not 100% certain if a special sniper's ammo was used in PU snipers. I don't _think_ it was, but my memory's foggy on that so I won't say with certainty.


During the Great Patriotic War (WWII to us) the Russians did not generally use special ammo for snipers...

The Mosin sniper rifles were regular-production guns that were test-fired and found to be particularly accurate, then modified into PE or PU sighted sniper's.

Of course, there were a LOT of Mosin sniper rifles made... it's by far the largest production of any sniper rifle, ever... not even close.


----------



## Camel923

S and P is 100% correct. WW2 Springfield 03 snipers were just pulled off the line and had a scope added. No testing.


----------

