It's commen for Mosin Nagant's to shoot high. Why?

[Ron3]

I don't know if this for M44's and M38's like what I have, or all Mosin-Nagants. But I've read from a few sources it's common for them to shoot a foot high or more at 100yds.

Why?

Common fixes are to drill and tap adjustment into the front sight or attach something (like wire insulation) over the front post to make it taller.

Why do they shoot so high and is there a better way to fix this problem?

Ron3

[Rick O'Shay]

I disagree with the "high at 100 yards" idea. I have owned four M-Ns and none of them has shot high. All have been on-target, although one was not too accurate. It still averaged at the bull.

There's a natural rise of the projectile, so that the round will rise somewhat on the way to its target. I just read "One shot, one kill", and one of the snipers noted that the .308 round will rise 15 feet on the way to its target at 1,000 yards. Just a matter of physics. But the .308s I've shot are still pretty well on the sight trail at 100 yards.

[97guns]

most milsurps are set up for 2 and 300 yard "battlefield" ranges

[sharpshooter]

No, Mosins all have adjustable rear sights for elevation. Some military rifles have a "battle" setting for 200 or 300 meters, most Mosins have a sight latter from 100 meters to 1000 meters.

I have two Mosins and both shoot about 14" high at 100 yards, as do most I've ever heard of. Perhaps the old surplus ammo has aged a little. Mine shoot way high with both light ball AND heavy ball.

[MrMurphy]

Mosin-Nagants were sighted in and fired with the bayonet pretty much permanently in the attached position, and this does mess with your shooting.

That's why a lot of them shoot high with the bayonet gone.

[paccw]

Very easy fix I did to 3 guns.

1 remover front sight,drift with punch and hammer.
2 stand the sight upright in a vise and drive the pin straight out the bottom(very easy)
3 get a finish nail(small nail head) and cut about 1/8" longer and place in snug.The right dia. nail fits great.You may have to file or mushroom the nail head some to get it to fit flush to the sightbase,but once it's back in the gun it will stay tight.
4 reblue or paint black if you like(I blued mine and they look nice).

[Ron3]

My Mosin is an M38, which was never equipped with a bayonet.

The rear sight is adjustable for 100-1000 meters. I was firing it at the 100 meter setting and shot over a foot high at 200yds.

The ammo was new Wolf 148gr, not surplus. Basically my 100 meter setting is more like a 300 meter setting.

Thanks for the nail idea paccw.

Another idea I thought of was to remove material from the underneath the REAR sight tang, thus lowering it. This would be inconspicuous too.

I still wonder what the real reason is. Why would Russia refurb and store all these guns knowing they would shoot way over the enemies heads?

[sharpshooter]

The M38 is just a cut-down M91/30, right? So it DID used to wear a bayonett. But it does not come with a bayo in the M38 configuration that I am aware of.

[Rigormootis]

No, the M38 is not a cut 91/30 (you're thinking of what is known as a 91/38 I believe *hang on to this if you have one of these cut-downs as they aren't that common and are generally regarded as nice shooters). The M38 preceeded the M44 as a rear-guard rifle. Many M38s "wear" M44 stocks as the M44 was much more common.

7.62x54r.net has all the info you will ever need to know about MNs. It's an exceptional info source.

[Rigormootis]

Also, FWIW, I endorse the "nail idea" and know that it works well, but you can also buy taller front sight tips from http://www.tngunparts.com/ (at least I know they have K31 and M39 tips). Personally, I have a hard time justifying such things on a $100 rifle.

[sharpshooter]

Oops, your correct. The M38 never wore a bayonett since it was intended for troops at the rear.

[milsurp]

"No, the M38 is not a cut 91/30 (you're thinking of what is known as a 91/38 I believe"

Not trying to be an arse, but I believe those are 91/59's. They have a little thicker barrel having been cut down, and most are said to have a better trigger. Never fondled one though.

[Rigormootis]

No "arseness" perceived! :) I knew "91/38" didn't look right but was too lazy to look up to be sure. Thanks for the fact-check!

:beer:

[Ron3]

Okay, I've modified my relatives (he won't sell it to me, just says I'm welcome to use it) M38 rear sight.

If I were going to make the front post taller, I think the nail solution is best, but it is more work and the windage is currently perfect and I don't want to mess with it by removing the front sight.

Instead I looked to lower the rear sight.

Looking at the box that slides on the rear sight I noticed the top portion is tapered at the front, the bottom side is not. I wondered if it was installed upside down. So I removed the rear sight tang to turn it around.

I could turn it over but the peices inside that lock it in place on the ramp would not lock. I tried putting them in in different ways but it isn't possible. The clever Russkies designed it so it only goes on ONE way for it to work properly. I reinstalled it the way it was before, which is a pain because the flat spring under the rear sight is quite strong!

My next idea was just to remove material under the sliding block so it was tapered like on the top. I used a dremel tool for this. It's tough steel and it took longer than I thought it would.

I would see how it looked, shave more material, repeat.

When I felt a big difference had been made (This rifle shot over a foot high at 200yds with the rear sight at the 100m setting) I stopped. Then I noticed that the last little bit I had just done didn't matter because the flat spring under the sight tang would not let the sight go low enough for the block to contact the ramp.

So I can just barely see light under the rear sight when it's set for 100m. The rear sight doesn't begin to ride up the ramp until it's at the 300yds setting. Essentially what I've done is made a "battle" setting good for 0-300m.

I'm hoping it lowers the bullets enough. I think it will. If they are too low (Highly doubtfull) I can gently trim some off the front sight post while at the range. I don't think this will be neccesary though. I think it's going to be fine now.

When I get to the range I'll report back if anyone is interested.

Oh, I also cleaned up and re-blued the area under I trimmed on the rear sight.

Ron3

[Squaw Man Wolfer]

I have never owned a MN, but have fired one or two, borrowed at public ranges.

The answer to your original question has to do with the tactical needs of the time and place when these weapons were developed. In the late 19th century and into the 20th, most machine guns were on wheels or tripods and were too heavy to displace forward in the attack. Also, in the service of colonial empires, wheeled or caisson mounted weapons often had to be left behind due to mountainous terrain, rivers to be forded, no road network.

This meant that the basic rifle had to pretty much get ALL the job done, had a far wider tasking, including effective long range fire. The development of the modern day assault rifle now focuses on a higher volume of fire at much closer effective ranges, because various crew served weapons are available to handle the long range mission.

These rifles were pretty much zeroed to hit within a mans torso out to say four hundred meters. Being able to sight dead on at 100 meters was not thought important.

You have a similar situation with most Mausers.

[Ron3]

So they set it up that the 100 meter, 200 meter, and 300 meter settings were all way high but when you get to the 400 meter setting is shoots to point of aim?

That doesn't make any sense.

:headscratch:

Ron3

[TKM]

I want some of them magic gravity-defying bullets that naturally rise.:upeyes:

[Squaw Man Wolfer]

Originally posted by Ron3
So they set it up that the 100 meter, 200 meter, and 300 meter settings were all way high but when you get to the 400 meter setting is shoots to point of aim?

That doesn't make any sense.

:headscratch:

Ron3


This is called a combat zero. The idea was that, up to certain ranges, the soldier does not have to make a range estimate, (which is a difficult skill anyway), under pressure of combat. The human torso is about 2 by 3 feet. If you aim center of mass, you will hit still hit high on the chest anyway at 100 meters. The bullet will still strike low on torso out to say, low on the torso out to say, 300 meters.

This is not a perfect solution, but good enough in that many soldiers in mass armies are not that good riflemen in the first place.

It is frustrating to a lot of us who do our shooting on 100 yard local ranges.

Hunters do this on a smaller scale. If you have a flat shooting rifle, you know that your bullet will strike out to say 300 yards, and hit heart / lungs area on a deer.

[Ron3]

Okay but why would they bother marking and ramping the sight for 100-1000 meters if it was useless?

Why not just have a battle setting at the rear that was good for say 0-400 meters and then have 500-1000 meters increments further up.

[Squaw Man Wolfer]

Originally posted by Ron3
Okay but why would they bother marking and ramping the sight for 100-1000 meters if it was useless?

Why not just have a battle setting at the rear that was good for say 0-400 meters and then have 500-1000 meters increments further up.


Excellent point! The modern flat shooting M-16 basically does this, by giving you a short range and a long range option.

As to the specific markings on the MG, I don't have a perfect answer, but we may be shooting a different bullet weight/cartridge than from what was milspec at their time.

And their decision may be not have been perfect. I'm just explaining why a lot of these old rifles shoot high at 100 meters, not that I agree with it.

Also, remember, no matter how good our range estimation/sight adjust ment skills may be on a civilian range, their method may be best for us as well when you are shooting for real at people who are shooting back.

BTW, green troops are notorious for shooting high, anyway.

also, range markings on an old military rifle may reflect more sales/marketing concepts, rather than real world performance. Can't say for sure, but just a thought.

[MrMurphy]

Rather like the 500-800m sight markings on a shoulder-stocked Mauser Broomhandle pistol....... or a stocked Browning Hi-Power 9mm.

Although having shot a Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk1 and a Mauser Gewehr 98kb (not a 98K, WW1 issue) at 900+ yards at a truck-sized (or platoon sized target given the nature of the weapon) and hitting what I aimed at every time, long range mass fire would be fairly effective, just as much as grazing fire etc with an LMG like an M240. This was from the sitting position, no sling, just original aperature sights, in one case circa 1943, the other, circa 1918, so 60-80 years old.

[LonghornGlock]

TKM, they are the new -negative 180 grain bullets. Since they're lighter than air they will rise 15 feet, hang a left, then a right, pick up your groceries, check in on Ma for ya and then hit their target.;)

[W Turner]

Another option would be to try a Mojo sight. It is a ghost ring sight that replaces the rear. There is enough adjustment built in to account for the high shooting. The M44's are usually the worst about this.

I replaced the rear sight on my M44 with one and it made a worl of difference in the elevation. I still shoot with the bayo extended because it reduces the groups by half, but the elevation is better with the new sight.

www.mojosights.com

I think that's the right website.

Bull