Talk:Mosin–Nagant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accuracy of combat and effectiveness of fire (Кучность боя и эффективность огня)[edit]

Is it worth transferring (and translating) this chapter from the article in the Russian Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.108.78 (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rifles mod. 1891 and 1891/30 were high-precision weapons that allow you to confidently hit a single target at a distance of up to 400 m, with a sniper using optics - up to 800 m; group target - at a distance of up to 800 m.

The table below shows the results of firing from an ordinary copy of the rifle arr. 1891/30 light bullet mod. 1908 with an initial speed of 865 m / s. The median deviation is half the width of the central scatter band, containing 50% of all hits.

Median deviations, cm:
Distance by height lateral
100 3 2
200 4 4
300 6 6
400 8 8
500 11 10
600 14 13
700 17 17
800 21 20
900 26 24
1000 33 29
1100 39 36
1200 46 42
1300 56 49
1400 65 56
1500 75 65
1600 88 75
1700 100 88
1800 120 100
1900 150 120
2000 170 150

In 1946, a veteran of the Great Patriotic War, senior sergeant Nemtsev, developed a method of high-speed rifle fire. At the range of the Ryazan Infantry School, he managed to fire 53 aimed shots per minute from a rifle from a distance of 100 meters at a chest target, hitting it with 52 bullets. In the future, Nemtsev's high-speed shooting method became widespread among the troops.

Mosin sniper rifles of pre-war production were distinguished by amazing, by the standards of their time, the quality of combat, largely due to the barrel with a choke (narrowing of the channel from the treasury to the muzzle), with a difference in diameters at the breech and muzzle parts by 2-3%. When fired from such a barrel, the bullet is additionally compressed, which does not allow it to "walk" along the bore.

Design[edit]

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)[reply]

It feeds from a single stack magazine which is loaded using stripper clips, not so unusual. Or am I misunderstanding your question?Bigyaks (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The usual single stack or double stack magazine loaded via stripper clips has the column of cartridges bearing against the bottom of the bolt under pressure of the magazine spring; drag on the bolt by magazine spring pressure changes as cartridges are fed from the magazine from first to last. The Nagant system is "peculiar and idiosyncratic" in that the top cartridge in the magazine is never under magazine spring pressure and the magazine spring exerts no drag on bolt operation; any cartridges below the top cartridge are under magazine spring pressure, but are held down by the "interruptor-ejector" (aka "distributor ejector" or "cartridge valve-ejector"). WHB Smith "Small Arms of the World" 1966 observed "No other [bolt-action] rifle needs or uses this device." The interruptor releases one cartridge at a time to lie loosely in the feedway as the bolt is operated; this allows consistent feed pressure from first to last shot. The Nagant system appears unique among commonly accepted bolt action rifle designs. (Most tube fed lever and pump action rifles and shotguns also use a magazine interruptor (aka "shell stop") so that the cartridge on the cartridge lifter/carrier is not under magazine spring pressure during the feed cycle. Mosin-Nagant is the only widely distributed bolt action rifle to use this feature.) -- Naaman Brown (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism[edit]

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)[reply]

Uhh. . . Under "initial designs and trials" there seems to be some guy talking about CoD WaW, so I'm just gonna go ahead and remove that. Sorry dude, I got a 1.81 K/D ratio with it. Futuramarama (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. ROG5728 (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proper pronunciation[edit]

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)[reply]

ive heard it been prnouced Moi-saaan Nagant "moi-zan" is usually used by folks who like to sound like they know what they're talking about. A native speaker will say MO-seen Nagan. (I differ with the author above who stresses the second syllable of "Mosin".) - Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabatuckian (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen Mosin "transliterated" as Moisin occassionally; that's probably repeating some obscure source. There are a few of us who shoot Mosin-Nagants in the vintage militray rifle matches; I usually say Moe-seen nah-Gahn and straying too far from standard Russian-French earns snickers.
That's funny, because in French, "oi" is pronounced in a really special way. Imagine pronouncing "Mosin" as "Muh-ahsin".
>The problem comes from Anglophonic tendency to stress the "T" syllable in most words

An Anglo would pretty much pull "a bo'oh o' wo'er" tier "T". However, "Nagant" spelling feels like "Borscht" spelling to a Russian: "hey! where's the "T" comes from?! There's no "tee" in "Nagan"! 81.89.66.133 (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say I agree with Google Translate's variant: MO-sin 81.89.66.133 (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed[edit]

"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).[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't have a citation for this, and I'm not the one who originally put this claim in the article, but I own this rifle and it is true that it fires much more accurately with the bayonet extended. Trevorzink (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, folks, it's true. When fired, a barrel vibrates, and this vibration is known as barrel harmonics. It's something we strive to reduce, or at least make consistent, so the bullet exits the muzzle at the same point as the last one. Imagine a 3-D sine wave; that's what it looks like. Sort of like a slinky. One approach to reducing harmonics is to add weight at the end. A bayonet accomplishes this, though rather crudely. (Reference BOSS system and bughole system, both of which are modern themes of the same concept; also, heavy target barrels and Limbsaver's barrel harmonic resonance reducer). This is not the real reason the bayonet works, however. Russian (and later, Soviet) military doctrine was such that the bayonet was to almost always be affixed unless in storage, and they were sighted in with the bayonet in place. Given that anything hanging from the barrel with mess with the harmonics -- whether it be a bayonet, sound suppressor ("silencer"), or flash suppressor or muzzle brake -- the point of impact will change. Accuracy may or may not be affected itself. I'll correct this later, or someone can polish it up and insert it, free use ya'll. - Josh, Friday, May 13, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabatuckian (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the "citation needed" concerning the fit and finish of the wartime production round-receiver Mosins: I own in excess of a dozen Mosin Nagants of various models. The difference between the workmanship of the prewar rifles and the wartime production rifles is so obvious even a firearms virgin can see the difference. The wartime rifles have both internal and external tool marks. The boltways have been so poorly finished on occasion that I have had to file and polish them to get the bolt to cycle smoothly. Every wartime production Mosin I have encountered has had to have the trigger and the sear worked on to smooth it out. This fit and finish issue it known to every Mosin shooter in the United States. Just what does Wikipedia want: photographs of peacetime 91/30s versus wartime 91/30s? The situation was so extreme that after the war the Red Army re-arsenaled millions of the 91/30s to restore them and remove the tool marks before soaking them in cosmoline and storing them against future need. A further contrast can be had comparing the reworked Model 91/59s with the wartime rifles. Again, the contrast is obvious to the naked eye, much less the gauges used by gunmakers and gunsmiths. 98.229.188.174 (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Their Policy (aka the "Almighty WP:GOD") is that you have to find a BOOK, where someone else (who must know what he's talking about, or he wouldn't have wrote a book, right???) says what you already know, because Wiki policy is that it's not a "fact" unless you can cite it has having been published by a "reputable source" (if you don't happen to personally own every book you ever read, you're out of luck), even if you're (for example) a gunsmith/historian who has specialized in Moisin-Nagants for 50 years, and even if what the page says is blatantly and obviously wrong, both to people who know anything about the subject and even plain common sense. A while back, I was reading a page that stated something that was clearly wrong in the light of the fact that every photograph on the page showed it to be so. but I couldn't change it because I didn't have a book on hand detailing the armament of Japanese battleships in WWII, and trusting my own counting ability is considered "original research". Better to leave it wrong than to do that! And of course, never mind that there's no proof that the book that was originally cited actually DOES say what the contributing editor claims it did. But no, it's got a citation, it's "fact", regardless of what you can clearly see with your own eyes. I guess you've just got to become an author then. But wait...can't cite your own work. Oops.

I recently saw an article about a well known novel where the AUTHOR of the novel tried to make a correction to the section about what the book was supposed to symbolize, because someone had wrote what they had read in some book, which the author said was completely wrong. They reverted it, and told him he couldn't change it unless he could "prove it" by citing a another book, written by a different man, which agreed with him. Kind of ridiculous. If the guy who wrote the book isn't the ultimate authority on what the underlying message is supposed to be, I don't know who is. I begin to think that most editors these days spend most of their time going around and reverting 9/10ths of what they see and citing arcane WP:WTF? policies rather than actually contributing anything. Kind of scary to think that if there is X hundred-million pages on Wikipedia, how many more pages worth of text must have been instantly reverted without reading past "oops, no citation". And then you see entire pages that someone just tagged "this page lacks citations" and left there. Okay...so that's all right then? I understand... As far as "citing" books because they are infallible, that's a joke. I have a book here that's supposed to be by "two outstanding firearms experts" which plainly states that "the M1 Carbine is the carbine version of the M1 Garand rifle", which everyone who knows anything at ALL about guns knows is utter bullshit (for that matter, the M1 helmet is not the "helmet version" of the M1 Garand either). I keep getting this urge to go to the page on M1 Carbine and write that it's "the carbine version of the M1 Garand", and slap a great big old "reference" on it as a big "Fuck You!" and to make a point. Hey, it says right here in the book...must be true! You can't delete it, it's got a reference now, and that makes it a fact!

Saw a news story recently, where three middle-school girls decided they'd set up a lemonade stand to make some spending money over vacation. The police showed up a day later, and told them they had to shut it down because they didn't have a business license in the town ($100 a day, cheap!). Much better to teach the lil rugrats they'd better go ask for allowance instead. People complained that cops don't need to enforce EVERY bullshit technical law they see broken. They said they "had to be consistent", which is a joke, because they aren't, and they constantly speed and park illegally themselves. They just made the world a little worse because they couldn't use a little common sense. I think that if no one complained about the lemonade stand, the cops could have just ignored it, for the better of the community. I would think that it would be possible for an editor once in a while to pretend he hadn't seen something ("ah, but woulds't thou have us risk the fearsome wrath of Almighty WP:GOD, and risk being WP:DAMNED to the pits of WP:HELL for sundering His Great Laws?!", I hear them cry). Especially in light of the fact that plenty of "referenced" statements are just original research that someone just slapped the name of some book under, trusting that no one is ever going to call them on it. Thus it becomes "fact" and is read and believed by thousands of people each day. I know it's true, because I tried it to see if anyone would call me on it (they didn't; I deleted it a month later. And what I wrote was true, just not the book I supposedly read it in). Personally, I have a problem with that..45Colt 12:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weights intended to dampen harmonic vibrations to improve accuracy in terms of bullet group size are usually more solidly attached than a Mosin rifle bayonet. I shoot a 91/30 and a Type 53 Mosin just fine w/o bayonet and have them zeroed w/o bayonet (the sights are adjustable, folks); a fellow vintage military shooter shoots his M1944 Mosin with bayonet extended since that was the way it was when the arsenal zeroed the sights and he doesn't want to rezero for bayonet folded. I accept that 91/30 with bayonet attached/unttached or M1944 with bayonet folded/unfolded may have a different POI Point Of Impact; I have not seem significant changes in group size which is the purpose of tuning harmonic vibration of a barrel. Most folks intending to tune harmonic vibration of the 91/30 barrel to reduce group size use cork gasket material around the barrel at the points where the barrel bands bind the stock and handguard together; they don't add weights to the muzzle. Of course, this may be dismissed as Original Research, small sample size and will be trumped by a published source (but I have found a lot of published gun writing has the authority of a barbershop war-story, that is, caveat lector). -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1891/1895[edit]

Where did this 1895 date come from? did they decide to not use the first for years worth of receivers for some reason? I know it to be false because i have a 1891 tikka on tula right here. indy_muaddib (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reference and make the changes. It's not what you know, it's what you can provide a reference for. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If pat Burns didnt delete his pages after selling his guns id have a perfect page for it. as is all i could do would be to take a picture of my 1970 built tikka B barrel on 1891 Tula and give it to the guy over at 7.62x54r.net. but since that would be original research it probably wouldn't help much would it?

i have an easier idea, find where the information is that states they didnt use receivers before 1895 so i can get ahold of the webmaster there, show he is wrong, have him change it then be able to use him as a verifiable reference. indy_muaddib (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps not usable for reference but here is a Finn built on Chatellerault 1892 - 1893. http://parallaxscurioandrelicfirearmsforums.yuku.com/topic/25340/t/Mystery-1896-Chatellerault-receiver.html indy_muaddib (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Though it's no longer on here, I'm noting for future reference that many folks refer to the Mosin-Nagant as simply "Nagant" (which is interesting given that Nagant's name is not allowed to be pronounced in Russia, due to the lawsuit; they are simply Мосина.

The 1895 Nagant was the military service revolver. 1895 has to do with the introduction of a pistol and nothing to do with the rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabatuckian (talk • contribs) 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

arshin[edit]

not sure about "arshins" arshin is the plural arshini is the singular —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.213.140 (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arshini is plural. — Robert Greer (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refinement and production section[edit]

I added a subheading for Nagant's legal dispute since it seemed like a distinct topic under the history heading. This section seems like it needs a lot of work, though. Citations, style editing, etc. Trevorzink (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effective range[edit]

There has been some dispute regarding effective range of the Mosin-Nagant, I myself have seen a professional military sniper shooting accurately until targets started being beyond 800m, the rifle in question was Tkiv-85, a modern sniper rifle using original receivers from Mosin-Nagants, as most, if not all, Mosin-Nagant variants were designed to be used by military, my opinion is that effective range is the distance from which a skilled sniper can hit a human-size target without issues, there are many cases where kills have been made from 2000m+ with rifle that according to manufacturer has effective range of 1500m and even the snipers who can pull this off say that the effective range is 1500m. Ape89 (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Konigsberg snipers.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Konigsberg snipers.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nagant's Legal Dispute[edit]

This section is in need of citations and sourcing. There are no references in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.88.233 (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Influence from Berdan?[edit]

[1] Captain Sergei Ivanovich Mosin's rifle was an evolutionary development of the Model 1870 Berdan II rifle. He had begun his experiments to improve the Berdan II in 1882, by placing an 8 shot magazine on the rifle's stock. I don't know how true this is. Anybody can confirm this? Komitsuki (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a evolutionary leap with missing links. The Russian adopted Berdan II was a single shot bolt action; the Krnka quick-loader (mentioned in WHB Smith, "Small Arms of the World") was simply a block attached to the gun to hold extra cartridges for hand feeding one at a time. There were arsenal prototypes that were magazine fed, but those were experimental only. There is nothing in common between the Berdan and Mosin action designs other than the general principle of bolt operation which they share with the Dreyse needle gun, Mauser 98 and every other bolt action rifle. It is more like Mosin got frustrated trying to improve the Berdan and created a revolutionary different design to replace it. Evolutionary designs would be the 1903 Springfield and Pattern 14 Enfield both directly developed from the Mauser 98. I would prefer though to find a source, like a journal or memoir, citing Mosin himself. --Naaman Brown (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, this does not prevent it from being written at the beginning of the page that Mosin was inspired by Winchester. There is undoubtedly a huge similarity... in only that both are rifles.

hex-o-matic[edit]

I replaced all the hex references in the article, save the explanatory one. I know it's a common term, but it is technically wrong. If anyone has any strong feelings to the contrary, change it back. I just thought as an encyclopedia article, the correct terminology should be used. Mongoosander (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME can be used to argue validity, one way or the other. Personally, it might be more informative to the reader to specify that while there are receivers that are commonly known as hex receivers, the receivers are actually octogonal. It might even be nice to find out why they are referred to as hex versus octogonal and provide that information to the reader. Aneah|talk to me 19:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point. Based on WP:COMMONNAME I'm inclined to start using the hex term, and my search on the internet indicated that the term has become widely accepted. The article does mention the shape/name difference, but short of using original research I couldn't try and explain a definitive reason. Mongoosander (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a "hex" receiver Mosin rifle 91/30 the receiver dated 1926. The front of the receiver does appear from the top to be octagonal with five flat sides visible; however, when you take the gun out of the stock, there are not three bottom flats to the receiver to make eight sides: the bottom of the receiver is rounded. So that makes "six" sides: five flats and a curve, not a true hexagon but six sided and not an octagon. --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC) edited, updated 15 Sep 2021[reply]

Section on history and design, legal battles needs cleanup.[edit]

The whole section on the history, design, and the legal battles with Nagant needs cleanup. It's hard to understand and follow, and doesn't seem to follow any kind of cohesive structure. I would attempt this myself, but I'm not even sure I understand what it's saying. I'd be afraid to fix it and end up presenting it wrong. For example, they should explain why it's called the Moisin-Nagant and not the Moisin FIRST, instead of leaving you wondering "WTF?" for several paragraphs. More explanation of what parts Nagant contributed would be nice; I'd always read that it was called "Moisin-Nagant" for similar reasons to the "Lee-Enfield", (I assume that many people will be approaching the article with the same misapprehensions, as it is commonly stated in various literature); it makes it even more difficult to follow the article, and it was only with a certain amount of difficulty that I decided it's saying that it's really a "Moisin" rifle, and they just tagged on "Nagant" for political reasons. Saying that first off would have been helpful. More detail about these "interupters" would be helpful as well, so the reader doesn't have to take the articles word that they were "un-necessary" pieces. Sounds pretty important, if they keep the rifle functioning properly. Also makes me wonder, is this viewpoint biased, or do other people still argue that Nagants name deserves to belong on the rifle? Because it sounds like they are strenuously insisting that it doesn't, which makes one suspect that others disagree..45Colt 12:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going to be working on the cleanup over the winter, including proper russian pronunciation. I just added an "In Popular Culture" section as well to reference the use of Mosin Nagants in video games (the Metal Gear Series) and movies (Enemy At The Gates". Thoughts? XxTheEndxx (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)The End[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mosin–Nagant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poland and Mosin[edit]

Poland at this moment do not use Mosins at ceremonial purposes. At this moment only SKS are used, but them are goint to be replaced with one of the MSBS versions.

More vandalism?[edit]

I'd assumed it was someone's honest mistake, but notice that there is a mention of another possible vandalsim involving ridiculous numbers for bullet diameters. The section on the Finnish rifles says that: 

  "Handloaded cartridges for Finnish rifles should however use a 2.8 millimetres (0.11 in) bullet for use with other Finnish Mosin–Nagant variants instead of the 2.9 millimetres (0.11 in) one which gives best results in M39, Soviet and most of other Mosin–Nagant rifles."

Obviously a rifle that fires 7.62mm/.30cal does not take 2.8mm/.11in bullets. I could see making a single mistake entering information, but two in a row? And it's two large to mean differences in bullet sizes; bullet size differences are in thousands of an inch, fractions of a millimeter. Neither .28mm nor 28mm makes any sense no matter how you look at it. I think I will just remove the offending passage until this can be resolved. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications[edit]

Hey, added some info about after market modifications to the page (beyond that of scout scope modifications) along with the accompanying links. Any thoughts on those? This is my first legit edit and I want to make sure it's quality work. I also plan on talking in length about the Archangel stock and it's removable magazine capability. XxTheEndxx (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)The End[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mosin–Nagant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mosin vs Mosin-Nagant[edit]

This was probably already discussed very many times, but why is "Mosin-Nagant" used all over the article (and even as its title) instead of just "Mosin", while even the article itself says it is a misnomer? 185.150.154.39 (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • I do believe it's a mistake ('7.62'x54R Mosin rifle were adopted ALONGSIDE WITH '7.62'x25 Nagant revolver) 81.89.66.133 (talk)

Mosin-Nagant is the common name of the rifle in the English-speaking word. BlednyBerkut (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, it's like "Borscht" with that "-tee" that isn't supposed to be pronounced.
Also, Nagant revolver isn't 7.62x25, it's 7.62x38. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it's pronounced Neigh-gun in America, as it can be found here. Please remove the advertised surname since that's not the correct way to pronounce that Français excuisite surname. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To the comments above. You didn't understand the question at all. I asked not how to pronounce "Nagant", but why it is ever mentioned in the name of the weapon. Why not just "Mosin rifle", without "Nagant"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.137.7.11 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Mosin–Nagant[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mosin–Nagant's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Capie":

  • From Bren light machine gun: Capie, David (2004). Under the Gun: The Small Arms Challenge in the Pacific. Wellington: Victoria University Press. pp. 68–69. ISBN 978-0864734532.
  • From Nagant M1895: Capie, David (2004). Under the Gun: The Small Arms Challenge in the Pacific. Wellington: Victoria University Press. pp. 66–67. ISBN 978-0864734532.
  • From Lee–Enfield: Capie, David (2004). Under the Gun: The Small Arms Challenge in the Pacific. Wellington: Victoria University Press. pp. 66–67. ISBN 978-0-86473-453-2.

Reference named "Walter":

Reference named "Smith":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Mosin–Nagant[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mosin–Nagant's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Mosin–Nagant[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mosin–Nagant's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TG":

Reference named "WG":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee-Enfield Bolt, Does not turn thru 60 degrees but 90, like every other modern bolt rifle.[edit]

Can somebody please change it. It is confusing, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrector2021 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Rate of Fire, wider issue with bolt action rifles[edit]

Should the standard this field be the expected rate of the military issuing the firearm or removed entirely?

I've noticed on some wiki pages like the M1903 Springfield, it notes that the rate of fire "User dependent; usually 15 to 30 rounds per minute", Where as the Lee Enfield has a rate of "20–30 aimed shots per minute". The same story with the Ross Rifle "User Dependent".

The Karabiner 98k neglects the Rate of fire field.

Unless cited should all these Rate of Fire fields be removed? or altered to User Dependent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolframuranium (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, such a thing as "battle fire rate" isn't equal actual fire rate of X rpm; so the field should be blank. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we probably rename it for good measure?[edit]

As mentioned in the article, the colloquial name “Mosin-Nagant” used in the West is persistent but erroneous, as established in Nagant's legal dispute.

Or, to put it simply, monseur Nagant accused Mosin of copying just to get the 100'000 ruble prize. And since Mosin's work was a "secret" military-grade invention, they had to pay Nagant to not worsen the future relations. That's... a rather wonky reason to keep saying Mosin is "mais non, mais non, c'est Mosin-Nagant!" ? 81.89.66.133 (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mosin-Nagant rifled issued to Russian conscripts?[edit]

That's why nobody takes Wikipedia seriously anymore. Should we add to the article about shovels that they were issued to the Russian soldiers too? 5.147.48.134 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mosin–Nagant&oldid=1219102541"