TexasCHLforum.com

KD5NRH wrote:

NcongruNt wrote:Here's me and my 91/30 at the range. If you look closely at the second image, you can see that the gun is recoiling:

How much difference does the bayonet make in the aim on those two? I haven't gotten my M44 out on the long range yet, but even at 40yds I see a bit of a change. I'm thinking about getting a 91/30 to go with it soon.

The difference is more significant on the M44 than it is on the 91/30. I don't usually shoot the 91/30 with the bayonet affixed, simply because it's such an incredible pain to get on and off. It's sighted at 100y without the bayonet and is consistent. The bayonet doesn't seem to really make a large difference on this gun like the M44.

My Polish M44 is a lightweight in recoil, compared to my Steyr M95/34 (8x56R).

I've been told that the M44 was "designed" to shoot with the bayonet extended and is more accurate that way. I have an M44, a 91/30, and an older Dragoon that was rearsenaled with a 91/30 stock. I love these guns! Well, "love" may be a little strong for an inanimate object, but I like em, I like em alot! I let my 21 year old son shoot them using 147 gr milsurp ammo and he acted like he had been hit with a 20# sledge hammer. Let's just say he's not as crazy about them as I am.

I think next on my list is a Barrett M82A1. I wonder how he'll like shooting that?

rodnocker1 wrote:I've been told that the M44 was "designed" to shoot with the bayonet extended and is more accurate that way.

Anybody out there know the science behind this?

I tried it on my M44 a couple of years ago and noticed a significant difference with the bayonet extended. The point of impact moved closer to the point of aim and the group size was reduced a lot at 50 yds. You may get some strange looks at a public range with a long spike bayonet extended.

Lodge2004 wrote:

rodnocker1 wrote:I've been told that the M44 was "designed" to shoot with the bayonet extended and is more accurate that way.

Anybody out there know the science behind this?

I tried it on my M44 a couple of years ago and noticed a significant difference with the bayonet extended. The point of impact moved closer to the point of aim and the group size was reduced a lot at 50 yds. You may get some strange looks at a public range with a long spike bayonet extended.

I assume that the extra weight would act like a bull barrel and stabilize the gun more.

What I don't understand about the Mosin rifles is why they are supposed to be such beasts to fire, when the round has the approximate ballistics of a .30-06 in a rifle roughly the size and weight of an '03-A3 Springfield, which has no such reputation as does the Mosin.

Can somebody enlighten me?

Lodge2004 wrote: Anybody out there know the science behind this?

The extended bayonet helps the barrel harmonics.

Here are some still vid frames of my M38 from yesterday:

The Annoyed Man wrote:What I don't understand about the Mosin rifles is why they are supposed to be such beasts to fire, when the round has the approximate ballistics of a .30-06 in a rifle roughly the size and weight of an '03-A3 Springfield, which has no such reputation as does the Mosin.

Can somebody enlighten me?

I can't tell you exactly why. Part of it is the way they're built. They much heftier than most of their caliber-equivilent counterparts. My experience is limited to the Mosin-Nagant, the K31, and the .303 Enfield. The most recent comparison I can give is between the Enfield and the Mosin-Nagant. While the Enfield has a pronounced kick, I think it is due to its lighter weight. It's both sharper and actually has a little bit of muzzle flip. The Mosin-Nagant's kick is more blunt and completely rearward-traveling. Add the fact that the stock butt is capped with a steel plate, and you get a pretty stiff kick.

I don't know anything about the loadings, but the 7.62x54R round was designed for the M1891. One reason I think the Mosin-Nagants are known to be fiery (as you can see in the post above this one) is that the M38 and M44 are cut-down versions of the 1891 and 91/30. The shortened barrel length of these rifles is likely the key contributing factor for their notorious muzzle flash.

NcongruNt wrote:I can't tell you exactly why. Part of it is the way they're built. They much heftier than most of their caliber-equivilent counterparts.

I think the perceived recoil may also be partly the fault of the long take up on the trigger; more time to anticipate the kick makes it seem worse when it happens. If I ever get around to cutting some shims and improving that, I'll see if it makes a difference in the psychological aspect.

I don't know anything about the loadings, but the 7.62x54R round was designed for the M1891.

That's one of the reasons I want the full-length critter; most of the load data I've seen is for the long barrel, andmakes fireballs like that or even bigger. I'm working down a couple of loads to see if there's a point where I get less fire but still good accuracy.