PDA

View Full Version : OT: Russian WWII surplus arms



Stingray-65
05-11-2007, 11:22 AM
Recently I purchased a Mosin Nagant 1891/30 from a local gun shop for $125. It was manufactured by Tula in 1940. Its in mint condition & came with a cleaning rod, bayonette, leather strap & a pouch with all the tools for cleaning it, etc. Unbelievable for a gun thats 67 years old!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Mosin_1891_30_right.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Mosin_1891_30_left.jpg/800px-Mosin_1891_30_left.jpg

There seems to be a good number of these in the same condition being imported into the U.S. What I don't understand is if there were a large number of these sitting in a warehouse somewhere during the war, why were they never issued to troops? We're all familiar with the stories of how the Russians would give a rifle to one soldier & his "partner" was loaded down with ammunition & told to "pick up the gun & shoot!" if the other guy happened to get killed. It just doesn't make any sense to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Stingray-65
05-11-2007, 11:22 AM
Recently I purchased a Mosin Nagant 1891/30 from a local gun shop for $125. It was manufactured by Tula in 1940. Its in mint condition & came with a cleaning rod, bayonette, leather strap & a pouch with all the tools for cleaning it, etc. Unbelievable for a gun thats 67 years old!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Mosin_1891_30_right.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Mosin_1891_30_left.jpg/800px-Mosin_1891_30_left.jpg

There seems to be a good number of these in the same condition being imported into the U.S. What I don't understand is if there were a large number of these sitting in a warehouse somewhere during the war, why were they never issued to troops? We're all familiar with the stories of how the Russians would give a rifle to one soldier & his "partner" was loaded down with ammunition & told to "pick up the gun & shoot!" if the other guy happened to get killed. It just doesn't make any sense to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

PavelKirilovich
05-11-2007, 11:49 AM
Because that only happened once or twice throughout the entire war but propaganda blew it way the Hell out of proportion. It was far more common for every man to get a rifle but only twenty or twenty five rounds of ammunition - "If your buddy gets killed, take his rounds and keep going!"

Just like how "The Russians attack constantly in Human Wave." That's horse****. They didn't - they sent SHTRAFBATII (Punishment Battalions) in human waves, but other than those units they didn't have the shoulder-to-shoulder advances into machinegun fire. Et cetera.

bunkerratt
05-11-2007, 12:06 PM
i own a mosin nagant like that ...wait till you fire the thing ...it should of been classified as a light antitank weapon....the other good thing about it is even if ya miss the target...the noise alone is enough to make the enemy surrender...also get good quality rounds for it ..stay away from cheap corrosive primers ...

Stingray-65
05-11-2007, 12:27 PM
@ PavelKirilovich
Rgrt. That makes way more sense. Especially seeing how propaganda has a nasty habit of getting turned into "fact" somehow. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

@ bunkerratt
Yeah, I know about the cheap ammo (always clean the bore good afterwards with an ammonia-based solvent if you do use it) & I suspected that about the noise when I saw the rounds were 203 grain. I think my 98K Mauser carbine is still louder @ 140 grain ammo.

Foehammer-1
05-11-2007, 01:24 PM
Stingray, you watched WAY too much of that movie about Stalingrad, I forgot the name. And, as PavelKirilivich said, propaganda has a nasty effect of turning into truth over years and years. Communist propaganda has exceeded all standards in that regard, unfortunately. So the origins of most of what we know about the Russian side of the war now is very disputable... Unfortunate, but theres not much we can do now...

As for rifles, we shoot 63-yearold Leenfield rifles at cadets here in Canada. Those we use were made in 1943-1944, and they, too were laying in some warehouse. With the exception of rust on the barrels, they still work... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Stingray-65
05-11-2007, 02:20 PM
@ Foehammer
I think we all know that we can't trust "Hollywood" depictions to be the truth based on their own merrits. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif FYI, it is true that this was depicted in "Enemy At The Gates", but they (the directors, whoever wrote the script, etc.) DID NOT make this up on their own. They got it from other sources as well. In my internet browsing, I have occassionally come across materials mentioning this. Either it being propaganda posters, letters written by soldiers (Note: this could've possibly derived from misinterpretation via translation... a good example put forth above by PavelKirilovich), etc.

*EDIT* And again, FYI, I had heard & read about this long before that movie came out, so my memory was "jogged" by it being in the movie.

Poseidon_142
05-11-2007, 02:28 PM
can any one tell me where I can purchase one of these things online or not?

Celeon999
05-11-2007, 02:39 PM
My K98k is only one year older but was in a much less fine condition.


Took me alot of work and a few spare parts to restaurate it.

It was made at the Mauser weapons factory Berlin-Borsigwalde.

Its not capable of firing anymore, a bolt has been inserted into the chamber so that no rounds can be fed in and several holes were drilled into the barrel (So that you cant see them)

So i can own it without the need for a license.

I have it as decoration hanging above my computer desk.

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/5411/dsc00001nu1.jpg
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6772/pic00028zecj0.jpg

Stingray-65
05-11-2007, 02:46 PM
@ Poseidon_142
You might try these places if you have an FFL license:

http://www.gunbroker.com/

http://www.gunsamerica.com/

@ Foehammer
Sorry if I came on too strong in my last post, but It seemed to me like you thought I was born yesterday. If you put my original question into context, you can see that I was challenging it as a myth. Something like that just defies logic so I was questioning it as truth.

PavelKirilovich's explanation holds more water.

Foehammer-1
05-11-2007, 03:19 PM
Sorry Stingray, but I didn't get much sleep last night http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif As the result, i guess i didnt read your original post carefully enough. Let's be friends http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Stingray-65
05-11-2007, 03:27 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That's OK, Foehammer. I fully understand what lack of sleep can do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kaleun1961
05-11-2007, 03:50 PM
While the "human wave" tactic may not have been doctrine, it was resorted to at times by unimaginative commanders. The Red Army soon learned that having constant oversight by a political commissar resulted in ineptitude in combat. "Human wave" is a bit of a Western concept, in my opinion. Communist armies tended to suffer higher casualties because of their political system's disregard for the value of the individual. The Red Army infantryman didn't have a Congressman he could write to if his unit suffered unusually high casualties due to command incompetence. His commander cared more for the end result than the path to victory in human cost.

This was typified by Zhukov's comment, after the war, to an American general who asked him how they dealt with German minefields. Zhukov's reply was along the lines of "We march across it as if it weren't there. We lose about the same number of men as compared to how many we would have lost had the Germans chosen to defend with men instead of mines." Witness Zhukov's insistence upon reinforcing failure by sending numerous reinforcements to be slaughtered by the German defenders of the Seelow Heights when previous attempts failed. Brute force over finesse, even at that late date of the war. He didn't seem to care about the human toll, as he prevailed in the end. Zhukov could be subtle with limited resources, and demonstrated his competence when the Red Army had its back to the wall at Leningrad and Moscow. But when he had the luxury of plentiful men and equipment, he could also be less imaginative at times.

I have a hard time accepting that a Bradley or Montgomery would have been so bluntly callous in disregard to lost lives of their own men in such a situation. Accounts of high Allied combat deaths in single battles are remarkable for their rarity [i.e. Omaha Beach, Tarawa, Iwo Jima.] Zhukov was being played against Koniev by Stalin for the glory of being the victor of Berlin. It was a prize to be gained at the expense of the ordinary Red Army soldier. Their individual lives were inconsequential in that schema.

Eisenhower, on the other hand, knew that Berlin would be a tough nut to crack and did not relish the job. He would have taken it if he had to, but in the end he figured the amount of human lives to be lost in a pointless battle when the war was just about done were simply not worth it. The Western Allies had defeated the bulk of the Wehrmacht's [Western Front] reserves at the Bulge, then bagged the rest in the Ruhr Pocket. The rest was mere mopping up and a race to the Elbe river. Indeed, some of his armies he had to restrain from further advance. He had no desire to waste lives gaining ground that would just have to be turned over to the Russians anyway. Germany was finished; most of their men knew it and only fought on against the Russians because they knew what was in store for them. While Eisenhower is critcized by some historians for "letting" the Russians have Berlin, I think him wise for realizing that squandering countless lives on a political objective simply wasn't worth it. I think, with the country occupied and Berlin surrounded there was no need to contest each brick and cobble of Berlin. Just keep the siege on wait them out. Probably would have ended up with the same result and fewer lives lost by all sides. Well, that's an opinion I have just thrown in at the last moment; haven't thought all that deeply about that particular point.

Communist China also endured high combat casualties when fighting against the Americans in Korea. Again, lack of tactical imagination made possible by their system's disregard for the welfare of the individual and perhaps necessitated by the peasant army mentality, which tended to discourage initiative on the part of officers and soldiers. I've seen various documentaries and interviews with Marines who were there, and they use the term "human wave" because it was so appropriate. What else would you call a mob charging into massed fire, oblivious to their own losses?

Anyhow, running out of breath now. I sometimes wish we Canucks could have access to firearms sales like the States does. I know that goes against the Canadian religion of gun control and some would label me as "unpatriotic" for holding such views. I'd just like to get my hands on some historical firearms and bang off some rounds on a range. The process up here is so protracted and bureaucratic that it just isn't worth it for a guy who just wants to squirt off a few rounds. I'm not into hunting so have no desire from that point of view. Perhaps on a trip to the States some day I could go to a range and "rent" some fun?

Kaiser_W
05-11-2007, 04:11 PM
I see MS's for sale all the time. I do prefer the Mauser to it though. Mine is a an M48 model from yugoslavia. It's a pleasure to fire.

Stingray-65
05-11-2007, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
Perhaps on a trip to the States some day I could go to a range and "rent" some fun? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure you could & I know you would thoroughly enjoy it. Most of the "walk-in" firing ranges will get you to fill out some paperwork, run a quick check on you through the data-bases to make sure you're not some criminal, assign to a range-master/instructor & off you'd go. Shooting is one of my favorite past-times. Unfortunately these days I don't have as much time or money to go shoot as much as I used to.

Foehammer-1
05-11-2007, 04:16 PM
Kaleun, you are officially my hero now. I was "going" to say something along those lines, but didn't feel liek typing due to the countless typos I keep making due to sleep deprivation (not whining, just an observation).

Not sure if many North Americans heard of him, this guy, Vladimir Rezun, writing under a name Victor Suvorov, published a book recently about Zhukov. He was indeed a very bloody commander, and every soldier knew that if Zhukov is around, only people with limbs blown off will survive, the rest will perish. My dear departed great-grandfather told me that, first-hand experience. But in that book Suvorov gathered a lot, and I mean a LOT of evidence about Zhukov. Stalin, by the way, was going to kill the guy for his WAY too-expressed selfishness. Zhukov made it so he himself was responsible for the victory, and he "forgot" that he sent almost a million (850,000-ish) paratroopers with rifles (no heavy equipment)against tanks during the Kursk Bulge battle, as well as Stalingrad and numerous other occasions. As well as regular infantry.

From my great-grandpas memories. They knew that the Germans were entrenched somewhere up agead. The order came "get up, let's go, for Motherland and comrade Stalin!" Everybody got up and ran for the enemy machinegun position (saving private Ryan-style). He was lucky to survive. BTW, before the war, there was a device known as KT, "Krilya Tanka", aka wings of a tank. Basically a super-high-speed BT-series tank fitted with engine, wings and a tail, transformed into a flying machine. They were not used, but the idea was workable, and there were old pictures of a tank in the air. That's the value of a human life... I personally can't imagine the same thing happening in any other Western army. And I feel really sorry for the people that died so aimlessly, since they were, in fact, from the area I am from...

Newho, that's my history comment. Sorry Stingray for hijacking your thread...

Kaleun1961
05-11-2007, 04:26 PM
There's some bizarre, less known stuff about Red Army history. For example, they used to drop men behind German lines without parachutes. I s-h-@-t you not! This was done in winter, to drop reinforcements and advisors to partisan bands. The idea was for the plane to fly low and slow and to jump into a deep snowbank.

Read some Suvorov. Some of what he wrote at first struck me as fiction, but it isn't. I remember one account of a Red Army tank exercise, where a tank regiment enters a broad river, paddles along the bottom and emerges on the other bank in complete order. This was all filmed and shown to the West to demonstrate how well the Red Army could handle tanks. Suvorov revealed the secret: prior to filming, they placed guide barriers [like the ones used to close off highways] underwater to create lanes for the tanks to follow.

Stingray-65
05-11-2007, 04:30 PM
@ Foehammer
NP Just plain good conversation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stingray-65
05-11-2007, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
The idea was for the plane to fly low and slow and to jump into a deep snowbank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Foehammer-1
05-11-2007, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This was all filmed and shown to the West to demonstrate how well the Red Army could handle tanks. Suvorov revealed the secret: prior to filming, they placed guide barriers [like the ones used to close off highways] underwater to create lanes for the tanks to follow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hahaha, I read that. Actually, that happened near where I used to live, so the people there still remember it. The book is "Tales of the Liberator", or something along those lines (I read all of them in Russian). But yeah, Hruschev was just an idiot, IMO, if the army was like that under him. I also like the scene where a train is crossing over a pontoon bridge built in an hour, and there was no smoke above the locomotive, since the train was empty, and it ran on gasoline instead of coal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif I've seen that film, actually, when I was like 4 or 5, and even then I wondered where the heck the smoke was, cause trains usually left a long trail in all the children's storybooks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Never heard of those paratrooper partisans though, so I can't comment on thosehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PavelKirilovich
05-11-2007, 06:53 PM
Kaleun: Well said but you sometimes confuse operational idiocy with tactical idiocy. All Soviet commanders were under intense pressure from Politrukii/Zampolitii (Political officers) to get results, especially in the defensive, which often resulted in failure to allow units to regroup and reorganize, instead constantly throwing them into attacks.

I have heard stories from veterans and I have read stories and so on so forth, of Russian troops executing amazing tactical manouevres, especially Naval Infantry, Guards, Airborne, Combat Engineer (Especially Pioneer units) and the like. Things such as minefield clearance while under enemy artillery and machinegun fire, building bridges in similar conditions, et cetera.

Regarding the "Tank lanes" for the fording of T-series tanks, I've seen videos of Russian tankers doing the same thing in Chechnya without the guides, and it working just fine.

And Kaleun: Yeah, I'm a Canadian too. We get dicked pretty hard with incompetant and irrational firearm control laws. You can get most service rifles of WWII as they're bolt action, and you can even get the semiautomatic ones provided you "pin" the magazines so they can't hold more than five rounds of ammunition. The M1 Garand may be a difficult one to acquire since you can't "pin" those magazines, but for some reason our magical double-standard system doesn't care if the M1 has 8 rounds instead of 5, but it sure as **** cares if the SVT-40's magazine isn't pinned to five...

Back to the topic of human wave assaults and the operational employment of "mass" in combat: Do not equate Chinese Communist tactics in Korea to Russian tactics in WWII. Why? Because the ChiComs never had good small unit tactics, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, due to Russian use of mass in WWII, we will never know their casualties to within hundreds of thousands, if not millions. As I stated before, commanders forced into stupid manouevres, and the concept of a "politically reliable" commander instead of "competent" one was widespread.

Stingray-65
05-11-2007, 10:30 PM
Speaking of SVT40s... that is another one I wouldn't mind acquiring. But I probably won't find one around here & if I do, I probably wouldn't be able to afford it... seeing how my luck goes, once I take an interest in something, the price has to immediately jump through the roof because it suddenly became a "high in demand" item with everyone else too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

PavelKirilovich
05-11-2007, 10:43 PM
I haven't found an SVT-40 in 7.62x54R for sale in North America yet, but I did find one rechambered for .300 Winchester Magnum.

As to people who say that the Nagant kicks, it does, but straight back and evenly which is nice. It's not a whole lot worse than any other rifle of the time either, like the Lee Enfield No. 4 SMLE, the KAR-98K, the Springfield, etc.

Stingray-65
05-11-2007, 11:02 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Hmmmm Already that doesn't sound promising to me (about the SVT40 being rechambered). I'm very fussy about guns being in their original factory-issued condition. Wear is fine as long as they're not worn out, but modding one kills it for me. I can't even tell you how many Mausers I've seen that got butchered up... barrels sawed off, stocks carved up or replaced, scopes installed, bolts mismatched, bolts jewelled, entirely painted in camo, etc. It just makes me sick to think about it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Poseidon_142
05-12-2007, 07:29 AM
Ok thanks for the links sting but I am also thinking of import duties and a fire arm licens here in South Africa is impossible to obtain

Stingray-65
05-12-2007, 09:25 AM
@ PavelKirilovich
Take a look at these:

(Not completely matching)
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=71498712

(Maybe a sniper but possibly a forgery)
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=71589327

Any time I hear someone say "its a sniper" I take it with a grain of salt because there are so many rifles that try to get passed off as sniper models. Just like so many 1965 Ford Mustangs try to get passed off as 1964 1/2s. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif If anyone ever tells you something like that, that should be "red flag" telling you to do your homework 1st before buying it.

Like I suspected... out of my price range at the moment. But not necessarily that the prices just went up though. I wouldn't know as I've just started shopping these around. In your experience, what have these usually gone for in the last few years?

*EDIT* Wow, check this out:
http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search.aspx?T=SVT40

I wonder what kind of shape its in?

PavelKirilovich
05-12-2007, 10:54 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty paranoid about the service rifles myself. I saw a brutalized Lee Enfield and wanted to backhand the guy who raped it.

This kind of **** about "Sniper" or "Special Forces" just makes me laugh. I don't even bother going after those rifles, they're almost always Chinese knockoffs.

The Yugoslavians made a good KAR-98K in 7.62x51mm (.308) and if you plan on shooting it much, the rifle is exactly the same, just rechambered and remarked for 7.62x51 information. .308 is much easier to obtain than proper Mauser rounds.

That top SVT-40 is something I'd buy, it's close enough that I can fix it.

klcarroll
05-12-2007, 03:18 PM
"Thumbs Up" to all of you you who are "purists"!

A butchered military weapon is a sin against history!

*