Military Review

The same age of the German Mauser is the Russian rifle of the 1891 model of the year (part of 1). Documents tell ...

34
“- If you are, approximately, Bondarenko, you stand at the line with a gun, and your boss approaches you and asks:“ What do you have in your hands, Bondarenko? ”What should you answer?
- Ruzho, uncle? - guesses Bondarenko.

- Breaking. Is this a gun? You would also say in a rustic way: rushnitsa. That house was a gun, and the service is called simply: small-caliber rapid-fire infantry rifle system Berdan, number two, with a sliding gate. Repeat, you son of a bitch! ”
("Duel" A. Kuprin.)


History The German Mauser rifle is quite remarkable, as, in fact, probably, the history of any technically perfect system. The British achieved perfection with a foreign rifle "Martini-Henry" and abandoned her when she exhausted her abilities. The French created their own, national weapon, but only new powder allowed them to make a real step forward and get ahead of other countries in this field. The experience of the most "advanced" in terms of arming infantry with rapid-fire rifles of the country - Switzerland, did not impress anyone at that time, but the British and the Germans were equal to France with its new patron and whole-compacted bullet. Well, in Russia, the excellent Berdan rifle was also adopted and used, unlike the English Martini-Henry rifle, had a great modernization potential. But ... the revolution of gunpowder all these samples dared to the side of history. We needed completely new designs, and they appeared. Among the first was our Russian rifle of the 1891 model of the year. And, of course, the story begun in previous materials about rifles — the same age as the Mauser, would not be complete without reference to its history. So far, we have come across a variety of judgments about what kind of weapon it was. From highly enthusiastic, to ... frankly dismissive. Meanwhile, the history of this type of weapon is very well documented, traced literally by day and can be presented in great detail. Well, if so, then why not tell about it in the most detailed way? Without a doubt, this story will be very instructive, especially since it is based on archival documents from the archive of the Military-Historical Museum of Artillery, engineering troops and communications troops!


Infantry of the Russian Imperial Army on the march with rifles МХNUMX. Many have rifles with fixed bayonets.

Well, we need to start with the fact that 16 April 1891 of the year, that is, seven years before the German model G98 appeared, when the German army still used the previous sample G88, the Russian emperor Alexander III approved the model of the new rifle for the Russian army, which is to replace the old single rifle “Berdan numer 2” in 4,2 lines or 10,67-mm with pure lead bullets wrapped in paper. According to the measurement scale adopted in Russia, it was designated as 3-linear, that is, it had an 7,62-mm caliber and was equipped with a middle magazine containing five cartridges. From this moment her long and, in general, glorious life began. Because for more than 60 years, it remained the main weapon of the soldiers of our army, and the experience of its use clearly showed that it has such undeniable qualities as high reliability, durability, good rate of fire and accuracy. The rifle was upgraded twice: in 1910 and 1930. and was also used as a sniper. In addition, based on it were created rifle grenade launchers and three samples of carbines. In addition to Russia, this rifle armed armies of such countries as Montenegro, Finland, Poland, China, North Korea and Afghanistan.


Rifles Berdan. V.G. Fedorov, "Atlas of drawings for the Armament of the Russian army for the XIX century."

As already noted, the history of this rifle, and, above all, many publications were devoted to the problem of its namelessness. But in Soviet times, the authors ’conclusions most often did not differ in diversity and, mainly, blamed Tsar Alexander III for“ he was in awe of the West ”(although it’s someone who was, and he’s not to be blamed for that, because he did not introduce the famous folk uniform on hooks into the army and called Russian ships with the names of Orthodox saints!) and therefore, they say, dismissively treated its designer S.I. Mosinu even hinted that L. Nagan bought off the tsarist minister PS Vannovsky, although, if you think about it, then he got some strange bribe.

However, it was the documents of those years that provide the full opportunity to explain events related to the circumstances of adopting a three-line rifle, in the name of which the author’s name for some reason did not appear. Moreover, they were all in those years when, due to the political situation in the country, or rather, for the sake of the historical facts, they were replaced with speculation.


Rifle МХNUMX of the year in the Museum of the Army in Stockholm. In the exhibition, it is called "Mosin-Nagan"

For the first time, experts began to consider the first samples of magazine-powered rifles in the weapons department of the Artillery Committee of the State Agrarian University back in May, 1878 [1]. At the same time, military attachés in different countries were ordered to make contact with designers and purchase new items from various systems. Five years later, namely 14 on May 1883 of the year, with the same department of the Artillery Committee of the GAU, a commission was created called the “Commission for testing multiply-charged rifles,” chaired by Major-General N.I. Chagin. It consisted of relevant specialists and conducted practical work on the evaluation and testing of the samples received at its disposal. Approved the results of the activities of this commission and distributed the money allocated to another commission - the “Executive Commission for the rearmament of the army” headed by the commander-in-chief of field general (deputy chief of artillery), General-Adjutant L.P. Sofian The conclusions and opinions of both these commissions were relied on by the Minister of War.

At the same time, the work of the Chagin commission could be chronologically divided into two periods. The first one, from 1883 to 1889, is characterized by the fact that at that time its main task was to develop the most profitable in all respects reworking of a single-shot “rifle” into the shop. It is interesting that not only military specialists, but also representatives of the most diverse classes of the population of the Russian Empire, were concerned about this problem at that time, so this idea was clearly “in the air”. Both V. Dobrovolsky, a student of the 1 Kiev Gymnasium, and Voronezh landowner Korovin, and a local resident, I.P. Shadrinov, and even some prisoner F.Kh. Denik, who was in the house of preliminary detention, awaiting exile to Siberia, and many others. Projects by the Commission were discussed and largely rejected. However, dozens of systems, both Russian and foreign, were subjected to serious tests. Among them were the rifles of Colonels of the Russian Imperial Army Tenner and Khristich, Captain Mosin, Cornet Lutkovsky, the gunsmiths of Malkov, Ignatovich, Kvashnevsky, as well as foreign systems of Winchester, Vetterly, Spencer, Kropachek, Lee, Hotchkiss, Manlikher, Schulhoff, Mauser and others.

Usually the Commission gave such conclusions: “Tests to stop”, “Mr. N's proposals to reject” or “consider further consideration to be useless”. But there were also such developments that attracted her attention. For example, the rifle of the gunsmith of the Officers of the Kwashnevsky rifle school, equipped with an under-barrel store. They were made 200 pieces., Began military trials, but after twice the cartridges in the store ignited from the pricking of the capsule, they immediately stopped. Rifle same si Mosin, equipped with a lath-and-applied store, was recognized as deserving of full attention. In 1885, it was decided to make 1000 of such rifles, and the 200 of them should be adapted for barrels not of 4,2-linear, but of a reduced caliber [2].


Carabiner Mosin 1938 model year.

1889 year in the work of the Commission was, so to speak, a turning point. On May 29, Major General Chagin announced that the French rifle of the Lebel system was taken as a basis for it, and work is underway to design a new three-line rifle. Then the 8 of August of the same year was noted that “the 3-linear barrel was modeled after the model of Lebel,” and you need to hurry with the creation of a new cartridge for him with a charge of smokeless powder. So, in 1889, a barrel was created, and then a cartridge for a new rifle. We emphasize that no relation S.I. Mosin to all this did not have, in contrast to the same Gras or Mauser, who developed to their rifle and barrels and their mechanisms. From the same year the name of the Commission changed. Now it has become known as the “Commission for the development of a sample of a small-caliber gun”.


French Lebel magazine rifle Mle1886 - it all started with her!

In 1889 - 1891 years - this is the second period of work on the development of a new rifle, the main content of which was the testing of the guns of two designers - Nagant and Mosin, whose rivalry eventually gave a remarkable final result.

The first information about the gun of Nagan in Russia was received in the spring of 1889 of the year. Specialists interested in his rifle. The first copy of its 3,15-caliber line (8 * mm) was delivered to Russia by the 11 of October 1889 of the year. After 1,5 of the month, 30 of November, two more rifles were brought, and in December Mosin was given the following assignment, “guided by the gun of Nagant, to design the gun of the bundle system on 5 cartridges, but to apply the shutter of his system” [3] in this gun. In this case, of course, it was meant that both the barrel to the rifle and the cartridge would be used as ready. 13 January 1890 of the Year Nagant sent a new 7,62-mm caliber rifle to the Commission and with changes in the bolt. Well, in the middle of February, S.I. Mosin, the work entrusted to him was executed and submitted to the Commission his own version as a model. Interestingly, in the Nagan rifle, which came to Russia in 1889, the bolt was direct, that is, without turning and had a handle bent down in its rear part, behind the trigger hook. But the members of the commission did not like this shutter.

The documents and the samples of these rifles themselves make it possible to quite convincingly answer the question: what was the first thing that interested the Russian military in the designs of both designers? In the rifle presented by the Nagan, this was above all ... a shop and also the principle of supplying cartridges from it; Mosin rifle - shutter. That is, the situation was in many ways similar to the one with the Lee-Enfield rifle in England: from the design of James Lee in the new rifle there was a bolt and a magazine, but the arsenal in Enfield presented a ready-made barrel with lots of new type. Only in our sample in this case were not two, but three author's details: the trunk, the bolt and the store.

After checking both rifles, the Commission returned them for revision. And in the spring and summer of 1890, both Mosin and Nagan were engaged in improving their designs. Mosin worked at the Tula Arms Plant. Nagan - on his own factory in Liege, which he equipped with new machines for a profitable Russian order, and even refused orders for the production of revolvers and carbines for the Dutch army and now worked only on Russia.

The result of the competition was the decision of the Executive Commission on the rearmament of the army on July 4 of July 1890 to make 300 shop and 300 single-shot rifles S.I. Mosin and another 300 - Nagan rifles. Since, in March, Nagan appointed a price for 225 francs for a rifle without a bayonet, the commission decided: to order Nagan 305 rifles, but take a receipt that each of his guns would not be worth more than 225 francs. The total cost of the order in the end amounted to almost 69 thousand francs, i.e. approximately 24 thousand rubles (1 franc at that time was worth - 35 cop.). They decided to make bayonets and sights for his guns to be cheaper at the Sestroretsk Arms Plant. What was needed 1900 rubles.

At the Tula Arms Plant, it was decided to manufacture 300 Mosinsky rifles with bayonets and accessories (18 thousand rubles); but at the Sestroretsky Arms Plant to manufacture 300 Mosin single-shot rifles (15 thousand rubles).

Production of 20000 clips Mosin system required 2 thousand rubles. (10 cop. per piece). Nagan said that for 30000 clips for their guns, it requires 13500 francs (that is, about 15 kopecks. Per piece). The commission found such an exorbitant price and decided to order 20000 clips at the same price. 38 thousand rubles [4] were allocated for the production of ammunition for testing.

At the same time, apart from the development of the rifle itself, the Russian weapons factories were re-equipped for mass production of new weapons. In 1889, the amount needed for this was determined, and now it seemed that the king was excessive. New more accurate machine tools, construction work at factories and hydraulic structures, purchase of materials, etc. were required. The highest order about the reorganization of the plants was followed by the 11 of October 1889 year. At 1890, the plan was to allocate 11,5 million rubles, and in total 1890 million rubles were allocated for 1894 - 70 years. But practically 1890 million rubles were allocated for 10 a year, but they spent much less - about 6 million rubles. Well, and while the factories were re-arranged, work on new rifles also moved ahead.

So, on September 20, 1890, Nagan wrote to Lieutenant General Chagin:

Gun Factory Em and L. Nagan
Luttih 20 September September 1890
His Excellency General Lieutenant Chagin
Your Excellency
Upon receipt of your letter from 2 / 14 this month, I took measures to correct the flaw found by me in my gun, namely that during their operation, the 3 cartridge often does not rise to be captured by a drummer and inserted into the chamber. This will not happen during the shooting, since the shocks and shaking of the gun help the movement of the cartridges; this happens, as you yourself noticed, only with a slow action by the store mechanism.

The reason was the unequal strength of both springs that fed the cartridges. The ratio of the stresses of these springs changes with each rising cartridge as a result of their conical shape, and it is extremely difficult to calculate this average force from which each spring must act so that all cartridge 4s are fed simultaneously. In order to correct this deficiency, I destroyed a very small spring and retained only a large one, as it was in previous guns that operated in this sense perfectly.

I kept the lifting slide only in order to close the box window in the case of using a gun as a single-shot one, but gave the sled a different device than with the gun that you currently have. The sled is connected to the feeder by a hinge, and as a result of this, they have limited up and down movement. A through elongated quadrangular hole is cut across the slide, and the end of the feeder slightly protrudes from above over the slide, so that the latter do not touch the cartridges at all when lifting them up.

When using a shotgun as a single shotgun, the magazine is empty and the slide should not touch their nest; for which the feeder has special protrusions entering the skid window, and, moreover, behind the sled and on its left side there is also a protrusion, which also delays the sled from vibrations.

I was quite pleased with this design when it was tested and applied it to the 4-m already made guns. It simplifies the mechanisms and so guarantees the correct action of the feeder that you, I am sure, will also be completely satisfied with them.


(Photocopy on page from Nagan's letter). Fig .: with-hinge connecting the feeder with the sled; projections against the window; sleds; outstanding part of the feeder. (Archive of the Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineers and the Communications Forces F. 6. Op. 48 / 1. D. 34. Ll. 312 – 319.)

As for the larva, I did not change anything in its adaptation to the gate. The method proposed by me, in my letter of 8 September, is only a draft that can be reviewed by you, tested, and, if you wish, changed at your discretion. At the same time, ... if the soldier had not screwed in to the end and how the larva should follow, then the shutter could not be closed.

In 4 rifles, the firing pin will be protruded from the larva at 1.8 m / m, i.e. as much as the drummers of the already manufactured guns are issued. The diameter of the firing pin in one of the rifles will be in 2,23 m / m. The force of the trigger spring will be, as you wished, from 4,1 to 5,3 pounds.
Colonel Chichagov notified me that he would arrive on the following Wednesday, 24, with a soldier in September, for the production of lengthy trials of the rifle. According to my promise, the guns will be perfectly adapted, and from now on they will bring us significant benefits.

However, I still consider it necessary to come to St. Petersburg myself in order to be present during their trials and to know your opinion about the changes I have made in them. So no sooner than I know what your requirements are about changing the device of the larva and the trunk, I can’t definitively start making these parts, as well as the descent and other parts; all this prevents the correct manufacture and delivery of guns. 300 shotguns are made, but I'm in a hurry to finish 30, the closures and shops of which are ready.

During my trip, nothing will be finally decided, and excluding what we had already agreed upon, and your decision in St. Petersburg I will have the right to submit to the discussion of my company. So, I believe that this journey is necessary in order to get out of an uncertain position, and to be able to continue making guns in full confidence that it will meet the requirements of your rearmament.

Further, I am sure that all our work and expenses will not be in vain, because during my last visit to St. Petersburg in March, your War Minister notified me that even if my gun was not accepted, we would still rewarded for all our expenses.

Of course, my departure had to be delayed, of course, in order to correct these all the above-mentioned corrections, and also because of the slowdown in obtaining the necessary material for the packs. The Englishman who made me the steel sheets was forced to change the machines for cutting them. As soon as they receive the expected, we will take on further work, since everything we need is ready, I will be able to go to you. This will probably happen in 8 days, and I will have the honor of seeing you on my trip. In anticipation, please accept pr ...
Nagan [5].
Translated by Lieutenant Merder 18 September 1890g.

From the text of the letter it follows that the Russian government was well aware that by contacting a foreign private trader, in any case, it would have to reimburse him for all his expenses.

A week before Nagan, 14, September 1890, S.I. Mosin also wrote to Chagin that the prescription of General PA Kryzhanovsky plant, so that he fulfilled all his requirements, is no longer necessary, because: "The Minister of War ordered the plant not to deviate in anything for my success in the competitive testing of my guns." And on the same day Mosin informed Kryzhanovsky about the results of the demonstration of his rifle to the Minister of War: “... the guns acted perfectly. The Minister of War was very affectionate to me, several times at the factory for all he expressed that my success would be his success, and at parting at the station he said: “I will go to pray to Moscow pleasers about the success of our cause” [6].

Again, we must understand that, like many Russian people, Mosin was too trusting in words and clearly did not understand that you can only completely and completely trust the entries in the checkbook. Well, after all, the minister can also be understood. The mercenary is a good thing, but if someone can not pay, then ... why do it, especially since it was a question of millions of expenses? It is possible to pay someone only in the case of the most urgent need, especially with government money.

Finally, on September 11, 1890, the Weapons Division of the Artcom presented a test program for finished rifles. The firing was conducted by the companies of the Life Guards Pavlovsky, Izmailovsky Regiments, the 147-th Samara and the Life-Guard 1-rifle battalion of His Majesty. According to the results of the shooting, the troops had to answer the following questions:

1. Which of the two three-line caliber rifles has the greater advantage: single-shot or with burst loading?

2. If the advantage is on the side of the pack sample, then which rifle: Mosin or Nagant should be preferred?

3. Which of the packs can be called the best: a box-shaped Nagana or a lamellar Mosin?

After the tests, representatives of the regiments spoke in favor of the clip and the Nagant rifle. After a month of October 12, 1890 was contracted with him, according to which the latter undertook to manufacture 300 guns and 20000 clips at an already agreed price and spare parts (combat larvae, percussion machines, extractors, etc.) for 245 francs. The terms of delivery of guns were also indicated, the violation of which led to the termination of the contract for more than 15 days, which gave the Russian government the right to refuse Nagan's services and “use the system of its gun at its own discretion”. The clause of the 12 contract stated that “the Russian government undertakes, for its part, if the guns of Nagan come into service with the Russian army, pay Nagana in the form of the 200 000 premium of credit rubles, after which all rights to use the gun system of Leon Nagan and its various modifications are fully transferred to the Russian government. " That is, the conditions were very tough for him and, in fact, it was a “trap”, because for some reason it cost him not to fulfill this condition, as he was losing 200 000 rubles - a considerable amount of time and almost remained Gentry ...

Thus, the reasons why Nagan was paid 200000 rubles are very simple and understandable, and for their explanation no speculation about certain “kickbacks” from Nagan’s side to the Minister of War Vannovsky is not needed at all. That is, this money was given to him for EVERYTHING, and for what specifically - the second part will tell. In any case, it’s not very correct to compare the Nagan's fee and the award that Mosin received as a result, as many historians have done in the past. Nagan received this amount under the contract, and the money meant to cover all his costs, and Mosinu was given the Big Mikhailov Prize in the amount of 30 000 rubles in recognition of his creative services to the Fatherland, he was promoted, awarded the Order of St. Anne II degree and appointed to the position of the director of an arms factory, since he did not carry any other expenses, except for straining his mind, from his immediate service, for which he was paid a salary, he was released, and he had nothing to compensate for, since tovleniyu his rifles and their finishing to mind carried the state treasury.

Notes:
1. Mavrodin V.V. Mavrodin Val.V. From the history of domestic weapons. Russian rifle. L., 1981. C. 82.
2. Fedorov V. The evolution of small arms. M., 1938. C. 169.
3. Archive of the Military History Museum of Artillery, Engineers and Communications. F.4. Op. 39 / 6. E.x. 171. Ll 10 – 11 (Next: AVIMAIVVS).
4. Ilyin TH The Fate of the Rifle // Oryol №1,1991, S.37, and also: Ilyin TH The Fate of the Rifle // Collection of articles and materials devoted to the 240 anniversary of the Military Historical Order of the Red Star Museum of Artillery, Engineering and Communications. Release VII. SPb., 1996. C. 308 - 323].
5. AVIMAIVVS. F.6. Op. 48 / 1. D. 34. Ll 312 – 319.
6. Ashurkov V.I. Designer S.I.Mosin. Tula, 1949. C. 24.


To be continued ...
Author:
34 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 April 5 2017 16: 23
    +5
    Thank you, Vyacheslav. Very interesting. The Mosin rifle is indeed a unique Russian weapon.
    We look forward to continuing.
    1. kalibr
      April 5 2017 16: 37
      +9
      Count. There will be 5 articles. All with photocopies of genuine documents from AVIMAIVVS. Part rewritten in modern Russian, part left in the original (funny), part in copies from the original.
      1. moskowit
        moskowit April 5 2017 17: 34
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        Count. There will be 5 articles.

        The whole monograph. As one of my friends used to say: "Lux!"
    2. The black
      The black April 5 2017 22: 11
      +2
      Quote: Army 2
      Thank you, Vyacheslav. Very interesting. The Mosin rifle is indeed a unique Russian weapon.
      We look forward to continuing.

      By the way, the "pug" is still standing. It’s armed with some power structures))) I know 100%
  2. Alf
    Alf April 5 2017 18: 59
    +6
    Now Carbine will catch up and explain in detail that the mosquito is a complete g .., and the best rifle in the world is M16.
    1. Lekov L
      Lekov L April 5 2017 20: 35
      +2
      Now Karbayn tighten

      He will change his nickname again five ... wink
      And Mosinka - a thing.
      Especially for those who use ... did not have the honor to see a big difference with the Mauser.
      m. because that and that were from very good hands of worthy hunters who perfectly watch the weapon.
      Sincerely, colleagues. hi
      1. kalibr
        April 5 2017 22: 34
        +5
        What is the main problem here? The law of large numbers. Take, for example, rate of fire and count for the regiment. It turns out - somewhere more, somewhere less. Ideally, where more is better there. In real life, it’s not a fact, since there are a lot of facts balancing the ideal. Therefore, it is one thing to prove on the basis of papers, another is personal (own) experience, and the third is practice on the battlefield. And you need to compare the thousands of indicators of all three in order to derive an average indicator. It is clear that this is such a volume of research that even the US Department of Defense is unlikely to master it. Therefore, there will always be “better”, “worse”, “I like” ...
  3. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel April 5 2017 19: 43
    +3
    I would like the author to carefully type the text. The article is interesting, but the cant type "... dismissed her instructor S.I. Mosinu " I think so "to the designer"
    1. kalibr
      April 5 2017 19: 46
      +4
      A fair remark, but a very large amount.
    2. Zulu_S
      Zulu_S April 6 2017 16: 12
      +2
      Quote: Black Colonel
      I think that all the same "designer"

      Right think, Colonel. So right that they might not share their thoughts.
  4. looker-on
    looker-on April 6 2017 00: 12
    +1
    Great presentation. Thank you so much. For the letter in the original, separate. Very interesting to read.
  5. Comrade Stalin
    Comrade Stalin April 6 2017 01: 00
    +2
    The mosquito for its time was a very modern and good rifle. And to compare it with the Mauser of 1898 is simply stupid, 7 years for that time it was of great importance. All the same, how to compare the Mosinka with the Lebel rifle of 1886 and laugh at the French, like they are so stupid that they could not come up with a middle store. But between Mosinka and Lebel the difference is only 5 years, but Mosinka against the background of Lebel with his tubular magazine and loading one at a time, looks like an AK compared to the SCS.
    Well, with the advent of machine guns, ALL rifles instantly became obsolete, for good, back in the 1910s it was necessary to switch to automatic weapons with an intermediate cartridge, but the PMV prevented, and then in the 20s and 30s the emphasis was on the development of armored vehicles, aviation and artillery, but they almost forgot about small arms, except that in the USSR and the USA they worked on the creation of self-loading rifles, but this concept, as practice has shown, turned out to be a dead end. In England, France, Japan and other countries, infantry did not bother with small arms in general: they riveted rifles half a century ago, and continued to rivet.
    1. Chtononibrator
      Chtononibrator April 6 2017 11: 19
      +1
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      In England, France, Japan and other countries, in general, infantry did not bother with small arms

      Bother how. The same French almost since 1900 have been conducting self-loading contests, some of these developments were used in the PMV, plus the Walking fire concept (Shosha, BAR and our Fedorov assault rifle), from which the modern class of assault rifles grew.
      1. F.NN
        F.NN April 8 2017 10: 05
        0
        Quote: Chtononibrator
        plus the concept of Walking fire (Shosha, BAR and our Fedorov assault rifle), from which the modern class of assault rifles grew.

        1. What relation do modern “small things” have to Shosha, BAR and our Fedorov assault rifle? And also to some invented concept of Walking fire?
        2. What is common between BAR and AF? BAR should be compared with the DP-27, but not with AF.
        3. Modern "small things" grew out of the American cartridge 5,56x45 mm. And the products you have indicated have nothing to do with them. As the AK / AK-47 / AKM product has nothing to do with them.
        1. Chtononibrator
          Chtononibrator April 10 2017 21: 38
          0
          Quote: F.NN
          What is the relation of modern "small things"

          I will tell you a secret. Modern assault rifles are available not only for low-pulse cartridges.
          Quote: F.NN
          And also to some invented concept of Walking fire?

          The concept was not invented by me and has long been described in weapons literature. I advise you to familiarize yourself and then perhaps relationships and relationships will become clear.
          Quote: F.NN
          What is common between BAR and AF

          The desire to give the shooter an analogue of a machine gun for shooting in motion with hands.
          Quote: F.NN
          BAR should be compared with the DP-27, but not with AF.

          It turns out that you need to compare one automatic rifle, not with another automatic, but with a light machine gun? Strange logic.
          Quote: F.NN
          Modern "small things" have grown from the American cartridge 5,56x45 mm

          Nobody grew up anywhere. Existing models were adapted for low-pulse cartridge.
          1. F.NN
            F.NN April 10 2017 23: 16
            0
            Quote: Chtononibrator
            I will tell you a secret. Modern assault rifles are available not only for low-pulse cartridges.

            Oh really? But is it necessary to write such platitudes?
            Quote: Chtononibrator
            The concept was not invented by me and has long been described in weapons literature.

            Armory literature? This is from the heart. What else would you think up?
            Quote: Chtononibrator
            The desire to give the shooter an analogue of a machine gun for shooting in motion with hands.

            Those. BAR, is this a handgun? With his cartridge, weight and recoil?
            This, incidentally, applies to AF.
            Do you actually feel like writing this?
            Quote: Chtononibrator
            It turns out that you need to compare one automatic rifle, not with another automatic, but with a light machine gun?

            And why did you decide that DP is a light machine gun? What is in DP from a machine gun, besides the name? According to the performance characteristics, this is exactly the same product as the BAR (heavy automatic rifle on the bipod). Only more stupid, because of a completely stupid store. Well, and still so, something.
            Quote: Chtononibrator
            Existing models were adapted for low-pulse cartridge.

            Are you talking about the AK-74? In vain, an uncharacteristic example. All the rest made the original weapon chambered for 5,56x45 mm. But the USSR had a problem, there were no rifleman designers. Therefore, the existing German product (AK-47) was redone under the cartridge of a new operating principle. Passed is not entirely successful, because .... well, there were a lot of “moments."
            1. Chtononibrator
              Chtononibrator April 11 2017 22: 49
              0
              Quote: F.NN
              Therefore, we redid the existing German product

              All clear. An alternative story does not interest me. I have no more questions for you.
              1. F.NN
                F.NN April 11 2017 22: 52
                0
                Quote: Chtononibrator
                All clear

                Happy for you.
                Quote: Chtononibrator
                An alternative story does not interest me.

                Me too.
                Quote: Chtononibrator
                I have no more questions for you.

                And thanks for that.
    2. F.NN
      F.NN April 8 2017 10: 01
      0
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      The mosquito for its time was a very modern and good rifle.

      Really? What was her "goodness"?
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      And comparing it to the Mauser of 1898 is simply stupid

      Not at all silly. Because they fought in times of 2 MV against each other. That is why the three-line should be compared with Mauser, Enfield and Garand.
      And in the days of 1MB the first three, too.
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      Well, with the advent of machine guns ALL rifles instantly out of date

      Really? Where do such "revelations" come from?
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      for good, back in the 1910s it was necessary to switch to automatic machines with an intermediate cartridge

      Just in case, I want to inform you that a weakly stabilized bullet was invented in the 60s of the 20th century. Due to the specificity of the mechanism of its action, it was made small-caliber.
      The rest of the weapon (as the main army) on ammunition of intermediate power besides a healthy cheerful laugh does not cause anything.
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      The USSR and the USA worked on the creation of self-loading rifles, but this concept, as practice has shown, turned out to be a dead end

      Yeah Insanity grows stronger. What the whole honest (and highly professional) world called the "dead end" before the 60s of 20s.
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      In England, France, Japan and other countries, infantry did not bother with small arms in general: they riveted rifles half a century ago, and continued to rivet.

      Lee-Enfield had such a performance characteristics that Britain did not have much need for self-loading.
      I will not consider France, in WW2 she practically did not participate.
      Japan at the end of the 30s rearmament on a full cartridge 7,7 × 58 mm Arisaka arr. 1932.
      Who didn’t bother?
  6. Potter
    Potter April 6 2017 09: 15
    +1
    The role of the machine gun became clear only during the WWII. And even in the pre-war (1930s) period, the attitude of the military not only towards submachine guns, but also to automatic rifles was ambiguous.
    1. F.NN
      F.NN April 8 2017 10: 10
      0
      Quote: Potter
      And even in the pre-war (1930s) period, the attitude of the military not only towards submachine guns, but also to automatic rifles was ambiguous.

      Still, automatic rifles, this is generally complete stupidity.
      As for the PP, this is a special weapon, not for solving combined arms tasks. Therefore, special attention was not paid to him. This is bad. It is also unfortunate that later, he began to receive too much attention.
  7. igrik595
    igrik595 April 6 2017 10: 34
    +1
    Wonderful rifle. And the saddest thing is that in the states it costs 250 American rubles, maybe cheaper.
    1. Tatarin83
      Tatarin83 April 6 2017 12: 53
      +2
      With us, it costs from 20000 rubles, which at the current rate is not much more expensive
      1. Helmet
        Helmet April 7 2017 10: 22
        0
        in our weapons room for a long time there was a sniper version of military release for 31 sput. in a warehouse condition with all native details, including a sight. for a sniper and a lover of historical weapons, the price is quite acceptable
        1. Tatarin83
          Tatarin83 April 7 2017 10: 58
          0
          I bought the same for about 24 in Tempe (Klimovsk)
          There is one sight 7 thousand worth :)
  8. Niccola Mack
    Niccola Mack April 6 2017 12: 06
    +7
    However, it is the documents of those years that provide the full opportunity to explain the events associated with the circumstances of the adoption of the three-line rifle, the name of which for some reason did not appear in the name of the author.


    The fact that the name of the three-line rifle did not include the Mosin name is explained quite simply - by ordinary decency, and not by idolatry to the West.

    Resolution Wannowski (Minister of War) to the Tsar regarding the adoption of:
    In the new sample being manufactured, there are parts proposed by Colonel Rogovtsev, the commission of Lieutenant General Chagin, Captain Mosin and the gunsmith Nagan, so it is advisable to give the developed sample the name: Russian 3-lin. rifle sample 1891.

    Alexander the Third crossed out the word "Russian".
    Total: "a three-line rifle of the sample of 1891."

    A very revealing example:
    In 1888, the Germans adopted a rifle based on the Mauser and Manlicher systems, developed by specialists of the Gewehr Prufungs Kommission Testing Commission in the state arsenal of Spandau.
    They called it the “Commission Rifle” (Kommissionsgewehr) of the 1888 model.

    To whom did the Kaiser “idolize”?
    And even the word “German” did not appear in the name, since Manliher was a subject of Austria-Hungary (albeit German by nationality).
    1. kalibr
      April 6 2017 13: 16
      +2
      Yes, you noticed it well ...
  9. Tatarin83
    Tatarin83 April 6 2017 12: 56
    +3
    I am the proud owner of a sniper Mosinka, 43rd year of release.
    Great barrel, shoots great sometimes it turns out to meet the corner minute.
    The only thing that required a little peeling to fine-tune the trigger and polish the shutter for a smoother ride.
    1. ohtandur
      ohtandur April 7 2017 19: 10
      0
      And at what distance did they experience accuracy of 1 m? What is the effective firing distance from Mosiniki?
  10. Zulu_S
    Zulu_S April 6 2017 16: 07
    +3
    Thank you, Vyacheslav. I look forward to continuing. I’m not alone, I’m sure.
    1. kalibr
      April 6 2017 21: 00
      +1
      Glad you are interested. I will reveal a little secret. After a series of articles about the Mosin, there will be a series of materials about small arms models that are not well-known in our country. Unfortunately, not everyone was able to hold on to each, but the information was good and large.
  11. F.NN
    F.NN April 8 2017 09: 45
    0
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    Mosin carbine sample 1938.

    However, this has never existed in wildlife.
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    whose rivalry in the end gave a wonderful final result.

    I would not call the result remarkable. In terms of mechanics, the three-ruler was inferior to ALL modern European rifles to it. In terms of efficiency, only the Italian Manlihera-Carcano rifle was ahead. And even that, because of the wrong caliber chosen by Italians.
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    It is interesting that in the Nagan rifle, which came to Russia in 1889, the bolt was direct-acting, that is, without turning and had a handle bent down at its rear, behind the trigger bracket. But the members of the commission did not like this shutter.

    SIMPLICITY is the main criterion. And the fact that as a result of all kinds of "simplifications" at the output was obtained UG, few people were interested. The main thing is that, in principle, it works. A little later, in order not to dig, they came up with the stamp “legendary / legendary”. And the bribes are smooth.
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    Only in our sample in this case were not two, but three copyright details: the barrel, the bolt and the store.

    Strongly doubt your statements.
    First of all, Nagan received the money and transferred to Russia all the technological documentation for the manufacture of trunks. Where did he get it, stole it from Lebel? The answer is obvious, the barrel was Naganovsky.
    As for the store and the shutter, they could not be Naganov in principle. Because Nagan made a rifle under a bezrantovy cartridge. The answer is obvious here, the store and the unsuccessful shutter (under the bezrantovny cartridge) were from Mosin. By the way, the shutter reminds Lebel. Also from Mosin (on the instructions of the commission) there were “simplifications” of the rifle in order to improve its “manufacturability”. As a result, the output was the very expected UG.
    Due to the increased (called IT technological) gaps, the bolt often hung in the receiver and wedged periodically during evolution. And his ergonomics was completely "no." Because of this, the rate of fire and density of fire were also "no" even for the class of shops. But the main part of the rifle, i.e. everything else was solid, Naganovsky. Therefore (i.e., thanks to the efforts of Nagan), the rifle served a relatively long time (in terms of the number of shots per barrel). No Soviet crafts like SVT or there ABC with her (I remind you, UG) could not be compared, so they fought in WW2 to her, and not them.
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    From the text of the letter it follows that the Russian government was well aware that by contacting a foreign private trader, in any case, it would have to reimburse him for all his expenses.

    Hm. What was to be done? There were no gunsmiths in Russia. And in those days, and much later. Therefore, there was no other way out.
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    like many Russian people, Mosin was too trusting in words and clearly did not understand

    Mosin was a "craftsman." Therefore, the second batch of "exactly the same Mosin rifles" might not work at all. This is the difference between the artisan and designer approach. In systematic approaches.
    And the rearmament of the army is a serious matter. Therefore, the Nagan rifle was chosen correctly. Maybe they “simplified” it, too, correctly. The "power" of the industry was slightly above the level of the plinth. And then, and then, in the years of 2MB.
    1. Aaleks1974
      Aaleks1974 April 10 2017 15: 39
      +1
      And not tired of changing nicknames? Or do you work on a paid basis?
  12. Grid
    Grid April 11 2017 12: 18
    0
    Quote: F.NN

    0
    F.NN April 8, 2017 09:45
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    Mosin carbine sample 1938.

    However, this has never existed in wildlife.