After having some experience with several different C&R 03's. Moisins, Enfields, and Mausers. I have come to several conclusions.
1 Mosins suck. The bolt is so far forward it is hard to operate and the forces are extreme to lift th ebolt. The wrist is overly thick. The sights are the only real saving grace. The hooded front and wide rear notch is a good combat sight. Plus the ability to sight for 100yds is a plus. The LONG rifle balances akwardly.
2 Mausers have great details but the ergonomics are terrible. I love the details of all the stamped parts, and WaA's everywehere. That is cool. Plus early war guns have so many detailed parts and #'s to research. The Ergonomics are terrible. The wrist mounted sling is horrific. The sling is exactly where proper cheek weld should be. The sight at 100yds is so low it is hard to get a proper sight picture. 300 yards gives a better sight picture and is an acceptable battle sight. The small inverted v front and small v notch rear is OK for target work but terrible for combat or quick acquisition. I am ok with the bolt, simply b/c almost every hunting rifle is based on the 98. So, nothing unusual there.
3 Enfields Rule! I love the slick bolt operation, and rear position of the bolt handle. I am neutral on the cock on closing vs the cock on opening. Both have their benefits and negatives. The #4 sights are some of the best combat sights. I would prefer a 100yd combat sight, but that is experience from close quarters work. I guess that could be argued both ways. Even the #1 sights are easy enough to see and they are better than their contemporaries. The one problem with the #1 rear sight are the protection ears. The one side offset tends to lead me to start off axis.
I like the stocks overall. The wrist dimension is ideal, as well as the slight pistol grip. I like the ergonomics and dimensions, especially for combat rifles of that time. The 10 round magazine is also very nice. 2x that of a Moisin and a Mauser. I want more bullets!!! With the exception of the Garand teh rate of fire is faster than any other. Overall I love them.
I started out with no pre conceived notions reagrding performance. These conclusions are based on firing several of these rifles side by side. My initial goal was to get a representative of each WWII combatant. I really don't see having a Moisin, since I do not liek to shoot it. It will get sold.
Thanks for listening to my rant.
1 Mosins suck. The bolt is so far forward it is hard to operate and the forces are extreme to lift th ebolt. The wrist is overly thick. The sights are the only real saving grace. The hooded front and wide rear notch is a good combat sight. Plus the ability to sight for 100yds is a plus. The LONG rifle balances akwardly.
2 Mausers have great details but the ergonomics are terrible. I love the details of all the stamped parts, and WaA's everywehere. That is cool. Plus early war guns have so many detailed parts and #'s to research. The Ergonomics are terrible. The wrist mounted sling is horrific. The sling is exactly where proper cheek weld should be. The sight at 100yds is so low it is hard to get a proper sight picture. 300 yards gives a better sight picture and is an acceptable battle sight. The small inverted v front and small v notch rear is OK for target work but terrible for combat or quick acquisition. I am ok with the bolt, simply b/c almost every hunting rifle is based on the 98. So, nothing unusual there.
3 Enfields Rule! I love the slick bolt operation, and rear position of the bolt handle. I am neutral on the cock on closing vs the cock on opening. Both have their benefits and negatives. The #4 sights are some of the best combat sights. I would prefer a 100yd combat sight, but that is experience from close quarters work. I guess that could be argued both ways. Even the #1 sights are easy enough to see and they are better than their contemporaries. The one problem with the #1 rear sight are the protection ears. The one side offset tends to lead me to start off axis.
I like the stocks overall. The wrist dimension is ideal, as well as the slight pistol grip. I like the ergonomics and dimensions, especially for combat rifles of that time. The 10 round magazine is also very nice. 2x that of a Moisin and a Mauser. I want more bullets!!! With the exception of the Garand teh rate of fire is faster than any other. Overall I love them.
I started out with no pre conceived notions reagrding performance. These conclusions are based on firing several of these rifles side by side. My initial goal was to get a representative of each WWII combatant. I really don't see having a Moisin, since I do not liek to shoot it. It will get sold.
Thanks for listening to my rant.
