Praxis: The Whys and Wherefores of My Interest in Mosin Nagants as Resistance Rifles.

Chinese Type 53 Carbines

tom has taken me to task in two comments on my post "Praxis: Tactical Packing the 7.62x54R, etc."

Here is one:

...As to Logistics, what are the plans?

Gonna go with "run what you brung" and let each individual decide and have platoons that have no ammo commonality?

Say you narrow the list to common chamberings:

12Ga
9mm
.357
.40
.45ACP
5.56
7.62 NATO
.30-06
.30-40
5.45
7.62x54R
8mm and 7mm Mauser
.303
6.5 Grendel
6.8 SPC
.30 Carbine
.50 BMG
Misc. Lapuas
.30-30 and .45-70
.270
.300 WinnieMag
Misc. CheyTacs
5.8x42 ChiCom


Let people mix it all up!

Looks like a logistical hell to me. Throw in antique rifles that, this one shocked me, people are willing to buy with their cruffler licenses (which registers them with the ATF to get the good deals on ComBloc surplus). And then throw more money at the Antiques, that shoot minute of torso on a good day, than it would cost to buy a nice off the shelf modern bolt or semi rifle of common usage and many the spare parts available for a hundred bucks more.

It really shocked me when on my 22mm muzzle brake/launcher poll, clicking occurred on the "would be willing to spend more than 100 dollars to have such an item" button for 70 dollar rifles.

I'm going to keep beating this one like a soon to be dead horse until somebody explains the appeal of preparing to fail.

Is it that they are super cheap compared to other things so more people will have rifles? A ploy to increase numbers for people that have chosen not to budget for a proper battle rifle and want to buy one dirt cheap even if it's not a particularly nice thing to own or shoot or do battle with?

I'm really quite puzzled.
Seems defeatist.

Anybody care to 'splain it to me?

Here is the other.

I have a question I might like to have replied to here.

The Israelis in the 1948 War used whatever they could get their hands on out of necessity. Same in many other conflicts.

As US Citizens, contrary to the emotional feeling that all the gun laws suck, which they do, it is possible to buy pretty much any firearms one might wish to own as well as ammunition of merit, reamers, dies, presses, powders, bullets and molds, optics of all kinds, irons sights of all kinds and shooting irons of all kinds, semi or full auto/select fire (real BARs are full in both selections, it's just different cyclic rates in case anyone forgot that), bolt, lever, falling or swing block, farquharsons, artillery breeched designs, black powder cartridge and breech and muzzle loading all the way back to matchlocks. We live in the most free country in the civilized western world regarding purchasing arms, armaments, ammo, and related kit. Britains feel like kids in a candy store when they move here.

On the same tangent, you can go to a walmart or your local gun shop and buy for not much more than the price of a nag, a proper modern rifle.

What is the fetish with being penny wise and pound foolish? Is it because everybody got C&R licenses and think they're getting good deals, (y'all aren't, if you saw what these things come in the US for at wholesale you might cry bloody murder)?

Unless you believe there are going to be ComBloc troops in a war in this country to get ammo off of when your's runs out, you may as well buy cricket bats and fix bayonets on them.

It all seems quite farcical to me. It's like anti logistical anti-survivalism instincts of the weirdest order.

I own a lot of rifles for historical purposes from that era and before, though not much in the way of naggers because I don't like them, worked on SKSs and AKs, don't like them either but know how they all come apart and go back together and how to fix and operate them.

In the freest free world civilized state in the world where we have on offer for cheap prices some of the finest arms the world produced and at affordable pricing in NATO chamberings, what's up with the fetishists?

Is the idea to pick a "Restoration War Fight" with intent to LOSE because of stupid logistical ideas?"

Tactics are important.
Strategy is important.
Timing is important. LOGISTICS WIN WARS.

I hope we stay a united front in pointing out the III shall not allow themselves to be pushed any further into a corner and avoid any conflict but rather start backing them up by showing strength of determination rather than bloodshed because all bloodshed is ugly, though sometimes needed.

I also hope that if people are serious about being prepared to put up a reasonable show of force if at some future date it is required, they follow the rules of Roger's Rangers not antique rifle fetishist rules and people plan on and endeavor in logistical commonalities to make chances of success higher rather than lower.

Oddly, it seems many of the people chomping at the bit for the Feds to fire the first shot or step over a line into a "Restoration War" have little to no idea how to fight such an animal except on a basic small unit tactical level. Smart NCOs in the line are important but some decisions are better left to people higher up the command chain.....

Let me 'splain

In the interest of complete discussion, I am going to respond to these ad seriatim.

Tom asks first: "As to Logistics, what are the plans? Gonna go with 'run what you brung' and let each individual decide and have platoons that have no ammo commonality?"

Tom, much like the 90s, if you can find a bunch of folks who have standardized on a caliber or a platform, or even a combination of calibers and platforms, this will put them above the average group's learning curve/resources. If you haven't noticed, one of the drums I beat regularly on Sipsey Street is logistics. But one other thing I learned from the 90s, you might call it Militia Leader's Rule No. 1: You work with what you have and build on that.

Tom then lists the variety of calibers that will likely show up when the ball opens, and comments, "Looks like a logistical hell to me." Of course it is.

Then he suggests the folly of throwing "more money at the Antiques, that shoot minute of torso on a good day, than it would cost to buy a nice off the shelf modern bolt or semi rifle of common usage and many the spare parts available for a hundred bucks more."

Well, you certainly have a point, but it is mooted by several factors. Let me explain. During the 90s, everybody wanted an AR in 5.56 or 7.62 NATO battle rifle. Problem was, few of the folks who were willing to organize and train had the resources to buy those systems after the AWB ran the prices up. They bought SKS's instead, for about the same money that you can buy a Mosin Nagant today, AND FOR THE SAME REASON. It is what they can afford. Ours has always been a movement short on resources, and also one that is mobilized almost entirely by events. So folks have always shown up, short on ammo and lacking a complete understanding of what they need to accomplish the job of getting ready to resist a predatory government.

Now, we can bemoan this fact, or we can plan around it. There are folks who can only afford a M-N, just as there were folks in the 90s who could only afford an SKS. It is what they have, so we teach them to make do and become the best they can with what they have.

This is not altogether a bad thing. There are many possible scenarios that threaten our lives, property and liberty and that of our communities. In some of these, a cheap rifle that can be used and dumped without great loss is a tool that assumes greater value simply because it IS cheap. There are many, many M-N variants in this country at the moment and many of those are not yellow-sheeted. They are anonymous, fungible and darn useful in a pinch.

Secondly, think of them as a long-gun version of the Liberator pistol. While they are cheap, they are not the best weapon, but they are certainly capable of harvesting another, better weapon, one that is in a NATO standard caliber. I'm certain that some of the fastest sprints in a post-Lexington Green world will be those made to get down to the kill zone to strip the best weapons from newly dead Hessians before their buddies can do the same.

And again, these "beaters" are out there already in the hands of men and women who are willing to use them. It is better to have a second-rate firearm and a first-rate will to use it than vice versa.

Then Tom said, "It really shocked me when on my 22mm muzzle brake/launcher poll, clicking occurred on the 'would be willing to spend more than 100 dollars to have such an item' button for 70 dollar rifles."

The value of a grenade launcher attachment capable of being used on a M-N type weapon is actually an incalculable positive.

This is my thinking, and tell me if I'm wrong. If there are a million or so M-N rifles out there, what does it matter if they are so inherently inaccurate that they cannot hit the broad side of barn WITH A BULLET at 300 meters? With a rifle grenade, they can hit the target at the same range close enough to win everytime. "Close" counts in atomic weapons, horseshoes and grenades, both hand and rifle.

Now, I have a Spanish Mauser FR-8 for my primary RG launching platform when I play around with inerts. I also have a Yugo 59/66 SKS and an M14S with M76 launcher attachment. The FR-8 I picked up back when they were very available and cheap (15 years ago). All of these today cost a bunch more money than a Mosin Nagant of any variant. Indeed, why would you want to use an expensive rifle to sling a RG when a cheap one will do the same job? And remember, if you have to "dump arms" as the IRA calls it, are you going to miss that $1000 rifle a lot more than an $89 one? You bet you are.

Finally, in the first reply, Tom concludes with:

I'm going to keep beating this one like a soon to be dead horse until somebody explains the appeal of preparing to fail. Is it that they are super cheap compared to other things so more people will have rifles? A ploy to increase numbers for people that have chosen not to budget for a proper battle rifle and want to buy one dirt cheap even if it's not a particularly nice thing to own or shoot or do battle with? I'm really quite puzzled. Seems defeatist. Anybody care to 'splain it to me?

Again, they are already out there in common usage. For some folks, they represent all the rifle they can afford. To try to make better use of what you have is not a "ploy," except perhaps in the positive sense. For those who cannot afford an AR or MBR, the M-N will still be enough to get them one later on. Now, as to your second reply:

Tom begins by observing that it is possible for Americans "to buy pretty much any firearms one might wish to own as well as ammunition of merit . . . We live in the most free country in the civilized western world regarding purchasing arms, armaments, ammo, and related kit. On the same tangent, you can go to a Walmart or your local gun shop and buy for not much more than the price of a nag, a proper modern rifle. What is the fetish with being penny wise and pound foolish?"

Again, it bears repeating that the M-N, especially in this climate of increasing unemployment, is all the rifle many can afford.

And Tom asks, "Is the idea to pick a 'Restoration War Fight' with intent to LOSE because of stupid logistical ideas?"

There are several things wrong with that statement, not the least of which is that no one who is on my side wants to pick a fight. The fight, if and when it comes, had bloody well better come to us unwanted by our side. As far as "stupid logistical ideas" as they relate to the ubiquity of the Mosin Nagant, no one I know planned for popularity of these inexpensive rifles, we are just trying to make the greatest advantage out of what is already there.

No one with half-a-brain expects to keep all the various and miscellaneous types and calibers of arms shooting past the first, say, six months of any civil conflict and it will probably be a lot less. Look again to the experience of Viet Cong logistics.

The VC began the "resistance war against the lackey running dogs" of Diem with whatever they could beg, borrow or steal. Mostly that meant leftovers and castoffs from WWII and the war against the French colonialists and whatever they could buy from the corrupt ARVN authorities or steal from the government's regional and district forces. Even when a weapon broke down, it was fixed in jungle workshops. See the photo of the M-N which was restocked with wood from an M-1 Carbine in my first VC Logistics post.

But as the supply of weapons from outside the country increased, the main force VC were uniformly armed with ComBloc 7.62x39 and 7.62x54R weapons. Even then, the older mixmaster French, Japanese and obsolete US weapons were turned in to be reissued to village "self-defense" forces. Likely, that will be what happens in the next American civil war, may God forbid that it ever begins.

Yet whether we are ready or not, whether everyone is one the same page of standardization and logistics or not, all wars are fought on a "come as you are" basis. Always have been, always will be.

Take for example this excerpt from "Charge Both Ways": The Battle of Parker's Crossroads" by Steve A. Williams.

Nathan Bedford Forrest at Parker's Crossroads

During the last two months of 1862, Brigadier General Nathan Bedford Forrest . . . was tasked by General Braxton Bragg to prepare for an expedition across the Tennessee River into West Tennessee in order to hinder the Union lines of supply from Columbus, Kentucky through West Tennessee to General U.S. Grant at Oxford, Mississippi. On December 4th, Forrest took position with his brigade consisting of the 4th, 8th and 9th Tennessee Regiments and Russell's 4th Alabama. with Freeman's Battery, a force comprising approximately 2100 strong, at Columbia.

With these forces, which were armed mainly with shotguns and flintlock muskets, with only about ten rounds of caps for his shotguns and many of the muskets were flintless, he set out to accomplish his mission. . . He had also sent a "citizen" not otherwise identified, to Memphis (Note: Then under Federal occupation. -- MBV) for the purpose of procuring a supply of percussion caps for his weapons. By the morning of the 17th he had crossed all his men and equipment, sunk his flatboats in a secret place and the "citizen" had returned with some 50,000 percussion caps -- enough to last until more could be captured. . .

Forrest had been gone for more than a fortnight; had marched about twenty miles a day, nearly half the time in rain or snow; had fought one battle, and had numerous smaller engagements and skirmishes; killed, wounded and captured about 1400 of the Federal troops, including four colonels of regiments captured; had captured four pieces of artillery -- losing three afterward; destroyed much railroad and government property; cut Grant off from railroad communications with the North, so that rations and forage could not be issued in a regular way for some time, and together with Van Dorn, caused Grant to change his base from the interior of Mississippi and return to LaGrange and Grand Junction on the Memphis and Charleston railroad, besides preventing reinforcements from going to Rosecrans in front of Nashville.

All in all, this was perhaps one of Forrest's most remarkable campaigns, when the difficulties and the superior forces against him are taken into consideration. Starting with about 2100 men and picking up nearly 500 recruits, losing nearly five hundred in killed, wounded and captured, he recrossed the river with nearly his original number of men, all well armed and supplied with an abundance of captured ammunition, blankets, coffee and other supplies. Besides which he brought out more than 500 Enfield rifles and over 1800 blankets and knapsacks. Going in with seven pieces of artillery, he brought out six, one having exploded in battle.

Tom then observes, truly:

Tactics are important.
Strategy is important.
Timing is important. LOGISTICS WIN WARS.

Absolutely. Nathan Bedford Forrest would agree. So do I. Forrest made do with what he had. We must also make do with what we have.

I will pass over much of Tom's concluding remarks for there is truly little I think that we disagree on. However, he does say this:

I hope we stay a united front in pointing out the III shall not allow themselves to be pushed any further into a corner and avoid any conflict but rather start backing them up by showing strength of determination rather than bloodshed because all bloodshed is ugly, though sometimes needed.

It is precisely "backing them up by showing strength of determination" that is at the heart of my Mosin Nagant grenadier idea. If we can popularize the art of the rifle grenade among these millions of M-N owners who are already out there, this will introduce further the element of strategic uncertainty in the minds of the "gangster government." Surely most of them, if they have thought of it at all, think even less of the "Curio and Relic" Mosin Nagants out there. And there is much to be derisive about, I suppose.

But let some percentage of these M-Ns be tipped with legal flash suppressors that have a 22mm outer diameter and then let the instructions and specifications "for entertainment purposes only" of a simple but reliable improvised rifle grenade be posted for all to see by some otherwise disinterested party on the Internet, and that calculation shifts markedly.

That is the essence of credible deterrence, and I would much rather back these cowardly predators down by winning the war for their reasonable expectation of the collection of their pensions that goes on between their own ears every day than have to kill in righteous self defense even the most evil of them.

And here, after some preliminary consideration, is my idea.

Meet the FAL STG 58 flash suppressor.

They can be purchased on-line for as little as $15.00. Now, cut off the M-44 bayonet blade ONLY leaving the bayonet ring that slips into place over the muzzle. Weld onto the bayonet ring a simple threaded adapter for the STG flash suppressor to screw into. (I would prefer to do it without welding, but I am not smart enough to figure out an alternative.)

The flash suppressor/muzzle brake attachment itself will have to be bored out slightly to accomodate the .310 bullet of the 7.62x54R. Instructions involving using a steel rod down the barrel to ensure alignment while the welding takes place is simple enough. My bet is you can accomplish the whole thing for way under $50.00, if we can persude somebody to knock out the weld-on adapters which would be, after all, a little bit of threaded metal.

Thus modified, the supressor/brake/launcher then can be swung out of the way and rest next to the stock just like the bayonet presently does. When you are ready to deploy, it just swings up and clicks into place just like the bayonet. Or, if you prefer, the bayonet attachment point can be used to bolt into position a fixed adapter/STG58 front end attachment, which actually may be preferable now that I think about it. Want to restore the rifle to its original form? Just unbolt the booger and bolt back on the bayonet.

I hope my answers to Tom's challenge are satisfactory. I'm just pig-headed enough to believe I'm right, anyway.

If there is civil armed conflict in this country in the near future, it will be, as I said, a "come as you are" war. And like it or not, Mosin Nagants "are." The only question is, can we use them to the greatest extent possible. Preferably not to fight a war, but to prevent one.

Mike
III

The NLF propaganda photo that caused all the bother. VC grenadier with US pattern rifle grenade mounted on a Mosin Nagant M44 pattern carbine.