View Full Version : Bayonet affect on POI
05-09-2004, 09:55 PM
With my m44 I have shot at the range with the bayonet extended and folded. With the bayonet folded the rifle shoots considerably to the left. Extending the bayonet draws the groups closer to the POA.
My big question is why?
If I adjust the sights to shoot POA with the bayonet folded am I cheating myself out of some accuracy?
Is there something I can do to counter the effects the bayonet has on groupings?
Am I beating a dead horse?
05-10-2004, 12:30 PM
My big question is why?
I wish I knew! I've always been told that, "When you shoot that thing, make sure the bayo is extended, because that's the way the Russians designed it".
Still, "Why"? One of those confusing "Russian ways of thinking"?
I've shot my Tula both ways, and it groups better with the bayo out. My Ish shoots better with it out also, but best with it removed completely. Must be a thing with harmonics. I notice that the bayonet is much more rigid when extended.
05-10-2004, 11:30 PM
Some guns shoot point of aim better with it out, on others it makes no difference. Perhaps it has to do with turbulence of the gasses against the blade. The rifles were sighted in with the bayonet extended, and it was always carried that way in combat. I guess they thought if you needed the bayonet, you didn't have time to fix it, especially under stress.
The size of the group could well be due to the harmonics of the barrel. The bayonet extended would put a lot of weight on the barrel, and it would be out farther, so it's logical it, or any rifle, would shoot differently with it extended.
Most of the people I knew shot with it extended. The ones that removed it usually did several other things to the rifle. Ever tried a 6 pound Nagant with a 16" barrel? And you think .50 BMG rifles kick...
05-16-2004, 04:16 AM
My M44 does something similar, way high and to the left with it folded, still a bit high but dead center with the bayonet extended. Of the two 91/30s I have, both of them shoot better with the bayonets attached than with them off. One is about a foot and a half high without it but still in the center, with the bayonet on, its right where it should be. The other one is so far off to the right it doesn't even touch the paper, with bayonet attached still a bit to the right by an inch or two but at least it hits the paper or makes the gong ring.
As far as why they designed it that way, who knows? If I had to guess it seems that the Russians have always been big believers in their bayonets. I don't know about rifles prior to the Mosin Nagants, but look at the M91s, right from the outset they were designed to be carried with the bayonet fixed, there are no frogs or other carriers for them (that I know of, at least). That and just about every war time picture I've seen, from World War 1 and the Revolution through World War 2, if they are carrying 91/30s or M91s, they have the bayonet fixed, I see this alot even in photos that are simply shots of troops marching along some dirt road to somewhere, not just ones that are combat photos. IIRC, the M44 came about because the M38 was found lacking because it didn't have a bayonet. I have to wonder why they didn't just come up with a bayonet for the M38s already in production, it couldn't have been all that hard.
Something I always wondered about, how many soldiers ended up minus an eye or otherwise injured because of the policy of keeping the bayonet fixed on the rifles all the time? I wonder if the folding bayonet for the M44 was for some reason developed as a result of this...keep it folded for travel to avoid poking you or your buddy Ivan's eye out, unfold it when combat seems imminent.
Anyways, I love my M44, M38 and my 91/59 the best out of my collection. Theres just something fun about the flamethrowers :small_gri
05-16-2004, 05:28 PM
Wow, your 91/30 shoots that high w/o the bayonet? I hope that's not the norm, I want to order one and have no intention of sticking the bayonet on it.
05-17-2004, 03:02 AM
I don't think its the norm. A friend of mine has three 91/30s and none of them are as wildly varying without the bayonet as mine are, and the 91/30 I gave my father for Christmas this last year is dead on without the bayonet and only a little low with the bayonet on. Weird, I know. Then again, there might be more to it than just the bayonet being attached.
Still, I'm not complaining. Its rather entertaining when I take the 91/30s out to the range. All the really strange looks I get from everyone when I put the bayonets on them :laugh_sma.
05-17-2004, 02:41 PM
Its rather entertaining when I take the 91/30s out to the range. All the really strange looks I get from everyone when I put the bayonets on them :laugh_sma.
I know what ya mean, one guy asked me what kind of rifle I was shooting and his buddy is laughing and says "nice bayonet"...... and all I could think was "you don't have a clue do you.......jerk"
05-17-2004, 11:17 PM
You want a flamethrower, Florida Ammo Traders (Tampa) sold (sells?) a Mosin with a short stock and 16" barrel. I think they put a muzzle brake on them now if they're still selling them.
They also made 16" barrel Turk Mausers. They had a functioning brake. I never got to fire one of them, but the Mosin would get your attention. Surprisingly, the recoil wasn't too bad. It was worse than an M44, though. Sometimes my perception of recoil is a little strange. .50 BMG is a "reasonable" gun for recoil to me.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.