Mosin-Hex vs. Regular reciever
- Thread starter David_M
- Start date
I don't think there's a lot of difference in function dictated by round vs hex. However, there is a noticeable difference in finishing between pre war and wartime rifles. I have pre war Tula rifles with both round and hex receivers and both are very nicely machined. I had a wartime Izhevsk that was pretty crudely finished in comparison.
Has nothing to do with war/pre-war - http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/Mosinprimer.htm
You don't see a difference in the finish on rifles made prior to the war?
I meant hex/non-hex has nothing to do with war/pre-war. That goes to OP question.
Makes sense that things dropped off as the war went on. Mine was a 43 Izhevsk and it was pretty rough.
The quality was excellent from 1891->1940 and started to slip away late 1941. The quality came back in late 1944 / early 1945. Obviously, there are exceptions to this.
Rifles with hexagonal receivers are desirable because they're less common than the later round receivers and therefore more collectable. They have a higher chance of being on the higher end of the machining quality scale as well. They also can have interesting history as many of them were older models (M91, Dragoon, etc) that have been converted to the newer 91/30 specification.
Rifles with hexagonal receivers are desirable because they're less common than the later round receivers and therefore more collectable. They have a higher chance of being on the higher end of the machining quality scale as well. They also can have interesting history as many of them were older models (M91, Dragoon, etc) that have been converted to the newer 91/30 specification.
Phat Eagle
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Fraser Valley, BC
Some claim the hex receivers are "stiffer", but I'm not sure it makes that much a difference. I think they are mostly more desirable as there are fewer around.
That said, my 1923 hex outshoots any of my other Mosins, except my '36 Tula Sniper. Not sure if the reciever has anything to do with it, or if it's just happenstance.
That said, my 1923 hex outshoots any of my other Mosins, except my '36 Tula Sniper. Not sure if the reciever has anything to do with it, or if it's just happenstance.
dgradinaru
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- British Columbia
Almost every 1943 made mosin 91/30 ive seen to date all were very rough. It seems they seem to have the least quality and larger than normal bore diameter.
thanks for all the replies, they were very helpful, i was wondering about this because i saw a hex reciever mosin for $209.99 at can tire and the round reciever one was $199.99. I dont think either one will be as good quality as my carl gustav 1903 m96 though
If the bores are excellent in those Mosins, you would be in for a big surprise. The Mosins you speak of have no description other than receiver type. The Finns had very strict accuracy requirements and after they rebuilt them, the rifles they released were some of the most accurate made in those times.
I have two Finn rebuilds. Both are 91-30s with as new stocks and barrels. They both shoot into slightly over a minute of angle when a shooter with good eyes and experience shoots them with decent ammo. Far to many people judge the accuracy of these old war horses with the cheap and of sometimes questionable quality surplus ammo. Surplus ammo for your M96 Swede has always been in short supply. I bought one batch over 30 years ago and I was lucky to shoot into 5moa with rifles that looked and measured out like they had just come through a fresh FTR. They shot the Dominion 160 grn roundnose into about 2moa and selected handloads much better.
When you take two milsurp rifles in comparable condition inside and out and feed them ammo they like, they will perform almost equally, as long as the shooters are equal.
About ten years ago, we used to attend matches on a regular basis. I liked to pit a couple of milsurps in the open hunting rifle category at 100 yards. Back in the late fifties when scopes were becoming affordable to the average hunter there was a lot of discussion about whether or not scopes were even necessary. I recently sold a 1908 Brazilian Mauser chambered in 7x57 that would regularly shoot into less than a moa at 100yds with selected hand loads. The best two shot group I made with it was 1/2 moa and I still have the target, signed by the other 9 competitors to prove it. The side bets were very good that first round. After that, I couldn't get anyone to even make an offer.
The rifles I took to those matches were the 1908 Brazilian, M91/30 SIG barreled Finn and a 1950 No4 MkI* Long Branch. All three will shoot into sub moa groups if they have ammo they like.
As far as quality goes, I have seen some very roughly finished Swedes. Same goes for Mosins and other milsurps. I have also seen Mosins and Swedes with fit an finish comparable to some of the best quality sporting rifles made.
I don't have very many details on the mosin, I think it is a fin but I don't know, but my m96 has one of the nicest milsurp bores I have ever seen and it is in excellent shape all over, hopefully the mosin is as good a shooter as my M96.
Only thing I will say is that the Finns seem to have worked on some of the most accurate Moisins ever turned out.
Their very latest sniper rifle is a rebuilt Moisin-Nagant.
They use ONLY the early octagonal receivers for sniping rifles because they are STIFFER.
Their very latest sniper rifle is a rebuilt Moisin-Nagant.
They use ONLY the early octagonal receivers for sniping rifles because they are STIFFER.
Hey Dave I've never hunted "ears" is it fun???? 
My PE mounted sniper has a hex receiver and it does shoot slightly better than its round receiver counterpart. Funny though, no difference at all between the regular Finn 91/30s.
My PE mounted sniper has a hex receiver and it does shoot slightly better than its round receiver counterpart. Funny though, no difference at all between the regular Finn 91/30s.
Looks like SMELLIE is up early, as usual. He is right about the Finnish Sniper rifles, and the Finns used the hex receivers in their post WWII sniper rifles. They considered them a bit stiffer.
One of the big reasons for the deterioration of finish on the Russian Mosin-Nagants after 1940-41 is that Russia was attacked by Germany in June, 1941. With the fast German gains of territory, there was a big rush to dismantle the industrial plants and move them away to safety. The large loss of rifles captured by the Germans had to be replaced by the Russians, and were urgently needed. Fine finish was secondary to functioning rifles. Speed of production was paramount and many of the workers in the arms plants were untrained or semi-skilled. Later in the war, when the tide had turned and the Russians were on the offensive, there was not the urgent need for these rifles, and the workers had gained more experience, so a bit more time could be allotted to the finish on the firearms.
A lot of the times it can come down to the "pick of the litter". Some Mosins simply shoot better than others, regardless of manufacture year.
I like hex/octagonal receivers purely because they look nice, and because I like older rifles in my collection. I particularly appreciate the finer craftsmanship on the stripper clip guide points, as well as the added stamping on the barrel shank that the earlier Mosins tend to have.
I like hex/octagonal receivers purely because they look nice, and because I like older rifles in my collection. I particularly appreciate the finer craftsmanship on the stripper clip guide points, as well as the added stamping on the barrel shank that the earlier Mosins tend to have.
