Are hex Mosins better?
- Thread starter The Exile
- Start date
- Status
MosinT53Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,042
I have had Hex receivers and round receivers. The Hex are older, sometimes have some really neat markings. Triggers are sometimes better then your average WWII Mosin Nagant. I had one, dated, I believe 1928 or so. It was a great looking rifle, best I have ever boughten from Big 5. I gave it to a brother in law to get him started in appreciating Mosin Nagants.
I will stand by my Chinese T53, 1955 Mosin Nagant carbine. Better trigger, smooth as butter bolt, and more accurate then it should be. Just my two cents.
I will stand by my Chinese T53, 1955 Mosin Nagant carbine. Better trigger, smooth as butter bolt, and more accurate then it should be. Just my two cents.
troy fairweather
Member
Yes unless you want to make a PU.
mcb
Member
It's a Mosin, it's just levels of not so bad.
sarduy
Member
About the same, just different styles
Random 8
Member
Yes, in terms of performance, I think so in general terms. I don't, however, think they are any better because they are a hex receiver. I think they tend to be better as they are pre-war production rifles where more attention was paid to detail and fitting. 1937-40 round receiver rifles share the same higher overall quality of manufacture. What the Ukrainian refurb program did to them post-war can be a crap shoot, but the odds of having a "better" rifle are better with a hex receiver or pre-war round IMHO.
I've found rifles from the mid to late 1920s to be especially well made, blued, fitted. I'm guessing the economy was relatively stable at the time, and generally lower production in these years lends itself to greater skill level among workers and better QC.
I've found rifles from the mid to late 1920s to be especially well made, blued, fitted. I'm guessing the economy was relatively stable at the time, and generally lower production in these years lends itself to greater skill level among workers and better QC.
theotherwaldo
Member
-I still prefer the Finn rebuilds and the American-built Mosins.
Does the smaller barrel bother you any? I remember you pointed me towarrds some barreled actions before but I hesitated because I'd heard that the carbiners shoot weird without the bayonet extended and are a lot louder than full sized mosins.
I read somewhere that the Soviet Union was uniquely unaffected by the great depression because they were fairly separated from the global economy, so that very well could be the case.
MosinT53Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,042
Actually, the recoil is very comparable to the average length ones. For mine, I have a thick rubber recoil pad that I have modified for softer shooting.
I took mine out deer hunting a few years back, with my brother in law. We both shot our deer in roughly the same location, he had his range finder with him. He told me where I shot my deer was out to 250 years out, and I had only iron sights. No bayonet.
Report: Hmm, I don't know, everything is loud. Most of my shooting is on the range, and I have gun muffs on. When I was deer hunting, I didn't even think about the report of the rifle. I was so focused on my main target, i guess I kinda didn't even think of it.
Don't believe what you have heard, only believe in your own experience.
Dr T
Member
I have a Finn built on an 1894 Hex reciever and so is a Curio/Relic, not a firearm (at least legally). It is actually fairly accurate (< 3'' groups at 100 yds with my eyes and iron sights) since the Finns rebuilt them to an accuracy standard. I certainly think that the reciever is much better than the WWII production.
dh1633pm
Contributing Member
My M39 competed favorable at Camp Perry. So the not as good goes out the window. Many a critter taken with it. Hex receiver and all. When I was young it was all I had. Have to admit I liked hex better. Round never caught my fancy.
courtgreene
Member
I have a 1925 Hex, and a round from some time in the forties. Both of them shoot very well, actually, but the hex does shoot a little better. As for the way it's made, it looks like at the time it was made, it was made better... but years of storage take their toll. I didn't hand pick either one, I bought them both from AIM when they were $75. They're good rifles. BOTH of them are good rifles.
Although unasked, I'll tell you that because the hex shoots so well as is, I took the round apart and put it in a new stock, took the sight off, and made it a scoped hunting rifle (but completely able to put it back to factory spec in minutes). The hex still shoots just as well as the round even in original configuration with iron sights. They both go hunting now and then.
Although unasked, I'll tell you that because the hex shoots so well as is, I took the round apart and put it in a new stock, took the sight off, and made it a scoped hunting rifle (but completely able to put it back to factory spec in minutes). The hex still shoots just as well as the round even in original configuration with iron sights. They both go hunting now and then.
When will the madness end
Swampman
Old Fart
The Tkiv 85 sniper rifle, still standard issue for many Finnish snipers, was designed in the early 1980's and specified the use of hex receivers due to them being heavier and stiffer than the later production round receivers.
It's not like the Finns know anything about accurate rifles or how to effectively employ them.
You should enlighten them with the benefits of your greater knowledge, wisdom and experience.
Uhhh...yeah...
It's not like the Finns know anything about accurate rifles or how to effectively employ them.
You should enlighten them with the benefits of your greater knowledge, wisdom and experience.
Last edited:
entropy
Member
The Depression would have been step up economically for the fledgling Soviet Union. Ayn Rand described it quite well in We The Living. (actually the book is set just before then, but it illustrates where the Soviet economy was at the time.).
Indeed the M28/76 that preceeded it also specified hex receivers, and for the same reason. The Finns developed a very good scope mount for it, as well as a solid rear aperture sight mount.
Last edited:
bangswitch
Member
It's mainly a matter of preference in the appearance. Only two Russian armories built the M91, Tula and Izhevsk, and the hex receiver was the standard from the beginning of M91 production until 1935 at Izhevsk and 1936 at Tula. There are many variations of both the hex and round receivers (high wall, low wall, and tang connection methods), but chamber dimensions are the same for both. How well the one you buy shoots would probably have more to do with how many rounds have been through the receiver and the barrel than what the shape of the outside is. Whether the bolt is the original and how well it is matched to the receiver would also have something to do with it. millions of these were built, and most of the surviving ones have been put together from salvageable parts from other guns. I have a 1932 dated M91/30 Tula low wall hex receiver, it shoots well enough to consistently hit a human-size target in the vital area at 250 yards, but I wouldn't call it a tack driver.
Carl N. Brown
Member
The top five flats of the "hex" receiver is an octagon, but what would be the bottom three sides of the octagon is a round curve, making it the "sixth" side of a "hexagon". Russia is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.
I have a "hex" receiver Mosin in 91/30 configuration, receiver stamped 1926. I find it an interesting gun with an interesting history. I have shot it in the local vintage military matches.
I have a "hex" receiver Mosin in 91/30 configuration, receiver stamped 1926. I find it an interesting gun with an interesting history. I have shot it in the local vintage military matches.
entropy
Member
Incorrect. Sestroryetsk also built M91's from 1892 to 1918. They switched production over to Machine guns in 1918.
https://russian-mosin-nagant-forum.com/app.php/page/99
Last edited:
bangswitch
Member
Nice site, has even better pictures than 7.62x54r.net, which I referred to. I'll have to read up on the Sestroryetsk armory. How rare is it to find one of their receivers on a 91/30?
entropy
Member
Rare. While the Russians did 'update' older receivers to 91/30 rifles, it would have only been between 1930 and 1941,and only when the rifle was otherwise not easy returned to service with minor parts replacement, but the rifle was otherwise salvageable.
The Finns tended to rebuild M91's to their models when they saw fit, so it is far more likely to find a Finnish M24, M27, M28, M28/30, or M39 with a Sestroryetsk receiver.
This is not a common find:
This is my 1916 Sestroryetsk that still has both Imperial Eagles intact; Finland and other countries usually ground them off when they got the rifles. I found this gun in a gun shop that had it in an ATI plastic stock, labelled as an M44, and priced accordingly. I am glad that I was a member of the forum I linked to earlier, and that I can read Russian somewhat. I could hardly contain myself as I went to the counter and said, I'll take it! The correct stock and correct bayonet cost me more than the gun did!
It was worth every penny.
The Finns tended to rebuild M91's to their models when they saw fit, so it is far more likely to find a Finnish M24, M27, M28, M28/30, or M39 with a Sestroryetsk receiver.
This is not a common find:
This is my 1916 Sestroryetsk that still has both Imperial Eagles intact; Finland and other countries usually ground them off when they got the rifles. I found this gun in a gun shop that had it in an ATI plastic stock, labelled as an M44, and priced accordingly. I am glad that I was a member of the forum I linked to earlier, and that I can read Russian somewhat. I could hardly contain myself as I went to the counter and said, I'll take it! The correct stock and correct bayonet cost me more than the gun did!
It was worth every penny.
- Status
