The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Curios and Relics

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 16, 2010, 07:47 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: July 19, 2007
Posts: 257
Mosin Nagant variations

Why is the hexagonal receiver Mosin more expensive than the rounded? Does it offer a stronger action? I noticed some really great pricing of them offered by Aim Surplus, and was wondering about the difference.
ks_wayward_son is offline  
Old January 16, 2010, 10:33 PM   #2
the rifleer
Senior Member
Join Date: March 5, 2008
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 1,273
They are older and some people think that because they were made before the war they were made with more care, but the truth is that the mosin nagant's action is so tough that I don't think it really matters.

I believe that they started making them round because it was easier and faster to produce, but I'm not 100% sure.
the rifleer is offline  
Old January 16, 2010, 11:28 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: December 27, 2008
Posts: 1,032
This original configuration is commonly known as a "hex receiver". Besides the obvious polygonal shape of the exterior of the receiver itself, it has a tapped and plugged hole next to the recoil lug, a shallow magazine screw hole, stepped tang, extra notch forward of the stripper clip guide, low wall, machined right rear, and inner receiver ring without the lug race cut.

The round receiver was adopted along with the model M91/30 in 1930, but did not go into production until 1935 and 1936 at Izhevsk and Tula respectively. It retained all the same sub features as the hex receiver (#1); shallow magazine screw hole, stepped tang, extra notch forward of the stripper clip guide, low wall, machined right rear, and inner receiver ring without the lug race cut. All future Mosin receivers are round and no hex receivers are known to have been produced after 1936. Any rifles or carbines with a hex receiver and a barrel date after 1936 were built on older receivers. One exception is a few 1937 rifles built on 1936 receivers.

Later in 1941 Izhevsk carried the streamlining process further by bringing back the high wall receiver for all rifle and carbine production, not just snipers. At this time the right rear was no longer machined. The left rear continued to be machined because it is necessary to hook the cocking knob on it to place the rifle on "safe". The extra notch forward of the stripper clip guide was was still in place, although apparently for a brief time, as this variation is uncommon.
noyes is offline  
Old January 17, 2010, 12:36 AM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
The reason Hex receivers are more expensive is due to advertising. The Hex rifles are older, but I think just as common as the post-1936 round receivers. Look at it this way, Russia had an army and navy exceeding 5 million men just about each and every year of the M91 and M91/30 issue, and a lot more in WWI, WWII, and the early years of the Bolshevik regime when the proletariat needed full employment or goodbye, Lenin. So there are literally millions of them around.

That being said, no reason not to pick a couple of them up, they have good stampings and lots of variations and it's only a few bucks more. $20 additional is fair, more than that is gouging, unless it's a really prime example.

Chances of getting something besides Izhevsk arsenal increase dramatically with the Hex rifles.
kilimanjaro is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06743 seconds with 9 queries