1891/30 questions

[jc75754]

I have read alot of info the past two days and have been searching for the best deal on this rifle.

There seems to be an argument over hex vs. round barrel. I think either should be fine but i just wanted some thoughts from owners.

This will not be a collector item i am looking for a real shooter that is fairly accurate and will take down deer at 30-85 yrds.

Aim has some good prices and so does centerfire so would the arsenal refinished barrel be worth the extra time from centerfire?

I plan on using the gun as is w/o modifications to make the hunt more challenging.

the local gun store has the round receiver for 129 which seems on par with most suppliers.

Also what round would be the best for taking deer or will fmj suffice?

Thanks for your input.

[RudyN]

I think the Hex receiver is a bit stronger, but either would be fine. However, the WWII built ones are a bit rougher in finish as they USSR needed as many rifles as they could ge as soon as they could get them. I happen to have a 03FFL so I can order them online and have them sent to me which allows me to choose from some different suppliers.

[Eurodriver]

1. Virtually every 91/30 has been arsenally refinished. If you find one that hasn't, let me know. I will buy it and sell it to collectors for a premium.

2. Never ever shoot a deer with FMJ. Even at 50 yards with a 7.62x54R. Get some Wolf or Silver Bear Soft Point

3. I would get a hex receiver simply because every Mosin Nagant I've ever owned has had a round receiver. Strong? Weak? I don't know. The change was made to cheapen production around WWII. If it is weaker, the effects of that haven't manifested themselves in the 20,000,000 rifles with round receivers over 70 years.

[sgtrock82]

I own and have owned a number of mosin nagant rifles, but havent owned one of the refurbed rifles that dominate the market. I havent shot them extensively, but I havent noticed an accuracy advantage of one over the other. I would check the gunboard forums for more info on this. I think the barrel condition and how well it fits the stock are the biggest considerations. FWIW the finns seemed to have a preference for the hex receiver. Also the bulk of the snipers were round receivered and they tend to shoot pretty well too

[rojocorsa]

I chose round because those are generally cheaper and there the way the receiver is cut does not affect performance whatsoever.

After 1936, all Mosin receivers were rounded only because it simplified production. That's it. There is no strong or weak deal. And round does not necessarily mean half-assed either. There are some very nice pre-war round receiver rifles that have machine work as neat as earlier hexes. (And even the rough WWII receivers are usually good shooters because internally the machine work is correct).

The Finns used mostly hex receivers because they either bought or captured receivers (and this was before WWII "proper" when all those common Izhevsk 91/30s from '42 and '43 started rolling out).
They rebuilt all of these to their own specs and the rest is history. I've seen some gorgeous M-39 Finns with Imperial Russian markings from the 1890s. (On most Mosins, especially the ones before the war, you can check the receiver's date by looking underneath the tang. Even on rebuilt rifles, the year on the shank may not be the actual year).


Choosing a receiver shape in terms of shootability is not important. Choose it for aesthetics or collector's value instead. But just be aware that anything prewar will have a better fit and finish.

Hope this clears some things up.

[TacticalSledgehammer]

I voted for hex because generally the machining is better. The earlier round receivers have nice machining (for mass produced russian standards) as well as late 1945 & up (mostly m44s and rare 91/30s)

If you want a better shooter you'd think a later round receiver would be better. All in all it's a toss up really. If you're wanting to hunt with it see if the dealer will let you take a round and check the crowns on all of them.

[jc75754]

well, I opted for the round 91/30 born in the Tula factory on 1943. All parts have matching serial numbers as well as the bayonet. I used some industrial degreaser along with boiling water and cleaned it up and I was impressed with how good the bore was on a 68 yr old rifle. Very little rust anywhere. The stock was also in very good shape.

Took it out about 2hrs ago and fired it and it was pretty accurate at about 50yrds off hand.

I was also amazed at how overbuilt the receiver was.

sorry no pics but i will try to post some later.

[sgtrock82]

A Tula sounds like a solid choice to me. I like seeing the big honking star on the receiver. Ensure you clean properly after any corrosive ammo.... or its the gulag for you!

Enjoy, Komerad

[Moltke]

I have owned a bunch of Mosins ranging from Three Line Rifles to M44's. The difference in stength or durability between the hex receivers and the round receivers is perceived and not a real issue. Find one that has a good barrel. If you want a good hunting load, hollowpoints are available but don't expect accuracy from this rifle like that of a modern bolt action OR an American rifle from that period. The tolerances just aren't there. Having owned some of the Russian sniper rifles, I don't know how they were effective snipers unless the German officers constantly moved in a huddle.

[lamarbrog]

The receiver is inconsequential.

I would look for as many matching numbers as possible, without those being forced-matches. (For example, original stamped number rather than electropenciling or stricken through old numbers.)

Generally the fit of the parts seems to be better on those that are original matching, instead of being assembled from parts during a rearsenaling. Take note that this is not always the case.