Mosin-Nagant 91/30 hex vs. round receiver?

[bcali]

What difference does it make?
Does (did) one shoot better?
Collectible value?
Any other pros/cons?

Thx in advance!

[socaldsal]

As far as shooting goes, I have both, I shoot both, and both are generally "minute of man" type rifles that aren't a 800 meter tackdriver, but they place similar groups at the 100m mark.

Some people collect Winter War rifles, others round/hex, misc. etc. It really depends on what you got....what are its specifics?

Finn rifles generally cost more, but an all Tula 91/30 hex or a round will shoot about the same for about the same price, as long as the barrels are similar.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

I think the Soviets changed the design to a round receiver simply because it was cheaper/easier/faster to make them that way. I've never seen any claims that one design shoots better than the other.

Back when you could order MN91/30's from five or six different wholesalers, many of them used to charge $10 more for hex or Tula or good bore, so people must find hex's to be slightly more collectable if they were willing to pay extra for them.

I think hex receivers just look cooler than round receivers, more old-timey. But if was just looking for a good shooter then I wouldn't pay a premium for a hex.

[nick]

Hex receivers are older and, supposedly, sturdier. Heavier, too. That's pretty much it, they don't add up much to the value. If given a choice and all others being equal, I'd probably buy a Mosin with a hex receiver, it just looks more "old-timey", as the previous poster mentioned. Unless, of course, I'm looking for a wartime rifle, which would be bought more for a collection than for shooting/quality, as wartime production is usually of rougher quality.

[knucklehead0202]

yeah, pretty much, they just look neater.

[Francis Marion]

That's an octagonal shape, not a hex.

Speculation here:
The octagonal design might have been chosen to help locate the receiver while machining, and might have been the optimal form for 19th century manufacturing methods.
The round shape better fit Bolshevik manufacturing scale and technique.

Also, the Bolsheviks were very sensitive to distinguish themselves, their time in history, and their way of government from the 'backward' past. One way was to modernize the Russian alphabet. After this modernization, 'suspect' pre-revolution literature and writing could be distinguished at a glance from 'progressive' Bolshevik stuff.

Soviet Russian manufacturing philosophy was not built upon a small group of artisans making small numbers of well-crafted rifles. Rather, they would strive to meet large, state-mandated quotas with all the attendant design and material shortcuts necessary to meet norms.

So, the M1891 is both a 19th century and a 20th century rifle, similar to the way the well-crafted M1903 became the more streamlined M1903A3, with both designs changing to accomodate the political/warfighting needs and manufacturing practices of their times.

[bcali]

Thx guys!

[bugman]

Great information. I was wondering about the same question that the OP asked.