Looking for info on the 1917-1931 Mosin Nagant 91-30R 7.62x54R. Is it worth the small investment for a range gun IE easy ammo availability and reliability?
Came across a few and know nothing about there history so thought why not get a no BS assessment from a knowledgeable source.
Thanks for your time.
I have a 91/30 from 1937 and I love it. $100 boom stick and 440 rounds of 7.52x54 ($90) is a steal. How many rifles out there cost $100 and are accurate, reliable, and affordable to shoot.
Do yourself a favor and get (at least) one. Whether you shoot the shit out of it or let it collect dust in the closet it’s well worth the $.
Also, to remove the cosmoline use Simple Green.
If you have ever seen the movie Enemy at the Gates this is the rifle that Vasily Zaitsev (Jude Law) use’s along with nearly all Soviet infantry.
I have the M44 - which is extremely similar. Same deal - cheap and pretty accurate. Ammo is also cheap. A lot of the cheap stuff is corrosive though, but a bit of cleaning when you get home (soap and water) and no problem. You can even find soft points for hunting.
Cheap. Tough. Corrosive ammo. For what they cost, you should totally pick one up.
There’s a ton of information at http://7.62x54r.net/
I have one from 1924 and it shoots better than some rifles costing 10 times as much. You can’t go wrong with one of them, they are amazing.
Can’t add a whole lot more to what these guys have posted.
Lots of history in those rifles. I’ve not run across stripper clips that actually work well though.
If you’ve got $100.00 then why not?
:ph34r:
The only drawback to Mosins is the fact that they tend to multiply on you.
I started with a '44 Finn and ended up with an M38, multiple M44’s, M 91-30’s and a cherry M91-59 
Seriously, you can’t go wrong. If firearms like these interest you, you may wish to consider getting your Curio & Relic FFL. Cost is $30 for 3 years.
Ammo for them is still incredibly cheap…like 80 bucks for 440 rounds. It is a fun blaster. I shoot mine a few times per year.
This was $98 OTD at this past weekend’s Crossroads Show in Phoenix. It’s a 1927 hex-receiver version, with serial number matching bayonet:
There was a thread about Mosins here from 3-4 weeks ago. OP, check it out:
Please don’t “sporterize” it if you get one.
From what I have read the Hex are better made than the round receivers. But is the difference is that great. i local store is selling the round for 99 dollars. Every other store is a little bit more around here. I can order one from a different store in NC (round 74, hex 89), but then I will need to pay a least a 25 dollard transfer fee. So my question is the quality that much greater in the HEX than the round?
Hex vs. round isn’t so much the question as time of peace vs. time of war. The quality of the wartime production round receiver guns aren’t on par for late war Japanese small arms but there were some small changes to expedite the production process.
Round or Hex, they’re both great quality guns and most likely will out live you so get what you want (read: get both types!)
I think the round receivers are actually a little more desirable, for me, because of the war time production.
Some of the 1942 and 1943 dated receivers literally look like Ivan was taking a belt sander to the receiver during production. With Hans and Fritz running over the Motherland, they were throwing them out of the factories as fast as possible…and they most definitely saw active service.
That’s not to say that they are unsafe…all the internals are good to go, but you’ll see a lot of tool marks on the receiver that is cosmetic only.
As others just said, there are no basic differences in hexes and rounders.
I own examples of both (because that’s the stuff I could afford last year).
I love my refurbed '31 Izzy the most, but my very fist own gun was a rough-ass trusty '43 Izzy, even if I overpayed for it (for circumstances beyond my control at the time).
The only difference really is the the age of the rifles. Up until 1936, all Mosins were hexes. After that year, they decided on a round receiver to simply the manufacturing process. Also, these pre-war round receivers are as nicely made as the early hex 91/30s. I’ll vouch for this myself, since I got my buddy to buy a '39 Tula which I compared side by side to my '31 Izzy Ex drag. The high wall receiver is there, as is the nicer machining for the clip guides.
The quality of the wartime production round receiver guns aren’t on par for late war Japanese small arms
Where could I see more information on this?
As Templar said, the internals are good to go, and that’s what matters. I can personally vouch for this as can many other people that shoot these a lot. My '43 is the gun I’ve shot the most besides my .22 CZ. And boy, it has the matching bolt, and that motherfucker sure is smooth in there. It’s like a bolt action AK!
In fact I will say that they are the AKs of bolt actions. They’re dead simple (the bolt on has six major pieces, the FCG has like 4 parts) and rugged. And the barrel doesn’t feel that long after you get used to it. Also, the recoil isn’t that bad. For what it is (a combat bolt gun) you get a great price:firepower ratio.
Also, it’s one of the few things you can get from century and not expect to be a POS.
One thing that I have noticed over the last year is that the price of the carbines has been increasing. I think the standard price for an M-44 is at $200+ these days, and an M-38 probably goes for more. Even the 91/30s will go up in value someday, so don’t bubba them. Most of those end up looking shitty anyway.
I feel like putting up some pictures, because at this point in time it’s rate when I can actually talk about guns I use and own. (That’s right, never shot an AR; at least I can afford a nice Arsenal AK now).
Here’s a receiver just the way Templar likes them!
Here’s my beautiful '31.
The middle and right one are mine; the one on the left is the '39 that I mentioned earlier that belongs to a buddy.
I concur. The round receivers could have their outside surfaced turned on a lathe, whereas the hex ones needed 3 angled flats milled into the steel. Going to a round shape was mainly a cost-cutting change that really doesn’t affect strength or weight.
I’ve got a '39 Tula as well, yet it is pretty rough. The bore is dark and pitted, and the bolt is only force matched. When it was rearsenaled after WWII, they took a different bolt, struck out the original serial # on it and re-stamped it to match. Anyway, it’s rough but it works.
Don’t overlook the Finnish variants, either! You never know what you’re going to get with a Soviet Mosin, but the Finnish rifles universally got more TLC in manufacturing and in later armorer/gunsmith work done on them. Besides, Enemy at the Gates is Hollywood sensationalism. You want an M/28 like Simo Häyhä.
Interesting on your '39 Tula. Sounds like it went through hell and back. Even if it’s rough, does your receiver still have that curvy part on the left side of the receiver? Because on the war rifles, it seems that this part was just left unmachined.
Enemy at the Gates, while a cool movie, is just sensationalism, I agree. It annoys me how people look at it as a history lesson. I’ve read works where they explore the idea that the legendary sniper duel could have pretty much been only Soviet propaganda. But Zaitsev was a real person, no doubt about it.
I concur with kartoffel on the Finn Mosins. Though I’ve never shot one myself, I know a thing or two about these and they are all around great.
The Finns basically took older Russian Imperial Mosins and updated them. They have better furniture, sights, and an actual two stage trigger. I don’t they’re as cool looking as the Soviet ones, but that’s besides the point.
If you are interested in a kick-ass shooter, you can probably even find one of those unissued Sakos from the late '60s. No doubt about it, the Finns are the most accurate military Mosins. They do cost more, but for logical reasons. Hell, I probably ought to pick one up myself sometime before they’re gone.
Some of the early production M91/30’s (and maybe some later ones too) were converted Dragoons, so some folks look for those for the history invloved. I need a Tula M44 for my little collection (they were only produced at Tula for one year - 1944), but those tend to be a bit pricey.
Yeah, the older looking ex-drags are cool, especially because they have the older markings with different symbols on the shank. What’s weird is that the 91/30 became official in 1930, but ex-dragoons were still made until 1932. My '31 Izzy hex is technically and ex-dragoon. If you have any Soviet Mosin dated from 30-32, all you have to do is check underneath the rear sight base, and should you find a gap in the dovetail, you have an ex-dragoon. Recall that the older Mosins had a different RSB hence the extra space.
If you look at a WWII rifle for example, you should find that the dovetail will be flush.