Nagant revolver question

huchahuchax · May 6, 2009, 05:52 PM

What I want to know is what kind of sadist would engineer such a gun? I recently bought an 1895, and took it to the range for the first time today. Wow! I'm trying to figure out why they would even bother to put sights on the gun if they knew that the trigger pull was going to be so heavy it would be impossible to hold the gun steady? I actually started to develop a flinch, not because of the recoil (or lack of), but from the suprise of exerting so much effort and still not having the shot break.

Oh well, it's a cool little revolver with some character, but I don't think I'll be shooting it much.

Hkmp5sd · May 6, 2009, 05:56 PM

Well, the Russians didn't really use sights. They just pressed the barrel to the back of the head and squeezed real hard....

huchahuchax · May 6, 2009, 06:09 PM

Well, that makes sense. But we are talking about a country with a hammer and sickle on their flag, and it just seems to me that it would be much easier to kill someone with an actual hammer or sickle than with a Nagant revolver.

lagavulin62 · May 6, 2009, 08:34 PM

before you complain about the nagant trigger try a p64 with the stock hammer spring.

carguychris · May 6, 2009, 08:47 PM

Don't be such a grumbler. Look at the positive side. If you can learn to shoot a Nagant well, you will be able to shoot any DA revolver well.

Try doing lots of dry firing, and get one of those little squeezable hand exercise balls to make your fingers stronger.

OTOH I'll be the first to admit that the Nagant 1895 isn't the greatest service handgun ever devised, but keep in mind that in the era when it was adopted, a handgun was mostly a badge of rank for an officer. Its function was not so much as a fighting tool but as a tool to enforce discipline (eg. to shoot conscripts who didn't follow orders). The Russians were by no means alone in this regards; it was par for the course in European armies at the time.

Furthermore, many military leaders in the late 19th century already sensed that the writing was on the wall for the primary combat users of one-handed guns- the cavalry. (The horse-riding kind, not the tank-driving or helicopter-flying kind.)

Machine guns were about to make cavalry obsolete as a primary frontline fighting force, although they would persist for a while as scouts and raiders.

If a handgun is primarily meant as a short-range tool for limited use to enforce discipline, why bother making it easy to shoot at long range?

On a related note, IMHO the Nagant is also pretty unworthy compared to the gun it replaced... the single-action top-break Smith & Wesson Model No. 3 .44 Russian. I'd love to have me one of those.

huchahuchax · May 6, 2009, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Don't be such a grumbler. Look at the positive side. If you can learn to shoot a Nagant well, you will be able to shoot any DA revolver well.

I'm just grumbling in jest, and I already do shoot DA revolvers relatively well. Of the various firearm types, revolvers are my favorite - which is why I bought a Nagant in the first place.

I really was suprised by the stout trigger though. No big deal - for the price, I have no problem keeping it around.

huchahuchax · May 6, 2009, 10:17 PM

Of course, there is always the distinct possiblility that the action on my Nagant is a little stiffer than most Nagants. I would not know - this is my first experience with them.

Hirlau · May 6, 2009, 11:35 PM

I own "5" of them. One is used as parts. Yes, they all have strong heavy pulls.
But, reliable and not bad on single action.

Ammo prices, suck.

A great piece of history.

huchahuchax, I could always use a sixth one

MEATSAW · May 7, 2009, 07:29 AM

They seem like neat little guns. And one of those designs that just foster curiousity. I'd like to own one. Don't plan on competing with it though lol!

Sulaco2 · May 7, 2009, 03:35 PM

Let us keep in mind that the Russian National pistol team the competed in the Olympics used these revolvers after the war

Real men don't whine

MEATSAW · May 7, 2009, 06:57 PM

I also heard that a Russian marksmanship unit took home 1st Place here at a national match using Mosin Nagants. Train enough with any firearm and you can do amazing things

BTW- i read this somewhere a couple months ago

4INCHSMITH · May 7, 2009, 07:50 PM

Yes, they are all that bad. I bought mine last month mostly for the novelty, a crude piece of commie steel that goes bang and for $100? Why yes sir! Oh? It comes with holster and other doodads?

Do you have ammo for it? Yes?!....

I'll take 2 boxes and wrap it up my good sir!

Oh my, I need to start avoiding gunshows... never!

James K · May 7, 2009, 10:10 PM

Around 1890, the world's armies dropped the big bore revolvers they had adopted as their first cartridge revolvers, they went to smaller bores. In Europe, various such revolvers were adopted by Switzerland, Sweden (also a Nagant but without the reciprocating cylinder), and others. The U.S. adopted the .38 caliber Colt in 1892, but went back to .45. Britain held on to the big bore .455 until the 1930's and after.

So Russia's Nagant was not at all unusual at the time. The reciprocating cylinder (not as complex as some writers have claimed) was one of those ideas that sounds good when the salesman briefs the generals, but was a solution in search of a problem. The Russians, with a country in turmoil and chronically cash poor, went to an automatic as soon as they could, but WWII forced them to bring the old revolver tooling out of storage, a Nagant being a whole lot better than pointing a finger and saying the Russian equivalent of "bang!"

Jim

huchahuchax · May 7, 2009, 10:50 PM

One good thing I will say about this little revolver and its reciprocating cylinder - it is super easy to clean. I put 50 rounds through it yesterday, when I went to clean it today I found that the cylinder was spotless.

BlueTrain · May 10, 2009, 06:51 AM

All revolvers will seem surprisingly complicated if you take off the side plate, if there is one, yet they work. And people always say revolvers are complicated compared to automatics (that is said about cars, too). The Nagant was said to be popular with the troops, too, though I have no idea if there is any truth to that statement. But, you know, a lot of Colt DA revolvers are a little on the stiff side as well.

TEDDY · May 10, 2009, 10:00 AM

france used a form of nagant.[looks the same]theirs replaced what I would consider a better revolver.I have the french 1873 model.some of the european
guns were more advanced then ours.and the later colts used the interior design of the european pistols.

jrfoxx · May 10, 2009, 10:57 AM

Don't recall mine being all that bad in S/A. The D/A pull is like 100 lbs though. Thus, I only shoot mine in S/A, as I like to at least have a chance at hitting the target, and don't want my trigger finger to end up looking like Popeye's biceps.

sharps1863 · May 10, 2009, 06:15 PM

I only shoot mine single action, Double action is 14Lbs+, single action 5Lbs. My duty carry Glock-22 is 8Lbs. So you will find shooting single action, this little gun will surprise you. The ammo is a bit on the hard to find side and not cheap. I shoot 32 s/w long in mine with no trouble, does bulge the case a little and not as accurate as the Regular Nagant ammo. But makes a good cheap fishing gun. If you do your job aiming its deadly on snakes.

The Great Mahoo · May 12, 2009, 01:59 PM

I picked one of these up at the last gun show a few months ago. I wanted it for the novelty and history behind it. Such a remarkable gun; unique design, 7 round cylinder, and rediculous trigger! Quite the conversation piece, to say the least.

I haven't gotten around to shooting anything but a little dry fire, but I will be using it S/A almost exclusivly. Its pretty nice for that. I'm used to S/A's anyway.

For a little over a hundred bucks, I took home the gun, holster, lanyard, and cleaning kit. Not a bad day's work

Too bad the ammo sells for $47 around here

James K · May 12, 2009, 08:13 PM

The French Model 1892 "Lebel" is not a Nagant design, but is in the same class of smaller caliber revolver. It is, incidentally, one of the earliest swing cylinder revolvers, with the cylinder swinging to the right. Some folks say that a cylinder should swing to the right, and that the Colt's leftward swing was due to Sam Colt being left handed (although he had been dead 30 years). Nonsense, of course, and anyone who thinks a right swing would be superior has probably never tried the French revolver.

Jim

raftman · May 14, 2009, 04:32 PM

I like my Nagant. Having previously fired only semi-automatic pistols, it was weird at first for more than one reason. If only ammo was cheaper and easier to find. Haven't found any local sources so far, only online.

smoakingun · May 14, 2009, 06:43 PM

It is entirely possible that 100 years ago men were MEN, hairy chested, knuckle draggin', mouth breathin', MEN with sloped foreheads and one heavy eye brow. Even more probable, Russian men were manliest of all. Living in a frozen waste land with only the hair on their back to keep them warm. Living in a place where they wrestled bears for food gave them giant hands and forearms thus requireing them to build robust pistols, because a lesser weapon would not hold up to their massive mitts

Webleymkv · May 14, 2009, 07:23 PM

Old Russian saying: "Better is the enemy of good enough." Apparently, they viewed the trigger as good enough for dispatching the Huns trying to crawl over the top of your trench or popping political dissidents in the back of the head. Anything requiring more precision than that was a job for the SA trigger or better yet the rifle. The gun obviously wasn't intended to provide a high volume of fire, it's a gate-loader for goodness sake.

Quote:

The French Model 1892 "Lebel" is not a Nagant design, but is in the same class of smaller caliber revolver. It is, incidentally, one of the earliest swing cylinder revolvers, with the cylinder swinging to the right. Some folks say that a cylinder should swing to the right, and that the Colt's leftward swing was due to Sam Colt being left handed (although he had been dead 30 years). Nonsense, of course, and anyone who thinks a right swing would be superior has probably never tried the French revolver.

The Mle 1892's cylinder swung open to the right because the revolver was intended to be used in the left hand. French military doctrine of the time still viewed the saber as the officer's primary weapon and thusly the sword was intended to be wielded by the right hand.

Wildalaska · May 14, 2009, 10:20 PM

I have ten of them and would argue that they were the sturdiest handgun design of their age. Open one of those suckers up and count the parts

Wildicanhitamansizetargetat100yardswithonebutthebulletsbounceoffthecardboardAlaska TM

raftman · May 17, 2009, 09:15 PM

Here's my question about the Nagant. Virtually everything you read about the Nagant online, will mention the slow unloading process for the Nagant. They'll complain about using the ejector rod, which is indeed a multistep process, but does one really NEED to use it? With mine, I've observed once you open the loading gate, hold the gun with the barrel point upward, and rotate the cylinder and the spent casings will just fall right out one by one, occasionally when they don't fall right out, since they seem to "peek" out a little from the front of the cylinder, a single little tap with a finger will be enough to make them fall out. It's effortless. It seems almost as though the ejector rod is there only if something goes wrong. I've put 100 rounds through my Nagant thus far, and never once had to actually use the ejection rod. It's still not lightning fast to unload, but much faster and simpler than most make it out to be. So what's the deal? Is it just the ammo I am using? Or are that many people just mistaken?

May 6, 2009, 05:52 PM	#1
huchahuchax Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2007 Posts: 298	Nagant revolver question What I want to know is what kind of sadist would engineer such a gun? I recently bought an 1895, and took it to the range for the first time today. Wow! I'm trying to figure out why they would even bother to put sights on the gun if they knew that the trigger pull was going to be so heavy it would be impossible to hold the gun steady? I actually started to develop a flinch, not because of the recoil (or lack of), but from the suprise of exerting so much effort and still not having the shot break. Oh well, it's a cool little revolver with some character, but I don't think I'll be shooting it much.

May 6, 2009, 05:56 PM	#2
Hkmp5sd Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2001 Location: Winter Haven, Florida Posts: 4,303	Well, the Russians didn't really use sights. They just pressed the barrel to the back of the head and squeezed real hard.... __________________ NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member

May 6, 2009, 08:47 PM	#5
carguychris Senior Member Join Date: October 20, 2007 Location: Richardson, TX Posts: 7,523	Don't be such a grumbler. Look at the positive side. If you can learn to shoot a Nagant well, you will be able to shoot any DA revolver well. Try doing lots of dry firing, and get one of those little squeezable hand exercise balls to make your fingers stronger. OTOH I'll be the first to admit that the Nagant 1895 isn't the greatest service handgun ever devised, but keep in mind that in the era when it was adopted, a handgun was mostly a badge of rank for an officer. Its function was not so much as a fighting tool but as a tool to enforce discipline (eg. to shoot conscripts who didn't follow orders). The Russians were by no means alone in this regards; it was par for the course in European armies at the time. Furthermore, many military leaders in the late 19th century already sensed that the writing was on the wall for the primary combat users of one-handed guns- the cavalry. (The horse-riding kind, not the tank-driving or helicopter-flying kind.) Machine guns were about to make cavalry obsolete as a primary frontline fighting force, although they would persist for a while as scouts and raiders. If a handgun is primarily meant as a short-range tool for limited use to enforce discipline, why bother making it easy to shoot at long range? On a related note, IMHO the Nagant is also pretty unworthy compared to the gun it replaced... the single-action top-break Smith & Wesson Model No. 3 .44 Russian. I'd love to have me one of those. __________________ "Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

May 7, 2009, 07:29 AM	#9
MEATSAW Senior Member Join Date: May 1, 2009 Location: Burnet, TX Posts: 727	They seem like neat little guns. And one of those designs that just foster curiousity. I'd like to own one. Don't plan on competing with it though lol! __________________ Veteran OEF (2002) and OIF1 (2003) - US Army Member of the Burnet Gun Fighters, Inc. and of course the NRA Oregon State University alum -- Go Beavs!

May 7, 2009, 06:57 PM	#11
MEATSAW Senior Member Join Date: May 1, 2009 Location: Burnet, TX Posts: 727	I also heard that a Russian marksmanship unit took home 1st Place here at a national match using Mosin Nagants. Train enough with any firearm and you can do amazing things BTW- i read this somewhere a couple months ago __________________ Veteran OEF (2002) and OIF1 (2003) - US Army Member of the Burnet Gun Fighters, Inc. and of course the NRA Oregon State University alum -- Go Beavs!

May 6, 2009, 06:09 PM	#3
huchahuchax Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2007 Posts: 298	Well, that makes sense. But we are talking about a country with a hammer and sickle on their flag, and it just seems to me that it would be much easier to kill someone with an actual hammer or sickle than with a Nagant revolver.

May 6, 2009, 08:34 PM	#4
lagavulin62 Senior Member Join Date: June 19, 2008 Location: Montgomery, Texas Posts: 222	before you complain about the nagant trigger try a p64 with the stock hammer spring.

May 6, 2009, 10:17 PM	#7
huchahuchax Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2007 Posts: 298	Of course, there is always the distinct possiblility that the action on my Nagant is a little stiffer than most Nagants. I would not know - this is my first experience with them.

May 6, 2009, 11:35 PM	#8
Hirlau Junior member Join Date: January 1, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 296	I own "5" of them. One is used as parts. Yes, they all have strong heavy pulls. But, reliable and not bad on single action. Ammo prices, suck. A great piece of history. huchahuchax, I could always use a sixth one

May 7, 2009, 03:35 PM	#10
Sulaco2 Senior Member Join Date: June 5, 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 1,247	Let us keep in mind that the Russian National pistol team the competed in the Olympics used these revolvers after the war Real men don't whine

May 7, 2009, 07:50 PM	#12
4INCHSMITH Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2009 Location: Mid-Michigan Posts: 313	Yes, they are all that bad. I bought mine last month mostly for the novelty, a crude piece of commie steel that goes bang and for $100? Why yes sir! Oh? It comes with holster and other doodads? Do you have ammo for it? Yes?!.... I'll take 2 boxes and wrap it up my good sir! Oh my, I need to start avoiding gunshows... never! __________________ "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence, supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without having to fight" -Sun Tzu

May 7, 2009, 10:10 PM	#13
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	Around 1890, the world's armies dropped the big bore revolvers they had adopted as their first cartridge revolvers, they went to smaller bores. In Europe, various such revolvers were adopted by Switzerland, Sweden (also a Nagant but without the reciprocating cylinder), and others. The U.S. adopted the .38 caliber Colt in 1892, but went back to .45. Britain held on to the big bore .455 until the 1930's and after. So Russia's Nagant was not at all unusual at the time. The reciprocating cylinder (not as complex as some writers have claimed) was one of those ideas that sounds good when the salesman briefs the generals, but was a solution in search of a problem. The Russians, with a country in turmoil and chronically cash poor, went to an automatic as soon as they could, but WWII forced them to bring the old revolver tooling out of storage, a Nagant being a whole lot better than pointing a finger and saying the Russian equivalent of "bang!" Jim

May 7, 2009, 10:50 PM	#14
huchahuchax Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2007 Posts: 298	One good thing I will say about this little revolver and its reciprocating cylinder - it is super easy to clean. I put 50 rounds through it yesterday, when I went to clean it today I found that the cylinder was spotless.

May 10, 2009, 06:51 AM	#15
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	All revolvers will seem surprisingly complicated if you take off the side plate, if there is one, yet they work. And people always say revolvers are complicated compared to automatics (that is said about cars, too). The Nagant was said to be popular with the troops, too, though I have no idea if there is any truth to that statement. But, you know, a lot of Colt DA revolvers are a little on the stiff side as well. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

May 10, 2009, 10:00 AM	#16
TEDDY Junior member Join Date: December 10, 2006 Location: MANNING SC Posts: 837	nagant france used a form of nagant.[looks the same]theirs replaced what I would consider a better revolver.I have the french 1873 model.some of the european guns were more advanced then ours.and the later colts used the interior design of the european pistols.

May 10, 2009, 10:57 AM	#17
jrfoxx Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2004 Location: Evanston,WY Posts: 898	Don't recall mine being all that bad in S/A. The D/A pull is like 100 lbs though. Thus, I only shoot mine in S/A, as I like to at least have a chance at hitting the target, and don't want my trigger finger to end up looking like Popeye's biceps. __________________ Q: How can I reduce the amount of mail I receive from the NRA? A: Simply email us at [email protected] or dial 800-NRA-3888 and request to be placed on the "Do Not Promote" list.

May 10, 2009, 06:15 PM	#18
sharps1863 Member Join Date: March 7, 2009 Location: North Carolina Posts: 12	I only shoot mine single action, Double action is 14Lbs+, single action 5Lbs. My duty carry Glock-22 is 8Lbs. So you will find shooting single action, this little gun will surprise you. The ammo is a bit on the hard to find side and not cheap. I shoot 32 s/w long in mine with no trouble, does bulge the case a little and not as accurate as the Regular Nagant ammo. But makes a good cheap fishing gun. If you do your job aiming its deadly on snakes.

May 12, 2009, 01:59 PM	#19
The Great Mahoo Senior Member Join Date: June 3, 2008 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 1,269	I picked one of these up at the last gun show a few months ago. I wanted it for the novelty and history behind it. Such a remarkable gun; unique design, 7 round cylinder, and rediculous trigger! Quite the conversation piece, to say the least. I haven't gotten around to shooting anything but a little dry fire, but I will be using it S/A almost exclusivly. Its pretty nice for that. I'm used to S/A's anyway. For a little over a hundred bucks, I took home the gun, holster, lanyard, and cleaning kit. Not a bad day's work Too bad the ammo sells for $47 around here __________________ “There are three reasons to own a gun. To protect yourself and your family, to hunt dangerous and delicious animals, and to keep the King of England out of your face.” - Krusty the Clown

May 12, 2009, 08:13 PM	#20
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	The French Model 1892 "Lebel" is not a Nagant design, but is in the same class of smaller caliber revolver. It is, incidentally, one of the earliest swing cylinder revolvers, with the cylinder swinging to the right. Some folks say that a cylinder should swing to the right, and that the Colt's leftward swing was due to Sam Colt being left handed (although he had been dead 30 years). Nonsense, of course, and anyone who thinks a right swing would be superior has probably never tried the French revolver. Jim

May 14, 2009, 04:32 PM	#21
raftman Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2009 Location: Oregon Posts: 1,890	I like my Nagant. Having previously fired only semi-automatic pistols, it was weird at first for more than one reason. If only ammo was cheaper and easier to find. Haven't found any local sources so far, only online.

May 14, 2009, 06:43 PM	#22
smoakingun Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2009 Location: melrose, fl Posts: 634	It is entirely possible that 100 years ago men were MEN, hairy chested, knuckle draggin', mouth breathin', MEN with sloped foreheads and one heavy eye brow. Even more probable, Russian men were manliest of all. Living in a frozen waste land with only the hair on their back to keep them warm. Living in a place where they wrestled bears for food gave them giant hands and forearms thus requireing them to build robust pistols, because a lesser weapon would not hold up to their massive mitts __________________ Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove... But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction.

May 14, 2009, 10:20 PM	#24
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	I have ten of them and would argue that they were the sturdiest handgun design of their age. Open one of those suckers up and count the parts Wildicanhitamansizetargetat100yardswithonebutthebulletsbounceoffthecardboardAlaska TM

May 17, 2009, 09:15 PM	#25
raftman Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2009 Location: Oregon Posts: 1,890	Here's my question about the Nagant. Virtually everything you read about the Nagant online, will mention the slow unloading process for the Nagant. They'll complain about using the ejector rod, which is indeed a multistep process, but does one really NEED to use it? With mine, I've observed once you open the loading gate, hold the gun with the barrel point upward, and rotate the cylinder and the spent casings will just fall right out one by one, occasionally when they don't fall right out, since they seem to "peek" out a little from the front of the cylinder, a single little tap with a finger will be enough to make them fall out. It's effortless. It seems almost as though the ejector rod is there only if something goes wrong. I've put 100 rounds through my Nagant thus far, and never once had to actually use the ejection rod. It's still not lightning fast to unload, but much faster and simpler than most make it out to be. So what's the deal? Is it just the ammo I am using? Or are that many people just mistaken?