Nagant revolver question

H

huchahuchax

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

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? :rolleyes:

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. :cool:
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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:)
 
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!
 
Let us keep in mind that the Russian National pistol team the competed in the Olympics used these revolvers after the war :eek: Real men don't whine :D
 
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
 
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?:D Do you have ammo for it? Yes?!....:D:D:D I'll take 2 boxes and wrap it up my good sir!

Oh my, I need to start avoiding gunshows... never!
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.:rolleyes::eek:
 
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.:D
 
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.
 
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 :D Too bad the ammo sells for $47 around here :mad:
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top