Of course everyone on this forum is familiar with a Nagant. Some call it "ugliest thing on the face of earth" some others call it "a piece of great history". Whatever your opinion is, the fact remains that it's one of longest produced guns in the world and pretty reliable (although fairly uncomfortable) shooter. I have one from 1944 and even though double action is pretty bad, single action is passable and I often take it to the range for some fun.
Last week I was on the phone with an out of state dealer talking about some guns and at some point he mentioned he received a shipment of Nagants. I said I have one already and out of curiosity asked what production years he received. As I expected they were from 1944 and 1945. These are most common years that arrive in US. But then he paused for a second and said that one of them is actually from 1917. Same price, since they all are from the same box. I bought it immediately. Not only 1917 means the gun was made before Soviets took over, it's the actual year of October revolution this very gun is so much associated with.
I picked the gun up from my FFL yesterday and took it apart for cleaning, oiling and some polishing. At the same time I took off the side plate of my 1944 Nagant just for comparison. Overall two guns look about the same. 1917 has better finish job on inside of the plates. Overall it looks a little more "neat" inside. But not enough to make a real difference. Internal parts were a bit more polished too. I though this should give 1917's gun an advantage when it come to ease of action. But in reality I did not find much difference between two guns when I pulled the trigger. Perhaps 1917's single action is just a little crispier. Not by much though.
The big difference came when I saw the bore. My 1944's bore is all black and slightly pitted. It came that way from the arsenal. I was concerned when I first saw it, but on the range I realized it still shoots well and dropped the issue. After all what should you expect from the gun that costs under $200 with shipping and FFL fees included?! On 1917 bore is bright and smooth. No pitting at all. A kind of bore you'd expect from S&W or Colt of the same vintage.
I plan to take both of them to the range for side by side shooting and comparison. But for now, here is a picture of my new find
Last week I was on the phone with an out of state dealer talking about some guns and at some point he mentioned he received a shipment of Nagants. I said I have one already and out of curiosity asked what production years he received. As I expected they were from 1944 and 1945. These are most common years that arrive in US. But then he paused for a second and said that one of them is actually from 1917. Same price, since they all are from the same box. I bought it immediately. Not only 1917 means the gun was made before Soviets took over, it's the actual year of October revolution this very gun is so much associated with.
I picked the gun up from my FFL yesterday and took it apart for cleaning, oiling and some polishing. At the same time I took off the side plate of my 1944 Nagant just for comparison. Overall two guns look about the same. 1917 has better finish job on inside of the plates. Overall it looks a little more "neat" inside. But not enough to make a real difference. Internal parts were a bit more polished too. I though this should give 1917's gun an advantage when it come to ease of action. But in reality I did not find much difference between two guns when I pulled the trigger. Perhaps 1917's single action is just a little crispier. Not by much though.
The big difference came when I saw the bore. My 1944's bore is all black and slightly pitted. It came that way from the arsenal. I was concerned when I first saw it, but on the range I realized it still shoots well and dropped the issue. After all what should you expect from the gun that costs under $200 with shipping and FFL fees included?! On 1917 bore is bright and smooth. No pitting at all. A kind of bore you'd expect from S&W or Colt of the same vintage.
I plan to take both of them to the range for side by side shooting and comparison. But for now, here is a picture of my new find
Last edited:
, and I'd be rooting for the 'OLD' one (just like you are!) until I started to feel like the '44 was the "under dog" and then I'd be pulling for it, as well! 
