Cheap ammo?

[Boroda]

Originally posted by lazs2
no matter what..  the truth is that one hell of a lot more people were shot in the back of the head with that round than ever were killed in "combat" by it.  Not the kind of "history" I am that into.

Keep thinking so, it's your own problem. As usual I can only say that your view on Russian history is more then narrow.

Originally posted by lazs2
It is a weak round not suited for combat with a well made but complex firearm.

Tell this to the people who preferred Nagants to automatic pistols. And keep in mind that it was produced until 1944. Produced in Russia/USSR with industry uncapable of making "technological marvels" like M-16.

"Complex" doesn't always mean "expensive" or "unreliable". Technology is sometimes a weird matter, for example, SVT production took 2 times less man-hours then old three-line 91/30.

Nagant was the only revolver produced here since 1895, the only one that didn't use black powder. It saw more combat then any American firearm, so your conclusions contradict reality.

Originally posted by lazs2
The idea was that the mouth would seal the cyl gap and increase velocity.. A complex solution to a non existent problem.

In reality.. the very case idea itself limited the pressure it could take sooooo... the solution was not only not needed (revolvers are capable of very high velocity) but... the reverse was true... it limited the velocity and diameter of the bullet itself.

an oddball design best relegated to the trash heap of firearms ideas.

Why didn't S&W win the contest like it did in 1869? In 1895 Russian army deeded to switch from black-powder S&W, and there were no reliable automatic pistols back then, even Mauser-96 wasn't invented yet, so - Russian Military Ministry chose the best revolver design available, suitable for Russian industry - simple and reliable. Didn't you ever think that gas-seal design makes production easier, you don't have to make it as precise as traditional revolvers? Production price and industrial capabilities were pretty much considered.

[lazs2]

baroda... here is a perfect example of someone who knows nothing about a subject feeling that they do because they read something.

how many handguns have you shot?  keeping a crappy gun in service.. especially a sidearm.. for a long time does not mean it saw more combat.  

shoot some sidearms.   I can't imagine anyone picking a nagant over any semi auto made after about 1910.    The 1911 colt was so superior to the nagant that it is not even a contest.   as was the P38 and even the makarov and tokarev.

It is a crap firearm that probly got more people killed than it killed in combat.

The smith was an older revolver that was designed for black powder... even so.. it was ten times the gun the nagant was if you really really really had to shoot someone with it.   the energy level was more than double and it shot a large caliber round.  the nagant was a latter model and designed for smokeless powder as were all handguns at the time..  There were an infinite amount of handguns that would have been better suited than the pitiful nagant.

in short.. I relegate the nagant to the "better than nothing but not much" category.

lazs

[Boroda]

Originally posted by lazs2
baroda... here is a perfect example of someone who knows nothing about a subject feeling that they do because they read something.

how many handguns have you shot?  keeping a crappy gun in service.. especially a sidearm.. for a long time does not mean it saw more combat.  

I have shot only Makarov and Margolin.

My Father was a Leningrad Military District champion in pistol shooting back in the 60s, and one of his records isn't beaten yet. What he said was that Nagant was the most accurate handgun available. Much better then Czech revolvers (S&W clones? 38 special).

Originally posted by lazs2
shoot some sidearms.   I can't imagine anyone picking a nagant over any semi auto made after about 1910.    The 1911 colt was so superior to the nagant that it is not even a contest.   as was the P38 and even the makarov and tokarev.

1911 = impossible to produce in Russia back then. Tokarev = impossible to hit anything farther then 10meters.

You completely missed my point, looking from traditional American "technological overkill" point of view. Again: gas seal makes the whole production much cheaper because you don't have to keep the precision. Any high-power American revolver made in Russian factories in 1895 will probably blow up on the third shot.

Nagant does what it is supposed for: lets you effectively kill an enemy up to 50m far. It's main disadvantage is that it's slow to reload. And gas-seal doesn't make it too complex.

Originally posted by lazs2
It is a crap firearm that probly got more people killed than it killed in combat.

Again: tell it to people who preferred it to automatics.

During WWII imported Winchesters fitted for 7.62x54R were considered extremely unreliable, while Nagants were almost fail-safe.

Originally posted by lazs2
The smith was an older revolver that was designed for black powder... even so.. it was ten times the gun the nagant was if you really really really had to shoot someone with it.   the energy level was more than double and it shot a large caliber round.  the nagant was a latter model and designed for smokeless powder as were all handguns at the time..  There were an infinite amount of handguns that would have been better suited than the pitiful nagant.

in short.. I relegate the nagant to the "better than nothing but not much" category.

If we only were as rich as you guys - we probably could afford something better and change ammo types and calibers every 10-20 years. And you have to compare Russian arms to their foreign competitors of the same time. They are always simplier and more reliable, and, the biggest difference: don't require same level of precision in production.

Three-line 1891 to Mauser-98/Springfield, SVT to Garand,  PPSh to Thompson, Kalashnikov to M-16. Russian/Soviet weapons can be made in simpliest conditions, almost in any bed-factory, they don't require all that equipment and precision you got in the West. Technological inabilities are compensated with smart designs, not always simple. Technologically-backward USSR was the only country other then the rich and developed US to have a mass-produced semi-auto rifle in WWII.

If you speak of a "complex solution to a non existent problem" - then it's an M-16. Truly "oddball design". Here any designer offering anything like that will end as a warehouse-director in a shovel factory at Mukhosransk. It's pure sabotage.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Boroda
Keep thinking so, it's your own problem. As usual I can only say that your view on Russian history is more then narrow.

 

Tell this to the people who preferred Nagants to automatic pistols. And keep in mind that it was produced until 1944. Produced in Russia/USSR with industry uncapable of making "technological marvels" like M-16.

"Complex" doesn't always mean "expensive" or "unreliable". Technology is sometimes a weird matter, for example, SVT production took 2 times less man-hours then old three-line 91/30.

Nagant was the only revolver produced here since 1895, the only one that didn't use black powder. It saw more combat then any American firearm, so your conclusions contradict reality.

 

Why didn't S&W win the contest like it did in 1869? In 1895 Russian army deeded to switch from black-powder S&W, and there were no reliable automatic pistols back then, even Mauser-96 wasn't invented yet, so - Russian Military Ministry chose the best revolver design available, suitable for Russian industry - simple and reliable. Didn't you ever think that gas-seal design makes production easier, you don't have to make it as precise as traditional revolvers? Production price and industrial capabilities were pretty much considered.

This gives a little insight as to why it was used. From Guns' world:

The Nagant gas-seal revolver was patented by the Nagant brothers (Emile and Leon) in 1892 with some additional improvements made in 1895. This design was one of several offered to the Imperial Russian Army as a new service revolver in 1895. Emile and Leon were on good terms with the Russian Army due to a previous cooperative effort to produce the Mosin-Nagant M1891 service rifle. This may be why the Russians adopted their design.

Here's a linky:http://www.gunsworld.com/nagant/nagant_us.html

Also note in there that as soon as they could get something else, the poles' switched too. More than likely, though, because the 9mm revolution was on, and it had proven to be a much better round.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by lazs2
wrong... any revolver can be used with a silencer.  to prove my point.. simply tape a one quart plastic bottle over the end of any low velocity revolver (subsonic) and fire it.

you must OF COURSE have permission and permits from the enlightened government to do so but.... you will notice that there is very little gas, much less noise, coming from the barrel cyl. gap.   the reason the nagant is so quiet is because the round is so weak and puny.

There is some advantage gained in noise reduction but...  it is moot compared to the loss of power the system imposes.

Did you see the "Brat" (Brother) movie? I think it's available with English subs

AFAIK Nagant was the only revolver with mass-produced silencer.

Originally posted by lazs2
I have shot nagants... they are generaly accurate but nothing to brag about.  Like most russian handguns they are medium in the accuracy dept.   and..  like all russian handguns.. they have terrible sights.

I thought that like some other men you have a pair of hands and maybe even some instruments like pliers or a file.

Father said that the first thing they did with their handguns was to completely re-work the sight. Then - tune up the trigger mechanism, sometimes even change a barrel completely as they did with Nagans, putting a part of a heavy machine-gun barrel instead. Mass "consumer" never needs match accuracy, he needs more reliability and less maintenance.

[FrodeMk3]

Father said that the first thing they did with their handguns was to completely re-work the sight. Then - tune up the trigger mechanism, sometimes even change a barrel completely as they did with Nagans, putting a part of a heavy machine-gun barrel instead. Mass "consumer" never needs match accuracy, he needs more reliability and less maintenance.

I'd never spend a red cent on an inaccurate firearm.

If I found it to be inaccurate, back to the store it goes.

For military uses, It is a different story. In that, if depends' on the country in question, as to what it uses. The Japanese military during WWII was cursed with the 8mm Nambu, which was a substandard weapon at best, but the Japanese perservered with it( Possibly dooming many of they're troops in the process.)

[Boroda]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
This gives a little insight as to why it was used. From Guns' world:
 
Here's a linky:http://www.gunsworld.com/nagant/nagant_us.html

Nagant lost the competition to Mosin in 1891. I don't think they had enough money to bribe the entire contest commission. Speaking of bribes I again remember the M-16. I can't see any sane reason for using this insane design. A linky for you : http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Also note in there that as soon as they could get something else, the poles' switched too. More than likely, though, because the 9mm revolution was on, and it had proven to be a much better round.

Did you ever think why before 1950 all Russian calibers are in "lines" (1/10th of an inch)? While the whole country switched to metric system long ago? And even now such things as food-cans are still like 76mm or 107mm in diameter, cigarettes and pencils are 7.6mm and so on

You look at the problem from another end. It's like that joke about mice and the Wise Owl Once mice got fed up: they are small and defenseless, everyone eats them, so they turned to the wisest animal in the Forest, to the Owl. An Own listened to them, thought for a while, and said: "Mice, I advise you to all become hedgehogs! Look, the hedgehog can roll in a ball with the needles all around, and no one can eat him!" Mice were excited and happy and went home shouting "Horray to Owl!", but then they started thinking, how do they turn into hedgehogs? So they went back to an Owl and asked her. And Owl said: "I am a specialist in strategy, and what you ask is pure tactics!"....

[lazs2]

boroda... I have to say that everything you have said so far is pretty much wrong.

The 1911 is simpler to make than a nagant.  the nagant was, as I said..  a complex solution to a non existent problem... that of gas escaping and lowering velocity... the fact was.. the system used by nagant ended up requiring low pressure to work... low pressure and a sub caliber round equals low velocity.

there is no smith and wesson revolver that I am aware of that is not more accurate than a nagant and few.. if any that are as weak in power.   None are as complex.

It is more difficult to build a nagant than it is to build a smith.. are you saying that south americans could build 1911 copies and smith copies and browning high power copies and the soviets couldn't?

face it... you got a contractor that screwed you guys... you are not that different from us in that regard.

As for the m16... not one of my favorites but.. it does make for a rifle with more intrinsic accuracy than a ak series.

As for sights...  good sights on a nagant would require more than a file.. you would need to weld up the front sight and ears on the rear sight and then file everything for one brand of ammo... the front sight is too narrow and the rear too shallow... they are useable but... just barely.

It is a novel handgun that is fairly well made and interesting in a comical way... to low powered to be useful.   If you wanted a silenced weapon there are infinite better choices.

I own three makarovs and have shot them a lot... crap sights and heavy for the power but well made and fairly accurate.   a good copy of the PP series of walthers.

lazs

[Boroda]

Originally posted by lazs2
boroda... I have to say that everything you have said so far is pretty much wrong.

The 1911 is simpler to make than a nagant.  the nagant was, as I said..  a complex solution to a non existent problem... that of gas escaping and lowering velocity... the fact was.. the system used by nagant ended up requiring low pressure to work... low pressure and a sub caliber round equals low velocity.

As I said above - SVT took less man/hours to produce then 91/30. Guess why? Guess why SVT production was canceled in 1942? It's all about technological process. 91/30 is made by hand on simple equipment. SVT needed pressing, obviously taking less time and work but it was impossible to produce on the same production lines with 91/30. And pressing equipment was used to make other stuff like PPSh, that was 3 or 4 times cheaper IIRC.

Originally posted by lazs2
there is no smith and wesson revolver that I am aware of that is not more accurate than a nagant and few.. if any that are as weak in power.   None are as complex.

It is more difficult to build a nagant than it is to build a smith.. are you saying that south americans could build 1911 copies and smith copies and browning high power copies and the soviets couldn't?

It isn't more difficult to make a nagant then S&W. S&W requires much better tolerances, because nagant has gas-seal system and it's OK if the cylinder almost hangs loose. Anyway it's secured upon the barrel and the cartridge provides better obturation. The whole gas-seal mechanism is quite simple, you can find drawings and see it. It isn't any more complex then making a double-action revolver.

Look, 7.62x54R is an awful cartridge. Conic and rimmed. Our ammo zincs contain 1.5 times less cartridges then, for example, Mauser 7.92 or 0303. The reason for adopting it was that it was impossible to reach tolerance good enough for more modern round. And they produced first 1891 rifles in Russia only in 1895! Before 1895 they were all ordered in France.

Originally posted by lazs2
face it... you got a contractor that screwed you guys... you are not that different from us in that regard.

As for the m16... not one of my favorites but.. it does make for a rifle with more intrinsic accuracy than a ak series.

Who needs such accuracy in an assault rifle? Higher aiming line is surely a great disadvantage, the whole idea of the direct gas action is wrong if you need a rifle to be reliable, but makes it significantly more expensive (=better for contractor).

Look at your troops in Iraq, they mostly can't even hold a rifle properly, they have rifle-butts _over_ their shoulders! What accuracy!? We have an SVD in every squad for accuracy.

Originally posted by lazs2
As for sights...  good sights on a nagant would require more than a file.. you would need to weld up the front sight and ears on the rear sight and then file everything for one brand of ammo... the front sight is too narrow and the rear too shallow... they are useable but... just barely.

You almost exactly repeat what my Father said about tuning his weapons. He did the same thing with PMs too.

Originally posted by lazs2
It is a novel handgun that is fairly well made and interesting in a comical way... to low powered to be useful.   If you wanted a silenced weapon there are infinite better choices.

No one wanted a silenced weapon in 1895. It was just an extra feature, first Bramit devices were made in the 30s.

About low power - again, it does it's job, it kills at 50 meters, and unlike TT - you can hit something at such a distance with nagan. TT is another extreme, it's too powerfull, but there was a need for unified pistol cartridge for use in SMGs. Tokarev made SMGs for nagan cartridge in the 20s, they were considered too bad for mass-production.

Originally posted by lazs2
I own three makarovs and have shot them a lot... crap sights and heavy for the power but well made and fairly accurate.   a good copy of the PP series of walthers.

Father said when they were match  shooting from service guns - they preferred Stechkins. PM is a good gun to commit suicide, as they say in the Army. It's small, reliable, but not a gun for target shooting.

[lazs2]

boroda.. hard to follow you since you jump back and forth so much between the nagant revolver in question and svt/ak /model 91.

I am not going to argue soviet weapons philosophy with now... tho it is interesting.

The nagant revolver is just horrible... you claim it is deadly enough...  it is about the power of the tiniest pocket pistols...32 acp... I have a walther PPK in this caliber and have no problem hitting man sized targets at 50 yards or so..  It would be problematic to do much damage tho..

The tokerev and makarov both have twice the power and will make good hits out to 75 yards or so...

the nagant is complex.. as to making it "loose" for easy manufacture... nope.. it is not a soviet design in any case.. it is belgium... bought by russia.   It was never meant to be sloppy.. it is not sloppy.. it is however.... a bad design.

Where to start?  oh yeah... pull the trigger.. got a good grip?  cause this thing is a monster to double action... almost 20 lbs of effort!   And that is just the beggining... after you empty all 7 puny rounds jerking all over the place trying to make that 20 lb pull (never mind that the sights are so small that in low light you can't even use em)  after the gun is empty....

You might as well throw it at em cause..... it has the worlds worst reload time... an old colt single action works better... you got to poke each round out with an ejector rod like old sam's idea but...

The nagant has flared out the case mouth so much that the rounds barely come out of the cylinder.  

also.. if you fire a few rounds.. the cyl will spin without the hammer at half ****... you have no idea if a live round will be next up or not.

It is an interesting gun.. but... comical.

I am sure this will be controversial but.. it is even more comical than the luger action and the nambu.

As for bottle necked rifle rounds having a rim.... no big deal.. not the best idea but the brits as well as you got away with it... it is just an idea that was second best to rimless.

lazs

[Boroda]

Lazs, I speak about technological reasons, you speak about general comfort and tell me about shooting double-action and hitting anything over 10m away.

20lbs = 9kg!? I'll call Father now to inquire how they tuned Nagans.

I quote my Father as a match shooter who showed quite decent results from the weapons you mention. Hitting a target at 50m from a TT is a good joke.

[lazs2]

talk to dad all you want..  we are talking about guns issued to troops.. they didn't weld up sights or tune actions in the field.. they went with what they had... truth is.. 99% of wouldn't know what they had in the first place.. they had never fired a handgun before in their lives.

Have you ever fired a tokarev?  or makarov?  I have.. here we can buy ammo for the tok for about $60 for 1200 rounds.. we shoot the crap out of em..  I would not suggest you stand 50 yards (or them meter things) away from any American shooter with a tokarev in his hand and expect to not get hit.  

also.. the high velocity tok round will drop very little at even 75 yards.

I can't imagine tunning the action on a nagant revolver.. would be a nightmare.

none of this matters tho except that the gun was a VERY bad idea for a service revolver... low powered and difficult to reload... you can tune the thing all you want but you can't make reloading it any better.

The old black powder smith top break you replaced it with was 10 times the service revolver..   someone hit with one of those 44's knew they were hit... a snap of the wrist unloaded the gun and there were even crude speedloaders available.. it is a system much like the british webley.

face it.. they blew it on that handgun.

lazs

[Boroda]

Called Father, when he heard about 9kg on the trigger - he was laughing.

He also said that no sane person will shoot from self-cocking, just repeated some things that he explained me when I was in a shooting team myself.

He also said that comparing Nagan and TT accuracy is insane. Even Makarov is much worse then Nagan: moving frame with a front-sight. A properly tuned Nagan will beat any automatic pistol in accuracy. And TT were _never_ used in target shooting. They had a choice of Nagan, PM, APS and TT (models in service). But nothing could beat Nagan.

[lazs2]

nothing you guys made you mean.  

Tell your dad that if he can't hit a man sized target at 50 anythings with a mak or a tok then he really needs to get more practice in.

as for the slide moving with the sights... all semi autos pretty much do that...  You are aware that semi autos can be tunned right?   A stock 1911 can probly shoot groups of about 5"... maybe a little smaller at 25 yards... same for a makarov... A tuned 1911 will shoot 1" groups at the same range... it will do so with the sights mounted on the slide..  I see no reason why the mak or tok couldn't be tunned up...

But.. we are not talking target shooting with welded up guns with 100 hours of work on em.. we are talking about the guns that were handed out to the troops..

sure.. for target shooting you may only use single action.. here we have such sweet double action guns that it makes little difference tho but...

The nagant... the troops are going to draw and fire the thing as fast as they can.. that means double action and that means.. they won't hit a damn thing.. the sights will not be in bright sunlight very often and that means their tiny little blade will be invisible...  the damn thing will go dry by the panicked soldier and he will simply be.... unarmed cause.. the damn thing is so slow to reload.

The nagant in single action mode.. with good sights welded on to it and on a nice sunny day with all the time in the world.... is capable of accuracy that is close to most other revolvers... it has no accuracy edge over an out of the box smith or smith copy..  

In such a case.. the nagant will have more than enough power to make it's puny slug penetrate target paper..

It all goes to hell tho when you give a stock example to troops to defend themselves with.

You guys chose badly.. why not admit it?

This seems telling to me.. such an obviously bad soviet decision is defended by you.. no other army ever got stuck with a bigger turkey.   It is laughable of you to defend it as a service revolver when it is at the bottom of any list for of revolvers (not even mentioning autos) for a service gun.

lazs

[Boroda]

Nagan = reliability and very low service. Reloading is a pain, yes.

Tuning it is quite simple. Same work with trigger cam as any other gun, plus some other details.  If you got a rusty nagan somewhere and got 9kg(!!!) on a  trigger - then your opinion is worthless here, sorry...

I can only add that what's good for a Russian may be deadly for a foreigner.