Which Nagant would YOU choose?

[Usertag]

Ok, so I'm wondering should I get a Tula or A Ishevsk M1895 Nagant? The reason I want Ishevsk is, because it is more OG. But the downside is the years it was made in (Earlier Models). When you buy from JG Sales do you get the newer models (1940's) or older models (Pre-40's)? Also which year has the best (right) specs to fit in a .32ACP Cylinder, with no problem? Because I have heard that there are mechanical problems with the cylinder on certain model years. To sum it all up. Does the year it was made have anything to do with the way it shoot or durability? Please actually answer this and don't say "Ishevsk and Tula are the same". There are reasons I asked this question.

Questions Simplified

1. Should I get a Tula or A Ishevsk M1895 Nagant?

2. When you buy from JG Sales do you get the newer models (1940's) or older models (Pre-40's)?

3. Also which year has the best (right) specs to fit in a .32ACP Cylinder, with no problem?

4. Does the year it was made have anything to do with the way it shoot or durability?

PLEASE, be specific when you answer.
Thank You!

 

[hardworker]

1. It doesn't make much difference. All the soviet-made nagants are about equal quality. Pre-soviet ones have more collector value though.

2. I think you get whatever is on top of the pile when they grab one. They import these things by the truckload.

3. The 32acp cylinder is hit or miss regardless, since the tolerances on these guns was so loose the entire time they were made.

4. Nope

 

[brian45auto]

these things are crappy no matter what year or era you get. they are not a bullseye gun, and they are not a gun i would ever think about carrying....for any reason.
they are a range toy, and piece of history. they solved a problem, that never really was.
i have one from 1917, and never even bothered to shoot it. the single action trigger pull, is something like 20 pounds, seriously. it only gets a little better in single action.

 

[Jim March]

The main goal of the Nagant was to shoot a dissenter in the back of the head and let them die slowly thereafter. They are literally dishonored for any purpose I can think of. If they were the last guns on earth I'd make my own first.

 

[raftman]

these things are crappy no matter what year or era you get.

They're extremely rugged, durable, and reliable, and with decent accuracy. Not fancy or refined, but is "pretty" the standard by which one is to judge whether something is crappy?

it only gets a little better in single action.

Untrue. The DA trigger pull is heavy because it both pulls back the hammer and shifts the cylinder forward, if cocked and shooting in SA, the cylinder is already in the forward position. Nagant SA triggers aren't actually bad at all.

The main goal of the Nagant was to shoot a dissenter in the back of the head and let them die slowly thereafter.

No doubt Nagants were used for that but one would have to be lying to suggest that this was the original intended purpose of that particular firearm. For one thing, the gun was introduced well before the Stalin era, which is when Nagants gained the notoriety you allude to. What's more, it simply makes no sense to go to the trouble of designing and mass-producing a gas-seal revolver with a goal of maximizing the efficiency of the cartridge's gases, if the intended purpose is simply to shoot people in the back of the head. It's an unnecessary waste, a complicating factor. The Nagant's predecessor in Russian service would have been adequate for that purpose, no? What's more, why bother making the gun so rugged, if the intended purpose isn't quite so taxing on a gun's durability?

 

[jimbob86]

Vasili Blohkin used a suitcase full of Browning .25 Auto pistols for his executions...... just sayin' ....

 

[Doug Bowser]

I have an Izhevsk 1945. The double action is quite heavy but the single action is about 4 pounds.

The .32 ACP cylinders are not worth the trouble they will cause you. Once we got one to work the accuracy was dismal. I guess, because the bullet has to jump so far before engaging the rifling.

I rechambered my Nagant to .32-20 Winchester. Accuracy at 25 yards is about 4" from a sandbag. Factory .32-20 ammo is 1/10"+- too long to work in the revolver. I have had to make ammunition short enough to let the cylinder turn. I carry the Nagant in my old truck for self defense.

I have the reamer and would rechamber the cylinder for $40 INCLUDING RETURN SHIPPING. The cylinder would be the only thing I would need to do the reaming. The whole pistol would not have to be sent.

Doug Bowser
douglasmbowser@yahoo.com

 

[Stephanie B]

Odd thing: I've never hear or read of anyone denigrating the Walther PPK because those guns were issued by the Gestapo.

Just sayin'....

 

[ducote32]

"these things are crappy no matter what year or era you get. they are not a bullseye gun, and they are not a gun i would ever think about carrying....for any reason.
they are a range toy, and piece of history. they solved a problem, that never really was.
i have one from 1917, and never even bothered to shoot it. the single action trigger pull, is something like 20 pounds, seriously. it only gets a little better in single action."

Thanks for the opinion, but crappy is not always the case. They are cheap, reliable, accurate weapons that are rugged and proven. They are not the best weapon built, but that dang thing will take a deer down at 200 yrds on iron sights and 300+ with a scope. They are a basic bolt action, simple and good. I get 2 inch groups from mine at 100 yards with iron sights using priv 150 gr soft points. My son took a spike buck down this last weekend with it from 125 yrds with irons and it just buckled and didn't take a step. Had at least a 2-3 inch exit wound, heart was mush. Have another Mosin on order from Aimsurplus.

 

[Joe the Redneck]

I shoot 32 shorts out of mine. Yes, there case mouth does have a bulge. Nothing so bad that could not be ironed out in the reloading process.

 

[carguychris]

They are cheap, reliable, accurate weapons that are rugged and proven. They are not the best weapon built, but that dang thing will take a deer down at 200 yrds on iron sights and 300+ with a scope. They are a basic bolt action, simple and good. I get 2 inch groups from mine at 100 yards with iron sights using priv 150 gr soft points.

I hate to break this to you, but the OP is discussing the Nagant Model 1895 revolver, NOT the Mosin-Nagant Model 1891 rifle.

 

[carguychris]

The .32 ACP cylinders are not worth the trouble they will cause you. Once we got one to work the accuracy was dismal.

I don't have a Nagant, but this sentence neatly summarizes almost everything I've heard about the .32ACP cylinders.

IMHO you're better off handloading rounds using trimmed and resized .32-20 WCF brass. Most Nagant shooters report much better luck doing this than using .32ACP. Rechambering the gun to .32-20 is an interesting idea too, although I haven't heard much about it before.

 

[kraigwy]

"these things are crappy no matter what year or era you get. they are not a bullseye gun, and they are not a gun i would ever think about carrying....for any reason.

Yeap, that's true, but they are also a heck of a lot of fun to shoot. The double action trigger really sucks but the single action isn't too bad. They are underpowered but again, a heck of a lot of fun to shoot.

I make my cases from 32-20 brass, not long enough for the gas seal to work but they still shoot.

I'm gonna shoot it with my Mosin in one of our club's multi gun matches. Gonna come in dead last I'm sure (can't find speed loaders for the Nagant), but I bet I'll have more fun then any other shooter.

If you pay attention they don't shoot that bad.

Did I mention, they are a heck of a lot of fun to shoot.

This was shot at 15 yards, slow fire single action of course.

 

[ducote32]

Yea, I knew he was not talking about a rifle, the brand itself gets a bad rap with the "Cheap, crappy" thing. If it's military, then standards were followed in the production.

Thanks,

 

[Don P]

If they were the last guns on earth I'd make my own first.

Man thats cold and brutally honest!

 

[Cheapshooter]

Ok, so I'm wondering should I get a Tula or A Ishevsk M1895 Nagant?

I think Tula's are popular because it's the only Russian arsenal that Americans can pronounce!!!

 

[hardworker]

The problems with the gun aren't quality-related, they're design related. They're built like tanks with a good bluing. They just suck. It'd be like a mil-spec craftsman lawnmower. It may never break down but it's no john deere.

 

[carguychris]

Yea, I knew he was not talking about a rifle, the brand itself gets a bad rap with the "Cheap, crappy" thing.

• I believe that this is the first time I'm heard of something coming out of the Soviet Union being referred to as a "brand".
• In my experience, Nagant revolvers draw much more criticism than Mosin-Nagant rifles. The rifles are crude but functional, but the revolvers are more the former and less the latter.

I think Tula's are popular because it's the only Russian arsenal that Americans can pronounce!!!

Come on. Be fair. It's also because of the bold and striking star logo.

 

[Jim March]

For one thing, the gun was introduced well before the Stalin era, which is when Nagants gained the notoriety you allude to.

You haven't read much regarding the Tsar's secret police, have you?

Hint: that's who faked the "Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion"...not nice people at all.

 

[raftman]

Man thats cold and brutally honest!

Actually dishonest, as it's an emotional statement not based in fact.

You haven't read much regarding the Tsar's secret police, have you?

Spare me the condescending one-liners. Unless you come up with some some fact-based evidence proving that the Nagant was purpose-designed and built for shooting dissenters in the back of head, I am not interested.

Maybe one should bare in mind a gun is an inanimate object, and is neither inherently good nor evil.