rechambering/reberreling a revolver?

Hey all, I'll start by saying I am not really a revolver guy. But I am interested in picking up a Nagant. I want one to keep stock, and I'd like to rechamber the other to shoot .38 spc (or .357 :D ), but barring that I would like to be able to shoot .327 federal. I know it would be expensive, I'm really just seeing if it is even possible and what all of would entail. please advise.

thanks!

The .327 Federal runs at approximately three times the chamber pressure of the Nagant.
I wouldn't.

I doubt if there is enough meat in the cylinder to rechamber .38 Special.

Oh, I assumed a nee cylinder was standard fare when rechambering a revolver? I figured a new cylinder and maybe a new barrel but outside of that I don't have the slightest idea... Like do you have to do anything to the frame straps, the internals, the locking mechanism, etc?

Thanks for the input!

Not a good idea.
Not only is the .327 way more pressure, but it would be economically unwise.

It would cost way more to convert a Nagant to anything else then the gun is worth.

You could buy a new S&W .38 Spl or .327 cheaper, and have a very much better gun.

rc

Lots of expence therin to say nothing about the chamber pressures involved.
I know for a fact that second hand S&W's in REALLY decent shape can be had.
I once did a rebarrel on a S&W Model 19 for a friend with a lot of custom stuff involved.
Can't imagine what that would cost today.
Nuff said!
Stick with the Smiths, Colts and Rugers.

As I said in the OP, I understand it would be really expensive. I am not concerned with that... Gold plated destert eagles are expensive too, hut people still buy them because they want to. My question was, and is, what all would it entail and can it even be done?

I appreciate the input so far, but no one has answered my question yet.

I believe you can just load up 32 S&W and .32 H&R Mag without doing anything to the revolver......

Yeah. LINK HERE. (http://www.sff.net/people/sanders/nagant.html)

I wouldn't put a 327 mag in there. I don't think it would last all that long.

The Nagant is old and of suspect metallurgy. The only way to know is to sacrifice a few to metallurgical analysis. One or two would not be sufficient as there is no way to be certain that they were all made in the same plant from the same grade of steel. It most likely would stretch the frame from firing the high pressure loads. That's if you are lucky. If not, you have a hand grenade. By the time you added any reinforcement to the frame and produced a new cylinder to contain the pressures, it would weigh more and cost more than building one from scratch.

As I said in the OP, I understand it would be really expensive. I am not concerned with that... Gold plated destert eagles are expensive too, hut people still buy them because they want to. My question was, and is, what all would it entail and can it even be done?

I appreciate the input so far, but no one has answered my question yet.

I think that you have received good advise and your question(S) have been answered.
My advise is to keep the milsurp stuff AS IS!
Save yourself some heartache down the Pike.

Yes, you can shoot .32 magnum through them, but that's not what I'm trying to do. Yes, a conversion would be expensive, as I have already acknowledged. No, no one has yet to say whether or not it is even possible.

Sorry if this seems short, I'm on my phone :D

How would you reinforce the frame? Just weld on it or?

O.K., I would say it is impossible.

Nobody but a highly skilled revolver smith like Hamilton Bowen, or someone with his skills, knowledge, and equipment could make a new stronger cylinder, or reinforce the frame by welding.

And a gunsmith of that class would not touch such a project, or a Nagant, with a 10-foot pole.

Not only would his reputation be on the line, but so would his livelihood if the gun let go and injured someone.

rc

OK, you want to consider it as an Internet Thought Experiment, cost no object.

It is certainly physically possible to machine a new cylinder from good steel to hold the pressure of .327 F; Ruger and S&W do it all the time. The trick will be getting somebody qualified to do it on a one-off basis; dropping his regular work to concentrate on yours and doing all dimensioning and tool path work from scratch. I know a couple of high end gunsmiths who have turned down similar and even simpler jobs so as to keep up with their regular work on multi-kilobuck guns.

A new barrel might or might not be needed. The stock barrel seems to shoot other US .312" bullets ok. Even if you wanted one, it would be fairly straightforward, even to turning the collar to accept the Nagant ejector rod sleeve.

The frame might or might not be a problem. I once read that Colt looked at chambering the Detective Special in .357 Magnum but could only get so many rounds out of it before the top strap stretched beyond use. Maybe a thousand, maybe three thousand, I don't recall the exact number, but it was fewer than their legal department would agree to.
Certainly a top strap reinforcement could be welded on, Elmer Keith had blown out topstraps welded back on several occasions, often thicker.
Again, like the cylinder, the real problem is not in physical possibility, it is getting somebody willing to fool with an oddball job like that. Add the modern fear of lawsuit if something went wrong, and the chance of finding a shop is even less.

Maybe you could study up on the requirements, buy equipment, learn to use it, and DIY.

You just need to take a bag full of money and find a gunsmith willing to do it.

Given sufficient resources just about anything CAN be done, if it is practical or not depends on the individual.

At the least you are probably looking at a new cylinder (perhaps a 5 shot), redoing the lockwork, a new barrel and ????

Reinforce the frame...haven't a clue.

Good luck.

Cool. See, that's the kind of information I was after. New lockwork, reinforced topstrap, new cylinder. New barrel if .357. Roger!

Shop around long enough and you can find any answer you want. Doesn't mean that it is a viable answer, but it's still the one you want. When you get this done, give us a heads up. I want to be a couple counties over in any direction before you light one off. I sincerely hope that you do not harm yourself or anyone else.

This idea is totally nuts... an antique being converted to present day ammo... not wise... when was the last time you had a gun blow up in your face??? The question posed is why manufacturers pay such outrageous liability insurance rates...

Anything is possible. I have taken on a lot of "goofy" projects because someone had more money than sense. Heck, sometimes I do things just because some say it can't be done.

Shop around long enough and you can find any answer you want. Doesn't mean that it is a viable answer, but it's still the one you want. When you get this done, give us a heads up. I want to be a couple counties over in any direction before you light one off. I sincerely hope that you do not harm yourself or anyone else.

Hmmm... the answer I "want"ed to hear was "Heck yeah it can be done, really easily too! In fact, click this link right here and here's a webpage all about it!" ANY answer to my actual question would have been helpful, as I said I don't have any experience with a revolver. So "Yeah, but it'll cost a lot" doesn't answer "What would need to be done?" The gentleman who said "this, this, this, and maybe something else?" actually answered the question. If he had said "No, it actually cannot be done, and it is because of this, this, and this" that would also have been satisfactory.

This idea is totally nuts... an antique being converted to present day ammo... not wise... when was the last time you had a gun blow up in your face??? The question posed is why manufacturers pay such outrageous liability insurance rates...

Yes, it is totally nuts, that's why it interests me.

:scrutiny: You REALLY believe that me wanting to know if I could rechamber a WWII revolver (and a Russian one, at that) is the reason current manufacturers pay liability insurance?

I thank you all for your input, minus Major Hassel's... first post being inside a gunsmithing sub-forum, coupled with a punny name such as that, makes me think it's not entirely genuine. Not to mention the nonsensical nature of his post. But whatevs.

I'll probably never even toy around with this past a mental exercise, but if I do I'll give you a fair warning, BBBBill.

Read my reply in post # 8. I think that was fairly clear. And I'm not dissin' the idea completely out of hand. Free thinking often will eventually point you toward something that will work. I like a unique project as much as anyone else. It's just that this particular project path will lead to some pain.

You REALLY believe that me wanting to know if I could rechamber a WWII revolver (and a Russian one, at that) is the reason current manufacturers pay liability insurance?

No, but it is one reason you would have a very difficult time finding a gunsmith to take on the job.

I had read your post. Don't think I over-looked it ;) I actually got the "reinforced topstrap" idea FROM your post. :)

Dude!

If you just want to argue, go argue someplace else!!

Some of the best and most knowledgeable folks on THR have answered your question several times over, and you don't seem to want to hear the answer.

Now you want to start another fuss over who's idea it was it was for a bad idea in the first place???

Come on!!

rc

I sincerely think you are misinterpreting my posts as argumentative... They're not. I was giving credit to the guy.

Regardless, I got the answer I needed and I probably won't ever move past that part. Again (again) I thank all of you for your input!

I probably won't ever move past that part.

WHAT?

I definitely took your OP:
"I am interested in picking up a Nagant. I want one to keep stock, and I'd like to rechamber the other to shoot .38 spc (or .357 ), but barring that I would like to be able to shoot .327 federal. I know it would be expensive,"
and #6:
"I understand it would be really expensive. I am not concerned with that..."
to mean you were seriously interested and were willing to put out the time and effort to get something to suit your style.
Now you tell us you are just playing around.
Tease.

Bahaha. Yes, it WOULD be really cool, in my personal opinion, and no I wasn't just playing. I simply wanted to know, outside of throwing buckets of cash at it, what all it would entail. Now that I have a modicum of an idea, I may or may not do anything about it. Probably not anytime soon, if ever. I will be picking up two nagants next month, though, just because. One to keep stock, and one to set aside for whatever weird project I fancy. :)

The gentleman who said "this, this, this, and maybe something else?" actually answered the question. If he had said "No, it actually cannot be done, and it is because of this, this, and this" that would also have been satisfactory.

And you believe that he knows what he's talking about just because it's posted on this forum? My neighbor's 11 year old son regularly posts here ....

Like I said, I don't know much about revolvers. So, I'll take someone else's word for it. Especially when I look at their past posts. ;)

If a ruger bearcat can be chambered into 327fed i dont see why a nagant couldnt be chambered into 38spcl it will take some serious work and $ but its a possiblility.

Like the Bearcat, you would have to make a cylinder with fewer than seven chambers and best to beef it up to as large diameter as the frame will accomodate. Then retime the action. Install a .38 barrel.

A sharp machinist and a knowledgeable handloader could keep the gas seal feature, make correct length cases out of .357 Maximum like I did for .38-44 S&W Target.

I've converted one down to 22LR and want another to convert to 22mag. Going the other way would be ill-advised, even if possible. Not a whole lot of mass in a Nagant. My bet is it'd be unpleasant to shoot in 327/357 even if it didn't destruct.

Got pictures and conversion details?
A .22 WMR makes more sense to me than a .327.

I wish the non-gas seal Nagants and other European revolvers were in better (cheap!) supply. I agree with Jan Stevenson that an 1892 French "Lebel" is about as modern as a revolver needs to be.

For a while in Shotgun News there were aftermarket cylinders for the Nagant that were in 7.62x25mm Tokarev.

Then they quickly disappeared, and all that was for sale was 32acp.

I don't think they were new, but reworked surplus, but I am not sure from the pic.

If the chambers are now .361" in the rear, and they had to be opened up to .387" for the Tokarev, the the metal between chambers would have gone down from .060" thick to .044" thick.

I run 22kpsi in a 45Colt with .041" between the chambers.

Hoop stress in proportional to inside diameter, so .480" chambers are worse than .387" chambers by ~ 25%, so maybe 30 kpsi might be ok, but the Tokarev ammo not from Russia all measures 42 k c.u.p.

So I would not have done the Tokarev conversion, for that reason, and another is that I see the Nagant pistol as a piece of junk. I will spend my time working on Colt Single Action Army revolvers that pre date the Nagant and are superior.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Many ill advised conversions have been done over the years. The most common is the rechambering of S&W M&P Victory Models(pre- model 10) revos from the British 38/200 to 38 Special. It worked, but produced a very sloppy chamber with poor performance and near zero case life for the reloader. Ruined a semi-collectible gun in the process.
A wise gun owner/gunsmith will know the pertinant facts before beginning such a project. Chamber wall thickness, frame cross sectional area, barrel/frame thread dimensions, metallurgy, pressure curves, peak pressures, .... all play a part in determining whether the project is viable/safe. If you or your gunsmith cannot answer those questions accurately, you don't need to be doing this.

@Jim Watson- Sorry, no pics on file and the piece is in long-term storage so I can't shoot any right now.

The conversion was pretty simple to 22LR, if a bit nitpicky. The Russians hogged out the firing pin tunnel in the frame & just bent the original firing pin up to make it rimfire. I made a whole new firing pin and cut a slot in the frame to clear it. Needed a slot in the breech block (vs. the firing pin hole) as well. Far as I know the Russian conversion used inserts that let the cartridges sit flush with the insert rear face. I left them protruding, so I had to grind a bit on the breech block face for clearance, and the breech block tunnel got a radiused edge on the right side to keep the cartridges from jamming if they slid back in the chambers. Hardest part was making the inserts because the Nagant round is a slightly tapered case, LOTS of hand fitting required for a tight fit. Swapped out the barrel for a section of Marlin micro-groove barrel from a rifle project, contoured it like the original to maintain the gas seal feature and use of stock ejector.

A long project, but worthy. It shoots great.

The Negant has a cyl. that moves forward to seal the chamber to beral gap , this would make things verry dificalt