1895 Nagant technology

[SC Shooter]

I have a Russian 1895 Nagant that I purchased some time ago out of curiosity. I take it to the range on occassion and find it an interesting gun to shoot. My question is, are there any other revolvers out there that use the same or simiiar technology? From my very non-technical perspective, the concept really makes sense, from the forward movement of the cylinder to the recessing of the projectile. If no one else has done this, I wonder why.

 

[rcmodel]

No one else has done the gas seal, because it is overly complicated and increases the force necessary to pull the trigger double-action.
It also makes fast loading with speed-loaders nearly impossible with the squared off elongated cartridges,
It was not necessary in 1895 in the first place.

Cylinder gap gas loss in a revolver is not enough to complicate & drive up the price of new revolvers to make it happen.

rc

 

[SC Shooter]

Interesting. Thanks for the education.

 

[rcmodel]

I should have also pointed out that if the Russians were really that concerned about gas loss?

They could have loaded the ammo with another 1/10 grain of powder to reach the same performance level without increasing pressure.

Whatever small loss there would be without the gas seal would make up for the slight increase in powder charge.

That's how everyone else has done it for the last 100+ years.

rc

 

[Ash]

The Russians made the TOZ 49, which was a more modern gas-seal revolver. Pieper made them first, which were issued in Mexico and were rather Colt-like. They also made gas-seal revolving carbines, which was a great idea when you don't want your arm burned. The Nagant brothers also made a swing-out cylinder as well.

Gas seal works, there is no doubt about that. It also protects the hand during firing and prevents flame-cutting of the frame. It can also be done in a way that is smooth and does not negatively affect the trigger pull, but the only gas-seal round ever manufactured was the 7.62x38r round. Imagine a .357 type gas-seal revolver. It could be done, but it would be a bit more expensive and you'd have to invent an entirely new round.

In any case, there was a patent issued in 1990 in the US for a modern top-break gas seal revolver. Attached are drawings. Attached also is a pic of the TOZ revolver.



Here's a link to the Pieper with photos:

http://www.aagaines.com/guns/piepermex2.html

 

[DPris]

RC has it- overly complicated & unnecessary.
Denis

 

[Jim K]

Just FWIW, the first gas seal revolvers that I know of were the pre-Civil War Savage & North revolvers. The first model had flanges on the cylinder that fit into the barrel; later models had a countersink in the cylinder which fitted over the end of the barrel. The latter system was carried over to the more common Civil War Savage revolver. The ring type lever operated the cylinder mechanism and a separate trigger fired the gun.

Of course there was no cartridge case to seal the breech as in the Nagant, but the idea was there.

Jim

 

[Ash]

Folks say it is complicated, but have you ever looked at the lock work of a Nagant? There's nothing complicated about it. A Nagant is considerably less complicated (and easier to dismantle and reassemble) than either a Smith or a Colt. Ruger is easier, but that's about it. It requires an additional movement of the cylinder and it might be needless (except that the bullet never has to jump any kind of gap what-so-ever and so there could be advantages gained in accuracy) and the needs to create silenced weapons that do not fling their brass would very small (creating too small a market), but frankly there are far more complicated standard revolvers out there when compared with a gas seal Nagant.

 

[natman]

All you need to do is fire a Nagant double action and you'll know why the design never caught on.

The anchor heavy DA pull and the need for special ammo is a high price to pay for a slight ballistic improvement.

 

[Jim K]

There is actually no need for the heavy trigger pull; operation of the revolver does not require that much force and, as Ash says, the mechanism is not complex. Mostly, the heavy pull seems to be more directed toward preventing misfires with early ammo than working the gun. Most of the DA revolvers of that general period had heavy pulls (the Colt DA Army (1878) makes the Nagant feel like a Python).

Jim

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The Nagant is the only practical revolver effective with a silencer. Otherwise, the Nagant gas seal tech is an over-engineered solution to a minor problem (gas leak at the cylinder/barrel gap).

 

[robhof]

robhof

Actually the CIA had some Dan Wesson model 15's fitted with silencers back in the late 60's. The removable barrels made adjusting the gap small enough to make sound and blow by manageable. The cylinders were specially finished at the factory to be true to the .0002". The guns were a special run from the Monson plant and were a one time purchase. They were 38/357's.

 

[Ash]

"The anchor heavy DA pull and the need for special ammo is a high price to pay for a slight ballistic improvement."

Actually, that is a feature of a needlessly powerful mainspring. I have several that are not heavy at all. My Nagant Mt-4 is as light as my Ruger Police Service Six. As to special ammo, all revolvers fire special ammo. The only thing special about the 7.62x38r is the case, which is just as specific to the Nagant as .357 cases are to their revolvers. The bullets can be what ever you want them to be. I have noted truncated FMJ, wad cutters, and even Tokerev bullets in original Soviet 7.62x38r ammo.

 

[Onmilo]

Peiper originally developed the gas sealing cylinder because their design was also made as a Carbine and the feature eliminated gas leakage near the shooters face.
The revolving carbines were fairly popular in Mexico.

Not certain why Russia incorporated the design unless the special ammunition made it harder for anarchists to keep the weapons functioning for very long if they fell into the wrong hands.
Not very effective thinking since the Bolshevicks brought in large numbers of Mauser broomhandle pistols...

 

[Ash]

Onmillo, there's a link to the Mexican Piepers in my post towards the top. The Russians chose the design because of advantages on paper, but they kept the design for 60 years because it worked well.

 

[rcmodel]

And because they couldn't afford to replace it with something more modern like all other modern army's had done between WWI and WWII.

They were still pulling cannons into battle with horses at the beginning of WWII too.

Not because they were better then the tracked vehicles used by Germany.
But because that's all they had, or could afford to have.

rc

 

[Ash]

The Germans were horse-mobile in WWII as well. Given the fact that the Soviets had no problem building hundreds of thousands of some of the best Submachineguns, medium and light machine guns, and the best tanks in the world, plus the fact that they always finished the Nagant revolvers to a high standard (a higher standard than US revolvers saw in WWII), economics were not a problem for them. Starting in 1930, they issued a fully-modern auto pistol and millions of those were made as well.

 

[jhvaughan2]

Since we are on the subject. What if the Gas seal capability of the Nagant was combined with the automatic functionally of the Webley-Fosbery so that the recoil turned the cylinder and locked it into position, removing need for the trigger pull to do this? Also could the seal could be put in the cylinder and not the ammo?

 

[TRX]

>lock work

Precisely. In my opinion, the "gas seal" thing was pure marketing; the real reason for using the setup was that it allowed the cylinder to spigot precisely onto the end of the barrel, minimizing bullet jump and forcing cone distortion, and perfectly aligning the each chamber to the barrel without needing precisely machined bits to index and locate the cylinder.

The Nagant is dirt-simple compared to most revolver designs, and the Soviets proved its inherent accuracy in many international competitions.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

And because they couldn't afford to replace it with something more modern like all other modern army's had done between WWI and WWII.

They were still pulling cannons into battle with horses at the beginning of WWII too.

Not because they were better then the tracked vehicles used by Germany.
But because that's all they had, or could afford to have.

rc

And you think the US was any more advanced before 1941?. The day after Pearl Harbor my dad went down to join the Calvary because he had a horse and they still used horses. The Marine recruiter got to him first.

 

[Ash]

The US still had horse cavalry in the Philippines when the Japanese landed in 1942.

 

[natman]

"The anchor heavy DA pull and the need for special ammo is a high price to pay for a slight ballistic improvement."

Actually, that is a feature of a needlessly powerful mainspring. I have several that are not heavy at all. My Nagant Mt-4 is as light as my Ruger Police Service Six.

The Nagant requires that the cylinder be pushed forward against a spring. Conventional revolvers don't have to do that. So even if all else is equal, the Nagant is going to have a heavier trigger pull.

As to special ammo, all revolvers fire special ammo. The only thing special about the 7.62x38r is the case, which is just as specific to the Nagant as .357 cases are to their revolvers. The bullets can be what ever you want them to be. I have noted truncated FMJ, wad cutters, and even Tokerev bullets in original Soviet 7.62x38r ammo.

The Nagant design requires extra steps in manufacture, specifically the special crimp applied after the bullet is seated. The ammo is used by nothing else. It is by any reasonable definition "special".

Bottom line: No matter how much spin is applied, the Nagant HAS a heavy trigger pull and the design never caught on.

 

[Ash]

"The Nagant design requires extra steps in manufacture, specifically the special crimp applied after the bullet is seated. The ammo is used by nothing else. It is by any reasonable definition "special"."

Special crimp? Huh, none of my military rounds have that crimp. They taper, but that is a one-step process when loading. I guess the Russians and then the Soviets didn't know how to make their ammo, eh? As far as special, the .357 requires a case longer than 38 Special with a caliber that is specific beyond, say, .32 or .41 caliber. That is specific to the .357 Magnum round and as a result, cannot be used in, say, the 44 magnum, 32 H&R Magnum, or 41 Magnum. That is special.

"Bottom line: No matter how much spin is applied, the Nagant HAS a heavy trigger pull and the design never caught on."

You saying I cannot tell the difference between the weight of my Nagant vs the weight of my Ruger? Curse my numb and incapable fingers...

The design never caught on? Nagant revolvers were issued by Norway and Sweden, the gas seal version was used by Poland, Mexico, as well as Finland, but I'll agree the design never caught on as it turned out you didn't actually have to use gas seal for an effective cartridge. The Soviets, though, established it to be a simple, rugged, robust, and effective revolver. Those who claim it is overly complicated have never bothered to open one up. They are more simple than any Smith or Colt (and I have owned them). Indeed, the gas seal mechanism works EXACTLY like the transfer bar used in modern revolvers. Given the separate firing pin most modern revolvers have, the complexity actually is the same (when you discount swinging cylinders, which are MORE complex). That ain't spin - it's experience.

Are all Nagants present with light trigger pulls? Of course not. I have one with a heavy trigger pull. Many of those I have owned had heavy trigger pulls. Most of those I owned had heavy trigger pulls. Several I have owned, however, have not (including those which were not target models). As a result, the heavy trigger pull has nothing to do with the design and everything to do with needlessly heavy main springs (or, perhaps, mainsprings heavy enough to overcome frozen lubricant, these were used by the Soviets in brutally cold climates after all).

Either way, your justifications do not establish in any way why the Nagant gas seal did not catch on. At that time, the British had the excellent Webley and the US had superb Smiths and Colts. Who needed a Nagant? The next logical step was the auto, and that is why Nagant gas-seal revolvers (or gas seal revolvers in general) did not catch on - nobody was looking for revolvers when they came out.

 

[Ky Larry]

The Russians do things differently just because they are Russians. IIRC,I read somewhere that the original AK-47s had receivers made out of a 9.5 lb block of steel and machined down to 2.25 lbs.

Yes, the US still used horses up to WW II but not by choice. As soon as the shooting started and Congress gave them the money, they got rid of the hay burners. This might not have been a good idea. Gen. Patton said if he had 2 batteries of horse drawn artillery, not a single Axis soldier would have got off Sicily alive.

 

[natman]

"The Nagant design requires extra steps in manufacture, specifically the special crimp applied after the bullet is seated. The ammo is used by nothing else. It is by any reasonable definition "special"."

Special crimp? Huh, none of my military rounds have that crimp. They taper, but that is a one-step process when loading. I guess the Russians and then the Soviets didn't know how to make their ammo, eh? As far as special, the .357 requires a case longer than 38 Special with a caliber that is specific beyond, say, .32 or .41 caliber. That is specific to the .357 Magnum round and as a result, cannot be used in, say, the 44 magnum, 32 H&R Magnum, or 41 Magnum. That is special.

"Bottom line: No matter how much spin is applied, the Nagant HAS a heavy trigger pull and the design never caught on."

You saying I cannot tell the difference between the weight of my Nagant vs the weight of my Ruger? Curse my numb and incapable fingers...

The design never caught on? Nagant revolvers were issued by Norway and Sweden, the gas seal version was used by Poland, Mexico, as well as Finland, but I'll agree the design never caught on as it turned out you didn't actually have to use gas seal for an effective cartridge. The Soviets, though, established it to be a simple, rugged, robust, and effective revolver. Those who claim it is overly complicated have never bothered to open one up. They are more simple than any Smith or Colt (and I have owned them). Indeed, the gas seal mechanism works EXACTLY like the transfer bar used in modern revolvers. Given the separate firing pin most modern revolvers have, the complexity actually is the same (when you discount swinging cylinders, which are MORE complex). That ain't spin - it's experience.

Are all Nagants present with light trigger pulls? Of course not. I have one with a heavy trigger pull. Many of those I have owned had heavy trigger pulls. Most of those I owned had heavy trigger pulls. Several I have owned, however, have not (including those which were not target models). As a result, the heavy trigger pull has nothing to do with the design and everything to do with needlessly heavy main springs (or, perhaps, mainsprings heavy enough to overcome frozen lubricant, these were used by the Soviets in brutally cold climates after all).

Either way, your justifications do not establish in any way why the Nagant gas seal did not catch on. At that time, the British had the excellent Webley and the US had superb Smiths and Colts. Who needed a Nagant? The next logical step was the auto, and that is why Nagant gas-seal revolvers (or gas seal revolvers in general) did not catch on - nobody was looking for revolvers when they came out.

Again, the bottom line is - they did NOT catch on.

Between the first and last highlights you've managed to contradict yourself. I guess if you are sufficiently determined you can convince yourself (if not anybody else) of anything.

I'm done.