Snowdog
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,608
I normally don’t post questions like this, but during an usually slow day at work a buddy of mine who recently purchase an 1895 Nagant presented me with the following hypothetical scenario out of sheer boredom. Unlike most of his off-the-cuff imaginary scenarios, I found myself unable to give an immediate answer. I thought some here might find it challenging to consider the following and make a decision. If you're confident, maybe you can explain your answer.
Say the year is 2005 and you lived in Krakosia (yes, the one where flights have recently resumed ), an imaginary eastern European country where open carry is currently restricted from most, but mandated for some. One out of ten citizens would be selected by the government to serve in a “civilian patrol”, where public open carry is mandated for a period of two years and seen as a civic duty to enhance the welfare of the fragile nation. For all other citizen, the practice of public carry is currently prohibited, though ownership of any firearm is unrestricted.
This imaginary land is still recovering from a brutal civil war and only half the population of Krakosia have been granted citizenship by the new quasi-democratic government, with the rest likely still in the application process and a small few ostentatiously denouncing the ideology of their new capitalistic government and thus rejecting “citizenship” all together.
The new government so far has proven progressive in instituting unprecedented freedoms, but not all Krakosians can be trusted by the new government, as those who still extol the virtues of socialism sporadically resort to violence against the established government and its citizenry.
As you would be a new inductee to the “civilian patrol” auxiliary law enforcement program, your choices of handgun have been greatly restricted.
Those handguns selected as viable choices have been determined by the cautious government to be relatively benign in nature if you were to later rebel.
After the third month, you will be considered to have proven yourself a trustworthy citizen and your choices of handguns will then be unlimited. However, for now your current choice is between the 1895 Nagant revolver or a quality replica of the 1858 Remington cap and ball revolver, both in unissued, like-new condition .
For the Nagant revolver, you would be restricted to using either Russian 7.62x38R “target” ammunition (such as what you can buy now from SOG), or what Fiocchi currently produces. However, though you may not alter the handgun in any fashion other than perhaps changing the grips to best suit you, you may carry as much ammunition as you wish, as well as using any method of open carry in any holster you wish.
For the 1858 Remington, it will be loaded with .454 caliber round ball over a maximum of 35grs of FFFG powder. Like the Nagant, it could not be modified other than perhaps a custom grip that you might find more comfortable.
And though you may be allowed to carry as much ball, caps and powder you wish, you may not carry additional cylinders.
Now let’s say you’ve been selected by the state and called upon to temporarily participate in this “civilian patrol”, requiring you to carry openly whenever in public to serve as a visual deterrent against crime.
The location in which you live is an area where crime is essentially unorganized, consisting primarily of robberies of local merchants and citizens by your typical miscreant and on rare occasion random assaults by irate individuals against government agents (which now includes you). At your disposal you have a boundless supply of ammunition and multiple 24 hour ranges in which you can practice all aspects of your duty, including drawing, shooting and reloading.
Of the two revolvers, which would be your choice?
Would your choice have been different if you were allowed to use .32 H&R magnum in the Nagant or conical bullets for the Remington?
Would the additional ability to carry additional cylinders be a decisive factor in choosing?
Say the year is 2005 and you lived in Krakosia (yes, the one where flights have recently resumed ), an imaginary eastern European country where open carry is currently restricted from most, but mandated for some. One out of ten citizens would be selected by the government to serve in a “civilian patrol”, where public open carry is mandated for a period of two years and seen as a civic duty to enhance the welfare of the fragile nation. For all other citizen, the practice of public carry is currently prohibited, though ownership of any firearm is unrestricted.
This imaginary land is still recovering from a brutal civil war and only half the population of Krakosia have been granted citizenship by the new quasi-democratic government, with the rest likely still in the application process and a small few ostentatiously denouncing the ideology of their new capitalistic government and thus rejecting “citizenship” all together.
The new government so far has proven progressive in instituting unprecedented freedoms, but not all Krakosians can be trusted by the new government, as those who still extol the virtues of socialism sporadically resort to violence against the established government and its citizenry.
As you would be a new inductee to the “civilian patrol” auxiliary law enforcement program, your choices of handgun have been greatly restricted.
Those handguns selected as viable choices have been determined by the cautious government to be relatively benign in nature if you were to later rebel.
After the third month, you will be considered to have proven yourself a trustworthy citizen and your choices of handguns will then be unlimited. However, for now your current choice is between the 1895 Nagant revolver or a quality replica of the 1858 Remington cap and ball revolver, both in unissued, like-new condition .
For the Nagant revolver, you would be restricted to using either Russian 7.62x38R “target” ammunition (such as what you can buy now from SOG), or what Fiocchi currently produces. However, though you may not alter the handgun in any fashion other than perhaps changing the grips to best suit you, you may carry as much ammunition as you wish, as well as using any method of open carry in any holster you wish.
For the 1858 Remington, it will be loaded with .454 caliber round ball over a maximum of 35grs of FFFG powder. Like the Nagant, it could not be modified other than perhaps a custom grip that you might find more comfortable.
And though you may be allowed to carry as much ball, caps and powder you wish, you may not carry additional cylinders.
Now let’s say you’ve been selected by the state and called upon to temporarily participate in this “civilian patrol”, requiring you to carry openly whenever in public to serve as a visual deterrent against crime.
The location in which you live is an area where crime is essentially unorganized, consisting primarily of robberies of local merchants and citizens by your typical miscreant and on rare occasion random assaults by irate individuals against government agents (which now includes you). At your disposal you have a boundless supply of ammunition and multiple 24 hour ranges in which you can practice all aspects of your duty, including drawing, shooting and reloading.
Of the two revolvers, which would be your choice?
Would your choice have been different if you were allowed to use .32 H&R magnum in the Nagant or conical bullets for the Remington?
Would the additional ability to carry additional cylinders be a decisive factor in choosing?
Last edited: