Hypothetical scenario: 1895 Nagant vs. 1858 Remington

[Snowdog]

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?

 

[unspellable]

Nagent

No service loads for the Nagent? The full house service load would produce the same velocity with the same bullet weight as the 32 Mag. The currently available Russsian load is a midrange target load. The Fiocchi load is a lawyer special and not much hotter than the Russian load.

I an open situation, the Remington will have more oomph per shot. The Nagent is a seven shot and faster to reload. Probably more reliable.

The Nagent's real forte was shooting through peep holes where it produced no cylinder gap blast and tossed no hot cases around. (The reason the tank crews liked it.)

 

[Snowdog]

Yeah, I didn't find it easy to answer either. I did finally decided on the Nagant though.

 

[Joe Meyer]

For the 1858 Remington, it will be loaded with .454 caliber round ball over a maximum of 35grs of FFFG powder.

Am I really stupid or what? I load my 1858 Remington with over 40grs of FFFG powder.Is there any danger of it blowing up in my hands?

 

[Eightball]

I'd take the Remington. So it's black powder, would take forever to reload, etc etc. A soft lead shot was reputed to cause massive wounds against people in the Civil War. If it hit bone, it might break the bone for 1 foot up and down from the impact. A soft bullet does wonders against organs, i've heard. That, and the grip seems to fit me better, i'm partial to octagon barrels, and if you ran out with it, it would probably serve as a better club (more heft). And they just have that look to them of being sweet sidearms .

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'd choose the Remington, if only because I'd be embarrassed to be seen in public with a Nagent, which looks like some French kid's fantasy of what a gun ought to look like.

I'd be much happier with a Python, thanks all the same.

 

[Harry Paget Flashman]

Both are slow to reload. The Remington, however, would make a better bludgeon in lieu of a quick re-load.

 

[c_yeager]

Interesting test of form versus function.

Here we have one of the prettiest military firearms ever made matched against one of the ugliest. The nagant is better in every way for the given scenario, it has higher capacity, faster reloading, and *probably* better balistic performance. However, the Remington is SO MUCH more attractive that i would have to carry it despite its shortcomings.

 

[John C]

First: Would my nagant be a double action "officer's model" or single action "soldier's model?"

Second: Does it rain alot in Krakosia?

Third: As Krakosia sounds like it's from the non-American firearms tradition, can I assume that these pistols would be carried in European style flap holsters, perhaps even crossdraw?

I've never fired a nagant, but I own an 1858 replica (albeit in .36 cal) and have to say I'd go with the Remington. Sure the Nagant has one more round capacity, but does it have a firing pin block so that all cylinders can be carried safely loaded? If not, the the capacities are the same, since the remington has notches in the cylinder allowing all 6 cylinders to be carried loaded.

There's no comparison between the .44 C&B and the .32 nagant vis a vis stopping power. The nagant, without expanding bullets would creat marginal wounds. I think it was better suited to shooting bound prisoners in the head than gunfighting. The .44 C&B with a 146 gr. ball is a known stopper.

The only issue where the Nagant outshines the remington is in concealed carry, out of the question here, and having double action capabilities. However, the DA pull on Nagants, from what I've heard, is so bad as to be almost useless. The single action on my remington is quite good.

So, rationally, I would pick the Remington, since most police shootings consist of one round fired, and the Nagant is slow to load anyways. From a flap holster, likely crossdraw, a quickdraw is unlikely, negating the Nagant's horrible DA. Monsoon-like rain is the only thing that would rationally tip the balance back over to the Nagant.

In reality, though, I'm likely a semi-literate peasant who couldn't pay off the conscription official to get out of being drafted, so I'm probably a practical sort of fellow. The Nagant is smaller, lighter, and 'cool' compared to the old fashioned remington. Negligent discharges wouldn't be an issue, so I'd load all 7 chambers. Using smokeless powder, I wouldn't have to clean it, nor had the previous conscripts who'd used it for decades previously. I'd have better things to do than practice, since the last thing I'd want to do is hang around the station off duty. It's probably much easier to open beer or pop bottles with the large triggerguard of the Nagant.

-John

 

[Kalashnikov]

for the issue of club-ability....I have yet to see a firearm out-do a russian in terms of bludgening(sp) power

I would choose the nagant. The ones I've shot are very accurate and comfortable, thought comfort is relative in my case. Also, looking at the bullet, it seems as though it would be quite a man stopper from my cave-man perspective.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

This is a no-brainer for me: I'd pick the Remington.

The Nagant, even with service ammo, is severely underpowered. In contrast, a .44 cap & ball revolver is not. Heck, I'd prefer a .36 caliber Colt Navy stuffed with a max load of BP and a round ball over the 7.62mm Nagant round.

The DA Nagants have DA pulls so heavy as to be unusable. They are effectively SA guns, so that's a wash vis-a-vis the Remington.

The Nagant holds 7 beans in the wheel. The Remington can safely hold 6, if you put the hammer nose in one of the safety notches between chambers.

The means of reloading a Nagant is one of the most ridiculous, complicated, and slow designs I've ever seen on a gun taking metallic cartridges. I can't imagine trying to reload one in a fight. I think I'd rather try reloading a cap & ball revolver with paper cartridges and a capper, if push came to shove.

A good .44 caliber cap and ball revolver, properly loaded, and carried in a full flap holster is still a serious weapon. Change the Remmie to a Ruger Old Army and the choice is even more certain. The Nagant's only advantage -- self-contained metallic cartridges -- doesn't outweigh its disadvantaged, IMHO.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Nagant.

I'd do nthing but get headshots with it.

Of course, I'm the only one in the room professional enough to do so...

Seriously, I'd much rather have the Nagant. I'll take every bit of capacity I can get. Using the looks of the gun as a deciding factor is simply nuts.