M1895

It's a neat gun. One of the only revolvers you could ever (theoretically) put a sillencer on.

It has a monstrous trigger pull and takes forever to reload, though.

What are you planning on doing with it?

They really, really suck. Don't buy one unless you're a collector, and even then there are way better milsurp revolvers out there.

Cool guns for $99. For $300 you can buy much better surplus handguns.

Interesting piece of history with an interesting design that isn't much of a shooter due to heavy DA trigger (although you can just single it) and ammo availability.

300 is high unless it's some sort of rare specimen. Last time there were available on the primary market less than a year ago they were 200ish I believe? some people think even that's high, considering just 4 years ago they were 99 bucks.

I'd a get a mak over it if you want a shooter. If I'm going to pay 300ish, I'd save a bit more and look for target versions that go for like 500+ when they are available. Even better if it's the 22lr version.

>>29892872
Shoot shit in my yard or range. Shoot it for fun.

>>29892860
Was worth it when I got mine for $125. Its a fun little gun, but id rather have a mak, tok or cz83 if I was considering it now.

>>29892886
Why does it suck?

>>29892889
Everywhere you look they're 200-300, if I could find one for 150 I'd buy it right now. Or a mak for that price.

>>29892860
Get a mak for that price.

>>29892906
supposedly the heaviest trigger on any sidearm, due to all the movement your finger is actuating (the hammer, revolver, and gas seal). then you have proprietary ammo

its the cheapest full power revolver though, and id fuck with it if i wanted big boom on my hip for 100 dollars

>>29892906
Horrible trigger, no sights really, reloading requires a lunch break, 7.62x38r is a clown cartridge

for 300 dollars you can have a Tok, or a modern production Yugo tok clone.

>>29892938
Oh, I'm a retard.

I thought they made them in 7.62x25

>>29892938
I don't like the tok

>>29892860
Trigger pull is heavy. Like 20 lbs in double action. Gun is a gate loader, so to reload, you have to punch out each cartridge individually and replace them one at a time. On the up side, you do have seven shots. You can fire .32 S&W long or .32 H&R Magnum out of it in a pinch. Because of the tapered chambers, the brass will buldge or split, but it will work. With proper ammo, it can be threaded and fitted with a suppressor. It's quirky design that is rugged and reliable.

Ten years ago, when they were everywhere for under a $100, you could pick one up and get a .32acp conversion cylinder for one and have a pretty reliable and functional revolver for less than $200. Now they are becoming more of a novelty.

Personally, I would probably go for the Mak unless you just want a slightly odd 19th century design in a weird caliber.

>>29892933
I'm not using it to shoot bad guys or protect myself jeez, I'm shooting cans and steel targets.

>>29892956
Protect*

>>29892948
>I don't like the tok
>I'd rather get something even shittier

>>29892980
I don't like the design or look of the tok, I'm buying this for fun. To plink, to shoot cans. To show to people. I think the tokerov is ugly, I don't wanna show people that.

>>29892956
It's not even fun for that is what I'm trying to say. It's pure novelty. Just get the Makarov, it's great.

>>29893005
Get a Mak, show off your dick grips to all the ladies.

>>29893021
Not a terrible idea

>>29892860
It certainly is not the best gun in the world but if you can buy it for cheap and get the ammo, go for it. I enjoy plinking around with mine and it is something cool to show.

They're fun guns. I picked up one for $120 years ago. The Cabela's by my house always has ammo thats 30-40 cpr. If you want a neat gun with historical value, go for it.

I'm not so sure for that price. Though they are getting harder to find. I'd get a Makarov for that price but then, I have both already.

If you really like it then sure, why not. They are neat and fun. They make a cool conversation piece at the range with your buddies.

As far as sucking, well they will kill someone dead regardless. I wouldn't say they suck. But on this note the cons, to me, are
>heavy DA pull
>ammo
>reloading is a slight chore
>ejector rod is basically useless

I just got mine because I wanted an imperial era Nagant to go with my Mosins and for fun, no other reason

Complete garbage weapon at any price. I wouldn't pay 300 for it even if it was Stalin's personal gat. Ooooh you can put a suppressor on it!, big fucking deal. The only people dumb enough to be impressed by this failure are fedora wearing COD tryhards who dont even have guns let alone fire them or train with them on a regular basis. Spend your money anywhere else anon, fuck this commie shitpile.

>>29893228
>OP: Yeah so I'm buying it to plink and have fun with
>IT'S A GARBAGE WEAPON AND YOU'RE SHIT FOR LIKING IT, THERE'S WAY BETTER STUFF OUT THERE TO TRAIN WITH WOULD YOU EVEN BET YOUR LIFE ON THIS PIECE OF EQUIPMENT?

>>29892872
No,its works amazing with the silencer.its the sole purpose i want one.not op btw.
https://youtu.be/UKoCIeqVHIY

When they were cheap, it was one of the first handguns I bought when I turned 21. I slapped a .32 acp conversion cylinder on it (as the x38 was a lot more expensive back then than it is now). Cut the barrel down to snub nose. Nice carry gun for the time.

>>29893228

You seem mad.

>>29893228
Someone really wants to shoot someone. Did your wife or gf or bf stop putting out? >hurr durr train every day oper8.

>>29893267
Just one question: since when have Leon Nagant become a communist?

if this was still 2008 and they were $59.95 i would say go for it what do you have to lose. but 300 for one is kind of a joke. rare shitty weak underpowered cartridge that is expensive. no cheap surplus ammo available for it. horrible trigger. i guess if you collect historical arms, but dont kid yourself into thinking its comparable to some other modern equivalent

>>29892914
Please don't put these useless pieces of shit in the same category as makarovs

>>29893228
why so mad

File: Nugget of the Hand.jpg (621KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 1500x1000px

I have one (pic related).

It's a neat gun, as others have pointed out. I ordered a lot of surplus ammo for it for a pretty reasonable price. I only ever take it to the range maybe once or twice a year, though. It has a terrible trigger pull, reloading takes years, and the casings get stuck in the cylinders all of the time, so it take the power of Thor to push them the fuck out.

Otherwise, takedown and cleaning is really easy and I think they're awesome collectors guns. Got mine for $150, but I wouldn't want to spend any more than that.

>>29892903
same here
got mine for 140

>>29893005
if its what you want then do it. i have one and they are goofy. got my mother to shoot it in the backyard at cans. but id still rather have a mak myself

File: 1418802287715.jpg (33KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x500px

>>29893228
come on man

File: nagant 1878 86 nowak-03.jpg (24KB, 690x407px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 690x407px

>>29893228
Nagant was Belgian and his design predates the guns he built for Imperial Russia.

Pic related is an 1877 model Nagant

File: SwedishNagantHDR3small.jpg (82KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 700x525px

>>29894397
The Swedish military also adopted a version of the Nagant. Their version did not have the gas seal system and was chambered in a conventional 7.5mm cartridge.

File: 1895Nadd2 (1).jpg (21KB, 296x284px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 296x284px

>>29894626
The Russian gas seal Nagant was commercially successful in Europe and was built under licence in Russia and Belgium for civil sales and was also blatantly copied buy Belgian cottage industry arms makers.

File: _SP03a.jpg (14KB, 431x271px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 431x271px

>>29894743
One Spanish arms maker expanded the Nagant frame to use a nine shot cylinder. This large frame gun did not have a gas seal system.

File: SP03a.jpg (83KB, 571x359px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 571x359px

>>29894797
One of the last Nagant designs was this 1905 French model with a cylindrical that swung out to the right side of the frame.

File: 1892ammo.jpg (191KB, 922x629px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 922x629px

>>29894835
Wrong pic.

I got one a while back for the curiosity of it. I laugh at my friends when they shoot it the first time. I don't think I'd buy one for 200-300. But whatever floats your goat.

>>29892860
>I can get one for under 300
'The fuck? They were $99 in SGN the last time I checked.

A lot of people are complaining about the double action trigger pull. It was designed as single action only. If you use it like that, it is an acceptable single action revolver. If you expect to use it in DA and hit anything, you'll probably be disappointed.

Extremely light modern loads
Horrible trigger pull on single action let alone double
Double trigger binds the gun up if you try to shoot too quickly
Rear sight almost non existent but the front sight makes a decent melee weapon
Long and arduous reload

I put mine in a vice and got 2 inch groups at 15 yards

I had a weird idea once, to strap a gas piston on that like in a AR, but in the revolver it would punch spent casings out of the cylinder as you fired.