Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    25

    Default 1895 nagant pistol with no manufacture mark on side

    I just bought a 1939 nagant pistol and it doesnt have a manufacture mark or date on the side. Does anyone know if this is common/uncommon? It does have all the other usual stamps on the gun and I know it is a tula and is stamped 1939 on the bottom. It also doesnt appear to have been polished or scrubbed off.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    3,086

    Default

    Pictures!!
    Joe
    "Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." William of Ockham (1285-1349)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    502

    Default

    ++++ 1 on pictures. You'll find a lot of help here if you can get some pictures up.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    25

    Default here it is.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	nagant.JPG 
Views:	53 
Size:	93.5 KB 
ID:	452690Click image for larger version. 

Name:	nagant2.JPG 
Views:	46 
Size:	94.7 KB 
ID:	452691Click image for larger version. 

Name:	nagant3.JPG 
Views:	37 
Size:	82.7 KB 
ID:	452692

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    502

    Default

    Looks to be a refurbed 1939 Nagant, but I've never seen one stamped on the bottom. Joe probably has. I'm surprised the factory didn't re-stamp 1939 on the sideplate. Definitely late model front sight and I think the factory mark has been scrubbed or polished off. Any other Tula marks on it?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    3,086

    Default

    Does the serial number have a 2 letter prefix? If it does, it is probably a 1939. If it doesn't it it was probably repaired in 1939.
    The number on the bottom of the butt is definitely unusual. The late features, sights, grip etc. would have been from post war refurb.

    Joe
    "Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." William of Ockham (1285-1349)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    25

    Default

    thanks guys. The serial number is just 6 numbers, no two letters. I just am not sure if not having the stamp on the side is good or bad. I would prefer it have a stamp, otherwise it looks like a knockoff. It does have all the other proof stamps on the gun such as the "hammer" looking symbol on different parts, which i believe is from tula.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    3,086

    Default

    The hammer marks are Tula and pre 1928 which leads me to believe the revolver is probably pre 1928. The mark to look at is the one on the frame on the right side of the gun in front of the cylinder. If there is a hammer there, the frame is pre 1928. Does the side plate match or is it a line out?
    Joe
    "Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." William of Ockham (1285-1349)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    25

    Default

    yes it has the hammer on the right in front of the cylinder. The side plate appears to match. I am unsure what you mean by line out. So, possibly the side plate was replaced, but wouldnt they stamp the correct date and mark when it was refurbished?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Midwest.
    Posts
    10,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shoeshine312 View Post
    yes it has the hammer on the right in front of the cylinder. The side plate appears to match. I am unsure what you mean by line out. So, possibly the side plate was replaced, but wouldnt they stamp the correct date and mark when it was refurbished?
    If understand everything correctly. Your revolver was probably made before the Revolution. That would account for older factory logo. Back then factory in Tula used a hammer for their factory logo. It is not the sure thing at this point because, like Joe said, this factory logo was used until 1928.

    Sometime after the Revolution Russians started to remove imperial markings from the side plate of older revolvers that they inherited. You often see partial marking on side plate, most times Soviets kept the year at least. I think your revolver is example where imperial marking was removed completely, the name of the factory was removed, the year was removed, somebody did a more thorough job than usual.

    Another option is that you have replacement side plate.

    Overall, an interesting example.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    3,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shoeshine312 View Post
    yes it has the hammer on the right in front of the cylinder. The side plate appears to match. I am unsure what you mean by line out. So, possibly the side plate was replaced, but wouldnt they stamp the correct date and mark when it was refurbished?
    Remove the sideplate and there will be a serial number on the inside. When they replaced a sideplate on one of these, they stuck out the old serial with a line (chisel mark) and put a new matching number usually underneath the original number. This is what a "line out" is.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN8974A.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	172.0 KB 
ID:	452916
    Example of a line out


    If there was corrosion on the revolver when it was refurbed, they not so gently refinished the surfaces with a belt sanded. Sometimes some of the original marks are left, sometimes the sideplate is bare.
    When the marks are totally taken out, it is difficult to date these, especially after refurb. If there is any trace of the original acceptance mark on the right side by the hammer I can narrow down the date of manufacture a bit more.
    We know the frame is pre 1929 - so far. I'm sure we can learn more.
    Joe
    Last edited by jleiper; 08-08-2011 at 05:46 PM.
    "Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." William of Ockham (1285-1349)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Ok, here are more pics of the markings. It appears that there is no line out and all the serial numbers are the same. Does this help any?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	sideplate.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	107.4 KB 
ID:	452947Click image for larger version. 

Name:	all.JPG 
Views:	16 
Size:	80.2 KB 
ID:	452948Click image for larger version. 

Name:	front.JPG 
Views:	18 
Size:	101.3 KB 
ID:	452949Click image for larger version. 

Name:	hammer.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	104.3 KB 
ID:	452950Click image for larger version. 

Name:	inside.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	94.8 KB 
ID:	452951Click image for larger version. 

Name:	withoutplate.JPG 
Views:	18 
Size:	93.4 KB 
ID:	452952

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    25

    Default

    one more of right side of hammer. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	righthammer.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	95.6 KB 
ID:	452956

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    3,086

    Default

    OK, the hammer is pre 1926, but that is about all I can tell. There are remnants of an accuracy proof so it isn't late 1917-1920. Too bad that all that is left is the rework marks for the Acceptance Commission area. From the types and sizes of the visible marks, my first guess would be around 1913.
    Joe
    "Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." William of Ockham (1285-1349)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Wow. Thanks for all the help in the identification!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •