As I have come to understand, the feature prevents loss of gas between the chamber and barrel, and also allows the nagant to be suppressed. These both seem to be good things in my opinion, hence the question.
In: 56
because its not needed, and we dont design revolvers anymore.
Yes, revolvers do loose some energy from the cylinder gap, in practical terms its not a huge amount, and the extra complexity of the workaround used by the Nagant, like the cylinder pushing forward and the extra long cartridge case, is normally unneeded. it can’t be done with any of the existing cartridges on the market as it requires the long brass casings of 7.62 nagant to work, which means any revolver intended for a “standard” type cartridge is never going to make the system work.
also, the Nagant M1895 is right at the back end of common revolver design, as its contempary with the early semi-automatic pistols like the C93, the mauser C96, and theLuger was first produced in 1898. The militaries started to move over to semi-autos, and civilians generally were happy with the existing revolver paradigm, so their was no incentive to shift en masse to the nagant system.
also, while suppressors are cool, and did exist in experimental form in the early 20th century, its only in the post ww2 era that they became something that worked well and for more than a half-dozen shots. they’ve always had a bit of a “spy gadget” vibe that means it was never a priority in weapon design until well into the latter 20th century when revolvers were civilian and backup weapons.
The things necessary for that feature are a bit more negative, than positives. For one, it required special ammo. The ammo was part of what closed the gap. So you’re in a scenario where off the shelf ammo just doesn’t work. Next thing is that the way that ammo works- when the hammer is pulled back, the cylinder and ammo are pushed forward to close the gap. So the hammer needs to have a longer firing pin in order to reach the primer. Which might result in the firing pin breaking over a lot of use.
Chamber sealing designs are required for an actually suppressed revolver, if for whatever reason you needed that
Added cost and complication (reliability factor) are negative attributes. Only real pro is the ability to run a suppressor on it, which isn’t a common need. Suppressors aren’t some magical device that eliminate sound, they only reduce it. Plus it means you also need taller sights for aiming above the “can” of the suppressor.
If you like interesting guns like that and finding out why they aren’t as copied in more firearms, I’d highly recommend the YouTube channel mikeburnsfire. He has 3 or 4 long videos where he and a buddy go through fallout just messing around but each time they find a different gun he talks about them, their history, and neat features.
Because outside of trying to have a suppressed revolver those issues can be solved more easily by using more powder and designing the revolver so it doesn’t hit your hands.
There’s also limited reasons no to use a semiautomatic pistol for whatever it is you’re trying to achieve with a pistol unless rule of cool is a factor.
It’s a added mechanism for very little advantage, the added velocity is about 50fps . Revolvers are known for a simple strong action, that requires less skill to maintain.
Moving the cylinder forward after rotation to seal with the special round adds a extra thing that can go wrong, needs to be cleaned and adds to the cost.
The 7.62×38mmR round is not a powerful round, about the same as a 32ACP, not that powerful. Using a more powerful round would most likely cause the gun to fail.
Latest Answers