Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Weekend Quiz #2

Last weeks quiz seems like it was too difficult, so we’ll try something easier with multiple parts.

The marks on Imperial Nagants are fairly consistant until the fall of the Tsar, the short lived provisional government and then the October Revolvution “upset the apple cart” (beet wagon?). So what changes occurred to the arsenal mark, Acceptance mark and other proofs and in what years did they happen? Extra points for pictures and serial numbers. This one should make you look at your 1916-1920 revolvers!

Here is a baseline early 1916 revolver for reference

Good luck!

Joe
 

·
Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
2,191 Posts
Darn, my ealiest Nagant is a 1923 with the RSFSR marking.:(

Very nice 1916 examople, BTW.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
2,191 Posts
Well, I am always willing to try, here goes my guesses.
From 1919 to 1920, the Peter the Great line was omitted. It still said Tula Weapons Factory.
From 1921 to 1924, it had the RSFSR: Made by the Tula Weapon Factory.
Lenin Dies
From 1924 on the RSFSR was replaced by "CCCP", or SSSR
First Five-Year Plan of the USSR (1928)
In 1929, the Tula Arrow and Star Arsenal Mark Appears.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
From 1919 to 1920, the Peter the Great line was omitted. It still said Tula Weapons Factory.
Not quite right!

From 1921 to 1924, it had the RSFSR: Made by the Tula Weapon Factory.
Lenin Dies
This is correct

From 1924 on the RSFSR was replaced by "CCCP", or SSSR
First Five-Year Plan of the USSR (1928)
In 1929, the Tula Arrow and Star Arsenal Mark Appears.
This is also correct

My question is actually a bit more complicated than just the sideplate mark. At some point the Acceptance mark was changed, then completely lost, the point of aim proof was lost, as well as the Peter the Great line in the Arsenal mark.

So
1. When was the last change to the eagle acceptance mark?
2. When was the acceptance mark completely lost?
3. When was the Peter the Great line removed from the Arsenal mark?
4. When was the Accuracy/point of aim proof lost?
5. When were the acceptance mark and Point of aim proof restored?

Joe

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Since no one seems to have it, here's your answer:

Production in 1916 had been on the order of 175,000 revolvers. This number is based on serial numbers only as there is no published number of revolvers produced. The highest serial numbers observed have been in the 156XXX range. Early 1917 manufactured revolvers seem to be identical to the late 1916 production. Production for 1917 would seem to be on the order of 50,000 revolvers, again there is no published production number, but serial numbers have been observed to about the 50XXX range. The October revolution seems to coincide with the loss of some of the inspection marks on the revolvers.

The first changes that came with the fall of the Imperial and subsequent provisional government were the loss of the point of aim proof and the Imperial Eagle Acceptance Commission mark. These marks simply ceased to exist somewhere around the 40000 serial number range. There would be no acceptance mark or point of aim again until 1922.


Left serial № 36448 1917 production still has the eagle acceptance mark introduced in late 1916, right serial № 46282 of the same year the eagle has flown.


Pictures of the same two revolvers from 1917 with and without the circled ‘K’ point of aim proof.

The Imperial sideplate with the PTG line in the arsenal mark remained in production until sometime in 1918. Published production in 1918 was 52,863 revolvers (Bolotin).


Serial № 35273 1918 production still has the Peter the Great line on the side plate, Serial № 44330 has had the line removed from the stamp. This would be the sideplate mark used until 1921 when the RSFSR mark was introduced.


Joe
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top