Swiss 1882 and 1929 Revolver comparison

E

Eaglelord17

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
62   0   0
Location
Sault Ste. Marie
So I thought I would do a bit of a comparison between the Swiss 1882 and 1929 revolvers. When the 1882 revolver was first developed it was one of the most modern revolvers in the world, even remaining more relevant than later designs *cough* 1895 Nagant *cough*. In 1900 the Swiss adopted the Luger, however they decided to still keep using the 1882 revolvers simply due to the fact it cost 1/3 the cost of a Luger. They just issued the 1882 to officers who wouldn't be likely in combat but still needed to have some sort of weapon (i.e. supply, etc.). In the late 20s the Swiss were looking to simplify there service arms to make them as inexpensive as possible (as Swiss service arms in general are always expensive). The results were the 1929 Luger, 1929 Revolver, and the K31.

Overall I would say the 1929 is definitely a cheaper arm. It has some improvements (stronger frame, cheaper, easier to manufacture), but the quality isn't nearly as high as the 1882. Holding it, the 1929 is also much more 'squarish' than the 1882 and doesn't fit as nicely in your hand. That doesn't mean it is ineffective, simply that it isn't as nice. Well in any case here is some photos detailing some of the differences between the two.


1882 on top, 1929 on bottom



showing the differences in the ejector rods, as you can see the 1882 has a extra aligning portion over the 1929

field stripping is the same between both

The 1882 has a hinge and captive screw to keep the side plate attached, the 1929 uses a pin and a standard screw. The 1882 screw head is also a bit larger and easier to get a screwdriver for.

1882s lockwork in the revolver

1929s lockwork in the revolver

1882 revolvers lockwork disassembled (note the numbering on the parts to tell you the order to disassemble)

1929s lockwork disassembled (note the lack of numbering)

Showing the difference in cuts in the revolver frames, 1882 on left, 1929 on right

showing the difference in front sights, on the 1929 it is a simple blade which is windage adjustable, well the 1882 has a ball which is non-adjustable (I prefer the 1882 sights)



Markings on the 1882, note the 'P36' stamp which signifies being sold out of service

Markings on the 1929, I suspect this example was never issued as there is no wear anywhere.

Nice swiss cross emblem on the 1929, the only real nicety added to the revolver system.

These revolvers are a bit underappreciated, which is understandable. Ammo is next to non-existent, and they aren't necessarily common firearms to begin with. Overall though they are neat, and quite fun guns to play with.
 
Yes the 1929 works the same way as the 1882, just simplified a bit. When you open the loading gate it disengages the hammer from the trigger, so all you do is pull the ejection rod back, pull the trigger to rotate the cylinder a full turn, and use the ejection rod again. Then you load the rounds individually, pulling the trigger every time you want to rotate the cylinder. It is actually quite a fast system, and considering that at that point there was no speed loaders, it really isn't that much slower than a swing out revolver.
 
Nice write up.
Op I'm surprised that you would consider 1882 more relevant in terms of combat than 1895. Seriously?
What war did 1882 proove itself? None
What war did 1895 proove itself? Almost all wars of 20th century.
In terms of combat record m1895 will beat 1882 and 1929 to the pulp.
Although being almost the same size as 1882, 1895 has one more round in the cylinder. Further more 1895 can be fired continuously, by just swapping fired case with new live round while being cocked. 1882 and 1929 are good revolvers, however saying that 1895 is infirior or irrelevant, that's just plain wrong.
 
We are not taking strategic weaponry here. We are discussing personal close combat weapons. By same token ceremonial sword is only hanging on the belt of an officer, just for ceremony and not for combat. Therefore 1882 and 1929 although fine revolvers in some ways can be considered as ceremonial revolvers. While i doubt that there is even one single 1895 that was not fired in anger. They simply don't exist
 
We are not taking strategic weaponry here. We are discussing personal close combat weapons. By same token ceremonial sword is only hanging on the belt of an officer, just for ceremony and not for combat. Therefore 1882 and 1929 although fine revolvers in some ways can be considered as ceremonial revolvers. While i doubt that there is even one single 1895 that was not fired in anger. They simply don't exist
 
gewehr76 said:
Nice write up.
Op I'm surprised that you would consider 1882 more relevant in terms of combat than 1895. Seriously?
What war did 1882 proove itself? None
What war did 1895 proove itself? Almost all wars of 20th century.
In terms of combat record m1895 will beat 1882 and 1929 to the pulp.
Although being almost the same size as 1882, 1895 has one more round in the cylinder. Further more 1895 can be fired continuously, by just swapping fired case with new live round while being cocked. 1882 and 1929 are good revolvers, however saying that 1895 is infirior or irrelevant, that's just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

First off, where did I say the 1882 and 1929 had more combat experience than the 1895? I simply said the design is more relevant technologically. Combat experience doesn't always mean it is a good design (not saying the 1895 is a bad design, but for example the 1886 Lebel has lots of combat experience, and it was very technologically irrelevant very quickly). And that fired continuously for the 1895 you have to be careful with. I tried it with my 1895 and I had a case get stuck between the cylinder and the frame as you have to leave the gate open and the case can jump back enough to cause a stoppage. That one extra round also doesn't mean that much when you can't hit your target.

I say the 1882 and 1929 are better because they can be loaded quicker, unloaded quicker (as you don't have to manually index), have better triggers, are easier to completely strip and are more ergonomic to me (I have all three to compare).

gewehr76 said:
We are not taking strategic weaponry here. We are discussing personal close combat weapons. By same token ceremonial sword is only hanging on the belt of an officer, just for ceremony and not for combat. Therefore 1882 and 1929 although fine revolvers in some ways can be considered as ceremonial revolvers. While i doubt that there is even one single 1895 that was not fired in anger. They simply don't exist
Click to expand...

They are not ceremonial they are service arms. Very big difference between a ceremonial arm and a service arm. Ceremonial is only intended for parade/looks. Service is what you would use in the event of combat. Just because it wasn't used in combat doesn't mean it is ceremonial.
 
I would say the 1895 Nagant, which I do like by the way, like most Russian pistols , fired more rounds for executions than combat.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
First off, where did I say the 1882 and 1929 had more combat experience than the 1895? I simply said the design is more relevant technologically. Combat experience doesn't always mean it is a good design (not saying the 1895 is a bad design, but for example the 1886 Lebel has lots of combat experience, and it was very technologically irrelevant very quickly). And that fired continuously for the 1895 you have to be careful with. I tried it with my 1895 and I had a case get stuck between the cylinder and the frame as you have to leave the gate open and the case can jump back enough to cause a stoppage. That one extra round also doesn't mean that much when you can't hit your target.

I say the 1882 and 1929 are better because they can be loaded quicker, unloaded quicker (as you don't have to manually index), have better triggers, are easier to completely strip and are more ergonomic to me (I have all three to compare).



They are not ceremonial they are service arms. Very big difference between a ceremonial arm and a service arm. Ceremonial is only intended for parade/looks. Service is what you would use in the event of combat. Just because it wasn't used in combat doesn't mean it is ceremonial.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how one can manage to get a case stuck in 1895 while it being cocked. As saying goes when there is a will there is a way. However, I also have all 3 revolvers in my collection and I don't see any big accuracy difference between all 3.
What it comes down to is training and ammo.
Ammo is one thing that as you say make design relevant. I reload 7.5 Swiss and 7.62 Nagant cartridges. 7.62 ng cartridge has much more potential than 7.5 ord. Some surplus in the states was chronied at 1100fps. Furthermore 1895 can digest. 7.5 ord as it has longer chambers, while 7.62ng won't fit in to swiss revolver.
And that extra round does matter because it is what allows 1895 to be so versatile in terms of playing russian roulette. Player has 1 in 7 chance of blowing his head off, while any other conventional 6 shooter is much more deadly. Lol.
Both Swiss revolvers are without the doubt, outstanding, but 1895 just takes it to the next level. It is still relevant today as there are some units of forestry enforcement or fisheries somewhere in Russia or Belorussia, that still carry it as their sidearm.
 
I would say that preferred caliber of nkvd for executions was 9mm court. I read somewhere that veinmar Republic supplied millions of rounds of 9curtz a and guns in that caliber to Soviet Union as war reparations. And it was documented that geico brand was used to execute all Polish officers at khatyn.
Saying that 1895 was only used as execution firearm is really difficult, as it is mainly service firearm that has more penetration thus more chance of ricochet against concrete wall.
During the war yes it may have, so is tt33 which is easier to load with just one round, without mag.
Who knows really? No one
 
I have had a very hard time trying to shoot the 1895 revolver accurately. Fired 100rds and I am still unsure where it is sighted in to (this is with spotters trying to assist). The Swiss revolvers I have had no such issue. You are correct that it likely comes down to training, ammo, and the gun itself (as the quality of a 1895 revolver varies depending on where and when it was made). My Swiss revolvers I have no worries about the quality of the revolver. In regards to training it is a very quick gun to figure out and shoot accurately.

Not saying the 1895 isn't a significant historical gun, but I really do question why the Russians adopted it when there were so many other options by 1895. Options like Abadie gate loading systems, and swing out cylinders were available, which if you added one of those to the rest of the design would have really stepped up the speed at which you could shoot and reload.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
I have had a very hard time trying to shoot the 1895 revolver accurately. Fired 100rds and I am still unsure where it is sighted in to (this is with spotters trying to assist). The Swiss revolvers I have had no such issue. You are correct that it likely comes down to training, ammo, and the gun itself (as the quality of a 1895 revolver varies depending on where and when it was made). My Swiss revolvers I have no worries about the quality of the revolver. In regards to training it is a very quick gun to figure out and shoot accurately.

Not saying the 1895 isn't a significant historical gun, but I really do question why the Russians adopted it when there were so many other options by 1895. Options like Abadie gate loading systems, and swing out cylinders were available, which if you added one of those to the rest of the design would have really stepped up the speed at which you could shoot and reload.
Click to expand...

What we have to understand is the mentality and though process as well as doctrine of Russian army at the end of 19th century. Russia always had more soldiers than guns or ammo. From that stand point if men are expandable so are the firearms. Russian army as well as Soviet were always stingy on ammo, as production capabilities were inadequate. Therefore when they adopted m1895 the army knew that, soldiers will waste ammo. They adopted single and double action models for officers and regulars, that got single action models. If they adopted autoloader or swing out cylinder revolver, there would have been no control over waste of ammo.
Any ways if during action one officer with m1895 would fire 7 shots and gets only one kill, then 6 rounds are waste. He is not alone in the army. Russian army was always in millions.
There fore the army limited sometimes to critical levels ammo supply, or sometimes did not supply at all many times what was needed.
With time army learned how to cope and use m1895 and could not see its short comings, because so many were made and ammo was more less available. With arrival of armor troops and Soviet tank corps generals could not agree to replace nagant with tokarev because in their mentality tankers should be able to shoot through armor ports to defend the tank from foot soldiers or cavalry, if need be. This was only possible with nagant revolver. Therefore they kept nagant in production. Then ww2 came and dictated its own changes and showed how stupid that was to ask tankers to use revolvers for tank defence. Never the less m1895 was perfect for airmen, it was also used with suppressor for covert operations. During its active service many lower ranked officers were practicing with m1895 and when were re equipped with tt33 could not hit the barn because tt33 is much more difficult to shoot. They wanted their m1895 back.
So with time and constant production, in tula between 1899 to 1945 roughly 3 millions were made. Some in poland at radom and Belgium. Probably 1million of them was lost in wars. Some are sold to us and in western world. But majority were dewatted in russia for starting pistols or noise makers.
 
I still question that though as they had the S&W break top model 3 before hand. The Nagant was also a relatively complicated revolver to manufacture considering it needed to have some complicated cuts and extra bits added for the gas seal it has.
 
S&W era was when each officer had to buy their own revolver. Mostly officers were noblemen who in all cases could afford their own guns and ammo when they get tjeir commission. At the end of the 19th century with abolition of serfdom and change in society towards moderate acceptance of poor free people in to the army. Also making nobles only buy higher ranks. While poor out of millitary lower ranked and nco's could not afford their own firearms. Thus decision was made to accept standard firearm for all.
Nagant brothers after they helped Russian commission with Mosin nagant. With ease negotiated with Russian army for design of their revolvers and new round for it. Russian army simply wrote the specs for M1895 and nothing else. If one reads required specks for the contract, one can simply see m1895.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom