I stumped upon this photo on a Google image search earlier this week. Ian at Forgotten Weapons blogged it a few ago. This young Russian is carrying two M1895 revolvers, a PPsh, six hand grenades and a belt of ammunition… and that is just what is on the outside of his coat!

In case you missed it,our latest TFBTV is about the M1895 revolver …



Advertisement

  • Tyler McCommon

    No comrade there is never too much.

    • Uniform223
      • Anonymoose

        54R, tho.

      • Cattoo

        Didn’t have backpack ammo pouches when I was in the Corps. Just carried 600 rounds on my web gear for my 249.

        • MichaelZWilliamson

          A Guard unit developed this in Iraq, so the gunner could lay down suppressive fire and not have to worry about being handed belts. They got a small but notable cash award for the idea and implementation.

          • Cattoo

            Yeah I remeber now reading about that some time ago. Was a good idea too. Bummer that he didn’t get the compensation possible had he been a civilian who patented it and sold it under contract to the DoD.

        • supergun

          I like this gun.

      • CavScout

        Redbull patch.

    • Anonymoose

      Gee, Ivan, how come you get 12 AKs?

      • Grindstone50k

        Is friends with quartermaster.

        • Uniform223

          To anyone looking to join the military there are two shops within a unit that you should always stay on the good side. These shops are often the silent heroes and least appreciated. DO NOT piss off the S-4 and S-1 shop.

          • Grindstone50k

            Also, a 6-pack of beer is the best lubricant to get the wheels of administration moving a bit faster.

          • supergun

            A 12 pack will get you anything.

      • wetcorps

        AAAAAAAH MOTHERLAND

    • He must be cosplaying for ARMA 3

      • Grindstone50k

        What Arma3 mod do you use that lets you carry more than one rifle? Even stuffing one in the backpack turns you into an anemic asthmatic.

    • Ed Canupp

      wanna see ya run

    • supergun

      That is So FUNNY. My wife asks me why I use that word. She also asks me why she needs 3 guns in her vehicle. I said, ” Honey, when you run out of bullets, pick up the 2nd gun and keep firing. When you run out of bullets pick up the 3rd gun and keep firing. Then maybe the SOB will get the message if he is breathing.

  • iksnilol

    I think that’s a decent amount. Besides, it’s easier to grab a new gun than to reload a single action revolver.

    • Giolli Joker

      True, but that one is a double action revolver, although its loading gate isn’t actually that different from the Single Action Army revolver.
      (Action and way of loading the cylinder are independent variables, we could actually argue that the single action S&W No. 3 Russian gave Russians a way faster reloading revolver, although slower to shoot)

      • iksnilol

        True, I just found it easier to type single action than single loading. I don’t know why.

      • Renegade

        Eh, the M1895 wasn’t the easiest-shooting revolver in existence.

      • Twilight sparkle

        Actually some of the early nagant revolvers from wwI were single action.

    • Kelly Jackson

      Switch to your 2nd weapon it’s faster than reloading.

      • Stanley Rabbid

        Don’t forget to equip Quickdraw.

      • Grindstone50k

        New York Reload

    • Renegade

      I’m pretty sure I could load my 1842 Springfield faster than my M1895.

    • It’s a photo to send home. Every soldier who’s ever served (even in conscript forces in peace time) did a Rambo photo since the time cheap photos were invented. This little guy was with the irregular forces, and did his best to put every gun he could get on himself.

      • iksnilol

        I know, but I am still thinking that it is easier to grab a new Nagant than loading one.

        I remember a friend of mine grabbed an SKS to a march. His friends who grabbed the MGs laughed at him and were acting cool when taking the pictures. After they walked 10 km all of them wanted to trade with him. This was back in Yugoslavia.

  • SD

    Nuh-Gahn.

  • C.

    Hey did you you know you could suppress those revolvers?

    • Because people figured you could. The Russian spy agencies used silenced nagants for assassinations. During world war 2 russian scouts used silenced nagants as well. Reason you can silence this revolver is because it uses a gas seal system and a unique ammo. Hence no cylinder gap.The silenced revolver shotgun from Crye Precision
      made in parternship with silencerco uses a gas seal system.

      • Anonymoose

        I always thought the Nagant was suppressed from the start…

        • How could jt be? The nagant came out in 1895 the first silencers came out after 1908

          • Grindstone50k

            Interesting fact about the Nagant revolver: you can suppress them.

          • iksnilol

            It’s sorta become a joke here that Nagants can be suppressed.

          • Lasis

            A joke, why? Just because it has been said numerous times or what? Because seriously BraMit (БраМит) device is pretty well known and was mass produced… well, relatively “mass” produced for such a specialized product.

          • iksnilol

            It was because in the video review for the Nagant they mentioned several times that it can be suppressed, but they didn’t show one suppressed. Somehow this morphed into a joke.

  • Darn it, now I have to figure out what political agenda this post secretly serves!

    • Kevin Harron

      Remove fascists!

      • Anonymoose

        REMOVE EGGROLL.

    • dshield55

      Depends on who you politicked off.

  • Tassiebush

    I think you know you’re carrying too many when you sneak up to an enemy position and throw a revolver into their position by mistake.

    • TheNotoriousIUD

      Russian bbq’s are hard core.

  • einszweidrei

    There were too many guns in soviet countries. Without them, all the talibans, al-nusra terrorists, etc. would still be using bolt action rifles and crappy homemade revolvers.

  • anomad101

    If I had more than two, I would probably forget where I put the others.

  • mikenz25

    You should really compare with firearms of the 1880/90 period to be fair. Some pretty average to bad firearms of that period in European military forces.
    Also probably testing at like minus 30 C (-22F). Apparently the Nagant would work in such conditions when all other pistols failed.

  • dshield55

    Why does he have a rifle ammo belt and no rifle? This is proof positive that being a mall ninja and/or tacticool has always been totally awesome. Some of you guys may think youre clever making fun of mall ninjas, but youre the one in the wrong. Cool is cool and you cant change cool. Just embrace the tacticool. Tacticool can neither be created nor destroyed by your derision. Just embrace what always has been and always will be. Tacticool.

    • Don Ward

      Clearly those rifle rounds are for when the one with the rifle gets killed.

      • Cymond

        According to legend, only 1/3 of troops at the Battle for Stalingrad were equipped with rifles. The other 2/3 were expected to take the rifles from their fallen comrades.

        • dshield55

          I tried to say this in a facebook post once and the Russians got really pissed. They were really offended by that part of Enemy At The Gates because apparently theres no historical truth to it. I tried digging some up and couldnt.

          • They wouldn’t want to admit even if it was true. Being short on guns and other supplies was a well known issue. So odds are a lot of Russians sent to the meat grinder didn’t have guns.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            That’s the reason the Mosin was so long, so idiots with no training could not look down the barrel when pulling the trigger….

          • Lasis

            LoL, haven’t heard this one before. Still it wouldn’t prevent someone to shoot his own foot and become “not a deserter technically”.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            The treatment for such a wound was probably bullet to the head.

          • Lasis

            I really doubt that, since there are still surplus Mosin rifles in good or even mint condition produced before WWII. Of course there could have been shortages in some places for a little while, at least immediately after German invasion.
            During WWI Russia placed foreign orders for rifles, both Mosins and Winchesters, pretty much all European powers fighting against Germany did. Russians also used some Arisaka rifles. But unlike imported guns from WWI, you don’t see many guns imported in USSR from WWII, only very few 1911s, some Tommy guns and stuff like that which came along with tanks and planes supplied through Lend-Lease, so I suspect that’s an indication that the shortage of guns wasn’t actually such a big issue for Soviets.

          • But the soviets lost so many people that if they had the guns like you think they did they wouldn’t have had so many casualties unless they were being thrown into a meat grinder in human wave attacks with most them not having a gun. As for the surplus guns remember that means they were turned in back to the arsenal and worked on. Hence why they are surplus not military vintage meaning taken from the battlefield. The Soviets were notorious for taken captured arms from the Germans such as the Super Star B taken them apart putting all the parts in buckets then putting the guns back together after the frame had been worked on. They had entire workshops devoted to it.

          • Tassiebush

            The Russian casualties are more a reflection of the fact that they actually fought way more than the rest of us. The Eastern front was far more active than Western Europe.

          • Lasis

            First, some Russian historians argue, that Soviet casualties are not much higher than on the German side, that’s pure combat casualties. Besides they really was thrown into grinder. My wife’s grandfather served in a Soviet recon squad, among other battles he participated in Jelgava bloodbath, also known as “the Stalingrad of Baltics” here in Latvia. First they entered the town without meeting any resistance, and commanders sent a report about victory, but then Germans counter-attacked, and command seem to be scared shitless they will have to report about loosing this strategically important railway junction, so they just threw soldiers at Germans without second thought. One of my wife’s childhood memories was of her grandfather seeing marshal Zhukov on TV, and he just jump at TV screaming “bloodsucker” (grandpa suffered concussion and sometimes had mood swings).

          • Kivaari

            I had a book written by a Soviet journalist. True stuff that was hidden until some of his book got out on film and it was published in Western Europe. I was reading along, and came across what turned out to be the opening scene of Enemy At The Gate. The next paragraph explained that the movie scene was taken from this writers banned book. I wish I still had it, as I can’t remember the author or title. The story about the sniper duel was BS. It was created to boost morale.

          • Wolfgar

            What Stalin did to any cowards or deserters is not a myth. Stalin did say with a smile, “it takes a brave man to be a coward in the Red Army”. The soldiers at Stalingrad probably had a better chance of survival charging the Germans without a rifle than refusing. Nice uncle Joe we had there.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            The bullet from the front might miss, the bullet from the back never misses.

          • Barrier troops were basically MPs. They detained more than half a million soldiers and officers during several years, executed about 10K (after military tribunal), incarcerated several dozen thousand more for desertion (or sent them to penal units), and sent others back to their normal units. The episodes that started the image of “machine guns to the backs” (they are so ingrained into popular mind, and not only Western, but Soviet too, that we cannot simply discard them) have presumably taken place right after the Order 227. (Not with MGs of course, no sane commander would squander MGs for this duty.) But due to extreme unpopularity and unwillingness they were dropped after a few months. Most likely, those that happened were connected with penal breakthrough units, although I can’t say for sure.

            Rest of the time (about 3-4 years) barrier troops made, well, barriers, policing the rear of a frontline for enemy spies, deserters and stray servicemen. AFAIK, one of the greater branches of this type of troops was specifically named “Death to Spies” (SMERSH). Again AFAIK, the Soviet counterintelligence and intelligence in WWII was top-notch, which was reflected in opinions from both the Reich and Allies.

            Of course these statements of mine should be more grounded in quotes from publications based on archive work, sorry that I cannot provide them now. Nevertheless, I know that the work of barrier troops is richly documented and researched by historians. But, needless to say, Enemy at the Gates or sensationalist journalism (inc. that which went around shortly after the fall of USSR) is not a good thing to get your info from.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            Given the history of the soviet union’s deliberate programs of dehumanization and genocide, the treatment of Russian soldiers recaptured from German prison camps, and what I learned working in an Army intelligence unit, I have no trouble believing that unarmed troops were forced into the attack without weapons.

          • Well, we were taught that in the US, people live under that iron heel of large business, labourers suffer horribly, artistic talents are squashed, and you can be robbed at any corner at any time of day (not to say anything about the Sunday blacks lynching as a popular pastime). Special care was put into teaching that to military personnel. So what?

          • Daniel F. Melton

            None of those things you brought up were officially perpetrated or condoned by the government (which is subject to the will of the people), and anybody has been free to leave any employment he finds onerous since the question was settled by force of arms back in 1865.
            As to “robbery on every street corner” or “lynching blacks as a popular pastime”, purest hokum. Robbery is at best risky and often fatal when the victims may be armed, the same for lynching blacks on Sunday or any other day. Perhaps this is why our liberals (once financed and coached by your KGB) demand that American citizens be disarmed. Strange that crime in the U.S. is highest in liberal socialist enclaves…
            I do know about the indoctrination of your military operatives. I’ve had to review the interrogations.

            Old joke about “freedom in USSR”:
            American: “I have freedom of speech. I can stand on any street corner and shout that Roosevelt is a corrupt bastard.”
            Russian: I too can stand on any street corner and shout that Roosevelt is a corrupt bastard…”

          • I think you’ve missed the point. Of course it was bullshit. So was the notion of USSR being an endless barren grey wasteland where workers marched in a single file to uranium mines with NKVD officers ready to shoot them in the head. I’m sorry, but in the end, I get the feeling that you’re talking to yourself. Didn’t mean any disrespect.

          • Secundius

            @ Wolfgar.

            In August 1945 at the Potsdam Conference, Zhukov told Eisenhower. They reason why the Soviet Army had such High Casualty Rates, is because the Soviet Soldier had Two Choices. NKVD Bullets or German Bullets, with the Germans you had a 50/50-chance. With Stalin,Next to ZERO…

          • Simply put, it’s not true. Now, don’t think that the following long comment is an outraged rant – it isn’t =). It’s more of a thought experiment. It’s funny, even I didn’t think it would turn out this way! )

            Let’s suppose that for every Soviet commander from the High Command down the line, human life was completely worthless in moral terms (this is not quite true, I’ve seen many scanned exchanges with Stavka on the subject of losses, about commanders on all levels who were reckless with their troops). OK. It has a basis in reality (see below).

            Then, fiscally, every rank and file soldier still costs many, many times more than a single rifle or a pouch, or even a crate of ammunition. Let’s suppose we totally discard the cost of his upbringing, education and military training – we’ll go with another myth of “backwoods farmer pressed into service from day 1 w/o training at all”). Although to be fair we shouldn’t, because these were all state affairs. And, of course, all soldiers went through boot camps however brief, and specialists/officers finished their schools. They couldn’t have used their radios, maps, tanks, planes, mortars and artillery pieces otherwise. OK, we take this out from the “soldier price”.

            Then we still have enormous costs associated with his and his unit’s equipment, suppying him with food for months and years, and most of all, simply transporting him. For example, remember that infamous scene in Enemy at the Gates movie: just consider how many boats were lost to artillery (shown in the film) just to ferry completely useless, essentially unarmed meat to the other coast? Consider, then, that this crossing was fully supported by artillery and air forces (also shown in the film), which are inherently expensive to use. You can’t short-charge a cannon to still hit the same spot, and you wouldn’t send a plane without bombs on a mission. Shells and bombs cost could outfit a regiment with rifles in one minute of the fire mission shown.

            If you look at it this way, infantry turns out to be very pricy indeed: it’s very frail, but every expensive weapon on the battlefield falls over its head to protect it – simply because no tank, plane or cannon can hold an objective and garrison it. Which is a reason they have rifles, grenades and SMGs, of course. Unarmed, they’re a liability that’s treated like gold bricks.

            ==
            Soviet army in the confilct was more or less on par with the other parties, although not favourably compared to many of them in terms of soldier comfort, mechanisation etc. (Interesting to note that Soviets’ artillery was weirdly more mechanised at some points than Germans’.) Nice things like good optics, radios and other advanced stuff was hard to get or non-existent where it wasn’t essential (of course, again, you can’t bomb without bomb sights).

            This relative parity is reflected in the results: though mostly one-sided in terms of losses, these are still decisive wins in the most difficult strategic and tactical circumstances – a thing that a woefully and overwhelmingly underequipped army couldn’t ever manage if it consisted entirely of kamikazes. Sadly, horrible episodes happened, but in the end the Stavka praised generals for their effectiveness, not their ruthlessness. Multiple instances of horrible and pointless losses (that indeed happened, all too often sadly) were followed by swift resignation of the commanding officer and emergency appointment of a new one.

        • Secundius

          @ Cymond.

          Stalin, Didn’t Care weather his troop’s had Rifle or Not. He expected RESULTS, even if that meant Hand-to-Hand Combat…

      • Tassiebush

        I’d just ask that guy to share some of his 😉

    • Wetcoaster

      Probably for the squad or platoon’s machine gun? If it was for a rifle, it’d be a bandolier of chargers

      • Grindstone50k

        Or it could be an easy way to carry a bunch of extra ammo.

        • Kivaari

          It wont fit his SMG.

          • Grindstone50k

            It fits the 91/30 he’s got hidden inside his coat.

        • Wetcoaster

          In the wrong calibre for his SMG, and the wrong format for a rifle – rifle ammo would be in 5-round stripper clips from the factory instead of in a belt.

          • Grindstone50k

            He’s got a 91/30 hidden away in his coat.

      • Kivaari

        Just like our soldiers carried extra ammo fir the machineguns. Spread the load out, so when it is needed, you have some. Packing extra machinegun belts is seen in many Soviet era photographs.

      • Daniel F. Melton

        It never hurts to pack a few extra rounds for the guys with the M60 and the M79.

    • Tassiebush

      Well he needed something to tuck the extra grenade and revolver into.

    • wetcorps

      The 54R is for the Obrez tucked in his pants.

    • Phillip Cooper

      He has it the same reason my ruck had a couple mortar rounds in it, and I wasn’t a mortarman, and my ruck had extra belted ammo that wouldn’t work in my M16. You want as much extra ammo for those systems as possible, so everyone humps some..

  • BattleshipGrey

    He’s more of a short range kind of guy.

  • Keith

    Can someone explain the difference between the huge grenade on the right, and the other two regular potato mashers?

    • Joel

      The big one is an antitank grenade.

    • DaveP.

      RPG-40 antitank grenade. Early model used by the Soviets (and thus exported to anywhere they could cause trouble) against lightly-armored German tanks, later superseded by shaped-charge hand grenades that stood a better chance against upgraded German armor. Also pretty good at busting bunkers.

  • HenryV

    In Soviet Russia quantity has a quality all of its own……..

  • Comrade Pavchenko went on to serve Comrade Stalin in Siberia after skipping ahead in the toilet paper line…

    • Bill

      Even today at some places in Moscow and St. Petersburg you have to pay for toilet paper at public restrooms, and sometimes thugs would take all the paper and basically racketeer it to users. It was a Big Deal because the cities were trying to attract tourists….

    • Paul White

      I want that shoulder rig and coat for winter carry

  • greasyjohn

    Slingin’ for the motherland! Awesome.

    Borrowing extra firearms for pictures was a common practice.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Those grenades look freshly polished.
    Probably put them right back in the safe after the picture.

    • They’re not polished, they’re basically painted cans. They always glisten. Of course, this is a Rambo pic to send home, but it was taken in the times of war in a combat (irregular) unit.

  • Will

    Better to have and not need than to need and not have…..

  • Hudson

    Comrade Josey Wales

  • Anonymoose

    I only see two guns in this picture.

  • Lance

    You can never have enough ammo and guns as long as there bad guys in the world!!!!!

  • Yes but the WWII era Russian dude in the pic I’d say is doing it right.

  • May

    What confuses me the most here is that his ammo belt is for different guns than the ones he has, and I highly doubt he’s CCing a Tokarev rifle.

  • mosinman

    THIS IS OF STANDARD COMBAT LOAD OF AVERAGE CONSCRIPT XAXAXAXA

  • Broz

    They worked as advertised in the cellars of Lubyanka and the Katyn Forest

  • Wolfgar

    For firearm collectors, NO. For combatants, YES.

  • hikerguy

    Well, let’s see….A PPsh because he doesn’t want a rifle that is taller than he is. Next, two Nagants. Why? Because they were quite $#*&7y and were not reliable. If one didn’t continue to fire, throw it at the enemy and pull out the other one. A multitude of grenades for bustin bunkers, tanks, and the occasional German grunts. To top it all off, a some Moisan rounds. Why? I am sure there were a multitude of those around to use if his PPsh didn’t work.
    In reality, he probably wanted to be Mr. tough guy for the picture. Dig that expression on his face. 🙂

    • mosinman

      nagant revolvers weren’t really crap, they were just slow to reload so it was better to have two

      • hikerguy

        I know that the recent review of one by Chris wasn’t shown in a good light, but now I realize it may have been a bad one. It would have historical appeal to me but not one I would want to shoot on a regular basis.

        • mosinman

          Alex just hates Russian guns. it’s a cool old gun but the design really shows it’s age even when compared to modern revolvers. I’ve been wanting one for a while

  • Major Tom

    Not pictured: His trusty M1891/30 Mosin-Nagant he also carried.

  • billyoblivion

    A pistol is for when don’t want to be caught unarmed when trouble finds you.

    A rifle is for when you expect trouble to find you.

    That boy is planing on bringing trouble *to* trouble. Of course one shot (the luck of which depends on which side of the barrel you’re on) and there’s not going to be enough left to put the shoe box we’re sending home to mother.

  • Captain Obvious

    Staged photo to send back home. Since he is carrying an ammo belt with rifle ammo in it, his real weapon (and not those photo props) was probably a Mosin Nagant 91/93

    • iksnilol

      Or he’s carrying extra ammo for the MGs other guys with Mosins?

      I mean, it’s common to carry MG ammo and mortar rounds even if you personally don’t use them.

  • SlowJoeCrow

    If this guy was a tank rider a bigger question would be whether he survived long enough to need a reload. Riding into battle on the back of a T-34 was a very dangerous activity.
    That said, this appears to be a studio picture so some of those guns and grenades are probably embellishments.

  • Compared to some of the “operators” out there, this guy’s “loadout” is pretty sparse!

  • jerry young

    if you have too many guns to carry get help load them in a cart or a car, if you have too many guns give them to me I can never have too many! I don’t like selling guns it’s too hard to part with friends!

  • Daniel F. Melton

    Too many weapons? Only if they anchor ya to the bottom.

  • Y-man

    In Soviet Russia, arsenal wears you.

  • BrandonAKsALot

    Interesting to see such an early PPSH-41 with the ladder style rear sight like an AK.

    • UCSPanther

      I think those are called leaf sights. Those were very common on older military rifles.

      Ladder sights are more akin to those seen on the M1903, M1917 and some Lee Enfields.

      • BrandonAKsALot

        You are correct. Leaf or tangent sight is the proper term.

  • Rock or Something

    “Pack it light, shiver at night!”
    but
    “Every ounce counts.”

  • Lasis

    Reloading a 1895 is so slow, it really does make more sense to carry several revolvers than trying to reload one while in the field.
    I wonder, was there anything else he carried, since the ammo on the belt doesn’t fit any of the guns seen on the picture, or likely he is just posing and borrowed a PPSh from one of his comrades, because it looks cooler than a rifle.

  • supergun

    Have a gun for each caliber. Buy a box or two each week. After one year you will have enough ammo, then buy the ammo that is on clearance. Called pick and choose. If one ammo is not available, you have other guns that are. Guns and bullets are like gold. They keep going up, especially with you have the dumb a$$ess threatening gun/ammo bans. You sell for double and buy twice as many. Only in America.

  • Mikial

    I would imagine the Russian was heading into remote country and wanted to be sure he wasn’t going to be unarmed with no reissue available.