Category: All About Guns

When I was in the Gulf during Desert Storm, I had gone into a Bunker in Iraq and found a draganov and had every intention of taking the rifle home as a “War Prize” because it was semiauto and I figured it wouldn’t be an issue, but when we were trying to clear customs in the Gulf to return back to Germany despite having documentation, damm MP’s confiscated the rifle and I had no recourse, my unit wanted to return and if I stirred up a hornets nest, my unit would have been pushed back on the rotation so I ate my pride and to this day it still galls me, I think some asshole took my rifle home for himself.

I snagged this off “SOFREP”

Oh well…..*Mutters*

Soldier firing a standard-issue SVD Dragunov (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Thomas Stubblefield/DVIDS).

Whether you’ve encountered the Dragunov in the field, a documentary, or even in the Call of Duty videogame franchise, it’s no secret that the semi-automatic Soviet-era rifle is one of the best firearms ever to be designed and produced by the Russians. From its natural appeal and aesthetic in its wooden stock to its reliable long-range accuracy, today, we’re going to discuss a bit of the historical context that went into designing this rifle!

In response to the rising usage of submachine guns on the battlefield, the Red Army thought they were losing important high ground leverage in engaging enemies long-range. While these submachine guns (SMGs) were definitely effective in close-range, trench combat, SMGs do not offer the same long-range cover fire infantry soldiers needed to push forward with gaining objectives.

Some of these SMGs included the infamous World War II PPsh-41 using the 7.62x25mm known as the “papasha” (daddy) gun, which uses the same rounds as the Tokarev pistol. Machine guns like the DP-28 and DS-39 were also standard, high rate firearms that could lay sufficient covering fire, however sacrificing accuracy for the rapid-fire rate.

The armies of the West had rifles that could shoot at ranges exceeding Soviet weapons, which meant Russian troops would have to advance over several hundred yards under accurate fire before their own weapons could be employed.  In a close-in fight, like an urban environment, the AK had a distinct advantage in house-to-house fighting, but in closing in on that town or city, they faced getting shot to pieces by longer-ranged Western small arms.

So then, the Soviets faced a dilemma. How do they equip their infantry troops with both battle rifles and sufficient long-range cover fire to cover the advance of their troops across open ground? This is where the development of the Dragunov comes in.

From 1957 to 1963, a competition was held to develop a rifle that designated marksmen in the Soviet Army could use, that was cost-effective (meaning it was cheap enough to mass-produce), and could engage enemy targets faster than enemy riflers.

The answer to this problem was the first Dragunov rifle model 1963, designed by Yevgeny Dragunov, a man whose family line comprises gunsmiths. Mainly a sporting rifle designer, he was not a stranger to military service as he had served in the military in 1939. He defeated Sergey Simonov, the designer of the SKS carbine, and Aleksandr Konstantinov for the rifle competition. Mark the irony of a Communist country like the USSR holding a “competition” like free-market Capitalists.

The Dragunov rifle has a striking similarity to the AK47 cosmetically in its furniture placement and the pistol grip housing the trigger group, but, the AK-47 is a rugged, cheap to produce and operate assault rifle not meant to be a marksman’s rifle, while the Dragunov was made for precision(As the Soviets viewed it) marksmanship. You see, the average Russian soldier was not really trained as a marksman, he was expected to shower the enemy with rounds from his AK47 while pushing in as close to the enemy as possible.  In contrast, the U.S. Army and especially the Marine Corps trained on and prized marksmanship at range. So in a sense, the Dragonuv was intended to give a Soviet soldier a rifle as capable as the M-1 Garand or M-14 was in the hands of  Marine or Army GI trained to hit targets at distances of 600-800 yards

The U.S. and USSR  looked at snipers in the post-WWII era very differently.  America did not have specially trained snipers until after the Vietnam War. Believe it or not, snipers were widely disdained in both militaries because they killed at range and without warning to the other side.  There was something about it that seemed unsporting somehow in war.  In WWII, German snipers were especially hated by American GIs and were generally executed upon being captured. During the Normandy campaign, quite a few German paratroopers were executed by our troops because their camouflage smocks and unusual helmets marked them as snipers to American soldiers.  Word was passed down to stop shooting paratroopers who surrendered to them, but they were not told to stop shooting snipers they caught red-handed. General Omar Bradley himself said that he didn’t mind if snipers were treated a bit more roughly than other prisoners were.

So while the Dragonuv is often called a Sniper Rifle, it really wasn’t designed to be one and Soviet units equipped with them did not employ them as such either. In the 1970s a Soviet rifleman equipped with the Dragunov would often find himself firing tracer and armor-piercing ammunition rather than the more precise 7N1 round. If you still doubt me, consider that the Dragonuv was equipped with a fitting for a bayonet and you wouldn’t expect a sniper in a carefully prepared concealed position to break cover to participate in a bayonet charge, would you? In proxy conflicts during the Cold War, it was used by troops in third world countries as a sniper rifle, not by design but by necessity as it was the only thing offered for sale by the Soviets that could come close to fulfilling that role.

The Dragunov was built to extend the range of an infantry squad or platoon on the assault and to serve as a defensive element when static. As a matter of standardization, it used the 7.62x54mmR rounds leftover from World War II but was pretty revolutionary in its design as a purpose build precision rifle.  The Dragunov was semi-automatic rather than a bolt action and held 10 rounds with a bolt hold-open feature on the last round to make reloading faster.  It was equipped with PSO-1 optical sights with an illuminated reticle with a rangefinder and could be adjusted for windage and elevation. Perhaps most innovative was the IR filter on the sights which could detect early versions of American infrared lanterns used on its own sniper rifles. The barrel at 620mm allows the cartridge propellant to burn properly, thus increasing projectile velocity and accuracy.   It was found that the Dragonuv was actually a much better rifle than the standard ammunition it was made to shoot, so the Soviets created a special match-grade version of the 7.62.x54mm round in the 7N1 cartridge in 1967, the Dragunov could be very precise in the hands of a trained shooter who had the right ammunition for it,

The Dragunov could deliver accuracy out to 800 yards, the AK was good out to 330 yards to 350 yards.

Ever since the Warsaw Pact, the Dragunov has seen multiple wars wielded by different nationalities, mostly by former Soviet countries even till today. In fact, over the years, the Dragunov rifle has been subject to numerous upgrades as it is considered lightweight and highly effective in combat. It is also relatively cheap to make and care for in the field.  In contrast to Western rifles that have to be kept spotlessly clean to shoot well, the Dragunov seemed made to be abused. The shooter could even select how much gas was used to cycle the piston with a setting for a dirty rifle, using low-powered rounds in very cold weather.

You may have seen the rifle in recent memory when it was fielded by the Afghan National Army and more notoriously by the Taliban. Saddam’s forces and Iraqi insurgents in the early 2000s saw a clone model of the gun named “Al-Qadissiya” heavily based on the Dragunov SVD and the Romanian designed PSL-54C. In fact, Saddam owned a gold-plated version of the cloned Dragunov. From 1955 to 1975, it was used by the Vietnamese People’s Army, and more so used by various nations today, including the Philippines, Russia, Senegal, and even China.

Few changes have been made to the original Dragunov of the 1950s. However, this doesn’t mean that countries have not been trying to improve it. The 2020 Russian upgrade, The SVDM is otherwise known as Snáyperskaya Vintóvka sistém’y Dragunóva Modernizirovannaya, features new muzzles and chrome-fitted barrels. The stock, handguard, and grips are now made with polymer, making it more lightweight than its original counterpart. Lastly, it also features a Picatinny rail and an adjustable rail to improve its sights.

Other weapon variants include the 1990 Snayperskaya Vintovka Dragunova Skladnaya (SVDS), also known as the sniper rifle version despite the fact that the Dragunov is not a sniper rifle. This version has a folding stock, synthetic pistol grip, and a heavier barrel for more durability. Alongside this version is the SVDSN, or the night vision version for paratroopers.

The Russian SVU rifle is a shortened version of the Dragunov equipped especially for the Special Forces of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs. Another Russian variant would be the SVDK, which uses 9.3x64mm Brenneke cartridges.

Since 2016, there has been a talk of replacing the Dragunov rifle with the Chukavin SVCh or the SVK. Interestingly, the firearm is also designed by Kalashnikov Concern. How does it pose a threat to the legendary Dragunov? Well, for starters, it has a range of 1,600 yards and uses 7.62×51mm NATO, 7.62×54mmR, and .338 Lapua Magnum making it more versatile than the traditional Dragunov.

With various sight options, and multiple weight reductions, will this mark the end for the Dragunov, the weapon of choice for designated marksmen in the Red Army?

If you didn’t just start carrying a handgun recently, and have been doing so for a while, you probably have noticed that carrying a particular pistol every day can be hard on it. Everyday carry pistols get worn on the finish, dirt in the internals, sweat, pocket lint, you name it. Depending upon your particular practice routine, they may also be fired quite regularly and have internal wear as well-which is accelerated by the aforementioned crud that gets inside them.

A lot of handguns that are carried daily emit a plume of lint and dust when the first round is fired out of them on the range, from all of the crud they collect. Most people I know end up replacing their daily carry piece every few years-usually when something they like better comes along. And that’s probably just as well, given how hard daily carry can be on a firearm. But it doesn’t have to be like that if you really like what you have.

The subject of today’s article is a former everyday carry piece of mine. It’s a Taurus 445ti revolver, chambered in .44 Special. It was my everyday carry for several years. It had some fairly significant finish wear as a result. The original rubber grip really needed to be replaced. It had worn down considerably, and the rubber itself had degraded significantly. It also needed the internals cleaned out, as carry pistols tend to accumulate dirt and crud inside (or at least mine always do). I also wanted to do something to improve the front sight. But this particular revolver has a ported barrel, so unfortunately I couldn’t come up with a good option for improving the front sight because the ports are right at the front sight and would likely damage a sight insert (to that end, if someone reading this has any suggestions, I’d love to hear them). In spite of this, it is still in very good shape mechanically speaking. It locks uptight and is still properly timed, so I didn’t need to do any major internal work. The reasons it appealed to me years ago, still do. And so, I decided to refurbish it.

At one point I took it to a local gunsmith where I lived at the time to see about modifying the hammer. I wanted him to modify the hammer to make the pistol a bit more user friendly for carry. Specifically, I wanted to have the hammer shortened, and then the stub built up. Basically, I was trying to mimic the “pocket hammer” that was on some of the older Charter Arms .44 Special revolvers from a few decades ago. I guess I didn’t make my request clear enough as this gentleman simply bobbed the hammer, and serrated the small stub he’d left.

Unfortunately, this didn’t give me enough leverage to cock the hammer for single-action, which was a capability I really wanted to retain. At the time I didn’t have the skills or equipment to do this job myself. Every time I looked at the hammer, it irked me. So when the grips started showing real wear, I set this revolver in the back of the safe. As part of this project, I am going to rework the hammer to what I had originally envisioned.

The first step was to disassemble the revolver. If you’ve never worked on a revolver, it is a bit intimidating. But they’re really not that complicated if you understand how the particular model functions. Most Taurus revolvers are similar in operation to Smith and Wesson revolvers. The grip and screw were the first parts to remove. After that, I removed the sideplate. Removing the sideplate has a few considerations of its own.

First, keep track of which sideplate screws came from which hole, as they are not all the same. Then to actually remove the sideplate, tap the frame with a screwdriver handle. A couple of raps and the plate will pop out. Do not try to pry the sideplate out; you WILL damage it. I went further with disassembly than what’s normally necessary because I wanted to refinish it. With everything operating how it should, and the fact that this particular revolver isn’t that old relatively speaking,

I didn’t replace any of the internal parts or springs. I didn’t feel it was necessary in this case. If you are working on something older or with more wear, I would go ahead and replace the springs while you have everything apart anyway. Once it was disassembled, I proceeded to give everything a good cleaning.

As I mentioned, I wanted to reconfigure the hammer to be more to my liking. I wanted a hammer that was not prone to snagging like a regular spur hammer because this is a carry piece. But I also wanted to have single-action capability for the same reason. As I mentioned earlier, my inspiration came from the “pocket hammers” Charter Arms put on some of their revolvers at one point. The modification done previously didn’t allow for enough leverage to cock the hammer. So I needed to build up the hammer spur in order to get that leverage. I TIG welded the hammer to accomplish this task. But obviously, the hammer is a heat-treated part. So it was necessary to control where the heat was allowed to go. I used heat stop paste from Brownells to assist with this task. I applied it liberally around the surfaces that contact the fire control components. I basically welded in layers, allowing the part to cool between them. This also helped in keeping the heat out from where I didn’t want it. Once the hammer had enough material added, it was time to file it into the final shape and size. Then, I used a checkering file to serrate the hammer both for a better gripping surface and general aesthetics. Lastly, I used cold blue to put a finish on the freshly welded metal.

While I had everything apart, I figured I’d go ahead and clean up the trigger a little. There is a commonly held opinion that trigger work could potentially result in legal trouble if it were used in a defensive shooting. I’m not one to argue such things, as I really would rather not be a test case, so I don’t consider major trigger work on “duty weapons”. So this being something I will probably carry again, all I really wanted to do here is to remove a few rough edges or burrs to smooth things up a little. I used stones and other abrasives to polish out machining marks and other roughness on the interior surfaces of the frame where the various fire control parts function. In all reality, this would happen naturally through wear to some degree just by the action being cycled. This work I did just accelerated the process by manually “wearing” these surfaces smooth. At any rate, this sort of work does smooth out the trigger pull rather nicely. Really, a lot of internal revolver work involves this concept.

Since this revolver had some finish wear from years of daily carry, I decided to refinish it. Because of the titanium frame and components, regular bluing was out as was parkerizing. So I really felt like the only options were more modern spray-on finishes. I used Alumahyde from Brownells for this purpose, since I had some on hand. This actual process I will describe in a future article. However, I should go over a couple of considerations for refinishing this particular firearm. Since this is a double-action revolver, care should be taken not to rough up the internal surfaces. Those surfaces need to be smooth to have a decent trigger pull. Part of the prep work for applying this, or most other modern spray on finishes, involves sandblasting the metal surfaces to allow the finish to adhere. Obviously, this would indeed rough up those critical surfaces. You also really want to take care with a number of surfaces of a revolver if you’re going to refinish it with these types of finish, such as the portion of the crane the cylinder actually rotates on, the ejector rod, the inside of the frame, etc. So while you absolutely can refinish a revolver with these types of finishes, some thought and care is required if you want good results.

After the parts were refinished, I reassembled them. Obviously, this is basically done in the reverse order of disassembly. Just like when you took it off, exercise some care putting the sideplate back on. With revolver internals not typically accessible during routine cleaning, it’s a good idea to lubricate them while you have everything disassembled anyway. I usually don’t get too far down the rabbit hole that is firearm lubricants, but this time I’ll recommend something specific. I really like Froglube for lubricating revolver internals. Unlike oils and solvents, it stays where you put it and doesn’t dry up; two excellent qualities for this particular task. I’ve had very good luck with it in revolvers. However, you definitely want to apply it sparingly due to all of the crud and dirt that gets into carry revolvers as I mentioned earlier. And to finish it off, the last thing I did was install the new grip. I chose a rubber grip from Hogue. I feel as though a nice cushioned rubber grip helps keep this revolver comfortable enough to shoot regularly.

Sometimes all it takes is a little tune-up, and it’s like you have a whole new firearm. I took a revolver languishing in the back of the safe with some wear and quirks and reworked it into something a lot more to my liking. If you have a daily carry piece, I would recommend that you detail disassemble it, clean it out, and replace springs at regular intervals to keep it in the best shape possible. An occasional refinishing when it needs it isn’t a bad idea either. You are trusting your life with it after all. Of course, these techniques will be also applicable to a variety of other firearms that might not be daily carry pistols. Until next time, Happy ‘Smithing!