9.4mm Dutch Revolver

[The Goose]

I recently acquired 2 Dutch revolvers both chambered in 9.4mm. I got a set of dies from Buffalo Arms (CH4D) and a mold from Accurate Molds (Thank you Tom). I formed 200 pieces of brass by cutting down Starline .41 Magnum brass and then just sizing it. Very easy. However, when I actually got around to loading it got a bit tricky. I thought that having the correct dies for once would make the loading process easy, not so. I cast the boolit out of soft lead and it dropped out of the mold at .383 and I sized it to .381 (groove diameter on both revolvers was .380). After I sized the brass I found that the boolit could be pushed into the case mouth with just thumb pressure and if not careful would just go fully into the case. Certainly no expansion necessary. Luckily over 14 grains of Goex 3F the powder served as a stop for the boolit. A small charge of smokeless would have allowed the boolit to drop into the case. When I tried to use the seating die to seat the boolit and compress the load a bit the boolit would stick in the die body. Even when I removed the lock ring and screwed the seating plug all the way down it still persisted no matter how much I backed everything off. I played around with the dies for quite a while and finally just said screw it and went my usual route of using what I had on hand after thinking the problem through. Below is what I came up with and it works perfectly. The finished rounds load and shoot great.

1. Run the brass into the 9.4mm sizing die and seat large magnum pistol primer.
2. Next use .40 S&W Lee powder through expander die with funnel, no expansion only a convenient way to get the powder into the case.
3. To seat the bullet I used a Lee .40 S&W seating die backed off as far as possible with the seating plug dialed all the way down. This just pushed the boolit down and it got slight compression that I needed.
4. The boolit now being seated to the crimping groove I ran it up into a Lee .38 S&W sizing die sans decapping pin. I did this part by feel. I could actually feel a mild pop as the case mouth just kissed the sizing die. Very slight pressure.

Again, this method produced great rounds that shoot perfectly. A little bit disappointed that I invested in the die set. I probably could have cooked up a different way to size the cut down .41 Magnum brass or have just ordered a sizing die alone. I fiddle around with so many obsolete cartridges. It felt easy to just buy the right dies and a correct boolit mold. Ah well, I will just add the 9.4mm dies to my collection and will probably use one of them for some other unrelated project in the future.

The 2 revolvers. Both in practically mint condition.

[bullet maker 57]

Nice looking revolvers and an interesting way to get to the desired result.

[barnetmill]

I have 9.4 dutch army revolver that was likely from Indonesia. Years ago I made some cases, maybe it was 41 colt brass with 200 grain 41 colt bullets sized way down to fit in the case and also in the cylinder. I used 4 grains of unique and maybe fired one or two of them. I am thinking of revisiting that gun and making some more loads, but with black powder. The Indonesian 9.4 was derived from modifying dutch service rifle cases and so if i got it right a little different than a standard 9.4 dutch.
I was wondering if .410 shotgun slugs will work.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The Dutch sometimes called their service revolver a Chamelot-Delvigne, but it is nothing of the sort. It has what is often called the Nagant lock, although it apparently originated in the cap and ball Deane and Harding of 1858. Double-action fire is achieved by means of the same spring-loaded strut on the lower front of the hammer which we find in almost all modern revolvers. The true Chamelot-Delvigne has no moveable part of the hammer for this purpose, but one attached to the trigger.

The Dutch revolver resolves at a stroke any indecision about simultaneous or independent extractor systems, by having no extractor whatever. This is not as serious an omission as it seems, since with black powder the cases may fall out on their own, and an ejector pin was attached to the holster. I imagine senior officers, reared on cap and ball single shots, said "What are you complaining about?", just like they will when ray-guns don't carry more than a mile or two.



I think you have the OM ‘Old Model’ with an octagonal barrel, which was considered heavy, unwieldy and infallible. Due perhaps to the requirements arrived at by the French Commission on revolvers, undoing one massive screw exposes all the internal parts without letting any fall out. Just compare that with what the heirs of Col. Colt were doing in 1873. A shorter, round barrel produced the NM ‘New Model’, and an all-round reduction in size and weight a five-shot KlM ‘Small Model’ for personnel not intended to be combatant. Usually assumed to have appeared in that order, they are all considered variants of the M1873.

The OM was made by P. Stevens of Maastricht, de Beaumont of Maastricht and JFJ Bar of Delft, as well as the Werkplaats Draagbare Wapens or WDW of Amsterdam, which takes no great linguistic knowledge to translate as “workplace for weapons you can bear to drag around with you”. This last soon became the Hembrug arsenal. The NM was, so far as I know, made only by WDW, and we might imagine a shift to using this state arsenal, which also included the KlM.

Mine, though, is the private-purchase officer’s version by JFJ Bar, whom I believe made only 1000 examples. http://www.collectiblefirearms.com/P...Cartridge.html have one at $3575, but that is with 96% finish, and mine is nowhere near. That is an expensive website, worth it to many for their reliability and quality of description, but the bargains are to be had where it is just an unfamiliar and unfashionable revolver.

The initials WDW in an oval are present only because WDW proved them. This revolver shows many of the KlM characteristics, such as the shorter frame in front of the cylinder, octagonal barrel, and much improved axis pin lock by a spring-loaded stud in its head. But it has a six-shot cylinder. It is extremely well-made and finished, lighter than the French M1873, and yet has ample metal where it is needed.



I had to replace the hand, which rotates the cylinder. I had difficulty finding a length which would turn the cylinder smoothly through 60°, so I gave it a double pronged top, as in the .38 Enfield revolver. I do not know if this was original practice, but it now has about as smooth a single- or double-action pull as any revolver. It is the oldest on which I have seen a firing-pin well up to modern standards of shape, fit and protrusion.

The grip is of a different shape from the issue revolver, but the ghostly outline of the standard broomhandle grip (resembling no broom I ever saw) can be seen on the frame, jointed with such precision that I cannot tell whether it is welded, brazed or riveted. It came with crude grips of paper-backed plexiglass, probably of US Air Force origin, which I replaced with chequered walnut. But the frame alteration was of very superior craftsmanship to the plexiglass person’s, and probably factory work. Webley are known to have altered standard forgings by brazing, for special projects.

The cartridge is among the more exasperating instances of European nomenclature, since I know of seven different metric calibre designations, often with several names, plus .380. There actually was considerable variation in dimensions, a legitimate one being the slightly lengthened version used in the Dutch KNIL or Colonial Army revolver. I have one of these, which is uninspiring compared with the earlier ones, except for being what might have been the first venture of Vickers into smallarms. It appears vesry strong and has the sliding Chamelot-Delvigne ejector rod, but most are a well-used matt black, and the double-action pull, especially for small Indonesian hands, is atrocious.

Case length isn't critical, as both chambers are a simple taper without a step at the case neck, except for a very short and barely detectable cylindrical section at the chamber mouth. The dimensions are as follows:

My 1873: Base .412in. Neck .374in. Groove .374in.

My KNIL Base .437in. Neck .380in. Groove .376in.

It is likely that Dutch ammunition would have been usable in the KNIL revolver, but not the other way around. Most or all of the KNIL ammunition was made in the Surabaya arsenal, and the maximum practical reduction of 6.5x53R Dutch Mannlicher cases, either as a common practice or a recourse in case of emergency, would certainly explain the difference. The Dutch had extremely valuable colonies, but their weak spot was the abit elity to keep the sealanes to them open in wartime.

It sounds like your diemaker has some fast talking to do. But if the dies have that tapered shape, and it extends far enough forward, you might make them usable by grinding a bit off the bottom.

Your other revolver is of the type often known as a constabulary revolver - probably one of those infuriating non-contemporary collectors' terms, since sales probably outnumbered constables. Unlike the military revolvers it is plainly related to the Webley Bulldogs and their Belgian copies. It would be interesting to know if it has proofmarks, since a lot on the German market were made in Belgium, and if the chambers are closer to home or colonial dimensions. Either way the Dutch happened to have a military cartridge which was better than most for this type of gun. We might guess that a lot of casual practice was done at government expense.

[barnetmill]

This sounds like what I have:

Dutch KNIL or Colonial Army revolver. I have one of these, which is uninspiring compared with the earlier ones, except for being what might have been the first venture of Vickers into smallarms. It appears vesry strong and has the sliding Chamelot-Delvigne ejector rod, but most are a well-used matt black, and the double-action pull, especially for small Indonesian hands, is atrocious.

In the early 1970's i stopped by in what was called crescent firearms in New Orleans and there was a short barrel full of these revolvers for $30 a piece. Seem to good of a deal to pass by. It may take a few days but I will dig that old revolver out of my things and get a picture off of it. I have learned more looking at this thread than I have in all of the previous years about dutch revolvers. Thank you all very much.

[barnetmill]

I found at http://www.littlegun.info/arme%20pay...ndies%20fr.htm Description of what seems to be my revolver in French.

Modèle hollandais 1891

Revolver M1891 hollandais développé par le " East Indies Small arms Arsenal" et la plupart d'entre eux a été fabriqués à l'usine de "Pyrotechnische Werkplants" à Sorabaya, Java.

Tous les revolvers M1891 ont été destinés aux forces armées et à la police hollandaises déployées dans l’Est des Indes.

Le contrat total a été fourni en trois parties et ce revolver # 7137 a été fourni par Vickers de Birmingham qui a été fabriqué la troisième partie de ce contrat. Vickers a donné la fabrication a des sous-traitant différents et à la fin les revolvers ont été inspectés mais tous ont été rejetés à cause de leur mauvaise qualité.

Le contrat entier a été retouché par la F-N en Belgique et finalement fourni à l'administration des Indes de l’est.

Merci beaucoup à Vladimir Khutoryan / Armsblue LLC pour les superbes photos

There are lots of pictures of the gun at the indicated site.

[barnetmill]

From: http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...Revolver/page3


Greg,

I am sorry that I caused a shock with my book facts - but as you say, it might be a typo. I found another text (page 248) that might be helpful in finding the truth:
"As the Dutch East Indies army adopted the Netherlands Army Model revolver in 1875, it would have been logic to copy the cardridge as well. Howevere, after extended trials with different ammunition types, the colonial Army chose a bullet with two grooves and internally lacquered case in 1874. In the 1880;s, a new cardridge was developed, with a 23mm long case. Initially, the M91 revolver fired the same cardridge as the M75. By the turn of the century however, tests were held with smokeless powder, resulting in the adoption of a new cardridge by 1906. For the use of smokeless powder, the cardridge case was lengthened from 23 to 27,65mm (rest see above, already stated).
Sorry you can't make it to the SOS...

Joop van de Kant, co - author of:
"The Mauser Parabellum 1930-1946"
Analysis of a Million Luger Pistols
-----------------
More confusing facts:


Joop and Greg,

The designation 9,4 mm is the nominal and official diameter designation of the Dutch revolver cartridges.
Attention!
The bullet diameter is 10 mm!
The field diameter of the barrel is 9,4 mm.
The groove diameter: 9,6 mm.

These barrel dimensions cover all Dutch military revolvers.

Heinrich
-----------------------------------
Greetings Joop, Heinrich and other collectors.

Having moved recently, it’s hard to find everything. While I located my cartridge samples and the revolvers, most of my measuring equipment is still in a box someplace. With what I was able to locate, it appears that the bore size of my East Indies revolver is slightly larger than the Model 1873 “Old Model.� It is also larger than the two Dutch police revolvers. Given the information provided by Heinrich, it is possible the bore size variations may be a result of manufacturing tolerances, I don't have enough revolvers to say. While the bullet size of the 9.4 round was smaller than the size of the 10.4 cartridges, there appears to be enough bullet diameter to fit the rifling of the M1891 if the 9.4 continental cartridge was fired in a M1891
------------------------------------
There is so much information at the above posted site from about 2006 I will have to spend more time looking at it. Years ago a handloader made up for me some ammo for the dutch continental 9.4 loading that would not chamber in my revolver without modification. He used 30-30's to make the cases.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I found at http://www.littlegun.info/arme%20pay...ndies%20fr.htm Description of what seems to be my revolver in French.

There are lots of pictures of the gun at the indicated site.

That is an extremely good website, and offers its own English pages, although you don't need a lot of French to find it clearer that way. Here is the home page, and the page on which you can see my Spirlet for which I made a new hammer and trigger-guard, and probably saved it from being cannibalised for its ivory.

http://www.littlegun.be/

http://www.littlegun.be/arme%20belge...irlet%20fr.htm

The Spirlet is a good example of the way revolver designers could get caught out in those days. It was a hinged-frame design of 1869, adequately strong, and with a simultaneous ejection system which, though you had to push a plunger or whack it on your saddle-bow, was about incapable of failure. It doesn't need a rebounding hammer, as opening or closing it forces the hammer to half-cock. But the styling and proofmarks of mine date it in the late 70s, by which time it had been about wiped out by what others were doing. Albert Spirlet didn't even pay to keep up his British patent.