Shooting Grandpas Pocket Pistols

[rintinglen]

@ Shoestring, you're welcome. To me, the surprise has been how well these older guns have done. Although one and all have inferior sights to what we are used to on modern guns, they are certainly useable out to 10 yards at least, and in some cases even further. I would carry either the Walther, The Colt (still my favorite) or the FN 1922 and feel well armed. I wouldn't feel too bad if all I had was an FN 1910, a CZ-27 or a Savage. In fact, I have carried the Colt and the FN a few times this summer. The only real losers have been the Beretta 1935 (sorry, Outpost) and the H&R, and I think the H&R might have been better back about 90 years ago.

@Robert. The 32 Walther PP is a much more user friendly pistol than the 380 PPK/s I had. The 380 had a surprisingly sharp recoil for a relatively weak cartridge. I have not had much trouble with slide bite: my hands, while size large, are not beefy. The PP balances and fits me better, and the longer recoil spring coupled with the lighter recoiling cartridge seems to abate recoil. I would like to try a 380 PP sometime. I had a 32 PPK back in the late 70's which was very accurate for a small gun but I didn't shoot it enough to have any real remembrance of it. I would like to find a stainless PPK in 32 just for funsies. I know that S&W made a few a few, but I have never seen one that I could buy.

Oh, and the thickness of my Walther PP is ~1 3/16", not 1 13/16" due primarily to the checkered, wood, grip panels, which add about an 1/8th of an inch to the grip over the more common black, plastic ones.

[rintinglen]

Well, this week we've reached the back of the safe, at least as far as prewar pocket pistols are concerned.

I offer up the Mauser HSc, Hahn Selbstspanner Pistole Model c, or Self-cocking Hammer Pistol Model C, the third iteration of the various prototypes the Mauser design crew came up with back in the 1930's. How this came about had everything to do with sales. Throughout the 1920's, Mauser had done pretty well selling their 1910 and 1914 Model pistols, as well as the dinky WTP 25's, but the introduction of the Walther PP pistols had put a big dent in commercial sales. Even the cosmetic re-design in 1934 did not serve to boost sales back to their previous levels. The bean counters charged the design team, headed up by one A. Seidel, to come up with a "new, improved" model to counter the sales appeal of their modern rival. This was not easy to do. The Walther pattern covered several aspects that were hard to duplicate without infringing on a covered feature. The disassembly method and the safety/de-cocker in particular were problematic. The Mauser firm dealt with the first one with a button in the trigger guard, that locked the slide in place via the barrel. Their response to the Safety/de-cocker was to ignore the de-cock feature and simply make the safety work as a safety. It functions by rotating the base of the firing pin up out of the arc of the hammer so that when the trigger is pulled, the hammer drops without a bang. Flicking the safety off, restores the gun to DA operation, where all that is required is a stout yank on the trigger to shoot. And I do mean stout--the DA trigger pulls on the samples I have examined over the years have been uniformly very heavy, upwards of 20 pounds in some cases.

The Mauser guys, though, had missed the boat. By the time they had their design perfected and ready to go in 1938, they had tons of orders for Rifles and were the primary source for the P-08 Luger Pistol, which was still the official primary sidearm of the Waffenamt. (Though the Walther P-38 was soon to replace the Luger, at least on paper--in reality, Mauser would be building Lugers for nearly 5 more years). The German Army put a hold on the HSc until after the fall of France in 1940, at which point they said, "well, OK, go ahead." Or something similar in German. Mauser stopped the 1914/1934 production, and soon was cranking out the new HSc guns. Unlike the Walther guns, which were brought out in 22 LR, and 25 ACP, as well as 7.65 mm, the Mauser initially was only made in the 7.65 mm/32 ACP. They made nearly 275,000, though some 20,000 of them were assembled post war for French police and military use. The primary users were German Police and the Wehrmacht, though naval and civilian proof marks are found on some. The best guns--at least in my observation--were the earlier ones, made in 1940-1942, roughly serial number 700,000- 800,000. As the war went on shortcuts were taken in finishing and machining to speed things up, and the quality is not the same. There have been reports of late-war guns firing when the hammer was dropped despite the safety being applied, and guns dismantling themselves while firing. I have not personally experienced this, nor have I spoken to anyone who has, but Shelley Braverman saw fit to post a warning about this in one of his articles back in the 60's.

I'm a little skeptical. I could see maybe someone not getting the slide back on properly, though I am not sure how you can cycle the slide to feed a round into the chamber without the barrel being locked in place. But something has to be bad wrong for the hammer to strike the firing pin when the safety is applied. Now, because the safety does not de-cock the hammer when applied, I can see that maybe someone pulling the trigger and seeing the hammer fall might think that would fire, but unless the safety was really made flat out wrong, the hammer can't hit the firing pin when the safety is rotated down. It pushes the rear of the firing pin up out of the path of the hammer and interposes the body of the safety blocking the forward travel of the hammer. I have seen mechanical devices fail, but far more often, I have seen mechanical device failure blamed for operator error. Anyway, keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction when operating any safety on any gun--it's cheap insurance.

However, while discussing problems of the HSc, reported by others, this brings up the sorry performance of the Interarms' Mausers made in the 1960's and 70's that I have seen. Every one of the 380 HSc "Genuine Mauser" pistols that I have had hands-on had feeding problems. I believe that this stems from the magazine springs. I own one now and had previously owned another, while a good friend of mine had two. None of them were reliable. I sold that first one before I discovered that the issue seemed to be magazine related. The one I have now was problematic until the fine folks at Wolff Springs fixed me up with a replacement recoil and firing pin spring and a pair of magazine springs. Now it is a happy camper, and works just fine. Should you be beguiled by the racy lines and luscious bluing of these pistols, do yourself a favor and spend the $30.00 for set of springs. I have a 7.65 mm gun that is awaiting a set of springs even as we, or at least I, sit here. I should state that the parts houses seem to have most of the parts available for repairing one of these, should you need them. The triple K spare mag I bought needed modification for the magazine catch to hold the magazine in place, but it works fine since I filed a shallow notch at the rear of the base plate. The 32 guns have been more reliable in my experience, but that is limited to one war time gun which ran like a top.

My guns are 6 3/8 inches long, 4 1/4" tall and about 1.06" thick at its widest point. The 32 weighs just about 1/2 ounce more than the 380, at 23 ounces versus 22 1/2 ounces for the 380. The 380's trigger pull is lighter than that of the 32, though not so much so that I am excited and over joyed with it. Both have stiff DA triggers. The magazine catch is the typical European heel catch, and the slide function is identical with its predecessor, the 1914. In both, the slide locks back on an empty magazine, and remains locked to the rear until a magazine, either full or empty, is fully inserted into the mag well. I am going to shoot them both tomorrow.

[FergusonTO35]

One of my grandpa's was a hunter and had a variety of guns. The other wasn't, and the only sideiron he owned was a "Wischo" pre-GCA .25 from West Germany. He only bought it to keep in his pocket while working on the farm. For a cheap gun mostly made of zinc, it has surprisingly good workmanship and parts fit. Still have the original box of shells with a $3.99 price tag!

[rintinglen]

Well, this is the end of the line.

I only shot the 380 today, despite my intent to shoot the both, but I forgot the 32 on the counter while loading the car. Things were a little uncomfortable with 20 mile an hour gusts and temps down in the forties. But I had a new box of Blazer 380's and holster that sort of fit, so I went to it.

Because of the higher than usual winds, I had to place my target holder upside down to lower the center of gravity, which made the course a bit like fighting hobbits, but it was OK. I started at the 3 yard line, drew and swiftly fired two shots, well centered but under the scoring rings for two misses. The second pair went into the 8 ring down at the bottom but the times were pretty fast, given that I was drawing from under a light jacket, 2.04 seconds for the two below-the-belt misses and 2.20 for the two hits in the 8 ring. I went back to the 5 yard line for the righty-lefty drill, draw, fire three rounds strong hand, then transfer to the left. I pulled the first round out to the right, then proceeded to put the rest of them in the scoring rings. The heavy, DA trigger pull is not my friend. One of the other two misses down by the left hip also was the result of struggling with the first shot during the 10 yard sequence. The seven yard line went very smoothly with all 6 hits, though.

I dropped one more at the 15 yard line from the right side kneeling position, but the reload went very smoothly. The slide closes automatically when the new mag is shoved home, so there is no dithering with a slide release, or sling-shotting the slide. I finished up with a 25/30 for 83.33%. Qualifying, but certainly nothing to put up on the refrigerator.

I had a bit of difficulty with the safety and the need to pull the trigger to lower the hammer. That is a bit unsettling. If I were to carry the HSc, I'd have to spend several weeks shooting it exclusively. The method of operation is different from most of my other guns, enough so that my other gun handling skills don't mesh well with it. Still, all in all, I'd not feel too bad if I were issued one of these. Misses notwithstanding, 80% of the shots were in the 8 ring or better. I think with more training, the misses would decrease, if not vanish altogether, and the gun is fast into action if carried hammer down and safety off. That said, I'd rather have the Walther PP. It is simply a better fit for me and it blends with my past training better.

[shooting on a shoestring]

I’m sorry you ran out of pistols!
This has been a stellar read!
Your posts covered a bit of history and mechanical descriptions along with apples to apples shooting comparisons. Your write-ups read easy and your writing style flows. That’s old-school art of communication that I appreciate.
This was a big project. You did good and I nominate this thread for a sticky. How about it Mods?

Thanks rintinglen. Nicely done!

[rintinglen]

A bit of information that came to light was that the postwar magazines were manufactured by a Dutch concern "Metaalwarenfabriek Tilburg," which may explain the problems I have seen with the 380 mags. It seems to me as though the magazine springs are not properly tempered and fail quickly due to fatigue. That was not a problem with the WW II German mags in my experience, though that is from a small sample of two.

[rintinglen]

Some final thoughts.

These old guns are better than I thought they were. With ammunition that they are designed for, which usually is an FMJ, they have proven to be very reliable, reasonably accurate, and still potentially effective as a defensive weapon. Jan Libourel once proposed the term size efficiency, to describe the balance between ballistic potency, and ease of use. These guns are seem to have fit the bill. They run 19-26 ounces, are about 6 to 6 1/2 " long, 4 to 4-1/2" tall, and run just over an inch thick. They hold 7-10 rounds in their detachable magazines if they are chambered for the 7.65 x17MM (32 ACP) or a round or two less if they are made for the 380/9mm Kurz. Concealable, compact, easy to shoot, they are not bad weapons.

This is not to say that they have no drawbacks though. Speed of reloading is not a universal attribute found amongst them. Most of them use a heel-catch magazine release, often without a slide hold-open mechanism and are therefore slower to reload than the Browning style push button release. (Though truth to tell, John Browning also designed the heel-catch mag mechanism. The peculiar mag releases on the H&R/Webley & Scott pistols and the Savage 1907/1917 pistols were created to avoid patent infringement suits.) However, use makes master, as the old saying goes. You won't perform too many Chapman 2 seconds reloads a la the 1911 pistols, but you can certainly speed up the process with a bit of practice.

Unlike the more usually taught practice wherein one grabs the new magazine and dumps the empty virtually simultaneously, with the heel-catch mag release it is a three part sequence. First, push back the catch with your off hand thumb while holding the firearm in your strong hand. Then, use the off-hand index finger to drag the magazine out past the catch and rake it out onto the ground. As the magazine falls, your off hand continues its downward arc and grasps the fresh magazine, pulls it free from the pouch and guides it up and into the magazine well. Shove it home until you see the catch seat, then grab the slide, crank a round up into the chamber and resume what you were doing. I can do it in about 4 seconds if every thing goes according to Hoyle. The Mausers are an exception to this, because as soon as you slam home the new mag, the slide drops and chambers a round, without you having to crank a release or jerk back a slide.


Which do I prefer? Well, I think that more for reasons of familiarity and sentimentality, the Colt 1903 remains my favorite, but viewed solely on grounds of utility, I think the Walther PP and the FN 1922 are every bit as good. Parts and good magazines are readily available for these guns and they are all good shooters. I would include the Mauser HSc in this group, were it not for the history it has of problematic functioning, but it will have to be put well back in the pack. The CZ-27 and the Unique Rr51 are also very good pistols, either of them can be carried safely and deployed swiftly. The Beretta is a good shooter, but neither it nor the Walther Number 4 make the cut as a defensive carry gun. If you have to start juggling the gun to get the safety off when the balloon goes up, that extra second or two could amount to a life time. The Mauser 1914 does not quite fit my hand well enough to allow me to consider it for CCW purposes, though I certainly could use it if that was the only choice I had. The Savage pistols would be good if quality spare magazines were available, at least for the first 10 shots. In fact, the 1915 has kind of grown on me. The Browning 1910 due to its compact size has real utility as a backup or hideout. The H&R is too unreliable to even be considered as a range toy, at least at this time. I do carry the Remington Model 51 in my overcoat pocket in the winter time where its svelte lines make for a quick draw.

If I were going out to buy my first one tomorrow, I would look for a high number ( ser. no. 500,000+) Colt for the slightly better sights they have, or else a Manurhin Walther PP because they are a little cheaper than the German made guns. Then I would scrounge up some more 32 ammo and have fun.

[rintinglen]

One more correction: Georg Luger had a push button mag release 10 years before John Browning got on board.

(And I own a Luger, sheesh).

[FergusonTO35]

One of my side job customers brought his Browning imported FN 1910 .380 into the shop looking for a holster. Very sweet little pistol, an honest 95% gun with two FN branded mags. I sternly advised him not to use it as a carry piece, not only because of the wear and tear but if he has to use it then the gun could get "lost" in evidence. Told him to buy the modern functional equivalent, a Glock 42!

[rintinglen]

That's a problem that nearly all of the older pistols have: lack of accessories. Spare mags and holsters do not abound. I ended up making about 5 holsters this summer to make use of some of these old timers. The Savages can use the FN 1910 holster; the Cz 27, the 1914 Mauser can use the Rr51 holster, but the others are pretty much one of a kind. I wish some enterprising company would make spring-clip holsters a la Bucheimer Clark or the old Bianchi 120 series for the smaller guns.

[LouisianaMan]

Great thread!! Inherently fascinating theme, very well-conceived organization with consistently excellent execution; soundly researched and superbly informative; judicious conclusions; written well and with humor.

Sounds like your guns ran like champs, with the exception of those needing some new parts (H&R) or better repro mags. I'd like to know which types of ammo you used, especially whether you experienced differences between SAAMI and CIP loads, bullet shapes and lengths, whether your guns were brand-sensitive, etc. Outpost75 has detailed numerous issues caused by using lower-spec SAAMI ammo in European pocket autos, which are optimized for hotter CIP ammo. Ditto for rimlock caused by the .32's semi-rimmed case when using light-bullet JHP ammo loaded to COLs short enough for recoil to shift the cartridges stacked in the magazine.

One additional question: what conclusions have you reached re. the advisability of relying on these guns' respective safety designs when carrying in Condition 1? Even if not "drop safe" by modern standards, are there any worthy of recommendation for Cond. 1? Any that definitely aren't?

Congratulations on an excellent thread!

[rintinglen]

Most of the ammo I used was PMC--SAAMI rated--or Fiocchi or Norma, which were loaded hotter. I also used a handload of a Ranch Dog 32-75 TC over 2.2 grains of WW-231. The Walther Model 4 and the Mauser 1914 both seemed to prefer the heavier European loads. Not that they ever jammed, but ejection was notably weaker than with the Norma or Fiocchi rounds. I could see it being a problem, especially if the gun were allowed to get dirty.

I have loaded and fired over 1000 of the hand loads since I got that mold 8 or 9 years ago. The OAL is ~.920. I have never experienced, nor witnessed rimlock. I can not state anything about it other than to parrot Outpost's notices about it.

The only guns I have carried of these have been the Colt 1903, the FN 1910 and1922, The Remington M-51, the Walther PP and the Mauser HSc. The Remington and the Browning designs I carried in condition 1. I would not carry a 1914 or a CZ-27 in Condition One. The design of the safety is such that it only blocks the trigger bar. Although the CZ in my limited experience has a slightly better design, it still relies on the safety blocking the trigger bar from moving the sear. I still carry the Remington and the Colt on occasion--the Remington rides in a pocket holster in my winter over coat as a first response when my primary gun is covered up. The Colt sometimes rides along in the summer due to it's low profile and slick design. I have carried the FN guns, but the 1910 sights restrict it to very close range. The 1922 is fine.

I would not carry either the Walther Model 4 nor the Beretta 1934/1935 series. Although the safeties are perhaps mechanically safe, the operation of them is so cumbersome as to make condition three carry as fast if not faster. The H&R I have not been able to get working reliably.

[rintinglen]

The safest of these guns to carry is the HSc with the safety on. The safety cams the firing pin up, preventing it from being touched by the hammer and restricting it from driving forward. With good magazines, The HSc is both accurate and reliable.

If I were to buy one for defensive use tomorrow, my first order of business would be to wire an e-mail to Wolff Springs for magazine springs and then pick up a couple of Triple K after market mags. Although I have had trouble in the past with some of their offerings, I have had no complaints with the ones I bought for my Interarms 380.

[LouisianaMan]

Thanks very much for your detailed, thoughtful reply. I've got a pile of those RD 32-75 and plenty of Win231 powder--any idea of the velocity you're getting with that 2.2g @ .920" recipe? Based on a Ranch Dog Load Notes, I'm guessing it's probably ~950 fps, since his data says 2.5g W231 is max and gives 997 fps. Sounds like a solid load.

[rintinglen]

I have been without a chronograph since 2016 when my old one died, so I can't help you there. I will state it seems to be in between the PMC and the Norma as far as how far it flings the brass. It has worked pretty well, though not all of these guns will feed it. The 1922, the Colt and the Savage 1907 all shoot it well. I haven't tried it in the 1915 Savage, but the 1914 Mauser and the H&R both hate it.