Shooting Grandpas Pocket Pistols

[rintinglen]

In another thread, one of our fellows asked for opinions of pre-WW II pocket pistols and it dawned on me that it would be a fun project to take my modest collection of old pocket pistols out and run them through a Qualification course. My personal favorite is the New Hampshire Police Qualification course, which covers a lot in just 36 shots. It is shot from the leather, timed, at 3, 5, 7, 10, 15 and 25 yards and covers strong and weak hand one hand shooting, move to cover drills, reloading, and others. And this is what I chose for my test, with the caveat that, in deference to the abysmal sights on some of the guns, I dropped the 25 yard line. I will be shooting a Colt 1903, a Savage 1907, a Browning 1910, a Mauser 1914 and a Remington Model 51. (and if an Ortgies, H&R, Webley & Scott or other such weapon pops up at a good price, it may get a chance at glory as well.) I’ll report a little on what I know about the guns and give my views on how they work.


The first up is the my Browning 1910. Actually, the one I have now is a post war 380, usually called a 1910/55, though I had an older 1930’s in 7.65 mm in years gone by. Mine has a 6 shot magazine--the 32’s hold 7, and is 6 inches long, 3 15/16” tall and an inch thick, mostly thanks to the rather wide grips. In addition to the thumb safety, it has grip and magazine safeties as well. It is steel framed and weighs 20 1/2 oz on the button. My best guess is that it has about a 6 pound trigger, with minimal take up then bang, with a short reset. The chief drawback is the sighting system. There is a gutter down the slide with a narrow neck at the back for a rear sight and a tiny bump in the middle at the muzzle end for a front sight. Simply put, PU, they stink. A target gun it ain’t.
To take down the 1910 clear the weapon, remove the magazine, push in and rotate the slide ring (barrel bushing, in 1911 parlance) 90 degrees clockwise and carefully release the recoil spring pressure. Remove the recoil spring, and pull the slide back until you can latch it to the rear with the safety and then rotate the barrel 90 degrees, release the safety catch and draw the slide and barrel off to the front. Make sure to note which end of the spring goes to the front. I freely confess that I seldom do this. Reassembly is a mother bear, best done in a completely empty room with white carpeting to facilitate finding the slide ring when the energetic recoil spring launches it into low earth orbit as it slips from your fingers.

As I understand it, Browning offered the design to Colt, as well as FN, but Colt was selling 1903’s as fast as they could make them, so he took the design to FN. There, it met with a very warm welcome. The 1899/1900 Brownings had been wonderful sellers. With over half a million sold in just over 10 years, not to mention lord only knows how many pirated copies, Browning’s initial foray into the pocket pistol market was a complete success. FN looked at the new design and noted that it was less costly to make but looked sleek and modern. They immediately inked a deal and set to work making tooling and in 1911 they began selling them. One of these, in 380 caliber, was the weapon used to assassinate the Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, thereby providing the impulse that led to WW I. They made over 1,000,000 before WW II, and a lot more after production resumed in 1955.

I bought mine at a gun show a while back strictly as a shooter for 369 bucks plus tax. It had quite a bit of rust, pitting and wear, but was still sound mechanically. During the COVID shutdown, I made a pancake holster for it. I have carried and shot it on occasion, but this was the first time I actually ran it through a qualification course (almost, as I’ll explain later.)

[rintinglen]

I started at the 3 yard line, with the gun on safe concealed under my shirt tail, then at the start timer signal, I drew and fired 2 shots in three seconds. This was repeated once for a total of 4 shots. Here I found that the angle of the grip frame did not suit me. It was pointing the muzzle low. I also noted that the dinky safety took concentration to locate and operate quickly. My first 4 shots hit low in the 8 and 7 rings and I barely managed to meet the time limits. The small safety is somewhat difficult to operate in a hurry.

Next I went back to the 5 yard line where the drill is to draw, fire 3 shots strong hand only, switch to the off hand, and fire 3 more shots all in 7 seconds. Here I ran into the same problem with the safety, but my strong hand shots were well centered in the 10 and 9 rings, but a little low and right, while the off hand shots managed to barely stay on target. My time was better than I thought it would be-5.85 seconds.

Seven yard line procedure is to draw and fire 6 shots in 8 seconds. The Browning had no trouble at all making the time, but my group was not very good; I could not see the sights very well. One of the shots just barely made the scoring ring over on the right and the others were pretty well scattered.

The next step up was to repeat the 7 yard line course at a distance of 10 yards, but with 6 shots in 10 seconds. Here I took my time--9.4 seconds-- and was rewarded with five well centered shots and my first miss. That one out to the right was my first shot as I struggled with the old eyes and tiny sights, but the next five were very good, all things considered.

From the 10 yard line, you move back to the 15, where the stage is more complex. Starting with 2 rounds in the gun and 6 more in a second magazine, you move 3 steps to cover, draw, fire 2 shots standing right barricade, reload, fire 2 shots kneeling right side, stand, fire 2 shots left barricade and then kneel and fire the last 2 shots from the left side. All this in 25 seconds. Here’s where I ran into trouble, my first two shots were ok, but I had trouble reloading the heel-clip magazine release. I was taught to first acquire the new magazine before removing the one in the gun, but removing the mag from this little pistol is a two-hand job. The fresh mag was in the way, and it took me a lot longer than it should have, then knowing I had little time left I hurried my shots. Then, I discovered that my gun had no liking for Remington hollow points. It jammed on the feed ramp, I managed to get a round chambered and fired, but then jammed again, resulting in a saved-round miss.

I should explain that the first 28 rounds were 95 grain FMJ round nose, PMC, which had previously been used in this gun and worked just fine, but I discovered that I did not have enough rounds with me to finish, so I broke open a 100 pack of Remington green and white box 88 grain JHP’s to make up the difference and it so happened that I loaded them, then the last 4 FMJ’s. The PMC’s worked fine, neither of the Remington’s did.

At the end of the day my take away was that there was a reason FN sold so many of these. With the ammo they were designed for, they work, and the absence of any protruding levers, ledges, or panels meant that these would carry easily in a hip or coat pocket. For fending off a single assailant, or perhaps a pair of them, 6+1 380’s or 7+1 32’s ought to work ok. For 1912, at arms length, they’d have been pretty good. However, the grip angle is not right, and the sights are too small for really good work. If you had to use it at any range greater than a car-length, things would be pretty dicey.

Also, it flings the brass out there. Not good for the handloader who hopes to save his brass.

[M-Tecs]

Thanks for the nice write-up!

[shooting on a shoestring]

What a COOL project!
That’s good gun magazine writing right there. Great idea, informative, good write up.
Thanks!

I saw an FN 1910 in a shop this week and got excited until I saw, or rather didn’t see the front sight. Yep that’s a tiny fly speck for a front sight.

[Mk42gunner]

Neat project. Sounds like a lot of fun.

Your bring up the grip angle brings back memories of me actually holding a Remington Model 51 in .380 for the first time. It was comfortable in the hand, but pointed way high for me. Given the minuscule sights from that era, I passed on it as a carry gun.

Colt 1903's seem to point almost as well as a flat mainspring housing 1911 to me.

Robert

[rintinglen]

Neat project. Sounds like a lot of fun.

Your bring up the grip angle brings back memories of me actually holding a Remington Model 51 in .380 for the first time. It was comfortable in the hand, but pointed way high for me. Given the minuscule sights from that era, I passed on it as a carry gun.

Colt 1903's seem to point almost as well as a flat mainspring housing 1911 to me.

Robert

Hey there Robert, I am a little surprised in the failure of the Remington to fit your hand better. For me, that is the most natural pointing gun of the five I own. In fact, I toyed with having decent sights put on mine, but decided the expense was not warranted. I have plenty of other, more modern, guns to carry that will serve me better. Though I have carried mine in my winter over coat pocket in a pocket holster.

[Mk42gunner]

It fit my hand fine, very comfortable, it just pointed up at about twenty degrees IIRC. That and it was $700 when you could buy a new J frame for about $4-450.

Maybe it was too many years of shooting 1911's that spoiled it (the grip angle) for me. I kind of wish I had shot it just to see how well it worked.

Robert

[rintinglen]

My 2nd foray into the land of 100 year old pocket pistols involved my Remington M-51 380. Now Remington was actually the little pig who came late to the trough when it came to manufacturing a compact pistol. Although they had made revolvers in considerable quantity, both during the Civil War and in the days of the old west, the 20th Century had seen them evolve into a primarily Long-gun orientated company. They were selling plenty of shotguns and rifles, and had made a comparative handful of 1911’s at the end of WW I, but the ground swell of support for semi-automatic pistols by the gun buying public had passed them by. With the coming of peace, the fellows at the top saw a need to diversify, as there weren’t any military contracts likely to be had in the near future. Accordingly, they turned to John Pedersen, who had designed the successful Model 1917 Remington Pump Shotgun, and put him to work on designing a new pocket automatic.

Pedersen had his work cut out for him--John Browning had patents on just about every rational pistol design feature so there were those issues to work around. But he persevered and developed an interesting delayed-blow back action that was more complex that the simple blowback pistols and had several other useful innovations. Like the Luger and 1911 Pistols, it has a push button magazine release release and the safety mechanisms work very well. Despite being fairly costly--10-15% more than its primary competitors Savage and Colt, the Remington M-51 sold fairly well in the first half of the 1920’s. In 8 years of manufacture, a shade over 65,000 were manufactured, mostly in 380, though the 32 ACP was also available. My Sample dates from ~1922 and is well worn, though still fully functional. The magazine holds 7 rounds of 380, while the 32 pistols have 8 round magazines. It is 6 3/8 ths of an inch long by 4 1/4” tall and only about 7/8 th’s of an inch thick. The weight is about 20 and a quarter ounces empty, while I guess the trigger pull to be ~6 pounds, but short and crisp.

A couple things to note about this gun before I report on the shooting. First, before ergonomic was a word, the M-51 WAS. Reportedly, the grip design and angle were the result of dozens of test measurements and were intentionally made to allow a natural grip and aim. For me, it is ideal. The gun points like my index finger, better than most modern firearms and much better than the 1910 Browning and the older Walther designs. Those Ruby Pistols the French bought from Spain were claw hammers by comparison. And it is a good thing this gun points so well, because unfortunately, it shares the common failing of most of the older pocket pistols in that the sights are minuscule. A magnifying class would seem to be in order here. Another problem is finding a holster that fits. The closest thing I have is a Klipspringer made by Safariland marked medium Auto, but it is a make shift. (I have a pocket holster I made for it that fits properly, but It was 88 degrees with high humidity at the range so I left my overcoat at home.)

For ammunition, I loaded up some Accurate 356-100L boolits with 2.7 grains of WW-231 (Lymans starting load for the Lee 356-102 2R). The OAL is .953. This is a TC boolit that casts right at .3575 and 102 grains with my alloy and like most Accurate molds, it is a joy.

Well, to kick things off, I started at the 3 yard line, with the pistol concealed under my shirt tail. On the beep, I drew and fired 2 shots in 3 seconds. The first run I barely made the time and put a shot way out to the left fumbling with the safety, but the second shot was a 10, as were both of the second pair. The excellence of the fit of the pistol was very evident. Were I to carry it with the thumb safety off, as Remington recommended back in the day, I have no doubt that all four would have been well centered in the 10 and X rings. But this ain’t 1919, and I have too much time with 1911-Types to swap horses now. The small safety is troublesome to access in a hurry, but not impossible. I think with more practice, this problem would fade away.

At 5 yards, I drew and fired 3 shots, strong hand only, then transferred to my offhand for the remaining 3 in 7 seconds. Unusually, my right hand shots clustered out at 9 o’clock while the off hand shots were much more closely centered.
The 7 yard line, draw, fire 6 shots in 8 seconds went fast--I was done 2 seconds ahead of time with decent to good hits. I should point out that the target used is a 2/3rd’s scale target and that for scoring purposes all hits breaking a scoring ring count.
The 10 yard line also went well, all 6 shots fired in 8.24 seconds, again with good hits. The gun points so naturally that even the dinky sights are quickly aligned.

The 15 yard line involves move three steps to cover, fire two shots right Barricade, reload, kneel fire two shots right kneeling, swap sides and fire 2 left kneeling and two shots left barricade standing, all in 25 seconds. The reload was no problem, anybody who has played any of the run and gun games will be right at home with the process. But here is where the poor sights came to be reckoned with. I am sure that one of the misses came from the left kneeling position, and one of the other 7 also wandered down low and right. The final score was 28/30, or 93.33%, slightly better than last weeks run with the Browning 1910.

But the score doesn’t tell all the story. The Remington was much easier to shoot. The old time ads used to say “it aims itself” and that is very nearly true. A modern version with decent sights would make a dandy, compact, self-defense pistol. Also, the push button mag release procedure is more familiar to me than the heel-based. The Chapman speed reload, while not as tactically essential as the IPSC crowd would have us believe, really does work faster. Now, if you have shot your gun empty without successfully solving your problem, I fear that the reload might be equally ineffectual due to the vastly increased pucker factor, but it is much more do-able with a Remington 51 than a Browning 1910, or for that matter the Colt 1903, the Savage 10 shooters, or the Mauser 1914.
I’m pretty impressed with the Remington: for a hundred year old pistol, it is pretty nifty. If I ever come across a 32, I’m afraid my plastic will get more wear marks.

[shooting on a shoestring]

Thank you Sir for another stellar write up!
My hat’s off to you for doing this project.
Good stuff!

[Funky]

Great read, I am sure that the whole review took much more time than one would imagine, Thank You for all the time and effort involved. Good Luck Chris

[rintinglen]

This week’s entrant is the one I have the most experience with: the Colt Pocket Hammerless Model M, usually known as the Colt 1903. Designed by John Browning in the last years of The Victorian age, he sold the same design to both Colt, and FN, though the FN gun was much bigger. But Colt had already been producing several Browning service pistols and wanted to get in on the action being generated by the FN 1899/1900 pistols which were selling like cold lemonade on a hot August day. Browning scaled the design for his 32 ACP cartridge (which wasn’t really the Colt cartridge, yet) and the design engineers made a few tweaks to facilitate manufacture and give it a more modern, sleek design. Boy, did they succeed.

Although the revolver was to continue as the primary choice for Americans (outside of the Military), nobody sold more pocket pistols than Colt in the USA. Well over 570,000 32 ACP 1903’s were made before assembly was stopped shortly after the end of WW II. In addition, over 137,000 more had been made in a separate serial number series chambered for for the 380 ACP. When you consider that Savage, who was the number two producer only made about 280,000 32 and 380’s, and no one else cracked the 100,000 mark, Colt made more than all other U S. gun makers combined. (But not as many as FN, who made over a million 1900 Brownings, and even more 1910’s). But in the USA, it was Colt who ruled the roost. A frequent prop in 1930 and 40’s gangster movies, it came out of the pockets of Charlie Chan, Dick Powell, Humprey Bogart and a host of others. Real life gangsters like Bonnie Parker, John Dillinger and Al Capone were reported fans. In my youth I knew several police officers who favored them for off duty carry.

I bought my first one as a bag of parts at a swap meet in California back in 1973. IIRC, I paid $28.00 for it, on the assurance that it was complete, and took it home, confident in my abilities as a fledging shade-tree gunsmith. Shortly thereafter, I parted with $25.00 to have Old Man Duncan at Duncan’s guns put it together for me. It was one of the early ones, with the separate barrel bushing, and was surprisingly accurate. My Ex liked it very much, named it “Hector”, and claimed it as her gun. I was drinking the magic bullet Cool-aid being dispensed by the Good Colonel and sneered at the notion of carrying a lowly 32 for protection and so I was not heart-broken when my ex and I separated and she took custody of Hector. I was young and foolish then and it was quite a while before I wandered back into the paths 32-dom. But in the late 80’s and early 90’s several more passed into my hands as I resumed my gun trader habits. One of which is the gun I am shooting today.

It is a type III, Model M dating from ~1913. Somewhere along the line it had been allowed to rust and then poorly re-blued over the pits, but the bore is good and it still functions as well as ever. It is svelte, less than an inch thick at it’s widest, just a shade over 6 1/2” long by 4 1/2” tall. Mine weighs just under 26 ounces, fully loaded. I have had it for about 30 years now and have run about 800 rounds through it with no malfunctions.

That brings up an observation of my experience concerning pre-war auto pistols. It has been my experience that in blowback pistols chambered both for 32 and 380 ACP, the 32’s have generally been more reliable. The FN 1910’s not so much, but certainly that is the case with the Colts IME. I cannot recall ever having a malfunction with any of my 1903’s, and I have had 5 of them. Yet neither of the 380’s I have shot was as dependable. This was also the case with CZ 27 I had and the CZ 24 I have--the 32 was utterly reliable while the 24 is most certainly not. I have noticed the same thing with the Mauser Hsc and the Walther PPKs, though there, the 380’s I have owned were all post-war imports. It seems to me that they originally designed the guns for the 32 cartridge, balancing the springs and weights to accommodate it, but they just shoehorned the 380 in as an after thought without making any changes to account for the heavier recoil and larger cartridge diameter. YMMV, but that is just what I have noted over the years.

Anyways, Lets get to the shooting.
Let me state at the out set that this is the Pocket Pistol I am most familiar with, In fact I occasionally carry it a hot-weather, concealed carry pistol, due to its slim lines. I have had three others before I got this one and have another one now, in case I need to go duelist with a gun in each hand. That is reflected in the relatively tight groupings. But lets go line by line.

Starting at the 3 yard line, I drew, fumbled my grip and put one shot out low to the right, my first miss and the 2nd barely in the 9 ring at 3 o’clock--Not starting out particularly well. My next double tap was also low, but in the scoring rings, a 7 and an 8. Things got better at the 5 yard line. I had no problem keeping all shots in the 9 and 10 rings with either hand. The sights on the Colt are not the greatest, but are much better than those on the Browning 1910 or the Remington M-51. The 7 yard line was equally a breeze, keeping all shots save the first in the middle.

I began to have a bit of difficulty because my hands were getting sweaty. It was 92 with high humidity and I was sweating like a circus fat lady in a sauna. One draw back of the 1903 is the smooth surfaces on the frame. The guttapercha grip panels have some checkering, but they are so worn with 110 years of use that it is of little or no value. The frame itself is completely devoid of any catchy, grippy surface. I think I need to look on evil bay and find some checkered walnut repros that will give me a better handle to hang on to. I found the gun slipping in my hand a bit at the 10 yard line, resulting in a couple of high shots up in the 7 and 8 rings. It only got worse as I went back to the 15 yard line.

I had no problem with the first 2 shots standing right, but the reload was a little troublesome. The 1903 does not lock back when empty and I fumbled my first attempt at racking the slide back when my slimy hand slipped off. I wiped my hand on my shorts and then cranked a round into the chamber, dropped into a kneeling position behind cover and cranked off two shots, then crossed over to the left side for 2 more, one of which I totally blew. That is it up above the left shoulder under the holster. I stood up and plopped the last two down range somewhere on the target.

My thoughts on the Colt 1903? I shot it well, despite the bright sun and high humidity. I had no trouble making time on any of the stages. No malfunctions occurred at all with my handloads, consisting of a 71 grain Berry’s bullet over 2.2 grains of WW-231 and an OAL of ~.970. It ended up scoring a 28/30, similar to the Remington and slightly better than the Browning 1910. But 20 of the 28 were in the 9 and 10 rings. Yea, it is missing a few things that more modern guns have; the sights are poor, the frame could stand a bit of skateboard tape and it would be nice if the slide locked open on an empty magazine. It hits low for me when point shooting. However, it is still a serviceable fire arm, today, 120 years since it was first designed. And it slides in and out of a pocket or a shoulder holster as well as it ever did and better than most. Put decent sights on it, coarsen the grip a bit and it would be as useful a weapon as anything else in that caliber.

I knew a retired Detroit police detective who used one to terminate an armed robber back before I was born. He was still carrying it in 1991. What it did then it can still do today. It is my favorite of the antiques.

[rintinglen]

I have no idea why the picture of the target is there. I am not a cracker jack computer guy, but sometimes I amaze myself.

[rintinglen]

SAVAGE 1915
Back in 1905, an Army Major named Elbert H. Searle patented several features of a pistol he had designed. He took the patents to the Savage Arms Company, where they were studied, approved and tool room samples constructed of 45 Caliber pistols. This was to be the entry of Savage into the U. S. Army’s semi-automatic pistol competition. As we all know, Colt would win that competition with the superb 1911 design, but it would take 6 years of repeated testing and redesign for the competition to end. Colt had money: Savage, not so much. While the Army was testing and critiquing the various entrants, Savage needed to do something to get some money out of the project. They saw that Colt was selling lots of their 1903 Model M’s, and Searle, with in house assistance from machinists at Savage, came out with a compact version of the 45 that was startlingly innovative. Unlike most other guns of the day, the Savage 1907 used no screws in its assembly, it had a cocking lever that resembled a hammer to show the status of the striker, but it’s most revolutionary feature was the magazine. Searle had designed the first double stack, hi-cap magazine ever. “10 rounds, quick,” said the ads, and they weren’t lying. The Savage was shorter, smaller, and even at first, thinner than its Hartford rival, while holding 2 more rounds. It would be nearly 20 years before anyone else had a removable, double stack, box magazine, and it would be over 60 years before another American manufacturer made a double stack magazine for an auto pistol. In 1907 Savage began making them, but it would be well into 1908 before they were actually selling them.

That brings up a point about nomenclature. Savage model names are arbitrary. The Model 1907 has also been called the 1905, based on the patent dates on the slide, as well as the 1908, based on the actual year of introduction. The Model 1915 was initially offered in 1916, while the 1917 didn’t hit town until 1920. There also is a “1910” which is completely spurious, being nothing more than a 1907 with a few minor improvements. And the 380 series has been referred to as the model of 1913.

But in any event, Savage went all out in their advertising campaign, hiring the likes of Buffalo Bill, Bat Masterson and the Pinkerton Detective Agency to tout their product. A parallel series of ads recommended them for women: “It banishes fear,” said one. “It aims as easy as pointing your finger,” claimed another. Be that as it may, except for 1918, when Colt was making 2,200 1911 pistols A DAY, Colt comfortably outsold Savage every year by a substantial margin, despite a piece of malarkey published a while back in one of the gun rags. In 1915, Savage made a substantial re-design to better compete with Colts elegant offering, enclosing the rear of slide to eliminate the cocking lever and adding a grip safety. Alas, the new Model 1915 was more costly to make and didn’t sell any better than the older 1907 model, so after only a year and half and some 4,600 guns sold, the 1915 was discontinued. Savage continued the improved 1907 Model manufacture up until 1920, when it was supplanted by the model 1917.
The Savage was well received and sold in substantial numbers, with a shade over 289,000 32’s and 380’s manufactured during its 20 year span, including sales to Portugal and France during WW I. They sold about nine 32’s for every 380 that was purchased.

In my experience, the 32 versions have all been very reliable, but I have not ever owned a 380. For this test, I used my 1915, which was something of a grail gun for me. I had looked for years for one that I could afford and only recently found one on GB . My newly acquired Model 1915 weighs in at 19 1/2 ounces, it is 4 1/8 inches tall and just a smidge longer than 6 1/2” long. At it’s widest, it is 1.04” thick. The sights are big enough to be useful, though I must say I prefer the Colt. For me, it points low. The trigger on my 1915 is much better than that on my early 1907, being somewhere in the 5-6 pounds range at a guess. Although it may look a little ungainly, it feels OK in the hand, but just OK, not really good like the Remington or Colts do.

It does have a couple of drawbacks, though. The safety is very difficult to engage: I have to use two hands to do so. It can be disengaged one handed, with a little juggling, but putting it on “safe” is hard. The magazine release is peculiar. Mounted in the front of the grip frame, it is a pivoting lever that is supposed to be easily operated by the pinky of the firing hand. Well, it CAN be operated with your pinky, provided you regularly finger wrestle Lowland Gorillas. I guess they assumed that 10 rounds would be enough. After all, the motto was “10 rounds, quick,” not “10 more rounds, quick.” Spare original magazines are virtually unobtainable, and only Triple K makes an after market model. But be advised, the aftermarket ones only hold 7 rounds. The metal in the magazine is very thin and I urge you not to drop them on a hard surface. The base plates can break off, as I know to my sorrow.

I don’t have a holster that was made for these guns, but they fit pretty well in an FN 1910 holster I had made back in the COVID shut down, so I used that. Were I to carry one of these for serious self defense I’d have to get off my butt and make a holster that fits. I can pretty much bet the farm that you won’t find a ready made holster for one of these in your local fun store. And the same thing applies to a mag pouch, none of the ones I have fit properly. I used one for a Beretta 84, but it was sloppy.
Going out to the range, I was pleasantly surprised. In limited shooting, I had previously found all 3 of mine to be reliable in casual shooting, though none of them has much of a round count. Too many guns--too little time, but there are worse problems to have. This was the first time that I would try one out as a defensive arm.

Starting off at the 3 yard line, two double taps in 3 seconds from the holster put a smile on my face. Having already determined that the pistol printed low for me, I consciously focused a little higher than I normally would, up above the 10 ring at about the printed 9 and plunked all 4 rounds in the 10 and x rings. I can’t do any better with any gun I own. The safety was not the problem I thought it would be. It was a little awkward and I was required to get my grip after I operated it, but it was only very slightly slower that the Browning designs I am familiar with.

This happy state continued as I went through the course. Strong and weak hand rounds were all comfortably in the scoring rings at 5 yards, while the 7 yard was a breeze. The low barrel axis combined with the light recoiling 32 ACP made for quick, accurate shooting.

At the 10 yard line, I muffed the first shot as I fumbled my grip initially. The safety slipped out from under my thumb and I had to double-clutch to swipe it off. My first round went low, but the rest were all nicely on target.

At the 15 yard line, I was again happy to find that I was able to perform the reload in a reasonably prompt time, allowing me to put all 8 shots in the scoring rings, despite the relatively poor sights. I believe I spent about 6 seconds on the reload, allowing me plenty of time for the shooting. When I walked down to check the target, I was was astonished to find all the rounds well grouped in the scoring rings . I was not expecting that at all. Apparently, the Savage fits my hand better than it feels like it does. I will say that I was slightly slower on average with this than with the others so far, but not so much that I went over time on any of the stages. Overall, the group is the best I have done to date in this experiment. 29/30, that is pretty good for me, especially with a compact auto.

However, there is more to the shooting than the score. The Savage is not a good fit for me. In a real, high tension situation, that safety SNAFU could be devastating, and the sights, while acceptable for for broad daylight, would not be suitable at all in low light situations, where the poor fit would impair my ability to point and click. Still, at the end of the day, if Grandpa had one of these in his coat in 1920, he’d have been pretty well armed. I’d not feel naked if this was the only gun I had.

[shooting on a shoestring]

I am thoroughly enjoying your writing!
Thanks again for doing this.
It’s so cool to hear first hand how the guns perform.

[Green Frog]

Invitation still open to come play on “my” range. I still don’t own a 32 auto pistol, but I can more than hold my own with 32 revolvers!
Your Friend the Frog

[turtlezx]

nice write up my father worked at the utica plant until invited to join ww2

[rintinglen]

This week's project will be the H&R variant of the Webley and Scott 32 Auto. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a second magazine, but I hope the original will stand me in good stead. But as a prelude, let's discuss the creation of this pistol.

As I have previously mentioned, the Browning-designed FN pistols had taken the world by storm. They were selling as fast as they could be made, and the other gun makers in Europe (and beyond) wanted to get a piece of the pie. Webley and Scott had been happy to make and sell thousands of their Mark IV service pistols during the Boer War, but a Webley Service Revolver was no pocket pistol. Something needed to be found to sell to satisfy the demand of the populace for a convenient self defense arm. Well, there was an answer to hand. William Whiting was a manager in their production facilities and he had designed a couple of pistols which managed to dodge around the Browning patents one of which was a a rather peculiar looking compact firearm designed for the 7.65 MM of burgeoning continental popularity. Another went on the become a 25 ACP vest pocket pistol, while still another went on to become the .455 W&S Semi Auto of WW I fame. But the first one to appear was the 1905 32 ACP. It had a funky looking hammer hanging off the rear of the gun and a curious takedown system that involved removing the trigger guard. The various models underwent a series of improvements, resulting in the Model of 1906 and the later model of 1911 and were first offered to H&R in 1908, but it would be another year or two before a new design from Whiting was finally accepted. Gone was the bulbous hammer; the new gun was striker fired. The recoil lever and v-spring mechanism was replaced with a recoil spring and spring guide concealed in the top of the slide, with the spring steel trigger guard serving to lock the barrel in place, as well as serve as a recoil buffer. (Which becomes evident when you strive to take down the pistol for cleaning--it is stout.) The new gun also had a grip safety that also functions as a magazine safety. The single stack magazine holds 8 rounds, similar to many other pocket pistols of the era. H&R finally signed a contract and a year or two later, production of the 25 ACP began, while it would be 1916 before the 32 ACP got rolling. H&R sold about 16,000 of the 25's and then made and sold just over 34,000 of the 32's before production ceased. (Some sources put the total closer to 40,000)

Magazines and holsters for these are scarce as sabre-toothed chickens these days. I will have to simulate a reload, but I did knock out a plain-Jane, Saturday afternoon special holster for my gun. Come Thursday I hope to have the shooting version of this test complete.

[pietro]

.

This .380 Browning Model 1955 (aka: model 1910) qualifies me, since I'm a Grandpa (3x)......

[rintinglen]

Well, that didn't work.


In the period before WWII the various purveyors of revolvers sold just about 5 1/2 guns for every semi-auto sold. There was a reason. And this example of the H&R 32 Auto helps explain why. In 12 shots, I had two failures to feed and one out of battery shot. At that, I decided that was all folks. Until I can thoroughly go through my pistol and find a different magazine, this gun is a definite paperweight. I don't know what has happened to this in the intervening century or so since it was made, but as it stands, this dog won't hunt. If it was this good back in the day, I'd have bought a revolver, too.

[Outpost75]

Thanks for posting that. You saved me from curiosity on the H&R pistol. I should make a pilgrimage to Orange, VA so you can run a wartime Beretta 1935 through your drills.