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.

315926
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]

316180
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]

316352

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]

316605

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]

316940

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)......


https://i.imgur.com/3zAdjpDl.jpg

[rintinglen]

317109
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.

317110

[Texas by God]

I replaced the firing pin on an H&R .32 auto for a friend.
Test firing it was like you described pretty much.
I didn’t want one after that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Captain O]

While my babies are either dead, or estranged, I fall into that category. The little pistols are quite favorable. I don't mind stuffing my CZ-70 into my shoulder holster when i run down to the market for some milk. (The Titan or Bauer .25 are convenient for this as well).

I would probably make a nasty encounter quite painful, if not terminal, with 6 rounds from either of the mini-pistols.

[rintinglen]

There is one other pre-war U.S. pistol that I can warn against.

That is the Davis-Warner "Infallible". I have only handled one, but the owner flat out told me he was selling it strictly as a curio, "Not a functional firearm." They are perhaps the oddest handling pistol I have ever held. The weight is almost all in the rear of the gun. According to the guy offering it up for sale, there were only a few thousand made, and it shared with the Ross Rifle the disconcerting fact that improper reassembly could result in the bolt violently ejecting from the gun. (and potentially smacking you in the kisser.) I managed not to buy it. But I have managed to repair my Mauser 1914, so I have that and my Browning 1922 ready to rumble. Plus a 1907 Savage that I've had for a few years.

What I am looking for is another CZ-27. I had one back in the 80's, but I sold it to help pay doctor bills when our second child was born, and I have never got around to finding another when I had some cash in my jeans. They used to be pretty cheap, but lately they have escalated remarkedly. Still, I have hopes. I ain't dead yet.

And I may have to drag some stuff out west (West Virginia, anyways) and take up Outpost on his offer. Those older Berettas are pretty neat, though I can't say I have ever seen one in 7.65, only 9mm Kurz (380 to all you Imperial users.)

[45workhorse]

Nice write up

[rintinglen]

317297317298

In 1923, one of the new nations created at Versailles, “The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes,” needed to rationalize their army’s sidearms. They were using a hodgepodge of Austro-Hungarian castoffs and remnants, bolstered by whatever else happened to be lying around. They went to Fabrique National and wanted to order an 8 shot 7.65 caliber pistol with a 114 MM barrel (4 and ½ inches, give or take.) In the depressed market for military weapons after WWI, FN wanted the money, but did not want to spend more than they had to, tooling up for a new gun. Their engineers looked at the Model 1910, already in production, and decided that it could easily be adapted to meet the specifications of the Kingdom, (later Yugoslavia). The barrel was lengthened from 87 mm to 114 mm, the slide slightly modified to accommodate a longer barrel bushing, the frame was increased to accommodate 2 more rounds and the magazine lengthened accordingly. The sights were improved—they could hardly be any worse—and the weight increased by about 4 ounces. The pistol was an instant success.

Yugoslavia got 60,000 on their initial order, Belgium piggybacked off that, while Denmark, and Holland ordered some. They were also to be seen in Police holsters in France, Romania, Turkey, as well as Sweden, Norway and Bulgaria. Nazi Germany continued manufacture of the 1910/22 in both calibers during World War II after the fall of Belgium in 1940, where the 7.65 was known as the Pistole 626b, while the 380 version was called the Pistole 641b. After the war, production was resumed and the 1910/22 was widely used as a police weapon throughout western Europe. The final production occurred in the early 1970’s, though a few were reportedly still for sale as late as 1978. No one can say exactly how many were made, but well over 750,000 seems to be a safe bet.

My example is a Belgian civilian model with a 5 digit serial number, Cal. 7.65, 9 shots, and presumably pre-dates WW II by about a dozen years. I have had it just about 12 years and it has digested several hundred 32 ACP cartridges—mostly Winchester White Box, but about 150 of my reloads as well. Truth to tell, it is a little over-sized for a pocket pistol, unless you are Clint Smith, who reported carrying an N-frame S&W in his pockets. It is just shy of 7 inches long, about 4 ¾” high, and about 1 3/16’s inches thick. It weighs just under 24 ounces empty and has a fairly typical trigger for a prewar pocket pistol, being about 6 lbs.

Something I should point out is that virtually all of the older pocket pistols were single action. There were a few DA and DAO only pistols, the La Francaise, J. P. Sauer and the Walther PP series come to mind, but the vast majority were strait single action pistols. I once read a book that had scores of FN Browning copies pictured in it. German, French, Czech, Spanish, Yugoslavian, you name the country, there was probably someone pirating John Browning designs there. And they were all Browning derivative single actions. In fact, in the first half of the 20th century, in Europe, Browning was to pistols what Kleenex is to facial tissue.

Tomorrow, I will run it through the drill and see how it performs.

[rintinglen]

Well, what a welcome change! Last week's entrant was a no show, but this week, wow.

317314

As you can see, there were no misses this week. Amazing what a difference even a decent sight can make. The slightly longer barrel and grip also made a difference.

Starting at the 3 yard line, I drew and fired two shots, twice. Both runs were under 3 seconds, the first well under--2.56 seconds. All 4 shots were in the 8 ring. Going back to the 5 yard line, I drew, fired 3 shots strong hand and then 3 weak hand in 5.94 seconds, well under the 7 second time limit for this stage. The 7 and 10 yard lines were easy, both were finished with time to spare and good hits. The only snag was executing the reload at the 15 yard line. I had to struggle to get the empty mag out and the 1910/22 does not lock open on empty, so I had to work the slide to ready the second 6 shots. I cut my knee on a 9 mm case when I dropped to the ground for the four shots kneeling, right and left barricade, but I managed to finish up with my last two shots just under the 25 second time limit. I was very pleased to see that all 30 shots were in the scoring rings.

There was a reason FN was able to sell so many of these: THEY WORK. A machine gunner, mortar man or Officer armed with one of these was well armed. Yeah, it was no 45, nor even a 9mm, but mine goes bang every time. Something that all of the 9mm's can't say. You can hit what you aim at with it, and it is lighter than most WW II service pistols. I wore mine home, just because, and was quite confident in my ability to deal with whatever popped up. Should you decide to get one, look for something other than a nazi-marked gun. Slave labor makes for poor products and that is reportedly the case here, though the Nazi 380 I shot years back worked just fine. Other people have reported problems with their WW II guns. YMMV, I guess, but this is one of the better guns of that era.

[rintinglen]

317366317367
The Mauser 1914.
Not content with becoming the greatest producer of military rifles in the World, Paul Mauser set his trusted employees, the Federle brothers, to perfect a design they had been working on for a new service sidearm. They brought forth the first practical semi-automatic military sidearm. Over a period of three years, from 1893 to 1996, they completed their design for the C96, which would be a very popular pistol over the next 43 years, with nearly a million made in various configurations and styles. But in 1905, they had only managed to sell a comparative handful, and the Mauser firm was interested in developing a more compact model to compete in the bourgeoning civilian pocket pistol market. Josef Nickl, a famous gun designer that few have ever heard of, went to work, creating a number of designs that never went beyond the prototype stage. But starting in 1907 he began to patent several designs that would become the 1910 6.35 (25 ACP) Selbstladepistole. That was a large pistol for such a small cartridge, but they had a reputation for working well and being quite accurate. They sold quite well.

Bear in mind that the 6.35 caliber cartridge had taken Europe by storm, in just a few years hundreds of thousands were sold. FN would sell nearly 4,000,000 of their 1906 pattern pistols before production halted in the early 30’s for the newer, even smaller, Baby Browning. Walther in Germany and every Basque in Spain who could spell the word "lathe“ were making either out-right copies of the FN or similar pistols chambering this cartridge. It was even more popular than its older brother, the 7.65 cartridge. However, it was never really considered a service cartridge.

Enter the 1914.
From the first, it was clear the basic design was easily enlarged a bit to accommodate the larger 7.65 cal, which was a service cartridge. You and I may disagree, but Belgium was using it. Guns had been sold to Russia, Turkey and Balkan nations. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was using several 7.65 and 8 mm cartridges. Police agencies were beginning to adopt it. A reliable mid-size pistol would be very popular as a police cartridge. Nickl and his subordinates promptly put the 1910 on a diet of steroids and came up with the improved “New Model” 8 shot, 7.65 Pistol, just in time for the unpleasantness of the first World War. ~276,000 would be purchased for rear echelon personnel. Mine dates from ~1932 and is almost exactly 6 inches long, with a 3 and 3/8” barrel, and is 1.10” thick at its widest point. It weighs a smidge over 20 ounces and is about 4 & 3/8th inches tall. The New Model has an improved disconnector and side plate system and a couple of other minor changes over the original 1910 pistol. Over 550,000 would reportedly be made before Mauser replaced it with the Walther PPK wannabee HSc in 1941.

It is an interesting design. Similar to the later HSc pistol, the slide locks open on an empty magazine and will not close until a full or empty magazine is inserted. Unlike the typical Browning design with a sliding trigger bar connecting the trigger to the sear, in the Mauser, the trigger bar and sear are one piece, the sear unit pivots as a bell crank to release the striker. The safety is an ell shaped lever which pivots up to block the movement of the sear/trigger bar unit and is held down by the Safety catch. That is where the rub can come in. The safety catch can and does wear. When that happens, the safety is not held in contact with the Sear/trigger bar unit and the gun may fire if the trigger is pulled. This is a fairly common problem, so much so that the Jack First Co. has had after-market replacements made. THESE ARE NOT DROP IN. They will require fitting and adjustment to work. The catch is about 60 dollars or so shipped, and if I were the gunsmith, I would charge at least 1 ½ hours shop time to fit it. So should you encounter one of these, try the safety before you buy or else adjust the price to reflect the cost of repairs. I only have one magazine for mine, though Triple K makes aftermarket magazines, so I will have to simulate reloading.

[Captain O]

I nearly bought one of those Mauser pistols in .32 ACP. (My father would have had to sign for it as I was only 16 years old). I always thought that the little pistol would accomplish the task had it been called upon to do so.

[rintinglen]

At last weekend's gunshow, I lucked into a Triple K mag so now I have two!

[rintinglen]

Well, I should know better. I grabbed what I thought was a box of PMC 32 ACP, and it was actually 380. Believe it or don't, but it would not feed in the Mauser.:shock:

[WRideout]

Your writing is excellent RTG. I thoroughly enjoy this series. I sit here dreamily contemplating ownership of a 32 auto with some historical significance. Maybe I should do what worked before; buy a mold for 32 auto pistol, then the pistol will arrive shortly afterward. Or perhaps I should get the reloading dies first. Decisions, decisions!

Wayne

[Outpost75]

I would recommend to all that anyone wanting a sturdy, reliable and affordable .32 ACP look really hard at the Beretta M1935, either in wartime steel frame or postwar commercial light alloy frame. I have both and have kept them while selling off my Walthers, Mausers and CZs. Only other .32s I value equally are the Colt 1903 Pocket Hammerless and SIG P230, which is rare in the 7.65mm caliber.

[Walks]

This has been a interesting read. I have a few pocket pistols in .32, namely My Grandmother's S&W LemonSqueezer and a pair of .32ACP's; Savage 1907 & Walther PP.
The LemonSqueezer gets a few rounds every few years. The .32ACP pistols get wrung out at least once a year, couple of boxes each. Had My Grandfather's 1903, but a friend was making a pair of grips for when He suddenly passed. His wife said I could have it back if I showed her the receipt.
Who the heck has a receipt for a gun their Grandfather bought over a hundred years ago ? If He ever had one ?

I should would like to try running a combat course with either of My .32 auto's. Sounds like great fun.

[rintinglen]

Not pre-war, but really cool none the less, a Beretta 70S has a better safety while still retaining many of the earlier 1935 model's excellent features. The safety on the older guns (1934/1935 Berettas) was pretty funky, a 180 degree throw a long reach out for the thumb. The 70s has the safety under the thumb and works really well. But the Model 70 has crappy safety and mag release buttons like the 1951 9mm. I have been looking for one, but as usual, if I want one, they ain't none. But if I don't want one, I trip over the darned things.

@Walks
You may be surprised at how well they do, at least at the shorter ranges.

[rintinglen]

317914
Well, it took three weeks, but I finally managed to get the shooting part of the Mauser 1914 done, though I really want to give it a “do-over,” I had a really hard time with the afternoon sun glaring on the sights and at 15 yards I’d have done almost as well to hip shoot. I had to break in a new shot timer, a Special Pie M1A2, which comes with arguably the worst example of “Engrish” written instructions that I have ever seen. Should you buy one, be sure to review the video on You Tube, if you want to be able to use it.
Anyway, I didn’t have a holster to fit it, but a pseudo Askins Avenger I made a few years ago for my Remington R51 9mm worked well enough. I wouldn’t want to run through the forest relying on it to keep me and gun together, but it held the gun well enough to allow me to draw and fire for the course.

I started at the 3 yard line and had a little trouble with the safety catch. It is a small button that is well shielded from accidental mis-operation. A little too well shielded to afford easy one-handed operation. My first run was 2.76 seconds with decent, though not great hits, but the second run, though actually faster resulted in a miss when I hurried my shot after fumbling the safety. That would prove to be a pattern and is a fault of the gun; the safety is not well placed for ergonomic functioning. Moving back to five yards, I drew fired 3 shots strong hand, then transferred the gun to my left hand for three more. Time allowed is 7 seconds and I needed most of them, 6.48 seconds, thanks to once again having to fumble with the safety, but all 6 shots were good hits, the 3 strong hand shots were especially good, all in the 9 and 10 rings.

Moving back to 7 yards, I had no trouble at all making the time, but I was having trouble with the black on black sights. There is no shade on the Action Pistol Range at our club and the 1:00 PM sun was pretty fierce. All six shots were in the scoring rings, but my own mother wouldn’t say it was a good group. Things got worse at the 10 yard line; I could hardly make out the sights at all between the glare and lack of contrast. I put another one out, way over on the left, barely touching the sleeve. Back at the 15 yard line, the reload went smoothly, but I made two more misses, one down low and one high, over the left shoulder. Counting them up, I found I had shot a 26/30 or 86.67%--passing, but not prize winning.

If I were to carry this weapon for defense, I'd definitely have to put some nail polish on the front sight. The safety issue would be a deal breaker for me, though. I have a hard time reaching the Safety Catch Release with my right thumb. I suppose I could pop it with my left hand, but I think it would still be a little too fiddly to count on when danger threatens.

I really need to get some more factory ammo and reshoot this. My reloads seemed a little on the weak side for this gun, and I had better accuracy results with the PMC and Fiocchi ammo I had previously shot though it. All the local shops seem to have run dry on 32 ACP, and I am hesitant to pay shipping on just a few boxes from an on-line dealer. (And I have already spent my allowance for the next two months on a Beretta 1935--Don't tell SWMBO--so I won't be making any case lot purchases.)

On a side note, I am gradually restoring the H&R to proper operating condition. It was utterly filthy, with about a half pint of dried oil spread generously throughout the action. The left magazine lip was as wavy as a Ruffles potato chip. It needs a new recoil spring, but some one previously had made a brass washer to compress it further and fitted it to the Recoil Spring Guide, where it proceeded to gum up the works by binding in the Recoil Spring plate. I scrubbed and blew out most of the old oil, cut the improvised washer off, stretched the recoil spring and straightened the feed lips on the magazine as best I could. The recoil spring is still too weak, but although I had a couple of rounds fail to fully seat without thumb pressure, the other 6 worked and I was pleased with the group I fired up by the right ear of the silhouette. When I get some more fun money, I'll see if I can't order a new recoil spring. Still hunting for another magazine, too.

[Mk42gunner]

...but my own mother wouldn’t say it was a good group.

Don't be so hard on yourself, at least you got to burn some powder. And learn that you really don't want to carry that pistol in harm's way.

I for one enjoy reading your accounts of shooting actual modern style qualifications with obsolescent pocket pistols of yesteryear.

Robert

[Outpost75]

WW2 acceptance for Wehrmacht 7.65mm pocket pistols was a 10cm, 5-shot group, hand held off sandbags at 15 metres. The best pistols and ammo when fired by an expert pistol shot can accomplish that at 25 metres, but that is the best you can hope for with ordinary wartime ball ammo.

Good handloads and quality modern commercial ammo do about half that.

317942317943

[rintinglen]

Re Outpost75's observations^

The first Walther PPK I had would shoot like that, (at least with 28 year old eyes) though not if you fired the first round DA--a creepy, 20 lb. trigger pull makes for difficult shooting. The target that came with my first Mauser HSc was fired at 15 meters and would have easily met that standard, and I think some of the other guns I have would do so. For example, that group fired by the H&R measures 1 1/2" on centers and was fired at about 10 yards, two-hands, standing, it might meet the Wehrmacht standard, if they weren't picky about having to push the slide closed:roll:. I doubt that the Remington or FN 1910 could though, those sights are just too small. Who knows though, I may just have to do some accuracy testing with these old guns to find out.

One thing I am going to do is load up some more 32 Ammo and boost the powder charges. The stuff I am using now I had loaded for use in my Beretta Tomcat, and was deliberately loaded on the light side to avoid over-stressing and cracking the frame. It was just hot enough to work the slide there. It works very well in my Colt 1903, but several of the other guns barely cycle with it. The Mauser 1914 was only just functioning, and spent cases were only a yard or two away, not landing 12 or 13 feet out like the Fiocchi or PMC did.

[rintinglen]

Hot diggity! My brother broke into his stash and sent me 5 boxes of Norma European 7.65. :D The Europeans load their 32 ACP with a 73 grain bullet, and launch it a little faster than the American made stuff. That should help with the operation of some of these old guns. And my order from Wolff Springs arrived, so I'll be able to freshen up the springs in a couple of these oldsters, and that should help too. I am particularly hopeful that my H&R may finally join the ranks of the shooters. I hope that I will be able to pick up my Beretta tomorrow.

[rintinglen]

The ancestry of the R51 Unique Pistol extends back to the First World War. France found itself in the unfortunate position of needing more pistols than they could make. The only way they could make more pistols was to divert production capacity from their rifles and machine guns. That, my friends, was not going to happen. So the French, not being complete fools, went outside the country to look for substitute standard pistols. Conveniently, the Basque firearms makers of Spain lay just across the border. It was they who would mass produce the “Ruby” pattern pistols that would serve France through the balance of the war. The Ruby Pistol at its heart was a simplified copy of the Browning 1903, blowback pistol—already produced by Colt and Fabrique Nationale. Roughly 6 inches long, 7.65 x17 caliber, weighing in at about 24 ounces, most of them were 9 shot. Per contract, each gun must have 3 functional magazines. Gabilondo y Urresti of Urbea, Spain, received an initial contract for 10,000 guns a month in 1915. This was promptly increased to 30,000 a month and later to 50,000 a month! As The Gabilondo firm had only about a dozen employees when the work began, they quickly sub-contracted it to several other firms. Yet the ever increasing requirements of the Great War led the French to demand even more. There were ultimately scores of producers who made some 50 discreet different “Ruby” pattern pistols, along the way to an eventual production of over 1,000,000 guns for France, Italy and Spain.
.
This was not without problems, though. Parts interchangeability was virtually non-existent, even amongst pistols of the same manufacture. The magazine from a Liberty would not fit an Izarra, nor that from a Victor fit a Victory. Those from a 1915 gun might fit a 1918 gun of the same maker. Many of the guns were crafted from inferior steel and it has been rumored that they were only expected to last for 500 rounds. France, after the war, took inventory of what they had and realized they would have to do something about these issues. Yet the French liked the guns. They were simple to operate, reasonably durable and cheap. For the most part, they worked. Aside from the need to rationalize parts and improve the quality, France also wanted to keep their money at home. They turned to a French Basque manufacturer, Manufacture d' Armes des Pyrénées Françaises (MAPF) – Hendaye, who responded with a superior “Ruby pattern” pistol.

In 1928, they began producing the R-17, which is visually identical to the “Ruby” pistols, save for the grip panels. Sold in large numbers to the French Police and French Armed forces, they served up to and through the Second World War. The Germans continued to produce them for their own use after conquering France in 1940. They modified the gun to have an exposed hammer and a more comfortable frame, which became the standard “Kreigsmodell” version and was continued after the war by MAPF under the “Unique” Name as the Model Rr-51. From 1951 until the early 2000’s they were widely used by the French police, who purchased over 102,000. They are still maintained in reserve. They were purchased by Morocco as well as Algeria for police work and were for sale in the United States prior to the GCA-68.

Mine is a commercial gun--at least I see no Police or Military markings--and is in pretty good shape for a 60+ year old gun. It has a good feel in the hand; the safety is operable with one hand, the magazine holds 9 rounds, and overall is a simple, robust, blowback pistol. Mine weighs in at a shade over 28 ounces empty (about what the Colt weighs fully loaded). It is just about 5 15/16ths inches long, with a 3 1/8" barrel, and is about 4 ¾” tall and just about 1.1” thick. The magazine holds 9 rounds. Like several other older designs, the hold open on the slide is merely the magazine follower blocking the slide to the rear. There is no slide release lever. You simply pull the magazine down and when the follower clears the base of the breech face, bang: the slide slams shut. You won’t be doing many Chapman 2 second reloads with this.

The sights are a distinct improvement over most of the older pistols. They remind me of the Walther P-38 sights, with a flat post front with a “U” notch in the rear. Mine has proven to be reliable and reasonably accurate. It has a solid, dependable feel in the hand. It seems like a typical Ruger: over-built for the caliber. The only drawback seems to be the utter absence of spare parts—including magazines. I hope that some enterprising surplus importer can pry these guns loose from the French and get the magazines as well. I would like a couple of spares. To the best of my knowledge, the only spares came in about 15 years ago when the Moroccan Police sold their pistols, but that source has long since dried up. The R-17 magazines don't quite fit as found. They are about 15-20 thousandths too thick, I have laboriously sanded one down until I can almost use it. I can force it in and it will feed, but it needs a few more thousands removed to be a proper fit. I will monkey with it a bit more in hopes that I can use it Wednesday.

[rintinglen]

318158

Well, Wednesday got here and I got to run through the course with The Rr-51. I was not able to thin the R-17 magazine quite enough to be fully functional, but it works! A bit stiff to remove or insert, but it feeds and latches up just fine. I started out with the 3 yard line as usual, and things went OK. I was a little worried about being able to make time while dealing with the Safety. It sets pretty far forward and it is a stretch to reach it with the shooting hand thumb. With a bit of apprehension, I set the timer and waited for the beep.

Turns out I was only a little slower with this than with the 1910/1922. Both runs were in the 2.7 second range, and all 4 shots were in the scoring rings, though low in the 8 and 7 rings. 6.67 seconds elapsed for the strong and weak hand only drills at the 5 yard line, with shots tending a bit low. That was cutting things a bit fine, there is only 7 seconds allowed for the draw, 3 shots strong hand, then the transfer to the weak hand for the final 3 shots. I have to break my grip and pivot the gun slightly to flick off the safety and then re-acquire my grip and that slowed me up a bit. The 7 yard line was no problem; all 6 shots were comfortably in the scoring rings with plenty of time left. The 10 yard line however, things went off the tracks a bit.

I was shooting with an acquaintance named Robin, who was breaking in a new Canik. He was shooting at 10 yards, and I was slightly behind and to the right of him, holding the timer where he could hear it despite the ear muffs. When he heard the beep, he drew, fired, and the spent case flew back and managed to find the less than 1 inch gap between my hat and eyeglasses and deflect down into my right eye. Not only was that case hot on my eyelid, but it sprinkled a little powder or ash that got in my eye and it was watering like crazy. Well, I took a break for about 10 minutes while Robin shot up the rest of his ammo, and then I decided to resume firing and finish up the course. Because my eye was still bugging me, I thought that I’d just sight with my left eye, and so I did. However, I must have canted the gun, because I printed a decent group that consisted of four misses out to the left and a couple of hits down that way. Ah well, I rinsed my eye with my water bottle and after a few minutes, I went back to the 15 yard line. There I had a bit of trouble with the reload owing to the still somewhat-oversize modified R-17 magazine, but managed to finish on time with all 8 shots in scoring rings. My final score was a passing 26/30, but I really can’t blame my eye trouble on the gun.

The Unique pistol is a good gun. With a 9 shot magazine, decent sights, a 5-6 pound trigger, it performs well. The heavy weight, coupled with the low power of the 32 ACP makes for a soft recoiling gun. The gun points a little low for me, but not as much as the Mauser 1914 or the H&R. The Safety, though, is a nuisance. It sets too far forward to be easily operated by the shooting hand of a right handed person, though a lefty has no problems flicking off the safety with the trigger finger. Likewise, the lack of a mechanism to lock the slide back when the empty magazine is removed greatly slows the reloading. It works best to just let the slide go closed when the empty mag is removed and then work the slide after the fresh magazine is inserted. Despite these shortcomings, I would have no qualms about carrying this were I restricted to a 32 caliber pistol. The safety is operable with one hand, albeit slightly awkwardly. To the capacity of the gun, it will work as well as most other 32 Automatics for self-defense. The lack of spare parts means that what you've got is what you have. But it seems to be very well made and parts seem to be stronger than necessary. It shoots reliably and feeds hollow point ammunition without a wobble, in limited testing. As long as I keep the gunk out of my eyes, it does just fine.

[Texas by God]

I’m enjoying this thread and learning a lot.
Thanks for sharing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rintinglen]

Prior to about 1912, the Carl Walther firm was a “boutique,”sporting rifle concern. They made 1st quality rifles for discerning sportsmen. That however, was a limited market. Then as now, the number of wealthy clients was less than you might imagine and the competition was pretty fierce. However, in 1908, Carl Walther’s sons, Fritz and Wilhelm began designing a series of small pistols, initially in 6.35, but also with an eye to a larger pistol. Once their patent was granted, they geared up for production of the Model 1909 and in 1910 or early 1911 began selling them. There is a bit of conflict on the dates when these guns were first made, but given that they were marketed starting in late 1910, it would seem that is the likely date of introduction. Almost immediately, the brothers began to work on a second 25 ACP/6.35mm pistol, the Model 2 (and retroactively re-naming the Model 1909 as the Model 1) and the similar, but larger, 7.65mm/32 ACP Models 3, and 4. These were simpler than the Model 1, cheaper and easier to build and assemble, using the Walther 1913 patents as their blue print. The first 3 guns were small, vest pocket pistols, while the Number 4 was intended as a police service pistol. Production of the second batch of pistols began in 1914, just in time for the company to get a few of them into Military hands before the commencement of the Great War. Carl Walther would die in 1915 and his son Fritz would take over the management of the company. The quality and simplicity of their pistols soon garnered them lucrative contracts for over 250,000 for rear echelon soldiers, and guns would be manufactured by several sub-contractors with a total production of at least 225,000 before wars end. The Model 4 would soldier on in Police service after the war with production continuing until 1929 when the famous Polizei Pistole was introduced as its replacement. Were it not for the Model 4, I think we would not have seen the Walther Firm become the powerhouse that it has.

Now the Walther Model 4, while designated a service pistol, is not all that large. 6 1/8" inches long, just a shade under 4 ¼" tall, and 1.06 inches wide at its thickest, the Model 4 weighs only 19 ounces, empty. It is a hammer fired pistol, with an 8 shot magazine--though neither of the ones I have will take more than 7. If you compare it to the Browning 1910, you’ll find darned little difference in the measurements. The only pronounced external differences are the safety configuration and the slide length. Operation of the safety on the Walther is a 180 degree affair. It can be operated with one hand but I foresee some difficulty in making time.

A common problem on many pre-war, pocket pistols is the lack of a truly usable safety. Some of them merely block the trigger or trigger bar, while leaving the sear and striker free to wander. None of them had a firing pin block to my knowledge, though there could be something out there. Indeed, some had no safety at all like the early Colt 1900 pistols—others had only a grip safety, like the Polish Radom 9mm and the otherwise excellent Hungarian 380 Model 37. The safety on the Model 4 blocks the sear and hammer and it is quite good.

[rintinglen]

318373

Well, the Walther Model 4 had its turn in the barrel today, and I was not impressed. At the 3 yard line, both runs were passing, but barely. 2.77 seconds for the first draw and two rounds, 2.71 for the second. All 4 shots were hits, but low, in the 8 and 7 rings. The safety is very slow to manipulate, it takes just slightly less than a 180 ° throw to move it from “S” to “F,” and the safety is on the very back of the frame, so that you have to take your hand off the grip to get the right thumb back to reach the safety. For sure, it is not the most ergonomic feature in handgun design. I am thinking more kindly of the Mauser 1914 now.
Anyway, I moved back to the 5 yard line and ran The Walther through the Strong Hand-Weak Hand drill. Here it gave a better account of itself. All hits were pretty well centered; a little bit low, but nothing to be ashamed of. The good trigger and useable sights were responsible for that. The Walther has one of the better trigger pulls that I have run across in a pocket pistol, not super light, but short and crisp. I like a longer trigger reach, but this one is not too bad. At the seven yard line, I dropped my first miss, when fumbling both the draw and the safety ran me out of time, so that I only got off five shots. However, the shots I did get off were pretty good ones, pretty well centered in the bottom of the 10, and 9 rings, with one flier out in the 7 ring.
I dropped a miss at the 10 yard line trying to shoot faster than I could see the sights. The time was good; 7.17 seconds, but I left nearly 3 seconds on the table making a fast noise. The other shots were none too great either. I had timer trouble at the 15 yard line, so I can’t really say yea or nay about that time, but I did drop a miss low from the left kneeling position. I am not the kangaroo I once was and the down-up-down drill is a little tough on my 69 year old frame. At the end, I had 27 hits, 3 misses, for exactly 90%. Neither bad nor great, but it was passing.

I am of somewhat mixed emotions about the Walther Model 4. Mine is reliable with both magazines—from Triple K, nonetheless, and seems to shoot cast ok in very limited testing (1 magazine full was all I had with me.) It has useable sights, a good trigger and shoots pretty close to point of aim. The left side ejection port is mildly objectionable as the empties fly across your field of vision. But that safety, ai yi yi, That is terrible. If you have watched many of the C&Rsenal videos, you know that the final question that Othais would put to Mae would be, “Would you go to war with it?” In the case of the Walther Model 4, I’d have to say “not only no, but heck no.” Going on a trench raid with it, then trying to fumble that safety off in time to keep some Tommy from sticking me with a bayonet might be well beyond my capabilities. Either the Mauser or the Luger would be preferable to this, and neither have safeties to endear them to SA auto aficionados trained on J Browning's 1911 (or for that matter, on his 1903 or 1910 pistols). Were I to carry this for defensive purposes, I'd have to go with condition 3, empty chamber and and safety off and rely on having both hands free to rack the slide if the balloon went up. Oh, and careful observers will note that there are 3 misses on the paper, yet I only said I had 2 and a saved round. Well, I used the saved round to try and find where my expensive brass was going and deliberately aimed outside the scoring rings while watching the looong flight of the spent case. The Walther likes the Norma stuff, but it launches them 15 to 20 feet out to the left. Which was tossing them into the weeds on the left berm. Where I could only find about half or them.:sad:

[shooting on a shoestring]

I’m behind in my reading.
But I just sat down for the Model 4 episode. Stellar!

Wow! I never knew there was a reciprocator with the ejection port on the left!
Maybe that’ll catch on and we’ll see ambi ejection ports on the next edition of Glock perfection…..or not.

Gotta say a big thanks for doing this project. You may have a niche readership but you have golden info and a great job on the writing.

[rintinglen]

(With a tip of the hat to Outpost 75, who really likes these.)
In 1931, the Italian navy adopted the third iteration of Beretta pistols, the Model 1931, successor to the small frame 1915/17 and 1922 pistols in 32 caliber. It was pretty well received, but the grip was not quite all that comfortable. Beretta, who had been supplying the Italian army with pistols for over 16 years, was angling to keep the lucrative Military contracts. However, they had something of a shock when the Army seemed to prefer the German-designed Walther PP pistols. Tullio Marengoni, another famous designer that nobody has ever heard of, was head of production at Beretta and he and his cohorts tweaked the 1931 to come up with the Model 1934. The complaints about the narrow frame were dealt with by slightly extending the rear of the back strap at the bottom. Eight years earlier they had gone from a concealed hammer on the Model 1922 Pistols to an Exposed Hammer on the 1923 Pistols, for the greater safety’s sake. They had reworked the slide to eliminate the ejection port by milling away the upper slide from the breech face all the way to the front sight bridge at the end of the slide. Say what you will, this makes for very reliable ejection; there just ain’t much there for a spent case to get caught on. The cartridge chosen was the 380 or 9mm Corto, to avoid any mistakes such as were possible with the 9mm Luger and 9mm Glisenti cartridges.

However, the Italian Navy had been issuing 7.65’s for several years and had a considerable inventory of ammunition. The Regia Aeronautica (Royal Air Force) also preferred the smaller cartridge. They and the Navy requested a 7.65 Model. Beretta found it easy to oblige and modified the 9mm Corto model 1934 to utilize the smaller cartridges. Although the models were named “Model 1934” and then “Model 1935”, don’t be misled by some of the know-it-alls on the internet who state those were the dates of adoption. It was a couple years later, in 1936 and 1937 that the guns were approved for adoption and actually began to find their way into the hands of the troops. There, they found great favor, unlike some other Italian armaments.

Make no mistake about it; these were carefully engineered to be simple, robust military sidearms. Easy to make, simple to assemble, Beretta had made a design that did not require a lot of expensive tooling to make. They had 9 fewer parts than the 1911, 8 fewer than the Luger or the Webley, 11 fewer than the Enfield: only the Tokarev 33 was simpler with 36 parts to the Beretta’s 39. And the Russians achieved that by eliminating the manual safety altogether. In addition, the machine work required was less than any of the pistols used by the major combatants, again with the exception of the Tokarev. Given that Italy was not a mechanized society, ease of production and fewer tools needed meant more were available for other uses. For instance, like making the Beretta Model 38 Submachinegun and it variants

The 1934 was used by the Italian Army until the model 92 Beretta was adopted sometime in the 70’s and police use continued until the late 70’s when the Model 81 and 84 Berettas came out. The Model 1934 reportedly remained in production until 1991 when over 1,000,000 had been made. The 1935 was replaced in 1958 by the initial model 70 Beretta after a production run well over 500,000. (IMO, the Beretta Model 70 and the Mauser HSc are the sleekest, sexiest looking pistols of all time. Walther PPK, eat your heart out.) They were very popular bring backs with U.S. G.I.’s and were also well liked by Commonwealth Soldiers, especially desert tankers and armored car jocks. The small, compact pistol took up less space than the Enfield and Webley revolvers and that made clambering in and out of a cramped, metal box easier.

My example is a postwar sample 1935, apparently of civilian origin, based on the absence of Military Acceptance stamps and the lack of the Fascist dating. It is just under 6 inches long, 4 5/8” tall, and 1.1” wide, with a 3.7 inch barrel. It weighs just a sliver less than 24 ounces. Though slightly thicker and lighter, the weight and feel of the gun reminds me a lot of the Unique Rr51 pistol. The trigger is decent; my guess is 6-7 pounds with a short reset and just a touch of creep. Someday I need to buy a trigger pull gauge. The sights are the “pyramid front, V-notch rear,” similar to those on the German Luger.

Outpost sent me some info about the usage and employment of the pistols by the Italian military. They normally carried the weapons hammer down on an empty chamber (like we used to carry our 45’s, 50 years ago back in the Marines.) If contact with the enemy was imminent, they’d chamber a round and drop the hammer to half cock. Then, if an enemy presented himself, they’d cock the hammer and, if still among the quick, start to shooting.

Two minutes fumbling with that god-awful safety will tell you why they did this. The safety lever was an engineering triumph. It worked as a barrel retention pin, a slide latch, and as a safety. It did the first task excellently, the second well, and the 3rd one terribly. The only worse safety used by a major power on a pistol in WW II that I am aware of was the one on the Japanese Type 14. This safety sets well forward of the grip and requires a full 180 degree rotation to push it off. I find that it takes me just about 1.1 seconds on average to disengage the safety one handed. The best technique that I have found is to use the left hand thumb to spin the dial on the safety as I join hands on the gun. That shaves about a third of a second off the time to draw and ready the pistol, but it is still slow. If I lower the hammer to half cock with the safety off and then use my left thumb to cock the pistol it will take just about as long as it does with the Mauser 1914.

One other problem with this gun is that, unlike the 1934 Model Pistols, magazines are unobtainable. Triple K has them back ordered and the sources of the originals, that were so abundant a few years back, have all dried up. Once in a while, an OEM mag will pop up on one of the auction sites, but take your heart pills before reading the price. Outpost 75 was kind enough to send me an original magazine that he had modified to fit his Tomcat. Otherwise, I’d be singing the one-mag blues. Other parts seem to be pretty available, with ebay, Numrich and Jack First all having at least some parts in stock. In the plus side, these are reputed to be virtually unbreakable. Consequently, spares may not be required. A set of springs from Wolff and I think the old girl will be chugging right along. I also ordered a 10 round, Tomcat, aftermarket Mag with the thought of modifying it to fit the 1935. (My thought being, if a 1935 mag can fit a Tomcat, a Long Tomcat mag ought to fit the 1935. We shall see.)

[Outpost75]

Nice write-up.

The best reference on the wartime Berettas you can find in English is Ralph Riccio's Italian Small Arms of the First and Second World Wars, published by Schiffer, Ltd. 4880 Lower Valley Road, Atglen, PA 19310 email info@schifferbooks.com

Roy Dunlap also has a detailed article on the M1934 in his book Ordnance Went Up Front.

[rintinglen]

Well, I was able to modify the Pro Mag 10 round Tomcat magazine to fit and feed in the 1935. I had to widen the cut out at the rear of the feedlips to allow the bottom of the breech face to slide freely and I had to cut and file a slot for the magazine catch in the back of the Magazine body. The top of the slot is 26 MM up from the bottom of the magazine body and the slot is 3mm wide and just over 1 mm deep. It is not an ideal solution, because it is difficult to operate the mag release, but any mag is better than none.

[rintinglen]

There is a lot to like on the Beretta 1935, but it is not suitable for reactive defensive use.

The safety is utterly awful. Unless you have hands like a gorilla, you can not easily manipulate the safety, and even if you do, it is a long, circular throw to push it off. I was officially "Unk" by the time I finished the 7 yard line. 4 saved rounds, at the 3 yard line, another two at the 5 yard line, and one miss at either the 5 or 7 yard line. (I'm not sure which, I didn't notice it at the 5 yard line, but it might have been there and I just didn't see it.) Even if I had gone clean for the rest of the course, I was already down 7 and the best I could hope for would be a 23/30, or 76.67%. It takes 80 to pass. I can not operate the safety fast enough to draw from concealment and get off 2 shots at the 3 yard line in 3 seconds.

I will give it a mulligan and reshoot next week using the Israeli technique of carrying with the hammer down, the safety off and a loaded magazine. And I'll practice a bit beforehand, but I can safely state that this one won't be cracking my EDC rotation.

What bites hardest about this is that the Beretta is quite accurate and very reliable. At 15 yards, off hand, shooting at the head, at a rapid fire cadence I put 6 out of 8 on target. The gun feels good in the hand, recoil is negligible, the sights are OK, but it takes simply too long to make the gun go from safe to shooting.

[rintinglen]

Pedants will say it should say “Vz 27” or “Vzor 27,” which meant “Model” in Czech. However, most folks equate CZ with Česká zbrojovka, and know this iconic handgun by the CZ-27 handle. That’s my story and that’s how I’m going to tell it.

With the break-up of the Austro Hungarian Empire into four nations, including three that had never existed before--Austria, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia--suddenly these new, small nations found themselves in need of everything. They had to create or adopt currency, laws and courts, flags, taxes and a host of other requirements, especially an army. The Balkans were notoriously hotbeds of intrigue and wars. Bulgaria, Romania, Italy, not to mention Germany and Hungary , were nearby. International communism was on the rise. A strong army was deemed essential if the fledgling nations were to survive. But what was there to build with?

The answer was: not much. There were Austro-Hungarian cast-offs and remnants, augmented by catch-as-catch-can purchases from foreign nations, but the Czech leadership swiftly realized that they needed their own weapons production programs. Josef Nickl, whom we last saw designing pocket pistols for Mauser, had a new design and offered it to the Czechs. The Vz-22 was a hesitation lock pistol, initially planned for the 9mm Luger, but swiftly reduced to use the 9mm Nickl cartridge. (Which was nothing more than a warmishly loaded 380.) The first guns were very slow in coming, prompting several stop gaps, including the poorly performing Praga, an inferior copy of the FN 1910, the German Ortgies and even a few hundred Dryse Pistols. Eventually, the 1922 was discontinued and the improved successor, the Model 24 (CZ 24) was adopted and the production began for the Army.

One of the engineers, one Alois Tomiska, quickly recognized that the 1924 design, with its complex barrel machining and hesitation lock, was over-kill for a 9mm Kurz (380). He reworked the design into a straight blowback, closely resembling the mechanical features of the Mauser 1914. A casual glance at the safety and trigger bar will instantly reveal the connection between the two. This was chambered in 7.65 with the hope of export sales, and it met with some success. Sales were made to Poland and Estonia, and it was sold commercially, both at home and abroad.

Sources vary markedly on the prewar production totals. One source showed a chart suggesting that over 180,000 were made before the Nazi Takeover, while another said less than 15,000 were made. They were used in Czechoslovakia by Police, Border Guards, and the Airforce. What is unusual is that unlike some of the other Pistols commandeered by the Nazis, more CZ-27’s were made under their authority than before or after the war. Out of a total production of nearly 750,000, 470,000-480,000 were made under German Occupation. Precise numbers are unavailable, especially post war production. The CZ factory made an untold number of them for clandestine purposes which were not serial numbered and often had no manufacturer’s markings. These “sterile” pistols popped up in trouble spots throughout the cold war era. The Cz-27 was officially replaced by the CZ-50 in 1950, but it is believed that the afore-mentioned “spook” production was continued until at least the middle 50’s, using up previously manufactured parts.

The Model 27 is a single stack, single action, blowback pistol of simple and robust design. Most, if not all, are in 7.65 caliber. I have read that some were made in .380, but I have never seen one and wonder if those were not Vz-22’s or 24’s misidentified. The 24’s in particular differ only in very minor particulars externally. The angle of the cocking serrations and the more rounded appearance of the slide are about the only readily visible differences.

My example is a cerca 1943 German gun, with waffenampt acceptance marks on the slide, barrel and frame.. It has the stamped side-plate that was introduced in late 1942 to speed up production. (The earlier guns have a small screw which holds the side plate in place; the stamped version omits this as superfluous.) It is 6 1/8” long by 4 7/8” tall, and just a tiny bit over 1 inch thick at its widest. It weighs just about 26 ounces, empty. Mine has the black, plastic “v over CZ” grip, although I have seen many with varying shades of Brown, ranging from an autumn red-brown to a very dark, almost black, brown. There are some that omit the trade mark on the grip. Depending on when and who made it, the magazine holds either 8 or 9 rounds and is stamped on the base with the model and caliber. The follower serves to block the slide open when empty, but there is no hold open device.

The safety is an obvious carryover from the Mauser 1910/1914 pistols. It can only be applied if the hammer is cocked, and consists of the safety lever and the safety catch. Jack First has after-market replacements available for the safety catch, but I have never seen one that needed replacement. The safety lever is of similar design to that of the Mauser, but it has been simplified, presumably to ease production. The sights are typical German style, a v-notch rear with a flat-topped pyramid front post. What is not typical is the checkering in the front sight. Given the lack of attention to external finish on the rest of the gun, that little fillip surprised me.

In the hand, this feels very much like the French Unique Rr-51, and that’s a good thing, it makes for very comfortable shooting. It is not as nicely finished, being a dull, matt blue, but it is nicer looking than the phosphate parkerized ones that came later. I do wish some body would make a replacement magazine base that has the pinky finger extension like the Beretta 1935 has. The lip on the Mag base pokes my little finger. Be careful handling these guns, because the grips break pretty easily if the gun is dropped. And while replacements are available, they tend to be a bit pricey. (The one on mine is glued together.) Parts are available, though most of them are used. Magazines are available, but OEM comes with sticker shock. The Triple K Mags are serviceable, relatively cheap and are available from several sources.

[rintinglen]

318855
Last week I proved that I could not qualify with the Beretta 1935 if I carried it with the safety on. This week, I went with the Israeli technique, with the safety off, chamber empty and hammer down.
Here’s how it went. At the 3 yard line, I drew, jacked the slide and fired 2 shots both well within the time limit of 3 seconds. I got my first miss with the first shot, but the second was in the 9 ring. Both shots were hits the second time around, though @ 2.84 seconds I was riding the ragged edge. I found I was having some difficulty getting my grip with my off hand as I released the slide and went to aim.

I stepped back to the 5 yard line where the drill is to draw, fire 3 shots strong-hand-only and then transfer the gun to the off-hand for the last three shots, all in 7 seconds. 6.73 seconds later I had 5 good hits and one out to the left that just barely made the cut. At the 7 yard line, I drew, fired my 6 shots and again, threw the first one out to the left as a miss. The 10 yard line saw me put another shot out to the left, but it caught the line, so it counted.

At the 15 yard line, the reload gave me grief. I moved to cover, drew, fired two shots standing barricade right, then went for the reload. There is no slide hold open on the last shot except for the follower blocking the slide. The magazine is held pretty tightly. It was a bugger to get out and I could feel the seconds slipping past, but I finally managed to drag the mag out and then insert the fresh mag. I jacked the slide for fresh round and dropped to my knees for two shots right kneeling, then jumped up—or as close an approximation thereof as my 69 year old body will let me— shot two rounds left barricade. I then dropped to my knees and fired the last two, left kneeling. The last shot just barely made it in time: 24.97 seconds. The haste at the 15 yard line showed up on the target—3 more misses, one up high and two off to the left. Final score was 25/30, or 83.333%. Most of the misses were the first shot after jacking the slide. I find it difficult to get a good grip with my off hand for some reason. I freely admit that I am not practiced in the draw-and-work-the-slide technique. It may be my shortcoming, but regardless it makes things slow.

I still like the feel of the gun, and it has been reliable, even with some of my older handloads. . It is a neat piece of history, and a good plinker, but that is all. The delay in getting it into action means I have to hurry my shots to try and shoot faster than I am capable, resulting in misses. Also, the magazine follower blocking the slide as a hold open may be cheaper, but it makes the gun harder to reload. I have thought it over, but I stand by my earlier assessment—the Beretta 1935 is not suitable as a reactive defense weapon. Unless it is your only weapon, do not carry it. There are too many other better choices that are cheaper.

[Outpost75]

The way I was taught to by the Carabinieri is upon firing the last round, retract the slide about 1/4" and then engage the safety to hold the slide back while removing the magazine. Then insert the reload mag and disengage the safety to release the slide and chamber a round. Much faster. Not as slick as an M1911, but useable. Roy Dunlap discusses this technique in Ordnance Went Up Front.

[wilecoyote]

... carrying with the hammer down, the safety off and a loaded magazine. takes simply too long...

try same as above, but with hammer cocked:
hammer up, safe off, loaded mag._
empty chamber=no risk, but the previously cocked hammer will lower the effort needed to pushing back the slide to put the first in, somewhat improving your speed_
just in case, let me know if it can work for you_

[rintinglen]

Well, the Carabinieri technique adds two operations of the safety to an already cumbersome reload, plus the time to grasp the slide and retract it. First, the safety has to be put in the rear--safe--position to lock the slide, then it must be rotated back to the fire position after the fresh mag is inserted. That's well over two seconds, maybe over three. I can't see that it offers any advantage at all in time. Rip the empty out, insert the fresh mag and rack the slide. Bang! your off to the races. I have done it easily in 4 seconds with a Colt 1903. I just couldn't today with this pistol. A younger man, or a less-used old man might have had less trouble moving from position to position and a couple seconds more to shoot with.

I don't carry cocked pistols with the safety off. That's just asking for a loud noise when you don't want one. That chamber MIGHT not be as empty as I thought. The 1935 can stay at home, I'll take a Colt, an FN, or a CZ-27. Still have a heel magazine catch to contend with, but you're not fumbling around with the safety. What I suspect was that the original idea was that you were going to deal with your problem with the contents of your first mag, and then, if successful, you would have ample time to reload. If unsuccessful, well, you wouldn't be able to reload, anyways.

[rintinglen]

318879
This is the second CZ-27 I have owned, I got it just about 39 years after I sold the first one. Boy, have they gone up in price! That first one was for sale for $75 and I got it for 65. This one cost me nearly 500 by the time taxes, gunbroker, shipping and transfer fees were totaled up.

I do not have a holster for the CZ so my trusty Remington R-51 Holster got called back into service. I loaded it up with the Norma 73 grain ball ammo, and got ready for the fun. On the beep, I went for the pistol and fired two shots that smacked into the ten ring in 2.41 seconds. I set the safety, re-holstered, and got ready again. The next two shots were almost as good, a 9 and a 10. The time was 2.39 seconds, which was unusual. I seldom turn in two runs that close.

I have to say that though the safety is the same design as on the 1914 Mauser, it is just enough different for me to easily reach the catch button and snap it off as I am raising the gun to take aim. The 5 yard line went equally well; my strong hand shots were all in the 9 and 10 rings while my left hand kept them all on target too. The 7 and 10 yard lines went smoothly with no misses and well under the time limits.

Then came the 15 yard line. I drew, got off the first two shots, then I struggled with the reload. Like the Beretta, the CZ-27 has no slide lock but relies on the follower to block open the weapon when it runs empty. Also like the Beretta, it has a heel release for the magazine. However, the magazine catch spring on my CZ is much stronger than the one on my Beretta. I had difficulty dragging the empty out to get the fresh one in. Then, when the new one is in, one must rack the slide again to charge the pistol, and the four cocking serrations provided are a pretty poor surface to grip. I can easily load a revolver faster with a speed loader than I can reload the CZ. Anyway I ran out of time and had a saved round and a miss, up on the shoulder for a final score of 28/30, or 93.33%. But the majority of the hits were pretty tightly clustered in the 9 and 10 rings

I would have no qualms at all about carrying this gun into battle. For a truck driver, a 1st echelon mechanic, a mortar or artillery man or other soldier near the front lines, but not actually up front, it would be just fine. Within the limits of the cartridge, it works just about as well as anything else. It weighs enough to dampen the recoil of a heavier cartridge than the 32 ACP, so there is no problem with recoil. It is accurate and points well for me. The safety works and is quick and easy to operate. The sights are decent and spot on, and it has not faltered in fifty+ rounds. I am going to give it a run through with some cast hollowpoints to make a function test with it as soon as I find the time to cast and load some up. I like this gun a lot. It has but one flaw in that it is hard to reload swiftly, but 8-9 rounds ought to be enough for the immediate threat. This is an excellent pistol, even with the wartime rough finish and shortcuts. It may not be as elegant as the Browning designs, nor as smooth appearing as the Beretta or the Mauser 1914, but the danged things flat out work.

Well, actually, for a reloader, it has another fault. It throws brass 20-30 feet out to the right in an inconsistent arc. I recovered about 5 cases out of 36 that I fired. The range is so littered with 9mm casings that the 32’s just blend right in. :sad:

[rintinglen]

Just a follow up on the CZ. I loaded the magazine with 6 different cartridges. One each of PMC, Norma and Fiocchi Range Dynamic fmj's, a Fiocchi JHP, a handload with a Ranch dog cast TC boolit and another hand load with an MP 32-75 HP mixed at random. All 6 fired and functioned without a stutter.:D I wish I had more 32's on hand, or I wish I could find more of my brass.

[rintinglen]

Prior to 1929, the Walther Pistols had little to distinguish them from their counterparts throughout Europe. Simple, single-action, blowback pistols of mostly 7.65 or 6.35 Browning caliber, the only difference might be better quality materials and better fit and finish. But this came to a crashing halt with the introduction of the Polizei Pistole. Overnight the landscape changed. Though still a blowback pistol, this, the Walther PP, was the first double action pistol marketed. One cannot overstate the importance of this design on the development of the semi-automatic pistol. Excluding the 1911 designs of John Browning, no other handgun had a greater impact on firearms design in the 20th century. Dozens of pistols would be designed to utilize this system over the next 60 years. With the safety serving as a firing pin block and a de-cocker, it allowed an officer to carry an automatic that was just as safe as a revolver, and yet was instantly available for use when danger arose with just a pull of the trigger. Subsequent follow up shots were light, short single action ones. And when the festivities were finished, a flick of the safety dropped the hammer safely and restored the pistol to a safe condition.

It is fair to say that the PP was an overnight sensation. Even in the depression years, it sold in comfortable numbers. Police and private commercial sales amounted to nearly 50,000, before the NAZI government began purchasing them in quantity, buying nearly 200,000 PP pistols and 150,000 of the slightly smaller PPK’s. They’d have sold even more, save that their other war work kept Walther busy as beavers. Can you say P-38? Hitler, Himmler, Von Ribbentrop were only a few of the Nazi officials who owned them, either PPKs or PPs. Many high ranking officers in the Army and in the Luftwaffe also carried them. The war’s end did not see the end of the pistol either. Walther relocated from Thuringia to West Germany after the occupation of the former by the Russians and soon licensed Manurhin in France to make the PP and PPK for police service. They have been used by police in Great Britain, West Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and France and sold throughout the world commercially as well as to various police agencies in areas ranging from Latvia to Madagascar and points east and west. Walther has since resumed control over the PP series, after licensing it for a number of years to various companies in the United States such as Ranger Arms (Interarms), and more recently S&W. The compact PPK is still being made by Walther here in their plant in Arkansas.

Mine is a Manurhin made PP in the 7.65 caliber. I have previously owned a post war German PPK, also in 7.65, and a PPK/s made by Ranger Arms that was a 380 and I have shot a couple of others. I do not recommend the 380 Interarms models manufactured by Ranger. Magazines were not interchangeable with the German Guns and reliability was poor compared to the French and German guns, at least in my experience. Parts are readily available, though some searching may be required to find exactly what you need. Excellent aftermarket magazines are available from Mec-Gar which are cheaper and every bit as good as the originals.

The DA pull on these is very heavy and long. Though relatively smooth, eat your Wheaties before yanking on the trigger--you'll need the strength. Mine has one of the lighter pulls that I have encountered and it's still closer to 15 pounds than 10 in my estimation. The SA pull is much lighter, 6-7 lbs and with a very short reset. The gun itself is just about 6 and 5/8" long, 4 and 13/16ths tall, and just about 1 13/16ths thick at its widest point. It weighs just over 23 ounces. Everyone I've ever seen was blue steel, though some were reportedly nickeled and others were ornately engraved and gold or silver plated. The magazine holds 8 rounds of 32 ACP, one more than the PPK and the same number as the PPK/s. 380 magazines have one fewer round capacities.

Well, I should put on a dinner jacket and black tie when I go out to the range this week and practice my Scottish accent. Pity I don't know anyone to lend me an Aston Martin.

[rintinglen]

I should have wished for a computer I could borrow. My hard drive decided that its time had come and was beginning to die. Not having the skill or knowledge to do all that was required myself, I took it in to a computer repair shop. There went my next fire arm purchase. 300 dollars in a top-of-the line solid state hard drive and a memory upgrade, plus 300 to retrieve my data, install the new stuff, and test the installation.

Anyways, I'm back, but I will have to fake the picture of the Walther PP shoot. I unintentionally threw out the target when cleaning off my work bench in the garage, but what happened at the range was this.

At the 3 yard line, I drew and fired 2 shots into the bottom of the 10 ring, then the second pair landed almost on top of them. Both runs were under 2.2 seconds! Somedays I impress my self. But that didn't last too long. At the five yard line, the group ballooned. The first shot with the heavy DA with my strong-hand only was way out to the left, barely catching the edge of the scoring ring, the next two were reasonably close to the middle, the left hand group wobbled a bit but all 3 shots were inside the 8 ring. The time was 5.78 seconds, well under the 7 second time limit.

The 7 yard line was also well under the time limit of 8 seconds but somewhere along the way I pulled one out to the left for a miss. I did better at the 10 yard line, with all shots in the scoring rings, albeit not too tightly clustered. Then it was back to the 15 yard line. Here the push-button mag release made itself handy. I have to confess that both of the service automatics I trained with had similar mag release mechanisms, so familiarity was on my side, even though the button is a little high on the PP frame for my liking. I managed another miss due to shooting faster than I was aiming, but finished up with a 28/30.

However, once again, the score does not tell all the story. My times were very good for me, and especially up close, the double action was very fast, and the DA/SA transition was no problem. The heavy DA trigger is a bit of problem, but not the major road block that it was sometimes described as being back in the day by the 1911 fans. I would have no qualms whatsoever carrying this gun, even with the lighter cartridge. It shoots very well, and quickly. And the de-cocker/safety is pretty handy. I carried my S&W 39-2 hammer down, safety off and that is how I used the Walther. There's a reason why guns like these are still in production, 93years after they were first introduced. They are accurate, slim, and easy to shoot well, and you look cool when you say "Bond, James Bond."

[shooting on a shoestring]

Another big THANK YOU for doing this project.
Good info.

[Mk42gunner]

My only shooting experience with Walther pistols was with a stainless PPKs in .380 that another young sailor had. It wasn't very fun for me to shoot, the sharp lower edges of the slide tended to leave nasty slices on my hand (I also get bit by 1911A1's with the arched mainspring housing). Also one of the Simi Valley PD carried a PP in .32 as a backup gun, I got to handle it but never fired it.

Do the .32 caliber guns act as obnoxious as the .380 in my memory? I can't see how they would or they wouldn't have been made for as many years as they were.

Robert

[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.:oops:

(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.