Category Archives: Uncategorized

Rifle; caliber .22 short, long and long rifle; Winchester Model 67

Full view from right side

A rifle made for training.  From information of characteristics, it was made in November/December 1937.  No serial numbers were applied at manufacture (prior to 1968).

Action style:  Bolt action, single shot, striker manually cocked after loading and closing bolt.  Design was intentional to reduce possibility of inappropriate discharge for inexperienced shooters.

Barrel length:  27 1/8 inches.  Conventionally rifled, twist rate of one revolution in 16.25 inches.

Weight:  Five pounds, two ounces.  (Unloaded, of course.)

Sights are traditional rifle sights of the era.

Rear sight blade, U notch

Rear sight, entire view

Rear sight is a leaf sight with slide, adjustable for elevation by moving the slide to elevate or lower the rear sight.  The rear sight blade with sighting notch is flat topped with half-round notch measuring three-sixteenths inch in diameter.  The assembly is mounted to the barrel by a dove tail arrangement at the front of the assembly.  This allows for drifting the entire assembly (using a brass or other non-marring drift and small hammer) either left or right to adjust windage, or to remove the original sight and replace it with some more appealing to the owner.  Since this rifle hasn’t been manufactured since the 1960s, casual replacement of parts is not advised to preserve the collector appeal and value.

Front sight bead and base, slightly fuzzy

Front is a single post with a one-eighth inch bead.  The front sight is also mounted on a dove tail base.  Therefore, it also is drift adjustable for windage or replacement of different front sight entirely.

 

 

Actual sighting is addressed following.

Rifle is not equipped to casually mount a telescopic sight; no ‘grooves’ or drilled and tapped mounting sites.

Testing:

Rifle fired on morning of 30 June 2017 at Four Rivers Sportsman’s Club (Hastings, Nebraska).  Sky was overcast but bright, temperature in the upper 60s to lower 70s, no discernible breeze.  All shots fired from a basic bench rest mechanism.  Shots and velocities timed on a C. E. D. chronograph.

Ammunition types used were CCI Standard Velocity (1070 fps advertised) and Norma USA match-22 (1100 fps advertised).  Due to the era of manufacture, I thought ‘standard velocity’ ammunition was more in keeping with the design of the rifle than any of the newer, ‘high velocity’ ammunition.  I also felt the sights where more suited to standard velocity ammunition.  I doubt modern loadings will harm the action or barrel, but no doubt someone will object to such practice.

Ten round velocity findings:

CCI Standard Velocity:  Average of ten shots, 1053 fps; spread of fastest to slowest shots, 105 fps.

Norma match-22:  Average of ten shots, 1033 fps; spread of fastest to slowest shots, 32 fps.

Both types of ammunition showed a more or less even spread across the range of velocities.   A better test would be one hundred rounds of each ammunition.  Expense and time tend to discourage me in this.

Accuracy testing:

Groups fired at fifty yards to provide adequate idea of accuracy.

Winchester 67: Five shots at 20 yards.

Winchester 67: Five shots at 50 yards.

Since I used five of the CCI shots to insure registration on target at twenty yards, the fifty yard group is only five shots and measures 2 inches high and 1.5 inches wide.  I held ‘center’ on the target and the group registered 4 inches high and 1 inch right of aiming point.  I point out the rear sight was moved to the lowest setting and registration was still some four inches high at fifty yards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Winchester 67: Eleven shots at 50 yards (benchrest)

 

 

 

 

 

As the rifle showed itself to be reasonably regulated, I fired the Norma group from fifty yards.  I fired eleven rounds of the Norma ammunition on the fifty yard target as one shot did not register on the chronograph.  Using a six o’clock hold, eight of the rounds grouped 1.25 inches high and 1.625 inches wide, roughly .5 inches below aiming point.  The other three shots were outside that cluster, expanding the total group to 2.25 x 3.25 inches, still about .5 inches below point of aim.

I hasten to add some of the ‘looseness’ of the groups are no doubt the result of my aged eyes and the rather imprecise nature of the open sights.

Both groups would be suitable for small game of squirrel or rabbit size at fifty yards and possible further with better eyes.

Sight picture is questionable.  Aligning the front bead centered in the semi-circular rear notch is intuitive; but positioning the front sight is debatable.  I achieved best results with the front (round) bead at the bottom of the target.  (Usually referred to as the “six o’clock hold”.)  A possibly more intuitive hold is to cover the target (a bullseye in this case), this is referred to as a “center hold”.  With the rear sight in the lowest position, a center hold results in shot holes roughly four inches above point of aim at 50 yards.

The arm functioned well.  The only ‘difficulty’ I found – and it’s so minor I hesitate to call it a ‘difficulty’ – is the extractor is somewhat in the way when inserting a new cartridge into the breech.  Merely pushing on the bolt causes the extractor to move (lower) out of the way and the cartridge chambers properly.

EDITED:  The final paragraph is amended.  In a late-breaking and chagrinning development, I was instructed correctly about removing the bolt from the action.

Clear and make safe.

Close the bolt.

De-cock the striker.

With the bolt closed, pull the trigger and keep it back.

Open and remove bolt.

Pull trigger and keep back to replace bolt (line up root of bolt handle with split in receiver.

NOTE:  Pulling trigger with bolt open will not allow removal of bolt.

 

All in all a useful rifle for the purpose intended.

2 Comments

Filed under Firearms and their use, Uncategorized

Life Imitates Art…

Most everyone of my age remembers the original “Star Wars” with Mark Hamill, Sir Alec Guinness, Harrison Ford, of course Carrie Fisher and others. Many younger people are quite familiar with it as well. It is indeed a modern classic.

Harken back to a scene where Imperial Stormtroopers stop the small craft containing Luke Skywalker, the anonymous Obi-wan Kenobi and the two ‘droids (robots to me) C3PO and R2D2. Obi-wan performs a bit of Jedi mind control and the lead Stormtrooper parrots, “We don’t need to see his identification. These are NOT the ‘droids we’re looking for.” It is a funny scene, even if both Obi-wan and the Stormtrooper dangle a preposition. Sigh…

Now imagine this: A small craft of some kind carrying former Former Secretary of State Clinton, President Obama, Representative Pelosi, Senator Chuck Schumer and Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. They are stopped by FBI Director James Comey. Director Comey says, “We don’t need to do any investigation. These are NOT the ‘droids we’re looking for.”

:rimshot!:

I probably have too much time on my hands… Oh. If I suddenly disappear or commit suicide, remember this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Civilization, Idiot Politicians, Movies, Political Correctness, Politics, Uncategorized

Some Notes on Transitional Cartridges

In the long ago and far away (not so far away for some), armies were armed with smoothbore, muzzle loading, black powder powered muskets. They were not ‘accurate’ in the modern sense. Therefore, the soldiers of one side all lined up and fired a ‘volley’ – everyone in the front line shot on command – in the general direction of the enemy who were similarly lined up some fifty or sixty yards distant. The theory behind this was someone was bound to be hit. When enough soldiers on one side or the other had been wounded or killed, the remainder either broke ranks – a disgrace – or surrendered.

In the middle of the 19th Century, rifling was made practical for most all rifles and cartridge ammunition was developed. (The concept was invented some time earlier, but wasn’t ‘practical’ for mass production.) Which are stories all their own. This story begins in the latter part of the 19th Century…

In the past 150 (as of this writing) years, there have been two existential changes in the philosophy and theory of cartridges for military use. The first was the change from Black powder to Smokeless powder; and the practical and design changes either required or made possible thereby.

The second change is the change from ‘full power’ rifle rounds to ‘intermediate’ rounds; this shows itself in changes to cartridge and firearm design.

This discussion is limited to mainly infantry type rifles. Sporting rifles have followed the developments and inferences are easy to make.

Traditional Gunpowder – Black powder, commonly – has been around since at least the 14th Century in Western Culture and probably longer in Eastern Culture depending on who is writing the story.

It had drawbacks, but that’s another story. We will also forgo the development of guncotton a ‘beginning’ to what we think of as smokeless powder.

In 1864, a French chemist named Paul Vieille found a way to alter organic substances – generally cotton or wood pulp – into what currently is known as smokeless powder. The result was a compound – powder, more or less – which burned rapidly only under compression, was manipulable, and had three times the gas expansion (or power in cartridge context) as Black powder. We are skipping the further research part, as well. The French Government paid Mr. Vieille (by the way, I have no idea of how to pronounce the gentleman’s surname) 50,000 franks as a reward.

The existence of the powder was a French state secret for some years, but they developed and adopted for Army use the 1886 Lebel rifle. This was the absolute first rifle used by any army in the world to use a rifle firing a cartridge designed to use smokeless power. (Remember that the next time one wants to make condescending remarks about the French.)

State secret or not, very soon after the appearance of the Lebel rifle, the knowledge of smokeless powder was noted and everybody and everybody’s dog started working on how to duplicate it. Since the essential process is pretty simple, pretty quickly everyone had it.

So what did they do about it?

When black powder is used as a firearms propellent, it has a relatively slow burning rate. (However, it burns at the same rate whether confined or in the open – this made black powder great as a general explosive and rather dangerous to carry around.) The muzzle velocity an arm can attain is limited by this and black powder weapons top out around 2,000 feet per second. (This gets argued sometimes, but it is limited.)
Actually, smokeless powder also has top velocity limit as well, due to the velocity of expanding gases. As I understand it the limit is close to 6,000 feet per second and it will be some time until we push past that with current technology.

One of the side-effects of a ‘maximum’ velocity limit is the amount of energy available from the bullet. Currently, to give a specific bullet weight more energy, we – whoever ‘we’ are – design a firearm to handle greater pressure and make the bullet go faster. The kinetic energy in a particular projectile increases with the square of the velocity; in short, a bullet going twice as fast has FOUR times as much energy, all other factors being equal (the same weight bullet, primarily). Obviously, with a relatively low top speed, one had to increase the size (weight and diameter) in order to get more energy. One could make a .22 caliber bullet weighing 500 grains, but it would rather long.

So all military types rifles were relatively large bore rifles. In the latter part of the 19th Century, nearly all the military rifles were between .40 and .50 caliber. Bullets were heavy.

As examples:

U. S .45-70 Govt. cartridge fired a 405 grain lead bullet at around 1300 feet per second (fps). (There was a lighter ‘carbine’ cartridge, I believe the bullet was around 350 grains.)

U. S .45-70 Govt. cartridge fired a 405 grain lead bullet at around 1300 feet per second (fps). (There was a lighter ‘carbine’ cartridge, I believe the bullet was around 350 grains.)

The 1871 Mauser (11mm Mauser) fired a 370 grain bullet at 1430 fps.

The 1871 Mauser (11mm Mauser) fired a 370 grain bullet at 1430 fps.

The Brits .577 Snyder used a 450 grain bullet at 1300 fps.

The Brits .577 Snyder used a 450 grain bullet at 1300 fps.

And so on. Please peruse the following comparison information:
.45-70 Gov’t fired a bullet of 458 caliber, weighing 405 grains at 1330 fps.  This developed 1590 pounds of muzzle energy, and in the 10 pound rifle gave a recoil impulse of 24.37.
11mm Mauser fired a bullet of 446 caliber, weighing 386 grains at 1425.    This developed 1740 pounds of muzzle energy, and in the 9.92 pound rifle gave a recoil impulse of 25.9
.577 Snider fired a bullet of 570 caliber, weighing 480 grains at 1250.    This developed 1665 9.56 pound rifle gave a recoil impulse of 29.94.
.30-06 fired a bullet of 308 caliber, weighing 150 grains at 2740.    This developed 2500 pounds of muzzle energy, and in the 8.7 pound rifle gave a recoil impulse of 15.93.
8mm Lebel fired a bullet of 323 caliber, weighing 198 grains at 2380.    This developed 2481 pounds of muzzle energy, and in the 9.2 pound rifle gave a recoil impulse of 17.54.
8mm Mauser fired a bullet of 323 caliber, weighing 154 grains at 2880.    This developed 2835 pounds of muzzle energy, and in the 9  pound rifle gave a recoil impulse of 16.95.
.30 Army (Krag) fired a bullet of 308 caliber, weighing 220 grains at 2200.    This developed 2365 pounds of muzzle energy, and in the 9.3 pound rifle gave a recoil impulse of 18.37.
8mm Kurz fired a bullet of 323 caliber, weighing 125 grains at 2247.    This developed 1408 pounds of muzzle energy, and in the 10 pound rifle gave a recoil impulse of 6.59.
7.62×39 fires a bullet of 311 caliber, weighing 122 grains at 2329.    This developed 1470 pounds of muzzle energy, and in the 7.7 pound rifle gave a recoil impulse of 6.68.
.30 Carbine fired a bullet of 308 caliber, weighing 110 grains at 1975.    This developed 955 pounds of muzzle energy, and in the 5.2 pound rifle gave a recoil impulse of 5.21.
.223 Remington/5.56 mm fires a bullet of 224 caliber, weighing 62 grains at 3100.    This developed 1325 pounds of muzzle energy, and in the 7.18 pound rifle gave a recoil impulse of 3.77.
.375 Holland & Holland fires a bullet of 375 caliber, weighing 300 grains at 2500.    This developed 4160 pounds of muzzle energy, and in the 9 (Win Exp)  pound rifle gave a recoil impulse of 42.64

Information comes from Cartridges of the World, Wikipedia (for arms weights), and recoil calculations from a friendly website.

Notice the heaviest recoil of any military smokeless powder rifle is less than the lightest recoiling black powder rifle. This is in connection with smokeless powder rifles are lighter – easier to carry – than black powder rifles.

Obviously, these are only a very few representative cartridges. They were all initially military, infantry calibers, except the .375 H&H, a sporting caliber.  (I put it in for comparison and as example of serious recoil.)

So when the various military designers thought about this new-fangled smokeless powder, they were still rather thinking ‘black powder’. Bullets were still round nosed and relatively heavy. The .30-40 Krag-Jorgensen was designed by the U. S. Government and adopted in 1898. It was a smokeless powder cartridge but had a 220 grain roundnose bullets and a velocity of 2000 fps.

Other developments in Europe included the 8mm Mauser. Initially using a smokeless powder loading, it used a bullet of around 230 grains at 2100 fps. Later, the Germany armed changed this to a lighter bullet and a faster velocity. That lighter bullet weighted 154 grains and left the rifle at 2880 fps. Also, making use of other developments, they made the new bullet a streamlined shape. The term they used was ‘Spitzgeschoss’ which means ‘pointy bullet’, more or less. In the United States, we still use the term ‘Spitzer’ for a projectile coming to a point, with ogives shaped as ‘radii’ instead of straight sides (spire point).

Since most everyone likes pictures, I have attached a few photos of various cartridges under discussion. As I write these lines, I realize readers would probably appreciate photos of the firearms as well. Sadly, I don’t have many of the rifles being discussed.

Somewhere during this period, both upper echelon officers in various armies and (cartridge and arms) designers realized infantry rifles could shoot faster in both muzzle velocity and rate of fire. Therefore, ‘lighter’ bullets could be just as effective as the older, heavier black powder era bullets on either enemies of the republic or Mr. Bear.

So bore diameters were reduced. Typical bore diameter for military rifles dropped from between 40 to 50 caliber to near 30 caliber (some smaller yet).

Because bores were reduced, the ‘bottleneck’ cartridge was developed.

Since smokeless powder was far cleaner – relatively – than black powder – the arms didn’t require extreme simplicity to keep them functioning.

Since smokeless powder generates less smoke when firing, repeating arms and even machine guns became practical. The man or men operating such weapons were no longer enveloped in a cloud and unable to see. Nor did the smoke cloud invariably and instantly give away one’s position to the unholy. (Just to clarify, ‘smokeless’ powder does generate some smoke. However, relative to black powder, smokeless powder is ‘miraculously’ less smokey than black. Smokeless powder does leave some residue in the arm. Again, relative to black powder, it isn’t so much. And ‘corrosive’ ammunition since the advent of smokeless powder derives much more from (now obsolete) primer compounds that left ‘salts’ in the bore and workings which attract water; ergo rust. The primers didn’t have a direct corrosive effect on steel.)

Due to the proliferation of semi and fully automatic arms, the cases themselves needed to be re-designed. Rims and highly tapered cases were now a liability. In the ‘old days’, case bodies were nearly the same diameter from top to bottom. A ‘rim’ or ‘flange’ (as the Brits call it) keeps a cylindrical case from falling through the chamber and barrel. But a bottle neck case has a shoulder to stop the case from moving further forward, AND with the motion of moving through an automatic process of loading, rims became a problem. Better off without rims.

Highly tapered cases were useful with black powder. if the chamber was getting dirty from the black powder residue, a tapered case was easier to force into the chamber – especially in the heat of battle. Also, removing a tapered case is easier to extract after firing; as moving the case even a small distance removes the case from rubbing on the walls of the chamber. But a heavily tapered case is awkward to place into a magazine. Look at an AK-47 round and magazine sometime; note the taper of the AK-47 round and the curvature of the magazine, especially an extended version.

Over a period of time – fairly short, really – nearly all military rifle cases were relatively un-tapered (there’s still a bit) and rimless. Except of course, for the Russian/Soviet/Russian again 7.62x54R

Somewhere in the transition, bullet technology had to improve. Cast or swaged lead bullets worked well with the low velocities of black powder. They probably leaded, but as one had to clean the bore religiously, leading didn’t build up as much. However, with smokeless powder not leaving as much deposit in the barrel AND velocities being over twice the former velocity, lead bullets just didn’t work in rifles. I’m going to skip over the details, but jacketed bullets became the norm in just over twenty years. As it happens, a fully jacketed bullet is less prone to deform when being moved through the action of a rifle, let along semi or full automatic weapon, also a good characteristic.

Yet another benefit of jacketed bullets is the jacket holds the rifling better, which produces better accuracy. The higher echelon military leaders and thinkers and the designers quickly realized the new technology rifles could shoot both farther and more accurately than before. (What wasn’t realized is the distances of separation of hostile troops didn’t get much bigger. Fire-fights were still fairly close up and personal interchanges. That is a different story, however.)

At this point, the concept of “keeping up with Jones’ ” came into play. Since the French had smokeless powder, ‘we’ – whoever ‘we’ were – had to have smokeless powder as well. If ‘their’ rifle could theoretically hit a belligerent at XX yards, ‘our’ rifle had to hit a belligerent at XX and fifteen yards. If ‘their’ rifle could hold five rounds, ‘ours’ has to hold seven to ten. If ‘their’ rifle could be reloaded ‘instantly’, ‘ours’ has to be reloaded ‘instantlier’. Etc.

One notes nearly all the early smokeless powder cartridges featured (relatively) ’heavy’ bullets. Nearly all of them fairly quickly lightened the bullets used. With a lighter bullet, velocity and range was extended. This is a direct consequence of smokeless powder. Remember black powder can only push a projectile within limits. So does smokeless powder but the limit is three to four times as great.

In some instances, the government in question developed a ‘heavier than the infantry load, but lighter than the original load’ for use in machine-guns. Whereas a lighter bullet can be driven faster and therefore develop greater kinetic energy at ‘closer’ range, a heavier bullet will normally carry further and maintain velocity better.

The U. S. Government introduced a 220 grain bullet with the 1903 Springfield, then dropped the bullet weight to 150 grains in 1906. Then later developed a 174 grain bullet and load for use in medium and heavy machine guns.

The French did about the same thing with the 8mm Lebel round in roughly the same era.

Machine guns are currently utilized mostly direct fire mode. That is, machines are used much like rifles and fired directly at hostiles forces in line of sight.

Initially, machine guns were often used in indirect fire mode; very similar to artillery. The machine gun was fired at a high angle at areas unseen by the gunner to deny movement to hostile forces and cause casualties in the belligerent forces. That technique required ammunition to be capable of going a long way and still be effective.

The upshot of all this was rifles could now (back then) accurately disable or kill an enemy soldier out to a whole lot further than before. As a result, the sights on most rifles were refined quite a bit. The rifle sights of the First World War were predominantly ‘open’ type sights. The rear sights were some form of notch – usually a “V” or “U” shape. Front sights were either a post, squared off at the top, or a pyramidal shape.

The U. S. Rifle, Model of 1917, or ‘Eddystone’ (the one with the ‘bent’ bolt handle) was one of the first military rifle to feature ‘aperture’ sights. The front sight was a squared off post and the rear sight was a disc with a small hole (the aperture) in it. By the Second World War, nearly everyone had aperture – or ‘peep’ – sights.

By this time, most infantry rifles could – depending on the soldier – incapacitate a hostile out to possible 500 yards (or meters or paces, depending on where one’s rifle was made and how they marked them). Effective range became a matter of national pride.

However, it must be noted that armed encounters between armies (or more often, squads) were often much closer to each other than several hundred yards. Depending on terrain and plant life (trees, for instance), ranges of encounter could be quite short. In the battle called the Battle of Belleau Wood, fighting was so close shotguns were employed as assault weapons. So long range rifles were not always needed.

Now we mentally jump ahead to the Second World War. Gone is the trench warfare of much of the First World War, where one sat in trenches – some of the time – and ranges were perceived to be longer. In WWII the fighting was much closer and personal. Europe has – had, perhaps – much forested land and combatants could get much closer to one another. There were more trucks and troop carriers to get combatants to the ‘front’ as well as move laterally or forward in support.

There was lots of fighting in towns, cities and more or less ‘urban areas’. Both sides were fighting from house to house. Not much need for a five hundred yard rifle. But the rifle still had to have the power to incapacitate an enemy.

In 1943, the NAZI Army introduced the Sturmgewehr (StG) 44, also known as the MP43 and MP44. It was a breakthrough in design for several reasons.

Aside: The Soviet Union claimed they were working on a similar concept prior to the StG44. Truthfully, I don’t know if they were. History records the StG44 (in 1943, oddly enough) first. The finished Soviet project rifle, the familiar AK-47, was adopted and issued in 1947. So the STG44 gets the ‘honor’, as it were. End of aside.

The StG44 was one of the first actual rifles to be fully automatic – upon demand by moving the ‘selector’- hand held and issued to practically everyone. In the First World War, the U. S. had the Browning Automatic Rifle, but it was issued only to a limited number of troops (one per squad as I recall) and it weighed nearly twenty pounds. The StG 44 weighed – loaded – less than 11.5 pounds. The Garand rifle of the U. S. was about the same weight.

The StG 44 had a detachable box magazine holding thirty rounds. The Thompson submachine gun had magazines holding twenty or thirty rounds. Typically the twenty round magazines were used for convenience. The StG 44 had a bit further range and a bit more kinetic energy.

The StG 44 had a ‘new’ cartridge, the intermediate class round. Physically, it was the full size 8x57mm Mauser (actually 7.9x57mm) round shortened to 33mm, using a 123 grain (or so) at a muzzle velocity of around 2,250 fps. It is called – and I’m not sure who named it – the 7.9x33mm Kurz. (Kurz meaning ‘short’; go figure.) Here was a fully automatic rifle that could be (more or less) controlled by a soldier and didn’t hamper him.

The StG 44 had a bore diameter exactly the same as the standard 98 Mauser and machine-guns of the Reich. So existing machinery could be used. Additionally, the cases are very similar to the case of the 98 Mauser and that machinery also could be employed. No point in re-inventing the wheel.

Sadly for ‘them’, (good for the free world) it was too late to effect the war much. But it did start a new ‘transition’ in rifle ammunition. When the Second World War was over, the 7.9×33 Kurz was done. There are some rifles chambered for it as a curiosity, but no one mass produces rifles – either full or semi-automatic – for it anywhere. The accuracy and range limits are not well established and rather immaterial at this point.

Next in this cavalcade of intermediate rounds came the Soviet 7.62x39mm round. It also fires a bullet of 122 grains (both this and the Kurz round were designated in grams, so they don’t seem ‘even’) at a muzzle velocity of nearly 2,400 fps. It is more powerful than the U. S. .30 Carbine, but just a bit less than the .30-30 Winchester round.

The Soviet round is another short cased round. The then current Soviet rifle was the now familiar Mosin-Nagant 1891/30 rifle. The 7.62×39 round uses the same bullet diameter so the same machinery for boring and rifling barrels can be used; and the same machinery to manufacture bullets can be adjusted and used to make ammunition.

Currently, the AK-47 rifles and the round do not enjoy a positive reputation for accuracy. They do enjoy a great reputation for reliability and functioning under adverse conditions, like mud and dust. However, there are reasons for both these reasons and they are much the same. I’m going to let that lie for this essay.

Both the NAZI and Soviet round have an outside range of about 300 to 350 yards. Which actually covers most current fighting around the world. Maybe. (Wait for it…) Both rounds are suitable for shooting hostile combatants, but have little margin for error. However, they were designed to be light and shoot a lot. Both rifles employ loaded cartridges lighter than the full sized rifles preceding them, so number of rounds carried can be increased for the same weight.

Aside: The U. S. did have an ‘intermediate’ round already. The .30 Carbine was adopted in 1942. However, it was never employed as a primary combat weapon officially. It was to replace the pistol, rifle and submachine gun for non-front line troops. The round is not as powerful as either the 7.9mm Kurz or the 7.62×39 Russian cartridge. The .30 Carbine is not classed with the ‘intermediate’ cartridges for these reasons. End.

So, once again military cartridges have ‘transitioned’ from one ‘form’ to another. What is interesting is the change from fairly short range to long range back to short range. Another interesting thought is military theory and tactics with firearms began with our side firing a huge number of shots at their side with the expectation (hope?) of hitting some of them. Then military theory and tactics went over to the idea of shooting at a specific enemy ‘target’. Now ‘we’ (most of humanity) is back to the fire a huge number of shots at their side and expect (hope?) some of them get hit.

Humanity will have more wars and armed conflict in the future. Someone will see it and write a semi-cynical essay about it.

Left to right: 8x50 Lebel, .303 British, 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser, .30-40 Krag, .30-06 Springfield, .308 Winchester (7.62x51 NATO) 8mm Kurz, 7.62x39mm Russian, 5.56mm NATO, .375 Holland & Holland.

Left to right: 8×50 Lebel, .303 British, 6.5×55 Swedish Mauser, .30-40 Krag, .30-06 Springfield, .308 Winchester (7.62×51 NATO) 8mm Kurz, 7.62x39mm Russian, 5.56mm NATO, .375 Holland & Holland.

Cartridges shown in photo:

8 x 50R(mm) Lebel 232 grain flat nose bullet 2060 feet/second Rimmed case
Adopted in 1886, this is the first smokeless powder cartridge ever used by a military in the world. By modern standards it looks ‘crude’, but at the time, it was ahead of anything else. The cartridge in the photo is the original loading, the “Balle M”; the bullet (balle) weighs fifteen (15) grams or 232 grains, has a lead core, a cupronickel jacket and a wide flat meplat (the very tip) for use the 1886 Lebel rifle with tubular, under barrel magazine. Muzzle velocity – so I am told – was 628 meters per second; in dog years that’s 2,060 feet per second.

In 1898 the round was changed to the “Balle D” configuration. The “Balle D” was a light 12.8 grams (198 grain) spitzer – boat tail type bullet made of mostly brass. Muzzle velocity was 700 meters per second (2297 fps). The “D” was the first time a military power used a spitzer – boat tail officially. So the 8mm Lebel was in fact a real trend sitter.

For the record, there are several other varieties of 8mm Lebel ammunition. Do a web search. (This applies to all the other ammunition listed and most that isn’t listed here.)

.303 British 175 grain bullet 2440 feet/second Rimmed case
Adopted in 1888 as a black powder cartridge with 215 grain (round nose) bullet at 1850 feet/second. Updated in 1892 to use cordite (smokeless) propellent – with the same bullet – for 1970 feet/second. Updated again in 1910; bullet weight dropped to 174 (or 175) grain bullet at 2440 feet/second. This last loading was used until 1957 when the cartridge and rifle were replaced.

6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser 139 grain (9 grams) bullet 2625 feet-second Rimless case. It was adopted in 1894 as smokeless powder round. Initially loaded with a 156 grain (10.1 grams) bullet at 2370 feet/second, it was updated in 1941 to the lighter bullet giving higher velocity.

.30-40 Krag or .30 Army 220 grain bullet 2200 feet/second Rimmed case
The first U. S. smokeless powder cartridge adopted (1898), the rifle showed to be overloaded with issue ammunition and was replaced in 1903 by the Springfield.
.30-06 Springfield 150 grain bullet 2740 feet/second Rimless case
The ’06 cartridge is a re-work of the original .30-03 cartridge. The ’03 cartridge used a 220 grain bullet at 2300 feet/second. In 1906, the cartridge and loading was altered; the case was shortened by .07 inches and the load updated to 150 grain bullet at 2740 feet/second. This was far more ballistically advantageous and shows the advantage of smokeless powder over black powder as a propellant. The ’06 round was also loaded by the U. S. Government with a 172 or 174 grain bullet at 2640 for machine gun use. This change extended the range of the machine gun a good deal, as the heavier bullet would carry further.

308 Winchester or 7.62 x 51(mm) NATO
Adopted in 1957, the 7.62 x 51 NATO essentially duplicated the ballistic ability of the .30-06 Springfield infantry round with a case about .5 inches shorter. Additionally, the case was altered internally, making the head and web area stronger for use in machine-guns and semi-automatic rifles. This was not actually a transitional round and is included only for comparison. Also used in light and medium machine-guns, this is probably the last ‘full charge’ rifle round designed for military rifles. Note: The two cartridges are the same dimensionally, internally and pressure limits. The only potential difficulty is using commercial .308 Winchester ammunition with bullets heavier than those used in semi and fully automatic arms. The extra bullet weight somewhat retards the pressure curve and may transmit too much pressure to the operating system. The heaviest bullet used in military M-14 rifles is a target load, with a 172 to 174 grain bullet; much like the old 30-06 machine gun round.

7.92 x 33mm Kurz
Historically the first intermediate infantry cartridge (argued by the Soviet government). This round could almost be considered experimental, but it was used by the NAZI Army in WWII in the Sturmgewehr (44) rifle. It is a shortened 8 x 57mm case shortened to 33 mm and uses a lighter (125 grain) bullet at 2247 feet/second. This physically began the transition from ‘full charge’ rifle rounds to ‘intermediate’ rounds which are easier to control in fully-automatic, hand held weapons. As it happens, it is the same length as the .30 Carbine round.

7.62 x 39mm Russian
Adopted by Soviet Union in 1947 with the AK47 and arguably the best known military rifle in the world. Designed as an ‘intermediate’ range infantry cartridge, rather than a ‘full charge’ rifle round, it was employed in various rifle and machine-guns in the Warsaw Pact (Soviet Bloc) nations. Like the 7.92 Kurz, this was never a black powder round, but is transitional from ‘full charge’ rifles and loads to the intermediate level infantry rifles.

A further ‘transition’ occurred in 1974 when the Soviet Union adopted the AK-74, using the 5.45x39mm Soviet round. It seems to be the 7.62x39mm cartridge necked down to accommodate .221 or .222 inch projectiles of roughly 55 grains. The ‘smaller’ round became ‘smaller’ still.

5.56mm NATO
Sometimes referred to as the 5.56x45mm NATO rifle round. It is also – somewhat inaccurately – called the .223 Remington. They are exactly the same size and dimension, but they are NOT interchangeable. (They’re sort of interchangeable; the commercial .223 Remington can be safely fired in 5.56 NATO chambered rifles, but the military (5.56 NATO) round develops higher chamber pressure AND the U. S. military rifles have somewhat different chamber and throats than sporting rifles.

The 5.56 NATO round was invented (designed?) in the middle 1950s and adopted for use in 1964, along with the M16 rifle. The round and rifle do not match the power of earlier rifles, like the .30-06 Springfield and .308 Winchester. However, it is lighter and suitable for ranges of 350 yards and less. And one can carry two or three times the number of rounds for the same weight load.

Something curious and perhaps ironic about this cartridge: Remember all the early smokeless powder rounds began with very heavy bullets and then reduced the weight of the bullet? The 5.56 NATO reversed that action. The first accepted round for the M-16 (5.56 NATO) was the M193 round, using a 55 grain bullet at muzzle velocity of 3250 fps. In 1980, NATO changed the official round to what they called the SS209 round. It uses a 62 grain bullet at 3100. The U. S. identifies the SS209 round as the M885.

Changing the bullet weight required re-barreling all extant rifles and fitting new rifles with barrels of faster twist to stabilize the longer bullet. Just for the record, the heavier bullet can be safely fired in the slower twist barrels, the pressure is not changed; but if a particular bullet isn’t spun by the rifling enough, the bullet is not stable and will ‘wobble’ in flight and be inaccurate.

The heavier bullet was desired to give the round more distance and retain more energy at distance. Even with the heavier bullet, the rifles so employed recoil much less than any of the older, more powerful rifles.

.375 Holland & Holland
This is sporting – hunting – round. Introduced in 1912 (as a smokeless powder cartridge) the .375 Holland & Holland will kill most everything in the world graveyard dead with a minor amount of attention on the part of the shooter. Factory loads are either a 270 grain bullet (FMJ for penetration) at 2650 feet/second, or a 300 grain FMJ bullet at 2500. Soft point bullets are also available, but tend not to be as desired for dangerous game

Even so, it is probably not best for animals of the Cape Buffalo or larger class IF they are charging. (I prefer a 3.5 inch rocket launcher, myself.) But this round has done it all. It has never been a military cartridge. I add it to the discussion for those who feel the ‘full charge’ military rifles of the era were too harsh in recoil.

NOT shown in group photo:

8 x 56(mm)R

8 x 56(mm)R

8 x 56(mm)R 208 grain bullet 2300 feet/second Rimmed case
Designed in 1930 and first used in the Solothurn machine-gun. Shortly after, it was also used in the Austrian and Hungarian rifles (the Austro-Hungarian Empire) designed by Ferdinand von Mannlicher designated the M95 (1895) rifle. (Initially the rifle used the 8 x 50R round; an originally black powder load.) All the rifles were converted to the 8 x 56R cartridge (officially at least) shortly thereafter 1931.

The 8 x 50R Mannlicher

The 8 x 50R Mannlicher

The 8 x 50R Mannlicher used a 244 grain, round-nosed bullet and developed just over 2000 feet/second. The 8 x 56R uses a 208 grain bullet at 2300 feet/second. As a curiosity, these two related rounds use a bullet diameter unique in the known Universe. Although ‘named’ an 8mm, the actual diameter is .329 inches. (See notes on 8 x 57 Mauser for alternative solution.)

8mm Mauser or 7.92 x 57 Mauser

8mm Mauser or 7.92 x 57 Mauser

8mm Mauser or 7.92 x 57 Mauser
The round was actually designed by the ‘Commission’ who designed the 1888 German Infantry rifle, not Paul Mauser. The initial loading was a .318 inch diameter bullet (round nosed) weighing 226 grains (14.6 grams) with a muzzle velocity of 2093 feet/second. In 1898, the well known Mauser 1898 replaced the 1888 rifle. In 1905 the rifle and cartridge was updated to a
.323 inch diameter bullet weighing 154 grains (just shy of 10 grams) with a ‘spitzer’ shape at 2880 feet/second. Other than opening the case mouth a bit more, the case is the same for both cartridges.The larger diameter load was deemed unsafe to fire in the smaller diameter barrels. The smaller diameter round is since then called the “J” round – long story- and the larger diameter round is designated “S” for spitzer to tell them apart – mostly on packaging.
In retrospect, this seems to your humble correspondent as being a ‘new’ cartridge. But it wasn’t so treated. (Perhaps attorneys were not as prominent in those days?)

.30 Carbine

.30 Carbine

.30 Carbine
Never a ‘rifle’, this round was designed for a carbine to replace the Garand (full sized rifle) and the .45 Automatic pistol for some troops in WWII. It can be considered an ‘intermediate’ level round, but the U. S. Government never officially intended replacement of the (full) rifle as in the case of the NAZI and Soviet armies.
The round uses the same diameter bullet as the rifle, but the bullet weight is 110 grains with a muzzle velocity of just under 2000 feet/second.

.30 Russian or 7.62 x 54(mm)R

.30 Russian or 7.62 x 54(mm)R

.30 Russian or 7.62 x 54(mm)R
Adopted in 1891 for the Mosin-Nagant rifle. Also used in machine-guns, the Drogonov sniper rifle and some sporting arms. Initially, the round sported a 210 grain, roundnose bullet (Full Metal Jacket, of course) with a muzzle velocity of 2020 fps. This round was found lacking in the Russo-Japanese war and in 1908 the loading was changed to a 147 grain bullet at 2840 feet/second. There are some other varieties of ammunition extant for specific purposes.
It is still in official use in current Russia (machine guns and specialty rifles) and is the oldest military round in continuous use in the world.

Currently, the U. S. is NOT fighting a war in the Middle East against ISIS or anyone. However, soldiers from the United States are currently shooting at people who are shooting back. The terrain being rather “flattish” and only what in the United States would be called ‘scrub brush’, the combat range is lengthened; much further away than in Vietnam, for instance. The current U. S. rifle, chambered in 5.56mm NATO seems to be somewhat less than overwhelming at longer ranges and the obsolete M-14 rifles shooting the 7.62x51mm NATO round is being employed.

So maybe I’ll see another ‘transition’ in my lifetime. I’m only in my middle 60s; there’s time.

5 Comments

Filed under Firearms and their use, History, Uncategorized

Annual Report for 2015

https://oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com/2015/annual-report/

Here’s what the blog and I did in 2015.  Tell your friends.  Tell your acquaintances.  Tell everybody.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Of Hardball Ammunition, Specifications and Duplications

As it is the quietly assumed standard ammunition of .45 ACP semi-automatic pistols, my general purpose reload for the caliber is what is commonly known as ‘hardball’. The rather ordinary 230 grain, fully jacketed, round nose bullet at about 850 feet per second muzzle velocity. Not as easy as I thought.

Short note: This ammunition is referred to as ‘hardball’ for two reasons. It is fully jacketed, common to all military cartridges, handgun, rifle and machine-gun. Also, in the case of the .45 handgun, the bullet is ’round-nosed’, nearly spherical in shape and reminds one – with a bit of imagination – of the small ‘hard’ ball used in baseball. This design is not particularly ferocious; designed not to expand on contact with any target. The U. S. Armed Forces – and other armed forces – refers to the ammunition as ‘ball’ ammunition. This derives from the muzzle loading days when ammunition was in fact loose balls to fit the arm and loose black powder. The modern term ‘ball’ means the projectile is, other than possessed of velocity, inert; opposed to tracer ammunition (which leaves a light trail), incendiary (to start fires), armor piercing or blank. Enough.

According to “Department of the Army Technical Manual (TM) 43-0001-27 Army Ammunition Data Sheets Small Caliber Ammunition FSC 1305, dated April 1994”, the “Cartridge, Caliber .45, Ball, 1911” the projectile weight is not listed, but the velocity is given as 885 +/- 25 fps. The manual also lists the propellent as “SR 7970, (weight) 5 gr”.

I was under the impression I had been loading a proper duplication load. My own ‘stand by’ reload is 5.2 grains of W231 powder. Then I tested a new (to me) pistol and the velocity came up short. Curious, I decided to chronograph test the same load in five other pistols in .45 ACP. (They are all examples of the Browning designed, Colt built ‘Government Model’.) All six pistols have nominal five inch barrels.

The six pistols gave ten-shot averages of 764.9, 754.6, 754.5, 747.4, 742.4, 742.0. The average of these is 750.9. This is roughly 135 fps shy of the specified velocity. The good news is there’s about 22 fps difference between the highest and lowest average velocities. So the loading is fairly consistent in these six pistols.

Looking in various reloading manuals, very few loads are listed which will in fact duplicate the standard .45 ‘hardball’ load. My usual powders for handguns do not appear to push the projectile to the specified velocity. Jumping back to the specifications in the TM, the minimum velocity is 860 fps (885 minus 25 fps)

However, in the Speer Loading Manual #14, I find some information that indicates I may be able to duplicate the load. To make things better, the powder is one I have in my inventory: Power Pistol. In fact, a ‘maximum’ load is not required, even better. Time to load up some test loads again.

Returning from the range I bear good news. I have a valid ‘hardball equivalent loading which less than a ‘maximum’ charge. I chronographed the shots fired and the results bear out my research.

Using regular Winchester (nickeled) commercial brass, a (in this case Winchester) Large Pistol primer, a 230 grain FMJ bullet and the charge of 7.2 grains of Power Pistol gunpowder; the projectile registers 878 feet per second with the chronograph 15 feet from the muzzle. This charge is about half a grain of powder less than maximum recommended; so it isn’t on the ragged edge of destruction. It is not a relaxing and serene load to shoot, the report is impressive and the recoil is fatiguing over time.

If factory “hardball” seems a bit ‘harsh’ to shoot, you will not like this load any better. (It is manly, however!)

WARNING: This load was done by me, at my reloading equipment and scale. Then it was fired in my pistol. YOUR loading technique, YOUR reloading equipment, YOUR scale and YOUR pistol ARE DIFFERENT! Please be cautious should you decide to duplicate my work. Get solid information from a reputable loading manual and begin with minimal charges. Work up to the velocity desired without exceeding the recommendations of the reputable loading manual. Use only in well maintained firearms designed for use with full charge .45 ACP ammunition.
SINCE I’M NOT IN CONTROL OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS IN YOUR WORLD, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY MISHAPS, DAMAGE OR FRUSTRATION ON YOUR PART.

And double check the charge loads with the manual.

11 Comments

Filed under Firearms and their use, Uncategorized

Early Smith & Wesson Model 10 Revolver

Early Smith & Wesson Model 10 with correct era stocks and grip adapter.

Early Smith & Wesson Model 10 with correct era stocks and grip adapter.

Smith & Wesson, .38 Special, “K” frame, Military & Police, Model 10 revolver. This is the basic blue, four inch (pinned) barrel, six shot, fixed sight offering. Once so common they were reminiscent of Passenger Pigeons or the American Bison. Also akin to the Passenger Pigeons and the American Bison, they are quite rare these days.

This is a “C” (serial number) prefix revolver. The “C” prefix ran from March of 1948 to 1967, from 1 to 999,999.

This revolver is a ‘four screw’ configuration (three screws holding on the side plate and one in the forward position of the trigger guard, holding the spring for the cylinder stop. From the same source, this configuration was used by S&W from “about 1955” to “about 1961”.

This revolver is marked “MOD-10” on the interior of the cylinder yoke. S&W started using model numbers instead of names in 1957. It is a Model 10. Not a Model 10 (dash) anything.

The stocks (Smith & Wesson handguns do NOT have ‘grips’) are of the ‘magna’ style, offering a bit wider recoil profile in the web of the hand, but no filler in the gap behind the trigger guard. This era of revolver (until 1967) should have ‘diamonds’ – unchecked section immediately surrounding the stock screw – stocks. Additionally, some commie egg-sucking dog lost the original diamond centered stocks and installed a set of later, non-diamond stocks. The stocks on this revolver are not only incorrect for the period, they don’t quite fit exactly AND they have a different serial number stamped on the interior of the right grip. Cretin.

The Lord is good! In my vast collection of odds and ends, I found a set of diamond center stocks that fit! AND they are in rather decent shape! The serial number stamped within is again the wrong serial number, but at least they look correct and they are no more inauthentic than the ones replaced. Not only that, but I found a Tyler T-grip (type at least) that fit as well. The grip adapter is the worst looking feature on the revolver.

This revolver has a ‘ramped’ front sight vice the ‘half moon’ or ‘round’ front sight of prior times. That change was effected in 1952 (same source as above).

With all that information, this revolver was made in or after 1957 and before the change to ‘three screw’ in 1961. The serial number is less than halfway through the series (1948 to 1967) so I would guess closer to 1957 than 1961.

The revolver is in pretty good shape. There is gentle holster wear on the sides of the muzzle and leading edges of the cylinder. No noted dings, gouges or scrapes from being dropped or dragged. Barrel and chambers appear to be free of bulges or scrapes.

Single action trigger pull is a reasonable three and one-half pounds and clean. No movement prior to release. Double action pull far exceeds my (somewhat cheap) gauge, but seems smooth all the way through. No stops, sudden drops or feeling of ‘what is going on here?’ Two handed dry fire indicates double action hammer fall does not disturb sight alignment. Rather typical for this era S&W revolver. One handed single action dry fire makes one quite sentimental. This is how a ‘good’ sidearm should feel.

Of course, I had to shoot this old darling. My protocol calls for accuracy and velocity testing, plus any observations on shoot-ability, reliability, or surprises.

For testing, I selected my own handloads of two variations. The 148 grain hollow base wadcutter bullet loaded to fairly minimal velocities and the 158 grain RNL loaded to the standard 750 feet per second (or thereabouts) velocity.

The 148 grain hollow base wadcutter load is my own reload. It duplicates, more or less, the standard factory target round. Fired from the revolver under discussion, it produces an average velocity of 687.3 feet per second on the basis of eighteen rounds fired. (See notes for more information regarding chronograph testing and observations.)

The resulting group – fired at twenty – five yards – has a maximum spread (between most distant shot holes) of 7 3/4 inches. The center of the densest grouping of shot holes is approximately 3 inches in the one o’clock direction. Somewhat embarrassingly, the entire group shows the ‘upper right to lower left’ oval stringing which is indicative of squeezing the entire shooting hand. My age old problem. Sigh.

Early Model 10 target results; slow fire with target ammunition at twenty-five yards.

Early Model 10 target results; slow fire with target ammunition at twenty-five yards.

Changing to the ‘service load’ the chronograph reports an average of 668.0 feet per second. This testing also based on eighteen rounds fired.

The group on a Colt silhouette target was fired double action, two handed and rapid fire; in the sense of as fast as I could line up the sights. Distance was twenty-fire yards. The group measures 5 1/4 inches between the furthest shot holes – with one flyer (that I called when I fired it). Including the flyer, the widest spread increases to 6 1/2 inches. The group center registers about 3 inches high and to the left of the aiming point. Admittedly, the ‘aiming point’ is a bit nebulous, as I aligned the sights centered in what I – subjectively – took as the high chest.

Early Model 10 results on Colt target.  Service ammunition fired double action at twenty-five yards.

Early Model 10 results on Colt target. Service ammunition fired double action at twenty-five yards.

Early Model 10 on Colt target, close up view.

Early Model 10 on Colt target, close up view.

Despite the views of some modern schools of pistol craft, this revolver does very well in putting rounds on an intended target.

As it happens this is a somewhat unique revolver – being made in a specific four year period; as it shoots with acceptable velocity and accuracy; as it cost rather less than one would expect for such a example, I am altogether pleased with this acquisition. Rather pleased indeed.

Notes for technical geeks. Or the intellectually curious.

The wadcutter loads used for this report consist of nickel plated cases, Winchester small pistol primers, a powder charge of 2.2 grains of Clays and Hornady’s 148 grain hollow base wadcutter. These loads are seated with the bullet flush with the case mouth. I also use the same ammunition in other handguns, including two target pistols – not revolvers.

The ‘service loads’ used are assembled in R-P unplated cases, Winchester small pistol primers, a powder charge of 5.0 grains of AL – 5 powder (I received this ‘obsolete’ powder by chance) and 158 grain RNL bullets of local manufacture. As the ‘advertised’ velocity of ‘standard’ loading is 755 feet per second, I think the 668.0 feet per second derived in this testing is a bit disappointing. However, the load used is a fairly mild load and not at all close to full pressure.

I always test revolvers with three rounds from each chamber of the cylinder. This allows me to determine if one chamber is significantly ‘faster’ or ‘slower’ than the other chambers. I keep track of which chamber provides which velocity by marking – or taking advantage of prior marks – and firing the cylinder in order.

An odd thing. After analyzing the velocity data I found chamber number 6 fires wadcutters an average of fifty feet per second slower than the other five chambers. However, shooting the ‘service’ load chamber number 1 is the slowest by about the same amount. The wadcutter load is one I find accurate in the semi-automatic pistols and the ‘service’ round is at the lower end of the powder charge and pressure levels. I suppose I should test a near maximum pressure load – at least according to the loading manuals.

2 Comments

Filed under Firearms and their use, Uncategorized

An Early Semi-automatic Pistol for Your Edification

Gentle Readers, one of John Moses Browning’s earliest semi-automatic pistol designs. In fact, the only earlier pistol design (actually manufactured) was this pistol’s older prototype, so to speak. That design was manufactured a mere year earlier, in 1899. Due to consumer and buyer feedback, this is the updated version; rather unimaginatively called the model 1900. It is in caliber 7.65mm (Browning) or .32 ACP, if one is from west of the Atlantic Ocean.

The pistol was made by Fabrique Nationale of Belgium. It is only the second pistol in history chambered in .32 ACP; the first pistol being the 1899 version. As the 1900 is more of a refinement of the 1899, one can argue this is – sort of – the first .32 ACP pistol. (One can also argue against it, but as I will probably NOT ever find a 1899 I can afford, I will argue for it.) (That’s my story and I’m sticking with it!)

This pistol was designed as a service sidearm. It was purchased by some European governments for army issue; the Belgian Army is listed as one of those purchasers. As I have mentioned before, the 7.65 mm or .32 ACP cartridge was considered a ‘serious’ caliber in Europe until the Second World War. Historically, the New York City Police Department was issued revolvers in .32 S&W Long at the behest of Teddy Roosevelt in 1896. Times change.

FN1900 pistol, right side

FN1900 pistol, right side


It is an ‘odd’ looking pistol. Not just by current standards and norms, but even at the time. Observe the pictures. It has the side rail guide thingies. No, the effect is not that of of incorrect perspective; the barrel is in fact beneath the recoil spring.
FN 1900, left side with slide open

FN 1900, left side with slide open


There is no slide hold open; neither on last shot fired or manually. If the reader carefully examines the photos, there is a coin (a U. S. penny) carefully place in the ejection port to hold the slide open.

I found this at a local gun show. One finds all sorts of things at gun shows if one looks. The same can be said of pawn shops and garage sales. I do far more looking and seeking than I do finding and buying.

Some of the features are rather expected. The sights are fixed and somewhat hideous. The front sight is what I’ve come to understand as the ‘razor blade’ style; the rear sight is the “V” shape so popular in Europe for far too long. Front sight blade; typical 'razor blade' style.FN 1900 rear sight (pistol cocked).  Front sight out of focus.

Upon intense scrutiny, I note the front sight is ‘bent’ (at the base, not in the middle) to the right a bit. This will addressed later.

The rear sight incorporates a cocking indicator. When the pistol is NOT cocked, a metal bar protruded up in the rear sight fixture and blocks the shooter’s field of vision. It is not a loaded chamber indicator as such. One can cock the firing mechanism without a round in the chamber and the device shows cocked. I have read this device was intended as an indicator of the gun being fired empty. However, the rather disappointing ‘click’ would – to me – be a fairly reliable indicator.

Trigger pull is between 9.5 and 10.5 pounds. Typical of the time. I don’t feel much creep, and as far as I can tell, the trigger breaks cleanly. On the other hand, were the weight something more manageable, I might notice more more detail. It works and does make the gun go bang when desired.

FN 1900 safety in 'safe' position.

FN 1900 safety in ‘safe’ position.

FN 1900 safety in 'fire' position.

FN 1900 safety in ‘fire’ position.


The FN 1900 has a manual safety. It is located on the left side, aft, and is suitable for thumb operation. It operates in the ‘normal’ (meaning what I’ve been taught and shown all my life) manner, up being ‘safe’ and down being ‘fire’. There is an internal spring which keeps the lever in place (where one left it last). It is marked in French; “FEU” meaning ‘fire’ and “SUR” which means ‘on’; possibly an abbreviation for ‘surete’ meaning ‘safety’.

The pistol is blued. (Stainless steel pistols didn’t become routinely offered until 1965; the S&W Model 60.) It is all steel except for the grips. The grips are either some early form of plastic or quite possibly gutta percha.

The grip angle is fairly shallow. It is not as extreme as the Luger pistol of some eight years later. In my opinion, it is even less than the Government Model – designed also by John Browning and adopted for use some eleven years later. The grip angle is radically less than common revolvers of the day. Part of this may be related to the magazine in the grip.

Some things are not functions or features of this pistol one has come to expect.

There is no slide lock. Neither an ‘automatic’ hold open of the slide when the last round is fired or a manual ‘lock open’ feature to clean, inspect or otherwise fiddle with the pistol. (Readers will note a penny inserted in the ejection port to keep the slide open.)

There is no magazine safety. I suppose this isn’t so surprising after all. The magazine safety wasn’t popular until the French Army decided such a device was required as their troops were not smart enough to operate a pistol without one. The Luger (of 1908 or so), the U. S. M1911, most of the early Beretta designs (until 1935 or so), and many other of the commercial pistols of the era did not have such a device.

The FN 1900 does NOT have a grip safety. I’m not a big grip safety fan, but the grip safety was rather widespread in the era in question. The 1908 Luger – and most variants – had a grip safety. The M1911 pistol had – still has – a grip safety. Not every pistol had such a device, but grip safeties were not rare in the time period. The FN 1900 does not.

An aside: As a philosophical exercise, does anyone have any information that would tend to justify or negate the existence of either magazine safety or grip safety? In other words, is there any real world reason to include such features, or are they the product of paranoia on the part of ‘administrators’ who have no clue about the realities involved but in no way actually trust rank and file soldiers, officers, operatives or whatever?

End of aside. Back to the pistol in question.

Already mentioned, the 1900 has the barrel installed UNDER the recoil spring. For most of us, that’s backwards – or reversed, if preferred. The principle reason for this was to lower the centerline of the barrel, reducing the tendency to raise the muzzle in recoil. The pistol has little in the way of recoil, being chambered in .32 ACP and steel framed. The lowered barrel cannot hurt the recoil signature.

I do not know of any other pistols built this way until 1970, when Smith & Wesson introduced the Model 61 “Escort”. The Escort was a .22 long rifle pistol, designed as a pocket defense pistol. Which rather nicely designed in the main, it was poorly thought out in terms of how to actually use it. It was discontinued in 1973. Smith & Wesson later introduced the concept again with the 422 (blue)/622 (stainless) .22 long rifle pistols. The 422 ran from 1987 to 1996 more or less and was intended to compete with the Ruger .22 Automatic in whatever variation existed at the time. Other incarnations of this design also by Smith & Wesson include the model 2206 and models 2213/2214.

I only list these so the reader understands the design was not new or ground breaking. The idea dates from 1899.

For disassembly instructions, see the You Tube video by Midway USA on the pistol.

Shooting the pistol.

It shoots rather easily. Recoil is light. It’s enough to disturb sight alignment and sight picture, but not enough to hurt or intimidate the shooter. It is as loud as any pistol, therefore distracting and requires hearing protection.

I fired five (whole) rounds at fifty feet on a standard 25 yard center. Remember I mentioned the bent front sight earlier? The pistol grouped fairly nicely, but at fifty feet registered about six inches to the left (or 9 o’clock); centered in the 8 ring. I have a suspicion the bent front sight might be the problem. The grouping is roughly three inches from side to side and just over two inches top to bottom. Not a bad group, but just far enough off center to give misses. One of the shots is just off the edge of the center and not visible in the picture. You’ll have to take my word for it.
FN 1900 test target

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms and their use, Uncategorized