View Single Post
Old March 26, 2013, 12:41 PM   #24
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 11,424
I remember an old American Rifleman article on the 9.8mm Colt.
There were three known of then, I don't recall if that inclued the post war parts gun. Supposedly Eugene Reising was demonstrating one in the Balkans when he got a cablegram to drop the sales pitch, Colt had the US Army contract (again) and did not need foreign sales.
The parts gun was made up when some wacko dug up enough pieces for one and submitted it to the BoD for consideration again after WW I. He had to make a .38 ACP barrel for it, all the 9.8 had long since been shot up.
The top brass was not interested.

I have seen one picture of the FN Grand Browning 9.65mm of the same reduced 1911 design. I have wondered if it were really the same thing, just different designations for the same round.
9.65mm = .380"
9.8 mm = .386"
So is that bore and groove of the same round or were they a smidgen different across the pond? Either way, a true, full .38.
Cartridge collectors say they were so near the same as to make no difference. The only picture I have seen of both is not good enough to scale off of and the two rounds had different bullets. The American a roundnose, the Belgian a truncated cone.

Any road, I think one would be a neat package today in 9mm and .40.
Now if Springfield will do a "full size" version of the EMP with 4.5" barrel and enough butt for 10 rounds, we would have it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuner's description of those loose old army surplus guns agrees with mine.
My 1918 AA rework and Argie are not sloppy, inaccurate, or unreliable.
So why do we get major name brand guns that we are told to "break in" before using seriously? Some are just flat too tight to bear. Others too rough. Others departing from specifications for cost containment or makers just too smart not to improve on a proven design.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colt and Browning were serious about their business.
I have no doubt, even without proof, that Colt management got wind of the Thompson LaGarde tests that "proved" we needed another .45; gave up working on the .41 ACP, and mocked up a .45 on a .38 frame while Mr Browning reworked the design to produce the 1905 model.
So when the word came down from the Army that they wanted to test 200 .45 sidearms, Savage struggled to build 200 special order Searles, the aristocrats in Germany turned their noses up and graciously deigned to send two Lugers, while, as one author put it, Colt just delivered from warehouse inventory.

Of course the design was tweaked a lot from then until final acceptance, but they got it done in five years. Can you imagine the government approving and buying anything new in five years now?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
What is the Model 92/94 carbine except Christian Sharps' falling block action with a sliding breechbolt added?
You can get closer than that. Winchester unabashedly advertised the 1885 "Highwall" as the strong Sharps breechblock brought up to date with central hung hammer, self cocking. Of course by then Sharps had folded and Winchester could be magnanamous.

Last edited by Jim Watson; March 26, 2013 at 12:47 PM.
Jim Watson is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04935 seconds with 7 queries