colt hammerless semi auto 1908 - Page 2

Jim Watson · October 10, 2013, 01:54 PM

Interesting. I have thought that most .380s were kind of kluges on .32 frames, like early .40s on 9mm actions. Except for the Remington, that is.

spacecoast · October 10, 2013, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Nobody else seems to have noticed this unreliability, probably because few users ever shot their pistols that much.

Yeah, very interesting. How much do you have to shoot it to notice it? Does it happen when the gun gets dirty? My Hammerless .380 is a dream to shoot and never hiccups. I tend to baby it with lighter loads.

James K · October 10, 2013, 09:04 PM

That spring seems like an odd way to fix that problem, but Mk VII's info appears to be correct. Pate mentions the problems in a general way, and the use of the M to indicate the modification, but does not go into specifics. Given the way that ejector is designed, it would seem possible that jams might be caused by slight variations in the case rim diameter.

(One writer says that the M indicates a separate serial number series for military contract pistols; that is obviously incorrect.)

Jim

October 10, 2013, 01:54 PM	#26
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,543	Interesting. I have thought that most .380s were kind of kluges on .32 frames, like early .40s on 9mm actions. Except for the Remington, that is.

October 10, 2013, 09:04 PM	#28
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	That spring seems like an odd way to fix that problem, but Mk VII's info appears to be correct. Pate mentions the problems in a general way, and the use of the M to indicate the modification, but does not go into specifics. Given the way that ejector is designed, it would seem possible that jams might be caused by slight variations in the case rim diameter. (One writer says that the M indicates a separate serial number series for military contract pistols; that is obviously incorrect.) Jim