Is a typical post-WW2 Mauser HSc an excellent gun?

[Ignition Override]

The choices on GB consist of about a full page. My only interests are milsurp guns and plinking with them. This has Nothing to do with self-defense and choice of proper rounds etc, just plinking.

Being days from receiving my very First handgun (age 58)- a similar Sauer 38H, these handgun styles which tried to compete with the Walther PPK suddenly have strong appeal.

The post-war "German" HSc was also produced in France and Italy, and those were also manufactured in .380, vs the normal .32 acp.
The Sauer which I'm buying has an excellent DA and SA trigger. How do owners rate the HSc's trigger and overall functions?

[dgludwig]

The HSc (hammer self-cocking) is a pistol I really wanted to like but never could because, no matter what I tried, including different magazines and ammunition, I could never get my "1 0f 500" (or 5000-can't remember which) Mauser to run with any degree of reliability (something I obviously insist on for a gun intended for self-defense). It's a well-made and finished little pistol, albeit on the heavy side for regular pocket carry and the trigger could use some help; but due to its unreliability (at least the one I owned, others may have had better experiences with it), I could never get close to it and we parted ways a few decades ago.

[44 AMP]

I have an HSc, a WWII gun (didn't know it until I got it home and gave it a careful examination).

Its...different. Trigger pull on mind is heavy DA and moderately heavy SA.

My gun runs flawlessly with FMJ (factory and reloads), with the original magazine. Have JHP, but haven't tried them yet.

TWO different replacement magazines have failed in my gun. And, they aren't cheap. First one wouldn't even go all the way into the grip, and bound up tight. That one, I got my money back.

Second one, fits fine, works fine empty, but will not feed. You cannot pull the slide back far enough to feed a round.

My HSc will lock open on the empty mag, but shuts when the mag is removed. I have been entirely unable to lock the gun open without the mag, or keep it open when removing the empty mag. Don't know if this is typical for the design, or not.

[Mike Irwin]

My WW II era HSc was, unfortunately, rather unreliable. I could never get it to feed properly.

I finally gave up and got rid of it.

[dgludwig]

I have been entirely unable to lock the gun open without the mag, or keep it open when removing the empty mag. Don't know if this is typical for the design, or not.

It is-unfortunately.

[Strafer Gott]

I had one in .32. It was such a jammamatic, it soured me on the caliber.
I figured it must have been designed for Wehrmacht officers to perform suicide by G.I.

[Dfariswheel]

The HSc should lock the slide open when the slide is pulled back, whether an empty magazine is in it or no mag is in it.

When it doesn't, the magazine safety is usually the culprit:

Part 14:

http://www.stevespages.com/ipb-mauser-hsc.html

I'm not sure how much credence to put in this but a famous gunsmith (who's name I can't remember) once said the Post-War Mauser HSc was a "2000 round gun". He said after about that the frame tended to crack just behind the recoil stop area.

Whether this is true or not, I have seen several WWII and post-war HSc pistols with frames cracked in that area.

A common cause of unreliable war-time guns is worn magazines. Modern "replica" mags are universally junk, as far as I've seen and this makes a normally reliable design gun unreliable.

[Colt46]

Loved them as a kid 'cause of the art deco thing, but unreliable isn't something I put up with in my handguns.

[Ignition Override]

Thanks to all of you.
I will no longer consider one if the HSc somehow appears at a local gun show.

A guy in a shop about 1 & 1/2 hours south of Memphis had one last week on GB.

[44 AMP]

The HSc is a neat gun, Mauser's effort to get around Walther's patents.

As a historical artifact, they have a place. As a daily carry gun, they have been long surpassed by superior models.

If you can get one for not a lot of money, I'd say go ahead, but I wouldn't pay an arm and a leg, simply because the only advantage they have today is their heft.

For a .32 (or even a .380) they are heavy. Much heavier than current generations of pocket guns, and of course compared to something with a polymer frame, they are a brick. On the other hand, a brick can be a very useful thing sometimes.....

[Ozzieman]

My first backup gun was an HSc, don’t know when it was made but it was very new looking when I bought it (early 80’s). It was a neat little gun that fit my hand better and bit the web of the thumb a lot less than the PPKs I had after the HSc.
I liked the gun but it was unreliable with anything other than hard ball.
Never carried it.

[joe-lumber]

Wow with all of this negative postings I am glad I did not purchase one. Had a chance at one gun show where a man was carrying one around and trying to sell it and I passed. They look good but now I am very pleased with a Glock 26 which is only a little bit larger and more powerful with a 9mm instead of the .380.
J

[44 AMP]

I liked the gun but it was unreliable with anything other than hard ball.

Well, there you go. ALL the guns from the pre WWII era are designed to run on hardball. And that's simply because in those days, ALL semi auto pistol ammo was FMJ.

Some designs will run tolerably well with other ammo, and some will after some "adjustments".

As to " I like my (insert current pocket gun here) better, well, duh...GLocks and other pistols, designed more than 50 years AFTER the HSc and its contemporaries, ought to be better guns. The sad thing is some are not...