Relying on vintage firearms for SD/EDC

[44 AMP]

old vintage guns in some cases may have reached their limit and are just waiting to fail, putting you in harms way.

And other old vintage guns might have just been sitting around lightly used and reasonably well cared for.

I collected 1974 Winchester sxm1 shotguns. brand NIB guns failed right out of the box just from sitting.

This begs the question, how do you know they weren't already "failed" when they got put in the box?

If something breaks the very first time it is used, it might not have broken in the box, but it had already "Failed" when it went into the box, its just that no one knew it, then.

[Nodak1858]

I carry a TT33 in my rotation, and no reason not to, it's thin, functions and I shoot it well.
I also carry a CZ82, Polish P64 as well when the weather returns colder and can use more layers to conceal. Any of these I have no problems depending on. In summer with shorts my go to is a LCP in my pocket.

[stinkeypete]

What nonsense.
A well maintained firearm will function reliably for well over 100 years.

[Radny97]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

What nonsense.
A well maintained firearm will function reliably for well over 100 years.

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scorch]

Well, I see an awful lot of well-maintained firearms in my shop. Just saying. Many of the older guns I see in my shop are poorly designed or poorly manufactured. Same as many old millitary arms. They may have been great at one time, just remember that most Europeans or Asians do not consider a pistol a combat weapon, it is a symbol of authority. As such, it is unlikely to ever actually be fired. Also remember that the person who carried that gun into battle did not have a choice, he was told to carry it or else. No, guns are like any durable good, they have a life expectancy and when they reach that life expectancy they are surplused out. So that really cool old warhorse you bought has already run its last race.

[Obambulate]

I wish I could, but all the 2" and 3" K-frames are being hoarded by other members of this forum. You know who you are.

[amd6547]

My very first centerfire self defense pistol was a German produced Polish Radom 9mm. It was worn and pitted, and looked like it had been through a war…because it had!
It worked perfectly, and I felt pretty well armed with it.
As for the OP, I’m not sure why the Tokarev is singled out. A simplified Browning with a storied history of working in the toughest conditions. The grip is a plus for me. The pistol points well for me, and you won’t find a full size service pistol as thin, with a compact grip.
I’ve fired mine out to 80yds with good result. It’s a Romanian made in 1953, and it has occasionally filled the role of car pistol.

[44 AMP]

1. Nothing from a long vanished manufacturer with spare parts either extremely scarce or non-existent.
2. Nothing made in Germany or German occupied countries 1942-1945.
3. Nothing with poor ergonomics, say poor grip-frame angle-the Tokarev, e.g. , difficult to engage safety-the Mauser 1914/1934, the CZ-27, perhaps heel clip magazines.
4. Nothing exotic-Mauser Broomhandle. e.g.

The OP doesn't identify who came up with this list, and it doesn't matter, really. Its simply a list of one person's OPINIONS about what one should not rely on for EDC/SD

I can see the logic to some of the points. Other's leave me baffled. My take away is that these are one person's opinion about what you should not choose. no one said they didn't or couldn't work, just that if you have the choice, pistols on that list should not be Chosen.

[Mainah]

I wish I could, but all the 2" and 3" K-frames are being hoarded by other members of this forum. You know who you are.

Guilty, but after reading through this thread it turns out that I might not survive much longer since I rely on a 1965 K-frame snub. So keep an eye on Gunbroker!

[jar]

Originally Posted by Mainah

Guilty, but after reading through this thread it turns out that I might not survive much longer since I rely on a 1965 K-frame snub. So keep an eye on Gunbroker!

Don't worry. Your not in danger. A gun made in 1965 is nowhere close to being vintage. Why it's not even grown up yet.

[JustJake]

M1 Garand … in 30-06, 308/7.62, or whatever other derivative chambering you prefer.

There, done.

[stinkeypete]

Scorch, although I love him, misses the head of the nail and dents the hardwood.
He sees well maintained vintage firearms that are designed poorly.
He says he wouldn’t use them because they are old.
i say I would not because they are poorly designed.

There are plenty of poorly designed firearms built just this morning.
Plenty of firearms that are old that are fantastic.

I wonder, when was the 1911 designed? The Peacemaker? Bolt action rifles in 30-06?

[ChimpMunk20]

No such thing as too old as long as it functions and uses cartridges rather than BP and caps. I have sometimes carried a 1935 Beretta dated 1944 but some on here have carried guns a lot older than that.

[chaim]

I would be reluctant from using "vintage" guns for a few reasons (many already mentioned or addressed by the limits posed in your question, but still part of my thinking)...

1. I am a history teacher. Long before I was a history teacher, I was a huge history buff. If I owned a piece of history, I'd take care of it. I'd be sickened by regular holster wear (maybe something more pedestrian, a well used duty K-frame that already had a lot of holster wear would alleviate this concern). I'd really be upset by any damage taken by the gun after a defensive shoot that may happen when it was (temporarily) confiscated by police. Then there is always the chance it will be misplaced or for some other reason isn't returned to you in a timely manner after a good defensive shoot. In fact, it is for this possibility that I generally don't carry anything very expensive for CCW or set it up for home defense (I even find myself using my S&W revolvers less and less). This is magnified with a gun with actual historical significance, such as a Nazi marked gun or a 1911 that a GI carried in WWI or WWII.

2. Some older semi-auto designs were less reliable than modern designs.

3. Other than a 1911 or S&W revolver that are still in production, finding CCW holsters may be quite difficult. Forget about night sights.

4. Even some modern guns (like a 3rd gen S&W) that are no longer in production can be difficult to find parts for when you need them. Even without major issues, springs need to be replaced fairly regularly if you shoot a gun often.


Now a classic style gun, a 1911 or DA revolver (or even a SA revolver) for instance, but current/recent production, why not if that is your preference and you train with it.

[Faulkner]

No doubt all WWII era M1911A1's would be considered vintage and I'm sure some folks still carry those.

[jar]

Originally Posted by Faulkner

No doubt all WWII era M1911A1's would be considered vintage and I'm sure some folks still carry those.

Not all WWII M1911A1s would be vintage.

Only those made after the Casablanca Conference are vintage.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by SIGSHR

3. Nothing with poor ergonomics, say poor grip-frame angle-the Tokarev, e.g. , difficult to engage safety-the Mauser 1914/1934, the CZ-27, perhaps heel clip magazines.

As a 1911 aficionado, I might argue that a Glock has a poor grip-frame angle, but a lot of people carry Glocks every day. A Tokarev will kill someone just as dead as any small-ish handgun in any of a number of small-ish calibers.

In reality (IMHO) there is no such thing as a "poor" grip-frame angle. There is only "different." Muscle memory is the issue. If you are accustomed to shooting a [___] and you then pick up a pistol with a different grip-frame angle, it will be more difficult for you to shoot accurately ... and least, until your mind and your muscles have had enough exposure to that firearm to adjust to the new (to you) grip-frame angle.

[Bill DeShivs]

Springs don't need to be replaced fairly often.

This is an Internet myth.

Unless the gun is a specialty firearm designed to "use up" springs, most never need replacing unless they are rusted.

[Hawg]

Slide spring? They actually called it that? I've got/had guns with well over 5000 rounds with original springs still going strong.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Eindecker

However, I dont see how, say a 1950s smith and wesson k frame is going to be a "dangerous piece of metal to use" compared to say

jennings-Bryco

charter

armscor

Time out!

Both Charter Arms and Amrscor are first-class manufacturers of quality, serviceable firearms. They are made of the same grade of steel used by most of the "name" firearms manufacturers for similar types of firearms. Charter and Armscor absolutely do not belong in the same category with Jennings/Bryco, which are cheap, pot metal, "Saturday night special" firearms.

[Hawg]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Time out!

Both Charter Arms and Amrscor are first-class manufacturers of quality, serviceable firearms. They are made of the same grade of steel used by most of the "name" firearms manufacturers for similar types of firearms. Charter and Armscor absolutely do not belong in the same category with Jennings/Bryco, which are cheap, pot metal, "Saturday night special" firearms.

Amen to that. My Rock Island has been trouble free since 2011 with well over 5000 rounds through it. I'll put it up against anybody's 1911 for function and reliability with any ammo and it will take a rest to tell any difference in accuracy.

[44 AMP]

ive seen gun manuals for modern, post 1990 semi autos that state the slide spring needs to be replaced at 5000 shots.

And do they say "needs" to be replaced (as in must be replaced?) or do they recommend replacement after 5,000 rounds?

There's more that a bit of difference between those two...

I saw one "modern, post 1990 semi auto" that stated the gun was worn out at 5,000 rounds and needed to be returned to the maker for replacement.

I also have "vintage" Army manual for my "vintage" 1911A1 where there is NO mention of spring replacement at any round count. Springs are to be replaced when they fail to function, or get too short, or become damaged. That's it.

[CCCLVII]

I would not use a vintage firearm for self-defense, not because I don't have faith in them but more so I would hate to lose them should they be needed to evidence.

[Nodak1858]

I would not use a vintage firearm for self-defense, not because I don't have faith in them but more so I would hate to lose them should they be needed to evidence.

This is a good reason to think about what you carry. If I am carrying an older gun, it is one that is not something I would be torn up to loss. I would not carry my WW2 era Colt 1911A1, the gun has been 100% reliable so far, but it would kill me to have it sit in some evidence locker rusting away.

[DeronW]

I’m currently carrying a Colt 1903 manufactured in 1919. The gun is real quality and works great. I did replace the springs when I bought it.