Nothing to see here, just a 1:2" twist rate...

[FrankenMauser]

I thought some of you might like to see this.

This is a photo of the bore of the hand-made Chinese Belgian FN Mauser Browning () that my great-uncle brought back from China, after flying over The Hump as a radio operator on C-46s in WWII.

Chamber: 7.65 Browning (Or at least as close as you can get with a rock and a screwdriver for chamber reaming. )

Rifled barrel length: 3.9"
6 lands; 7 grooves
Rifling revolutions: 1.92 (best estimate)
Calculated twist rate: 1:2.02"

I've done the math and can't even come up with a metric thread that makes sense. But, being hand made by someone in a back alley, that knows nothing about firearms, how they work, or the reason for design elements; using whatever tools they can cobble together from scrap metal... that's not a surprise.

My grandfather claims that it shot "about" four-foot groups at 100 yards, and wasn't terrible up close. So... possibly not as horrendous as it appears.

I fired it at least once as a child. ...But may never do so again. This pistol is absolute garbage, and scares me, now that I know what I'm looking at.





Said Belgian FN Mauser Browning:

(Not as large as your brain wants to think. That grip is only big enough for two fingers.)
Also note the hinge pin on top of the slide for the elevation-adjustable rear sight. That's comical for many reasons. The two most obvious are: 1. The sight is pinned in place. 2. The hinge is taller than the sight notch.
The adjustable sight can't move, and doesn't work as-pinned!

One of these days, I'll break this bad boy down and give everyone here the full run-down. It's pure comedy for anyone with knowledge of firearms, and especially theory of operation.
It works. Yet absolutely nothing makes sense.

[T. O'Heir]

"...knows nothing about firearms..." More like the opposite, but little about how Europeans made stuff. Just like the Pathans in the Khyber Pass. Mind you, they had stuff to copy. And did. Right down to proof marks.

[Sevens]

Okay, hold up a second. Best I can gather, you point & laugh at this thing... but I'm not seeing it that way.

What was the purpose -- to copy an existing gun and make it look decent? Or to build a firearm that could function, shoot, hit, destroy or kill?

Not that my personal skills and qualifications matter one iota... but I couldn't make a firearm that looked as nice as that.

As to the rifling twist...
If it the goal was to simply make a functional tool that could shoot or kill, I'm not sure why the builder would even bother rifling it.

If the goal was to make a "copy" of something simply using the tools and materials he had... I think it's pretty awesome!

A Guide Lamp Liberator was very basic, could work and could kill. This pistol you have pictured is far more impressive (looking!) than the Liberator. Sure, two entirely different motivations... the Liberator was mass produced by a gargantuan corporation with seemingly unlimited resources and low cost was a top priority... while your pictured pistol was a one-off made in a shed or a hut or a cave.

I would rather own the pictured pistol than a new production Jimenez, for example. The Jimenez would be a better shooter, but the pictured pistol would be far more interesting and much better looking.

[FrankenMauser]

What was the purpose -- to copy an existing gun and make it look decent? Or to build a firearm that could function, shoot, hit, destroy or kill?

Most were not built to actually function longer than necessary for the potential buyer to fire a shot or two.
There was no noble cause. They weren't for defense of home and country. They weren't like liberators - intended to be a disposable firearm that helps you obtain a better weapon.
They were simply forgeries, built solely for profit through deception/imitation -- playing on the expensive, but desirable and coveted, C96 and 1910/1914 Mausers. (Popular in China during the 20s/30s.)


This particular pistol is not finished as well as some of the 'better' examples out there, but is functionally more sound than average. It is an exceptional example in that it has actually had a couple hundred rounds fired and hasn't broken or blown up.
Even so...
The parts are soft steel, except for the barrel.
The original springs went flat 60+ years ago.
The sear and hammer are almost completely worn out.
Trigger and hammer geometry are absolutely terrible, and would not have been designed by someone with understanding of mechanical principles. (It was likely a copy of a copy, of a copy, ... of a hybrid forgery.)

The other side of the pistol is covered in fake proof marks, more Mauser and Browning markings, and a whole bunch of gibberish that probably looked good to an illiterate farmer (or at least one that didn't read English).



But... this (and most others) falls far short of the quality and design of most Khyber Pass firearms that I've seen. In Afghanistan and here in the states, most KP items that I've seen have been far superior to these Chinese pistols.
Yet even the guys that build many of the KP firearms won't even test fire the articles themselves. They tie the thing to a post and hide behind a stone wall, if they test fire at all.

I have a lot of respect for the people that build firearms from scratch (and scrap), in a dirt-floored shanty, often with nothing but hand tools. But it doesn't mean that what they're building is actually a safe and functional firearm.
...My opinion.

[Scorch]

We tend to laugh at this type of forgeries, but a couple of points to remember are that

a) in many countries, pistols were simply a symbol of authority and were not meant to be fired

b) the degree of workmanship required to fabricate this pistol far surpassed that required to produce many of the so-called "Saturday Night Specials" sold here about a century ago. At least this one is made out of steel, and is well-finished.

Most of the "Khyber Pass" forgeries were intended to be fired, and as such are fairly good quality steel (at least as good as the original cast iron pieces). In the case of the Khyber Pass firearms, if they failed, the shooter or his relatives might come back and hack you and your family into little messy pieces.

[Sevens]

Haha, I think it sounds like we all agree. For what it is -- pretty darn neat.

[DaleA]

That kind of workmanship could sure play havoc with some of our gun buy back programs. (China didn't have those back in the 1940's did they? )

From the picture it looks like somebody put some work into making it look good and I'd have to give them credit for that. Your particular gun sure has a remarkable story and family history behind it too. Neat.

[Mobuck]

That's not "rifled", it's THREADED.

[Crankylove]

Having shot that particular pistol when I was younger, I'm glad I didn't understand how poorly made and dangerous it is.

It got some family history, is kind of a neat little gun, and I'm glad I was able to shoot it. But, like frankenmouser, I don't know that i want to ever shoot it again.

[Lavan]

Well you could load it if you SPUN the cartridge while loading maybe.

[BoogieMan]

To shed some light on the threading/rifling. Many old lathes used change gears to change the pitch of threads. The gears can be mismatched to some extent and in this case was probably done in order to get the fastest thread they/he could. As far as not being able to tell what the pitch is. You need to divide your estimated pitch by the number of starts. IE: 6 tpi / 6 starts+ 1 tpi.
Other than that. I would never ever shoot that thing. Likely the only reason it worked is due to the low power of 32acp.
I would love to own it. Very cool conversation piece and the appearance (at least in pics) is pretty good considering how it was made. TBH my Chinese made SKS is only marginally better.

[eastbank]

all 12 of my chinese sks,s made at different arsenals in different years from the late 50,s to the 60,s are all finely made rifles, no junk. eastbank.