Why no fixed-barrel centerfire pistols?


PDA






The_Next_Generation
June 18, 2012, 03:38 PM
Hey guys,

I was looking at a Ruger MkIII today, and I had an interesting thought.

Why aren't there any centerfire pistols that have the same design as the Ruger MK series? With a fixed barrel and a non-reciprocating slide, you'd think it would be a much more accurate firearm.

Thoughts?
- TNG

If you enjoyed reading about "Why no fixed-barrel centerfire pistols?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rcmodel
June 18, 2012, 03:44 PM
A little fly in the ointment called chamber pressure.

A blow-back firearm capable of handling any of the high-pressure centerfire rounds would have to have a bolt inside the receiver huger & heavier then anyone would be willing to carry around.

A .22 runs around 20,000 PSI chamber pressure with a light bullet, and relatively light recoil.

A 9mm or .40 S&W runs 35,000 PSI, uses bullets several times heavier, and kicks much more.

So the action has to be locked shut until the bullet leaves the barrel and pressure drops enough to allow extraction of the fired case.

If it opened too soon, the case would blow, followed by the gun.

rc

Sam1911
June 18, 2012, 03:56 PM
There certainly are plenty of fixed-barrel centerfire handguns -- almost anything that is blow-back operated (like a Hi-Point) usually has a barrel fixed to the frame -- but they're usually chambered for smaller/weaker cartridges.

As rcmodel said, though, the issue is handling the chamber pressure. The reason tilt-barrel guns tilt (and rotating-barrels rotate) is to effect some form of locking the barrel to the slide until chamber pressure has dropped far enough to be safe to open.

Blowback guns are really un-locked breech arms, and they rely on the inertia of a big chunky piece of steel (slide) to be hard to get moving. The bigger the charge, the heavier the slide will have to be (look at a HiPoint .45ACP!).

The simple and elegant design of the Ruger Mk I/II/III doesn't lend itself to fitting a bolt heavy enough to handle any more pressure than the .22 LR is working with.

hammerklavier
June 18, 2012, 03:57 PM
Also the accuracy gain is slight. There are a few centrfire autos with fixed barrels in 9mm Makarov, .380, and so forth. They tend to either be heavy for thier caliber, or they kick rather hard.

mahansm
June 18, 2012, 04:03 PM
Well, there are actually some. The Sig P230/232 springs to mind, firing the .380 ACP cartridge. There have been some fixed barrel (blowback) pistols in 9mm and .45 ACP but, as the previous poster mentioned, they had very heavy slides and were more than most people would care to carry around.

Locked breech actions in the more powerful cartridges are lighter and more compact.

If you want fixed barrel in a powerful cartridge, look to a revolver of some sort.
You can get production models up to .500 Magnum and I've seen pictures of custom revolvers in one of the bigger Nitro Express calibers (either .600 or .700).

Trebor
June 18, 2012, 04:04 PM
There are fixed barrel centerfire pistols.

Most are direct blowback in smaller calibers like .380 ACP or 9x18mm. These include the Czech CZ-82, the Makarov, and a whole bunch of U.S. and imported .380's. The thinking is that the .380 or 9x18mm cartridges are about as powerful as can be safely used with a direct blowback setup.

There are larger fixed barrel pistols as well. The Hi Point is a 9mm and it uses direct blowback. It has a large and very heavy slide to absorb the forces. It's a kludge at best.

The HK P7 is a gas operated pistol with a fixed barrel. The old Steyr GB also had a fixed barrel and, IIRC, a gas system.

Overall though, the tilting barrel system is just simplier and more efficicent overall.

4thPointOfContact
June 18, 2012, 04:08 PM
At one time, at least a decade ago, there was a 'gas gun' conversion for the 1911 that replaced the swinging link barrel with a fixed barrel and had a piston mounted along with the recoil spring. I don't think it made enough difference in operation to justify the additional cost.

A moving barrel is just the easiest, most cost effective way to lock and unlock the barrel upon firing. Anything else will take separate, discrete parts that add to the complexity of the device.

eta:
http://www.m1911.org/hogueavenger.htm
http://www.getgrip.com/main/whatsnew/avenger.html

mgmorden
June 18, 2012, 04:48 PM
The P-08 Luger is a fixed barrel centerfire gun that looks very much like the Mk3. There are many other "slideless" autos out there from that area including the Nambu and the Lahti.

In general though, while those designs worked, the standard slide and barrel with the delayed unlock system just has worked better. Over time technology tends to gravitate towards works best.

JDGray
June 18, 2012, 05:25 PM
Desert Eagles are fixed barrel design, as are 9mm AR15 pistols:)

rcmodel
June 18, 2012, 05:31 PM
Desert Eagles are gas-operated locked-breech with a rotary bolt like an AR-15.
Lugers are toggle-locked.
The HK P7 and Styer GB are gas delayed blowbacks.

A 9mm AR is a blow-back, but you would not want a handgun hanging on your belt that weighs 5-6 pounds.

None of them are anything at all like a huff & puff Ruger .22 pistol.

All the others mentioned like the MAK, SIG P232, etc, are low pressure .32 ACP/ .380 ACP/ 9mm MAK calibers a blow-back action can safely handle.

rc

JDGray
June 18, 2012, 05:41 PM
I take back my DE suggestion, as the OP said fixed barrel and no reciprocating slide. So all that would be like the Ruger would be the AR pistol, with a bolt(no slide)

He never mentioned weight or need to carry in the OP...

Billy Shears
June 18, 2012, 05:44 PM
Generally, as has been observed, the need to lock the breech necessitates a barrel that moves with the slide or bolt or toggle action until chamber pressure has dropped to a safe level and the slide or bolt or toggle can unlock.

The only truly fixed barrels you find in handguns firing something more powerful than pocket pistol rounds are unwieldly blowback guns that use super heavy springs (like the old Astra 400) or massive, bulky slides (like the Hi Point); gas operation (like the Wildey or Desert Eagle); gas delayed blowback (like the HK P7 or Steyr GB;, or some type of mechanical disadvantage that must be overcome to open the slide, such as the roller delay actions of the Vorgrimmler (HK P9S) or Budischowsky (Korriphila HSP 701).

The advantages of these various systems are generally not enough to offset the greater simplicity and lower cost of some type of locking mechanism that requires the barrel to move.

C0untZer0
June 18, 2012, 05:50 PM
HK P7 - delayed blowback using gas piston.

Steyr GB - another gas delayed system.

Luger - toggle locked

Other than that, look at the Tec-9, you've got a big metal cylinder in there about the size of mini Coke can.

SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE
June 18, 2012, 05:52 PM
How about a Keltec PLR-16 or a Krinkoff ? Kevin

rcmodel
June 18, 2012, 06:32 PM
Kel-Tec is a gas-operated rotary bolt same as an AR-15.

Krink is a gas-operated single-lug bolt just like an AK-47.

rc

tuj
June 18, 2012, 06:46 PM
check out Ed Maskai's Dragon Gun. Fixed barrel, 45acp, completely blowback.

insanely accurate, very low recoil surprisingly because of a series of gas ports along the barrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TubxQXRdFCk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LzQgBhji2E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDa3bZjeb6c

tbone1964
June 18, 2012, 09:33 PM
deleted

rcmodel
June 18, 2012, 09:36 PM
Again, Desert Eagles are not blow-back.

They are all gas-operated, with a rotary bolt that locks into the barrel extension, just about like an M16 rifle.

rc

Ash
June 18, 2012, 10:49 PM
The Luger is not really fixed barrel, as the barrel recoils rearward until the toggle lock breaks and moves up. In fact, the rearward movement of the barrel is as much as a CZ, Colt, or Glock. The difference, of course, is that the barrel neither rotates nor tips. But move it does (just as the Lahti moves).

The_Next_Generation
June 18, 2012, 10:55 PM
Thanks for the info guys, that Dragon gun is pretty slick. It makes sense that you would need a ton more steel for the larger cartridges than the design of the .22 chambered MK series utilizes. Obviously, using a reciprocating slide and a moving barrel is the easiest way to keep pistols small because that is what we use today ;)

- TNG

Billy Shears
June 18, 2012, 11:05 PM
Again, Desert Eagles are not blow-back.

They are all gas-operated, with a rotary bolt that locks into the barrel extension, just about like an M16 rifle.

rc
Who said they were blowback? Reading back over the comments, I don't see anyone here making that claim.

murf
June 18, 2012, 11:56 PM
a fixed barrel with a reciprocating slide is a "blowback" action (the ruger mkIII the op cites).

murf

Steve C
June 19, 2012, 04:20 AM
There are several fixed barrel blow back centerfire pistols. The Walther PP and PPK series pistols are an example in the .380 acp which is chambered in pistols that are commonly fixed barrel blow back type. The 9mm Mak is considered at the top of the pressure level that works in blow back pistols. Many of the Makarov pistols are essentially copies of the Walther PP system with fixed barrel.

The Spanish Astra 400 chambered in 9mm Largo like shown below is one of the few relatively successful pistols that was chambered for higher pressure cartridges. A large pistol it has a very heavy recoil spring to keep the chamber closed against the pressure of the more powerful 9mm Largo.

http://paladinarmory.com/Photos%20for%20PA%20website/Astra_400.jpg

Gunnerboy
June 19, 2012, 09:54 AM
There is a fixed barrel mannlicher pistol if i remember correctly... and its a blow forward action also if im remembering right.

Taurus 617 CCW
June 19, 2012, 10:10 AM
The closest handgun I can think of to the OP's idea is the P01 Luger. It has a fixed barrel with a toggle action. There is no reciprocating slide, rather the toggle moves rearward within the frame, similar to the bolt reciprocating on the Mark III except the Mark III bolt doesn't have a pin to pivot on during operation.

rcmodel
June 19, 2012, 02:04 PM
Who said they were blowback? Reading back over the comments, I don't see anyone here making that claim. NOt that it really matters.
But post #17 said it, and then it was later deleted.

rc

Ash
June 19, 2012, 03:28 PM
Again, the Luger is not a fixed barrel. It moves as far rearward as many other autos. It does not tilt, but it does move.

Auto426
June 19, 2012, 05:45 PM
Why aren't there any centerfire pistols that have the same design as the Ruger MK series? With a fixed barrel and a non-reciprocating slide, you'd think it would be a much more accurate firearm.

Well, it's hard to ask for a gun that doesn't have a reciprocating slide assembly. The Ruger may not have a traditional slide, but it's bolt still performs the same type of action, by reciprocating rearward to extract the fired round and load a new one.

As the others have said, there are some designs out there with fixed barrels. They use a more traditional slide assembly to load and extract rounds, but the key point is that the barrel is still fixed and therefore is usually slightly more accurate than a gun without a fixed barrel. The largest difference in accuracy is still going to come from the shooter though.

tnelson31
June 19, 2012, 05:56 PM
Excel Arms makes the MP-5.7, seems to fit what you are discussing.

Ash
June 19, 2012, 06:38 PM
I believe the Glisenti and the Nambu had variations of the fixed-barrel and the reciprocating bolt.

Prince Yamato
June 19, 2012, 06:53 PM
The Astra 600 is a fixed barrel 9mm. It can be done just fine. The only downside is it has snappier recoil than a browning style barrel. Personally, I'd like a Mark III in .32acp.

iLikeOldgunsIlikeNewGuns
June 19, 2012, 07:03 PM
My Wildey is gas-operated and the barrel does not move when the action is cycling

I seen a Jiminez 9mm with a fixed barrel :eek: :barf:
but I wouldn't recommend buying one!

My Beretta Tomcat .32 acp is centerfire, and the barrel only moves when I use the 'tip-up' option to load the chamber, does not move during cycling or firing

I was going to say Nambu type 14, til I saw the Luger posts, which reminded me the Nambu barrel does move slightly back when cycling

Wishoot
June 19, 2012, 07:46 PM
CZ-82

Fixed barrel goodness in its finest form

Walt Sherrill
June 19, 2012, 08:13 PM
Thompson builds centerfire handguns known for their accuracy. They aren't magazine fed, and they're single-fire. Handguns are generally sought for personal defense; the Thompson guns are for handgun hunting.

PRM
June 19, 2012, 08:28 PM
Walther PP Series

Model PP

Model PPK

Model PPK/S

Don357
June 19, 2012, 11:55 PM
Several people have refered to AR and Krinkoff "pistols". Personally, I don't consider them pistols. They're actually short barreled rifles with the stocks removed. But as for fixed barrel centerfire pistols, FEG PA-63's, Walther PP series, Makarov's, and several other unmentionable, questionable quality pieces come to mind.

Ash
June 20, 2012, 07:58 AM
Yet the question is 9mm and higher and why folks don't make them like a Ruger Mk II/III. They did, functionally. The Mac 10 and other spate of sub-gun knock-offs in the 1980's all had fixed barrels and reciprocating bolts. The bolt did not protrude from the rear of the mechanism like the Ruger, or Lahti, Glisenti, Mauser, or Nambu, as the rear of the receiver holds the recoil spring.

Indeed, while we often mention that few really considered it safe to use true blow back operation on pistols in high-power calibers 9mm Parabellum and above, everybody and his brother who made subguns halfway through WWII and into the 1960's made them as pure blow backs. The Sten, Greasegun, and others come quickly to mind (which operated like said Mac 10).

What made the idea bad in a semi-auto pistol but hunky-dory in a fully-automatic open-bolt stamped steel subgun with a fixed firing pin?

VA27
June 21, 2012, 01:55 AM
AutoMag in 44AMP.

WardenWolf
June 21, 2012, 02:06 AM
The 9x18 round that the Makarov and similar pistols use is really the upper limit in power for direct blowback pistols. It's just above .380 in power. Anything more powerful with a fixed barrel and you have to get creative.

JDGray
June 21, 2012, 06:31 AM
Several people have refered to AR and Krinkoff "pistols". Personally, I don't consider them pistols. They're actually short barreled rifles with the stocks removed. But as for fixed barrel centerfire pistols, FEG PA-63's, Walther PP series, Makarov's, and several other unmentionable, questionable quality pieces come to mind.


The atf makes that ruling, regardless of how we see things;)

Ash
June 21, 2012, 07:52 AM
So here's the question: if 9x19 is unsafe, why the stamped/welded Sten? And as much as I really don't like them, the Bryco/lorcin/Junk pile pistols?

TonyT
June 21, 2012, 09:39 AM
Currently have several manufacturers of Olympic centerfire pistols in 32 S&W Long which have a stationary barrel.

1911Tuner
June 21, 2012, 09:54 AM
Locked breech/recoil operated vs straight blowback...which is also recoil operated, by the way...is more about recoil force and momentum than pressure. There are low pressure cartridges that require locked breech in order to safely function with a reasonably small slide mass...like the .1911/45 Auto, and there are low-pressure cartridges that can operate safely in a straight blowback...or unlocked breech/recoil operated...like the .380 ACP.

It's all about keeping the breech from opening while the system is under pressure. It can be accomplished with slide mass and spring tension...or it can mechanically lock barrel and slide together until the bullet escapes and pressure drops to a safe level.

When the breech is locked, the barrel has to move backward with the slide or breechbolt for a short distance to give the bullet time to exit. If the barrel were fixed, the slide couldn't move.

When the side and barrel aren't mechanically locked, the slide mass must be sufficient to delay and slow slide movement until the bullet exits. The other option of spring tension can work as long as the cartridge generates light recoil and momentum...like the .380 and .32 Auto. If you tried to use the spring to keep the breech closed on a 1911 with the standard slide mass, that spring would necessarily be so strong that you'd have a hard time manually operating the slide.

Blowback .45 and 9mm pistols like the Hi-Point utilize a combination of mass and tension. These pistols are large, unwieldy and top-heavy when compared to the 1911 and the High Power etal.

Years ago, Llama marketed miniature 1911s that were chambered in .380 and .32 ACP calibers. There were two versions of the .380 pistol. One was a straight blowback and the other a true to Browning locked breech with link. Aside from that, they were outwardly identical. The slide on the locked breech version was ridiculously easy to hand-cycle. On the blowback version, it was difficult to the point that many people couldn't do it because of the spring tension. That spring was necessary because of the low slide mass. It was simpler and theoretically more feed reliable because it eliminated the tilting barrel...but it came with a price.

Shear_stress
June 21, 2012, 10:44 AM
What made the idea bad in a semi-auto pistol but hunky-dory in a fully-automatic open-bolt stamped steel subgun with a fixed firing pin?

You've asked this question twice and the answer really isn't all that mysterious--you're comparing the requirements of a small, often concealable firearm with one designed more or less to be carried and fired like a rifle.

Blow back pistols firing high pressure cartridges are large and heavy enough to practically defeat the purpose of carrying a pistol--or, in the case of the Astra 600, require a recoil spring strong enough to make charging the pistol difficult. There's a reason these aren't more popular.

Submachine guns firing high pressure pistol cartridges obviously don't have the same constraints of single-handed operation or holster carry and are free to be much large in size. As for the use of sheetmetal, it's a non-issue--even in a blow back action most of the pressure is still contained within the chamber. Besides, properly formed sheetmetal is plenty strong.

That said, a blowback submachine gun winds up being fairly heavy if you want any semblance of controllability . . . and that weight penalty has led to their decline in popularity recent years while that of short carbines has risen. Why tote around a seven to ten pound 9mm when you can get a .223 carbine the same size?

Creature
June 21, 2012, 10:53 AM
As mentioned before...

http://www.modelguns.co.uk/images/aamag44a.jpg

1911Tuner
June 21, 2012, 10:59 AM
What made the idea bad in a semi-auto pistol but hunky-dory in a fully-automatic open-bolt stamped steel subgun with a fixed firing pin?

Didn't see this before.

Submachinegun bolts are solid and heavy. High mass negates the need for locked breech, as explained above. It was once calculated by people who are good at figgerin' such things that a straight blowback .30-06 rifle would require a 50-pound bolt to keep the breech from opening prematurely.

It's all in the physics. That force/acceleration/momentum thing.

HOOfan_1
June 21, 2012, 12:39 PM
I think the latest issue of American Rifleman had a short article on a WW2 era High Standard .45 ACP that looked to be fixed barrel.

Edit: or not...first time I only glanced at the article and saw High Standard and .45 ACP....but it was really a .22 LR

EMC45
June 21, 2012, 02:01 PM
iraqveteran8888 does a youtube clip with a Hi Point in 10MM....Check it out


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UToeNXDL9WY

PzGren
June 22, 2012, 12:45 AM
The reason that centerfire handguns from 9x19 and up use a locking system has little to do with chamber pressure but with recoil, which is countered by a spring. The .25 ACP has higher chamber pressures than a .45 ACP but a simple blowback mechanism suffices.

If the action wasn't locked, the force necessary to pull back the slide against the closing force of the spring, or the weight of the bolt/slide, would need to be very high.

WardenWolf
June 22, 2012, 05:58 AM
Locked breech/recoil operated vs straight blowback...which is also recoil operated, by the way...is more about recoil force and momentum than pressure. There are low pressure cartridges that require locked breech in order to safely function with a reasonably small slide mass...like the .1911/45 Auto, and there are low-pressure cartridges that can operate safely in a straight blowback...or unlocked breech/recoil operated...like the .380 ACP.

It is because of this that I sometimes describe the Browning action as a "delayed blowback". Both systems use the recoil from the fired round to operate the action, rather than a gas system, but Browning's design keeps the breech from opening until the pressure has dropped. There's other types of delayed blowback actions, as well, including roller-delayed which is used on the CZ-52 and a few rifles such as the HK G3. Gas systems are normally reserved for heavier locking-breech guns, usually with a rotating bolt system.

1911Tuner
June 22, 2012, 06:09 AM
It is because of this that I sometimes describe the Browning action as a "delayed blowback".

It is delayed blowback. I usually don't make that point because of the flak that it very often draws from those who can't wrap their heads around exactly what delays it...and why.

WardenWolf
June 22, 2012, 06:26 AM
It is delayed blowback. I usually don't make that point because of the flak that it very often draws from those who can't wrap their heads around exactly what delays it...and why.
Indeed. And that is the proper term for it. But the last time I said it, someone who had no idea what they were talking about bit my head off. *facepalm*

Logic dictates that if you can open the action by pushing a rod down the barrel of an unloaded gun, it's a blowback. That's the difference between a true locking breech and a blowback. With a true locking breech, you can push all you want and it's not going anywhere until the bolt lugs break.

1911Tuner
June 22, 2012, 07:05 AM
Indeed. And that is the proper term for it. But the last time I said it, someone who had no idea what they were talking about bit my head off.

Oh, yeah. Been there/done that. Kicked off many discussions that turned into 5-page arguments by trying to explain it. There's a point about continuing to do the same thing over and over, each time expecting a different outcome...so I've stopped trying. I may be old, cantankerous and stubborn...but crazy I ain't. ;)

One_Jackal
June 23, 2012, 08:34 PM
Here is my two cents. The S&W model 52 won so many bullseye competitions that most manufacturers ditched their fixed barrel designs in the 60's. Along comes the polymer frame and no one is interested in a fixed barrel design. There are a few fixed barrel designs left out there but they aren't popular. The biggest exception is Hi Point.

mr.trooper
June 23, 2012, 10:26 PM
The Ruger MK series design is based off the Japanese Nambu, which is an 8mm centerfire.

There are TONS of centerfire pistols with fixed barrels, guy...

4thPointOfContact
June 24, 2012, 12:53 AM
There's no doubt that the Nambu was instrumental in designing the MkII, (Ruger built some replicas in his home) but, aside from the rear cocking and the general silhouette, I don't think there's much real mechanical similarity between the two.
http://www.midwayusa.com/content/images/legacy/1911/ruger_mark_2.gif
v
http://www.mek-schuetzen.de/Blueprints/Nambu_14.gif

cactus02
June 24, 2012, 02:13 AM
I believe Benelli made a fixed barrel 9mm retarded blowack pistol in the late sixties or seventies.

jim243
June 24, 2012, 02:28 AM
Why aren't there any centerfire pistols that have the same design as the Ruger MK series? With a fixed barrel and a non-reciprocating slide, you'd think it would be a much more accurate firearm.


Actully there are a lot that were made with fixed barrels. Most of them are of .380, .32 or .25 caaliber. Some like the Luger or the P38 and P01 are of 9mm. And then you have the delayed blowbacks like the Uszi, Thompson Sub and the MAC-10 in 9mm & 45 ACP or the Mac-11 in .380.

The most common one's today are the Bersa's and Beretta's. Altough I believe Taurus makes some. But that is just a guess.

Jim

1911Tuner
June 24, 2012, 02:35 AM
Some like the Luger or the P38 and P01 are of 9mm.

The Luger and P38 don't have fixed barrels. They don't tilt like the Colt-Browning design...but they do move backward with the breechbolt.

jim243
June 24, 2012, 02:42 AM
The Luger and P38 don't have fixed barrels. They don't tilt like the Colt-Browning design...but they do move backward with the breechbolt.


I am not trying to start an argument, but yes they are "fixed" barrels.

Jim

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt284/bigjim_02/ErmaEP-1.png

R.W.Dale
June 24, 2012, 02:48 AM
I am not trying to start an argument, but yes they are "fixed" barrels.

Jim

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt284/bigjim_02/ErmaEP-1.png

No they're not.

The barrel reciprocates front to rear on a Luger. It is not a "fixed barrel" pistol like a walther ppk or the aforementioned ruger 22

Slow motion video of a Luger being fired. Cool cool http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8C5Mjh4l54&feature=youtube_gdata_player

jim243
June 24, 2012, 02:59 AM
Now you have me questioning this. The photo is one of my very first guns (50 years ago) and I assure you the barrel does not move. My best friend has a P-01 and I will be over there tomorrow (today actually) and will check it out. But to the best of my memory that barrel does not move either. But will check it out for you.

Thanks
Jim

1911Tuner
June 24, 2012, 03:21 AM
I assure you that the Luger barrel does move, as does the P38's. It's a locked breech design. If the barrel was fixed to the frame, the breechbolt couldn't move. Make sure that the pistol is empty...put it in battery...and push straight back on the muzzle.

The Beretta 92 series basic function is a near perfect copy of the P38. Nothing much new under the sun, it seems.

1911Tuner
June 24, 2012, 03:42 AM
Here's a basic description:

Being one of the first semi-automatic pistols, the Luger was designed to use a toggle-lock action, which uses a jointed arm to lock, as opposed to the slide actions of almost every other semi-automatic pistol. After a round is fired, the barrel and toggle assembly (both locked together at this point) travel rearward due to recoil. After moving roughly 0.5 in (13 mm) rearward, the toggle strikes a cam built into the frame, causing the knee joint to hinge and the toggle and breech assembly to unlock.

At this point the barrel impacts the frame and stops its rearward movement, but the toggle assembly continues moving (bending the knee joint) due to momentum, extracting the spent casing from the chamber and ejecting it. The toggle and breech assembly subsequently travel forward under spring tension and the next round from the magazine is loaded into the chamber. The entire sequence occurs in a fraction of a second.

Pilot
June 24, 2012, 08:21 AM
Now you have me questioning this. The photo is one of my very first guns (50 years ago) and I assure you the barrel does not move. My best friend has a P-01 and I will be over there tomorrow (today actually) and will check it out. But to the best of my memory that barrel does not move either. But will check it out for you.

Jim,

Your gun is a .22 LR Erma "Luger". It is not a true P-08 Luger and the action is desinged for the .22 rimfire cartridge not the 9MM centerfire cartridge. Big difference.

While the Erma Luger may be called Luger, and resembles the P-08 Luger cosmetically, it is NOT a Luger.

JDGray
June 24, 2012, 08:31 AM
I believe Benelli made a fixed barrel 9mm retarded blowack pistol in the late sixties or seventies.

Oooooooooh Noooooooo.....:eek:

You cant say that word:D

WardenWolf
June 24, 2012, 08:46 AM
Oooooooooh Noooooooo.....:eek:

You cant say that word:D
Well, technically, any modern blowback pistol is a "spring-retarded blowback". Pretty much the only OTHER type was the VG 1-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkssturmgewehr_1-5) "gas-retarded blowback" rifle. It was still primarily spring-retarded, though. And the gas part didn't work well and was, well, retarded. :neener:

The basic concept was a muzzle brake that vented into a moving sleeve around the barrel and would, in theory, increase pressure and a cause a piston-like effect as the action cycled. It didn't work that well. Most of the myths about these rifles, though, that they were unpleasant and dangerous to shoot, and started falling apart after the first magazine, have been proven wrong. Recently someone on Youtube managed to get hold of and shoot an authentic VG 1-5, and found they were very solid rifles, and not at all bad to shoot. They were still overly complex, though, like all German machinery.

1911Tuner
June 24, 2012, 09:02 AM
Your gun is a .22 LR Erma "Luger". It is not a true P-08 Luger and the action is desinged for the .22 rimfire cartridge not the 9MM centerfire cartridge. Big difference.

While the Erma Luger may be called Luger, and resembles the P-08 Luger cosmetically, it is NOT a Luger.

This.

I missed the "Erma .22" part.

Those little pistols were straight blowback...not locked breech.

I didn't pay'em much attention, but IIRC, the .380 versions were also straight blowback.

clem629
June 24, 2012, 06:10 PM
Actually there are quite a few; Beretta 25 ACP,32 ACP 380 ACP, Makarov 9X18,
Walther PPK in 32 & 380, The High Points in 9, 40 & 45 ACP, Bersa 380, CZ82, &83 just to name a few.

Ascot500
June 24, 2012, 06:28 PM
For a while I tried to find a center fire semi auto that was as accurate as a good revolver, but not as pricey as a custom 1911.
I tried: Makarov, CZ-82, FEG, H&K PSP, and the Heritage Stealth.
All were fixed barrel and the H&K and Heritage were 9x19.
None shot better groups than a Kahr K9.
Only one other exceeded my expectations and that was the AA Arms AP9.
Unfortunately its bulk made it undesirable.
I finally settled on (almost) revolver like accuracy from a Remington R1.

1911Tuner
June 24, 2012, 08:05 PM
For a while I tried to find a center fire semi auto that was as accurate as a good revolver, but not as pricey as a custom 1911. I finally settled on (almost) revolver like accuracy from a Remington R1.

14 shots/25 yards from bags. Stock Norinco w/Kart Easy-Fit barrel, PMC ball, and a 6-pound trigger. Better eyes than mine guiding it.

No throwaways for first round flyers. Just slapped the magazine in and shot to slidelock...repeat.

Owner reports zero malfunctions in the 6 years that he's owned the pistol...3 years of it with the OEM barrel.

Total cost: 400 bucks.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/JoesGroup.jpg

MachIVshooter
June 24, 2012, 08:24 PM
We're overlooking an entire class of fixed barrel pistols; They're called revolvers.

Despite contemporary vernacular suggesting that revolvers aren't pistols, they are by definition.

pis·tol/ˈpistl/Noun: A small firearm designed to be held in one hand.

1911Tuner
June 25, 2012, 06:42 AM
We're overlooking an entire class of fixed barrel pistols; They're called revolvers.

Despite contemporary vernacular suggesting that revolvers aren't pistols, they are by definition.

True that, but in this case I think it's clear that the OP meant self-loading/semi-auto pistols. Revolvers are a given, as are TC Contenders.

PzGren
June 25, 2012, 07:01 AM
Now you have me questioning this. The photo is one of my very first guns (50 years ago) and I assure you the barrel does not move. My best friend has a P-01 and I will be over there tomorrow (today actually) and will check it out. But to the best of my memory that barrel does not move either. But will check it out for you.



Jim,

when we are talking about a fixed barrel, it is to be understood as being fixed to the frame.
The Luger P.08 and the P38/P1 have an upper including the barrel that can be taken off the frame, unlike the Ruger MkI - III and the Walther PP/PPk.

Ash
June 25, 2012, 08:32 AM
As I mentioned earlier, the barrels also move during recoil, generally as much rearward motion as any tilt-barrel auto. Ditto for the Lahti. The difference is that the barrel does not tilt. It is a simplified motion (at the expense of a more complex toggle-locking). On all Browning-based designs (Glock, SIG, Colt, others), the motion is in two planes, rearwards and tilting down (either in an axial rotation as in the Colt, or in a deflected vector as in Glock, SIG, or other, the result is the same). The tilting is really what causes potential accuracy issues, but there are many sources of accuracy degradation and tilting designs have proven accurate. In the Parabellum (or P38, Lahti, Beretta, Glisenti, Nambu, others), the barrel moves only in one plane (and then, essentially linear) and that is rearwards. There is no tilt. There is the second plane of movement still, but in those designs, the dropping or rising comes because the locking mechanism moves independently of the barrel. The toggle moves in the Parabellum, the tilting block in the Beretta/Walther moves.

Tilting designs have the barrel itself do the locking to the side. Since you have to have the vertical movement to unlock the pistol in all non-rotating recoil-based designs (at least, you have to have second-plane movement, a few rare designs have horizontal movement of the locking block or wedge and this ignores gas-operated designs completely), and since the lock-up is simplified, the barrel itself has to do the moving, in most cases at the rear.

As to whether or not a stamped sub-gun could have done the task, the mechanics of the operation are not lost on me. I know them quite well. Walther felt comfortable with blow-back (or, if it sounds better, unlocked recoil) designs, indeed, their P38 started as one. The bottom-feeders like Lorcin and Jennings, plus the step up Hi Point, have proven without a doubt the marketability of higher-power blow-back designs. I am not a fan of them, but there remains no real mechanical reason why Glock and company have not made them, too. Carry weight and overall balance are not mechanical problems but rather ergonomic problems.

Locked designs have advantages when it comes to service pistols, particularly in slide weight and size as well as ease of slide operations. However, consider the Ruger Mk II. It is a target pistol, not necessarily for competition, but for target shooting and perhaps hunting or trail carry.

Could one design a centerfire on the same lines for the purpose of target shooting? Absolutely. If using unlocked recoil/blow back, the rear slide could be made quite heavy and use dual-recoil springs like the Walther P38. This would place the balance of the pistol directly over the hand and all movement behind the hand. Weight of the pistol would not necessarily have to be excessive to accomplish this, and the design could be striker-fired like the Ruger or even hammer-fired like a Mauser. You could lock it by placing a sleeve around a locking bolt, not unlike the curved oprod in a VZ-52 rifle, and have it do the rearward movement instead of the barrel, leaving a locking post in the middle which serves as the breach-face. The actuator could then unlock the action when it reaches a certain point (the tilting lock would be ideal here) and the allow the entire bolt assembly to more rearward.

Not liking that, the HK method could be used in a similar way. Or, you could produce a modernized Nambu and get similar results. Remember, there were two different Nambu designs which were good pistols if you ignore the pathetic chambering.

It could be done. That nobody does it reflects the desires of the engineers as well as the prevailing aesthetic of centerfire pistols. Folks like them a bit blocky. Early on, many designers liked the slender barrel concept. Lahti, Parabellum, Glisenti, Nambu, and Walther designs reflect this. But the slide-enclosing barrel, either the Colt/Browning or the blocky SIG/Glock, aesthetic has become the norm these days.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why no fixed-barrel centerfire pistols?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!