1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
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.
Why no fixed-barrel centerfire pistols?
- Thread starter The_Next_Generation
- Start date
- Status
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
member
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
Moderator Emeritus
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
member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 542
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
Member
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...
There are TONS of centerfire pistols with fixed barrels, guy...
4thPointOfContact
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 852
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.
v
v
cactus02
Member
I believe Benelli made a fixed barrel 9mm retarded blowack pistol in the late sixties or seventies.
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
Last edited:
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
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.
R.W.Dale
Member
I am not trying to start an argument, but yes they are "fixed" barrels.
Jim
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
Last edited:
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
Thanks
Jim
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
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.
The Beretta 92 series basic function is a near perfect copy of the P38. Nothing much new under the sun, it seems.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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.
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.
WardenWolf
member
Well, technically, any modern blowback pistol is a "spring-retarded blowback". Pretty much the only OTHER type was the VG 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.Oooooooooh Noooooooo.....
You cant say that word
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
Moderator Emeritus
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
Member
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.
Walther PPK in 32 & 380, The High Points in 9, 40 & 45 ACP, Bersa 380, CZ82, &83 just to name a few.
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.
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
MachIVshooter
Member
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.
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Status
