Questions on Llama safety issues

[Delija]

I bought a Llama .380 the other day I saw advertised on the Springfield XD forum. It was an easy face to face deal, and the price seemed reasonable ($150) for what seems to be an essentially brand new gun (despite it's actual age). I know it was a blind gamble to some extent. The gun was manufactured and bought in 1968, and I was told it has less than 100 rounds through it. The gun does look almost brand new. Outside and inside both. But not being a pistol smith (very far from it), my impressions have to be somewhat suspect. The date of manufacture was one of the very few things I found on the internet about this pistol (serial number).

I have not had a chance to shoot it yet. I'm hoping for the best.

There seems to be virtually no information besides the date of manufacture about this gun that I can find on the internet. I called Llama, but the present company has nothing to do with the importer from back when that model (Llama Especial) was sold. Present day Llamas are not even made by the same armory.

The gun appears to be a shrunk-down version of a Colt 1911 except it has a rib on the top of the slide...I'd like to know what, if any purpose this rib serves. Thanks to anyone who can inform me about the idea behind a rib. I always thought they were for adding strength to large caliber wheel guns, but this is a .380 and the all steel frame certainly feels substantial enough.

My main questions concern the safety. I only have my new Springfield 1911 to compare it to, and I want to be sure the Llama functions correctly.

There are two differences I have noticed in the way the guns function. Both concerning the "half-cock" position.

On the Springfield, at "half-cock", the hammer will fall when the trigger is pulled (with effort). The Llama's trigger will not fall. I have read about the Springfield having a hammer "shelf" rather than a notch. While I am not completely clear about the mechanics, I do know (Thanks to 1911 Tuner) that this is normal.

The other difference I've noticed is that on the Llama, the safety can be engaged when the hammer is at the "half cock" position. This isn't possible on the Springfield.

I would just like to know if this is normal. Also, I know that carrying a gun that has a round in the chamber at half cock is not advisable with 1911 guns. But I don't know if the safety can be engaged if this makes "half cock" safer. I don't know if this gun functions truly the same as a Browning designed 1911.

I realize that carrying a loaded gun that is half cocked and with the safety engaged is not ideal for speedy use of the weapon. However it seems that this might just be a way to get an extra round in the gun...the magazine only holds six rounds(I think...I haven't gotten any .380 ammo yet)

Cocked and locked is obviously the normal way to carry, but I'm still not completely comfortable with condition one carry. So my question is whether carrying with the safety engaged and the gun half cocked is a viable compromise. Unlike my .45, I can easily fully cock the gun with the thumb of my shooting hand. So disengaging the safety and cocking the gun can be almost as fast as using the gun from condition one. Certainly faster than a condition three starting point.

Is this the way non-Springfield (and non 80 series Colts) guns without the "shelf" arrangement are supposed to function?

I always thought that the thumb safety on 1911s could not be engaged when the gun was not fully cocked. I want to be sure this gun is working properly, and like I said I can't really find any information on it on the web.I figure THR (and especially "1911 Tuner") is probably my best source of reliable info..

I really do like the feel and the size for CCW. My .45 is too big and heavy for me to carry in "always summer South Florida", and my XD9 subcompact is just very wide for IWB carry. The Llama's slide is only just fractionally more than half the width of the XD9. I just want to be sure the gun is working properly before I really consider it for a carry piece. I know a .380 round is considered by many to be an inadequate caliber, but that is a whole different subject, and I have no desire to debate that here. I only want to know if the gun is safe...not in a gunfight, but safe insofar as not being a danger to me. An almost 40 year old gun with virtually no available information has me a bit concerned. As I said, it looks "new", but my knowledge is too limited to make any informed assumptions.

Pics of the gun, including one to show size compared to my full sized .45 and two to compare to the XD Subcompact to show the relative ease of concealment, which is a big factor for me. Also, I believe the pics show the gun to be in "like new" condition. The trigger is very smooth....not gritty, no creep, no over-travel, short reset, just a heavy pull to get a clean break (all done dry-firing so far)

I'd really like to get some validation that this gun is safe to carry. I have been looking for a smaller gun to carry on a regular basis for a while.
I never expected to find a "miniature 1911" that could really be a "pocket gun". This seems like just that.

TIA!!

TIA....

Peace,
D.

 

[Jim K]

Wow! Quite a list of questions. I will try to answer at least some.

1. That Llama may be a bit soft compared to Colts but it is a pretty good gun, and they are pretty reliable. (As always, fire at least 200 rounds without failure before depending on it for serious purposes.)

2. A rib serves to help in aiming a shotgun. On rifles and handguns, ribs are mainly for looks, and that is its purpose on that gun.

3. The safety should not go "on" when the hammer is at half cock, but as long as it works properly when the hammer is fully cocked, I see no problem.

4. The half-cock on that pistol is a deep notch, like the original M1911, and you should not be able to pull the trigger from the half-cock position.

5. I believe that pistol has the same kind of link mechanism as the 1911, but some were made as straight blowbacks, even in .380. The locked pistol is better. (You can check by seeing if the barrel moves when the muzzle is pushed in.)

6. I see no reason not to carry cocked and locked, as long as the safety works OK in the full cock position. I don't like the half cock or hammer down on a round type of carry because there is too much chance of fumbling the cocking and having the gun go off when not aimed or having the recoiling slide remove part of your thumb.

Jim

 

[Delija]

Hey Jim....

Thank you so much for your info....you guys are all great. I try and read every post..y'all never cease to amaze me!

I figured the rib was for looks.

You wrote"You can check by seeing if the barrel moves when the muzzle is pushed in"
I'm not exactly clear on what you mean..if I push the end of the barrel when it's in battery, it doesn't move. When the slide is back, the barrel has some "in/out" play, just like my 1911 ...maybe ~1/4 inch...

I agree with the cocked and locked. Was just curious 'cause it seems so easy to thumb cock this little gun. But even so, the fumbling is probably unavoidable.

I can't believe I've had the gun for four days and haven't shot it...

I did get a nice square little dot of white model paint on the front sight so my old eyes can see the little bugger. Last time I had a gun with such little sights was right around when this gun was brand new. And I had the eyes of a 20 year old. LOL

Thanks again.

Peace,
D.

 

[Jim K]

It sounds like the gun is a locked breech, as most were.

When you push against the muzzle of an in-battery 1911 type pistol (with the gun unloaded, please), the barrel and slide should move back about 1/4 inch. And of course, when field stripped, you should see the link on the barrel - just a scaled down version of the M1911.

Jim

 

[Delija]

It sounds like the gun is a locked breech, as most were.

When you push against the muzzle of an in-battery 1911 type pistol (with the gun unloaded, please), the barrel and slide should move back about 1/4 inch. And of course, when field stripped, you should see the link on the barrel - just a scaled down version of the M1911.

OK, now I see what you mean. With the hammer back, both my 1911 .45 Springfield and the Llama, when pressed at the muzzle - barrel and slide do go back about a quarter inch.

And yes, the barrel link, the entire gun for that matter looks like a scaled down 1911 in every respect. Other than the slightly different shape at the very bottom of the grip, as well as the MSH pin being covered by the grip panels. I took the panels off and noticed two other small differences. The panels screw right to the frame...no bushings. Also the MSH pin at the bottom appears to be a threaded screw...one side...the left side...has a screwdriver slot. The only other difference is that the plunger between the thumb safety and the slide stop is actually screwed to the frame with two screws...the plunger seems to be welded to a bracket with the screw holes. This seems like a pretty secure arrangement. Different, but possibly better???

In my previous post I guess I tried to push the muzzle with the hammer down, which was apparently what was holding the barrel in place. Also, I guess I wasn't pushing hard enough. Now, with more pressure (using my palm rather than a fingertip) I can move them both even with the hammer down. Easy with the little Llama. Not easy at all with the .45.

The recoil spring on the Llama looks and feels very light. I guess I am just used to the springs on my .45 and on my 9mm.

Thanks again.

Tomorrow I go to the range and see if the thing really shoots!!

One last question. You say looks like a "locked breach as most were". ..what other kind of configuration would be possible in this kind of weapon? (meaning a 1911 type gun). Are there other guns that operate differently but look the same as a 1911?

Peace,
D.

 

[1911Tuner]

Memories

This brings back a few memories. I owned two of those little pistols several years ago...and Jim is correct. They were available in straight blowback and locked breech. Both guns were dead reliable, and would feed Winchester Silvertips like they were tuned for the ammo. I don't remember ever having a malfunction....which was surprising considering the dismal performance of the
larger versions...though I did have a very old one in .38 Super for a time which was very good as far as function went...but it was pretty soft steel, so I didn't shoot it very much.

The locked breech/falling link version is a perfect scaled-down 1911 clone, and disassembles exactly the same way. Detail-stripping was tricky due to the miniaturized internals, but manageable. They were offered in .32 Auto and .22 rimfire as well as the .380 ACP. The .380 and .22 versions were neat, but I could never see the point in the .32 caliber version.

I also owned a third, much older one in .22 rimfire, which also worked well if I fed it Federal ammo. It was kinda "iffy" with other brands, but ran like a champ on Federal.

Congratulations on your find. Hope yours is as good as the ones that I had.

 

[Delija]

Thank you for your reply and wishes for good luck.

I am unclear of the difference between locked breech and straight blow-back. I tried to research it on the web, but while I came up with many references to these terms, I could not find a description or a comparison of the two systems I could understand.

I hope you can help me out.

Thanks again.

Peace,
D.

 

[Jim K]

OK, I'll try on the definitions.

When folks started fooling with auto pistols, they used a breechblock (a slide is one type of breechblock) that was held closed only by its own mass and a spring. This worked OK for low power cartridges. But when cartridge power was increased, they found that the gun opened too soon, and the cartridge case lost support, with the result that the case blew open and wrecked the gun. The simple breechblock and spring worked by what is called "blowback", since the pressure in the cartridge simply blows the cartridge back, taking the breechblock with it.

There turned out to be two solutions - lock the breech to the barrel in some way until pressure inside the cartridge dropped to a safe level, or use a combination of an increased breech mass and a strong spring to "keep the lid on" until pressure dropped.

Because the latter approach meant a heavy gun that required a strong person to load it, most designers went to a locked breech. So designers turned to the idea of a locked breech. There were/are other systems, including gas operation, but the simplest for handguns proved to be recoil operation, where the recoil created by the moving bullet operates the guns mechanism to reload the next round.

In the M1911 type pistol, the movement of the bullet forward in the barrel sets up an opposite movement (see Mr. Newton on this) of the slide and barrel, locked together by the lugs on the top of the barrel and under the top of the slide. They remain locked until the link pulls the barrel out of engagement with the slide and the slide goes on to extract and eject the empty case and come back to pick up a fresh round. As it does, it also picks up the barrel, and the barrel foot forces the barrel up into engagement with the slide and then forward into battery.

Jim

 

[Delija]

OK, thanks Jim...I completely understand the locked breach system. I guess I'm having more trouble imagining a straight blow-back type of set-up.

The .22 caliber Ruger MK guns work on a heavy bolt and a fixed barrel. Would this be an example of a "straight blow-back" action? Or is this more what you described as the "heavy gun compromise"? Or is it something else entirely? Certainly it is not a slide and barrel that both move.

Well, onto something I can understand...
Today I finally got the gun to the range. Came away with mixed feelings.

The gun went "bang" every time it was supposed to. The only malfunction is that the slide did not lock back on empty. This surprised me. I meant to bring the two magazines I got with the gun, but inadvertently left one home. The guy I got the gun from told me the original mag (which I left home) did not lock the slide back. And it doesn't when empty at home. But what appears to be a replacement mag does locks back when empty (cycled by hand), but did not today at the range.

This is an issue I could live with. Just less convenient.

Accuracy. Pretty disappointing. From 25 feet I was only able to hit the paper on an NRA bulls-eye target. Even from a rest I was all over the paper. I had shot my XD9 Subcompact and from the same (admittedly shaky) rest put every shot into the 3 inch black "Shoot N.C." stick on targets. My 1911 for some reason was shooting a little high...adjustable sights must have gotten knocked around, but groups were still an inch or so. And < 2" high...it was just too hot to stick around and zero the sights.

I am not sure how this little .380 could be so inaccurate. It's barrel is actually longer than the 3" barrel of the XD9 Sub. - Sight radius about the same (maybe a fraction of an inch shorter).

The only thing I can think of is the trigger pull is significantly heavy, and maybe I was just squeezing so hard to get it to break that I was moving my whole hand and moving everything off target. I was the only person at the range..I'll see if I can get a more experienced/better shooter to try it next time I have the chance.

I did try to "boost" the trigger, before I tried shooting the gun, but didn't notice any improvement in the heaviness. I didn't do it with leverage like the guy I read about here who used a screwdriver...I didn't want to break anything. I don't imagine if I do break any part of this gun that it would be easy to find replacement parts....a concern that was made more of one by the guy at the gun shop who told me no to shoot the gun much because if I did need parts.......I'd be out of luck. I don't know if or how much to worry about this issue.

Again, thanks guys...

Peace,
D.

 

[Jim K]

I wouldn't try boosting the trigger on the Llama. The parts in those guns are fairly soft with case hardening to give good wear. But if you cut through the case hardening, the parts will wear rapidly. I haven't shot my very similar gun for a while, but I think it does better than that. It could be a combination of Spanish workmanship (or lack of it) or the heavy trigger, or both.

On blowback, yes, the Ruger is a good example. The inertia of the mass of the breechblock keeps the breech closed until the pressure drops; there is no locking of the barrel to the breechblock. (The spring has little effect in keeping the breech closed, although it slows the motion down.) As a general rule, small low-pressure caliber (.22, .25 ACP, .32 ACP) pistols are blowback. Higher pressure rounds (9mm's, .40 S&W, .45 ACP) use a locked breech. The .380 ACP (9mm Browning Short) can go either way, and Llama made some that were blowback and some, like yours, that were locked breech. Their .32 ACP model looks the same, but was made only in blowback.

There are exceptions. All High Point pistols are blowback, using a heavy slide; they are reliable, but odd-feeling when shooting. The Astra 400 in 9mm Largo, and the 600 and 800 in 9mm Luger were also blowback.

Jim

 

[Delija]

Thanks Jim....Now you've gone and got my curiosity up. I'm going to have to make sure I get to see a blow back pistol that has a slide so I can get the concept untangled in my somewhat tangled mind.

I'm sure glad I didn't put much effort into boosting the trigger. I was too afraid to break it even before reading your post.....I'll be sure to be kind and gentle to this little gun.

I haven't gotten to the range since the last time I posted. It's just been unbearably hot down here (South Florida), and the only place to shoot is at an indoor range, and they don't believe in air conditioning (I am sure it would be an exhorbitant cost to keep up with the exhaust system).

Again, I thank you for your kindness in passing on your knowledge to another mostly clueless (but eager to learn) old dog. I have been shooting pistols since basic training (34 years ago), but never knew any of the "why's"..only the "how's). How to clean 'em, how to hold 'em, etc. Never a word about how or why they worked.

Peace,
D.