Delija
Member
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.
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.