Was JMB bad for gun diversity?

[Tamara]

Jim Keenan,

True. I guess the point I was driving at is that even on a relatively compact machine pistol, space and weight aren't quite at the premium they are on a belt gun... (Another problem with straight blowback in any major caliber handgun; there's no place on the gun for a bolt handle to overcome the necessarily zesty spring. )

 

[Schuey2002]

Tamara,

You should write a book. NO! Make that a firearms encyclopedia !

 

[farscott]

Mr. Keenan,

I had read that many submachine guns fired from an open bolt in order to keep the chambered round at a lower temperature to prevent "cook off". Is there any truth to this? I assume it would only be a factor in sustained strings of firing.

 

[M1911]

OMG. The heresy. Throw out the heretic! Call for jihad!

 

[BigG]

The Colt/Browning lockup is an economical solution to a problem, sort of like the electric light bulb solves the problem of how to get light without burning whale oil or some other fuel. Until the technology changes, i.e., whale oil to electricity, the C/B solution will probably continue to be the most cost effective.

 

[JohnKSa]

I'll throw in a couple of things that favor the tilt-barrel design. Clearly, since there are a wide variety of competing designs, I'm not claiming that each of these points favor the tilt-barrel over all other designs. Just that each of these points give it an edge over a group of competing designs, though, not necessarily the same group for each point.

1. It's very scalable.

I've seen workable tilt-barrel delayed blowback pistols that range from palm-size mini-pistols to monster magnums that practically require two hands.

The oscillating block pistols seem to be limited to a relatively small range in terms of size and power (For example, Beretta doesn't make a .45 or a .380 using it's very successful locking block design). This seems to be a failing of many of the other non-tilt barrel designs. There is a huge benefit to a manufacturer to not have to come up with a new action design when a newer more powerful caliber becomes available or when the consumer demands a smaller pistol.

2. It's very easy to "field-strip" this design. A properly designed tilt barrel comes apart very easily and doesn't have any small parts to get lost. Glock is an excellent example. The first time you have a Beretta locking block fall free from the barrel during a field strip, I suspect that it could put a big damper on your enthusiasm for the design. The roller-locking CZ-52 is pretty neat, but they're not the easiest guns to field-strip by a long shot.

3. It can be designed so that the frame is virtually a non-stressed part--witness the new Ruger polymer frames that don't even use metal rails... There are other designs that share this feature, but the oscillating block designs, for example, don't.

4. It wears and fouls gracefully and is very tolerant of ammo. I've always wondered what happens when the rifling starts to give out or is hopelessly fouled by lead bullets on a rotary barrel design pistol--or when the gas system clogs on a gas-delay design from cruddy ammo or lead bullets.

When you start putting all these together, you start to get an appreciation for the reason the tilt-barrel design is so popular with both the public and manufacturers.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

To suggest JMB was bad for gun diversity is something of a naive query. First, whether there was or was not more gun diversity after his addtions to the gun world is not due to his work per se, but to the acceptance of his work by the consumers at levels from the individual to even government levels with contracts.

In part, if diversity was less after his work, it was not because he did something to stimy variability, but because his designs were that good. If you operate under the premise that necessity breeds invention, there is less necessity when the products available are good because those products meet the needs. When products are not quality, don't work, or no longer fit the desired use, there is more of a vacuum created and hence development of new products to fill the vacuum.

So to say that JMB was bad for diversity might make sense if he somehow had some control of the market, precluded the devepment of other firearms, and if his guns didn't meet the needs.

Keep in mind that diversity is not always a good thing. With a lot of diversity does come a lot of bad products...and good ones.

If JMB was somehow bad for diversity, it was only because his products met the desired qualifications, quantities, qualities, and situational context. Some of his designs have been fairly timeless like the 1911, Hi Power, and .50 cal BMG that are still being made today. Also however, many of his designs are NOT being made today.

As a final note, not all Browning's stuff was produced by him. The 1911 was licensed to Colt. If the 1911 is seen as somehow squelching diversity, then the fault would be with Colt, not Browning as Browning was only the designer and not the manufacturer.

 

[Sam]

Mr. Browning was not bad for diversity, he just developed what turned out to be the most popular item on the market.
Browning's designs were elegant, simple, reliable and easily maintainable.

European designs of the era were anemic, expensive and unreliable. You only have to look at one Roth-Styer, Bergman, or C96 Mauser to see that. Ever looked at a Mars/Gabbet-Fairfax.
Europeans are not pistolero's and tend to use the handgun as a badge or symbol of authority. Anybody want a Glisenti or a
Pieper.

Beretta may have conned the DoD into buying it's pistol but that was a sop because we had never purchased a weapon system from any of our NATO allies prior to that.
When the chips are down the GI still wants a .45, a design that served the US military with only 1 set of cosmetis modifications for 80 years.

Browning was just WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of his time. And not just on Pistols!

Sam

 

[Handy]

So now the C96 Mauser was an anemic, unreliable pistol, only intended as a badge of rank?


That's nuts.

 

[Tamara]

Handy,

I was kinda wondering about that myself...

 

[Owen]

well, the C96 isn't all that anemic, but its FRIGGIN HUGE!!

 

[Tamara]

owen,

Don't think of it so much as a pistol, but more as a sort of "proto-PDW".

 

[Sam]

Yest the C96 is anemic. A very much hopped up 32 auto. Fair penetration and an easy round to get hits with but a lousy stopper. Try one sometime, the most ergonometrically unfriendly handgun ever made, thays why they call it the "Broomhandle".
It points almost as good as a broomhandle. On top of that it is HUGE! Good thing it came with that 2x4 holster/stock. It needs it.
The only folks I have seen that were really impressed with it were Chinese. Not exactly noted for thier military prowess.

Back to the excellance and advancement of JMB designs.
Are you really going to equip yourself with a Bayard, Schwarzlose 1898, Mannlicher '01, Roth- Sauer, Frommer Stop, Roth-Steyr, 7 or 8mm Nambu, Type 94, Ruby, Webley & Scott New Military and Police, Schwarzlose, Brixia, Dreyse, P38, Bayard 1910, Steyr Military (damn where are my stripper clips), Luger (made a better machine gun design as the maxim than it did a pistol),
MAB P15, and the Obregon. That's about enough examples of extremely sucessful pistols for you. I have no less than 11 different NAZI marked designs that are not JMB derivitives in my box. Defines nation confusion dosen't it.
As for the Italian offering, I will defer to my esteemed grandfather who related that the only time he had ever seen an Italian handgun put to use was executing Ethiopians after the poison gas failed.

Every real winner on the market owes something to JWB. An impediment to pistol design? Hardly, just state of the art 60 years early.

Sam

 

[Tamara]

Sam,

Try one sometime,

I've owned one; I'm pretty sure Handy does, too. I find it easier to score hits with from the hip than any other handgun design other than the SAA. Sure, the safety's awkward, and it's a humungous pistol that really only makes sense when viewed as a PDW with a detachable shoulder stock rather than a true sidearm, but let's remember that it was pretty groundbreaking when it appeared (and it appeared at a time before the word "ergonomics" had been coined).

The only folks I have seen that were really impressed with it were Chinese.

...and the Germans, and the Spanish, and Winston Churchill. I'd hardly call a 50+ year production run a total flop.

As for the Italian offering, I will defer to my esteemed grandfather who related that the only time he had ever seen an Italian handgun put to use was executing Ethiopians after the poison gas failed.

I take it your cable is out?

 

[Boats]

Speaking of ergonomics, I handled two M1917s yesterday one by S&W and the other by Colt. They spoke of history but I had to wonder if either of them had actually been successfully applied in a combat situation, both having some of the worst designed grips and sights I have ever sampled.

It just made me think of this thread and marvel a lot more at just how much Browning got right, except for those sights of course.

 

[RON in PA]

Why lump the P-38 in with the rest of the unsucessful designs? In prduction for over 50 years and at least 2 million made. used by many countries and the father of the m-9. had an excellent reputation in WW2.

 

[Sam]

OK folks I'm back again.

Do not take offense if I make light of your favorite gun, I probably had or have one too.

Tamara,
They dont have enough wire to run cable out here.
Dont want no Beretta. Anything that needs a slide capture device is lame from the get go.

I'm glad the C96 works for you. Most of the folks you mentioned as liking it so well used it as a carbine and it's final iteration was a subgun variant. Anybody know how many were made? I believe a few less than a million. We will never know how many chinese copies were made.

Ron,
I do not consider the P38 as a sucess for a number of reasons.
Most of the production was military. As a commercial venture it is not huge sucess. Walther was able to rebuild long after the war, buy back their machinery from the French and get back into production. They couldn't have swung it with new tooling. It is still available in Europe but not for sale here. I suspect as a product liability thing. Walther makes more cash from Air Rifles than handguns anymore. Question for you: What locking mechanism does a P99 use???

Back to the origonal post. JMB was not bad for diversity, there have been many, many new designs introduced since the tiltbarrel was introduced. Several varieties of gas retarded items, a host of C96 tilting/dropping/pivoting lockingblock derivitives, even a couple of rotating barrel jobs a la Steyr. Few have been great sucesses (how are we going to define sucess). Tilt barrel guns are in the majority because they are superior! Manufacturers are constantly trying to come up with new designs. They just do not seem to work out.
For ease of manufacture, durability and reliability the tilt barrel keeps cropping up. How Come? Saint Moses did not design an impediment to thought, he designed a superior product.

Sam

 

[Sam]

Tamara,
I forgot to mention, The 1898 Schwartzlose came out the same year as the C96 and is very ergonomic, the Luger1900. Somebody back then was thinking ergonomic, even if the safety was an afterthought.

Sam

 

[RON in PA]

Re: the P-38, it's not in production anymore except perhaps in its P-5 variant.

As for Walther as a company, IMHO they missed the boat when the "wonder nine" craze hit. When they finally came out with the P-88 it was too expensive and yes it's a modified tilt barrel as is the sucessful P-99. Beretta beat them with their 92 .

As for the P-38 not being sucessful because it was primarily produced for the military and not commercially, most gun manufactuers would love to sell their wares to the military, that's where the big numbers are. Was the Makarov ever sold commercially before the demise of the "Evil Empire". One heck of a sucessful pistol design and I bet that most 1911s made were sold to the military. From your perspective Rugers are probably the most sucessful guns since most sales are commercial.

 

[George Hill]

Was JMB bad for gun diversity?
Is Mike Jordan bad for basketball diversity?

So, again, can someone defend the Browning system on it's individual design merits?

And while you are at that... please define for us the individual design merits of the following:
The original Pontiac GTO
The Harley Davidson V-Rod
The '57 Chevy
The Dodge Viper

Some things are just born freaking cool. Some people get it. Some don't. If you don't get it, it can't be explained to you.