rcmodel
Member in memoriam
NOt that it really matters.
But post #17 said it, and then it was later deleted.
rc
Why no fixed-barrel centerfire pistols?
- Thread starter The_Next_Generation
- Start date
- Status
But post #17 said it, and then it was later deleted.
rc
Ash
Member
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.
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.
Ash
Member
I believe the Glisenti and the Nambu had variations of the fixed-barrel and the reciprocating bolt.
Prince Yamato
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2011
- Messages
- 664
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
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
I seen a Jiminez 9mm with a fixed barrel
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
Walt Sherrill
Member
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.
Don357
Member
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
Member
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?
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
Member
AutoMag in 44AMP.
WardenWolf
member
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.
Ash
Member
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?
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,728
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
Member
As mentioned before...
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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
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
Last edited:
EMC45
Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,937
iraqveteran8888 does a youtube clip with a Hi Point in 10MM....Check it out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UToeNXDL9WY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UToeNXDL9WY
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.
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
member
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.
- Status
