Why No sSgnificant British or French Auto-loading Pistols?

[Deus Machina]

Well, from my experience with the engineering from either country...
The brits can't figure out how to make their guns hold enough oil to still run while burning it, and because electronics in semi-autos are illegal here, they can't send us anything with wiring problems instead.
The French, on the other hand, just can't make anything drop-safe. (I know, but my experience on other French engineering is limited to aggravating bolt placement.)
Also, I've seen French guns and they make the Ruger P series look artistic.
I honestly have no idea how the Germans make decent weapons, because everything about German engineering should require twice as many parts in the magazine, or ones that require adjustment but void the warranty if you field strip it.

 

[valencia]

Contrary to popular belief.
A qualified/approved citizen CAN own handguns in both France and the U.K.
However, there are restrictions to deal with

Speaking as a Brit i would have to disagree, at least about the UK. You can only shoot black powder muzzle loading short guns in the UK. Even the British Olympic team cant practice, they have to go to another country to practice. it actually took an Act of Parliament (special dispensation) to allow pistol shooting for the Olympics when it was held in London.
Thankfully i now live in Spain, but the regulations here and the hoops you have to jump through are unbelievable. Believe it or not a permit for pistol target shooting only allows you to buy - wait for it - a whole 100 rounds A YEAR! you have to apply for an increase!

 

[wally]

because everything about German engineering should require twice as many parts in the magazine

Guess you've never opened up an HK 93 40 round magazine

 

[ZEN.45]

Sorry, but as a European I find this discussion a bit silly. It’s like asking “why aren’t there handguns made in every single state of the US ?”.

The idea that the presence of a handgun industry is dependent of the local national market (including police/military) is ridiculous. If FN’s development and production would be based on the Belgian demand alone they would have gone out of business a long time ago (most Belgian LEO’s are carrying Glock’s btw).

Personally I own 10 handguns (5 American, 3 German, 1 Italian, 1 Russian) and 12 long guns (3 British, 2 American, 2 German, 1 Israeli, 1 Fin, 1Swiss, 1 Austrian, 1 Russian). So as a Belgian I don’t own a single Belgian gun .

With the presence of FN, Beretta, SIG-Sauer, H&K, Glock, Beretta, CZ, Steyr (to name the most famous), one could argue that the gun industry in Europe is remarkably successful.

 

[Surculus]

With the presence of FN, Beretta, SIG-Sauer, H&K, Glock, Beretta, CZ, Steyr (to name the most famous), one could argue that the gun industry in Europe is remarkably successful.

Exactly!

 

[Surculus]

Chauchat undermined? Only the ones made for Americans in .30-06 where crap. Considering that there was nothing else available when it was fielded that was comparable its mediocre performance by today's standards was still sufficiently good to keep France and Belgium using it. The Chauchat has an undeserved bad reputation in the U.S. because of American experience with it and not that of the majority of users. It was no B.A.R. but then the B.A.R. had not been created when the Chauchat had already killed many thousands of enemy soldiers. The Chauchat was almost revolutionary in being a new type of infantry weapon.

The "Sho-sho" was compromised in many ways. It was reasonably reliable in the original Balle D chambering [heavily tapered rounds are good in autoloaders] and yes, the incorrectly chambered US-contract CSRG's will always remain an embarrassment to the French arms industry [perhaps it will help to remember that the Chauchat was made in a converted bicycle factory by workers almost entirely devoid of gunsmithing expertise.]

But the open-sided magazines should have disappeared after the 1st week of field trials; instead, [Allied] soldiers died because of those idiotic dirt catchers.

The sho-sho was the 1st effectively utilized "squad automatic" and I highly recommend anyone interested in how this truly marginal firearm design could have found success read Yves Buffetaut Gerard Demaison's book Honor Bound.[/b] [Tip: see if you can get it via your local library's Inter Library Lending service, so you don't have to shell out $ just to find out if you like the book or not...]

Moral of the story: never buy firearms thinking they can "easily be converted to work with our ammo" until thorough testing has been done, prior to issuing them in combat!

 

[barnbwt]

If I had to actually advance, I think the Chau would be preferable to any other automatic of its day. More the point, is the French and others learned from the Chau's misfortune (the Finns of Lahti Saloranta fame, did not, however). I suspect tactics killed far more men than malfunctions (not to mention that no autoloader will fare well in hand held trench warfare in Europe --an AK would probably have dissolved within weeks )

TCB

 

[Nom de Forum]

......... yes, the incorrectly chambered US-contract CSRG's will always remain an embarrassment to the French arms industry [perhaps it will help to remember that the Chauchat was made in a converted bicycle factory by workers almost entirely devoid of gunsmithing expertise.]

It should also be remembered that almost half of the Chauchats used by the A.E.F. were 8mm Lebels that worked as well for them as the French, as in well enough to be kept in use but far from as well as they should have.

Moral of the story: never buy firearms thinking they can "easily be converted to work with our ammo" until thorough testing has been done, prior to issuing them in combat!

The real moral of the story is the French, the Americans, and every other nation has had small arms that were SNAFU due to marginal design, sloppy manufacturing, and ill thought out changes to specifications. The French should be made fun of for the Chauchat far less than the Americans for adopting the M60 and M73 machineguns. The Chauchat was a hellava great effort at making a cheap and easy to manufacture Automatic Rifle/LMG when nothing else like it existed. The M60 and M73 were adopted when there was more than enough international experience with this class of MG for the U.S. Army to have no excuse for making such a foolish mistake. If you read about the problems the U.S.A. had in WWII with the H-S 20mm cannons it made you will discover it was caused by improperly cutting the chambers much like the French improperly cutting the .30-06 chambers (amongst other things) of the Chauchat. All Countries can FUBAR weapons, but it seems the French are always the ones wrongly remembered for doing it the most. Every significant American Infantry Rifle since the Civil War has a history of being SNAFU at some point after adoption.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Sorry, but as a European I find this discussion a bit silly. It’s like asking “why aren’t there handguns made in every single state of the US ?”.

The idea that the presence of a handgun industry is dependent of the local national market (including police/military) is ridiculous. If FN’s development and production would be based on the Belgian demand alone they would have gone out of business a long time ago (most Belgian LEO’s are carrying Glock’s btw).

Personally I own 10 handguns (5 American, 3 German, 1 Italian, 1 Russian) and 12 long guns (3 British, 2 American, 2 German, 1 Israeli, 1 Fin, 1Swiss, 1 Austrian, 1 Russian). So as a Belgian I don’t own a single Belgian gun .

With the presence of FN, Beretta, SIG-Sauer, H&K, Glock, Beretta, CZ, Steyr (to name the most famous), one could argue that the gun industry in Europe is remarkably successful.

Excellent post.

 

[Cee Zee]

No one has even mentioned Spanish pistols so I guess I will. Has no one heard of Llama? They fell on hard times and made some junk but at one time they made excellent pistols. They were copies of Browning's designs of course but what's new with that? Before the Llama pistol there was the Eibar/Ruby. It launched the Llama company sort of. It got Spanish semi-auto handguns going. They were made back in the 1910's or so. For the time they were made they were excellent pistols. Remember this was the early days for semi-auto handguns.

As for the production of handguns around Europe keep in mind that not only did they have 2 huge wars fought there where most any factory capable of building arms was blasted into smithereens but when things did get better they had this thing called "trade' where they could buy their pistols from the places that were good at it. This conversation is a lot like saying there are no good Ohio pistols when the thing is us Buckeyes can buy any number of US made pistols coming from exotic lands like "Connecticut". Well they used to come from there. Times are changing. The French bought lots of handguns from Spain for example. Later models of the Ruby became the official weapons of the French Army I believe. Again they were solid firearms. The French were still a colonial power for much of the 20th century (it kills me how they act all smug about how we have done things when their history is riddled with abuses). But being a colonial power they needed firearms that worked. But they couldn't be bothered to build their own. That's what peasants were for. Their own under classes made up the armies that went out and collected goodies for the muckity mucks. Yes I know they were a republic at the time but there was still a strong contingent of people who wanted to bring back royalty.

One more thing. It is true that we have to accept some consequences of firearm ownership. No one ever expected that to not be true. But the alternative could be far, far worse. We could end up surrendering our country to Muslim extremists for example like countries around the world might be doing like oh, maybe FRANCE. I guess I'm picking on the frogs but I remember their protests of the Vietnam War going back to the early days of the war. They apparently took no blame for their own war there but that's a whole other thread for another board.

Speaking of the French. They did make the "Le Français" pistol for a very long time. They even made a 9mm version but mostly it was .25 or .32 caliber. Those aren't exactly world shaking designs but they did make them. There were others too but not a lot. Many of the others were also small pistols. You know those frogs - always trying to prove that a little is enough. Have a look at this one. It reminds me of that glorious American firearm, the Raven.



There are lots of other guns made in the countries listed as having no pistol production but it could take years and cost thousands of lives to finish the whole subject. It's just too much for one man.

 

[rule303]

Funny how the Sig P210 always gets brought up when discussing the finest pistols ever built, especially in this thread since it is based on the French 1935.

 

[tark]

Damn it, Rule303, you beat me to the punch! Tousche! A point scored for you, and a rather decent slapdown, I might add.

Shadow7D, referring to your post #6, the Sterling and the Sten were both sub-machine guns, not pistols.

I suppose the Europeans never developed thriving handgun industries and designs because they looked upon handguns as tools for the military and not for sport. At least not quite the same way we did. As to the French, they had plenty of good German and Spanish and especially Belgium pistols to choose from and didn't feel the need to develop their own industry. My guess.

The Brits? They seem to have a stubborn national pride that considers other people"s guns as somehow inferior. Ever see a Smith Lend Lease gun stamped "Not English Made" HA!!

This, from the country that brought forth that incredibly complicated, overly complex, breakage prone contraption known as the Mars Pistol!

 

[Nom de Forum]

ApacheCoTodd deserves the credit for first mentioning the "French Connection" to the SIG 210.

 

[Cee Zee]

Before we go lambasting British gun tech too much we may want to remember they are making some of the best rifles on the planet right now. Accuracy International is a great firearms maker. As for pistols their police don't carry them much so there hasn't been a big drive to make them in the country. They do buy some though and my guess is they could never out a way to beat the designs of Mr. Browning. So they bought guns from across the channel in Belgium. Not a bad place to pick up a pistol or two. And why spend a fortune developing a Brit handgun when they were so close to the source of the Browning being made at FN? It's not like they had to order them from Mars or something. It would be like me wanting to build my own gun when I could buy a great one in Kentucky not far from where I live.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Far to often in THR threads the French get bashed by an American distorting French history and national character even when presenting some accurate information that unfortunately becomes tainted by proximity to excrement.

I wish Americans would remember that the French shed their blood to help save America for the Americans before the Americans shed their blood to help save France for the French. Both countries deserve gratitude and respect from each other.

 

[Surculus]

I wish Americans would remember that the French shed their blood to help save America for the Americans before the Americans shed their blood to help save France for the French.

Yeah, well, sorta: the French mostly helped America in the war for independence because it would sorely afflict their opposing world power at the time, Britain. [Think of the cold war between the U.S. & Soviet Russia, only with more frequent flareups...] But the fact remains that the U.S. is indebted to France in that regard, & I pray will never forget it: Lafayette, we are here!

Both countries deserve gratitude and respect from each other.

Bien sur! Like brothers, we may squabble & quarrel, but close ranks when threatened by those who seek to put out the flame of liberty. Long live the Republic! [Whichever one you prefer. ]

 

[Surculus]

The Brits? They seem to have a stubborn national pride that considers other people"s guns as somehow inferior. Ever see a Smith Lend Lease gun stamped "Not English Made" HA!!

This, from the country that brought forth that incredibly complicated, overly complex, breakage prone contraption known as the Mars Pistol!

The MARS had a hard time of it because of the combination of the early period of design [few proven examples of how to go about the task] and the high power of its cartridge [which unlike most of the cartridges chambered by its contemporaries, would still be considered of respectable power today, over a century later.] Long recoil designs never seem to work out all that well in practice: only Browning seems to have made much of a success of it [w/ his classic "humpback" Auto 5 shotgun.] Which brings us back round again to the Chauchat, as another reviled long-recoil design [part of why it only had a 14"? barrel, iirc: less mass to move back & forth. Attend "le gifle!"]

Today we know that semi-auto handguns need to be blowback [if the cartridge power is low enough], short-recoil or gas-operated. Long recoil designs have all failed to make the cut. If only they'd known that then, eh?

 

[Slamfire]

America is a young country and the education system is woefully inadequate. Whatever history most Americans learn, seems to come from movies, patriotic documentaries, or what grand dad said about WW2. I remember the WW2 generation and as a class, they hated the Japanese, thought the French and Italians inferior and cowardly, and respected the Germans. They did not love Germans, their respect came from finding out the Germans were tough, competent, and no pushover in a fight. Call it "bloody nose" respect. The WW2 generations' attitudes on these nations were reflected in their evaluation of firearms. Anyway, historical broad brush national bigotries, and cinematic history lessons have shaped America's viewpoints on firearms.

As noted by others, Europe has plenty of good gun designers and manufacturers. Unless a nation allows civilian gun ownership, and most European nations are not exactly helpful in this matter, if there is not a civilian market keeping a design crew employed and a gun factory busy, then the gun business has to be subsidized. Politicians are poor stewards of any economy, hopefully anyone can see that, so eventually subsidized military industries go away as politicians always find that, due to their mis management, money is short. Given that any European Military can buy quality firearms within the EU it makes sense that any National industry that only survives on subsidizes would go away in time.

Even German firms have problems: I recall HK went bankrupt and was purchased by the British! Now the German Government has decided to limit the number of firearms they export, and as per this article, was driving H&K into bankruptcy as a matter of public policy! http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1699

 

[Cee Zee]

Yeah, well, sorta: the French mostly helped America in the war for independence because it would sorely afflict their opposing world power at the time, Britain

Hey I was gonna say that. Now I'll have to think of something else to say. How about let's talk about the French And Indian War where the French were fighting against the poor colonists who would soon become American citizens. Let's not give France some sort of moral high ground because they did what was in their interest and fought the Brits on our behalf. Heck they were always fighting the Brits. It was nothing new. And let's not forget that they withheld their promised help until it was pretty obvious we were going to win the Revolution without them. A comparison was made to the Cold War when conflicts were constant. But it actually goes more like the Russians jumping in to fight the Japanese after the war won so they could hog in on the spoils of victory. I appreciate what those French people did but to give them some magnanimous reward of gratitude is too much IMO. They were fighting against those same people they "helped" in the Revolution barely 13 years before the Revolution began.

And I didn't say anything about what we did for France in the World Wars. I should have apparently. The great friends of ours, the French, wanted to use our soldiers as fodder for German machine guns and gas shells. Thanks but no thanks. We will fight (and win) the war without becoming your peons thank you. Imagine the Gaul (that's how it should be spelled) to ask our soldiers to blindly follow the losing strategy of the glorious French commanders and to die for the arrogance of France.

Not all of us were educated under the PC rules. And education in this country was far better 150 years ago than it is today. Thank a teacher's union for that. Speaking of which that kind of thinking is something else we got from our French Fried Friends. Socialism and it's inherent dependence on government was largely spread by the French. Now of course their great socialist state is collapsing of it's own weight but that has nothing to do with what I said. None of this tangent does. I said the French bad mouthed us for being in Vietnam and they most certainly did do that. I saw the demonstrations on my TV set almost daily. Once again the French were trying to tell us how to live. How dare we resist the will of the proletariat? I'm sure there were a few million people wishing we had fought the good fight longer instead of caving to the pressures of the left as those people were about to have their lives cut short in Crazy Cambodia after the US left Vietnam. That commie picnic is something the socialist frogs want to seem to forget. They pushed us to leave SE Asia for a long time before we did. They encouraged our people to do the same. It was a huge mistake on par with the mistakes being made today where we cut and run after first getting involved. The American people need to have the will to finish what they start in spite of the criticism of outsiders.

Now weren't we talking about guns?

 

[tark]

Methinks we stray far afield from stated purpose of thread.

I'll explain it in one sentence.

French and English automatic pistols suck because we had John Browning and they didn't!!! Simple.....huh? (Insert snickering sounds, followed by snobby, condescending laughter)

 

[oneounceload]

But their double guns and double rifles sure beat the hell out of ours....

 

[kBob]

Between the Wars and after WWII France had those Unique pistols. Most Americans that know them at all think .22RF when they think of them at all but they were also Unique pistols in .32ACP and .380 ACP.

I will always kick myself for not accepting as a gift the stock and barrel kit that turned one of the smaller Uniques in .22LR into a rifle........but ATF was not so understanding about such conversions in the late 1960's.

So between WWI and WWII there was in France, besides the government arsenals MAB, Unique, and ManuFrance that were in business. So government arsenals and at least three civil outfits in a place about the size of Texas. Doesn't sound particularly lacking. How many firearms companies produced semi auto pistols in center fire at that time in the US?

Britain on the other hand made it difficult for private citizens to own handguns shortly before WWI and even harder after the war. The Police in the UK continued to follow the Bobby Peel ideal of an unarmed police force that depended on Hugh and Cry to deal with issues that could not be addressed with a night stick. Thus no market for British semi autos really existed. No surprise folks that might make useful kitchen gadgets that sold did not bother with handguns.

Consider the effect on American Coffee makers manufacturers if Coffee had been effectively banned for civilians and only allowed inside police stations......what would Joe DiMaggio have done in his retirement?

People keep bringing up Europe outside the two original countries listed in the OP.

Belgium. Germany. Spain. There, I mentioned them, and they are neither the UK or France.

Some one has mentioned the LLama in Spain......but failed to mention the superior Astra and Star of the 20th century.


-kBob

 

[Cee Zee]

Some one has mentioned the LLama in Spain......but failed to mention the superior Astra and Star of the 20th century.

That's because the early guns made by the company that would become Llama were actually very good. Like all good gun makers, they stole the design from Browning but the Ruby was a very good pistol and IMO superior to the Astra. I know they made other pistols in Spain. I just pointed out what I thought were the best examples because it was a "significant" Spanish pistol while the Astra and Star pistols weren't so much. They didn't establish any precedents for one thing. The Ruby did. They proved you could steal most of Browing's design (for the Hi Power at first and later they stole the 1911 design also but it wasn't as significant). It was one of the first copies of Brownings masterpiece to be built somewhere else without actually being legally sanctioned to do it. That became a common thing and it was Spain that did it first.

It may be hair splitting but that's why I mentioned the Ruby and the progression from that line. BTW the Swiss certainly designed some mighty fine guns too and so did several other countries from eastern Europe. We recognize the names now but they were under the radar for the western world for too long. Let's talk CZ for example. But even the seemingly clunky Russian designs were solid pistols. The Tokarev was among the most powerful pistols you could get for quite a while I believe. And the Russians designed many other pistols of course. Their ways are different from our ways but I carried a Tokarev for a long time. Maybe 10 years I carried that pistol. I wasn't exactly doing well financially with 2 kids in college over about a 12 year period. But I knew what to buy that didn't cost a lot but still worked well. They are far from the best pistols around but they could put good size holes in things and they were accurate enough. If there had been bullet development for that caliber I might still be carrying that pistol.

That Tokarev was certainly more effective than the pistol I carried in the car before that. I carried a Tec-9 for a few years. It had lots of firepower but almost no accuracy. I finally decided it would be better to hit what I was aiming at. The fun factor had a lot to do with why I bought that piece. I blasted up a lot of ammo with it for sure. But I might as well have been setting off packs of firecrackers for all the good all those rounds did. That gun was ridiculously inaccurate.

 

[Surculus]

The Tokarev was among the most powerful pistols you could get for quite a while I believe.

That kinda depends upon definitions: some people exclude revolvers from the definition of "pistol." If you consider all repeating handguns "pistols," then the Tokarev [TT33] held that distinction for 2 years, until Smith & Wesson released their Registered .357 Magnum.

Most of that is splitting of hairs tho', since "powerful" tends to get mixed up w/ "energy" and momentum gets ignored. Let's not go down that tangent, OK?

 

[barnbwt]

Also depends if you count the C96 Mauser, which historically shot indistinguishable ammo, and held more rounds.

TCB