A little while back, I saw a post on another forum asking how turn of the century pocket pistols would compare to the recent surge in popularity of pocket pistols. The two pistols in question are the FN 1910, chambered in both .32 and .380 ACP, and the Kahr CM40, chambered in .40 S&W. Perhaps a better comparison would have been against the CW380/P380 (maybe even the CT380 due to the similar barrel length), but the CM40 is the closest I have.
Functionality:
From an engineering standpoint, the two handguns are worlds apart, the CM40 being a recoil system and the 1910 being a simple straight blowback. In the early 20th century, metallurgy was not what we had today, nor had the specific short recoil system used in the CM40 been invented, meaning pistols of the day were limited to lowered powered cartridges that could be handled by the simple blowback designs. The .380 ACP is right on the cusp of being the most powerful cartridge capable of being chambered in a blowback design, before we come up with a Hi Point C9. The first pistol of Browning's to fire the .380 was the Colt 1908, which in itself is an updated Colt 1903 simply modified to fire the larger .380 over the .32 ACP. When Browning designed the 1910 pistol, he engineered the weapon to be capable of switching calibers with simply a barrel swap as a way to cut down on manufacturing costs. The pistol itself is a robust, striker-fired, design ahead of its time and was to copied over the next century, the most prominent being using the barrel as the guide rod, a design that would be found later in pistols like the Walther PP/k, Makarov, and even today's Bersa Thunder series. The 1910 was also considered to be one of the safest pistols of the day, featuring 3 safeties, the grip safety, thumb safety, and magazine disconnect.
The Kahr CM40 is in a class of its own. As to my knowledge, the CM40 is the smallest .40 S&W handgun in production. Utilizing a double action striker, Browning style recoil system, and 3 dot sight system (a feature that has almost come to be expected from every manufacturer), the CM40 has the benefits of over 100 years of engineering and user feedback over the 1910. The CM40 is one of the value based offerings from Kahr and was born out of the CM9 by increasing its size ever so slightly to compensate for the added power of .40 S&W. Another benefit of the years is the polymer frame used on the Kahr, making it lighter than similar sized full steel pistols. Other than the fact that the CM40 is the smallest .40 S&W in production, it's design is similar to the polymer, striker-fired handguns that fill the market today.
Size:
The two pistols are nearly the same size, with the exception of the 1910 being slightly longer and noticeably thinner.
Specs for the 1910:
Weight: 20.8 Oz
Length: 6.02"
Width (my calipers): .775"
Height (my calipers): 3.9"
Barrel length: 3.5"
Capacity: 6+1 or 7+1 (.380 and .32 ACP respectively)
The CM40:
Weight: 15.8 Oz (empty)
Length: 5.47"
Width: .94"
Height: 4"
Barrel: 3.1"
Capacity: 5+1
Handling:
The 1910 is a sweet shooting pistol, for it's size, since all three fingers fit on the grip. If it were not for the steel frame, the recoil would drive the narrow frame into the web of your hand. The balance of the pistol is near perfect and points quite naturally, which is great due to the incredibly low profile sights. While it can be enjoyable to shoot, it is obviously meant to be carried and drawn easily as the profile is incredibly sleek and sights minimal.
The CM40 is a beast. Short and simple. The recoil in the CM40 is manageable enough for carry, but by no means a range toy. The two fingered grip with flush mags is minimal at most and the top heavy design means it handles a bit more clunky than the 1910. The design is sort of reminder that most carry guns today are chopped versions of their larger counterparts, the CM40 being the same.
Which should you carry?
This is obviously a question of opinion, but the facts can be laid out. The 1910 is a 116 year old design that's claim to fame is killing Franz Ferdinand and precipitating WW1. The CM40 on the other hand is a benchmark of contemporary handgun design, and has the added safety of a double action trigger pull. In my opinion, the one big flaw with the 1910 is the striker. The 1910 has a crisp single action trigger pull, but at a cost as there is also no firing pin block. The only thing holding the striker back from touching off the round (and the rest of the magazine) is the small sear engagement, and if it were to ever break, results would be disastrous. The Kahr on the other hand has a double action trigger pull meaning if it were to drop accidentally, it wouldn't have sufficient power to set the primer off, but ontop of that the firing pin block would have prevented the striker from ever touching the primer in the first place. It's actually sort of sad to me that the 1910 has that flaw as it has the unique characteristic of being built for concealed carry from the ground up, as opposed to what seems to be an attitude of "what's the largest caliber we can put in the smallest gun?". With all that said, I actually find myself carrying BOTH pistols at times. I think of my 1910 as a more ergonomic LCP with a longer barrel that can squeeze a bit more juice from the diminutive .380.
What do you guys think of carrying a vintage pistol for carry?
Functionality:
From an engineering standpoint, the two handguns are worlds apart, the CM40 being a recoil system and the 1910 being a simple straight blowback. In the early 20th century, metallurgy was not what we had today, nor had the specific short recoil system used in the CM40 been invented, meaning pistols of the day were limited to lowered powered cartridges that could be handled by the simple blowback designs. The .380 ACP is right on the cusp of being the most powerful cartridge capable of being chambered in a blowback design, before we come up with a Hi Point C9. The first pistol of Browning's to fire the .380 was the Colt 1908, which in itself is an updated Colt 1903 simply modified to fire the larger .380 over the .32 ACP. When Browning designed the 1910 pistol, he engineered the weapon to be capable of switching calibers with simply a barrel swap as a way to cut down on manufacturing costs. The pistol itself is a robust, striker-fired, design ahead of its time and was to copied over the next century, the most prominent being using the barrel as the guide rod, a design that would be found later in pistols like the Walther PP/k, Makarov, and even today's Bersa Thunder series. The 1910 was also considered to be one of the safest pistols of the day, featuring 3 safeties, the grip safety, thumb safety, and magazine disconnect.
The Kahr CM40 is in a class of its own. As to my knowledge, the CM40 is the smallest .40 S&W handgun in production. Utilizing a double action striker, Browning style recoil system, and 3 dot sight system (a feature that has almost come to be expected from every manufacturer), the CM40 has the benefits of over 100 years of engineering and user feedback over the 1910. The CM40 is one of the value based offerings from Kahr and was born out of the CM9 by increasing its size ever so slightly to compensate for the added power of .40 S&W. Another benefit of the years is the polymer frame used on the Kahr, making it lighter than similar sized full steel pistols. Other than the fact that the CM40 is the smallest .40 S&W in production, it's design is similar to the polymer, striker-fired handguns that fill the market today.
Size:
The two pistols are nearly the same size, with the exception of the 1910 being slightly longer and noticeably thinner.
Specs for the 1910:
Weight: 20.8 Oz
Length: 6.02"
Width (my calipers): .775"
Height (my calipers): 3.9"
Barrel length: 3.5"
Capacity: 6+1 or 7+1 (.380 and .32 ACP respectively)
The CM40:
Weight: 15.8 Oz (empty)
Length: 5.47"
Width: .94"
Height: 4"
Barrel: 3.1"
Capacity: 5+1
Handling:
The 1910 is a sweet shooting pistol, for it's size, since all three fingers fit on the grip. If it were not for the steel frame, the recoil would drive the narrow frame into the web of your hand. The balance of the pistol is near perfect and points quite naturally, which is great due to the incredibly low profile sights. While it can be enjoyable to shoot, it is obviously meant to be carried and drawn easily as the profile is incredibly sleek and sights minimal.
The CM40 is a beast. Short and simple. The recoil in the CM40 is manageable enough for carry, but by no means a range toy. The two fingered grip with flush mags is minimal at most and the top heavy design means it handles a bit more clunky than the 1910. The design is sort of reminder that most carry guns today are chopped versions of their larger counterparts, the CM40 being the same.
Which should you carry?
This is obviously a question of opinion, but the facts can be laid out. The 1910 is a 116 year old design that's claim to fame is killing Franz Ferdinand and precipitating WW1. The CM40 on the other hand is a benchmark of contemporary handgun design, and has the added safety of a double action trigger pull. In my opinion, the one big flaw with the 1910 is the striker. The 1910 has a crisp single action trigger pull, but at a cost as there is also no firing pin block. The only thing holding the striker back from touching off the round (and the rest of the magazine) is the small sear engagement, and if it were to ever break, results would be disastrous. The Kahr on the other hand has a double action trigger pull meaning if it were to drop accidentally, it wouldn't have sufficient power to set the primer off, but ontop of that the firing pin block would have prevented the striker from ever touching the primer in the first place. It's actually sort of sad to me that the 1910 has that flaw as it has the unique characteristic of being built for concealed carry from the ground up, as opposed to what seems to be an attitude of "what's the largest caliber we can put in the smallest gun?". With all that said, I actually find myself carrying BOTH pistols at times. I think of my 1910 as a more ergonomic LCP with a longer barrel that can squeeze a bit more juice from the diminutive .380.
What do you guys think of carrying a vintage pistol for carry?
I do like the recent efforts from companies like Kimber and their Solo, as well as Remington's failed, albeit appreciated, attempt at rebooting the model 51. I often think that a polymer framed 1910 or more faithful model 51 would sell like wild fire.
