DWalt
Member
I read something some years back about a homeowner using a Colt Navy C&B (original or replica not stated) to repel a home invasion attempt - in Dallas, I think. I remember no details. It worked.
Does a Vintage Carry Pistol Stand up to Today's Pistols?
- Thread starter Me239
- Start date
I read something some years back about a homeowner using a Colt Navy C&B (original or replica not stated) to repel a home invasion attempt - in Dallas, I think. I remember no details. It worked.
If you're strictly talking turn of the 20th century pistols, it's a bit of a niche comparison and not very relevant to the choices available today.
The real leap in small self defense pistol technology arguably came in the early 1930s with the PP series pistols - and they are considered old by both chronological and technological metrics.
A more practical comparison is the blow back operated, double action, de-cocker equipped PP series pistols in .32 ACP and .380 ACP with more modern delayed recoil locked pistols in .380 ACP like the Kimber Micro.
A PP or PPK/S is a pleasure to shoot in .32 ACP, but in .380 ACP, particularly a stout self defense load, the blow back operated pistol is less pleasant and has some bite to it. Not enough to matter over a short range session, but enough that you don't enjoy putting 100 rounds or more through one. And, it's enough that it requires additional training for the shooter to get good with it.
In contrast, the Kimber Micro's 1911 style delayed recoil locked breech system requires a much light recoil spring and the slide is much easier to operate. It also has much less "perceived" recoil, when in fact it actually has more total recoil given it's lighter weight, but the recoil is spread out over more time and has less "bite" to it.
The Kimber Micro is lighter and smaller than a PPK/S and is every bit as reliable - and with one of the several loads using the 90 gr XTP hollow point, it will come very close to meeting the FBI's penetration and expansion requirements.
In fairness, the PP and PPK/S with their longer barrels (3.5" and 3.9" compared to 2.75") and greater ballistic efficiency will actually meet the FBI requirements with the 90 gr XTP at around 1000-1050 fps.
----
With all that said, I have no qualms carrying either one, but at the end of the day when everything is considered, my preference for a an armed citizen self defense shoot is still a steel J-frame revolver like the Model 36 or Model 60. With a well chosen .38 +P self defense load, it will also meet the FBI penetration standards and is also very enjoyable to shoot when equipped with a decent set of rubber grips.
The real leap in small self defense pistol technology arguably came in the early 1930s with the PP series pistols - and they are considered old by both chronological and technological metrics.
A more practical comparison is the blow back operated, double action, de-cocker equipped PP series pistols in .32 ACP and .380 ACP with more modern delayed recoil locked pistols in .380 ACP like the Kimber Micro.
A PP or PPK/S is a pleasure to shoot in .32 ACP, but in .380 ACP, particularly a stout self defense load, the blow back operated pistol is less pleasant and has some bite to it. Not enough to matter over a short range session, but enough that you don't enjoy putting 100 rounds or more through one. And, it's enough that it requires additional training for the shooter to get good with it.
In contrast, the Kimber Micro's 1911 style delayed recoil locked breech system requires a much light recoil spring and the slide is much easier to operate. It also has much less "perceived" recoil, when in fact it actually has more total recoil given it's lighter weight, but the recoil is spread out over more time and has less "bite" to it.
The Kimber Micro is lighter and smaller than a PPK/S and is every bit as reliable - and with one of the several loads using the 90 gr XTP hollow point, it will come very close to meeting the FBI's penetration and expansion requirements.
In fairness, the PP and PPK/S with their longer barrels (3.5" and 3.9" compared to 2.75") and greater ballistic efficiency will actually meet the FBI requirements with the 90 gr XTP at around 1000-1050 fps.
----
With all that said, I have no qualms carrying either one, but at the end of the day when everything is considered, my preference for a an armed citizen self defense shoot is still a steel J-frame revolver like the Model 36 or Model 60. With a well chosen .38 +P self defense load, it will also meet the FBI penetration standards and is also very enjoyable to shoot when equipped with a decent set of rubber grips.
tompehret
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2012
- Messages
- 421
- Reaction score
- 414
Jingles
Member
Brian in Oregon
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 678
- Reaction score
- 914
I have a 1910 in .380 and find it to be one of the mos instinctive pointing handguns I have ever fired. I like it and do carry it from time to time. The fact that the design was made literally unchanged for over 60 years speaks well for it.
Always wanted one of those, but the only ones that turned up around here were always .32 cal.
Nothing wrong with an older gun as long as it is functionally sound and reliable. I'm not a fan of Kahr. Newer design is ok also. If the older gun is working good it's a toss up. Which one do you shoot better and which one carries better. Caliber is scondary to which one you shoot better
Me239,
You raise some interesting points, but are also sadly misinformed about several points.
First, any mechanical device is a set of compromises. Every feature cannot be built into every design, and we are not talking about only guns! Any firearm is nothing more nor less than a bullet launching device. The ammunition doesn't care what it is fired from, and both accuracy and safety are in a large point a result of the operators competence, not the design.
There have been blow-back pistols in calibers including 9mm Browning Long, 9mm Parabellum, 9mm Largo, and even .45 ACP. Have you ever heard of HiPoint??? All of these are far more powerful than .380!
"Vintage Design"? How about the S&W J-Frame and K-Frame models? These all date back to 1896 and 1899 respectively! I think a Model 10, 19, 60, etc. could easily fall into the Vintage category. Not only are many "Vintage" pistols and revolvers fully as capable as "Modern" guns, they are just as capable as when they were new. During my life, and the more than 50 years I have carried concealed during it, I have carried many "Vintage" firearms and felt fully confidant in their ability to defend me if it came to dire necessity, and I did my share. These include in no particular order:
Mauser 1934 .32
Walther PP .32
Remington style "Hy Hunter" double-derringer, .357
Colt 1911 .45
S&W 1905 4th Change .38, ca. 1918 "I was the 3rd police officer to carry this revolver as a duty and off duty weapon!"
Browning 1910 .380
Colt New Service .45 Colt
Webley "Metropolitan Police" in .450 Revolver ca. 1870 or so.
Savage 1907 .32
Colt (Clone) SAA .45 Colt
Colt 1903 .32
S&W .38 Safety
S&W .32 Double Action (I'll admit this is marginal!)
And a few times, when in a peculiar mood, a Colt Navy .36
I am sure there were a few more that I don't recall at the moment.
My EDC is a S&W Model 12, either of 2.
I also carry from time to time, a S&W Shorty Forty, Astra A-75L 9mm, S&W Model 39, S&W Model 19 2 1/2", S&W Model 10 2", S&W Model 60-9(?) .38, S&W Model 14-2 "Dayton", S&W Model 30 3" .32 S&WL, and several others. I cannot say I really have felt any more confident with any of these "modern" guns that those in the list above. I still carry some of those from time to time when the mood strikes. Historically they have all been able to get the job done when needed, and I have no doubt they still will!
Feel bad responding to this over a year later, but I just logged back in! So I'm not sure if you read my entire post or not, but I clearly state that I consider .380 ACP to be the most powerful cartridge that can be chambered in a blowback pistol before something like the C9 is created
I know that every mechanical design is a compromise, but I also recognized in my post that the 1910 has the distinct disadvantage of being in the group of the first successful semi-automatic pistols, while Kahr has over 100 years of feedback from the failures and successes of manufacturers before them.
As far as the revolver argument goes, do you feel safer with a revolver without a transfer bar than a revolver with one (seeing that you carry an 1851 tells me this probably isn't an issue)? Transfer bars, along with drop safeties, are hallmarks of modern carry pistols and revolvers. I also never stated that those revolvers weren't vintage either, I simply never mentioned anything besides a FN 1910 and CM40
EDIT: Oh wow, I see that I already responded to the post with nearly the exact same opinions. Guess I'm a little stubborn.
Last edited:
CCantu357
Member
I was just about to say that the Beretta 1934 has to be one of the best .380s ever made. With a steel frame and and open slide design I bet that little gun would run the new and hot JHP defense loads all day without failure. Heck, if Beretta brought the 1934 back I would buy one. Especially if they made the saftey easier to operate and used an aluminum frame like the 80s and 92s.
Ivan the Butcher
Member
Being 61, I have noticed that older men carry older guns and younger men carry younger designs. I don't know if this is a statement for stubbornness, or wisdom.
What I have learned over the last 45 years of being in the working world is; "New and Improved", seldom is!
One of the other issues I take concern over is; "Drop proof" firearms. If the 1911 is so bad, Why aren't there millions of dead or wounded GI's from WWI, WWII, Korea, & Vietnam. The guns were dropped sometimes with the men attached! Or the millions of civilians that have owned these same guns or commercial models.
Using primed only cases, The Columbus, Ohio PD ordinance department conducted independent tests to see what it actually took in real life to get a 1911 to discharge when dropped. They could not get one of the test guns to discharge! They used a slide only, and got it to discharge UNDER UNREALISTIC CONDITIOND ONLY! The bore axis must be perpendicular to the surface and the distance it falls was greater than 6'2" men could hold them unaided. (8 foot 6 inches, is the minimum distance that sticks in my mind.) A complete steel framed pistol's center of gravity won't allow these conditions to exist under anything close to real life conditions! Saying that it is impossible to happen isn't true either, but you stand a much greater chance of being struck by lightning, TWICE! (which has happened, ONCE!)
Is any of this relevant to the 1910 FN or Kahr pistols? I believe that gravities relationship to an objects center of gravity hasn't changed! I also believe that most people don't go looking for a way to have a ND! I do believe that there are a lot of stupid people out there, and Murphy's law will come up once in a great while. So to prevent any catastrophe, send all your FN 1910's and 1922's along with all your Colt 1903's, 1908's and 1911's to me for proper disposal!
Ivan
What I have learned over the last 45 years of being in the working world is; "New and Improved", seldom is!
One of the other issues I take concern over is; "Drop proof" firearms. If the 1911 is so bad, Why aren't there millions of dead or wounded GI's from WWI, WWII, Korea, & Vietnam. The guns were dropped sometimes with the men attached! Or the millions of civilians that have owned these same guns or commercial models.
Using primed only cases, The Columbus, Ohio PD ordinance department conducted independent tests to see what it actually took in real life to get a 1911 to discharge when dropped. They could not get one of the test guns to discharge! They used a slide only, and got it to discharge UNDER UNREALISTIC CONDITIOND ONLY! The bore axis must be perpendicular to the surface and the distance it falls was greater than 6'2" men could hold them unaided. (8 foot 6 inches, is the minimum distance that sticks in my mind.) A complete steel framed pistol's center of gravity won't allow these conditions to exist under anything close to real life conditions! Saying that it is impossible to happen isn't true either, but you stand a much greater chance of being struck by lightning, TWICE! (which has happened, ONCE!)
Is any of this relevant to the 1910 FN or Kahr pistols? I believe that gravities relationship to an objects center of gravity hasn't changed! I also believe that most people don't go looking for a way to have a ND! I do believe that there are a lot of stupid people out there, and Murphy's law will come up once in a great while. So to prevent any catastrophe, send all your FN 1910's and 1922's along with all your Colt 1903's, 1908's and 1911's to me for proper disposal!
Ivan
Bakebfr480
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2017
- Messages
- 1,469
- Reaction score
- 1,209
Is a 1911 vintage enough?
Ray1970
Member
So, I'm going to put on some body armor and take advantage of this thread to ruffle the feathers of some of the 1911 shooters here.
In general, I feel modern technology is superior to older technology. Craftsmanship and attention to detail maybe not so much but materials, methods of manufacture, and design have done nothing but improve.
The 1911 was pretty state of the art when it was introduced. Kind of the Glock 17 of that generation. The Glock 17 was pretty much the latest cutting edge design when it was released. Kind of the 1911 for its time.
While I understand the 1911 has its devoted followers (based mostly off of nostalgia or a love for the caliber or maybe the fact that the trigger lends itself to excellent shooting even from shooters with poor technique) I'd choose something like the Glock over a 1911 every time. More capacity, less weight, modern materials and finish that practically eliminate corrosion, and a simple design that makes operating the pistol and performing routine maintenance in the field exceptionally easy.
While the 1911 is a proven and well loved design and modern examples can be very reliable and accurate, I just don't fully understand why anyone would make it their choice for a primary handgun when there are better options available today. For me, the 1911 is big, heavy, and has a rather limited capacity and I'd much rather carry something modern that is smaller, lighter, and holds more rounds.
In general, I feel modern technology is superior to older technology. Craftsmanship and attention to detail maybe not so much but materials, methods of manufacture, and design have done nothing but improve.
The 1911 was pretty state of the art when it was introduced. Kind of the Glock 17 of that generation. The Glock 17 was pretty much the latest cutting edge design when it was released. Kind of the 1911 for its time.
While I understand the 1911 has its devoted followers (based mostly off of nostalgia or a love for the caliber or maybe the fact that the trigger lends itself to excellent shooting even from shooters with poor technique) I'd choose something like the Glock over a 1911 every time. More capacity, less weight, modern materials and finish that practically eliminate corrosion, and a simple design that makes operating the pistol and performing routine maintenance in the field exceptionally easy.
While the 1911 is a proven and well loved design and modern examples can be very reliable and accurate, I just don't fully understand why anyone would make it their choice for a primary handgun when there are better options available today. For me, the 1911 is big, heavy, and has a rather limited capacity and I'd much rather carry something modern that is smaller, lighter, and holds more rounds.
Last edited:
No way could older guns compare with newer ones like these
TheLastBoyScout
US Veteran
A lot of people carry Derringers...a design that hasn't really changed since the 1800's.
Similar threads
