Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L
CAS TOPICS => The Darksider's Den => Topic started by: llanerosolitario on February 08, 2021, 05:21:03 PM
-
No, there were several gas operated revolvers in Europe before Browing first experiments with gas.
Among the first one, or probably the first, was Luis Ybarra gas self extracting revolver, patented in 1878 in the USA and in 1881 in Spain
http://www.catalogacionarmas.com/public/23-ibarra.pdf
As it can be seen in the article, they were based on the Smith Wesson russian design, adding the modifications designed by Luis Ybarra. They were modified adding a extractor rod on the side, and a screw where the opening last is, replacing it.
Then, we have a complete new gun designed by lieutenant Clotaldo Piñal, working at the Oviedo factory, who was in charge of developing a practical and new gas operated revolver for the spanish army, taking Mr Ybarra patent as a base.
The gun was finished in 1880, in 9 mm calibre, and took the Smith Wesson n2 as a model base. But the second model, from 1882, and this time with 7 chambers, and with a slighter heavier bullet also in 9mm, was the most interesting one.
Mr Piñal’s revolvers, unlike his predecessor’s Ybarra, lacked a extraction rod, so they have to be opened to extract the last case, using the gun fixed axis,
http://www.catalogacionarmas.com/public/24-piñal.pdf
https://docplayer.es/8245878-Los-revolveres-pinal-de-la-fabrica-de-oviedo.html
History forgot this pionner revolvers, as they were developed in a not powerful nation at that time, only partially industrialized, like Spain..and Jhon Browing took the phame, thougth already in 1876/77 there were already other people in other nations who had seen the potential of using the power of gas to make a gun extract a case.
-
Sure, he may not have invented the gas system, but he did wonderful and innovative things with it. So much so, that many others took to copying his guns.
-
No one copied his machine guns....too cumbersome and none as good as the Vickers or the MG13.
The Mondragón rifle was far more interesting and advanced than his Bar, an impractical monster, .and his auto five shotgun was and it is still today really awful too shoot.
His pocket pistols were quite copied, however, thougth mechanically not very interesting.
His 1911 works, but not better than other designs, and is not a particularly reliable pistol. I just don’t trust it.
I admit that he invented interesting things, anyway: the over and under shotgun and the 1892 and 94 rifles. In the rest, very overrated, in my opinion. I don’t see anything special in his single shots, his heavy machine guns, his pockets pistols, thougth his pump action shotguns set the standard, and his B25 shotgun is a masterpiece.
In short, he left us with really great but also mediocre guns, and sometimes he was the first one, sometimes, no. In gas operated arms he was not, thougth they told us the opposite.
A great firearms designer, no doubt.
-
Having a discussion of less well known historical firearms is always interesting. However, criticizing anything or anyone that doesn't come from your region is not well received.
If you don't trust the 1911 pistol, you're one of the very few in the world.
-
I learnt with the years not to trust the 1911. I was a great fan of the design for a long time, until I became well aware of its flaws. No, I would not trust my life to a 1911. Too many problems with feeding ramps, extractor spring tension, bushings, recoil slings, guns that don’t work well straigth from the box, too sensitive to dust, to changes in ammo....I just no longer like that pistol.
About my comments regarding Browning, it is a feeling I had the need to share, and I am not doing it with malice. I suppose that I am a bit tired of so many miths, and we are living in a time when myths are falling.
The thing is that 3 years ago, while visiting the Shot Show, we had a dinner with a Browing arms representative that my bro had some friendship with.
He told us things I can agree with: he was an American heroe, and a genius. That is true. However, he repeated the same myth they told me at the Browing arms museum of Utah when I visited there 15 years ago: that he invented gas operated firearms or was the first one to do it or realize it had potential.
I told that representative that there were a lot of People in Europe, specially in Belgium, and in the nothern provinces of Spain, working on self extracting rifles and pistols as soon as 1875, being the guns from Ibarra and Piñal the very first ones to be patented, a few years before Browing began its experiments.
This same misonception was repeated by the History Channel, by the way.
The Browning arms representative, a very nice and gentle person, by the way, didn’t believe me, of course.
I didn’t show him the guns like I am doing now, as we had more interesting things to talk about at that time. Now I have the chance to do it here.
-
In short, Mr Ybarra invented the gas system or at least was one of the very first ones ( Colt made experiments too around that time, but to my knowledge there is no patent in 1878 and the Belgians were experimenting too), and patented the idea in the US in 1878, and began modifying Smith Wesson Russians with his system, and then, Mr Piñal took his path and designed a new revolver for the army, finally never adopted, in 1881.
First Ybarra modified revolvers, note extraction rod as part of the gas system attachment. Please note the screw where the opening latch was.
Six chambers, five rounds real capacity as self extracting. The extracting mechanism may voluntarily be blocked so it may return to a conventional six shooter configuration back again.
-
Us patent 1878 by Mr Ybarra
-
Rigth hand view...and another modified Sw, with gas system on rigth side and extraction rod
-
Mr Piñal first revolver from 1880, and final model from 1881/82...He began taking the SW model 2 as a starting point, with a simpler gas system than Ybarra’s, finally designing a complete new gun. Note that there is no extraction rod, and the extrem simplicity of the mechanism and manufacturing, an added bonus according to his own words.
-
Finally, his last revolver, from 1881/82, 9 mm caliber.
This time, with 7 chambers, so real capacity was 6. You load six the first time and leave one chamber empty and rest hammer down on that chamber. When shooting, the revolver, of course, will self extract five cases and allways leave one empty case...so to continue shooting, you load six again, lowering hammer on the non extracted case,
In theory, you don’t need a mechanical extractor. Just in case, the cylinder axis can be used for that. The system semt to work well.
-
Interesting thanks, a little known subject on this side of the Atlantic....
Maybe some made it to the S. American countries :-\
-
Since I can't read any of the material posted and can only look at the pictures, are you sure those revolvers are "gas operated"? Could it be they are recoil operated like the Webly-Fosbery?
As for the 1911, I carried one through out my LEO career and for 10 years after retiring. They were as reliable as a mechanical device could be and I was well protected. As someone else said, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Dave
-
Yes, they are self extracting via a hole connecting the barrel and the front of the chamber inside that little protuberance just in front of the left side of the cilinders.
There is a “deflector” with a spring plate behind the chamber, as without it, the case will fly straigth againts the shooter’s face.
both Ybarra and Piñal made few revolvers, and few have survived but the basque manufacturers applied this system to a variety of revolvers quite in vogue at the time, and yes, whose main market was South America and the Middle East, where American guns were too expensive.
Anyway, they never became popular.
-
No one copied his machine guns....too cumbersome and none as good as the Vickers or the MG13.
The Mondragón rifle was far more interesting and advanced than his Bar, an impractical monster, .and his auto five shotgun was and it is still today really awful too shoot.
His pocket pistols were quite copied, however, thougth mechanically not very interesting.
His 1911 works, but not better than other designs, and is not a particularly reliable pistol. I just don’t trust it.
I admit that he invented interesting things, anyway: the over and under shotgun and the 1892 and 94 rifles. In the rest, very overrated, in my opinion. I don’t see anything special in his single shots, his heavy machine guns, his pockets pistols, thougth his pump action shotguns set the standard, and his B25 shotgun is a masterpiece.
In short, he left us with really great but also mediocre guns, and sometimes he was the first one, sometimes, no. In gas operated arms he was not, thougth they told us the opposite.
A great firearms designer, no doubt.
I understand the Japanese copied the Browing .50 in WW2.
-
;D I have only ever used 1911s in IPSC competition, both .45 ACP and .38 super. Starting in 1982 until 1992, first with .45 ACP, if your gun/ammo didn't work, you weren't going to win any matches. I DID! First two years shot .45 ACP 1911 Colt, approx. 35 to 40 k rounds a year of 200gr swc reloads to gain proficiency, won almost every match I entered; my guns worked! And never broke! Of the ten years I was in IPSC competition I was Provincial Champion 6 times, a .600 batting average. The other four times I was second, beaten by a better shooter, not my gun or ammo. A lot of shooters were buying the cheapest magazines they could find and they mostly didn't work in a match, and are the most common reason for malfunctions, along with improperly reloaded ammo. During my career as a long distance trucker my 1911 .45 never failed me; five times I had to produce it to diffuse a potentially deadly situation, never had to point it much less shoot anyone. That huge .45 muzzle had a very calming influence. For those choosing 9mm bullettes I have a .38 super that will do 1500 fps with 124gr gr hp, in a 5" Government model.
IMHO the Colt 1911 .45 ACP is the BEST defensive/combat/ handgun ever. ;D ;D ;D
"Carrying a gun is supposed to be comforting, not comfortable!" Clint Smith
-
I won't try to suggest to alter ones opinion .... your are entitled to express it , but you will not change my opinion.
I own several 1911's one that dates to 1917 , another made by Ithaca carried by the pilot in 1844-45 and relied on when he was forced down in France in 1944 after D-day.
I have a Springfield Armory , and a Cimarron (Armscor) .both are shot regularly and reliably.
I have owned a Remington Rand armory rebuilds , and a Kimber.
I would say the 1911 platform is quite probably the MOST copied semi-auto pistol manufactured ever.
-
I think that as a sporting pistol is a great platform, but there are more reliable pistols under extreme conditions.
In 45 ball it has given me less reliability troubles than in 38 super or 9mm. But in these two calibers, specially in 38, it gave more more satisfactions in the accuracy aspects than in any other caliber. The grip is much better in the Brno CZ 75.
The 1911, among the most popular platforms, lhas given me more interruptions and maintenance problems. than other pistols of the time or contemporary.
I also had some copies,,,of them the worst were the post 1956 ventilated rib Llamas,( I had one),,and the best, the pre 1950s Llamas like the Llama Special and the Ballester Molina..( I had one) and Star copies.( I had one)..who were, virtually, maintenance free pistols.
-
I find this an odd argument. Browning did not make much of a contribution to gas operation. The dominant gas system in firearms originated with Samual Mclean, refined by Isaac Lewis. That a gas operated revolver was patented in the 1870s is informative, but seems a dead end. Even the AR uses a variation of the Mclean/Lewis system.
Brownings tilt lock is the principle operating system of every major handgun design employed today. The Walther tilt block was the only significant competitor, but even it has largely been overtaken, certianly Walther no longer uses it, and Berretta is phasing it out.
The BAR as redesigned by the US Army was a clunky thing. THe Belgian/polish/danish version was a vastly superior firearm. But a modernized variant of the Lewis would have been even better, IMHO. That should have been the M60, but the US Army kludged that up as well. THere are some modern gas operated "continuous recoil" systems being shopped around at this time, that if you dig into them, are another variant of the Lewis gun. (set up the Lewis recoil spring properly, and it will indeed operate in "continuous recoil". Soviet gas operated weapons were also based on the Lewis.
No one copied the Browning Machine guns as it was cheaper to simply buy them from Colt in the 1920's and 30s. Thus the Spitfires and Hurricanes that fought the battle of Britian carried 8 each. As did the French Dewotienes. 1919s are still on the inventory of several smaller armies, not to mention this year is the 100th anniversary of the Browning .50 Caliber, still employed by most western armies.
Browning was great. So was Ferdinand Mannlichher, Paul Mauser, and I think Karel Krnka is vastly underated. The latter being the only other handgun locking system currently being pursued. Bonifacio Echeverria always struck me as the best of the Spanish, he had some fasinating designs submitted to the French in 1916/17, that never made it to production.
-
I must say, I have two Star BMs, and think them the best of the 9mm 1911 Variants. I really really like them!
I also carried a 1911 in both Gulf Wars, as I considered it a better combat sidearm than my issue M9. Mine was a Commercial variant, and never let me down. I'm not sure how many thousands of rounds I have thru it, but i've yet to have a single problem, I suspect because I have never messed with the thing, always keeping/maintaining it stone stock as JM intended. He did not intend it as a Target Pistol, and most attempts to make it one take away from it's combat reliability. It is supposed to be a little loose, and be good for plugging an opponent in the gut at just outside of Knife range.
It is also never meant to be anything other than a .45. Slide mass and spring ratio were designed for that round, much as a P38 was designed for the 9mm, The Star is an excellent example of this, slightly downsized and balenced for 9mm. If I had it reconfigured to 45, it would beat itself to death. If I put a .32 acp barrel in it, it would not be as reliable. I always find it odd that folks somehow expect something of the 1911 that they expect from no other design. It can be highly accurate in .38 super, but there's a reason that was never advanced as a combat combination.
-
We are mixing here the invention of gas repeating systems, as we know it today, with “the pioneering” of gas operation and that’s my point.
They told us that one man had the idea of using that wasted gas, and that it was John Browing who did it. The History Channel, for instance. It’s false,,,someone did it before him. Thats my point.
In my opinion, gas operated revolvers were the real beginning of automatic and semi automatic arms. Interestly , the well documented encyclopedia of fiearms, Pollard’s History of firearms, mentions
Paulsen’s patented revolver of 1886 as the beginning of gas operated arms, forgetting that the Spanish had patented gas revolvers as early as 1878.
The Wikipedia mentions the famous Orbea name, in 1863, as the inventor of the earliest specimen..in my opinion, probably a Lefaucheux modified revolver.
-
Gas operated bullpup from 1866 https://armourersbench.com/2018/08/10/the-curtis-rifle-the-first-repeating-bullpup/
Bet if I look long enough, I can find a french gas operated flintlock. The potential for gas operation was known for hundreds of years, but black powder made it impractical.
-
Maybe it is splitting hairs, but those "gas-operated" revolvers don't appear to have been at all practical, revolutionary, nor really qualify as gas-operated firearms. From what I can see, they used gas to either drive an ejector rod back or directly impinge on the previously-fired empty case just to eject them automatically. Those gas systems don't appear to have done anything else--i.e., they neither loaded the firearm nor cocked the action (as far as I can tell). And the user still had to open those frames to load which, in a contemporary S&W, automatically ejected ALL fired cartridges just by mechanical means. I think there's a very good reason that these never took-off.
Browning's gas-operated firearms utilized gas to load, eject, and cock the firearm, and this is a big distinction to me.
Furthermore, as it pertains to the 1911, I believe that much of its tarnished reputation of late comes from how widely copied it is and the ubiquity of hollow-point ammunition today--something it was never designed for. I have never experienced a malfunction with any Colt or USGI 1911 or 1911A1 when using USGI or OEM magazines and ball ammunition. I have had a plethora of frustrating range experiences with modern copies, including some by Auto-Ord. and Springfield Armory (their G.I. version) and some Kimbers before they were broken-in. And my modern Colts with their "dimpled" feed ramp have been reliable with hollow-points. I even fed them some Keith 452423 rounds, and never had an issue. Regardless, Browning's tilting barrel design has become dominant, whether that is accomplished via a swinging barrel link or a cam.
It frustrates me how the 1911 is viewed almost as a manufacturer rather than a design. On other designs, shortcomings are properly attributed to how well each clone manufacturer executes said design. With the 1911's, I've often seen the entire design condemned because someone bought a dirt-cheap clone and/or tried to use hollow-points with a non-modified 1911 (not suggesting this is the OP's experience). PROPERLY-constructed 1911's are, in my experience, very reliable, though most USGI 1911A1's I had to qualify with in the army were well worn-out and not too accurate.
As for the BAR, I still believe it was revolutionary. Sure, it was big, heavy, and clunky. But envisioned tactics of the day placed value on "walking fire"--i.e., advancing with the rifle firing from the hip. So it met the standard that was expected, irregardless of how impractical that tactic proved to be. And its actual design WAS copied successfully, and not just in the Belgium versions of the BAR. When I was first introduced to the M240 machine gun as a tanker in the Army National Guard, I realized that the action was little more than a BAR turned upside down. The Belgians had just developed Browning's action into an outstanding machine gun that remains my favorite 7.62 cal machine gun ever.
Just this past Guard Drill (no longer a tanker), I examined the latest .50 caliber machine guns adopted by the US Army. Although initially dismayed that they'd modified the design to no longer allow (or require, whichever one prefers) the operator to set headspace or timing, the overall mechanics remained the same. It was explained to me that they'd finally developed the precision to manufacture them so that both headspace (utilizing interrupted threads on the barrel ala takedown rifles) and timing could be set at the factory and remain correct for a long time. Regardless, the fact that this 100-plus year-old design is still our standard .50 cal heavy machine gun is a testament to Browning's genius.
As for some of his other designs, particularly some of his lever-actions, I have often wondered how much genius there was in his difficult-to-disassemble and non-intuitively-shaped parts (for reassembly). I'll tear into a Winchester with no hesitation, but I have to be really motivated to work on an 1886 or 1895. It always puzzled me how brilliant the design of the 1911 was in its ease of disassembly vs. many of his other sporting designs that seemed to have never been intended for anyone of average skill to take apart.
-
;D I understand the John Browning created his first machine gun based on an 1873 Winchester, using a gas impingement system at the muzzle connected to a lever that cycled the action and a return spring to return to battery and fire again. Saw a picture of it somewhere.
-
;D I understand the John Browning created his first machine gun based on an 1873 Winchester, using a gas impingement system at the muzzle connected to a lever that cycled the action and a return spring to return to battery and fire again. Saw a picture of it somewhere.
The Colt Potato Digger (actually based on the 1886 level action rifles)
It was lighter than the Maxim and the Vickers at the time which were watered cooled
-
The Potato Digger uses a tilting bolt locking system, much like an SKS. Indeed, in many ways the SKS is a Potato digger flipped over. Lots of Browning ideas got borrowed over the years. The STG 44 was another tilt bolt design.
I would agree many of JMBs manual operated guns were overthought. Hepburn (Marlin) made better lever actions. Browning hit his stride with automatic weapons. But Colt and FN kept a lot of engineers busy simplifying his designs for production.
-
The first to offer a gun that would eject and feed using gas were the Clair Brothers of France, who were working on it as early as middle 1880s..according to Pollards History of firearms, chapter 12, by C.H.Roads.
The first sucessful automatic pistol was the Schonberger pistol, 1892, first made by the Austrian factory at Steyr and they were a practical application of the Laumann’s patents of 1890, 91 and 92.
It used a bottleneck cartridge, a quite advanced idea.
So no, Browning was not the first one to develope a gun that would eject and feed from a magazine, despite Browning arms company and History Channel mitifications who claim that in 1890 he was the inventor of that principle.
There was other people before him developing the automatic firearm, that would eject and feed using inertia or gas.
The primitive Ybarra revolvers were sucessful, as they were tested by the Spanish government, ans that’s why they decided to invest money building a new revolver for the army, something that Piñal would do.
The cases were extracted by direct gas expelling the case out of the chamber and deflecting it to the side. At the end, and as Mr 0D#3 wisely explains, there were contemporary automatic ejection revolver designs like the SWs and Webleys and the advantages of the system were not great...thougth one advantage is that you can shoot and reload the empty chamber so you allways have six rounds on the gun.
-
So? I showed you an english design that goes back to 1866. Napoleon had engineers working on self loading concepts in 1809. There were Wheellock revolvers in the 1600s. Archimedes showed expanding gas can do work. There is nothing new under the sun. I still don't understand the argument. Unless you're simply saying that there are stupid people running museums and the History Channel. That I most heartly agree with. The history channel has not been about history for the last 20 years.
And there's nothing advanced about a bottleneck cartridge. Most of the early military and civilian cartridge of the 1860s were bottleneck. The 450/577, .42 Russian, .43 Spanish, .44-77, .40-70 BN, all date prior to 1870.
-
;D ;D Popcorn ;D ;D
-
While I don't credit Browning with the first automatic firearm, I haven't been able to find an authoritative source to nail down precisely when the Clair Bros first began experimenting with gas operation vs. Browning. Both were close to each other, and I don't know if Browning knew of their efforts. Regardless, theirs was a flop, and his model 1895 machine gun was successful.
I don't worship JMB as "Gun Jesus" like some others do, but he certainly had a knack for designing firearms that worked well and were pioneering designs in how they were eventually adopted almost universally (like tilting barrels in automatic pistols).
If any here have been fortunate enough to acquire a copy of Hatcher's Notebook, his lessons on the development of Garand's rifle vs. competitors informs the reader about what makes a new design successful and how "better" can be the enemy of "good". Some of the competing designs were promising but suffered from excessive malfunctions and/or parts breakage, or included specific features the Army was dead-set against (like Pederson's lubricated cartridges).
He also recalled a conversation he had with JMB in which he was declaring him the best firearms inventor of all time, to which Browning replied that it was actually Pederson. He explained that his own best designs were behind him, but Pederson was young and already showing greater talent than Browning had at the same age. For example, Pederson's .276 rifle that competed against the Garand was almost entirely worked out in Pederson's head and on the drawing board and then a prototype was made that worked right from the start. He had a singular ability to design his firearms this way without having to work his way up through various iterations of malfunctioning prototypes. I've often wondered what would have been the final outcome between him and Garand if he'd hit upon the fluted chamber principle rather than going with those hard wax-lubricated cartridges. The whole caliber thing might have knocked him out in the end, anyway, but...
Wow, didn't mean to meander so much. Sufficed to say, that I wouldn't be at all surprised to find other celebrated inventors being unearthed who were actually the first to experiment with what others eventually got all the recognition for. But I'll wager that the forgotten ones were ignored for good reason. They could come up with a new concept, but couldn't really make it practical.
-
It was a quite advanced idea to develope the first semiautomatic pistol cartridge in bottle neck configuration..thougtht I dont know it it was rimless...as it was a bad idea to abandom that configuration in all pistol cartridges designs developed in the last 80 years except for a few exceptions.
-
The Garand..and I had a danish isuue one like 25 years ago, was an over engeneeried design that only a very rich nation like the US could afford to adopt.
An overrated rifle that offers a bit more at a high price in manufacturing cost, weigth and reliability under mud conditions.
About the 1911s I owned, they were all Colt except the spanish clones...the 38 super was a series 70..the others were deries 80s and my opinions are not based only on own exoeriences but about what I see at the club....its probably the system that gives more troubles....except the terrible M9 Beretta.
by comparison, the Cz75 is trouble free.
My old Astra 400 is trouble free and has seen a war. The old Brno 75 has a perfect grip and shoots like heaven and rarely fails
[/quote]
-
If we concede to the OP that all American firearms designs are crap (and we are all just nationalistic about it) and everything designed in Europe was earlier and superior...can we end this?
Dave
-
llanerosolitario has presented some interesting material, and it's good every once in awhile to be given a global perspective.
I think we miss the point - that gun manufacturers around the world influence each other's designs. Look how Smith & Wesson's design was used as the basic platform for that "gas-operated" Spanish revolver.
Every country can be rightfully recognized for their manufacturing contributions to the world of firearms creation.
(As to the 1911, it has been said that by the laws of aerodynamics the bumblebee is too ungainly to be able to fly. Yet it does, and Mother Nature continues to produce them, so that must make it a successful design for it's purpose.)
This thread has just enough nose tweaking to send us all to the reference books, thereby educating us all. I'd term that a success, with very little actual blood spilled and a satisfying amount of national pride displayed on all sides.
-
If we concede to the OP that all American firearms designs are crap (and we are all just nationalistic about it) and everything designed in Europe was earlier and superior...can we end this?
Dave
I don’t think so at all. I just don’t like myths. I have allways hated myths. I hate them...!
Many of the latest pistol designs coming from Europe are pure euro trash....including the veteran M9, the USP, the Walther P99s...Benelli hunting rifles....overinflated expensive British shotguns that are no better than a good double basque...
So we have a plethora of euro crap designs. I would say that most assault rifles coming from Europe can’t compare to the excellent AR15, for instance...Sigs..Fals...Hks...the American rifle is the best...period.
A far better design than the less reliable and cumbersome AK47.
So Nationalism, in itself, is not a bad thing. So being proud of J,M, Browning contributions to the development of firearms is ok...thinking that “he was the only one”..is just historically innacurate.
Thinking that the Garand was a great design is a controversial thing. Only Americans think so.
Thinking that the 1911 is the best or one of the best is even more controversial. I am the only one who does not see it that way. Most shooters in the 5 continents where gun ownership is legal, except Russia, and Eastern Europe, where they love The Brno 75, and maybe Glock, are enthuastic about it.
as a range pistol, it offers great possibilities that others cant, thanks to its “kit” concept. But I learnt not to trust that pistol. The 1911 was designed for 45 and ball. Period. And someone said it clearly here.
-
I personally have never been a fan of the 1911 either but have to appreciate the design and remember it's over 100 years old. By today's standards comparing to Glocks and other striker fired pistols the 1911 probably is a less dependable weapon and certainly more complicated and more to to wrong. That said you can just feel the solidness in a 1911 compared to the new plastic pistols and the 1911 is a pleasure to shoot.
John Browning was a genius and if weren't for him the history of firearms would be much different and we wouldn't enjoy so many of our classics we take for granted today.
I'll admit many Brownings designs were a bit clunky looking but they work. My cousin and I have always kidded how the guts hang out of so many of Brownings designs when cycling the action like they are going to fall apart. The 1887 and 1897 shotguns and the model 1894 and 1895 rifles are some that come to mind.
-
The Garand..and I had a danish isuue one like 25 years ago, was an over engeneeried design that only a very rich nation like the US could afford to adopt.
An overrated rifle that offers a bit more at a high price in manufacturing cost, weigth and reliability under mud conditions.
I still have a Danish-issue returned Garand (CMP). I won my first military rifle match with it using Danish surplus ammo. I don't think it fair to compare pioneering designs with more recent refinements. Compared to military rifles today, the Garand was difficult and expensive to build--so difficult that other manufacturers (most notably International Harvester in the 1950's) had great difficulty meeting their production goals without purchasing some major components (like the receiver) from another manufacturer for a while. But when it was adopted in 1937 (when the USA's military budget was VERY small compared to other developed nations), there had been very few other self-loading rifles developed that could fire a full-power rifle cartridge, especially ones that could do so reliably, without parts breakages, and were suitable for mass-production, due to its inventor having been a tool and die maker and designing each part with a particular mass-production method in mind. That other designs achieved parity before the mid-40's, and its superiority had been thoroughly eclipsed by the 1950's is irrelevant to how it compared to its peers at the beginning of WWII. So I think it deserves high regard, historically.
Likewise, the M9 Beretta, given the era in which it was adopted. I was in the military then and despised it, only because it meant that the US was abandoning the .45 ACP, which in ball form, we all believed to be superior to 9mm NATO. But the first time I qualified with one, I marveled at how smooth its breech-locking system worked and at how accurate it was. I've never had a malfunction with one and considered it my most reliable weapon system on my tank in Iraq (once I'd scraped the parkerizing from the inside of the issued Checkmate magazines, but that magazine snafu is another story). It, too, was eclipsed long before being replaced; but back in the late 1970's, when double-stack 9mm's other than Browning hi-powers were becoming popular, it was a top-notch design among its peers.
The 1911's biggest Achilles heel may be its "kit" concept you referred to. In its basic G.I. and commercial form, it is a reliable .45 ball-feeder, for which it was designed. Add all the bells and whistles, recoil buffers, accuracy mods, etc., and it can become finicky. And too many aficionados consider these mods a "must" for any serious 1911 shooter.
I echo your high praise for the CZ-75. Unfortunately, it was banned from importation into the US during its early years and do did not have the chance to really compete with what was available here back then. There were Tanfoglio "clones" and the Israeli Jericho/ Baby Eagles, but they didn't quite do the CZ justice. Having owned more than a few 75's, I never can keep one around for more than a few years. Every time I take one to the range, its performance and ergonomics have me chastising myself for ever selling its predecessor and resolving never to do so again, only to have some friend or other talk me out of it later with a trade worth just a little bit more. I always tell myself that I'll just buy another one eventually, provided they don't quit making them. Excellent pistol whose only Achilles heel was its liability to break slide-stops eventually. I still have some spares for when I inevitably acquire another one. Never had an Astra 400. Always wanted one.
Your comment about the M16 family of rifles had me chuckling. My Guard unit once trained in Romania with some of their mountain troops, and we conducted a weapons familiarity exercise with them where we shot each others' weapons. They each had a low opinion of the M16 (these were M16A2's) compared to their AK-74--until they shot them. One Romanian in particular was impressed with its 300 meter performance and commented in his heavy "Count Drakula" accent, "Its precision. Like Swiss watch!" There have been many developments with that system since I first fired one in basic training, various piston designs being hailed the most. But outside of some of the accuracy-enhancing free-floating handguards and optics, I never found these variants to be worth their outrageous prices, regardless of what the HK and FN fans believe.