WHY?

[O.T. Buchannan]

Why is it that no manufacturer makes a historically correct cartridge pocket pistol?  Think about it:  We now have a variety of #3 S&Ws, the Merwin Hulbert is supposedly on the way, we have a variety of Cartridge Conversion Colt and Remingtons available, you can get a repro Starr double or single action, or you can shoot a LeMat or a Paterson.  The 1876 Winchester has become a reality, the Spencer is readily available....I could go on and on.

However, if you want a historically correct, pre-1900 cartridge pocket pistol, such is not available.  Yes, you can get an 1849 Colt or a Pocket Remington and put a conversion cylinder into them, but no one MAKES a ready to go cartridge pocket pistol.

WHY?

[Wymore Wrangler]

I've talked with several importers and one manufacturer, the plain simple fact is CAS shooting is such a small market niche, they would never recover the cost of the tooling up for several hundred guns a years...

[Dr. Bob]

OTB & WW,

I also believe [note senior memory involved here] tha the Gun Contorl Act of 1968 prohibited the import of what we now call pocket pistols and called in the Act "saturday night specials."  There are size and feature requirement for the import of hand guns, both revolvers and automatics.  This is why you can't buy a new Walther PPKS in the US.  WW is right about the economics of this too.  Though if you could make it here in the US and sell it for a reasonable price, you might sell a tone of them to just regular folks.

[Advertising]

[Lou Graham]

One of the sweetest easily concealed guns I own is a Colt Government Model .380.  It's a 1911 left in the dryer too long  

Why did Colt quit making this great little gun?  Fear of lawsuits, that's why.  The new law protecting firearms maufacturers from lawsuits may cause some U.S. companies to reconsider pocket guns.

Hope on the horizon  

[French Jack]

If I remember correctly, the Colt Pony .380 was made either by FN or Star for Colt.  The same with the previous small Colt, the .25 auto.  Legislation that required certain frame sizes, overall sizes, barrel length, safety features(?) adjustable sights, etc. made it impossible to continue importation of the same firearm.  That's when you began to see the rash of Lorincin, Jennings, Davis, etc. that are still plaguing us today.  Parts either made here or made abroad and assembled here-- safe enough to function, but far from high quality products.

If Walther had not opened a factory here, we would not have the small models here today.

[O.T. Buchannan]

Ah.....I forgot about the size restrictions on some of the smaller pistols, like the Walther PPK.  However, there are still some options.  If I remember correctly, the Walther PPKS (slightly larger) gets around the import restrictions, and S&W is ALSO now making them under license from Walther. 

Still, you all are right, if someone could make them HERE, then that would work out better.  Those cheap Jennings and Ravens and Lorcins ain't nothing to write home about, but I have an NAA Guardian in .380 caliber that is a HIGH quality back-up gun.  Ok, so it wasn't cheap at $419+, but it is American Made.  I had a chance to buy a cheap Keltec back-up gun for $230 or so (which the salesman was trying HARD to push off on me...he had them piled up on each other), but I had already made up my mind, and I spent more money to get something that would be WORTH the money that was spent.

Think about it:  By the time you have to use a back-up gun, your first plan (conflict avoidance) didn't work, and your second plan (your regular pistol and spare mags) didn't resolve the matter either.  By this time, you are probably already wounded and bleeding, and this back-up gun is the last thing you have that can save your @$$......

You want to trust a Jennings or Raven or Lorcin or Keltec in that situation?  Didn't think so.  That's why I spent the extra money...

I would also be willing to spend that money on a good, solid, American Made Pocket Pistol.  I don't mind spending more if the product is actually BETTER. 

[Forty Rod]

Lou, I have a Govt. 380 in standard blue that is my "California warm weather carry gun". 

I used a Colt 1903 pocket hammerless in .32 for years.

In cooler weather I carry a 1911 .45.

[Wymore Wrangler]

I asked Vaughn Trueman a couple of years ago to consider the North American Arms Mini revolvers, they look and function much like many smaller caliber rimfire revolvers that were manufactured by various companies during our era, this pistol was rejected because the stainless steel didn't look enough like nickle.  We live in a modern world, but if we reject modern designs that are safe and available, we just won't have alot of fun guns to play with...

[St. George]

I've written a couple of 'Notes' on Pocket Revolvers and how to select one for use - and properly cared for, many of the old original ones are more than up to the job of C&WAS.

As to new-made ones - and the 'why' question - think about this...

Were a replica of one to be made - how many would sell?

Who would the market actually be?

Overall - C&WAS isn't exactly a powerhouse when it comes to buying things - and though the SASS badge numbers are in the 70,000+ range - that's no reflection of 'actual' members.
It merely means that the badge numbers are that high.

The 'real' Pocket Revolver of the period isn't a very ergonomic thing - and some might say that they're somewhat unattractive, to boot.
These facts don't mean much to those of us who would like something newer - but they 'do' matter to those others who aren't going to buy because therer are more 'attractive' pieces already available that aren't anachronistic.

Factoring in SASS and NCOWS 'probable' membership - you're talking 'maybe' 45,000+ - and add in those folks who like the oddities - to give maybe 60,000+ total......

That's 'not' going to be an attractive proposition for a manufacturer contemplating overall sales and the 'Bottom Line'.

Plus - C&WAS folks are cheap.

Sure - everyone wants a modern-made Merwin, Hulbert Pocket Army - but when the price for a repro is almost that of an original - well about all they'll do is bemoan the price and they won't pony up.

That's why S&W stopped production of the Schofield.

A 'real' Schofield - as made by the original manufacturer - was a helluva idea until they came in at Colt SAA prices and above and then, well...

In our litigious society, the manufacturer introducing a new revolver whose sole purpose is concealment and has no safety features and is non-ergonomic to boot - is just asking for a lawsuiit...

Now -

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[O.T. Buchannan]

St. George, you are right, and you make a lot of sense.  However, at the same time, I was told by experts years ago that no one would EVER reproduce a #3 Smith & Wesson, and that no one would EVER reproduce cartridge conversions....for strength reasons on both the conversion and the S&W, and I was told that the conversions would 'blow your fingers off'.  I got laughed at when I said that someone would reproduce a Spencer.  Remember not too long ago when  there were discussions about the 1876 Winchester?  We were told it would NEVER happen.  Now they are available. Talking about making something where there is only a large market for sales....why make a Paterson?  Why make a Starr?  Yes, the Schofield, as marketed by S&W failed, but by the time they got around to offering it, there were ALREADY high quality reproductions available for a fraction of the S&W cost.....
 
As an example of that, look at the reproduction Spencers.  Romano makes an EXCELLENT product, at a HIGH cost.  Like the S&W folks, he sold a few, but the cost bothered a lot of people.  I considered what he was offering, but I purchased an original for a THIRD of what he was offering.  Now, Taylor's and others are importing very good quality reproductions...once again, for less than a third of what Romano is asking, and they are selling quite well.  They are not cheap, but they beat his price, and the quality is still good.  If I wanted to buy a reproduction #3, I would look at a Uberti, not one reproduced by S&W.  Why?  If I wanted one to use as a 'collectible', and one that could possibly appreciate in time,  then the S&W product would be a good option. However, if I wanted to actually shoot and use the gun, then the S&W will not shoot any better than the Uberti.  Yes, the S&W product is still higher quality, but the Uberti product is no slouch in the quality department either.  Oh, and something else.  I'm one of those people who would PREFER to buy an American Made product first.  In the case of the kind of items we are talking about, I only ask that it conform to certain basics:  It should be correct to the era, it should be of reasonable quality, and it should be reasonably affordable.  I'm not 'cheap'...I will spend the money for a good gun, if I have the money, and if the price is not so high that I simply CAN'T afford it.  As I detailed in an earlier post, I could have purchased a back-up/hide-out gun for $100 to $250 bucks or so, but I paid over $400 because the one for that price was simply better, and I HAD the money to spend.

Like most folks on the wire, however, I'm not independently wealthy.  I've got a house payment, car payment, everyday expenses, a wife, and FIVE (5) kids.  It's not that I don't want to buy the Romano Spencer at nearly $4,000 bucks, or the S&W Schofield at $2000 bucks...it's that I CAN'T purchase those guns at those prices.  I expect a lot of folks are in the same boat.  We WANT the American products, but those products are marketed to those with a bit more 'disposable' income than us average folks, so that is that.....

I too have shot a number of old pocket pistols on occasion, and currently still shoot an original. I firmly believe that someone WILL make a period pocket pistol, I'm just surprised that no one has done it yet.  No, not necessarily 'surprised' as I know it will happen.  It's probably more accurate to say that I'm 'impatient'....

[Books OToole]

O.T.

I think the problem will be the Federal Firearms Act of 1968.  It effectively bans small imported pistols.  And domestically produced pocket pistols will be more expensive than originals.

However, I hope to be proved wrong.  I can think of several that I would like to see reproduced.

Books

[Delmonico]

I have a question here, if the only real objection to the NAA 22's is the stainless, why not have one blued?  Stainless steel barrels that had been blued are used a lot on factory varnmint rifles.

[St. George]

The 1968 Gun Control Act does affect those little guns' importation.

Were they to have a plant here that could start their production - ala' Beretta - then maybe they 'could' produce something C&WAS-related in that line.

But - remember 'who' would be building them - and just how much they value their supposed gunmaker's skills - and think 'Colt' in the early '80's...

Machining a driveshaft is a bit easier skill to refine - as opposed to seamless fitting of sideplates and timing.

I'd love to buy a new-production Merwin, Hulbert Pocket Army...

Personally - I don't see it happening any time soon - due in large part to the machining and fitting of the complicated thing - but I'd sure like one.

Going back - 'why' make a Paterson, et al?

Because the ball was rolling in the Black Power arena - and among  in the 'I'd like to own a historical type of weapon' crowd.

Those folks dabbled in the field without having to shell out much money - certainly nowhere near the money needed to build a collection of period-original guns - and they could enjoy shooting without devaluation.

Navy Arms' Val Forgett was the spark beind that fuse and successfully marketed accordingly at a time when folks were still aware of the recent Civil War Centennial and wanted to try what their forebears used, and once the manufacturing Line is set up - further production's no problem.

Then, the variants and new models are made to fuel further sales and competitive marketing strategies come into play so other manufacturers have a more unique product to sell.

Go ahead - be 'impatient' - and hopefully - that impatience of yours and others will be viewed as a 'marketing opportunity' by some savvy maker who'll see the 'value' of tooling up to make a couple of new pocket revolvers.

If they do - for 'further' marketing success, I think they'll have to look at sales beyond the C&WAS folks - so whatever they produce as their initial offering had better appeal to the non-C&WAS folks as well - and there'd better be a good 'look' to them, as well - maybe something along the lines of the old  S&W 'Bicycle Pistol' could foot that bill, since it's obvious concealability could strike a chord.

As a general rule - C&WAS folks 'want' American-made - but want to pay 'Ruger' prices for them.

But Ruger offers deep discounts to their wholesalers - something that other makers may not be able to do - and they can do this because of the manufacturing techniques that require less fitting and machining and hand work, while others techniques vary and subsequently cost more to make, much less sell for any profit.

As to marketing with an eye towards the 'disposable income' among the C&WAS shooters - you may have a point, though I imagine that we all have the expenses mentioned - but given the venerable ages viewed throughout the sport - maybe more of them aren't still actively raising a family any longer.
Feeding and watering kids seems to cause them to thrive and outgrow everything at a furious pace - and pretty much 'any' income has just been 'disposed' with...;-)

With the recent turmoil within the ranks of major firearms manufacturers, I don't see anyone stepping in to fill the need - but when the dust settles and if they get re-funded and re-focused by new owners, the possibility of offering something 'new and exciting' may be in the offing.

It's a nice thought.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Mustang Gregg]

I don't have NO objection to them NAA's. 
I usta have one.  Always worked well.
But here's the big question---"Were they in COMMON USE??"
Are they a copy of an ORIGINAL?

heheheheheh

[Wymore Wrangler]

 

[Ornery Orr]

What ever happened to Bisley Joe???