Handling my Mauser M1914-a late one, made in 1934 I think, and my late production CZ-27, I note that both have somewhat poor ergonomics and a clunky feel to them, are somewhat tricky to disassemble and reassemble and lack features we prefer-slide stops, e.g.-yet both had long production runs and were made in large numbers. I suppose the Tokarev pistols fall into that category, though in their case market forces were not a factor. Anyone have other candidates ?
Designs that succeeded in spite of themselves.
- Thread starter SIGSHR
- Start date
Ill raise you another chiappa!
The chiappa badger rifle is also quite hideous although i guess some survival types do find a niche for that type of rifle. Id rather have a 10/22 take down but thats just me. Just realized were talking handguns here not rifles.....
The chiappa badger rifle is also quite hideous although i guess some survival types do find a niche for that type of rifle. Id rather have a 10/22 take down but thats just me. Just realized were talking handguns here not rifles.....
Last edited:
BOOGIE the oily
New member
Well, I know this is probably not gonna gain me any fans in here, but, if we're gonna go beyond looks, I think a prime candidate for this category is the High Power P-35.
It's heavy, it has a trigger mechanism that's pretty much a Rube Goldberg contraption (and, in fact, a poorly designed RG contraption), and a mag safety that only it's mother could love.
Then again, it's probably the more successful handgun of all times.
It's heavy, it has a trigger mechanism that's pretty much a Rube Goldberg contraption (and, in fact, a poorly designed RG contraption), and a mag safety that only it's mother could love.
Then again, it's probably the more successful handgun of all times.
I totally agree about the Hi-Power. Beautiful and iconic and also -- everything that you said.
As to the topic of discussion... how shall we define "succeeded" ?! Many ways to slice and dice that word. I'll pick just onr example already mentioned, the Chiappa Rhino. Is this an example of something we can agree has "succeeded" ?! I say... no way. For sure, they have built, sold and shipped far more Rhino's than any handgun that I ever designed, heh, but by and large, these things are still suspect.
Me? I'm waiting for the day that a QUALITY gun manufacturer takes a chance on a bottom-chamber revolver. The Rhino is one fantastic idea that was executed quite poorly.
As to the topic of discussion... how shall we define "succeeded" ?! Many ways to slice and dice that word. I'll pick just onr example already mentioned, the Chiappa Rhino. Is this an example of something we can agree has "succeeded" ?! I say... no way. For sure, they have built, sold and shipped far more Rhino's than any handgun that I ever designed, heh, but by and large, these things are still suspect.
Me? I'm waiting for the day that a QUALITY gun manufacturer takes a chance on a bottom-chamber revolver. The Rhino is one fantastic idea that was executed quite poorly.
muzzleblast...
New member
Well, I know this is probably not gonna gain me any fans in here, but, if we're gonna go beyond looks, I think a prime candidate for this category is the High Power P-35. ...You are correct, sir.
muzzleblast...
New member
muzzleblast...
New member
BHPs rock.
Oddly enough, the BHP really was not that successful. It was adopted in a non-emergency by only a few countries (including Belgium); it was used by England and China (Canadian-made by Inglis), and Germany (they captured the Belgian factory), Argentina (licensed copy), and a few others, but not by any major nation in other than wartime and surplus conditions. (The British used it post-war but many of theirs were WWII Inglis models.)
It was liked by various guerrilla forces on both sides of the cold war, primarily because it was not as readily traceable as a 1911 or a Makarov, and used the common 9mm P cartridge.
The BHP was more successful in the civilian market after WWII. It became something of a cult favorite in the US (where it was almost unknown before WWII, when the Colt-FN non-compete agreement was in effect), after thousands of guns captured from Germans set the stage for a fairly successful import program of commercial guns. Still, it was never adopted by the US military or any major police agency.
Jim
It was liked by various guerrilla forces on both sides of the cold war, primarily because it was not as readily traceable as a 1911 or a Makarov, and used the common 9mm P cartridge.
The BHP was more successful in the civilian market after WWII. It became something of a cult favorite in the US (where it was almost unknown before WWII, when the Colt-FN non-compete agreement was in effect), after thousands of guns captured from Germans set the stage for a fairly successful import program of commercial guns. Still, it was never adopted by the US military or any major police agency.
Jim
muzzleblast...
New member
Personally, I do not find the Rhino especially attractive. But, the overall functionality of the design is quite interesting. I especially like the grip angle and shape. The low bore also seems worthwhile. That said, I have never shot one.
I have only handled and dry fired a used one in a local gun store. I wanted it. But, the trigger pull was nothing short of an abomination. The mechanics of the cylinder rotation was anything other than smooth.
"The net" tells me that these issues were common to the early Rhinos and that the design has been significantly refined. If I ever run across another I will happily give it a hopeful try.
Heh, didn't know I had ANY, so I'm gonna call this a "win."Sevens... You too now have fewer fans.
Re: Hi-Power-- fantastic historical run-down but PLEASE, the term used is "succeeded", are you honestly trying to say the BHP is a pistol that has not "succeeded" ?!
Re: Rhino, lots of guns are ugly, so let's shelve that subjective argument and instead, discuss what we know.
1) Chiappa, across the board, makes ultra CHEAP products. Maybe not in retail price, but in quality. Chiappa is somewhere ahead of Jimenez but trails basically every known and respected gunmaker.
2) ever see the inside of a Rhino, via cutaway photo? Seriously... good luck in making that design "robust."
3) I've shot one, the bottom-chamber idea is fantastic. Please, someone, anyone (else) please make one.
4) I broke a new one in a large gun store at the sales counter. I apologized, and he thanked me -- far better that the junk goes back rather than to make a horrified customer immediately after the sale.
BOOGIE the oily
New member
muzzleblast said:
Oops...
Oddly enough, I've been searching for a high power for almost a year now. Two actually: one to be restored, and one to be customized.
I do like the pistol quite a lot. But I can't escape the fact that mechanically it's a POS.
Now, about the high power not being that successful, that would bring us to Sevens's question: how do you define success in a weapon?
I would think the high power, having been used by many countries (91, actually. And it was used by the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team https://archive.is/20080301103639/http://www.janes.com/security/law_enforcement/news/ipi/ipi0312.shtml), licensed by many countries, and copied by many others, is by far one of the most successful guns ever. As per having been used by militaries or police departments, that says nothing about a gun, other than the political abilities of its manufacturers. That said, it has been, and still is used by both, in many countries around the world.
muzzleblast...
New member
Oops...
Oddly enough, I've been searching for a high power for almost a year now. ...
Now, about the high power not being that successful...how do you define success in a weapon?
I would think the high power, having been used by many countries ... licensed by many countries, and copied by many others, is by far one of the most successful guns ever...
Successful...
Winchester Model 94, Model 70...
Ruger 10/22, M-77, Mk I/II/III...
Marlin Model 60, M336...
Remington Model 700, M870, M1100...
Colt 1911,
S&W Model 10, 19, various N-frames...
Glock Model 17...
Browning Auto-5... and ...Hi-Power...
Lots of others that fit the claim of being "successful."
The Desert Eagle. Loaded, it weighs more than the average
carbine. Due to it's weight, ergonomic eccentricities, and tendency
to FTF for all but the most serious shooters, you would not think it
would be a popular gun. But people are knocking each other out of
the way to pay 1400$(that's 400$ more than a S&W 629) plus for it.
carbine. Due to it's weight, ergonomic eccentricities, and tendency
to FTF for all but the most serious shooters, you would not think it
would be a popular gun. But people are knocking each other out of
the way to pay 1400$(that's 400$ more than a S&W 629) plus for it.
Hi Power... Heavy? Compared to a plastic striker fired pistol, I suppose so. But it's a bit lighter than a CZ75 or alloy framed Beretta 92.
As for the basic trigger design, I consider it clever. The small pivoting bar of the linkage connected to the trigger also doubles as the disconnector. The trigger design minimizes frame width by avoiding the use of a trigger bar along the side of the magazine. The CZ75 uses a trigger bar along the side of the magazine, and it's frame is noticeably wider. Beretta sticks the trigger bar outside the frame on the 92.
The mag safety was added later in life on the Hi-Power and does make the trigger travel much rougher. But the mag safety is not to hard to remove and the trigger gets much smoother with it's absence.
Nothing really comes to mind as far as designs that succeeded in spite of themselves. The market tends to weed most things like that out. Personally, I don't see how a blowback 45 Auto can succeed, but it has. I guess the low price makes it possible.
Last edited:
carguychris
New member
IMHO the ultimate example is the Luger pistol aka Pistole Parabellum.
The design is overly complex and requires painstaking hand fitment during assembly, which in turn makes field repairs difficult. The toggle-lock mechanism is fussy about ammo and doesn't tolerate dirt, and the peculiar side-actuating sear makes the trigger feel mushy; it's telling that these design aspects have never been copied by another gunmaker who wasn't specifically trying to exploit the Luger mystique (e.g. Stoeger and Erma). Lastly, the safety lever was apparently designed for people with freakishly long double-jointed thumbs.
Despite all this, the pistol continued to be produced in huge numbers long after it became clear that superior alternatives existed, apparently for nationalistic NIH (Not Invented Here) reasons.
They do look pretty awesome though.
The design is overly complex and requires painstaking hand fitment during assembly, which in turn makes field repairs difficult. The toggle-lock mechanism is fussy about ammo and doesn't tolerate dirt, and the peculiar side-actuating sear makes the trigger feel mushy; it's telling that these design aspects have never been copied by another gunmaker who wasn't specifically trying to exploit the Luger mystique (e.g. Stoeger and Erma). Lastly, the safety lever was apparently designed for people with freakishly long double-jointed thumbs.
Despite all this, the pistol continued to be produced in huge numbers long after it became clear that superior alternatives existed, apparently for nationalistic NIH (Not Invented Here) reasons.
They do look pretty awesome though.
BOOGIE the oily
New member
BBarn said:
Hmmm...no.
The High Power weighs 1000 grams (2.2 Lbs.) empty, has a 4.7" barrel, and holds 13+1 rounds.
The CZ-75B weighs exactly the same, has a 4.6" barrel, and holds 16+1 rounds.
The Beretta 92 weighs 950 grams (that's almost 2 ounces less than the high power), has a 4.9" barrel, and holds 17+1 rounds.
Not to mention the CZ and the 92 are DA/SA. Sorry, but you're comparing apples to oranges here...
And about the mag safety, yes, it can be removed. Of course, you'd have to, first, know how to do it (not that easy, before youtube), and, second, be willing to accept the warranty and eventual legal implications of doing so.
But besides that, being easy to remove doesn't change the fact that it seems to have been designed by a very dumb... monkey.