Would anyone be interested in a 1903 but in 9mm?

[Jim Watson]

I like the FN 1903 9mm B.L., too. Unfortunately, prices of unaltered ones have stayed ahead of my interest. I wish I had bought one of the replacement barrels from SG, though.

It is not all that less powerful than 9mm P.
Original 1903 9mm Para was a 123 at 1050 fps or thereabouts.
301 ft lbs, power factor 129

The 9mm Browning Long is in CotW as a 110 at 1100 fps.
295 ft lbs, power factor 121.

Yawn.

Georg just had better marketing.
But in the day, everybody else had his own idea; 9mm P was a long way from being the international standard it is now.

 

[salvadore]

I agree with Rick, first time I saw a Solo ad I thought it looked like the 1903/1908.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The Colt 1903/1908 pocket pistols have serious disadvantages for carry guns, aside from the fact that they are single action. The worst are the small safety, easily missed in a crisis, and the tiny sights, almost useless anywhere but a well lighted range. They are also an awkward size; too big to be easily concealed or slipped into a pocket, too small to have really effective power.

LOL, are you suggesting that single action is bad for a carry gun?

Small safety? That can be modified, as can the sights, LOL.

Too big to be easily concealed? I never had a problem with concealing one, LOL.

Too small to have effective power? Well, that isn't a factor of the gun size but the calibers. They do have a 4" barrel that is longer than most .32s and .380s today which should actually give them a velocity advantage over such offerings.

Some time back, a poster showed the M1908 he had built for himself, with many changes in sights, safeties, slide serrations, and so on. Nice ideas, but it was NOT an M1908 any more.

You mean like a 1911 is no longer a 1911?

 

[ttarp]

Considering the size of the pocket nines these days, (938, PPS, shield, others) I don't thing a 1903 in 9mm would be too much different in size from the original. But being a more powerful cartridge it would have to use a different action than blowback, making it hard to call it a 1903. 1909 perhaps?

 

[James K]

Hi, Spy,

Single action is bad in a carry gun if the hammer is concealed and the safety is tiny. As I said, the safety can be built up, big sights put on, and other changes made, but then the "eye appeal" of the 1903 is changed. I have seen pictures of those guns modified to someone's idea of a modern carry gun and, IMHO, they look like heck. If someone wants a 9mm P. pistol with big sights, fish scale slides, dark gray matte finish and big rubber grips, why not buy one of the many guns like that? Why ruin a M1903?

Jim

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well of course some of the "eye appeal" would change. That is what happens when you make external changes, but whether it is bad or good or if eye appeal even matters is the decision of the owner. People sure do love their modern day 1911s that don't look closely like the original, LOL.

 

[Slopemeno]

I dunno... looks pretty good to me.

 

[Slopemeno]

And more.

 

[tipoc]

Sleek all over like a well worn bar of soap.

The sights should be just enough to see. You aim along the top of the slide anyways. The small safety is a plus,as there is nothing for it to hang up on. Grip safety is discreet. The single action benefits the shooter.

What's not to like?

tipoc

 

[Slopemeno]

http://hlebooks.wordpress.com/2013/...e-colt-pocket-hammerless-pistol-hlebooks-com/

 

[RX-79G]

Single action is bad in a carry gun if the hammer is concealed and the safety is tiny.

Why would a shrouded or concealed hammer be a bad thing on a carry gun? Are concealed strikers bad?

 

[TunnelRat]

Why would a shrouded or concealed hammer be a bad thing on a carry gun? Are concealed strikers bad?

Is there such a thing as an exposed striker?

 

[RX-79G]

Sure. P7, P99, Browing Baby, etc have exposed striker ends so you can see their status.

 

[ligonierbill]

I've been gathering some old .32's and have managed to acquire a Colt 1903, a Savage 1917, and a Remington 51. First, as to issuing a new model in a more powerful caliber, Remington did, and the results don't seem great so far. Savage used that basic design back in the day for a .45 ACP pistol that was intended to compete with the 1911. Might still be a possibility.

The single action makes these fun guns to shoot, but I agree they are problematic as carry guns. The Savage and Remington have even smaller safety levers than the Colt. Of course, the Remington and Colt have grip safeties, but that would be too easy to release while drawing to allow anyone to leave frame safety in "fire". The Savage has an exposed cocking lever - looks like a hammer, but it's not - so I suppose you could carry it with a round chambered and uncocked. But you would need to manually cock it, as no double action.

The Savage is a snap to field strip. The Colt is not bad. The Remington requires removal of a pin, like my P32, you can't remove the barrel, and if you remove the breech block, you free the firing pin return spring. Two small parts begging to get lost. If anyone were to upgrade and modernize, I'd vote for the Savage.

 

[James K]

The barrel on the Remington 51 can be removed, but it is a PITA to do so and then get it back in. FWIW, the Savage, Remington, and S&W all used odd systems not because they were better, but because John Browning had patented the best ideas. He (Colt's lawyers actually wrote the applications) even patented auto pistol grips that were held on by a screw, which is why the Savage, Remington and S&W use those odd grip attachments.

Jim