AT: Speaking of Vest Pockets, slap a pony on that thing and...
Tam: Actually, Mike's comment below yours was right. Mechanically, it's a lot closer to the S&W Escort than the Colt Vest Pocket. (The biggest visual cue being the recoil assembly above the barrel rather than beneath it.)
AT: Such a geek. Mechanics? P'shaw. In art, all is form and aesthetic. And it wanted to be a Colt so bad...
Tam: Yeah, I guess to the casual observer, they do look a little alike.
Other than where the barrel is, or how far forward the grip is on the frame, or the ejection port being in the frame rather than the slide... I mean, other than that, (and the completely different location and arrangement of the cocking serrations,) they look practically identical. ;)
Both of them, for instance, lack the shoulder thing that goes up. :D
AT: Well you're the exspurt, but they do both have that hole thingy that goes bang...
So, how much of that radical departure is 'cuz it's furrin, and how much is due to the lawyerly pursuits of the 19 aughts?
Tam: Speaking as a drip under pressure, I would point out that the Colt 1908 Vest Pocket is foreign, too, being merely the domestic copy of the FN 1905... :)
AT:...itself being "merely" the capably executed design of a rather thoroughly domestic product*...:b
Which was of course the rather thoroughly and determinedly if weakly missed/dissed point. No pressure.
*(pbuh)
Tam: I'm sitting here looking at both, AT. Like I said, to someone completely unfamiliar with firearms, I guess they look alike, in the same way that a Checker Cab and an '82 Crown Vic do.
"No pressure."
Nope, no pressure at all. The picture with the one next to the other will go up on the Arms Room. You can then defend your claim against the class. No pressure. :)
AT: Just the drip drip drip of literalist Tamarese torture...I shoulda tossed in one of those disclaimers of yours I guess.
'82 Crown Vic? No, all Checkers wanted to be '57 Chevys.
And all early pistols wanted to be Colt's.
Both missed the mark by a bit.
*************************
Man, I couldn't find that "spittin' image" thing in there anywhere. Defense rests.
Most of my pistol time was in the US Navy, aboard the USS South Carolina, CGN-37, doing 'familiarization firing' on the fantail, offshore. We aimed at the water, and most of us hit the target. Today I wonder that I passed up on the chance of firing the M-60 machine gun. One of the Chiefs had a blast with it (he had used one for effect in Vietnam).
But it looks to me like the Colt positions the hand completely differently, significantly lowering the trigger with respect to the top of the hand. It looks to me like the hand and grip placement mean the two guns have significantly different uses.
I wanted to be charitable and say that the silhouettes at least are identical.... but they aren't. I wanted to be charitable and say that the trigger guards are identical... but they aren't. I wanted to be charitable and say that the sights are the same... but they aren't. No feature looks to be exactly the same between the pistols. Still, it is understandable in those who are not of a gunnie persuasion. And legally blind.
While the Bayard and the Colt Vest Pocket were both available in .25 ACP which I assume is the gist of your remark about noticing being shot with either, I believe that particular Bayard is a .380 ACP. Which, considering the size comparison with the Colt, is kinda cool in and of itself.
Side-by-side, not so much. Looking at one when it's been a while since you've seen the other, I'd say it's understandable that one might think so. (Particularly if one had never seen either in the flesh.) Heck, I had a Vest Pocket Model of my own until Katrina, and I did a double-take when I first glanced over the pics from yesterday. Of course, I'd be hard pressed to tell Kei$ha, Brittany, or Agulerra apart so take that as you will.
The bluing is similar, or at least the effects of time have made the steel look similar. They are both small semi-autos. Beyond that, no. Grips are different, bodies are different, slides are different, (vastly different,look at where the ejection ports are), and because of that I'd say the internals, while following the same theme (i.e., semi-auto pistol) must needs be vastly different.
Isn't the bayard unique or very nearly so in that it ejects the spent cartrige out of the frame, and not a slide cutout? I can't think of any other post 1900 sidearm that does that, not that there isn't. In other words, couldn't possibly be much different. I know that you can shift your grip up and use your second finger to pull the trigger, and get an excellent burn on your index finger. Stop laughing.
Spitting image? No. Look a lot alike, yes. Particularly if you don't know about things like grip safeties, and whatnot. If you're a gun geek, it's obvious. If you're not, they're both small autopistols. Yeah, they look a lot alike.
Well, other than having entirely different slides, frame configurations, ejectors, sights, methods of grip panel attachment, and the fact that the Colt has a grip safety and the other does not, they're twins.
"Spittin' Images?" Only it you're spittin' in the dark. I'm sure some folks will say that they're both small semiautomatic pistols, but horses and zebras look pretty much alike too until you actually pay a bit of attention.
I was waiting for the "In the sense that they kill people and should be BANNED!!!!" remark but it did not appear. That means that your readers are, or appear to be, ;) intelligent people. That being said, I am a rookie gun collecting. So far I have no pistols in my collection, all though I drool over the ones you post. Yet at first glance I noticed the slide difference, then as I looked closer I saw the sights, grips ect. So like has already been said, they are similar in that they are pocket semi autos and it ends there.
Ah, I'd forgotten about the 61. I figured if there was anyone who would know...
Actually, aside from grips, the 61 does look a little bit like the bayard.
WV; Blerymbl. Unlike the Bayard or the Colt, or even the Smith, the blerymbl ejected spent casings from a specially constructed tube exiting near the nether regions, often scaring attackers more than the actual gunfire.
"Ah, I'd forgotten about the 61. I figured if there was anyone who would know...
Actually, aside from grips, the 61 does look a little bit like the bayard."
After I typed that, I took the NRA Guide To Pistols And Revolvers into the reading room to see if it had a Model 61 in it.
As it turns out, the 61 isn't just "like" the Bayard in layout, it practically is a Bayard, albeit in alloy and chambered for a rimfire cartridge. Heck, they even both disassemble via the front sight... I never wanted one of those ridiculous little Smith purse .22s before, but now I want one bad.
So, just say that the line "I have been informed that these pistols are spittin' images of one another." is a disingenuous fabrication, and I'll regurgitate -I mean reiterate-and clarify my tangential reference and intent.
Of course they are identical. They are both semi-automatic machineguns that take a clip that can be replaced or modified to hold hundreds of cop killer bullets.
And you still haven't said that your referenced quote does not exist.
Doesn't matter; what started as a droll connection to an earlier post was soured long ago by your superficial, literal, smarmy, and weakly attempted belittling responses.
But I know you're not a pissy humorless bitch, even if you sometimes play one pretty well on the 'tubes.:)
Aloysius huh? FYI, Al is short for Alpha. PPPFFFTTT! Even I couldn't keep a straight face with that one.
But hey, I could call myself Alpha Tango...that's even better than Eduardo Carochio!
Na. At least not just. I wouldn't still be here otherwise. And you might think that would be just as well, but there ya go.
The first point was made but missed (and is totally pedestrian and anticlimactic at this um, point), but the one I'm "t(r)ying to make here" is, you still haven't owned up to your Jayson Blair bit.
Furrfu. FN themselves seem to think the 1905 is the same thing as the Baby (http://www.browning.com/customerservice/dategun/detail.asp?id=6) so what are we mere plebs to think?
If the pictured Bayard is indeed a .380, then I wouldn't mind owning one myself.
@Kristopher: Years ago, American Derringer Co. announced a ".251 Magnum" pistol. Basically a stretched .25ACP case in an apparently .32/.380 size pocket pistol. Not sure if any were actually made, but it was an interesting concept.
Your "informant" is either blind (and without a very good sense of touch), mildly deranged or is, as our British "cousins" might put it, trying to have you on a bit...
- Both are guns
- Both are relatively small
- Both operate (properly) in a general manner termed "semi-automatic"
- Both are almost certainly in a caliber that is only useful for making a moderate amount of noise and adequate holes in paper targets at quite close range (provided the paper is not too thick or stiff)(disclaimer: some make claims of adequacy for the .380 as a useful defensive cartridge - but, from a barrel that short, I am not among them.
- Aside from that (and some minor peripheral characteristics - sights, trigger, grips, etc.), no correspondence whatsoever.
Similar outline, but obvious differences too. They both have the shoulder thing that goes up, right?
ReplyDeleteSomeone needs their eyesight checked? In WHAT way are they spitting images of each other?...
ReplyDeleteAll The Best,
Frank W. James
Aside from the obvious differences, sure they are.
ReplyDeleteYou should throw an LCP or something in there and ask it again.
ReplyDeleteNo and my eyes suck.
ReplyDeleteUm..... no.
ReplyDeleteUh, no in my opinion. Similar, yes but no. Here are my Colts.
ReplyDeleteEjection ports, extractor, grip safety, grip screws, etc. They are all different!
Both are nice guns however!
I can see how someone might think so, if they'd never seen a firearm in their life.
ReplyDeleteLike the old saying goes,
ReplyDelete"Same thing only different".
So, what are we doing? Playing one of Slylock Fox's find the difference games?
ReplyDeleteHmmm. If somone were shot with either one of those and they noticed, they might get very angry.
ReplyDeleteAt 50 feet, in Bad light, behind Stained Glass, perhaps.
ReplyDeleteThere is a company in Colorado making new manufacture copies of the baby Browning
ReplyDeleteWhy yes... They do both appear to be small pistols!
ReplyDeleteI am more interested on the grips on the Colt. Rampant Pony in what oval on the bottom?
ReplyDeleteWell, this ain't the Arms Room, but...
ReplyDelete**********************
AT: Speaking of Vest Pockets, slap a pony on that thing and...
Tam: Actually, Mike's comment below yours was right. Mechanically, it's a lot closer to the S&W Escort than the Colt Vest Pocket. (The biggest visual cue being the recoil assembly above the barrel rather than beneath it.)
AT: Such a geek. Mechanics? P'shaw.
In art, all is form and aesthetic.
And it wanted to be a Colt so bad...
Tam: Yeah, I guess to the casual observer, they do look a little alike.
Other than where the barrel is, or how far forward the grip is on the frame, or the ejection port being in the frame rather than the slide... I mean, other than that, (and the completely different location and arrangement of the cocking serrations,) they look practically identical. ;)
Both of them, for instance, lack the shoulder thing that goes up. :D
AT: Well you're the exspurt, but they do both have that hole thingy that goes bang...
So, how much of that radical departure is 'cuz it's furrin, and how much is due to the lawyerly pursuits of the 19 aughts?
Tam: Speaking as a drip under pressure, I would point out that the Colt 1908 Vest Pocket is foreign, too, being merely the domestic copy of the FN 1905... :)
AT:...itself being "merely" the capably executed design of a rather thoroughly domestic product*...:b
Which was of course the rather thoroughly and determinedly if weakly missed/dissed point. No pressure.
*(pbuh)
Tam: I'm sitting here looking at both, AT. Like I said, to someone completely unfamiliar with firearms, I guess they look alike, in the same way that a Checker Cab and an '82 Crown Vic do.
"No pressure."
Nope, no pressure at all. The picture with the one next to the other will go up on the Arms Room. You can then defend your claim against the class. No pressure. :)
AT: Just the drip drip drip of literalist Tamarese torture...I shoulda tossed in one of those disclaimers of yours I guess.
'82 Crown Vic? No, all Checkers wanted to be '57 Chevys.
And all early pistols wanted to be Colt's.
Both missed the mark by a bit.
*************************
Man, I couldn't find that "spittin' image" thing in there anywhere. Defense rests.
Fun! Let's play again!
AT
Tam,
ReplyDeleteMost of my pistol time was in the US Navy, aboard the USS South Carolina, CGN-37, doing 'familiarization firing' on the fantail, offshore. We aimed at the water, and most of us hit the target. Today I wonder that I passed up on the chance of firing the M-60 machine gun. One of the Chiefs had a blast with it (he had used one for effect in Vietnam).
But it looks to me like the Colt positions the hand completely differently, significantly lowering the trigger with respect to the top of the hand. It looks to me like the hand and grip placement mean the two guns have significantly different uses.
I wanted to be charitable and say that the silhouettes at least are identical.... but they aren't. I wanted to be charitable and say that the trigger guards are identical... but they aren't. I wanted to be charitable and say that the sights are the same... but they aren't. No feature looks to be exactly the same between the pistols. Still, it is understandable in those who are not of a gunnie persuasion. And legally blind.
ReplyDeleteYeah...uhm...so...uh...not at all.
ReplyDeleteWho informed you of that? Sarah Brady?
ReplyDeleteOnly to someone totally ignorant of the characteristics of firearms in general, or a journalist. But I repeat myself...
ReplyDeleteUSCitizen,
ReplyDeleteWhile the Bayard and the Colt Vest Pocket were both available in .25 ACP which I assume is the gist of your remark about noticing being shot with either, I believe that particular Bayard is a .380 ACP. Which, considering the size comparison with the Colt, is kinda cool in and of itself.
Still waiting for the penny to drop.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't look likely to me that they are even similar mechanically, let alone, um, aesthetically.
Side-by-side, not so much. Looking at one when it's been a while since you've seen the other, I'd say it's understandable that one might think so. (Particularly if one had never seen either in the flesh.) Heck, I had a Vest Pocket Model of my own until Katrina, and I did a double-take when I first glanced over the pics from yesterday. Of course, I'd be hard pressed to tell Kei$ha, Brittany, or Agulerra apart so take that as you will.
ReplyDeleteYes, they are identical.
ReplyDeleteThey are both Glocks, and should be banned.
Remember, there are those who emphatically believe both are true.
Keads,
ReplyDelete"I am more interested on the grips on the Colt. Rampant Pony in what oval on the bottom?"
That's a stylized "C". Those are the "1st Pattern" grips; the gun has a very low 5-digit S/N (101xx) and dates to 1909.
Brad K.,
"But it looks to me like the Colt positions the hand completely differently, significantly lowering the trigger with respect to the top of the hand."
The Colt is striker-fired, whereas the Bayard uses an enclosed hammer, hence the completely different contours.
The bluing is similar, or at least the effects of time have made the steel look similar. They are both small semi-autos. Beyond that, no. Grips are different, bodies are different, slides are different, (vastly different,look at where the ejection ports are), and because of that I'd say the internals, while following the same theme (i.e., semi-auto pistol) must needs be vastly different.
ReplyDeleteNot even close.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the bayard unique or very nearly so in that it ejects the spent cartrige out of the frame, and not a slide cutout? I can't think of any other post 1900 sidearm that does that, not that there isn't. In other words, couldn't possibly be much different. I know that you can shift your grip up and use your second finger to pull the trigger, and get an excellent burn on your index finger. Stop laughing.
ReplyDeleteWV Frott. Not going there.
From a distance, if the light's not too good, the same way I resemble Clint Eastwood.
ReplyDeleteOg,
ReplyDelete"I can't think of any other post 1900 sidearm that does that, not that there isn't."
The best known would be the S&W Model 61 Escort, oddly enough.
According to the VPC, they are identical weapons of mass destruction.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the press, they are identical AK-47 machine guns.
I don't know. What do you think, USCitizen or Bubblehead Les for today's winner?
ReplyDeleteI'll bet they looked the same to all the mice that lost their furry little lives to them.
ReplyDeleteWV: xurearyc
Just say no to urea rice.
Is this a joke? Please tell me someone was kidding when they said that.
ReplyDeleteAny two machines designed for the same purpose will bear a superficial resemblance to each other.
ReplyDeleteThese are both pocket pistols, so their general outline is similar.
Spitting image? No. Look a lot alike, yes. Particularly if you don't know about things like grip safeties, and whatnot. If you're a gun geek, it's obvious. If you're not, they're both small autopistols. Yeah, they look a lot alike.
ReplyDeleteWell, other than having entirely different slides, frame configurations, ejectors, sights, methods of grip panel attachment, and the fact that the Colt has a grip safety and the other does not, they're twins.
ReplyDelete"Spittin' Images?" Only it you're spittin' in the dark. I'm sure some folks will say that they're both small semiautomatic pistols, but horses and zebras look pretty much alike too until you actually pay a bit of attention.
They Bayard is from the Mirror, Mirror universe. You can tell by the tiny goatee.
ReplyDeleteAcross a fairly large room lit by a single CFL maybe.
ReplyDeleteIn the same sense that a coffee cup is topologically identical to a doughnut, yes, they're identical.
ReplyDeleteI was waiting for the "In the sense that they kill people and should be BANNED!!!!" remark but it did not appear. That means that your readers are, or appear to be, ;) intelligent people. That being said, I am a rookie gun collecting. So far I have no pistols in my collection, all though I drool over the ones you post. Yet at first glance I noticed the slide difference, then as I looked closer I saw the sights, grips ect. So like has already been said, they are similar in that they are pocket semi autos and it ends there.
ReplyDeleteAh, I'd forgotten about the 61. I figured if there was anyone who would know...
ReplyDeleteActually, aside from grips, the 61 does look a little bit like the bayard.
WV; Blerymbl. Unlike the Bayard or the Colt, or even the Smith, the blerymbl ejected spent casings from a specially constructed tube exiting near the nether regions, often scaring attackers more than the actual gunfire.
Og,
ReplyDelete"Ah, I'd forgotten about the 61. I figured if there was anyone who would know...
Actually, aside from grips, the 61 does look a little bit like the bayard."
After I typed that, I took the NRA Guide To Pistols And Revolvers into the reading room to see if it had a Model 61 in it.
As it turns out, the 61 isn't just "like" the Bayard in layout, it practically is a Bayard, albeit in alloy and chambered for a rimfire cartridge. Heck, they even both disassemble via the front sight... I never wanted one of those ridiculous little Smith purse .22s before, but now I want one bad.
Hey I remember those little Smifs...I didn't care for them either because I already had a Jetfire and they are exactly alike, so...
ReplyDeleteThat oughta be good to milk it for another 40 or so Capt. Obvious comments.:)
Or...you could admit that the post is bogus and respond to the actual original (obscure) commentary/inquiry. Shall I break it down for you, again?
AT
Similar but not congruent.
ReplyDeleteI knew 8th grade wasn't wasted
Gerry
"Shall I break it down for you, again?"
ReplyDeletePlease, as obviously I have yet to grasp what exactly you're saying.
Capt. Tam O.? Yeah, I ain't buyin' it.
ReplyDeleteBut what the hell.
So, just say that the line "I have been informed that these pistols are spittin' images of one another." is a disingenuous fabrication, and I'll regurgitate -I mean reiterate-and clarify my tangential reference and intent.
AT
That must be some spit!
ReplyDelete[ sarcasm alert ]
ReplyDeleteOf course they are identical. They are both semi-automatic machineguns that take a clip that can be replaced or modified to hold hundreds of cop killer bullets.
( actually, a .25 pistol with an extended magazine and a fun switch would be kinda cool ... )
ReplyDeleteAloysius Terego,
ReplyDelete"Capt. Tam O.? Yeah, I ain't buyin' it."
You can buy what you want to buy.
I still have no clue what you're driving at.
And you still haven't said that your referenced quote does not exist.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter; what started as a droll connection to an earlier post was soured long ago by your superficial, literal, smarmy, and weakly attempted belittling responses.
But I know you're not a pissy humorless bitch, even if you sometimes play one pretty well on the 'tubes.:)
Aloysius huh? FYI, Al is short for Alpha. PPPFFFTTT! Even I couldn't keep a straight face with that one.
But hey, I could call myself Alpha Tango...that's even better than Eduardo Carochio!
AT
"But I know you're not a pissy humorless bitch..."
ReplyDeleteApparently I am.
I reiterate: I have not a clue what point you're tying to make here.
"Apparently I am."
ReplyDeleteNa. At least not just. I wouldn't still be here otherwise. And you might think that would be just as well, but there ya go.
The first point was made but missed (and is totally pedestrian and anticlimactic at this um, point), but the one I'm "t(r)ying to make here" is, you still haven't owned up to your Jayson Blair bit.
AT
Ummm, they have black grips....
ReplyDeleteWhat do I win?
wv:nonadar- the other 11 months of the year.
Nope. General firearm shape? Yup, sorta. Spittin image? Not at all.
ReplyDeleteFurrfu. FN themselves seem to think the 1905 is the same thing as the Baby (http://www.browning.com/customerservice/dategun/detail.asp?id=6) so what are we mere plebs to think?
ReplyDeleteDrooling resemblance, maybe.
ReplyDeleteIf the pictured Bayard is indeed a .380, then I wouldn't mind owning one myself.
ReplyDelete@Kristopher: Years ago, American Derringer Co. announced a ".251 Magnum" pistol. Basically a stretched .25ACP case in an apparently .32/.380 size pocket pistol. Not sure if any were actually made, but it was an interesting concept.
The both make liberals wet themselves, so, yeah, they're the same.
ReplyDeleteAntibubba
I think they look like one another. Yes, there are differences, but for a non-gun geek, they look a lot alike.
ReplyDeleteI mean, I can tell the difference between a monocyte and an activated lymphocyte at a glance. I've been doing this for ten years.
Your "informant" is either blind (and without a very good sense of touch), mildly deranged or is, as our British "cousins" might put it, trying to have you on a bit...
ReplyDelete- Both are guns
- Both are relatively small
- Both operate (properly) in a general manner termed "semi-automatic"
- Both are almost certainly in a caliber that is only useful for making a moderate amount of noise and adequate holes in paper targets at quite close range (provided the paper is not too thick or stiff)(disclaimer: some make claims of adequacy for the .380 as a useful defensive cartridge - but, from a barrel that short, I am not among them.
- Aside from that (and some minor peripheral characteristics - sights, trigger, grips, etc.), no correspondence whatsoever.
Next question?