Nearly a hundred years separate the two pistols above. The Pieper Bayard 1908 was, for many years, the smallest .380 self-loading pistol ever made. The derringer-sized auto held 4+1 rounds of .380ACP and fit in the palm of your hand, or a vest pocket...
...but it would need to be a sturdy vest pocket, because the Bayard is a little brick of a gun. Based, to an extent, on John Browning's original 1899/1900 pocket pistol design, the recoil spring is above the barrel, and it and the slide's mass are the only things resisting the rearward force of the cartridge in this straight-blowback design. By contrast, the BG380 is a locked-breech short recoil pistol, and its slide can be lighter since it and the barrel are locked together for the first few millimeters of travel.
The Bayard is 15.8 ounces empty and 17.6 ounces with five rounds aboard, compared to 12.4 and 14.7 for the Smith (and the Smith holds 7 rounds; almost half again the capacity, if you want to look at it that way.)
The Smith is much easier to shoot well, with the Bayard having a fairly wretched single action trigger, unlike the Smith's heavy-but-smooth DA pull. The Bayard also has, like almost all pistols of its vintage, only the most notional of sights. Still, if you dropped one in a sock, you could really mess someone up with it, I suppose.
.
12 comments:
Does the "Danger" label on the Smith not come off with solvents? I figured that would come off with the first serious cleaning with Hoppe's No9 or equivalent.
Also, while it may not be a problem for slender hands, I'm pretty sure my ham hands would block the ejection port on that Bayard.
Speaking of dropping one in a sock, have you seen DeSantis's new City Slicker coin purse.
Have they moved the activation button for the laser on the Smith? On the original design my hands are to small for me to reach the button while maintaining a good firing grip on the gun, so it would be great if they have moved it closer to the trigger.
"Still, if you dropped one in a sock, you could really mess someone up with it, I suppose."
-Not the first or tenth time Tam has hefted an object, then uttered "man you could really fuck someone up with this thing." or some variation on that theme.
They put a warning label for the laser on a firearm?! I thought the warning labels on lawnmowers cautioning that they not be used as hedgetrimmers was excessive but this takes the cake.
Al_in_Ottawa
Roland,
Doesn't everyone do that?
Given that all clothing at the time was not made in Bangladesh, I would guess that pockets were, indeed, made of sturdier stuff. As were the people who carried those pistols.
Antibubba
To answer Tam's question - yes, clothing was sturdier "way back when." Half a lifetime ago my Grandmother passed along some clothing from my Grandfather's day. I was quite impressed with not only the quality of the clothing - and it was everyday wear from the 1930's - the materials were thicker and natural fibers. No wonder most people were slimmer, they must have roasted in summer in those clothes!
As to pocket pistols, I always rather liked the 1908 Colt .380 myself.
Meh, Again both are lighter than my PM45 which I carry all the time.
Also I know a few people who drop a Glock 26/27 in their pocket, and there are certainly a dearth of pocket holsters for the baby Glocks.
Terry Pratchett has written a bit on the puissance of socks stuffed with something weighty. In Sourcery there's a bit about a half-brick in a sock being a weapon that kills people but leaves buildings standing.....
William the CPA
Pratchett recognized the utility of everyday objects for non-standard uses quite frequently, especially when describing the residents, or denizens, of the Shades. Cobbles, half bricks, lengths of pipe, wheel staves, hand tools, purses full of change, robust hatpins and that brown stuff all over the ground, that nobody wanted to confirm what was, all come to mind.
And there never was a Pratchett pub owner who could not make violent change of some kind with what he kept readily at hand under the bar.
Pratchett recognized that the person was the danger, not the tool.
Robert Heinlein put it best when he said there was no such thing as a "dangerous weapon" (all weapons are by definition dangerous) only dangerous men.
Post a Comment