Do you think they should make a compact blowback 9x19 pistol?

[Smaug]

The stiffer recoil spring required on a pure blowback ...would make it difficult for older people with weak hands - or any shooter with some strength issues in their hands - would make it difficult to manipulate

I really don't see the point. There are a lot of small, locked breech 9MM's around now. The recoil spring would have to be very strong. It would be difficult to rack the slide and have a sharp felt recoil.

What would be the point of a more snappy, hard to rack pistol? Why do you need a blowback 9mm when there are already well designed and reliable small 9mm pistols available.

The recoil spring only has to be significantly stiffer if the slide is the same mass. Hence my suggesting to add mass to the slide by using denser metal. Forged steel, and a longer slide. A more massive slide would prevent the snappiness.

People moan and whine about .380 blowback guns being too much, too sharp in recoil, too "snappy", etc.

You'll notice those people whine about PPKs, but not Bersae. Because Bersae have more massive slides, so they're not snappy.

Why do you need a blowback 9mm when there are already well designed and reliable small 9mm pistols available.

Wait, since when is this about what we need? If it were about need, we'd all be fine with 38 snubbies from 50 years ago.

Well, we're talking about 200-250 FPE Vs. 350-475 FPE. I think that is quite significant.

No, we're not. No normal load in 9mm Luger develops 475 FPE. That would be WELL into +P or +P+ territory. Typically, 9mm Mak = 220 FPE and 9mm Luger = 330 FPE. Still, it is significant, and I take your point.

The Russians hammered on this problem for awhile--trying to get 9x19 performance out of the basic Makarov design--before they finally gave up and went to a full-sized, locked breech 9mm.

...because they were starting with a gun that was developed for much lower power and probably trying to retrofit it to save money.

but it forces the designer to go with a very strong recoil spring and/or a very heavy slide. You can only go so heavy on the spring before people start having problems working the slide. And you can only go so heavy on the slide before you can't find a material dense enough to get the weight you need to make the gun work properly.

Yes, but what if they got creative? Double recoil spring, maybe slightly heavier. Heavier slide by way of forged steel instead of cast, and adding weight in the form of length. THEN... make the recoil stroke longer to absorb even more energy!

Think of the slide of a 1911 vs. that of a Ruger P90. The 1911 slide is often praised for being slim enough to carry comfortably. The P90, since it's slide is cast, is much thicker, and only slightly shorter. On the other hand, I think the P90s slide is heavier, and/or the recoil stroke longer, because it was MUCH easier to rack the slide on one than a 1911.


Going back to what PCP said, I guess my point is that we need to think outside the box if we want something new and fun every now and then.

For a long time, the Walther PPK was considered to be the smallest possible gun for 380. We didn't "need" a smaller gun. Yet there came Rohrbaugh and Kel-Tec and made a killing.

We didn't NEED a plastic-framed pistol. Yet there was the Glock, which took the world by storm.

We didn't NEED a 44 Magnum, yet when it came out, it sold like hotcakes.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The Hi-Point pistols have challenged this, and succeeded to some degree, going all the way up to 45 ACP. Their slides are quite bulky, but one could say they are effective.

Effective, maybe -- but your question used the word "compact," and I don't think anyone would ever use the word "compact" to describe a Hi-Point. "Bulky," perhaps. Or "massive." Certainly not "compact."

 

[Jamas]

No... it would cost too much in development, production, and advertising to be able to sell it at a decent market value... based on the fact that it has been tried , and has failed... so it would take quite a bit to make the overall product marketable when most decently informed people would know the limitations and drawbacks of the design before it ever reaches r&d.

 

[Smaug]

S&W could pull it off, if they could see their way clear to stop being followers.

Ruger could pull it off, they've been doing some neat stuff lately. (but they've also done their share of following, hehehe)

Colt could pull it off.

Kel-tec could even pull it off. They are REAL innovators. They'd just have to refrain from making it too cheap.

 

[Catfishman]

It' been pretty well covered.

The new gun would be:

Larger than current 9x19 compact pistols

Heavier than current 9x19 pistols

Much harder to rack the slide on, than current 9x19 pistols

I guess the question is "how much"?

I think Hi Point answers this question. A Lot!

I don't see any advantage, but I do see several disadvantages.

Nice question, but I feel it's been answered

 

[RsqVet]

If one does not seek to do this for the sake of cheapness then what is the motivation? Compact ? That goes out the window withthis design so again why?

Sorry to beca downer but you do run into certain limits in life.

 

[Viper1357]

The only way to make a 9mm blowback pistol is to increase the mass of the bolt, which makes the compactness irrelevant. A compact pistol that weighs more than a full size pistol is not worth having.

exactly

I say why not try? Who knows, maybe with new recoil absorbing materials, tecnology, etc., maybe something 'useable' and 'desireable' is possible.

But like several have mentioned per above quote, this is probably the result.

Here is my "straight blowback" pistol. It's a SWD Cobray M11 9mm. It's reliable, fairly accurate, holds 33 rounds, BUT the mass of the bolt and overall size makes it a bit difficult to conceal.

I have to say it is well built for what it is.

Can I get this in a compact?

 

[overkill0084]

What problem would it solve? The current selection of compact & sub compact 9 mm pistols isn't exactly horrible. Aside from being an engineering exercise, I don't see the point.

 

[Dapperdan]

Lord no. The recoil on the 380's is worse than most 9mm's, even some 45. There's a reason they do that.

 

[lee n. field]

So why doesn't anyone make a relatively compact, straight blowback 9x19? It would have a slightly stiffer recoil spring, a slightly heavier slide, and nice aggressive cocking serrations. The slide could be made heavier by making it longer.

MY recollection (probably written up somewhere on makarov.com), is that the Russians worked up a Makarov in 9x19. It required fluting the chamber, and was quite harsh to shoot, and never imported.

Meanwhile, my PF9 is smaller, half the weight, and no harsher to shoot than a .38 snubby.

 

[lee n. field]

So why doesn't anyone make a relatively compact, straight blowback 9x19?

I got to contemplating this. "I am not a gunsmif, nor do I pretend to be one on Teh Interwebz", but I can think of ways that some of the problems (too strong spring, too big slide) might be mitigated.

All of which would leave you with a more complicated gun than your typical locked breech 9mm.

Locked breech handguns work, they can be made compact, and they can be made inexpensively.

Leaving one with the question "why bother"?

 

[BlueTrain]

The Smith & Wesson model I referred to earlier was the SW9M. I have no idea when it was produced or how many were made. It was a straight blowback, was very flat and light and was essentially a DA-only kind of pistol. I was just looking at the diagram on Numrich Arms and I failed to notice how it worked, probably a striker. It did have a sharp recoil but it had some attraction as a carry gun, if not exactly charm. The magazine was very odd with two "ears" that you pressed to remove the magazine. S&W also made a .380 model, too.

The Spanish firm Astra made a straight blowback that was in production for a relatively long time and there ought to be lots of them kicking around. They were made in various sizes and calibers, and they all looked about the same. The main caliber manufactured was 9mm Bergmann Bayard, probably better known as the 9mm Largo. Supposedly it would handle 9mm Luger but some models were made in that caliber.

So basically, it was a good question and the expected advantages were in fact there in the SW9M but it came with all the expected disadvantages, too. It probably came out when everyone wanted a high-capacity 9mm.

 

[chack]

I used to have a astra 400. I shot 9 luger in it all the time with no issues.

the astra 600 was slightly shorter and came in 9 luger.

 

[Microgunner]

There used to be one. The Intratec Cat9.

 

[rock185]

Years ago, Detonics produced a very compact, straight blowback, called the "Pocket 9". I had the opportunity to shoot one. Very nasty little thing with a very sharp recoil due to being a straight blowback action with a relatively light weight slide. I tried it with standard 9MM ammo, nasty enough, then had to try a magazine of 9MM +P in it. It did function OK, but not fun to shoot with standard ammo and worse with +P. BTW, my SIG 230 in .380, a straight blowback, had more recoil than people might think. I much prefer my S&W 3913 or SIG 239 9MM, even with +P+ ammo. ymmv

 

[raftman]

The German research that the Russians captured after WW2 indicated that something along the line of the 9x18 was the most powerful round that could be effectively chambered in a straight blowback design.

he Hi-Point pistols have challenged this, and succeeded to some degree, going all the way up to 45 ACP. Their slides are quite bulky, but one could say they are effective.

I don't think the Germans or Russians would have been so obtuse as to literally think it wouldn't be possible to make a straight blowback gun in something bigger than .380, these folks knew a thing or two about designing small arms. I doubt the notion of "we could scale-up size/bulk/weight/spring power" somehow eluded them. More than likely, their conclusion was that that 9x17 or 9x18 is the most powerful round you could use in a straight blowback pistol and still have it be a practical weapon. It could be that they concluded the drawbacks of a 9x19+ blowback pistol outweighed the benefits.

In regards to Hi-Point, "quite bulky" is a bit of an understatement. The .40 and .45 Hi-Points feel and look more like power drills than pistols. IMO, a Makarov pistol is a much more practical and versatile weapon than a Hi-Point .45.

 

[Amin Parker]

The ADP is a blowback isnt it???

 

[PSP]

The ADP is a blowback isnt it???

The ADP is gas retarded, via a piston and gas tube, like the Hk P7, otherwise it is a blowback action.

 

[amd6547]

My EDC Glock 26 is all the compact 9mm I need...If I want to go to a smaller 9mm blowback with painful recoil, I have a polish P64 9mm mak.

 

[James K]

I like the way folks just assume that someone, somewhere, somehow will come up with the "denser metal" that will make a favorite pipe dream possible. Well, maybe - depleted uranium, anyone?

Jim