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

Should they make a compact, blowback, 9x19 auto pistol?

  • Yes, they should make one

    Votes: 27 30.7%

  • No, they shouldn't make one

    Votes: 61 69.3%
  • Total voters
    88
  • Poll closed .
My experiences with .380 pocket pistols are a good illustration of the issues under discussion here.

I had (and carried) for a time a .380 NAA Guardian. All steel, heavy spring, blowback operated. I think it weighs around 19 oz. unloaded. Under recoil it never failed to whack my trigger finger with the trigger guard and within about 10-20 rounds I'd have a bloody finger.

When the LCP came out I jumped. It's about half the weight, but the fact that it's locked breech allows it to shoot much softer. It's never whacked my finger and I've put 100+ rounds through it in a day several times over the 3 years I've owned and carried it.

I give this example as just one illustration of why a compact, blowback operated pistol in 9mm that was actually fun to shoot would no longer be so compact by today's standards.
 
I was just thinking. 9x19 is not too much more powerful than 9x18 or 9x17. 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.

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.

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. Maybe the gun would have a bit longer barrel than a 380 to get this additional weight in the slide. Maybe the slide would be forged instead of cast, so that it wouldn't have to be bulkier. (I know Ruger won't like this idea, hehehe) Maybe the additional production cost of forging the slide would be offset by the simplified lock-up. (i.e. none needed!) The gun would be more accurate than a locked breech gun with the same barrel length and sight radius due to the fixed barrel.

What do you guys think? Would it work?

I think it would. Lots of folks like 380s and 9mm Makarov guns. Lots of other folks feel a bit safer with the "full power 9mm Luger" cartridge. Why not build this gun and make EVERYONE happy?

Please don't say that Hi-Point has already made that gun. They haven't. I'm talking about a high quality compact one, not a cheapie.

I bet if they put their minds to it, they could make one that's just a tad bigger than the PPK/S or Bersa Thunder 380.
Click to expand...

It would be helpful if we could target what need you're trying to fill. They currently have small 9mm that are the same size as .380s: Walther, Taurus, Ruger, Kahr, and Keltec make them to name a few.

Are you looking for something more powerful than a 9mm or 9mm+P round? I'd proffer the recoil would make it uncontrollable.
 
Uncontrollable is what some people say about the .44 magnum. But I don't expect a serious defense gun to necessarily be fun to shoot. My own Model 29 with a 4" barrel certainly wasn't but it had it's place in the hierarchy of weapons I had at the time. Fun no, controllable, well sure it was controllable, if you didn't get in a hurry. And I never fired more than about a dozen rounds in one session. If you shoot more, if affects your idea of what the guns should be, and the results may not be all that logical.

The two and only guns that ever drew blood, I think, were a Colt Government Model that I foolishly let someone put an extended slide release on and a Walther PPK that had a sharpened slide. In recoil it would cut the top of my hand. Neither my old Model 29 or my Colt lightweight Officer's ACP ever drew blood. They both were just about as difficult to shoot as the other one was but the Colt was a dream to carry, the Model 29 less so. I don't have either one now. I have a P99 and a P345.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Said German research having been based on a failure to produce a satisfactory blowback 9mm P on four occasions that I know of. Mauser 1909; Dreyse Parabellum, Walther Model 6, and Walther MP I.
 
They did make one. The Detonics Pocket 9. It was not reliable and did not sell well. The Armscorp SD-9 is another.
 
Last edited:
Really this only echos statements made above: my HK P7 PSP is compact, accurate, soft-shooting and blowback but with a gas retard-assist. :D

Smaller still, my Polish P64 is sub-compact, accurate, blowback only in 9x18 Mak and is a handful of a little pistol. :p

Larger than the P64 but smaller than the PSP, the East German Mak, is compact, soft shooting, accurate and works well as a blowback with 9x18.

Larger than the P7 in size, the Sig P6 is only considered compact by a select few, shoots softly, reasonably accurate and traditional Browning lock-breech.

While it is possible to make a 9x19 or larger caliber semi- in blowback only, it appears to be difficult to do so with anything approaching the definition of compact. What is the end-game goal? Accuracy?

IMG_6407.jpg
 
"SW9M. I have no idea when it was produced "

The early SW9M guns I know about were made in '97-'98 and were the biggest pieces of junk S&W ever made. In 1997 S&W settled a patent infringement suit brought by Glock about the Sigma line. It cost them millions and they had to modify the design.

'Your search - s&w sw9m quality - did not match any documents.' :D

I remember one night back then I was hanging out at the counter of a large gun shop and a customer asked about a Sigma in the cabinet. The salesman looked around and then asked if the guy was actually going to shoot more than one box of ammo through it.

"Yes."

"Get something else."
 
Detonics P9 proven reliable

I have had a Detonics P9 for years (decades actually). It only misbehaves when used with light reloads. With full torque rounds, it has never had a stoppage of any kind. I use the original Detonics mag, and a spare Tripple-K mag with equal success. I use the Sierra 115 JHP with a lot of Bullseye, Remington new unprimed brass, and a CCI-550 (because I use CCI-550s for lots of WW296 loads, and don't want to bother with any others.) This load kicks quite a bit, but cycles the pistol with authority. No, I don't fire hundreds of rounds with this load.
The pistol is very heavy compared to the new generation of carry 9s, like the S&W Shield or the LC9. But, it is mine, it is proven, and I trust it.
 
"I am sure they could make (see selection) if they just put their minds to it."

Slide mass and "compact" are not exactly compatible. The Hi-Points are blowback but in case no one noticed, the slides in 9mm and .45 are HEAVY.

Jim
 
I was just thinking. 9x19 is not too much more powerful than 9x18 or 9x17. 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.
Click to expand...

This would be a more accurate statement if it was specified "in a small straight blowback design."

The Spanish Astra was quite effective as 9mm Parabellum blowback, but by no means small.

To make a compact blowback 9mm pistol would probably require the use of depleted uranium to make the slides.:D
 
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.
Click to expand...

A stiff recoil spring doesn't accomplish anything.

It was tried on a full sized German Dreyse 9mm pistol during WWI, and was a failure. A special lever was in the design that disconnected from the recoil spring and allowed the breechbolt to be retracted for charging, since the recoil spring was too heavy for normal use.

Mass is the most important factor in controlling blowback; A spring is just an energy storage device.

Also, it seems to me that making a slide longer defeats the purpose of compact; You would just end up with an Astra 400 or 600.
 
Last edited:
A stiff recoil spring doesn't accomplish anything.
Click to expand...

It does a bit, but not as much as breechblock mass.

Somewhere in "the Machine Gun" by Chinn, there is a formula for calculating the mass of a an SMG breechlock needed, and it takes spring "weight" into account. Or so my aging memory is telling me. Mass is the most important factor though.

And speaking of mass, how many of you "compact blowback 9mm" fans have SHOT an Astra 9mm? I have. Neat gun. NOT at ALL like any locked breech 9mm I have shot, and I have shot a number of different designs, locked breech and blowback.

The recoil is different, it feels ..harsh, compared to other 9mms (same size), and the report is "cannon like", .. is maybe the best way to describe it. It is simply LOUDER than 9mm locked breech guns.

Now, these are subjective observations, of course, but it made enough of a difference to me, that I remarked on them, and remember them.

So, keeping with the laws of physics, "compact, blowback, and 9mm Luger" just don't fit together.
 
The Detonics Pocket Nine had two methods of controlling blowback - at least the one I owned evidenced them. First, a heavy stainless slide - there wasn't much milled off. Second, the chamber was opened up at the case mouth the same way submachine guns are. When fired the propellant forces the bullet forward, the case mouth slightly overexpands, and that locks it into the barrel until enough pressure is released to allow it to literally "resize" during extraction. That provides added delay. No idea if aluminum cased rounds would be recommended.

A form of delayed blowback and noted in the journals of the day.

It was no fun to carry or shoot, a P938 is much more pleasant.
 
I used to wonder about things like this, until I realized that I had no idea HOW to do it myself. Since I didn't know how, I would have to rely on those who do. Since those who do know how, don't, I have to assume there are reasons they don't.

Good enough for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top