Korriphila HSP 701

barnbwt said:
If anything, frequent practice will reduce that reliability. The thing about exacting tolerances, is that they open up quicker than looser ones (its a decaying phenomenon) in the presence of grit/stuff that accelerates wear, like gun powder or dirt. That means that, for better or worse, a finely made gun will change from its factory condition faster than a more pedestrian model. Case in point, your Cabot 1911s that don't even function properly until shot in for a thousand rounds or opened up by smiths to accomplish the same result.
Click to expand...

I understand how a finely made gun can change from it's factory condition faster than a more pedestrian model. I can also understand how the subsequent "readjusted" tolerances might negatively affect the weapon's (factory original) precision/accuracy. With regard to aimed fire, consistent lockup is arguably the key factor in precision shot placement -- but even a "worn" top-level gun should be far superior to a more "pedestrian" model with at same level of use and with proper care.

I don't understand why wear-induced changes (or the "opening" up done by smiths) would negatively affect reliability. A gun that's VERY TIGHT might be less reliable when new and first used than a more loosely-constructed weapon, but once "opened" up -- by wear or a 'smith's actions -- these high-end guns should be, at least in theory, by virtue of the materials used and what should be a superior design, at least as reliable as the more-pedestrian weapons.

As I understand it -- perhaps incorrectly, reliability is mostly attributable to the gun's functional design and the quality of materials used in construction -- and the weapons that are the focus of this discussion should have the best examples of those traits in abundance.[/U].

Springs and ammo might be the only things that are relatively similar between these two classes of weapons.

That said, the SIG M49s (aka SIG P-210-1) and other almost-as-old variants of the P210 design continue to amaze their owners, 75 years after the design was first introduced. Many of these guns are shot daily, and some have round counts that are astounding. In theory, I would expect the guns that prompted this discussion to be no less reliable or accurate than a P-210-1 after a high level of use, given proper care. But that's in theory...
 
Last edited:
The damned thing just YELLS "graceful" at ya...

I'll never turn loose of my 1911A1s, but this pistol just LOOKS so nice, like it was designed with fast, graceful motion in mind. Comparing the two is like comparing a pickup truck to a well set-up Jaguar automobile.

BOTH will get you where you want to go, but the truck isn't at its best in a high-speed hairpin turn. Its shining attribute is, in time, it'll go ANYWHERE the Jag will (plus a some places it won't), while carrying cargo weighing a significant fraction of its curb weight. The Jag will go MANY (but not all) of the places where the truck can go, and faster, but while carrying a "payload" that is a far smaller fraction of its curb weight.

This analogy isn't perfect, but it's early morning, and there's still entirely to much blood in my caffeine for all the brain cells to be "online". ANY analogy can be "overthought" into non-validity, if that's one's cup of meat. But I think we learn more by mulling them, than by dissecting them.
 
That said, the SIG M49s (aka SIG P-210-1) and other almost-as-old variants of the P210 design continue to amaze their owners, 75 years after the design was first introduced. Many of these guns are shot daily, and some have round counts that are astounding. In theory, I would expect the guns that prompted this discussion to be no less reliable or accurate than a P-210-1 after a high level of use, given proper care. But that's in theory...
Click to expand...

The Sig P210 uses one of the best designs in the history of handguns, in my opinion. It is quite a pistol, especially the Swiss models.
 
I'll never turn loose of my 1911A1s, but this pistol just LOOKS so nice, like it was designed with fast, graceful motion in mind. Comparing the two is like comparing a pickup truck to a well set-up Jaguar automobile.

BOTH will get you where you want to go, but the truck isn't at its best in a high-speed hairpin turn. Its shining attribute is, in time, it'll go ANYWHERE the Jag will (plus a some places it won't), while carrying cargo weighing a significant fraction of its curb weight. The Jag will go MANY (but not all) of the places where the truck can go, and faster, but while carrying a "payload" that is a far smaller fraction of its curb weight.

This analogy isn't perfect, but it's early morning, and there's still entirely to much blood in my caffeine for all the brain cells to be "online". ANY analogy can be "overthought" into non-validity, if that's one's cup of meat. But I think we learn more by mulling them, than by dissecting them.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Glad you like it.
 
Interestingly enough, the first thing that came to mind when the OP mentioned "roller lock" was the CZ52 pistol designed by the Czech brothers Jan and Jaroslav Kratochvíl. When I saw the two pull down take down tabs, it really brought the 52 to mind. Methinks Herr Budischowsky lifted a couple of features from the 52.
 
Nope. I never mentioned roller lock. It's a roller delayed blowback. It has a fixed barrel. The gun has nothing in common with a CZ 52, other than the levers. However, the slide does not lift off the top in the same fashion either.

The roller lock CZ 52 is a cool design, but completely different. If you look through the guide linked a few posts above, you'll see a high end pistol that uses the CZ 52's roller locking design. :cool:
 
Last edited:
This is an awesome thread! Bac1023, thanks for posting the link to the guide to high-end pistols. Very enlightening.
 
cougar gt-e said:
Am I the only one bothered that the screws are not all indexed?
Click to expand...

Until you pointed it out, yes.
hLB244Q.gif




;)
 
Am I the only one bothered that the screws are not all indexed?
Click to expand...

Indexing screws for a photo session is one thing -- and even then, if you want the screws locked down tight, it's not always possible without adjustments to the screws..

But, for a gun that's actually shot? Fugedaboudit...
 
Some high-end 1911 builders index their screws, I know. It's just a matter of tapping the holes the right way, and then numbering each screw. Would have been a nice touch on Edgar's part, but, eh, not a big deal.
 
Outstanding pics. As limited and costly the pistol is I think the trigger bar design is a compromise. A single sided bar will give some feel of flex and the heavier the trigger the more the flex. Makers like CZ, S&W and perhaps others have models dual.
 
745SW said:
As limited and costly the pistol is I think the trigger bar design is a compromise. A single sided bar will give some feel of flex and the heavier the trigger the more the flex. Makers like CZ, S&W and perhaps others have models dual.
Click to expand...

Do you have access to an exploded drawing or a parts diagram? I don't see an external trigger bar in the photos shown, but I DO see a long slide stop/slide release lever. And why mention a heavy trigger? I would assume that such a costly and well-refined weapon doesn't have a heavy trigger.

(If there IS a single-sided trigger bar, one made of sufficiently rigid material, in a gun with a modestly light hammer spring and well-shaped and polished cam/hammer interface, I doubt that flex would be an issue. Having a single-sided trigger bar ]doesn't seem to bother the US Army's Marksmanship Unit shooters who have tuned Beretta M9s...)

.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top