|
A few weeks ago, I posted a question about a Colt NM Gold Cup 38 MR I had acquired, which led into a discussion of loads, magazines, etc. Now that I have put a fair number of rounds through my Mk III version, and compared it to my other 38 WC semi-autos (a Sig-Hammerli P240 and my two S&W Model 52s) may I offer these thoughts?
To start with, I fail to understand the poor reputation for function this cartridge has developed among most of the gunsmiths I contacted to see if they would build a new gun to shoot what I find a very easy-shooting and accurate cartridge. "Only if you point the damn thing at my head and hold it there while I work on it, and that won't get it done past the first warning shot since the thing won't feed the next round reliably anyhow" was a reaction one builder gave me, before saying, "Dave, I'll build one for you, but I recommend against it. Most of the ones I see don't work for squat."
This cartridge was made popular, at least at first, by the late Jim Clark Senior, and some of his conversions come up frequently on the market. I called down to Clark last week, and got the same reaction, "we will do it, if you really want us to, but we don't like to do it. They are a beast to get to work right."
Why? Magazine and feed issues are what I have been told. Okay, is that a problem inherent in 'the beast?' Is it really that hard to get a rimmed revolver round to function properly in a semi-auto magazine, as some claim? I suggest not.
My P240 in 38 WC has functioned flawlessly. Doris and Roland, at ROCO in Texas, who are Hammerli experts (and Roland builds some really neat builds on the P210 platform) say that they have never had an issue with the 38 WC version or with the 32 WC version of the same gun. My P240's twin in 32 S&W Long WC, another rimmed ex-revolver cartridge, bears that out. Ditto for my Pardini and Watlher match autos in the 32 WC loading, a long-time staple of Olympic competition and where I have never heard of 'feeding issues' for this rimmed round.
How does my Models 52 feed? Just fine.
My Gold Cup? Okay, now I see what they are talking about. My Mark III version came with four factory mags. They all function very well. I tiied a 'third pary' mag and it would not function properly. Also, the gun is sensitive to dirt and 'grunge' in general. Let any dirt or powder build up in the feed and this gun will not run.
So it is really a question of updating technology, I believe. The Colt approach to making the 38 WC work was a follow on to the AMU tinkering and not all that sophisticated. No locking lugs, kinda cobbled together, and made to work by a delicate balance of trial and error (the write up in the newest issue of Goddard's Commercial version book and the recent book on Military Marksmanship Autos has the full story.) And it shows in results down range as well.
The S&W and the Hammerli are both much more accurate than the Colt. Shooting them from a rest (to eliminate as many variables for how much coffee I had that morning), these two later iterations were much more accuarate, the Hammerli the top of the heap. Both the Hammerli and the Smith use the same basic gun that works with 'normal' (i.e. rimless) ammunition.
So why not build a 1911 today in what is a neat cartridge to shoot at the range? Beats me. I now turn the stage over to any of you professionals out there who know the ins and outs of building a 1911 far better than this 'end user.'
Dave
|