Shooting fun with a prewar small ring

alvin · 12-12-2009, 09:10 PM

Bob, thanks for the advice.

At the beginning, I have made up my mind -- even I sacrifice this gun, I
won't replace any spring on it. Please don't take me wrong, it's not because
I don't take the advice. The purpose of shooting is not only for fun, I
also would like to find (1) using regular 7,63 ammo (so far ~500 rounds
PRVI, 10 round DWM 403), would that dimple be created? (2) what's the average
malfunction rate on a gun correct down to the springs.

There are a few things found or partially verified so far.

(a) Prewar small ring's main spring is weaker than that of 1930. Their recoil
springs are almost the same strength. I have not measured quantitatively
yet, but I bet that's the case, because that also match Schnellfeuer's parts
naming "generation" (so even Westinger should have same strength recoil
spring, part #10458).

Will post measured numerical values after I find a measuring tool.

Why didn't Mauser use stronger recoil spring....it's not documented
anywhere. One reason that I can think of -- stronger recoil spring affects
ammo loading from the clip.

(b) If I assume dimple is normal on pre-1930 variations, I could understand
why did Mauser changed that bolt stop hole position on 1930. Around 1,000
rounds were fired from a 1930, no dimple with original springs. I could
think two reasons: strong main spring on 1930, and 1930's specific bolt stop
hole position.

Otherwise, it's hard to understand why did they change the position of this
hole on 1930. One problem of Mauser patent is that they explained how it
functions, but never explain "why did I make this change".....

(c) The average malfunction rate on an Interarms Walther P1 was 412 rounds,
which I fired ~5000 rounds. Under same shooting and maintenance condition,
so far this prewar performs almost same as the P1. Of course, total volume
is important, so it's still too early to tell.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

12-12-2009, 09:10 PM	#7
alvin User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: US Posts: 3,843 Thanks: 132 Thanked 729 Times in 438 Posts	Bob, thanks for the advice. At the beginning, I have made up my mind -- even I sacrifice this gun, I won't replace any spring on it. Please don't take me wrong, it's not because I don't take the advice. The purpose of shooting is not only for fun, I also would like to find (1) using regular 7,63 ammo (so far ~500 rounds PRVI, 10 round DWM 403), would that dimple be created? (2) what's the average malfunction rate on a gun correct down to the springs. There are a few things found or partially verified so far. (a) Prewar small ring's main spring is weaker than that of 1930. Their recoil springs are almost the same strength. I have not measured quantitatively yet, but I bet that's the case, because that also match Schnellfeuer's parts naming "generation" (so even Westinger should have same strength recoil spring, part #10458). Will post measured numerical values after I find a measuring tool. Why didn't Mauser use stronger recoil spring....it's not documented anywhere. One reason that I can think of -- stronger recoil spring affects ammo loading from the clip. (b) If I assume dimple is normal on pre-1930 variations, I could understand why did Mauser changed that bolt stop hole position on 1930. Around 1,000 rounds were fired from a 1930, no dimple with original springs. I could think two reasons: strong main spring on 1930, and 1930's specific bolt stop hole position. Otherwise, it's hard to understand why did they change the position of this hole on 1930. One problem of Mauser patent is that they explained how it functions, but never explain "why did I make this change"..... (c) The average malfunction rate on an Interarms Walther P1 was 412 rounds, which I fired ~5000 rounds. Under same shooting and maintenance condition, so far this prewar performs almost same as the P1. Of course, total volume is important, so it's still too early to tell.