Broomhandle accuracy
 

Seeing as broomhandles have become a hot topic lately, would anyone like to share their experiences with accuracy?

I have two of these. One is a circa 1905 rebored/reblued example I picked up at a steal about 15 years ago and the other is a 1930 with about 80% original rifling but the finish has all gone to a nice brown patina.

The rebore can hit somewhere on a target at 15yds, but has serious stoppage issues. I changed out all the springs but that did not solve it so it has been relegated to lap duty while watching war movies.

The 1930 is completely reliable, but groups a little low and left about 5" groups at 15yds.

Most of my shooting has been with Prvi, with a couple of boxes of old ammo from various makers used sparingly. I have some blue box S&B and some old Interarms ammo of unknown origin that I never fired, as some have expressed concern over being too hot.

I know that I do not have the most stellar examples, but my any one of my lugers outshoot these by far. Is this about average? Any particular loading gives better results?

After my experience, I came to the conclusion that possibly this poor performance might be the reason they were not officially adopted by any western power. Other than accuracy, I would think that they would have made an excellent choice for rear echelon troops or officers in lieu of a rifle or .32acp/.380 pistol.

Thoughts?

I can confirm the accuracy and reliability is highly related with the bore/chamber condition.

One great example was a 1914 made cal 7,63mm. The gun came to me with excellent bore. I fired some rounds from it, it worked almost flawlessly. Side by side, even my modern Norinco Tokarev and Interarms P1 had more ejection/feeding problems than this one. It could fire hundreds of rounds without any issue, you know, like firing a Glock, just bang, bang without any problem, that's a little bit boring after a while. With stock attached, it's easy to hit a head size target at 50 yards, and a chest size target at 100 yards.

Another example is a 1897 made 7,63mm. The bore can be rated as good. Not shiny, frosted, but still has complete rifling. Due to this thing came to me more expensive, I only tried 20 rounds from it. It worked fine, no malfunction. At 10 yards, it could hit a head size target. The distribution is definitely bigger than the 1914 one. Probably it can do better, but I tried it indoor, the lighting condition of the range was poor, and my main purpose was to see it works or not, so I did not try longer distance. However, the ejected cartridge case cannot be inserted back into chamber easily -- that implies the chamber was a little worn.

Yet another example... also an antique 7,63mm. The bore and chamber were worn. It did not cycle correctly unless the ammo is oiled. Otherwise, no extraction no ejection. I don't really observe where the 10 rounds hit,,,, accuracy was not important when there was a cycling issue. The fired cartridge case cannot be feed into chamber again. So, this one will stay on the wall.

===

{Edit} From the very last example, I think I will do this on test firing any C&R in future: just fire a single round first, then put the used cartridge case back into chamber. If the case does not slip into chamber easily, STOP! Continue firing could damage the extractor or other parts of the gun.

"so it has been relegated to lap duty while watching war movies."

I thought I was the only guy that does that :roflmao: I always try to match the lap gun to the period being portrayed in the movie!:D

I can confirm Alvin's views on C96 accuracy(not that he needs it).:)
I got my first C96 years ago,one of my first "collector guns".
The bore looked pitted when I bought it,but the nice seller told me it would clean up great. When I it got home,the more I scrubbed it the worse it got. After cleaning it looked like a sewer pipe.:( The functioning has alway been great with no issues,but when shooting that gun,the safest place to be was in front of it! A few years ago I sent it to Redmonds Relining in Redmond WA. He did a great job and now it is very accurate.
This is the same gun I learned that .30 Tokerev is NOT the same as .30 Mauser.:crying:
Bob

Regarding "not officially adopted by any western power", I have a little bit thought. Not very mature, just a thought.

For a bulky large frame pistol with stock like this, the role it played was like Artillery Luger, a combat pistol, compensating high-power but slow bolt action rifle as a single-man arm in that era. Say, Artillery Luger was adopted, but not many LP08 were acquired either -- the need for this type of pistol was very limited in western style warfare, at least that was in western planners' thought. Who could imagine the coming WWI turned out to be a close-range trench war at the beginning of 1900, in which combat pistols could be more useful in many cases.

Sorry but in this case I cannot give my contribution as I've NEVER even tested my broomhamdles at the range, scared as I am of breaking some part pretty difficult to replace, that is why my knowledge of range-accuracy is mainly relegated to 1911 of various makes, then GLOCK, BERETTA, TANFOGLIO and SIG pistols.

BUT an ex colleague of mine that used to fire his C-96 I remember was absolutely enthusiastic with it.


:thumbup:

I'm having a 4" Bolo relined in 7.63 by Redman's in Omak, WA (hoping to have it back by late February/early March). I have an M1930 with a smooth bore but, oddly enough, she hits to point of aim at 21 feet (and even up to 30, though that's as far as I've tested). Half the time she keyholes and half the time it's a nice clean hole but I've not had problems with it being hugely off.

They're fun guns.

For shooting comfortableness, I must say expensive C96 cannot even compare with my $200 Tokarev. But this thing has a very unique feature -- it could be fired at least 300 rounds in range without cleaning and re-oiling (maybe more). No obvious change in the feel of handling. On Tokarev, first box of 50 rounds were sweet, then, the trigger pull became heavier and heavier. After 100 rounds, it's painful to pull that trigger.

This is a friend shooting my Red 9 at a can on a landing approx. 250 yards down at the end of the road. We were using S&B ammo. Every shot hit within a foot of the can, and some very near misses.

A man, at that range, would have been hit, and at least suffered a wound with every shot. With the stock attached, the groups were cut in half.

Regarding the lap gun role... A few years back I found a listing of movies where broomhandles make an appearance... I watched them all! I remember there was a Russian movie which was a weird mixture of the feel of a spaghetti western in the setting of remote areas in post czarist Russia. This movie had more broomhandles appearing that all the other movies combined!

The broomhandle certainly does not have the ergonomics of the luger, but the greater capacity and the performance of the round are certainly attractive characteristics relative to contemporary alternatives like 32ACP pistols or revolvers (ahem... Nagant...), and with a greater firing rate than a bolt action rifle. In terms of bulkiness, the 455 Webley is no slouch either. I think you may be right in that firearms development before WW1 was not in sync with the outdated small arms strategies in place, and the broomhandle was probably hindered by politicking as happens so often.

I would really like to get my hands on a stock for these. I bought a chinese knock off, but last I heard the ATF ruled these cannot be attached. Either way, even for display purposes the contours and color are all off. In my infinite foresight a few years back I did buy an original Inglis hipower stock, but I still haven't gotten the pistol...

This thread has gotten me all worked up... I feel obliged to take out take the broomhandles out for a much delayed range session this weekend now that the weather is getting nice here in South FLorida. I will try out the used case trick to see how my chamber is on the 1930 and report back.

There is no statement from ATF prohibiting an exact copy of the original stock from being used, as far as I know. There seems to be much controversy about this, so I've asked my private list for an opinion, which I will post shortly.

My current stance is that you can purchase an exact copy and place it on your C96 legally, if you wish.

They can be very accurate; stable platform especially with stock attached.


ATF Ruling:

Q: If a person has a pistol and an attachable shoulder stock, does this constitute possession of an NFA firearm?
Yes, unless the barrel of the pistol is at least 16 inches in length (and the overall length of the firearm with stock attached is at least 26 inches). However, certain stocked handguns, such as original semiautomatic Mauser “Broomhandles” and Lugers, have been removed from the purview of the NFA as collectors’ items.
[26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11]

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nati...r-stock-pistol

I was under the impression that broomhandles were exempt from the purview of the NFA requiring registration as an SBR provided that they were fitted with an original stock. As such, the wooden part could only be a reproduction as long as the iron attachment piece was an original.

By the way Jager, that is an absolutely gorgeous pistol in the photo!
Is that yours? Original finish?

A good news. I persuaded a Shansei Broomhandle owner to test fire from one of his original .45ACP to verify it's working or not. He said he would do it. It's a rare chance to see how this well known gun works. Have not happened yet, waiting. Hopefully, soon. I bet most collectors have not shot original .45ACP Shansei variation.

Reason for this... we know that most Shansei .45ACP were dumped into blast furnaces during the Great Leap Forward Movement. But why? CP was not rich in guns in 1950s... why was Shansei dumped, that's against logic and it's a myth. Shooting it, probably can reveal something on this gun. Need more people firing a few rounds from their treasure.

I remember reading an old article on shooting the .45 Broomhandles and the author seemed to find it enjoyable. I envy your opportunity to fire one of these...

Talk about awkward handling characteristics!

Were the 80's imports in 45acp true Shansei arsenal pistols or reproductions?

No. I don't have the chance. Owner is in west coast, I am in the east, thousands of miles away. He shoots his gun.

His two instances came from Ralph M collection. I looked at those two in hands during the preview session, definitely original Shansei. Another one came from RIAC, from picture, I would say it's original as well. Three instances in collection, test firing 10 rounds from a single one should be enough.

I had a newly assembled Shansei in the past. The bore's like new, but it jams like crazy. It's created as a collectible, that's different from the original which was created as a shooter and later becomes a collectible. Big difference.

Back in the late 20's and early 30's the Chinese in the Taijuan Arsenal located in the province of Shanxi (Shansei), produced .45 ACP caliber pistols designated "Type 17"
The type 17 was a copy of the most known C-96 MAUSER pistol but a bit larger and in .45 ACP caliber. They were produced in 3 stages during the period from 1929 / 1931 Mainly used by the river police.
It's reported that no more than 8500 of them were produced, unfortunately most of them got destroyed by the Chinese Communist government when they took over.
As far as I know the Chinese made a certain number of fakes in roundabout 1980

For pistol to play an important role in battle, there were two pre-conditions: (1) must be in close range, of course; and (2) no machine guns in the picture from either side. A memoir of a CP soldier recorded many small battles in his career, one happened on December 3, 1939, when they ambushed a Japanese transporter column that was crossing a river.

"About 300 Japanese were intercepted on the top of the river. Our grenades falled down on them like raining, ice was broken, some Japanese dropped into water, drown... I sent (all ammo in) my broomhandle and 5 grenades to them... many soldiers fighted with bayonets. In less than half an hour, most Japanese were annihilated."

http://www.360doc.com/content/12/111...48222497.shtml

[Edit] In the same battle, he recorded another thing. When they tried to capture the commander of the transporter column, a Japanese captain, the captain shot two men with a pistol (probably a Nambu? he did not say), and swing a shin-gunto hurt another. Angry soldiers shot him. The Nambu pistol dropped to the ground and was picked up by someone, he only got the holster from the body. Later on, his battalion commander asked him to submit that Nambu pistol, and he did not have it.. the commander was mad. Obviously, capturing a Japanese pistol in battle was not easy. Not many Japanese had that.

In case anyone is interested, I found an old article on shooting the .45 Broomhandles:

http://www.pointshooting.com/c96ok.pdf

IAR imported many instances in 1980s, so this article had certain sales advertisement elements inside.

The importance of .45ACP Broomhandle in Chinese pre-1949 history was amplified in huge way. From production volume, only 8000 instances were made. The volume was too tiny to have an impact. How could an item be "famous" if most people never seen it.... Say, in novels and memoirs, I have never read any legendary figures specificly playing a .45ACP Broomhandles. Never appear in movies either. Astonishingly, the first time I heard there was such a gun was in the U.S.

The situation of Shansei .45ACP is not unlike 6-shot Mauser, if we say 6-shot Broomhandles were rare, that's true. But if we say it's 6-shot pistol made Broomhandle famous, that cannot be more far away from truth. Not because 6-shot was a poorly made pistol, but because it's too scarce, only a few people knew its existence in the circle. What made Broomhandle well known to the world were M1912, Red 9, Bolo, M1930, and M1932. Chinese Broomhandle application history was no exception on that, but Red 9 could be dropped from the list. Too few Red 9s there. For that matter, I've even seen Astra 900, 902 in movies, but have not seen Shansei .45ACP yet.

====

{Edit} Putting history aside, the accuracy part of the article is great information. Thanks.