Shot an old Colt Hammerless today

[Gunsnrovers]

A few weeks back, I posted that my wife had inherited her grandfathers WWII service pistol, a .380 Colt Hammerless.

Today I got the chance to shoot it, and the Beretta Puma .32 he owned, for the first time. I have never fired a .32 or a .380 before and expected them to be pretty tame.

Surprisingly, the Colt was very snappy and relatively unpleasent to shoot. Hard on the web of my hand. I could put hundreds of rounds downrange out of my 9mm HP or CZ75 or any of my .45's and have my hand less sore then 50 rounds from this little Colt. I assume it's an ergonomics issue. Never having shot .380 before, I don't know what to compare it to. Otherwise, aside from the tiny tiny tiny front sights, it's an accurate and neat pistol to shoot.

The Beretta, on the other hand, was a joy. All 8 rounds into little tea cups at 10 yards. Trigger was heavier then the Colt, but the pistol was so much more comfortable in my hand it didn't matter.

Neat day with some pretty old guns. From another member, I was told the Colt is from 1923. The Beretta was from 1959.

Eventually, I'll get some pictures up.

 

[nero45acp]

The Colt 1903 and 1908 Hammerless are excellent, very well made pistols, and are much easier on the hands than the Walther PPK (IMHO).
(Though the PPK's are easier to field strip)
I've owned both, and prefer the 1903 Hammerless.

nero

 

[Jim K]

Part of the hand soreness is due to unconsciously putting extra effort into squeezing the grip safety. It is harder to operate than the 1911 grip safety and some shooter unused to it find themselves really tensing up to make sure it is disengaged.

Plus, yes, the .380 does have a good kick. The bullet is lighter and the velocity less than the 9mm P. But the BHP and CZ-75 are a lot heavier than the Colt Pocket Model Hammerless and are locked breech, which means the recoil is spread out over time, even though it is higher than that of the .380.

Jim

 

[MrMurphy]

I've shot a 1908 Colt as well, and yeah, it's a bit snappy. It's a carry a lot shoot a little gun. Accurate, and very slim, easy to carry, but the sights suck (for a 1908 design, no surprise)..... it's still a nice piece.

 

[Jim Watson]

The dividing line on recoil seems to be somewhere between .32 and .380.
A blowback .380 of about any make just plain kicks, .32s are soft.

On the other hand, my locked breech "modern" .380 Gov't Model has much less felt recoil than any blowback of the caliber. So does my Kahr, for that matter.

Between .32 and .380, hmmm. How about a .35 S&W?

 

[Gunsnrovers]

Having shot the .32 Beretta and my .38 S&W M15 first, the .380 caught me off guard.

I can see how it would be a great CCW platform. I'm glad I have it, but it won't be high on my "fun to shoot" list of guns that always goes to the range.

Glad I wasn't imagining things.

 

[dsk]

Is the Colt marked "US Property"? If so those things are quite rare and valuable, so I'd refrain from shooting it too much. The USP-marked Colt Hammerless models are big collector items, and the .380 versions are nearly impossible to find. Most of the ones issued were .32ACP M1903's.

 

[Gunsnrovers]

No US markings, but the paperwork from the Army to my wifes grandfather matches up serial numbers. I don't plan to shoot it often, but believe all guns deserve some range time. The finish is pretty much gone.