xl_target wrote:It doesn't look like the Sokolovsky is a true 1911.
http://i2.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pi ... 763943.jpg
Apparently, the designer sought to eliminate the "flaws" of the 1911 design, and, other than the general outline and the cartridge, shares nothing with the 1911 or the Hi Power.
It is a straight blowback design that is striker fired.
I suppose that the striker firing mechanism, which is not as compact as a rotating hammer (but would theoretically have a faster lock time), has the advantage in some circles of not requiring a "beavertail." (Personally, those things have always looked like hideous and useless appendages, but apparently many people's hands get the thumb web pinched, and a beavertail helps to prevent this.)
Being a blowback design with a cartridge of this power level requires a couple of attributes that might be familiar from other weapons: a heavy slide and a strong recoil spring. Refer to the bolts of the Sten (9mm Parabellum) and Thompson (45 ACP) submachine guns as a point of reference here. (Yes, I know that the Thompson supposedly operates on the so-called "Blish" principle, but many, including myself, consider the properties of the Blish system to exist only in the minds of the designer and a few others, and hold the Thompson to operate on the straight blowback principle.)
The slide will need to be very heavy (making the pistol heavy) and the recoil spring quite strong to allow the chamber to remain closed long enough for the bullet to exit and the chamber pressure to drop to a safe level. As I understand Sokolovsky,s intent, he wanted to produce an exclusive and finely crafted target weapon. In this role, the added weight required by the blowback system would not be such a disadvantage, and the stiff recoil spring would not make hand-cycling the action to load it initially would not be a detriment, as it would be in a weapon intended for any sort of combat or carry use.
The striker ignition and the blowback action, which holds the barrel firmly in the frame, without movement, would theoretically allow for a higher degree of accuracy than the toggle link tipping short recoil action of the 1911 or the modified action that dispensed with the link as in the Browning Hi Power.
Here, I would note that the 1911 has had such a lengthy and thorough development time behind it, that considerable progress has been made in eliminating the flaws and disadvantages of the design when accuracy is the goal. Even by eliminating these theoretical disadvantages, there are many other points of design that can affect overall accuracy. It might be interesting to know how the Sokolovsky would stack up against a customized 1911 like XL has presented here.
The idea of the Sokolovsky, as I understand it, is that it was a weapon intended to be equal or superior to a fully prepared and modified 1911 right out of the box. It would be interesting to view a comprehensive study of how close Sokolovsky came to this goal.
Another thing I would note here: For the same cartridge, a blowback design will have greater felt recoil (due to the heavy slide reaching the end of its travel) than a locked breach design. It would be interesting to know how the Sokolovsky fares on this account, as well.
I will confess, when someone uses the term "the Rolls-Royce of…" I grow immediately skeptical, as even the original classic Rolls-Royces were equaled (and, to some, exceeded) in quality and engineering by other marques. Whether this is true with the Sokolovsky or not, I don't know. To a collector who wants to posses a weapon that is unique and finely crafted, a Sokolovsky would undoubtedly have value. In this, I would compare it to the Automag. On the other hand, whether it could actually deliver on its promise, I would reserve judgment.
The nice thing about guns is that there is no end of variations to attract someone's attention and interest.
http://www.nramuseum.org/the-museum/the ... stols.aspx - Checked it out just now!
