Is it wise to buy or hold & carry or rely Older weapons available in India

[ozk009]

I am trying to start this topic under the Epic- Gun Care and Gunsmithing ,
Is it wise to buy or hold & carry or rely Older weapons available in India ?
The legal gun community in India has fewer options in terms of what they can buy for self protection. In Indian market many 100 years old weapon are trusted for self defence than hobby collection.
On the ground of - Gun care, availability of replacement parts and related Gunsmithing will it be wise to buy or own such weapons.
What are views of fellow members here on this forum.
Please shed some light on reliability and legal availability of proper ammunition.

[hornet22]

I would go with new weapons, not to say that old imported weapons are not reliable but why use old technology when you can take advantage of the new advancement in weapons.

[timmy]

My comment takes into account your range of manufacture -- 100 years.

In Indian market many 100 years old weapon are trusted for self defence than hobby collection.

I have two Colt revolvers in 38 Spl that are over 100 years old. They are completely functional and ready for any duty that one might care to use them. One, I don't shoot very much, as it is in almost new condition. The other is quite accurate and a joy to shoot, having been set up for a target shooter many years ago.

The Colt design is quite old, being developed in Europe from the guns of Belgian Galand and then modified by the Swiss designer Schmidt. Colt modified this lockwork around 1905 to ensure that the gun cannot be discharged unless the trigger is pulled, and used it on all of their subsequent revolvers. It is far superior to any Webley revolver or those based on the Webley design, such as those made by IOF. This design is totally safe to carry with all 6 chambers loaded without any possibility of unintended discharge.

There are some new revolvers made in Europe, which are quite expensive, that have new lockwork designs that are perfectly applicable to sporting and self defense use today.

You should note that the Ashani is based on the Colt Pocket Pistol design of 1903. While this design was a typically masterful one from John Browning, there is room for improvement with regard to safety. Copies of the Colt 1911 Government Model are safe, as long as they follow the unique John Browning safety design that positively blocks the cocked hammer from falling unless the safety is moved to the "fire" position. My point here is that the designs of pistols that I've seen available and becoming available for the Indian market are all based on designs that are quite old.

Thus, what's available in revolvers is based on an inferior Webley design, and in pistols what is available is based on useable, or in the case of the 1911 copies, excellent design. Your choice is therefore between guns of modern manufacture -- however each manufacturer accomplishes this, and the condition of used weapons.

A used weapon in good, serviceable shape is partly a matter of choice or opinion, but my own advice in this regard is that the used gun in question must be able to perform under any reasonable condition one might encounter -- no compromise with rock-solid reliability is permissible for a self-defense weapon. Such a gun is quite likely to be very expensive.

You must make the choice of what you buy and how this choice applies to your requirements and budget.

If you are interested in the designs of revolvers or pistols, you can search for such information on IFG. I've made several posts myself regarding the designs of the 1911 and Colt revolvers, which you can review in these threads:

The 1911:

viewtopic.php?t=22009

A discussion of the Colt Python and Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers in general:

viewtopic.php?t=28141

Colt and Smith & Wesson designs compared:

viewtopic.php?t=7753

[ozk009]

My comment takes into account your range of manufacture -- 100 years.

In Indian market many 100 years old weapon are trusted for self defence than hobby collection.

I have two Colt revolvers in 38 Spl that are over 100 years old. They are completely functional and ready for any duty that one might care to use them. One, I don't shoot very much, as it is in almost new condition. The other is quite accurate and a joy to shoot, having been set up for a target shooter many years

I am agreeing with what is said about the condition of weapon, however i guess the weapon is on a very old licence. On new license, it will be very difficult to aquire 38 special. The other concern will be , in case something need to be fixed , it will be very difficult to get a replacement part. Current ammunition shortage will be another thing.

[timmy]

The Colt small "D" frame Police Positive and related models did come in 32.

The small Smith & Wesson "J" frame models also came in 32.

(Both were also made in 38 Spl, although the Smith & Wesson version is only 5 shot in this chambering)

Please see my post above for links to design discussion threads that I added after posting. Whether small, medium, or large frame, Colts all have the same lockwork after about 1905. Smith & Wesson uses their lockwork in all three sizes, and they incorporated the safety feature after World War 2.

[ozk009]

I would go with new weapons, not to say that old imported weapons are not reliable but why use old technology when you can take advantage of the new advancement in weapons.

Make sense. Agreeing that they are reliable however there is no guarantee until when. With availability of weapon from private manufacturing companies in India, there will not be any point to stick to old imported weapon. These weapon manufacturer are selling their products inclusive of additional two to three extra magazine and cleaning kit. In case of malfunction, the company will provide service or replacement parts. It's was never so easy in India.

[veeveeaar]

Old weapons made by world renowned gumakers are a pride and dream of many '' INDIAN "" gun owners. The irony in the Indian context is that there is practically NO ONE to do prpoer quallified , certified gunsmithing, repairing and if need be , replacing any faulty or worn out part of those treasured firearm. The best and practical bet today is our grand old lady ''' IOF"" who makes standard and '' SAFE "" firearms at affordable prices . IOF products are not up to the mark of any standard but the only practical and cost effective option for the common INDIAN. As my experience goes, i have a small armoury of world class weapons but very difficult to maintain and they need ""MY"" protection rather than they protecting me. It took three years for me to find a gunsmith and a few thousands to get a faulty BRNO SXS shotgun firing pin to be fixed, but only a week to get my IOF DBBL fighting fit for five hundred rupees .With the two weapon limit, and practically no authorised service centres, BE INDIAN BUY IOF. Known devil is better than unknown angel

[timmy]

I think that you have a point here -- getting good service can certainly be a problem. For instance, it is practically impossible to find a competent gunsmith for old style (including the Python) Colt revolvers.

Yet, as I said, two of my Colts operate properly after over 100 years and have not needed any service, other than my own, in the 40 years I've owned them. I take good care of my guns, but still, there is never any telling when a problem may occur. As the point you made clear says, whether new or old, any mechanical device can fail. But service is usually only available on new products.

Regarding the IOF revolver, it is NOT safe to load all six chambers and carry it around. Dropping the revolver when a live round is under the hammer risks an inadvertant discharge. Using an IOF revolver means either using it as a five shot weapon or carrying it with all six chambers loaded and accepting the danger of doing so.

Your comment about having guns being "very difficult to maytain and they need my protection rather than protecting me" os very insightful. We are alive, but the inanimate objects we own (or, at least, say we "own" -- it's not like we have them forever) don't have any life, and require our attention and care to remain functional and last. We accept that burden when the tool (whatever it is) provides benefits beyond what our capabilities are without the possession.

For instance, we can travel much further in a day on a bicycle than we can by walking, but the bicycle needs care and maintenance if it is to remain useful to us.

So it is with a gun, for whatever purpose we use it. As you mention, we have to keep the gun protected and worry about whether someone can steal it. We have to keep it clean and wiped down so that it doesn't rust. We have to practice with it to become and remain proficient.

I accept that you have found a formula of using IOF revolvers for your purposes. You've cited good reasons for why this is so. I would observe, however, that other good reasons for doing something else may exist for someone else, and be at least as valid for them as the reasons you cite are for you.

We must make our own decisions about what and why for ourselves, in the end.

[winnie_the_pooh]

Timmy, I have an old S&W M&P. It does have a hammer block safety. I believe that there was a change during the 2nd WW after a sailor was killed when one of these revolvers fell onto the deck below and discharged, for a more positive engagement of the hammer block. The older ones ,like the one on the revolver I own, could be blocked by crud or grease. Not a difficult task to keep it clean though.

[timmy]

Winnie, that's the story I've heard too. Both the Colt and the S&W are simple mechanisms. The Colt does require a slot to be machined in the right side of the frame. I'm not sure whether the S&W block requires this. Ruger uses a transfer bar system that operates opposite of the Colt and S&W blocks: instead, the Ruger engages the transfer bar to allow firing when the trigger is pulled. It is a refinement of the Iver Johnson transfer bar system that's well over a century old.

It completely baffles me why IOF put the useless safety on their revolver, which is useless. As long as they were going to modify the tooling, why didn't they copy or improve upon the Colt, S&W, Ruger, or Iver Johnson systems? The patents on all of these are long since expired, and these safeties don't require any additional thinking or action by the person handling the gun. All one needs to do is pull the trigger, but otherwise, the gun is safe and foolproof from negligent discharge. No thinking is required to operate the safety!

[Vineet]

The problem is not that a weapon is hundred years old. The problem is how it was handled in these hundred years.

[timmy]

Exactly so! +1 ^