Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Yeah, I think I'd rather have one in 380 auto, just for commonality of ammunition. I don't need more oddball calibers.

Everyone needs more oddball calibers! A serious collector should have a minimum of three 9mms.

When guns are offered in .380 and .32, I prefer the latter because they are typically more pleasant to shoot. A Skorpion in .32 would be a laugh machine.

Just a little factoid here: I found out that a full auto Skorpion has a cyclic rate so high you can mag-dump 20 rounds and have more than half a second before the first shell hits the ground.

Any vidéo recording of this?.I'd love to see that that must be impressive. Can't get a full auto weapon in France unfortunately...

Do any of the bullets go where you want them though? I realise that’s not entirely the point…

If you go on YouTube Brandon Herrera (gunsmith) has a video on the VZ61 where he does the mag dump. You can hear the brrrrt, ting-ting-ting.

Generally, how controllable a MG is an inverse bell curve. They are highly controllable at low cyclic rates and very high cyclic rates while in-between rates are less controllable.





The Scorpion also has the high cyclic rate combined with a fairly small magazine. You simply empty the mag before it has time to start bouncing around, and .32 has very little recoil anyway.

 Flinty wrote:
Do any of the bullets go where you want them though? I realise that’s not entirely the point…

Well, .32 ACP isn't going to set any long-range accuracy records, so it's mostly a bursts across the dining room table.

That does make a certain amount of sense because you're not hosing down so much as just tapping the trigger and sending a patter of lead to saturate an area.

From argument to full auto Skorpion across the dining table, now that's a family reunion that rocks lol

I've heard of 30 round mags for it existing, as well as mag extensions for 30 and 40 rounds.

I think it has 20 and 30 round straight mags and a 40 round drum. IIRC the drum is allegedly one of those that doesn't work so reliably.

Quick google also shows that magpul makes a 50 round drum. That one probably works fine

The firefight at the start of "Underworld" is pretty cool.

The Skorpion doesn't have a particularly high cyclic rate. It's only 850RPM- very low for a machine pistol, actually. For comparison, an Ingram M11 has a normal cyclic rate of 1200RPM, while a Micro-Uzi has a cyclic rate of as high as 1500RPM. The Skorpion would be in the 1100-1200RPM range were it not for a rate reducer mechanism in the pistol grip that delays the travel of the bolt.

It's just that even at 850RPM, a 20rd magazine is gone in 1.4 seconds, and since the Skorpion ejects straight upwards the brass takes quite an arc before it hits the ground.

What's really funny is something like a Mauser M1932 'Schnellfeuer' with a standard 10rd magazine; at ~1000RPM it locks open while all the brass is still rising. It's firing a pretty hot round too, so it's nowhere near as controllable as the diminutive .32ACP and of extremely dubious practical utility in full-auto. The Skorpion is actually a reasonably controllable and competently designed little PDW.

In their book ("Shoot to Live" IRRC) Sykes and Fairbairn note that the C96 was regarded as the ne plus ultra of pistols in Shanghai. The "box cannon" was reputed to inflict horrific injuries compared to any other weapon, and merely drawing one could end a fight. According to internet videos, with its stock and a quick trigger, one can pull some tight burst groups.

The 7.63mm Mauser round was the basis of the 7.62mm Tokarev, and one reason why the Germans kept captured PPsh was that the Mauser ammo was compatible. The Tokarev is dimensionally the same, but too hot for the C96.

I think .32 is criminally underappreciated.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The Tokarev is dimensionally the same, but too hot for the C96.

I see this said a lot and it's an oddly pervasive myth. The Soviets developed the Tokarev cartridge because they already had a significant number of C96s from the civil war (see: 'Bolo' or Bolshevik pistols); it never made sense that they would develop a successor round that can chamber in existing pistols but is too hot for the action. I've also heard it said that there is 'submachine gun ammo' that is a hotter loading, often attributed to Romania or Czechoslovakia, but I've never seen any evidence to back up such a thing ever existing (and it would go against the Soviet policy of ammo interchangeability among their vassal states anyways).

If you look at published specifications, the Soviets loaded their 7.62 to a peak pressure of around 30,000PSI, while CIP Pmax on 7.63 Mauser is actually higher. I suspect the myth may originate with down-loaded US civilian market 7.63 Mauser being compared to spam can surplus 7.62 Tok, in which case you will see a difference, particularly if powder decomposition on old Tok causes accelerated burn and abnormally high peak pressure. But original military 7.63 Mauser loadings are the same high velocity as 7.62 Tok- and in a context where most handguns were firing .25ACP, .32ACP, maybe a low-velocity .38, that 86gr screaming along at close to 1500fps is definitely on a different level.

I'm still not sold on .32ACP as a self-defense cartridge, on the basis of its performance against the standard FBI metrics. But the low recoil of the cartridge in conjunction with the rate reducer is key to making the Skorpion controllable, and I do think the metrics change a bit when you are looking at a select-fire PDW for military use rather than a carry pistol.

.32acp is definitely kinda wimpy. But that can be compensated with if you hit the target with 10+ rounds of the stuff in the span of 0.5 seconds.

If you own a machine pistol I think that is honestly the only situation I would say that .32 is ok as a self-defense cartridge.

 catbarf wrote:
I see this said a lot and it's an oddly pervasive myth. The Soviets developed the Tokarev cartridge because they already had a significant number of C96s from the civil war (see: 'Bolo' or Bolshevik pistols); it never made sense that they would develop a successor round that can chamber in existing pistols but is too hot for the action. I've also heard it said that there is 'submachine gun ammo' that is a hotter loading, often attributed to Romania or Czechoslovakia, but I've never seen any evidence to back up such a thing ever existing (and it would go against the Soviet policy of ammo interchangeability among their vassal states anyways).

Why bother creating a new cartridge at all, then?

It makes more sense to me that rather than start from scratch, you come up with a better load and then design a pistol/SMG combo, which just about everyone else was doing.

If you look at published specifications, the Soviets loaded their 7.62 to a peak pressure of around 30,000PSI, while CIP Pmax on 7.63 Mauser is actually higher. I suspect the myth may originate with down-loaded US civilian market 7.63 Mauser being compared to spam can surplus 7.62 Tok, in which case you will see a difference, particularly if powder decomposition on old Tok causes accelerated burn and abnormally high peak pressure. But original military 7.63 Mauser loadings are the same high velocity as 7.62 Tok- and in a context where most handguns were firing .25ACP, .32ACP, maybe a low-velocity .38, that 86gr screaming along at close to 1500fps is definitely on a different level.

I suspect the 'myth' is that well-used C96s don't seem to stand up to the surplus loads, and whether this is due to deterioration or poor QC in Communist countries, when people run them on the clock, the Tok is much hotter. I'm planning on getting a Chronograph this spring and running some surplus to see where it stacks up in the real world. I will say that the recoil of Tok ammo in a Tok is far more punishing than Mauser in a Mauser. Part of that is the greater mass of the c96, but still.

I'm still not sold on .32ACP as a self-defense cartridge, on the basis of its performance against the standard FBI metrics. But the low recoil of the cartridge in conjunction with the rate reducer is key to making the Skorpion controllable, and I do think the metrics change a bit when you are looking at a select-fire PDW for military use rather than a carry pistol.

FBI metrics are iffy, and have always been based on "trust me, bro" rather than any kind of documentation. I mean these are the same people who said that calibers, not poor shot placement, bad leadership and training decided the Miami-Dade shooting. I guess .357 Magnum is just too weak to kill someone. (Well, it is if you miss.)

I get it, it's what is out there, that's what people use, a flawed standard is better than no standard, etc., but the fact is that .32 ACP was the most popular caliber in the world for a long time, and there's a reason for that.

I've heard some people say that pre-antibiotics, any gunshot was potentially lethal, so guns had much more deterrent power. Nowadays, people figure that unless they're killed outright, they'll make it and 'mouse guns' are unlikely to do that.

I do think that Americans are uniquely obsessed with big calibers and have convinced ourselves that a glancing hit with a .45 ACP will throw a perp to the ground while anything other hand a head shot from a .32 will do nothing. History proves otherwise: a lot of important people were killed by .32s.

Its not so much that smaller calibers aren't lethal. Its that they aren't lethal fast enough with less than perfect placement.

If you are in a life-or-death situation, if the attacker dies 5 minutes after you shot him it doesn't matter if he was able to kill you in those 5 minutes it took for him to die. The chance of that occurring is much higher the smaller the caliber. The more energy the target absorbs the more likely they will be stopped. Bigger slower rounds are better at that than smaller and faster, to a point. Rifle rounds will always dump far more energy than any pistol round even if a lot of it gets wasted simply because they have so much higher energy to start with.

This can be mitigated by better controllability, but that varies from person to person and can't be guaranteed when the adrenaline is pumping and you're scared out of your mind.

What I always say is use the biggest caliber you can control. Do NOT go down just because you feel like it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its not so much that smaller calibers aren't lethal. Its that they aren't lethal fast enough with less than perfect placement.

Instant kills are the stuff of action films. Absent a direct hit to the brain box, it is possible for people to function after taking lethal damage and there are ample stories of combat to prove the point.

It is also true that one need not kill in order to successfully defend oneself. There is very little data on the topic, but going back into the 1990s, crime victim surveys consistently found that around 98 percent of the time, a successful defensive gun use (DGU) did not require any shots be fired. Merely producing the weapon resolved the situation in the defender's favor. Slicing into that 2 percent, we find shots need not hit for the DGU to be effective and when we drill down into the by-caliber statistics (which are laughably inexact), we find that the biggest reason for DGU failure is that weapon could either not be drawn or fired in a timely manner. Stuck in the holster/couldn't get the safety off are the two biggest reasons DGUs fail.

There is no reliable data relating to calibers. I've seen data that weights 9mm and above as more effective than "mouse guns," but it packed with (as Paul Harrell liked to say) caveats and "yeah, buts." For example, the .32 caliber responses do not differentiate between the many subsets (short, long, ACP, magnum), so it tells us very little.

For another, we don't know what the platforms are, so while it seems intuitive that smaller calibers inflict less damage, it may also be true that people using heavier calibers simply have a higher skill level than someone using Grandpa's old police revolver.

This is why I consider caliber to be something of a distraction. It's a tiny sliver of the equation, but it is something we can control, and a lot of people fixate on that precisely because we can control it. The assumption is also that poor technique can be compensated for with bullet diameter and magazine capacity.

That's not actually true, as Miami-Dade vividly illustrated. There's simply no substitute for practice, training, and weapon familiarity, but people love to chase the tail of the probability curve.

There is also the question of comfort and program compliance and I think it is inarguable that a light pocket pistol is easier to carry than Dirty Harry's Model 29. As the old saying goes, that .25 in your pocket is better than the .45 in the gun safe.

.25 in your pocket is definitely better than the .45 in your safe, but people often carry far smaller than they need to. If you are an average build or higher you can carry a full size pistol just fine with the right holster.

Anyone can carry a 9mm, so I really find it tough to justify smaller outside of extreme situations. You just have to find one you like.

I'm one of those people that defended themselves without firing. I was carrying the daily deposit from my business around 10:30 at night, walking to my car. A couple young men started walking in my direction it was odd for anyone to even be in the area, as we're the last business to close, let alone ne walking in my direction. Then I saw the knife come out.

I carry a smaller pistol than I can. Why? Because it fits in my pocket, and the pocket holster looks like a wallet.

Glad it worked out.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Glad it worked out.

I'm honestly glad I never pulled the trigger. I know I would have been more than justified, the guy was within 15 feet. They say a lot of people, when it comes right down to it, can't make themselves pull the trigger even when they KNOW they need to. Would I have had they not immediately hightailed it out of there? I can't be for sure. What it felt like in the moment is hard to describe. It wasn't anger, and mostly not fear. Kind of a painful level or urgency, like getting hit with instant high-pressure diarrhea and knowing your about to gak in your pants. The hyperventilating came a couple minutes after that.





Edit: Yeah for my 5,000th post. Not the topic I was hoping to bust with this....

I for one appreciate your honesty about the experience.

Here’s hoping it’s one of life’s “one and done” experiences.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm one of those people that defended themselves without firing. I was carrying the daily deposit from my business around 10:30 at night, walking to my car. A couple young men started walking in my direction it was odd for anyone to even be in the area, as we're the last business to close, let alone ne walking in my direction. Then I saw the knife come out.

I carry a smaller pistol than I can. Why? Because it fits in my pocket, and the pocket holster looks like a wallet.

The facts are very much on your side. Again, the two biggest reasons self-defense fails is the failure to draw the weapon or bring it into operation.

It should also be noted that most (if not all) the literature regarding self-defense is written by people with police/military backgrounds, so when they use force, it is to compel, not to deter.

But if your goal is just to get out of the situation, the rules are completely different. Even a justified shooting will bring a massive upheaval to one's life, and considerable legal expenses. More energy should be expended in assuring calmness under pressure, ease of draw and use rather than worrying if one's caliber is heavy enough.

I've been carrying for a couple of decades, and there have been some tense moments. Only once did the weapon clear the holster, and that was ironically at a friends house while gaming. No, not a rules dispute, but a high-speed police chase that ended out in the street and the armed fugitive swung around and approached the back door (which I was covering) before veering off and getting apprehended.

No one was more relieved than me. This was just after shall-issue came into effect, and I was an early adopter. My friends thought me a bit paranoid until that night. Then they got their own permits.

In the end, it's all about your comfort level, and what works for you. There's also the fact that (as Paul Harrell used to say) velocity and grains are just numbers on a page. In real-world performance, things can be different. I like snubbie revolvers because they are simple and reliable. No safety, not magazine release, no carrying with a cocked/locked chamber, just good old fashioned Dakka by the half-dozen.

Right! Went to the range today, and so I could cjeck the fixes I attempted for my brother's Reina... and it worked. Sort of.

That is, after changes of magazine for a magazine at true dimensions, new extractor and more powerful ammo, it now ejects reliably.

However, it has got failures to feed at every subsequent round, the round chambering only halfway trhough.

I'll try giving the chamber a solid cleaning, moving parts and specifically the bolt head polishing or even slight, o slight filing. If that don't work, i'll try as slight a filing on the feeding ramp to lower the entering angle slightly.

But progress has been made, and i'm happy with it.

Besides, my single shot 22 is going forward as well as I carry on with the stock.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Right! Went to the range today, and so I could cjeck the fixes I attempted for my brother's Reina... and it worked. Sort of.

That is, after changes of magazine for a magazine at true dimensions, new extractor and more powerful ammo, it now ejects reliably.

However, it has got failures to feed at every subsequent round, the round chambering only halfway trhough.

Dummy rounds or snap caps are very useful for this kind of function testing. Also, look at the brass and see if there are any marks that indicate where it is hanging up.

When I built a replacement magazine block for a FR7, making sure it didn't change the angle of the feed was the hardest thing to get right. I don't think the bolt face would affect that.

Hmm, failure to fully feed the new round in a semi-auto could be a few things. Could be that it doesn't have enough left-over energy to fully cycle, so maybe ammo or spring.

Probably not the feed ramp being at a bad angle because that usually causes a round to either catch on the feedramp itself OR jam its nose somewhere other than the chamber.

I already use minimags (hardest stuff on the market in France) but funnily enough, it almost worked better when I gave it a try with standard 22 (geco rounds I believe.)

That still could be the spring, but you can't really just take it off and swap for some reason though I tried several times to figure that out. Would require a full new buffer.

Before I do this, I'll try all the stuff that may ease it first. Polishing, cleaning...

Since I swapped the extractor, which greatly helps with ejection now, I believe I noticed it is tighter hence why some polishing of the bolt face might help the round's back to fit in more smoothly.

Polishing all contact surfaces may help the bolt cycle a bit smoother too. Polishing the ramp might help the round slip into the chamber better as well.

I'll also tro swapping magazine springs, as while the new magazine is truer to fonctionnal dimension in terms of ejection, it is possible that the spring in it is a bit weak.

If none of this helps, I may try to buy a new buffer.

This gun is a nightmare but I'm having tremendous fun trimying to fix it and having made a little progress on this is encouraging.


Meanwhile, my single shot is waiting and... I sold the Falcor I reconstituted and will use the money to buy a new gun... On which I intend to drill and tap my own red dot! Would love to succeed at that and now I'll be able to try that out!

Its also tough since manually cycling the gun often won't show that it doesn't have the energy to cycle since you will always be pulling it back to the full extent of its cycle while a real cycle may not.

Hopefully polishing the bolt face works if the other things aren't really an option. Its especially tough since its only .22 so you're dealing with very little leeway in ammo power.

Just saw this. Springfield Armory is importing a gun called the Kuna. It's an MP5 looking subgun with reported incredible reliability. MSRP of under $650, $25 mags. 9mm, 40S&w, and likely 10mm coming later.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its also tough since manually cycling the gun often won't show that it doesn't have the energy to cycle since you will always be pulling it back to the full extent of its cycle while a real cycle may not.

Hopefully polishing the bolt face works if the other things aren't really an option. Its especially tough since its only .22 so you're dealing with very little leeway in ammo power.

Just realised that I haven't still ordered new brushes for my Dremel, hope I won't need in for the polishing part and that thinner and thinner sandpaper will do the trick.