This particular 1902-made example of the C96 Mauser incorporates several experimental features of the design that would never go into mass production. It was an effort to make a version of the C96 that would be more suitable for civilian carry – something a bit lighter and more compact than the military style. To this end, it has a smaller grip profile, a shorter barrel, and a shortened 6-round magazine. Most evidently, it also has an experimental safety that was intended to be more suitable for one-handed use. Unfortunately, the safety bit into the shooters hand badly with each shot, and only a few were ever made before the idea was dropped.
Commentary
An Interesting Possibility: The FG-42 in 8x33mm Kurz?
Here’s an interesting thought – what if they made the FG-42 in 8x33mm Kurz? Well, they actually did, in very small numbers. The rifle’s designer, Louis Stange, actually thought it was a really good idea, […]
Artillery
Granatenwerfer 16
Developed from a weapon originally designed by a priest, of all people, in the Austro-Hungarian army, the Granatenwerfer 16 was a German WWI grenade thrower which bridged the gap between hand-thrown grenades and the light […]
Submachine Guns
MP7A1 vs MP7A2: H&K’s Modern PDW
Today we are taking a look at H&K’s PDW, the MP7. Specifically, we’re going to go over the changes made form the MP7A1 to the MP7A2 pattern…
IIRC, the original c/96 safety held the hammer locked but did nothing to secure the sear or trigger. Meaning, if the trigger was pressed when the gun was in Condition One, releasing the safety would drop the hammer and fire the piece. The NS “New Safety” locked sear and hammer both to avoid this booby-trap.
I always wondered why the Broomhandle never had a cross-bolt firing-pin safety. The block that secured the firing pin and concentric spring inside its barrel extension would have been a reasonable place for it. Just a sliding bar that locked the firing pin, and perhaps even withdrew it forward just far enough that if the hammer was dropped by accident, it couldn’t transfer the blow to the firing pin.
Such a safety would have been more reliable and probably a bit simpler to machine than any of the safeties they actually did use.
cheers
eon
NS safety does not lock the sear. It seems some confusement occured. Ît only holds the hammer at more distance form the sear and needs two hands to actuate.
[shoots mugger] “EEEYOWCH! Who designed this safety catch?”
I am afraid the 1902 safety might have been force matched to the frame during the restauration…
The 41676 is definitely made in 1905 and the frame is consistent with the period (small ring hammer) six-shooters, whereas the 1902 “Joint Safety” (Gelenkihe Sicherung) mechanism is only found (except this one) in 28,xxx-29,xxx range.
I was just at an auction in Rolla Missouri.
Lotd of c96 were on the block.
Joint Safety SN 50002 sold for $10,000