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.
Bolt Action Rifles
James D. Julia: Experimental Muzzle Cover 1893 Mauser
(Note: this rifle was removed from the auction, so I have no link to provide for it) I have been unable to find any history on this particular rifle, which is an experimental mixture of […]
Semiauto pistol
Slow Motion: Interesting Extractor Problem (Schwarzlose 1898)
Many people don’t realize that an extractor is not strictly necessary in many types of pistols – several early blowback models (notably the Bergmann 1896, as well as some later Spanish pistols) did not even […]
Bolt Action Rifles
Late-War Commercial K98k – Production in 1944 But Not for the Wehrmacht
Available from Morphys here: https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/_C__RARE_LATE_WAR_COMMERCIAL_GUSTLOFF_WERKE_BCD_4_-LOT662278.aspx Late in 1944, a number of small companies assembled a batch of K98k rifles and commercially proofed them. These are a known group of guns to the collecting community, although […]
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