The P38K is both a fantasy WWII concept and also a real pistol made in small numbers by Walther in the 1970s. The idea is simple; just cut down the barrel on a P38 to barely in front of the slide (2.8 inches on the real ones). This does make for a shorter gun, although it retains the large frame and limited capacity of the standard P38, and it’s not really much more concealable than the original.
The real P38K went into preproduction in 1972, with several dozen guns made for Munich and Bremerhaven police in 1972 and 1973. It was really not so much a P38K as a P1K or P4K; it uses the aluminum frame of the P1 and the solid slide of the P4. Full commercial production began in 1974, with serial number 500101. The first 400 guns formed a first variation – these have dovetailed-in front sights and unreinforced frames. From 500501 to the end of production (502595) they would get a hexagonal reinforcing pin in the frame and a front sight milled into the side as a fixed element. Production ended in 1981, with a total of just 2495 production examples made (mostly in 9x19mm, with about 200 in 7.65x21mm).
I think the key to this is the date of its introduction, 1974. Up until the 1970s, the German police forces had usually been armed with 7.65mm automatics, which were fine as they were rarely used. The early 70s saw the rise of left wing terror groups in West Germany such as the Red Army Faction, and that is why in the course of that decade the German police upgraded to 9mm pistols.
The P38k looks like a quick fix for a detective carry gun, but as Ian says, it is a fat gun and not really suitable for the role. However, it would have been available much quicker than the new generation of 9mm pistols which appeared later in the 70s as part of the German police pistol trials.
The confirmation of your theory would be knowing how many P38Ks got into police service, even if they were quickly replaced.
If you are correct, the company never really saw this model as a long term product. Just something to serve an immediate need and make a bit of money off it.
The “P.38K” was a fairly common “shade-tree” conversion of the Walther going back to the 1950s. The idea being greater concealability. And war-surplus P.38s were dirt cheap back then, of course, as was getting a spare barrel for your pistol to do the “surgery” on.
The fad really took off after the debut of “The Man From U.N.C.L.E” on NBC in 1964. The “U.N.C.L.E. Special” P.38 was basically a “K” with all sorts of add-ons (shoulder stock, telescopic sight, extended magazine, suppressed barrel extension). It was and is completely impractical, but it did and does look cool. (Nobody is getting my MGC-made “non-gun replica” that I bought by mail order in junior high school.)
The real answer, of course, was a properly-designed-and-built concealment pistol in 9 x 19mm. Walther came up with that in 1977 and called it the P5.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_P5
It came in both “Compact” and “Lang” (long) persuasions.
In 1990, Walther ended production of the P5 in favor of the P88, which nobody really liked. The end result was the Walther P99 series, and finally Walther’s line of post-modern polymer-framed Glock “clones” of today.
Myself, I’d like a P5 Compact as an EDC. But then again, I’d have to consider it slightly inferior to a compact 1911 in .45 ACP. s
Short-barreled 9 x 19mms don’t have the muzzle velocity the round needs to generate its maximum energy.
Short-barreled .45 ACPs don’t have that sort of problem. They just do what long-barreled .45 ACPs do; throw big slugs downrange at black-powder velocities.
clear ether
eon
I definitely remember a number of 60s and 70s era pulp novels where a “p38 with a sawn barrel” featured as a weapon (jack Higgins, maybe?)
“(…)fairly common “shade-tree” conversion of the Walther going back to the 1950s.(…)”
Apparently Walther itself was entertaining short barrel for Walther AP, see 1st photo from top https://www.landmarkscout.com/9mm-walther-ap-german-semiautomatic-pistol/
Which lead to question if they drop short barreled 9×19 automatic pistol idea due to some detected issue or simply it fell into oblivion as part of AP demise.
The short barreled P38 looks like an abortion performed by someone with a hacksaw and a hammer, and no appreciation for a well designed and iconic firearm.
The “birdcage” on the muzzle of the “UNCLE Special” was an attachment that made the gun cycle with blanks. The rest of the package was vaguely inspired by the modular Stoner 64. The MGM props department converted four guns to work full-auto, and the two lead actors, Robert Vaughn and David McCallum, carried two of them around in briefcases on airplanes, to various PR stunts all around the country, to nobidy’s alarm. ATF eventually found out about the illegal conversions and when they came sniffing, the agents had to be distracted with tours of the MGM studios and introductions to various starlets. (All this from “The Man from UNCLE Book” by Jon Heitland.)
I purchased at an auction modified Spreewerke cyq, barrel was cut down a birdcage was installed to look like a Man from UNCLE gun. Too bad they used a fairly decent cvq for the gun. Just purchased it as a novelty for its Man from UNCLE looks! Since it doesn’t have from sight, not very accurate.
I remember a friend buying one of the new P-38Ks. After coming back from the range, he called it, 8 warning shots and a well-aimed throw!
That’s what was said in the German army about them.
at the end of their service life,the had an abhorrent quality.
I honestly never understood why this heavy, expensive, complex and inaccurate handgun was so popular for such a long time. If you compare it to, say, a Hi- Power or a CZ75, the P38 loses in every respect.
It was there, it was ten percent cheaper than a Luger and the savings on machine time made it way faster to manufacture — over a million made during WWII. Walther had name brand recognition, they worked well with blanks and so made many movie appearances for even greater name brand recognition, and the CZ75 was not yet on the scene until manufacture had stopped. It was the only double-action 9mm out there until the appearance of the S&W39 too, so slightly more attractive to safety-conscious police. By popular do you mean “well-liked” or “sold well”?
I have to say that I never saw the allure of the P38. Yeah, a lot of people loved them, but… Man. I was not enamored of either the accuracy or the rest of the package.
I think I fired something that might have been a factory prototype or something, midway in between the piece that Ian has highlighted here and the full-size P38. Friend of mine had it, and the barrel was mid-way between the two extremes; the owner knew nothing about it, claimed he bought it new in Germany through the Rod and Gun Club system back in the 1950s-60s. I never saw anything like it before or since, and it did look as though it was “built that way”, in that the machining and all the rest of the tell-tales like the muzzle crown “looked right”.
It didn’t handle or shoot much better than any other P38-type that I’ve fired, although it did have the virtue of novelty.
I think there’s something mechanically inherent to the falling-block designs that preclude their achieving long service lives. Compare the M1911 to either the P38 or the Beretta Model 92, and you see a similar amount of “happiness” with the pistols and length of service. I dare say that the US, for one, will never adopt such a design ever again, nor will the Germans. In my opinion, the locking surfaces just aren’t big enough or strong enough for current metallurgy to affordably fabricate them, and they’re all prone to “issues”.
I was initially enamored of the Beretta M92 that I bought shortly after it was selected as the M9. It didn’t take very long for the shine to wear off… Too big for what it provided in terms of ballistics, too complex, and just a pain in the ass to work on. Worst aspect of it, as far as I was concerned, was all the fiddly little parts, worst offender being that flaky little spring that kept the drawbar pushed down. The usual commissioned idiot that thought they were qualified to take their own pistols past field stripping almost always lost those damn things, and there you’d be, without SARP, with a non-functional pistol for however long it took to get in the parts. Which was usually a minimum of six or so weeks; before the SARP ban, I kept two or three of those springs for each pistol, knowing that the inevitable would occur every time those officers drew the ‘effing things and had to clean them.
I did an M9 qual range, once, for a Corps HQ unit. Course of one day, back in their offices afterwards, they lost a total of 9 springs across about a hundred weapons that got drawn…
“(…)Beretta(…)92(…)you see a similar amount of “happiness” with the pistols and length of service(…)”
Observe that said fire-arm, did not appear from oblivion, but was predated by HELWAN https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.php?smallarms_id=1076 automatic pistol made in 1950s and also using vertically moving locking piece, so I request to including HELWAN usage in length of service.
“(…)locking surfaces just aren’t big enough or strong enough for current metallurgy to affordably fabricate them(…)”
This must be considered in conjunction with ammunition used. Observe that also automatic pistols without vertically moving might malfunction when using cartridge with abnormal powder charge.
“(…)Too big for what it provided(…)”
This was not forced by including vertically moving locking piece. Observe that Yavuz 16 Bora, see 2nd image from top https://modernfirearms.net/en/handguns/handguns-en/turkey-semi-automatic-pistols/yavuz-16-eng/ also use such element, but is shorter yet has same capacity (15).
The Helwan was an Egyptian-made copy of the Beretta Model 1951. In that one, Beretta adopted the Walther P.38 locking system to what was essentially a Model 1934 .380 ACP (9mm Corto) to accommodate the 9 x 19mm round. The idea being to create a service pistol for the Italian army that could use the new NATO standard pistol and SMG ammunition. But do it on the cheap and maintaining the “classic” Beretta appearance.
In fact, they had trouble with it from the start, mostly with the slides cracking at the locking lug recesses. Walther had the same problem with the P.38 right through its history, so it shouldn’t have surprised anybody that the M1951, with its thinner slide sidewalls, would have the same problem only worse.
The M1951 actually only entered Italian army service in 1957. And they never did entirely solve that slide-failure “issue”. They also afflicted it with a shotgun-type “pushbutton” safety at the top rear of the grip. This kludge was replaced in 1968 by a Colt 1911-type thumb lever in the same place, which at least was an improvement.
The Helwan began production under license around 1962-63 when the Italian government tried to make nice with Nasser to get better access through Suez. It was mainly “distinguished” by being made of worse-quality steel than the Beretta-made original, not to mention a generally lower degree of QC overall. It also retained the “push-through” button safety.
In a bit of irony, The Israeli Defense Force adopted the Italian-made M951 (as it was known by the early Sixties) as their standard sidearm in 1965. And after the 1967 and 1973 wars, had captured enough Helwans to realize what a cheap PoS it was, and that basically no parts were interchangeable with “the real thing” due to by that time a near-total lack of QC.
The Beretta M92 came along in 1973, and was essentially yet another “Waltherized” clone gun, copying the searage of the P.38 almost point-for-point. The one bit of “originality” was the takedown latch above the trigger, which was apparently inspired by that of the Spanish Star Super A. (Just clumsier.) In a bit of rationality, the 92 at first had the same 1911-type thumb safety as the late M951, but this was soon replaced by, you guessed it, a Walther-type hammer-dropper.
The double-stack 15-shot magazine began with two FN P35 magazine tubes cut apart at two different points, and then TIG-welding the two “long” parts together. (The only other “double-stack” 9mm magazines available at the time being those of the American S&W M59 and the French MAB PA-15. The latter would have been a better choice with no modifications, IMHO.)
Taurus in Brazil ended up making their PT92/99 series, which began as a straight copy of the early M92 but gradually evolved into something different. IMPO, if you just can’t live without a “Beretta M92”, get a Taurus PT99. It’s frankly much better designed and built, after Taurus spent two decades getting the bugs out of it. (And thickening up the better-heat-treated slide sidewalls to prevent “SEAL mouth”.)
The Beretta M92 became the standard U.S. service pistol in 1986 because after the JSSAP trials, the DoD didn’t want to standardize on either of the two pistols that beat it out, the Ruger P85 or the SiG P226. There was also strong pressure from Congress (meaning a certain D senator from MA) to adopt a non-American pistol so a prohibition on American civilian handgun production could be justified.
The travails of the “M9” in U.S. service are well-known by now and there’s no point in rehashing them. Suffice it to say that the SiG P320 series aka M17 and M19 is a massive improvement. Even if it’s basically an FN P35 with a polymer frame and the searage of the M1908 Roth-Sauer cavalry pistol of WW1.
FTR, I have dealt with all of the above except the M17/M19 personally and professionally. Given a choice, I would happily carry a Star Super A in 9 x 23 Largo or the Super B variant in 9 x 19mm as a service or defensive sidearm. It’s probably the most advanced service pistol of the 1950s, with many features found on “combat custom” 1911s in the 1970s, right from the factory.
For that matter, the same could be said of the 1995-2000 final Spanish production of the Llama Max-1 .45. There’s little in a $1500+ Kimber or etc. of today that you won’t find on one of those.
But that, as Conan’s chronicler said, is another story.
clear ether
eon
As with a lot of US weapons programs, I think that the pistol programs have suffered from a total lack of “clarity of thought”.
From first principles, they needed to evaluate what their “market” was, and then procure to suit that market best. The fantasy is that everyone is gonna be Sergeant Alvin York redux, and that they need to procure to satisfy the abilities and needs of that individual.
The reality is something quite different.
In truth, there are really two different “markets” in the US military, with dramatically different needs. On the one hand, you have the guys who use a pistol well, and who can be expected to have the time and ability to become skilled on one. These are Military Police officers, some members of SOCOM, and I suppose a few others. These guys need a different pistol than the other “market”, the one that simply needs an extremely simple and easily operated last-ditch self-defense tool. The equivalent, if you will, of the Forest Service fire shelter; something you keep sealed in a case on your person, then use when the exigency manifests itself. For simplicity’s sake, these weapons should be as simple as possible, with as few controls as possible in order to limit the confusion.
I get that a lot of people decry the Glock system, which is basically nothing but passive drop and trigger safeties. What those people don’t get is how fatally confusing something like the Beretta M92 is to a non-shooter with zero experience of handguns.
I swear to God, if I could mandate just one thing? Make the assholes doing procurement have to run some ‘effing qualification ranges that they’re accountable for, so that they have to actually do the work of producing qualified soldiers on the weapons that they choose.
I’m morally certain that if they’d done that with the M9, it would never have been selected. I have seen some fairly intelligent people who I had a lot of respect for (outside the realm of small arms and self-defense, mind you…) who just totally brain-locked trying to make the M9 do that thing which they needed it to do, which was simulate killing another human being in close combat.
Oddly, more than a few of those people managed to pick things up pretty damn quickly when I introduced them to the Glock on our own time, after hours. Which is one reason I still think that the Glock is a superior system for that specific military market, that of pure last-ditch self-defense. I don’t know for sure who conceived of that whole idea, whether it was Gaston or some of the people he consulted, but they absolutely got more “right” than the cretinous idjits that chose the M9 for that role.
@ Kirk;
The Glock is the best all-around choice for a police service pistol for the same reason.
As I’ve said before, most cops don’t know jack-s#!t about guns. I know- I used to train them, or at least I tried to. And a lot of cops, whether uniformed or plainclothes, just could not and did not “get it”.
Issuing one of those types a Beretta M92SFABCDE+ Whatever would be a sure route to ADs and probably at least one “wrongful death” suit against their department. Even if the “wonder-nine” was working correctly, and frankly that’s rare.
Most cops I trained were working at their maximum tech-savvy levels operating a Smith & Wesson Model 10 .38 Special revolver, 4-inch barrel, fixed sight. No, you did not want to give them an adjustable-sighted gun. The stainless-steel Model 64 .38 and Model 65 .357 were even better; they didn’t have to remember to oil them to prevent rust. The 65 was probably the ultimate “cop gun” among revolvers; near-zero maintenance and assuming the shooter could actually hit what he intended to, one or two rounds of 158-grain at 1,250 would generally get it done.
I’m sure you’re familiar with the old military axiom that the secret to effective command is to identify the one or two individuals in the unit with actual intelligence and ability- and then to exploit the Hell out of them. The same holds true in police work, especially when choosing officers for undercover or tactical duty.
And often they’re the only ones who can be trusted with a weapon more complex than that S&W revolver.
The Glock comes closer to that .38 revolver in operational terms than any other handgun before or since. Fixed sights, no exciting levers to play with, and keep your finger off the trigger until you have it pointed at whoever or whatever you intend to shoot. It’s the KISS Principle (Keep it Simple, S#!thead) in technology.
The only drawback? A Deputy Dawg who just yanks the gun out and starts yanking the trigger can throw fifteen or sixteen bullets all over Hell’s Half-Acre in about two seconds flat. With the revolver, after six tries he had to stop and think- or at least stop and reload.
The major difference between the military and the police is that statistically, when we’re shooting, it’s much less likely that everything in front of the muzzle can be at least conceptually defined as a valid target.
But even with that, the Glock is still probably the best all-around choice. At least until somebody at Starfleet R&D comes up with an actual phaser.
cheers
eon
@eon,
Never been a cop, ever only spent a bunch of time around some. So, take my opinion for what it’s worth…
I’m ambivalent about the Glock paradigm in a police setting, at least here in the US. The Austrian cop I made friends with had an observation I thought was telling, in that in his opinion (he’d done some time as an exchange officer here in the US…) the American police used their pistols as “threat displays” more than the Austrians did: If you make an Austrian cop draw his weapon, someone is getting shot, period. If you’re a cop who draws a pistol, you’re in for the same grief as if you shot someone, the way he put it. The Austrian criminal element knows that; this is why they don’t provoke the cops into doing a draw. Introduction of a weapon is serious business, and handled like that. Here in the US? Pistols are more “threat display to show we’re serious”, and everyone behaves as though the unholstered pistol in a police situation is no big deal… Which was the most shocking thing he said he experienced doing ride-alongs with US cops.
This being the case, I think that we either need to develop a policy of Glock-armed cops keeping the weapon in the holster until and unless the justification for shooting manifests itself, or we need to give a lot of these guys weapons with manual safeties, given the way they get used a lot of the time.
Personally, I’m of the mind that if you make a cop justifiably draw a weapon on you, you ought to get shot. The whole paradigm ought to be one of mutual respect; you don’t struggle with the cops, and they don’t beat the shit out of you. If you do, however, feel the need to thrown hands, welllllll… That’s why I like the old Military Police size standards: Minimum six feet tall and 180lbs.
What’s really screwed up to have to recognize is that an awful lot of “police brutality” and “unjustified police shootings” grow out of the idiotic idea that we have to be “inclusive” with the police force. Trust me on this one, folks… Shaq rocks up on your stupid ass in a bar brawl, you suddenly find a lot of respect for law and order in your heart. If, on the other hand, it’s his buddy Kevin Hart, wellllll… You might find yourself a little less respectful. Which is why and how a bunch of stupid mofos’ wind up dead, dead, dead…
Idealistically, the uniform and badge ought to get automatic respect. Realistic-wise? The uniform and badge being on someone above the 80th percentile does a lot better.
I like the Glock as a self-defense weapon, but it needs to be in the proper cultural context to be effective. It is not a weapon that should be used as a “threat display” piece; it’s a killing tool, pure and simple. You get it out of the holster, someone ought to be going to the morgue or the hospital, period.
@ Kirk 2;
Oh, we are so on the same page.
One of the basic rules I taught was Never point the gun at anything you are not prepared to destroy. Period. No “displays”. No “warning shots”. The sidearm stays in the holster until you have no option but using it. And then you’d damned well better not miss, or you’d be dealing with me, not you official superior(s).
Yes, I taught what’s commonly called “quick draw”. As with civilian defensive use, the police sidearm customarily begins its firing stroke in the holster. Deploying it before that except in a known “shots fired” situation or an actual tactical entry by properly-trained and qualified personnel is strictly Hollywood.
(Every time I see that on some show like Criminal Minds or Numb3rs, I cringe. “Analysts” and “profilers” have no business doing that kind of s#!t to begin with.)
More to the point, back then, if it was an actual tactical situation, like a silent alarm at a “stop-n’-rob”, you should have the patrol shotgun out, not the sidearm. And whoever has the shotgun does not go first; he supports the officer who first approaches the door and looks in– carefully. With one hand on the door and the sidearm either still holstered or in low ready position.
And trigger fingers on the side of the front of the trigger guard, not on the face of the trigger, please.
One effect I guess I can lay claim to was that the officers I trained, local PDs and SO’s both, had fewer “downscores” for ADs and etc on qualifications and PPC than the ones who “already knew what they were doing”. Yes, they knew what they were doing; they just didn’t know they were doing it wrong.
Today, I see a lot of that. It’s like present-day LEOs have forgotten everything we had to work out the hard way almost fifty years ago.
Maybe we need less time spent on pronouns and more time spent on the range. Learning how not to “shoot”.
cheers
eon
@eon,
I think there’s way too much “magical thinking” in both civilian self-defense and law enforcement: The handgun (or, any other weapon…) is not a magical talisman that’s going to save your ass from having been stupid.
As well, it’s way, way more important to teach people on both sides of the badge when NOT to shoot; most of the “bad interactions” I’ve seen from either aspect are times and places guns shouldn’t have ever been out of the holster in the first damn place. If you’re a cop coming onto someone else’s property late at night, and it’s questionable as to your identity? That weapon belongs in the holster, no exceptions. Same with the citizen; you don’t have a weapon out of the holster until and unless there’s a credible threat to defend against, and only then do you have it in your hand. Answering a door with it in your hand? WTF are you thinking? Put yourself in that cop’s shoes, and while you’re at it, maybe the cops ought to imagine what it looks like at 3:00am when someone starts pounding on the door and screaming incoherently, waking up said citizen out of the blue with zero context. Also, no real evidence that there are police involved… You look like a home invader, maybe don’t be totally surprised when someone treats you like one, right down to ventilating your stupid ass.
Both sides of the cop/citizen equation have gotten way out of hand. The cops don’t ever seem to put themselves in the mindset of a citizen, and the citizens don’t look at what they’re doing and consider what those acts look like to a police officer. Either way, it’s a recipe for disaster.
Me? I firmly believe that police work is too important to entrust to professionals: The vast majority of it ought to be run the way we did courtesy patrols in Korea. You get tapped, you do the job for a bit. That way, you get to “explore” what keeping a lid on society looks like, and you begin to understand the reasons so many cops are jaded cynical assholes. If more people had to do the job, there’d be way more understanding on both sides of the badge.
As a side-effect? I suspect that there’d be a lot fewer bleeding hearts when it came to criminal behavior. It’s one thing to be charitable and understanding when you’re a halfwit college-educated suburbanite, excusing the bestial behaviors of some members of the underclasses, but if you had to spend a few years cleaning up after them, seeing the actual effects of their depredations? LOL… I suspect that there would be liberal application of capital punishment for a lot more things than today.
Soldiers ought to be volunteer; cops? Draft everyone, at some point in their lives. Make people responsible for public order, and there’ll be more of it. Just like cleaning up the countryside; you make individuals responsible for a piece of it, and they’re going to be outraged when someone litters in it.
You would be amazed at the mindset switch that occurs when you do that, make people responsible. All of a sudden, those transgressive “rebellious” acts of “expression” become a lot less popular, for some reason. I’d be willing to bet that if you put graffiti artists to work for a few thousand hours cleaning up after their vandalism…? There’d be rather less of it.
@eon,
Found a word/term/concept this morning that’s just too good not to share: Hauntology.
The term is defined as “ideas referring to the return or persistence of elements from the social or cultural past, as in the manner of a ghost.”
And, yes, it was coined by Jacques Derrida, but… Man, is that a useful idea, when you start looking at all the things in small arms designs that just keep coming back: Trail out “SPIW” to “OICW” or “EM-2” to “L85”, and there’s a term to describe the intellectual framework behind that whole thing, which is something I’ve been looking for.
Explanation of the NGSW fiasco? Hauntology. NGSW is basically M14 redux; why’d they do that, when the first iteration was such shiite? Hauntology. The idea of the “individual rifleman” a la Sergeant Alvin York is just too alluring, too perfect, that they can’t give it up. Or, for that matter, make it work.
Such an evocative word and way to think about the process…
I cannot believe that you said “7.65 parabellum is just 9 parabellum necked down”, when you know perfectly well it’s the other way around! 😉