RIA: 1929 Simson Prototype 9mm

In the late 1920s, German Ordnance hinted at an interest in replacing the P.08 Luger pistols with a less expensive handgun design. This prompted a number of submissions from hopeful companies, including this design from the Simson company of Suhl. It is chambered for the 9×19 Parabellum cartridge (as requested by Ordnance) but is a simple blowback action.

It features a very modern and slick takedown system, but would be dropped from consideration along with other potential designs when the military opted to focus on carbines and submachine guns instead of spending money on a replacement handgun.


  1. A most excellent looking pistol. A great candidate for reproduction work with a better rear sight and perhaps a stronger firing pin.

  2. Looks an enlarged version of their 6.35mm 1922 pistol. A 9mm paralellum handgun made with needs and configurations of nearly the weakest center fire ammuniton. It has no lock mechanism, no a bulky slide, no powerfull spring or no buffer to stand against to the violent kick back of the rounds to be used. A so called possible service pistol that constructed with a mind that, ” if a two wheel drive car goes on the highroad, why not do the same in the desert”. Even its too easy take down looks not matching with rough field use expectations. It would be funny as accepted by German Ordnance for a replacement of P08.

    • “Even its too easy take down looks not matching with rough field use expectations.”
      So far I know “just up-scale pocket automatic pistol to get service sidearm”-approach never worked well. Civil users and military has different requirements (at least in Europe in interbellum) not only which cartridge to use, but also others:
      -pocket automatic pistol should be easy to fast draw and fire (so there is need for device allowing safe carriage with cartridge chambered)
      -service sidearm need longer service life
      -in case of pocket automatic pistol light weight is praise more, even at cost of service life
      -in case of pocket automatic pistol light weight is praise more, even at cost of magazine capacity
      -exposed hammer is advantage for Ordnance

      Czechoslovakia in inter-war period adopted Pistole vz. 22 as service sidearm which was more close to pocket automatic pistol than service sidearm of neighbor nations, but they apparently were not satisfied with it, as they adopted later adopted Pistole vz. 24 and ČZ vz. 27 (both connected to vz. 22) and anyway finally designed new ČZ vz. 38 but German starts occupation before they can issue it. As Did-You-Know?: vz. 38 automatic pistol was nicknamed louskáček which mean nut-cracker (due to hinged-barrel feature)

    • The shape, location and mass of take down lever reminds the inertia pendulum used in single trigger double shotguns. Its push piece seems to swing forth and back in every shot though inertia, carrying its locking lug at top in front of barrel locking recess. In case of it happens, gradually lowered take down lever, would let the slide free to go out of the frame within a few shot. Solely this occurance might be the cause of this pistol’s rejection.

      Pistol seems substantial in mass department, but only at the frame section. Slide looks a londitudinaly half cut, thin hollow pipe. Chinn’s finding for the blowback slide for 9 mm parabellum is near 750 grams. However, HiPoint’s is about 500, and there are samples in practical life about, 350 grams. This pistol’s looks some 250 grams, seems highly below the usual. Recoil spring tension looks average and seems not any of buffer aid in path of the slide rearmost station. Pistol looks open to the violent slide hammering at every shot beating the user as well.

      However pistol outside appearance looks attractive and outstanding and even beatifull but, this feature should not be neither enough nor demanded in the service use.

      • “for 9 mm parabellum is near 750 grams. However, HiPoint’s is about 500, and there are samples in practical life about, 350 grams”
        Slide mass for blow-back must be considered together with length of travel, longer mean that lighter might be used.

        • Recoil formula generaly does not have containts relating slide backward travel distance. However, it should be usefull in automatic fire cycling speed, healty magazine to chamber feeding and felt recoil as spreading it into the time.

          In simplest form , blowback formula is; Slide weight(kg) x Slide speed(M/second):
          Bullet speed(M/second)x Bullet weight(Kg)x(Rim radius(mm) /Bore radius(mm)2

          To find the blowback distance during the “Bullet in the bore time”, the slide speed
          of one second should be divided to the amount of the “Bullet in the bore time” found through experiments which should be some 1/ 4000 seconds for a ten centimeters barrel lenght.

          • “In simplest form , blowback formula is;”
            gives following formula for getting minimal slide mass formula:
            Q = (L*q)/l
            where: Q – mass of moving parts, L – length of rifled part of barrel, q – bullet mass, l – length of travel of slide until bullet exits barrel
            and alternative:
            Q = ((q+0.5*w)/x)*L
            where: Q – mass of moving parts, w – mass of powder charge, x – length of travel of slide until bullet exits barrel, L – length of rifled part of barrel
            However it must be remembered that both will give rough mass of slide.

      • Maybe I missed something, but nowhere in wildly (mis)quoted Chinn’s life work,
        he gives the fact of 750 grams for 9mm para cartridge.

        There are some formulae, but if would be gun designer/researcher/whatever calculated that number and sticked to it like an axiom, thinking he found his Holy Grail, he better quit his job asap.

        • Eye eye sir. But, might it be from the fact of the round used in calculation being of SMG version and the gun being of a ten inch barrel SMG.

        • The important part in a blowback is to make sure that the thin side walls of the cartridge case remain supported by the chamber walls until the bullet is safely out of the bore.

          using Newton’s third “law”

          When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

          Mass 1 x distance 1 = mass 2 x distance 2

          Your known factors are weight of bullet + powder x length of bullet travel until the base of the bullet exits the barrel. for Mass 1 x distance 1

          You also know from your design, how far the case can move back before the thin side walls emerge from the chamber, that’s distance 2

          From that you can solve for mass 2
          which is the minimum mass for the slide/bolt assembly + mass of the empty case + about half of the mass of the recoil spring + whatever little bit of inertia for rotating the hammer.
          but given the difficulties of knowing how much of the spring is actually providing inertia in the short time period, it’s probably better to ignore the mass of the recoil spring.

          Likewise, max velocity of slide is found from Mass 1 x Muzzle velocity = Mass 2 x max slide velocity
          That will be a max figure as there will be highly variable losses that are difficult to know, due to friction as the cartridge case moves and movement of the whole pistol in the firer’s hand.

          • “The important part in a blowback is to make sure that the thin side walls of the cartridge case remain supported by the chamber walls until the bullet is safely out of the bore.”
            As oddity I can point 9×24 FAR:
            which is somewhat inverted solution – instead of slide traveling slow enough for proper cycling, cartridge case was designed in way that it wouldn’t be blow out where classic would. I am not sure I described it clearly, but when you see images in link everything should become clear.

          • Daweo, that’s a really interesting cartridge! Instead of making the chamber longer and using a rebated case rim like API blowback autocannons, it makes the strong part of the cartridge longer, allowing for a similar sliding back of the case before the thin case walls become unsupported. Of course this solution is not without it’s drawbacks, either, but an innovative design no less.

          • Also if I understand correctly table from above linked site, following loads are known to exist for 9×24 FAR:
            BULLET: mass @ muzzle velocity
            FMJ: 123 gr @ 365m/s
            FMJ: 123 gr @ 400m/s
            FMJ: 123 gr @ 418m/s
            Sadly I don’t see from how long barrel it was measured.

            If you found 9×24 FAR interesting then check also concept M2030:
            also named Countersunk Base Cartridge

          • Countersunk case head has appeared several times.

            Dick Casull had a patent for it, to allow higher pressures to be used in rifles

            and I think it was Francotte in Liege, had some cases kicking around.

          • You brought the most important part into it = how far is slide allowed to move before bullet is out. This is the key; friction and elasticity ignored.

          • Just a ‘detail” I maybe missed in your text:
            the muzzle velocity has to be divided half (it is starting form zero) thus obtaining average bullet velocity from which you derive bullet time in barrel.

      • The slide is not of uniform thickness at all places, so estimating the mass becomes quite tricky on visual data only. There appears to be a some mass especially at the back of the slide, so I think 250 grams is an underestimation and 350 grams could be closer to the truth. Ian of course could probably tell a little better. For what it’s worth, he didn’t mention the slide being unusually light for a simple blowback pistol firing a powerful round.

        • 250 grams of slide weight was estimated by the facts that, being shorter than the 22 centimeters lenght of standart P08, slightly wider than standart barrel width of 1.3-1.4 centimeters resulting an half of mass of a steel rod of 20×2 centimeters.

          Nearly all commenters have better abilities in estimating, design evaluating and even designing merits a relating person should have had, than me. This is fascinating.

          • To be honest, I really don’t know. Such a low mass would seem illogical, though, since this pistol has no way (buffer or delaying mechanism) to mitigate a slide as light as 250 grams, and it was by all counts designed to shoot the standard German 9mm Parabellum loads. I am fairly sure the company would not have submitted a gun that simply does not work to the army trials. Individual designers might sometimes do such a silly thing, but the Simson company was an established firearms manufacturer with (some) experience with pistols. Consistently bulging cases would indicate a broken design and probably would lead to summary dismissal of the pistol in any military trials.

          • The pistol looks having an effective barrel lenght of 9 cm. With standart 9 mm
            Parabellum round, calculation gives some 2.5 mm of slide blowback travel until the bullet to leave the barrel. This is only 0.5 mm longer than the top margin of 2mm safe blowback distance and still remains within the limit of back thickness of case web. There should be no bulged or torn brass, but lot of punch of terribly recoiling slide that some of which being absorbable by the heavy frame. For a company not seeing a, should be, penduling take down latch at every shot, this short cut looks quite normal.

        • For 9mm Parabellum fired by plain blow-back, weight of slide at around 350g would be about a safe minimum; even with stiff return spring. If you look at some SMGs in that caliber, you will get the idea.

          Most locked 9mm Para pistols have slides between 200-220g in weight. There is still considerable blow-back effect even on locked pistols. This is due to residual gas pressure which stays for couple of milliseconds after bullet’s departure. This is often overlooked.

  3. Simple takedown lever feels like easily pushed in an accident with serious results.

    Kinked striker spring could be cos it has no guide rod in the center, already seen such strikers with identical looking kinked spring

    Slide mass ? (Handy pocket scale , if exists up to few pounds,could be a good addition to your travel kit). With the fact, we could calculate if it is maybe too light.

  4. Was the slide much harder to rack than say a Browning high power? Any idea why it wasn’t dusted off and sent in to the pistol trials that led to the P38?

    • “Any idea why it wasn’t dusted off and sent in to the pistol trials that led to the P38?”
      I found description of Simson pocket automatic pistol and this firm:
      After Hitler rise to power, then owner of Simson (Arthur Simson) was jailed, because he was Jew, Fritz Sauckel (member of NSDAP) become owner and it was renamed to BSW (later changed to Gustloff Werke). As NSDAP was anti-Jewish (see Nürnberger Rassengesetze) it can’t send “Jewish” pistol for trials due to ideological reason, independently of it technical advantages and disadvantages.

    • Was the slide hard to rack? That seems to be an excellent question with the recoil spring compressed, pushing the slide heavily forward while in battery. I wonder if you could get by with a lighter slide if the recoil is compressed much more than is “normal” in a blowback gun. It is too bad we didn’t get to see Ian easily reassembling the the recoil spring and guide. 🙂

  5. Another really neat piece. This auction has some really interesting firearms.It’s a really high quality High Point. I’d buy it if they made it today.

  6. A very clean and very modern looking design

    Thanks Ian

    (ok, fair enough, there are no picatinny rails, forward gripping serrations on the slide, lasers, flash lights, bipods, silencers, or MRAVs, or muppets in body armour attached to it, so not that modern)

    • Muppets weren’t around in Depression Era Germany, so the last item on your list wouldn’t matter that much. I’m trying to think of improvements that won’t cause the gun to become too expensive.

      Let’s modify the pistol so that the slide won’t have to be so freakishly heavy. Instead, perhaps one should have a rotating barrel system (like the Steyr-Hahn), roller delaying mechanism (or a truly roller-locked system), or a hesitation lock. These systems do not require the barrel to tilt relative to the bore axis, which would satisfy those stupid bureaucrats.

      Did I mess up anything?

      • ” roller delaying mechanism”
        What about half of roller-delayed mechanism like in Korriphila automatic pistol, see 4th image from top here:
        In this case this is luxury gun made for tight tolerances, but is it possible to adopt this action for more mass-produced gun with more lose tolerances?

        Also, I once tough about lever-delayed action, but I see no way to make it compact enough (where put lever?) for automatic pistol

      • Or just use the VG1-5/ Steyr GB-80 method; drill two or three holes in the barrel near the muzzle, angled forward, and shape the inside of the muzzle ring into a “gas cup”.

        As the bullet leaves the muzzle, gas bled through the holes into the cup pushes forward, delaying opening of the slide until pressure drops enough for recoil impulse to overcome it. Delay would be longer with higher-pressure rounds, shorter with lower-pressured ones(9mm Glisenti equivalent). So it would be more-or-less self-metering.

        Best of all, no major revisions to design or manufacture needed. No locking system, you get to keep the stationary barrel, and machining the inside of the slide nose and drilling the holes in the barrel would be minimal extra steps in the production sequence.

        Actually, such a modified version of this, with a polymer frame and a double-stack magazine, would probably sell today.



        • The steyr GB is not so much a delay as a gas buffer for the slide, the same goes for the H&K P7 and the highly dubious Vektor variant on the P7 theme.

          The hideous Rogack copy of the Steyr GB, shows that the design will (sort of) work as a simple blowback without blowing case heads.
          That indicates that the slide is of sufficeint weight to keep the case’s head web in the chamber for long enough for its internal pressure to drop to safe levels, without the “delay”.

          • Thinking on…

            H&K (the gun company that appears to love to hate us peeons) are too popularly known for their exploitation of roller delay, and for their playing with cocking levers in 1970s

            This is the only site that I’ve ever seen mention of their experimentation with buffering.

  7. Oh, yeah, Ian, you made a mistake when assigning categories to this article. It should be tagged for semiautomatic handguns, not semiautomatic rifles!

  8. I find it interesting that the design show a striking similarity to a “DIY sheet metal Pistol” being built on YouTubers. At least cosmetically that is

  9. My estimate of slide is 300 grams max.

    HOWever, recoil spring, guide and barrel arrangement makes me wonder is the barrel permitted maybe to travel back a few mms along with a slide, it would be enough to delay opening. See a gap between guide end, and the barrel. That could be mystery solution why blowback with less than 400-450 g safe weight for such barrel length.

    Russian Pernach pistol uses similar acting spring arrangement, and its barrel can move by 5mms, look it up and see.

    It looks a bit to me when slide was racked at the end, like the barrel moved a little backwards

    • Kimball had a US patent for the barrel that was allowed to move back with the slide while only attached to each other via the cartridge case.

      The same system appears to be used in the .38 Special Colt 1911 Gold Cup national match pistol, along with a screw threaded chamber to increase case to chamber interference.

      .38 Special +P loads achieve about half of the pressure that normal pistol loads for 9mm Parabellum achieve (20k PSI compared to about 39kPSI for parabellum.

      Kekenon mentions development testbed rifles in the Valmet or Tikkakoski collection, that were based on the Suomi SMG, but modified to allow the barrel to recoil a short distance with the bolt, and chambered for the straight cased 9mm Lilja intermediate/assault rifle round.

      Returning to the Kimball
      Kimball had a handful of patents, some of very dubious engineering merit, he posted adverts in gun magazines and had a batch of pistols manufactured way before he should have done.
      The pistols very quickly developed a reputation for the short Colt Woodsman style slides coming off the back after very few rounds (typically under 100!!!)
      I guess that we’ll never really know whether there was a problem with heat treatment of the recoil stop for the slide.

      What did Kimball chamber his pistols for?
      .30 Carbine!!!
      .22 Hornet!!!

      Neither round performs well in pistol length barrels.

  10. Oh yeah, almost forgot on legendary carbine cartridge pistol.

    I’m afraid no heat treatment or spacecraft (even flying saucer) material could remedy bad and flawed design.

    Beefy slide around barrel up to the muzzle along with heavy spring in the same area could help, why was the “inventor” so retarded not to think of it, thats what we’ll never know.
    Maybe back in 50s they (independent wannabee inventors) didnt fully grasp or know some blowback basics

  11. Ive scrolled through the patent, intention was to provide lighter slide, breechblock, while action being locked with moving barrel, he got that right, so no premature case ejaculation out of chamber while bullet still in bore.

    Yet he neglected the slide momentum that could not be absorbed with flimsy small spring inside the slide and nonexistent buffer, so it all naturally slammed in the back of the frame on some stop. How is that obvious fact overlooked in 4 years from pending to granted, again a miracle of thoughts and research.

  12. The similar layout Catron pistols used seperate backstrap piece of the grip as a recoil stop for its short slide.

    It is possible that the long backstrap provided some resilient springy buffering to the impact.

    It was claimed that Catron put (IIRC) 20,000 rounds through a prototype without the slide coming off.

    I’d better qualify that claim, by noting that Catron appears to have had a personality disorder, at a guess, he at least had narcissistic personality disorder – and possibly even psychopathic personality, or traits of psychopathy.

    Yeah, lovely a guy (Not!)
    hence my deep skepticism for any claims made about his pistols

    • Never so far heard of that guy, and on the internet info is nonexistent, except the book, so this is kinda of exclusive and surely a forgotten weapon.
      How did you manage to make an conclusion on his psychological traits?

      I reckon that there are fairly big amount of similar minded people in various invention business, aimed at individual effort, that have some product or ideas that are not perfect, but these people lose reality and start to fantasize, often blaming the world for not understanding their magnificient inventions, which are often mostly load of BS, but they won’t admit it to themselves.
      Thus the 20 000 round claim.
      If you started to be noncritical about your own work (that clearly has issues), it always ends up bad.

  13. To add to subject of blow-back vs. locked pistols you may want to look at this page: http://cockedandlockedguns.com/the-physics-of-blowback-pistol-design/

    Author is using momentum equation as an example what is slide mass needed for 9mm blow-back pistol. Interestingly (and in connection what I have said in my remark @7:14) he missed to divide muzzle velocity in two. For that reason he is getting way too heavy slide at 1.7lb. If you go thru ‘pain’ of dividing it in half you end up with some 380g, somehow consistent with what I mentioned earlier.

    The SMGs are slightly different story. There we have at least twice longer barrels, so we need about twice heavier bolts to account for this. Than there is consideration for rate of fire which adds a bit on top of it.

    • Hi Denny,

      There should be a tendency to shorten the Newton’s third law formula as using the equality of velocity is equal to the way divided to the time. Since the time is uniform and unchanged at the both sides, formula goes; momentum equals mass multiplied by the distance. However, this formula is useless in determining the blowback travel for bottle necked cases or restricted bored guns.

      The author of mentioned page seems transmitted the calculations from another unquoted page which made it for the guns in SMG category. However, with a 25 cm barrel and 8 grams of bullet weight and 2mm of safe blowback distance, standart momentum formula gives 1234 grams of bolt weight without API firing.

      • Well Strongarm, there is nothing wrong to go by existing product – it is always good to consider them as a reference. But if you are set to create something new you are stuck with basic theory. Then you make sure that all is tuned to expectations.

        I happen to work in past on blow-back in 22.LR rifle, so have some course idea.

  14. Though this topic is going to fade out, there should be something important to add;

    – Assigning blowback slide weight as using simple Newton’s third law formula stays something short at bottlenecked cartridges. There it needs an adddition to the barrel side to multiply rim divided bore radius square to determine this. Even slightly tapered cased 9mm Parabbellum needs a 1/3 multiply addition at the momentum elements at barrel’s side.

    – Unlocked movable barrels need grooves in chamber for the empty case to swell and sit and carry the same backward. KellTec’s PMR30 is an exception which uses more powerfull than usual round of .22″ Magnum cases for this purpose. Swollen and tight fit empty case carries the PMR30 movable barrel backward for needed delay whereas standart .22″‘s only slip inside.

    – FN FiveSeven pistol do not use a slowed down slide during firing, instead, it uses a lever giving an half speed bacward travel to the barrel for ensured extraction and ejection. If Glisenti Model 1912 is lever delayed, the FiveSeven might be accepted either.

    – This Simson pistol seems using a very short, nearly 6-7cm of rifled sectioned barrel in action. This barrel lenght requires some 2-2.3 cm free blowback recoiling with 250 grams of slide weight. Its barrel also seems carrying the rounds as sit more deeply inside the chamber. These features combinely provide ensured firing of standart 9mm Parabellum round, but there seems no protection for counterstanding the violent recoil of slide except than the rather heavy frame.

    – This pistol seems not a good example for long, hard service use. German Ordnance at that age, looks did the right thing.

  15. Bolt velocity could be nearer 20 fps (6 meter per second), than 12 fps,
    thats whats wrong and why it ends up too heavy.

    Anyway, formulae is slightly flawed.

    • Yes it is; I do not know where he obtained those 12fps (3.66m/s). Looks undervalued. But again, why to shy away from something so simple as:

      mass of bullet x speed of bullet = mass of slide x speed of slide,
      propellant ignored since very small

      One momentum equals the other, friction and energy absorption due to elasticity are ignored.

      Once you have velocity of slide you find distance it travels before bullet is out and check it against thick part of casing. Then you alter length of barrel or weight of slide. Bingo!

      Some theory includes spring constant, other do not. It has to do with type of mechanism and relative value of both, of bolt and spring. Pistols have this ratio lower, SMGs higher. In my mind it should be included.

      • And also, what comes into consideration is spring resistance of firing mechanism. For example, rotating hammer poses some significant resistance, namely the way it engages slide during its rotation. It can be in fact arranged so it produces a significant resistance. But again this is not any ‘rocket science’.

        • Hi Denny,
          Good to see you commenting from experience here 🙂

          If I can quickly jump in with an illustration of the use of the inertia of a hammer…

          The original Colt 1911 had a relatively sharp edge at the base of the small plate that retains the firing pin. This engaged the hammer low down and comparatively close to its pivot pin.

          Complaints were made about the force needed to withdraw the slide when the hammer was down.

          I forget whether Browning’s thoughts were sought, or considered. I suspect that they were not.

          one of the alterations made to Browning’s original and IMO correct design, to make it into the 1911 A1, was to bevel the bottom corner of the firing pin retaining plate, so that it engaged the hammer further from its pivot point.

          This was done to make the slide lighter to withdraw, but it also greatly reduces the acceleration of the hammer, and the small (I haven’t run calcs to get approx figures for how significant) additional inertia contribution prior to and during the unlocking of the barrel.

          Apparently, replacing the A1 style firing pin retaining plate with the sharper cornered original 1911 style makes the pistol (subjectively at least) pleasanter to fire, as some of the impact of stopping the slide at the end of its travel is spread out to earlier in the slide’s travel.

          • Hello Keith
            You are correct that this is one of those ‘small details’ which count. I was one time part of update program and recall something of that kind on GP35 which was in Cdn inventory. As I recall, FP lock plate is rounded and similar treatment receives hammer in contact area.

            There is slight difference in resistance if you draw slide briskly or more fluently although, the mechanical action is always sharper. Also one item to consider is that velocity of slide being directly affected by time-pressure curve is building-up dramatically. First rather slow out of stationary position and steadily accelerating; but increase is far from linear. So from this viewpoint needs to be direction of thought if the displacement is adequate in given time. The pressure-time curve is the beginning.

          • There’s a very nice gentleman who we know

            who happens to have a slow motion camera…

            If we suggest a project for it, along the lines of: “was the 1911 A1 pistol a mistake?”

            or, “which is better; Original 1911? or, 1911 A1?”

            Do you think he might take the bait?

            Flat mainspring housings, sharp firing pin retaining plates, grips with plain diamond shapes left in them etc, are all available, so it wouldn’t require messing about with an original 1911

            and, using the same receiver, slide and barrel, isolates the variables to only those parts that were changed in the modification of the 1911 to the 1911 A1.


          • Sure Keith, I am for every ‘mischief’ just tell me…
            1911 has sturdy enough frame to do required cut outs to see what is happening. Also, displacement scales/ cards would be good in background and time count display. Then we could do same thing with unlocked (blow-back) bolt. For safety reasons maybe .380 ACP would be good start.
            I hope he reads us 🙂

            This blog is going nuts…. in best sense of the word!

      • “Pistols have this ratio lower, SMGs higher.”
        It is more the other way…. pistols have fairly high force return springs in ratio to relatively low slide’s weight. (I am talking also about locked pistols.)

        On SMGs you find heavier bolts with springs which are relatively light to get them going forth and back at reasonable ROF.

  16. A few years ago when a friend of mine had in his collection a Walther pressed steel blowback pistol we decided to try it out.
    To have a proper test we used black tipped (SMG only) wartime 9mm. The pistol was slightly heaver than the 1911 Colt and harder to rack than the Hi-power (but not much) However I found the pistol very pleasant to fire without excessive recoil and have wondered ever since why anyone needed to make a Luger or P38

    • Exactly, and this is what it is about. If makers were producing guns in “wartime emergency mode”, they would cost one quarter of the fancy peacetime production. But then, we would not have all the fanciness of thing such as P08 and P38 (not to mention M9).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.