Before the Austro-Hungarian Empire adopted the Roth Steyr Model 1907 as its official cavalry pistol, they of course went through a series of pistol trials. The winners of two sets of trials were the Roth Steyr Models of 1904 and 1906, and today we have an example of each to look at.
Uncategorized
Book Review: Vom Ursprung der Selbstladepistole
Written by Josef Mötz and Joschi Schuy, “Vom Ursprung der Selbstladepistole” (Origins of the Automatic Pistol) is an absolute gold mine of information on early manually operated and self loading pistols. It is limited to […]
Semiauto pistol
Test Firing Hijinks – Frommer 1910
Days at the range don’t always go as planned. After over a year of looking, I finally managed to recently find a box of 7.65mm Frommer (Short) ammo that I could use to test-fire my […]
Book review
Book Review: German Gew. 88 “Commission” Rifle
I recently picked up a very nice looking Gewehr 88 from an online classified ad, and when it arrived I really didn’t know what I had (I’m not an expert on older German bolt actions […]
looks like the beavertails are different slightly as well.
Austria-Hungary had three armies, the Austrian (Heer), Hungarian (Honved) and Austian-Hungarian. I won’t even get into the question of the “language of command: in the various national and ethnic contingents.
As far as I know, the language of command of the “kaiserlich und königliche Armee”…
1. “Gemeinsame Armee” – literally: “Common Army”: German (this was of the 7/8 of the k.u.k. army)
2. “Landwehr” – Austrian Army: German
3. “Honvédség” – Hungarian Army: Hungarian.
Greetings from Hungary. 🙂
The text PATENT placed on weapon is quite mind-boggling for me. I would rather except PATENT followed by number (like in case of wz. 35 known in U.S. collectors parlance as RADOM pistol) or PATENT accompanied by inventor name (like in case of FN 1910, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Browning_1910_(6971783833).jpg ). Why and whom they decide to just inform that this weapon or some part of is patented? Does they tried to convey to testers newfangledness big enough to get patent for it?
One finds markings saying “Patent deposee” or “Patent pending” without a number also on other items. In Europe, there is simply no legal requirement to mark a patented design as such. The protection by a patent takes effect independent of such markings.
I see the marking being intended as promotional: “Hey, our design is so outstanding that we got it patented.” This was of course long before granting patents for trivial junk became the norm and created the species of patent trolls.
Does anyone know why the A-Hs dropped the requirement for a manual safety? Did their cavalry intend to carry in “condition 3” and only chamber a round in contact, or in (Glock-like) “condition 1.5l”, like a DA revolver?
Geezer:
I would assume that, like most armies, an automatic pistol would routinely be carried with an empty chamber, and be cocked before an action. After using, it would be returned to its big leather holster were there would be little chance of an accidental discharge, and unloaded after the victorious outcome.
JohnK, Geezer:
Since this gun is loaded from the top , it can’t be carried with an empty chamber.
They were likely looking for DA revolver like handling, since they were using DA revolvers at the time.
AMX:
Good point. I imagine that most of the time they would be carried unloaded, only being loaded before action.
I love them; elegant. No manual safety adopted again like the Glock, he he. Prefer the safety version personally, he he.