But even during WWII when the demand existed, various nations were cranking out literal boatloads of stamped steel SMGs, they never mass produced any stamped pistols. I can't figure out why.
Was it just that pistols were considered a low priority weapon?
If that was the case why did everyone keep manufacturing millions of conventional forged/machined pistols at great expensive when they could have made stamped pistols which would presumably have been cheaper and faster to produce.
>Was it just that pistols were considered a low priority weapon?
yes pistols are generally for officers or rear-line troops. the USA produced something like 2 million 1911s vs the 6 million m1 carbines that most rear line troops used.
Despite this, both the allies and the axis were cranking out millions of fucking pistols. It seems weird that they didn't lean harder into various cost cutting measures, simplifications, cheaper production techniques, etc.
>Was it just that pistols were considered a low priority weapon?
In the context of war, pistols basically don't count as weapons at all. They basically have 0% hit rates in combat, which is why the US largely replaced them with the M1 carbine.
It's expensive to set up a factory for stamping, but very cheap once it's running so mass produced equals it out. Pistols are small enough in size and quantity issued that it doens't make economic sense to produce a stamping assembly line for them, its cheaper and easier to mill and forge the frames.
That's why Glock was such a big deal with making a durable polymer frame, it's cheaper and easier to set up than stamping but allowed for large mat h production.
Soldiers are really never killed by pistols, nor do they really ever kill other soldiers with pistols. In combat a pistol isn't viable beyond a MAX of 20yd, and even within that range you already have a carbine. Pistols are status symbols for officers& NCO's, and can be used to great effect to encourage unwilling grunts to do their job. There's not much of a practical place for pistols in the military, but the psychological benefit is kinda worth it - plus institutional momentum is a thing.
Say all that to say this - if you're gonna pump out millions of stamped weapons, there are far better/more effective options than pistols
>Pistols are status symbols for officers& NCO's, and can be used to great effect to encourage unwilling grunts to do their job
What 3rd world army are you serving in. Pistols are good for people whose primary role isn't combat but need something. Lookat Afganistan and Iraq, huge bases full of support staff who don't need a rifle, but need some sort of firearm due to insider threats. Or people like MPs or the like who are carrying out people and vehicle searches, where the possible threat is meters away and a rifle will get in the way.
If I wanted to do anything outside my tent when I deployed, even on a MOB, I had to take my rifle with me, people who had pistols had a much easier time
It's easier to stamp certain parts of guns and then surround them with polymer or aluminum. The most successful guns which heavily relied on stampings were the Sig P22X series of handguns, for the longest time they had stamped slides. Beyond certain parts it's either not super economical for the handgun market or doesn't produce a decent end product.
KS-23 has a stamped receiver.
I believe (not entirely sure) some east-German SxS and OxU shotguns used receivers made from multiple stampings which were then brazed together.
Can't think of many others off the top of my head, but I'm far from an expert on shotguns.
Stamped rifles: machined trunnions. bolts, etc., only the receiver and sometimes handguard is stamped.
Stamped SMGs: machined trunnions, bolts, etc., only the receiver and sometimes handguard is stamped.
Stamped MGs, same story, only the receiver, top cover, and sometimes handguard.
But with pistols, you seem to only consider those with stamped frames as well as slides, whereas IMO pistols with stamped slides and machined breech inserts, frames, etc. are analogous to the use of stamping in other firearms.
In that case you should include at least: >HK P9 >SIG P220 and some descendants (P225, P226, etc.)
There are more stamped pistols than you think. For example, the slides of the P220-series pistols (including derivatives like the P226 and P227) were made from thick-gauge stamped steel with the breech and bushing welded in after.
At least, that's how they were made in West Germany - American nu Sigs are probably just CNC-machined forgings like everything else.
The design of the Browning tilting barrel system means that a stamped design is actually more expensive than a standard milled one.
The slide is basically a combination of bolt and extension. Like an Uzi bolt.
It doesn't need a housing, and to put one around it, to mill out the bolt, and then stamp the extension and locking lugs from another sheet of metal, is more complicated and pricey than just milling the slide from one piece.
They don't lend themselves to it well. Most pistols are going to have the slide mate up to the barrel. Browning actions do it. Berettas do. Blowback pistols etc. The slide is a pressure bearing component. You can't use stamped steel for pressure bearing components. Think about how an AK works. It has solid trunnions doing all the work. The stamped receiver doesn't have to hold any of the pressure. Same with all other stamped guns. They might not do it just like an AK. but the stamped receiver is not load bearing. The AR also works this way. Its forged aluminum but the same principle applies. The bolt locks into the barrel extension. The receiver just holds the bits in place. So if you want to do a stamped pistol you need to figure out a way around this problem. For the stamped 1911 prototype, there is a block of steel welded inside the stamped slide meant to serve as the breech. This is pretty ghetto. And I'm sure after they made it the designers decided it was pretty lame.
If you think about it, the elements of a pistol that lend themselves to stampings are the grip/frame and the magazines
The grip tends to be plastic in modern guns and the magazines are either stamped or plastic
They don't lend themselves to it well. Most pistols are going to have the slide mate up to the barrel. Browning actions do it. Berettas do. Blowback pistols etc. The slide is a pressure bearing component. You can't use stamped steel for pressure bearing components. Think about how an AK works. It has solid trunnions doing all the work. The stamped receiver doesn't have to hold any of the pressure. Same with all other stamped guns. They might not do it just like an AK. but the stamped receiver is not load bearing. The AR also works this way. Its forged aluminum but the same principle applies. The bolt locks into the barrel extension. The receiver just holds the bits in place. So if you want to do a stamped pistol you need to figure out a way around this problem. For the stamped 1911 prototype, there is a block of steel welded inside the stamped slide meant to serve as the breech. This is pretty ghetto. And I'm sure after they made it the designers decided it was pretty lame.
[...]
If you think about it, the elements of a pistol that lend themselves to stampings are the grip/frame and the magazines
The grip tends to be plastic in modern guns and the magazines are either stamped or plastic
Yeah stamped frames are rare but stamped magazines are pretty common. Stamping has also been surpassed by more modern manufacturing processes. It was an improvement over hand machining but it still takes a large upfront tooling cost. Once you've invested in large state owned AK factory #7 it can put them out cheap. But a commercial maker wont want to invest that on anything but a product they know will sell. I think that's why you predominately see stamping in military arms. The makers get large guaranteed contracts so its worthwhile to invest in stamping dies and presses.
There isn't any need to make cheap, expedient handguns like there is for all other weaponry. Pistols are a luxury consumption item for officers to brandish or tank crews to off themselves with when they're stuck in a burning wreck.
Disposable weapons that's why. Doen correctly for quality they are just as expensive as better options. Don't correctly for cheap mass production to put arms in the hands needed for war they are fucking trash.
the receiver of a rifle is very large and not very complex. you'd have to mill away a lot of steel to get a shell with a huge void. stamping a shell and rivet/weld it to accept the other parts is cost effective.
the slide of a pistol is rather small, so you don't have to mill away all to much. its overall shape also is already bar-like. it's cost effective to mill it. stamping is also an option, but milling has become very cheap.
the grip of a pistol is very complex, so stamping something into grip shape isn't worth the effort.
in addition, you don't WANT to mill out huge chunks of your slide because you need the mass
going to a stamped slide just means you need to fill in the middle somehow
They look silly.
I want the dieselpunk 1911 so fucking bad bros
I agree, it's cool as fuck.
why go through the process of stamping when normal forge shit will fulfill orders? no one is asking for a million 1911s in a few months.
But even during WWII when the demand existed, various nations were cranking out literal boatloads of stamped steel SMGs, they never mass produced any stamped pistols. I can't figure out why.
Was it just that pistols were considered a low priority weapon?
If that was the case why did everyone keep manufacturing millions of conventional forged/machined pistols at great expensive when they could have made stamped pistols which would presumably have been cheaper and faster to produce.
>Was it just that pistols were considered a low priority weapon?
yes pistols are generally for officers or rear-line troops. the USA produced something like 2 million 1911s vs the 6 million m1 carbines that most rear line troops used.
Despite this, both the allies and the axis were cranking out millions of fucking pistols. It seems weird that they didn't lean harder into various cost cutting measures, simplifications, cheaper production techniques, etc.
you don't fight wars with pistols. carbines/rifles are more useful.
>Was it just that pistols were considered a low priority weapon?
In the context of war, pistols basically don't count as weapons at all. They basically have 0% hit rates in combat, which is why the US largely replaced them with the M1 carbine.
The survival rate for civilians in all civilian shootings is over 80% when a pistol is used. You would legitimately be better off with a spear.
It's expensive to set up a factory for stamping, but very cheap once it's running so mass produced equals it out. Pistols are small enough in size and quantity issued that it doens't make economic sense to produce a stamping assembly line for them, its cheaper and easier to mill and forge the frames.
That's why Glock was such a big deal with making a durable polymer frame, it's cheaper and easier to set up than stamping but allowed for large mat h production.
Soldiers are really never killed by pistols, nor do they really ever kill other soldiers with pistols. In combat a pistol isn't viable beyond a MAX of 20yd, and even within that range you already have a carbine. Pistols are status symbols for officers& NCO's, and can be used to great effect to encourage unwilling grunts to do their job. There's not much of a practical place for pistols in the military, but the psychological benefit is kinda worth it - plus institutional momentum is a thing.
Say all that to say this - if you're gonna pump out millions of stamped weapons, there are far better/more effective options than pistols
>Pistols are status symbols for officers& NCO's, and can be used to great effect to encourage unwilling grunts to do their job
What 3rd world army are you serving in. Pistols are good for people whose primary role isn't combat but need something. Lookat Afganistan and Iraq, huge bases full of support staff who don't need a rifle, but need some sort of firearm due to insider threats. Or people like MPs or the like who are carrying out people and vehicle searches, where the possible threat is meters away and a rifle will get in the way.
If I wanted to do anything outside my tent when I deployed, even on a MOB, I had to take my rifle with me, people who had pistols had a much easier time
It's easier to stamp certain parts of guns and then surround them with polymer or aluminum. The most successful guns which heavily relied on stampings were the Sig P22X series of handguns, for the longest time they had stamped slides. Beyond certain parts it's either not super economical for the handgun market or doesn't produce a decent end product.
What about stamped shotguns?
KS-23 has a stamped receiver.
I believe (not entirely sure) some east-German SxS and OxU shotguns used receivers made from multiple stampings which were then brazed together.
Can't think of many others off the top of my head, but I'm far from an expert on shotguns.
Stamped rifles: machined trunnions. bolts, etc., only the receiver and sometimes handguard is stamped.
Stamped SMGs: machined trunnions, bolts, etc., only the receiver and sometimes handguard is stamped.
Stamped MGs, same story, only the receiver, top cover, and sometimes handguard.
But with pistols, you seem to only consider those with stamped frames as well as slides, whereas IMO pistols with stamped slides and machined breech inserts, frames, etc. are analogous to the use of stamping in other firearms.
In that case you should include at least:
>HK P9
>SIG P220 and some descendants (P225, P226, etc.)
There are more stamped pistols than you think. For example, the slides of the P220-series pistols (including derivatives like the P226 and P227) were made from thick-gauge stamped steel with the breech and bushing welded in after.
At least, that's how they were made in West Germany - American nu Sigs are probably just CNC-machined forgings like everything else.
German SIG also switched to billet machined. CNC became so cheap that it wasn't cost effective to stamp and weld anymore.
Slides don't lend themselves to stamping
There were millions of them made by SIG/Sauer alone, you noguns zoomer homosexual.
P-83 is stamped and was pretty decent for its time.
Based wanad appreciator, certainly one of the most aesthetic of the 9mak pistols.
The design of the Browning tilting barrel system means that a stamped design is actually more expensive than a standard milled one.
The slide is basically a combination of bolt and extension. Like an Uzi bolt.
It doesn't need a housing, and to put one around it, to mill out the bolt, and then stamp the extension and locking lugs from another sheet of metal, is more complicated and pricey than just milling the slide from one piece.
If you think about it, the elements of a pistol that lend themselves to stampings are the grip/frame and the magazines
The grip tends to be plastic in modern guns and the magazines are either stamped or plastic
They don't lend themselves to it well. Most pistols are going to have the slide mate up to the barrel. Browning actions do it. Berettas do. Blowback pistols etc. The slide is a pressure bearing component. You can't use stamped steel for pressure bearing components. Think about how an AK works. It has solid trunnions doing all the work. The stamped receiver doesn't have to hold any of the pressure. Same with all other stamped guns. They might not do it just like an AK. but the stamped receiver is not load bearing. The AR also works this way. Its forged aluminum but the same principle applies. The bolt locks into the barrel extension. The receiver just holds the bits in place. So if you want to do a stamped pistol you need to figure out a way around this problem. For the stamped 1911 prototype, there is a block of steel welded inside the stamped slide meant to serve as the breech. This is pretty ghetto. And I'm sure after they made it the designers decided it was pretty lame.
Also: machined slide rails work reliably. Stamped slide rails have neither the precision nor the durability to perform.
Also true.
Yeah stamped frames are rare but stamped magazines are pretty common. Stamping has also been surpassed by more modern manufacturing processes. It was an improvement over hand machining but it still takes a large upfront tooling cost. Once you've invested in large state owned AK factory #7 it can put them out cheap. But a commercial maker wont want to invest that on anything but a product they know will sell. I think that's why you predominately see stamping in military arms. The makers get large guaranteed contracts so its worthwhile to invest in stamping dies and presses.
The HK Mod. 4 has a stamped frame and slide with steel inserts. Full steel/ aluminum frame handguns were just more commercially successful.
correcting myself: the slide is stamped, the frame is milled aluminum
>Guys, where are all the stamped sheet steel pistols???
The FN Five-seveN is stamped. Most chassis guns are. I believe the P320 is as well.
There isn't any need to make cheap, expedient handguns like there is for all other weaponry. Pistols are a luxury consumption item for officers to brandish or tank crews to off themselves with when they're stuck in a burning wreck.
Disposable weapons that's why. Doen correctly for quality they are just as expensive as better options. Don't correctly for cheap mass production to put arms in the hands needed for war they are fucking trash.
bro your tec-9?
the receiver of a rifle is very large and not very complex. you'd have to mill away a lot of steel to get a shell with a huge void. stamping a shell and rivet/weld it to accept the other parts is cost effective.
the slide of a pistol is rather small, so you don't have to mill away all to much. its overall shape also is already bar-like. it's cost effective to mill it. stamping is also an option, but milling has become very cheap.
the grip of a pistol is very complex, so stamping something into grip shape isn't worth the effort.
in addition, you don't WANT to mill out huge chunks of your slide because you need the mass
going to a stamped slide just means you need to fill in the middle somehow
A stamped pistol couldn't beat a Glock.