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.
Semiauto Rifles
Roth Haenel Model 1899 – The First Semiauto Sporting Rifle?
This rifle sold for $10,925 at Rock Island on December 2, 2018. While Karel Krnka and Georg Roth were in the process of developing the M1907 pistol, they diverted slightly to apply their patents to […]
Uncategorized
Schwarzlose 1907 and 07/12
The Schwarzlose machine gun was developed by Andreas Schwarzlose starting in 1902, as an attempt to produce a machine gun simpler and less expensive than the guns then on the market. Schwarzlose achieved this end […]
Gunsmithing
Q&A #5: Rollin White and Other (Better) Designers
Questions in part I of today’s Q&A: 1:04 – What was Rollin White’s revolver like? 7:09 – Why did pan magazines disappear? 10:14 – Why no pointed pistol bullets? 13:24 – Funky rounds like Trounds […]
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.