Oberndorf guns – the C96 Mauser in 7.63x25 and the H&K USP in 40 S&W

hayday

Regular
Rating - 100%
116   0   1
Location
Eastern Ontario
Oberndorf guns – the C96 Mauser in 7.63x25 and the H&K USP in 40 S&W

They have been designing an producing innovative, well-made guns in Oberndorf, Germany for over 200 years (since Friedrich I of Württemberg installed the first armaments factory, in a disused Augustine monastery, in 1811). That would actually be Oberndorf on the Neckar (river) - to distinguish this city from the two or three other Oberndorfs, in Germany. The first gun everyone thinks about, made here is the venerable C96 Broomhandle Mauser - which prominently had/ has “Obdendoff ab (‘on the’) Neckar” stamped on pretty well every one of the nearly 1 million C96’s, Bolos, 1920s (reworks) as well as the Model 1930 and M1932 M712, etc. produced – from 1896 to 1932.

Let’s compare this gun to a worthy, partial successor - the H&K USP – specifically our sample unit, recently made in 40 S&SW. CLICK ON THE PICTURE BELOW TO ENLARGE

,

To be clear, H&K (Heckler & Koch GmbH) isn’t a direct corporate descendant of Waffefabrik Mauser. Instead, in the hiatus after WW2, a three of the engineer/ employees of the former, massive Waffefabrik Mauser operation, in Oberndorf a.N. got together to form H&K Those guys were Edmund Heckler, Theodor Koch, and Alex Seidel. They saved what they could from the Mauser factory - which was been confiscated and shipped in pieces around the World by the allies after WW2. What these three salvaged was used to start a machine tool plant in the vacant factory.

The same “think-outside-the-box” thinking which found its way into the C96 (the World’s first commercially successful semi auto pistol), found its way into H&K’s DNA - and they came-up with the G3/ G11 the MP5 and variants and some wildly different semi auto pistol designs - like the P9, the VP70 (the Wold’s first polymer framed pistol) the P7 and P13, etc., etc. The H&K USP in our comparison comes way closer to a conventionally designed pistol than those recent predecessors.

There is more than a 100 years that separate the H&K USP we are testing and the pre WW1 C96 pistol reviewed here but, IMO, both are epic guns.

The C96 was designed in by the Feederle brothers (Fidel, Friedrich, and Josef), in a fairly brief period in 1895; supposedly with little knowledge or consent from their employer, Paul Mauser. The C96 has been featured in Westerns (Joey Kidd), went into battle in the Boer war, was issued as an official alternate pistol by the Germans in WW1, and also was taking into battle by many British officers, in WW1 - who procured theirs privately. My Grandfather briefly carried a captured one in battle in “the Great war” - until he met a similar fate to its German, previous owner.

Winston Churchill was fond of the Mauser C96 - and used one at the 1898 Battle of Omdurman and during the Second Boer War. Lawrence of Arabia also carried a Mauser C96 for a period during his time in the Middle East. Churchill further supposedly carried a concealed(!) C96 for personal protection, during WW2. The C96 is often compared to the P08 Luger, but it actually has more in common with the artillery Luger; given its long sighting radius, its range graduated rear sight and its frequent use with a nice detachable holster/ stock which, when attached to the grip of the gun, turns the unit into a pretty respectable little short-to-medium range carbine.

The Luger packs 8 rounds in a hard-to-load, detachable box magazine and the C96 is fed from the top - by stripper clips. In the case of a C96, the gun racks closed smartly after you strip 10 rounds into the fixed box magazine – then locks open again when empty - to be quickly replenished by another stripper clip. You could carry many loaded C96 stripper clips into battle. Only the gun’s lousy ergonomics held it back from being and epic combat pistol.

Here’s the thing there. It is obvious that extreme engineering efforts went into designing and perfecting the gun’s lock works – but, by contrast, the grip design of this gun seems to have been a random afterthought.

Sorry but the grip is just plain goofy. I have always imagined that the Feederle brothers were engineering perfectionists – who must have winced when Paul Mauser assigned the task of designing the gun’s “Broomhandle” grip to his re-tard nephew. While we are on the subject, the design of the holster shoulder stock is also mostly brilliant - but the same re-tard nephew also presumable designed how it connects to the grip – with the result that there is no place for your thumb to go where it won’t be clobbered by the huge hammer.

You can make your own ergonomic grips for the gun, like those of an aftermarket AR-15 grip etc. and suddenly this gun is just right in your hand! You can also undercut the wood and metal on an readily-obtained and cheap aftermarket repro holster stock, to provide a recess for your thumb and bingo!, you have just perfected the ergonomics of the C96. You now have a super little carbine (with the stock attached) which - in the case of our test C96 test gun, allows you to hit a 6 inch plate off-hand at 50 yards, over and over again. TO ENLARGE CLICK ON THE PICTURE BELOW!

,

That kind of accuracy is not common in 100+ year old Broomhandles, but this gun has that capability because it has been professionally relined. It also delivers offhand groups, at 25 years, on a par with the 40 S&W USP. However, even with its refreshed barrel, the C96 is harder to shoot well because of its military trigger. The H&K’s trigger is great.

The H&K fits your hand perfectly right out-of-the box. The controls are right where they should be and the ambidextrous mag release - which works with a slight down stroke, not the pushing in of the mag release button - is brilliant. Mags down free cleanly, out-of-the-box. If you are an ISPC or action shooter, you will appreciate that you can start with the holstered USP in either a SA-type locked-and-cocked position or a hammer down, DA configuration.

The H&K sights are ISPC perfect, while the C96 ones give you too small a blade and notch for fast shooting; but, of course, the C96 tangent sights make up for this by being really precise on well-aimed shots and with the shoulder stock attached.

The 7.63x25 cartridge spoils you if you like long range shooting. It rips out an 86 bullet at about 1,410 FPS with the original factory loading and its bullet drop is just about half that of 9mm or 40 S&W. The World would have to wait nearly half a century for anything to match the C96s in the velocity department – that is, until the .357 Magnum came out, in 1935. As a matter of fact, there was a rare C96, chambered in its own proprietary cartridge 9x25mm (not the latter Dillion version) A.K.A 9mm Mauser that came close to matching 357 magnum ballistics overall. This was called 9mm Mauser Export - since it was favoured by African hunters, in the early days of the 20th century.

These two Oberndorf guns rock.
 
Nice. People who under-appreciate HK don't understand the deep history of it's origins and the vast technological/innovative know-how present in this little part of Germany.
 
Very cool write up, thanks for the history lesson! I had the opportunity to shoot the HK a couple of weeks ago, first time shooting .40 for me, beautiful handgun , I really enjoyed it.
 
Very cool write up, thanks for the history lesson! I had the opportunity to shoot the HK a couple of weeks ago, first time shooting .40 for me, beautiful handgun , I really enjoyed it.

The H&K USP is a great gun. Try doing the mag drop with the RHS mag release using your trigger finger. Much faster and more comfortable than using the LHS mag release with your thumb. Sadly the C96 wasn't graced with such great ergonomics.

Too bad that Peter Paul Mauser let the Feederle brothers develop an engineering work-of-art, then let his re-tard nephew "design" the really goofy "broomhandle" grip that earned the gun it's nick name.

The Germans really didn't seem to care about ergonomics until maybe the 70's. Look at how awkwardly-designed their products were before that ("electronics", guns, cars, cameras, etc.)

600-nsu-300.jpg


400px-Borchardtc93.jpg


7b2a5a68c765926e8d95b4d4bdbfe94b.jpg


53cd4587f80930b5e3bca79a5a1c17ff.jpg
 
Last edited:
The Germans really didn't seem to care about ergonomics until maybe the 70's. Look at how awkwardly-designed their products were before that ("electronics", guns, cars, cameras, etc.)

That is a bit of a generalization. The P08 Luger for example has excellent ergonomics...a natural pointer.
 
Its very easy to sit here over 100 years later and say the grips were poorly designed, and the ergonomics sucked but in reality the C96 was one of the most successful pistols ever designed (certainly the most successful pre-1900 one). This was the beginning of a era, no one knew what worked and what didn't. Its like complaining that earlier cars sucked because they didn't have power steering and fuel injection, when it is now standard. In 1896 (and for a few years afterwards) the only option you really had for a reliable usable semi-automatic pistol was the C96, which says a lot about the gun.
 
That is a bit of a generalization. The P08 Luger for example has excellent ergonomics...a natural pointer.

I am a fan of the C96 and its variants but stand by my comment that it is a mechanical work of art, which suffers from a deficient appreciation for ergonomics. Its grip is just about round in cross section, giving no significant flat surfaces on the left and right to limit the tendency for the pistol to try to twist left or right in your hand on firing. The grip gets skinnier near the top - whereas it is more natural for a pistol grip to widen near the top. The grip has no spur to prevent hammer bit and one’s hand naturally moves-up on each shot - due to the skinnier grip profile at the top of the grip, versus the base.

When you add the shoulder stock there is no where for your shooting hand thumb to go. If you cross it over the extension of the stock (as you do when you hold any conventional rifle), the hammer comes back with enough force to break your thumb.

None of this is necessary. It would have been just as easy to profile the pistol grip on the C96 as Luger – or even give the C96 a better grip than the Luger (since the C96 grip could have been any shape – unconstrained by the need to include an internal space for a box magazine). Likewise, the shoulder stock could have been profiled to have a space for shooting thumb to go. While no extra cost or effort would have been required to get the ergonomics right nobody bothered because no one in Germany cared about ergonomics in 1896 or for some 8 decades to follow.

One guy has said, but what about the Luger – it is a naturally pointer. Yes, BUT the Luger is a rework of the C93 Borchardt pistol. The Borchardt the was designed by a German and was an ergonomic nightmare.

21.jpg


Hugo Borchardt - a German - said he didn’t care and actually refused to rework the design to make it more practical for the shooter to use it. From Wikipedia:

The pistol was tested by the U.S. Navy as early as 1894 and later by the U.S. Army. Although it was accurate and its rate of fire was rapid, the Borchardt pistol was expensive to produce and unwieldy to handle due to its almost vertical grip and distribution of weight. Furthermore, its recoil was unexpectedly powerful. These criticisms were noted in the Swiss Army field tests. However, Borchardt refused to make any changes to his original design. DWM then appointed Georg Luger to make the requested improvements to the pistol. Luger took the Borchardt design, using the shorter 7.65×21mm Parabellum cartridge, which allowed him to incorporate a shorter stroke of the toggle mechanism and a narrower, angular grip. Luger's design eventually became the Luger Parabellum pistol."

Do you get this?! – due to the weird mindset of people in Germany who designed stuff up until say the 1970’s no one gave a da*n about ergonomics. It took an Austrian/ Italian (Georg Luger) to clean-up the Borchardt design. He actually changed so little from the original Borchardt C93 design that very little of what he contributed was actually patent-able.

The World would be a better place if a guy like Georg Luger had “gone the extra distance” to clean up the C96 design – ergonomically – while retaining the Feederle Bros. mechanical design; which in fact is better than the Luger’s mechanical design.

How’s that. The Luger goes bang, bang, bang eight times then the bolt/ toggle crashes into the back of the magazine follower – creating a condition that - for all practical purposes - is equivalent to a jam. It then takes real work to get the mag out of the gun - and the bolt racks forward uselessly on an empty chamber, when you do. You then have to drop the mag, recover it, insert another and cycle the toggle to get the gun back in action.

The C96 goes bang, bang … 10 times and locks open. You then insert a stripper, strip the 10 rounds into the box mag in one quick motion, withdraw the stripped clip and the bolt runs forward picking-up a round – and you are back in the fight, in a split second.

A guy in the WW1 Army with a Luger might have one spare mag. A guy with a C96 could easily have 10 loaded c96 stripper clips with him at-the-ready. Of these two people, I’d rather be the latter.

The Americans understood the real Word importance of ergonomics from the get-to. The 1911 was ergonomically good right out the starting blocks. Yet, the US army suggested some ergonomic improvements and unlike Hugo Borchardt, John Browning said “sure” and the 1911A1 was created.
 
Last edited:
The Americans had just as much a clue about ergonomics as everyone else in that time frame (i.e 1896, when they thought the Krag was state of the art, and those crappy rear sights on them were combat capable). Your sitting here comparing designs with over a decade between them in a fast developing environment and saying this is obviously superior than that one. We don't sit around comparing Windows 98 to Windows 7 and saying Windows 7 is obviously better handling. Again the C96 came first, everything afterwards had the opportunity to learn from it.

Your arguments are all over the place, and honestly very poorly thought out. Saying the C96 is better because the Luger had only two mags, then saying the M1911 is the greatest, ignores the fact the M1911 had only two mags as well. Your also forgetting the C96 loading system is exceptionally finicky, where for every time it works flawlessly, it fails to do so about 5 times. The argument the grip gets skinnier at the top, maybe it has a bit to do with that tended to be how Revolver grips in that time period were often set up with a wider base and narrower top. Again cutting edge stuff, of course they wouldn't figure it out off the bat (very few cutting edge technologies get it 100% correct off the bat).
 
The Americans had just as much a clue about ergonomics as everyone else in that time frame (i.e 1896, when they thought the Krag was state of the art, and those crappy rear sights on them were combat capable). Your sitting here comparing designs with over a decade between them in a fast developing environment and saying this is obviously superior than that one. We don't sit around comparing Windows 98 to Windows 7 and saying Windows 7 is obviously better handling. Again the C96 came first, everything afterwards had the opportunity to learn from it.

Your arguments are all over the place, and honestly very poorly thought out. Saying the C96 is better because the Luger had only two mags, then saying the M1911 is the greatest, ignores the fact the M1911 had only two mags as well. Your also forgetting the C96 loading system is exceptionally finicky, where for every time it works flawlessly, it fails to do so about 5 times. The argument the grip gets skinnier at the top, maybe it has a bit to do with that tended to be how Revolver grips in that time period were often set up with a wider base and narrower top. Again cutting edge stuff, of course they wouldn't figure it out off the bat (very few cutting edge technologies get it 100% correct off the bat).

It doesn't sound like you have had much hands-on experience. I can rack a stripper of 10 rounds into my C96 box in probably less than 2 seconds - and you yank out the stripper and the bolt runs forward picking up a round - and you are back in action - 100% of the time. If you actually believe this nonsense about "...for every time it works flawlessly, it fails to do so about 5 times" maybe you are doing something wrong or using crappy, El cheapo Chinese repro stripper clips. I use the real German ones.

Back on the matter of the grip. The grip strap is goofy but so, for that matter, is the one on many S&W revolvers. The difference is people have made replacement grips that sort-out the small, goofy grip strap on a S&W L frames (586) etc.

Nobody bothered to make ergonomic replacement grips for the C96 with two exceptions. Franzite grips were manufactured by Sports, Inc. out of Chicago, IL from the 1930's until the 1960's (LINK). They made a nice ergonomic replacement grips for the C96. They were sort of translucent tan colour and are often described as made from Bakelite but were actually manufactured using a plastic similar to Tenite. They really-sorted out the handling of the C96 but broke easily (I know).

Triple K is made the World better place by being the second vendor to make a really ergonomic grip for the C96.

However good luck ever finding it on their site.

triple K grips.JPG


These will make your C96 handle well but you won't be able to use your shoulder stock.

I made ergonomic grips for my M1930 that are perfect, and I modified a repro shoulder stock so that it works with these grips and doesn't break your thumb. Too bad Peter Paul Mauser's dumb nephew could figure this stuff out - and/ or too bad no one cared enough to try in the Germany of the early 20th century
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom