Also, I do not agree with the Norinco being a copy of Brno.
What if both copied Mauser?
Strange, very strange none of the so called specialists in military surplus
kicked in to give the opinion about the pre-war German KKW.
But we are better off without them anyway.
Anyway, I will give my opinion about this
"Norinco is a copy of Brno" problem.
It has been said (not only on this site or in this thread)
that the norincos trainers have nothing to do with the Mauser trainers
but they are a copy of CZ/Brno.
Why? Because they can interchange magazines? So what?
I beg to differ in my opinion about this.
I think that everybody copied (ok, found inspiration in)
one Mauser model or another.
Let’s see.
CZ/Brno started to make their so-called No.1 in like what, 1945 or so. Right?
And do you think it was a new concept?
Why? Because it was said by the so called internet specialists?
I will explain what I found and what I think.
I think t was copied after one of the VERY MANY models of Mauser trainers.
I will start with the beginning.
In 1934 Mauser introduces the DSM 34 (Deutshe Sportmodell).
It didn’t have a bayonet lug and allegedly it was only single shot.
Internet bullshyters and wannabe historians will tell you that
it was for the purpose of not attracting the allies attention
upon the new gun intended for training.
Bullshyte! Germany managed to build (under allies nose)
tank factories, submarine huge dry-dock type factories
and so many other things.
I owned few of these DSM 34 trainers build by Erma, Walther, Geco
and in my very young years I improved my shooting
by using enough of them to tell you for sure
that magazine models exist in DSM 34.
It was produced not only by Mauser, but also by Menz,
Erma, Simson/Gustloff, Walther, Geco, Haenel, Bruner, between many others.
They will also tell you another myth: they spread the
production over so many Mauser contractors so they
could “disguise” the production and “hide” it from the allies.
Bullshyte! The Germans didn’t give a flying fcuk about that.
Versailles DIDN’T HAVE provisions about rimfire, because they
were considered to be sporting arms.
They could build as many as they wanted.
The Germans wanted to maintain and transmit knowledge however,
so they kept so many contractors “in gear”, trained,
familiar with the firearms manufacturing production, and military worthy standards.
The Germans did all this having in mind a war was in the pipe
and they were preparing for it
All of these pics are found in a rush on the internet.
Bellow are pics of one of these DSM 34. I chose Geco, as one of my favourites.
Geco stands for Gustaf Genshow Co.
Please pay attention to the action and receiver.
In 1939 or about, Mauser came with another series of trainers, the KKW.
These all had bayo lugs and detachable magazines.
Also, everybody agrees (including the milsurp experts)
that its production ended in 1939, when the war starts.
This bellow is known on the North-Am market
as the so-called “Kriegsmarine model”,
probably because it was stolen by american troops
from a Kriegsmarine cadet school or something like that.
Again, please observe the action and receiver.
This one is an example of the controversial ES340N. (“Controversial” as in
“the self entitled milsurp people are puzzled and do not agree upon its purpose”).
Was it used as a trainer or what?
The one bellow is called “unusual” and “variety” by the same
self-named internet milsurp cognoscenti.
I know for a fact that this receiver shape
and the rear end of firing pin/striker was copied
on many other .22 “trainer” models.
Hungary, Yugoslavia, Spain, Romania are only a few from the many
who copied one or more of its features in 50’s thru 70’s.
Ok, now the end of the war comes and what do we learn?
That the frog eaters, pardon me, the French “took over” the Mauser factories
and moved “all the tooling” to the MAS factory and produced
the MAS45 variant model.
(I almost syphoned coffee tru my nose when I’ve read that).
First, I doubt that the Mauser factories were
in the french occupied teritory.
Second, even if they were,
I doubt that the Mauser factory (or any of the contractors)
still had the tooling for the trainer after more than 5 years
of long, exhausting war production when they manufactured
everything in the world except for the .22 trainer.
Its production ended at the beginning of the war, remember?
And out of curiousity, the french hoped to do what exactly with it?
To confort its troops morale and train them for the next war?
Anyway, at how much information, knowledge and technology was stolen
by the British, Americans and Russians from occupied Germany,
the tooling for the trainer doesn’t matter anymore.
The MAS45 exists, I had few shots with it, it is a nice gun.
I’ve seen it in Canada too, there are a few around.
Here it is with its specific receiver mounted rear sight
which gives a VERY large sight radius
(for whoever has the young eyes to use it).
FN kicked in with its grace and expertise and
produced some models too.
This particular one is made for Israel.
As we know, Israel had some Mausers and
perhaps they ordered a trainer.
This is produced in 1949, single shot.
Bubba put Lyman sights on it.
There were many many other models.
I very strongly doubt that Brno was an original design.
But from what I found at a glance on internet,
you can see the variety and judge for yourself.
Feel free to look on the ineternet for yourself.
Try to filter the bullshyte if you can
and not swallow everything the wannabes
and the self called experts are feeding you.
Try to apply common sense.
Brno is not original, it’s just a copy.
Norinco didn’t copy Brno, Norinco copied
the Mauser model that was probably
the easiest to copy and manufacture.
Incidentaly, Brno just happened to copy it few years before.
In the next episode I will try to tell you what I found and what
I know about Norincos.
