Yep!! Another Wolverine fan, not.In my youth and before my "collecting" interests came into "focus", guns came and guns went.
Once my transient interest in them waned they were just fodder for the next passing interest.
There wasn't anything wrong with most of them, aside from all of the usual quirks that most items have, such as not a good fit for my hands or poor sights (for me), etc, etc.
Once I got focused and had a path to follow that MO slowed and eventually stopped.
The only one that I was truly glad to see gone was the Olympic clone of the Whitney Wolverine.
Being that it was a gift from my wife (who was enchanted by the "art deco" or "futuristic" (or whatever you call it) style of the thing), it lived in the safe for far longer than it should have.
It also absorbed far to much time, effort and treasure trying to get it to run.
It was problematical out of the box and many communications with Olympic Arms proved fruitless.
One thing I did learn was that, for their version, there were two iterations of the magazine, the first with an angled feed ramp the second with a radiused ramp.
That change helped with the feeding issues but was not a complete fix, nor did it help any of the other issues.
After several sessions of debugging and several years worth of "safe queen" status (after having given it up as a "bad job"), i sent it off down the road.
I used the proceeds to help purchase a carry piece for the Mrs. (of her choice), so that potential problem was sidestepped.
Adios, and don't come back..........
Guns you DO NOT miss and were glad to get rid of.
Did not know where to put this, but this forum seemed the best fit...kinda.
OK, my friends, we all talk about the guns we had to let go of and lament their passing from us, but now...(drum roll please)
But now, how about the guns you had and were quite happy to get rid of.
Mine were two civilian handguns.
The Colt Trooper and the PK 380 auto made by S&W but shamefully carries a Walther banner on it.
Colt Trooper. Solidly built and had a nice thick barrel...but...
Shot way to the left with anything but 158 or heavier bullets. Also...shaved lead out the sides horrifically. Noticed this when I saw what it did to a cheap spotting scope I used. Almost sand blasted it on one side.
Next, this &*^%% of an autoloader called a PK 380. Felt really good in the hand, but did not even get through one mag without two stoppages. Then the magazine fell out of the gun. Yes...fell out! Then when it hit the ground it kinda exploded with base plate going one way, spring going another, and the ammo spilling out all over the place. Karl Walther turned over in his grave, I am sure. Pure junk.
OK, your turn, what duds did any of you have the misfortune of obtaining.
No shame, it happens to all of us at one point or another.
Dave
OK, my friends, we all talk about the guns we had to let go of and lament their passing from us, but now...(drum roll please)
But now, how about the guns you had and were quite happy to get rid of.
Mine were two civilian handguns.
The Colt Trooper and the PK 380 auto made by S&W but shamefully carries a Walther banner on it.
Colt Trooper. Solidly built and had a nice thick barrel...but...
Shot way to the left with anything but 158 or heavier bullets. Also...shaved lead out the sides horrifically. Noticed this when I saw what it did to a cheap spotting scope I used. Almost sand blasted it on one side.
Next, this &*^%% of an autoloader called a PK 380. Felt really good in the hand, but did not even get through one mag without two stoppages. Then the magazine fell out of the gun. Yes...fell out! Then when it hit the ground it kinda exploded with base plate going one way, spring going another, and the ammo spilling out all over the place. Karl Walther turned over in his grave, I am sure. Pure junk.
OK, your turn, what duds did any of you have the misfortune of obtaining.
No shame, it happens to all of us at one point or another.
Dave
161 - 170 of 170 Posts
Yep!! Another Wolverine fan, not.
The 1950’s “Populuxe” era of design in America - influenced by the atomic age, jet aircraft, and fantasies of space flight. Populuxe design could be found in everything from furniture shapes (even the little interlocking boomerang designs on tables), cars, TV’s, radios, and the architecture of restaurants. The good old days……the Whitney Wolverine…
…Being that it was a gift from my wife (who was enchanted by the "art deco" or "futuristic" (or whatever you call it) style of the thing)…
Populuxe, OK, good to know, Thank You, I can see that, the wolverine did have the style of the sci-fi of the times.
A shame that they were so mechanically cranky...........
A shame that they were so mechanically cranky...........
i'm surprised and disapointed to hear that. i'm kinda a charter fan.i gave my daughter one like yours --so far so good -- i'm a fan of any multi cartridge gun(32 mag/long/short ) thanx for the infoI recently purchased the 32 H&R Mag Charter revolver. I really like it, altho it did have to go back to the factory when it completely locked up after 50 rounds
mechanically cranky? thanx,i always admired wolverines but know nada about themPopuluxe, OK, good to know, Thank You, I can see that, the wolverine did have the style of the sci-fi of the times.
A shame that they were so mechanically cranky...........
Yes, cranky, if you hunt up an exploded diagram of them, you can work out how the action worked.
Basically, the populux outer shell was just that, a shell.
It contained a tube that the barrel and bolt slid into and functioned in.
Part of the issues that plague the design is that a tube sliding inside a tube inherently has a lot of friction points "built in", despite the reduction of the contact points to the barest minimum.
To overcome that friction and still do all the other mechanical functions required, such as cocking the hammer, etc, required relatively high powered ammo.
The few times that I got mine to run a full magazine without problems was with "Stingers", that stuff was pricey, even then.
What shooters of the original versions used for ammo, I have no idea.
Then there were also issues with dirt/debris management.
If you look at the diagram, you can see that the only place the powder residue can escape from the action is through the ejection port and through any of the small holes/slots cut into the outer tube.
It did not take all that many rounds through the pistol to turn whatever lube you used into a brown/black sludge that further retarded the action.
On top of that, it is abrasive and caused accelerated wear on many of the small parts exposed to it.
Being a blowback action, the gas pressure in the ejection port area caused that debris to spread throughout the action.
On the Olympic clone of the design the major components were made of stainless, yes, it didn't rust but stainless is inherently softer than traditional gun steel so the bolt and tube soon wore down and introduced unwanted slop into the action, thereby inducing more friction.
I do not know what type of steel was used for these parts in the original design, hopefully, someone will chime in.
At the end of the day there was just so much "built in" friction that the action just could not function with out premium ammo and, even then, it was kinda sketchy.
Anyhow, that is my forensic determination after studying the thing for a few years.
YMMV
Basically, the populux outer shell was just that, a shell.
It contained a tube that the barrel and bolt slid into and functioned in.
Part of the issues that plague the design is that a tube sliding inside a tube inherently has a lot of friction points "built in", despite the reduction of the contact points to the barest minimum.
To overcome that friction and still do all the other mechanical functions required, such as cocking the hammer, etc, required relatively high powered ammo.
The few times that I got mine to run a full magazine without problems was with "Stingers", that stuff was pricey, even then.
What shooters of the original versions used for ammo, I have no idea.
Then there were also issues with dirt/debris management.
If you look at the diagram, you can see that the only place the powder residue can escape from the action is through the ejection port and through any of the small holes/slots cut into the outer tube.
It did not take all that many rounds through the pistol to turn whatever lube you used into a brown/black sludge that further retarded the action.
On top of that, it is abrasive and caused accelerated wear on many of the small parts exposed to it.
Being a blowback action, the gas pressure in the ejection port area caused that debris to spread throughout the action.
On the Olympic clone of the design the major components were made of stainless, yes, it didn't rust but stainless is inherently softer than traditional gun steel so the bolt and tube soon wore down and introduced unwanted slop into the action, thereby inducing more friction.
I do not know what type of steel was used for these parts in the original design, hopefully, someone will chime in.
At the end of the day there was just so much "built in" friction that the action just could not function with out premium ammo and, even then, it was kinda sketchy.
Anyhow, that is my forensic determination after studying the thing for a few years.
YMMV
Yes, cranky, if you hunt up an exploded diagram of them, you can work out how the action worked.
Basically, the populux outer shell was just that, a shell.
It contained a tube that the barrel and bolt slid into and functioned in.
Part of the issues that plague the design is that a tube sliding inside a tube inherently has a lot of friction points "built in", despite the reduction of the contact points to the barest minimum.
To overcome that friction and still do all the other mechanical functions required, such as cocking the hammer, etc, required relatively high powered ammo.
The few times that I got mine to run a full magazine without problems was with "Stingers", that stuff was pricey, even then.
What shooters of the original versions used for ammo, I have no idea.
Then there were also issues with dirt/debris management.
If you look at the diagram, you can see that the only place the powder residue can escape from the action is through the ejection port and through any of the small holes/slots cut into the outer tube.
It did not take all that many rounds through the pistol to turn whatever lube you used into a brown/black sludge that further retarded the action.
On top of that, it is abrasive and caused accelerated wear on many of the small parts exposed to it.
Being a blowback action, the gas pressure in the ejection port area caused that debris to spread throughout the action.
On the Olympic clone of the design the major components were made of stainless, yes, it didn't rust but stainless is inherently softer than traditional gun steel so the bolt and tube soon wore down and introduced unwanted slop into the action, thereby inducing more friction.
I do not know what type of steel was used for these parts in the original design, hopefully, someone will chime in.
At the end of the day there was just so much "built in" friction that the action just could not function with out premium ammo and, even then, it was kinda sketchy.
Anyhow, that is my forensic determination after studying the thing for a few years.
YMMV
hoooooee, disapointingly elightening. thanx, vwmanYes, cranky, if you hunt up an exploded diagram of them, you can work out how the action worked.
Basically, the populux outer shell was just that, a shell.
It contained a tube that the barrel and bolt slid into and functioned in.
Part of the issues that plague the design is that a tube sliding inside a tube inherently has a lot of friction points "built in", despite the reduction of the contact points to the barest minimum.
To overcome that friction and still do all the other mechanical functions required, such as cocking the hammer, etc, required relatively high powered ammo.
The few times that I got mine to run a full magazine without problems was with "Stingers", that stuff was pricey, even then.
What shooters of the original versions used for ammo, I have no idea.
Then there were also issues with dirt/debris management.
If you look at the diagram, you can see that the only place the powder residue can escape from the action is through the ejection port and through any of the small holes/slots cut into the outer tube.
It did not take all that many rounds through the pistol to turn whatever lube you used into a brown/black sludge that further retarded the action.
On top of that, it is abrasive and caused accelerated wear on many of the small parts exposed to it.
Being a blowback action, the gas pressure in the ejection port area caused that debris to spread throughout the action.
On the Olympic clone of the design the major components were made of stainless, yes, it didn't rust but stainless is inherently softer than traditional gun steel so the bolt and tube soon wore down and introduced unwanted slop into the action, thereby inducing more friction.
I do not know what type of steel was used for these parts in the original design, hopefully, someone will chime in.
At the end of the day there was just so much "built in" friction that the action just could not function with out premium ammo and, even then, it was kinda sketchy.
Anyhow, that is my forensic determination after studying the thing for a few years.
YMMV
my brother,whom i admire for his exceptional knowledge on the subject says they are mmm... problematicBack again. Old heartaches keep coming back up. I had Remington 7400 that I just...could...not...get to run reliably. Even took it to an "expert" on 7400's and still no soap. It's in pieces somewhere in the basement
so many do not understand how important "comfort in the hand" is. i am a davis fan,that is the old teeny ones i regret the .25 loss but even now i have a 32, and,well, yes,target triggers they are not but mine is good.i love itI did not enjoy sent on a Polish PA-64 and a Davis derringer in 32 ACP. The PA-64 was uncomfortable to shoot and the Davis trigger was so hard to pull it almost wouldn’t shoot.
Well, that is not to say that they could not work reliably.hoooooee, disapointingly elightening. thanx, vwman
After all there are many "tube" guns that work, and work well.
A basic redesign to use modern steel, allow the bolt to ride in the tube with minimal contact points, some sort of "crud cutter" edging on those contact points and some slots cut to vent the inherrent debris from .22 ammo and you would be a long way into curing the issues.
But, then, you would be talking a thousand dollar price point as opposed to 2 or 3 hundred bucks.
And it still would not address the "Rube Goldberg" manner of assembly/disassembly.
Trust me, you do not want to disassemble that thing at the range.
At that price point there are much better (and older) designs already on the market.
As far as the Remington 7400, if it is a evolution of the 742 series than "problematic" is much to kind a word.
But, there again, it's all about the price point that the maker aims to hit the market with, much better designs and materials could have been used but the buy in price would have put the rifle beyond the average working man's means.
And, in truth, the 742 series (and probably the 7400's) were for those who shot less than a box or two of ammo a year, I.E., your average weekend hunter.
In that light they would usually last a lifetime (Well, mostly).
161 - 170 of 170 Posts
Gunboards Forums
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, makes, models, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
dodgedude
458 Replies
Clyde
304 Replies
Boris Badinov
187 Replies
Recommended Communities
