Pocket Pistol

Yes, .25s and .32s did indeed remain popular. Whether they were worth the money is another question. The .25 was a popular caliber for women, and for situations where ultra-smallness was required I suppose it was better than nothing. My character has one (a Beretta), partly for that reason and also because women often carried them and so her having one in her handbag might not cause comment. As for .32's, she has a Pocket Positive with a 2 1/2" bbl. in .32 S&W Long. That was the standard caliber for female officers on the NYPD in those days. (The boys who ran the force didn't think the ladies could handle anything bigger.) The Pocket Positive in that caliber wasn't bad if you had to have a .32; it was quite accurate, anyway. Still, she prefers at least a .38 S&W or .380 weapon for close defense. She's got the Colt Pocket Hammerless in .380. I don't know for certain how common foreign automatics like the PP and PPK were in this country at that time. They certainly weren't as common as they are now.

 

Lots of them came back after the war in GI duffle bags, and the various Berettas and Walthers were marketed and sold here before the war. Colt dominated the market for small autos so your character certainly won't raise an eyebrow for carrying one of those.

 

The problem with shooting a collectable is that if you break it, you'll have a hard time finding parts. The biggest problem is springs. Springs wear out and make the gun unreliable. Is there a source for recoil or mag springs?

 

Springs will be the first thing to look for. I wouldn't carry any older gun until I had replaced the mag and recoil springs. You're just asking for a stoppage. I suspect .32 PPK springs might serve, but you'd have to research that.

https://www.gunsprings.com/

My, my - here is your source for springs: https://www.gunsprings.com/MAUSER/1910%20&%201934/cID1/mID40/dID170

 

Swap the springs even if they look new, unless it's just going to be a range toy. I'd swap even if it's a toy. Springs are cheap and a weak recoil spring (in particular) increases the battering of the slide to frame when fired. So, even if it works you're putting unnecessary stress on a collectable gun.

 

I have an old Guns & Ammo article on the Mauser 1914. They --or rather Robert T. Shimek, the writer and tester--did not care for it at all. Shimek thought the ergonomics of the grip were poor--angle wrong, very small hands mandatory. The shooter's hand was too liable to stray into the path of the recoiling slide, the magazine release was a problem, and the sights gave a poor picture. The trigger break was also less than ideal. Shimek did not get as good accuracy with the 1914 as he usually did with .32 pocket pistols, though he found the pistol reliable. Of other WWII era pocket pistols judged in the same series, G&A gave much more positive verdicts on the PPK, the Mauser HSC, and the Astra 600.

 

Seecamp pocket pistol... .32 cal. Yes it was a gun, but how effective could it have been? Read where the .38 was the minimum effective life safety round.
Would a .22 have been a better round
M. Moss- War is boring
https://warisboring.com/the-seecamp-pocket-pistol-is-really-small-4dd1046856c0?source=collection_home---2------3----------

 

Just picked up a Springfield Armory XDS 4" .45 ACP, not really a pocket rocket, but it's smaller than it's big brother

 

That painful slap in your palm is the blow-back operation I warned about on page one. Been there, done that, and will never go back. I will always opt for a locked/delayed breech pistol, in any size. Down here in the sunny environs of Arizona I carry my old Colt Mustang nearly all the time. Anything else is too large for tee shirt and jeans.

.