![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The 1908 Pieper Bayard Pocket Pistol by Ed Buffaloe
I bought the 1908 Pieper Bayard because it has a unique and interesting action. Once I took it apart, I was impressed by the quality of manufacture and the very precise tolerances throughout. I love the way it dissassembles by sliding back the front sight, beneath which there is a slot through which the guide rod and mainspring can be removed. The gun is a marvel of the machinist’s art. Early versions are slightly different internally, and have only a single grip screw, but disassembly is the same.
Nicolas was working on his own pistol design in this same era, but the Pieper Bayard pistol was based on a design by the Belgian designer Bernard Clarus, which he had patented in England in 1907. The .32 version of the Pieper Bayard first appeared in 1908, followed by the .380 version in 1911, and the .25 in 1912. They are all exactly the same size and utilize identical parts, with the exception of the barrel, magazine, and breech face. The .32 caliber version is the most common. I have come across only three in .380 caliber, and only a few more of the .25s. Many guns in the era between 1900 and 1910 followed the general pattern of the 1900 FN Browning, with the recoil spring mounted in a tube above the barrel, including the 1908 Pieper Bayard, the Clement, the Frommer Stop, the 1907/1911 Melior, the 1907/1908 Pieper, the Owa, the 1908 Steyr, and the .35 caliber Smith & Wesson auto of 1913. While I believe that the Bayard was certainly influenced by the 1900 FN Browning (the first commercially successful auto pistol), a practical reason for placing the spring above the barrel was that the very small size of the gun precluded putting it either beneath or around the barrel, as the spring would have been too short to effectively absorb the recoil of the gun. One of the disadvantages of placing the barrel in the lower position is that the pivot point for the hammer must necessarily also be low, forcing the tang lower as well and making the gun difficult to grip firmly. The NRA Book of Small Arms, by W.H.B. Smith, says: “This Bayard is one of the smallest pistols ever built for its
cartridge and suffers from heavy recoil. It is not a particularly sturdy weapon.” He says pretty much the opposite about the .25 version, stating that the gun is an “excellent Belgian variation of the Browning,” The Bayard is a blowback design, with no mechanism for locking the breech. The breech block hangs down below the slide and is machined from the same piece of metal. The barrel is integral with the receiver, directly above the trigger guard, and the tube that houses the recoil spring is above the barrel. In the rear of the same tube is a unique recoil buffer consisting of a spring and a buffer rod. When the recoil spring reaches its maximum compression, its guide rod engages the buffer rod and compresses the buffer spring. Bayard’s literature claimed that the buffer ...”cushions the momentum of the opening slide to such an extent that recoil is hardly felt.” The trigger is of the sliding type and connects to the sear through a single linkage on the left side of the gun. The Bayard does not incorporate a magazine disconnect safety.
Despite any claims to the contrary, I can vouch for the fact that the .32 Bayard has tremendous recoil. Being a relatively light blowback operated pistol with minimal grips, this isn’t unexpected. I can only imagine how much recoil the .380 version must have. In comparing the .32 Bayard with the P-32 Kel-Tec, the Kel-Tec is slightly larger in all dimensions, though they look almost identical when you put them side-by-side. Note that the Kel-Tec P-32 is almost a third the weight of the Bayard, but its perceived recoil is considerably less, due in part to its locked breech design. Part of the problem with the Bayard is its ergonomics (or lack thereof). I can only get one and a half fingers on the grip, whereas the Kel-Tec accommodates two (though just barely). The angle of the tang down to the grip strap on the Bayard interferes with instinctive pointing. The Kel-Tec tang doesn’t look all that different, but the gun feels much better in the hand.
Despite its ergonomic shortcomings, my Bayard has functioned flawlessly from the first day I bought it. It has never failed to feed or eject. It is a beautiful piece of machinery and an engineering marvel. It is a single-action-only pistol and, perhaps due to the design of the trigger bar, has an unusually heavy trigger pull. The first time I tried it, I thought I must have left the safety on.
Field Stripping
* Hogg and Weeks describe the Bayard as having a suspended hammer with rollers on the side, which is totally incorrect. The gun they describe is Bernard Clarus’ other pistol which was manufactured under the name Clement. Copyright 2007 & 2009 by Ed Buffaloe. All rights reserved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Custom Search
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||