I’m not sure when I first heard the term ‘Mouse-Gun’ but it was a long time ago. This is the term often used to describe very small pistols. There’s some disagreement on the exact meaning; some say it’s because they are tiny. Others less charitably say it’s because they aren’t much good for shooting anything larger than a mouse…

The mouse-gun has been touted as ‘the gun you carry when you aren’t carrying a gun.’ It’s a deep concealment, last-ditch point-blank weapon. I’m going to be featuring two mouse-guns from opposite ends of the 20th Century, starting in the latter part.

For the first two thirds of the 20th C. these guns were quite popular, and after WW1 they were pretty much all semi-automatics. Huge numbers of these guns were imported to the United States, mostly from Germany, Spain and Belgium. Most were in 6.35mm/.25 ACP, but they were also commonly chambered in .22 LR or even .22 Short. They were pretty marginal as fight-stoppers, but they had the advantage of being very, very concealable. Sometimes considered ‘Ladies Guns,’ they were often enough to be found discreetly tucked in a policeman’s pocket, or the vest pocket of a businessman.

The quality of these guns ranged from the rather awful ‘Baby Ruby’ to the exquisite Walther TPH and Baby Browning. After the gun Control Act of 1968 (under the misapprehension that these gun were favored by criminals) importing these tiny weapons was prohibited. Limited production continued in the United States, and does so even to this day, but by and large these guns have fallen out of favor, with the curious exception of the miniature single-action revolvers made by North American Arms. But that’s a subject for it’s own post.

Seecamp

In 1981 German-born gunsmith Ludvig Wilhelm Seecamp, maker of a double-action conversion of the 1911, went into manufacturing with the small Seecamp LWS25.

This gun resurrected and adapted the double-action only mechanism of the CZ36 and CZ45. These guns acted like a hammerless revolver; the trigger cocked the hammer for each shot, while conventional DA autos only require a double-action pull for the first shot, after which the slide cocks the hammer. Double-action-only semi-auto pistols are rather common today, but in 1981 it was considered revolutionary. The LWS25 was also fairly unique in that, being designed for close-range defensive work, it had not even the pretense of sights.

The all-stainless LWS25 was quite petite, and was very finely fitted and finished. They were expensive compared to other guns in this niche, but were reliable and of such high quality that they developed a boutique following. Somewhere around five thousand of them were produced over four years, but in 1985 came the gun that really put Seecamp on the map- the LWS32.

The new gun was basically the old gun, but instead of seven rounds of 25ACP it carried six rounds of .32 ACP. While the .32 was nobody’s idea of a powerhouse, it was viewed as a big step up from the .25. What set the Seecamp apart from others of it’s ilk was that it was exactly the same size as the LWS25!

The main difference, other than caliber, was that unlike the straight-blowback .25, the .32 uses a retarded-blowback system. This consists of a recessed ring in the chamber. When the gun is fired the brass of the cartridge deforms into the ring around the interior of the chamber, and the extractor must ‘straighten out’ the brass as it pulls it out, which dramatically slows down the slide’s velocity and does a remarkable job of softening the felt recoil. Without this not only would the gun be markedly unpleasant to fire, it would quickly beat itself to death.

In the early 2000s the LWS380 was introduced, and again it was the same dimensions as the original .25, albeit slightly thicker. While production of the .25 had ceased in 1985, the .32 and .380 remained in production until relatively recently. Seecamp still exists, and still provides magazines and spare parts for these tiny pistols.

The LWS32

The gun we’ll be looking at is the .32 caliber version of this pistol. I had a choice of the .32 ACP or .380 versions of this pistol, and opted for the .32; I have trouble imagining that the .380 would be pleasant to fire…

This particular gun was made in 1996, and came with it’s original box and literature. Overall it’s in very good condition except for some slight scuffing along the sides of the slide, probably from pocket-carry. While waiting for the state to approve the purchase I ordered a spare magazine from Seecamp, which arrived promptly. At $35 dollars a pop, these are not inexpensive, but not out of line for such an unusual firearm.

I have rather large hands, so it is surprising to me just how comfortable it is to hold and use this tiny gun. The trigger is long like a double action revolver and around 10 lbs, but it smooth enough that you don’t really notice. There is some slight stacking just before release, but I never notice it when firing this pistol.

The fit and finish of this gun, inside and out, is excellent, and it feels like a solid, quality firearm… which it is. The gun weighs 11.2 ounces empty, and 12.7 oz. loaded with six rounds. It’s no featherweight, but honestly, as small as it is you really wouldn’t want it to weigh less when firing .32 ACP.

Packing a comparatively large cartridge in such a tiny package does require some compromises. One is the heel-magazine release; reloading requires two hands to extract the magazine. The magazine does not drop free; you have to push the lever back while hooking a nail in the cut-out in the front of the grip-frame and drag the magazine out. It works, and while it’s not ideal there simply isn’t anywhere to put a button-style release. Honestly on a last-ditch, point-blank defensive firearm I don’t think this is a huge issue.

Another compromise is the ammunition. The gun requires hollow-point ammunition. Ball is a bit longer and can jam in the magazine, a consequence of trying to fit a .32 ACP magazine in a space designed around a .25 ACP. When the gun was introduced the only commercial hollow-point that was widely available was the Winchester Silvertip, and originally they specified that as the only ammo to use in the gun. Since it was intended from the outset as a defensive arm it makes a certain amount of sense. Their website now has a list of cartridges that have tested as being acceptable.

The slide does not lock back on an empty magazine; there just isn’t room for a slide stop. This isn’t a deal killer, but it is a mark on the ‘Con’ side of the equation.

The one feature I find genuinely irritating is the magazine safety. It not only blocks the trigger, but it does not allow the slide to be withdrawn more than a 1/2″ or so, and trying to force it can damage the gun. This makes unloading a bit of a job; you need to release the magazine, pull it down approximately 1/4″, then you can rack the slide to eject the cartridge without loading another from the magazine. It feels unsafe, though it really isn’t; keep your finger well away from the trigger and all will be well. Alternately if this process concerns you you can remove the magazine and insert an unloaded magazine before racking the slide to empty the chamber.

Here’s another compromise: you’ll need to look up how to field strip this pistol… you’re not going to guess, so save yourself some time and don’t try. I’m not going to get into it here, but once you know the trick it’s not difficult, and reassembly is even easier. It is recommended to keep the gun, especially the chamber, clean, and keep the slide lubricated where it rubs against the frame to avoid the stainless surfaces galling. The Seecamp is a high-maintenance mistress, but treat her right and she will take care of you in turn.

Go On Then, Tinker- How is it to Shoot?

I gotta tell you, it’s kinda’ brilliant. Anyone used to firing a revolver double-action will have no issues with the trigger; it’s really quite nice. Recoil is surprisingly mild, and overall it’s a quite pleasant gun to fire.Out of over fifty rounds fired there was not a hint of an issue.

The gun is made to point-shoot at close range, so initially I ran the target out to three yards and, gripping the gun one-handed, dumped two magazines rapid-fire. Well… they were all on the paper.

Ever the optimist I repeated this at seven yards… with predictable results. Hey, some of the bullets hit the paper! I mean, like four, but that’s some. OK, not ready for that yet. I taped the holes, reversed the target to show the bullseye, loaded five rounds, gripped the gun with both hands, and slowed down to see what I could really do.

There’s some potential here, despite the lack of sights. It’s going to take practice though. I know, I know… this gun is made for arms-length confrontations. but it’s fun to shoot, and I believe I have mentioned that I love a challenge?

This is a gun that demands practice, and with its dietary restrictions that’s going to get expensive fast if you don’t load your own ammo.

Speaking of Ammo…

Ammo can be hard to come by these days, even in lesser used calibers like .32 ACP. Pinto’s had some ball ammo- not good for this gun- and a box of hollow-points… at $21.95 for 20 rounds. Fortunately they also had a box of 100 60gr. XTP bullets for $18.95, and I had brass and reloading dies at home…

I loaded the sixty-grain bullets over 2.6gr. of Universal with a Federal #100 primer. This is supposed to give 1000fps. from a 3.8″ barrel, and maybe it does. From the Seecamp’s 2″ barrel this yielded an average of 727 fps. and 70 ft.lbs of energy. Not impressive, but it beats harsh words.

Feeding this gun is going to be expensive if i keep using hollow-points, but let’s face it, at these kinds of velocities HPs aren’t going to expand anyway. The specification of hollowpoints is to recuse the overall length of the cartridge, so there are alternatives. I have a box of 73gr hard-cast TCL bullets, and I’m going to work up a load for them. The gun will hand-cycle empty cases from the magazine, so I’m really not worried about feeding issues.

Despite the annoying magazine safety, overall I kinda’ love this little gun. After I’m satisfied with it’s reliability it’s likely to spend a lot of pocket-time around the house and shop this summer.

Stay tuned, there’s another, very different mouse gun coming to this page very, very soon.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 18 June 2020

If you like what you read here, please consider clicking the link above and supporting me in Patreon.

I like the AR15 platform. Like many of my generation I was introduced to it by Uncle Sam, so I am intimately familiar with it’s operation and maintenance. I’ve owned a couple over the years. One I passed along because of financial need; self-employment is a fickle mistress. The other was a gun I assembled based on a .410 upper that proved to be just too problematic, and with a profound lack of foresight I sold off the lower I had assembled along with the .410 upper; A decision I have regretted several times since.

Since then I have thought of assembling another, but there was always a higher priority. The other week Linda finally got tired of me mentioning it and said, “just do it already,” so I started looking at lower receivers. You can get a well-made lower for well under $100; in fact the Aero Precision unit I was considering goes for about $60 locally. But then I came across something that intrigued me… A Tennessee Arms Hybrid 80 receiver, a polymer lower with metal inserts at stress points, with finishing jig for around the same price. Hmmm…

For those not in the know an ‘80% Receiver’ is simply not finished; generally the assembly-pin holes and space for the trigger mechanism are solid metal, making it ‘not a firearm.’ These can be transferred, sold, shipped through the mail etc. because it’s not a gun… yet. Basically anyone can get one, and with a certain minimum of tools and skill can turn it into a lower receiver (the essential part that ATF considers a gun.) Citizens of the US are allowed to make a gun for personal use, provided they comply with all federal and state laws regarding ownership of the specific type of weapon.

These have become quite popular with folks that don’t like the idea of the government knowing about their weapons, or to circumvent ill-considered or poorly written laws in some places. This has caused the media to create the term ‘Ghost Gun,’ referring to the fact that they are not tracked or registered, and there is an entirely spurious thought that criminals will be all over this idea. They aren’t; it’s far too easy to obtain weapons that are illegally imported or sold by the small minority of crooked gun dealers.

My interest was simply curiosity. How hard is it to finish one of these? I decided this would make a worthy project and went and bought one. Unfortunately I bought it from an aftermarket supplier; if I had bought it directly from Tennessee Arms it would have come with the appropriate drill bits and end-mill to finish it… and instructions. Mine didn’t. I looked it up online, and as you might guess it’s not rocket science. In the interest of seeing how hard it was with sub-optimum tools I decided to give it ago. Worst case I’d simply buy the Aero Precision lower I was intending to anyway.

Polymer lowers are often sneered at by the AR cognoscenti, but I checked and these have a good rep for reliability and durability. Since this is mainly a ‘fun gun’ that I won’t be running enormous amounts of ammo through I figure it will do, and as I said above, worst case I can buy a proper one. Anyway the polymer is much, much easier to work with than aluminum.

Don’t need to get into a serious tutorial here; there are plenty of those on Youtube. I’ll walk you though the process with photos.

I deliberately left a little extra material in the bottom of the trigger-mechanism well; it’s easier to remove material than to add it! When the trigger assembly arrives I’ll see if it works or if I need to go a hair deeper.

I did do some finishing work inside the well. Initially I used a sanding drum, but this wasn’t ideal. I wound up using a carbide bur to remove some of the roughness, and it’s looking pretty good.

This kit is bare-bones, and does not come with any of the lower receiver parts. I got a kit from Aero Precision for $27 with all of the pins. etc. needed. I was able to install the front assembly pin, the magazine release and bolt-stop, but the safety and rear assembly pin require the grip and stock to be mounted to secure them, so I’ll have to wait for those parts to arrive.

Once all the bits get we’ll talk what I’ve decided to build and why, and about assembling the gun… then we’ll see if it works!

Michael Tinker Pearce, 14 June 2020

If you like what you see here, please consider clicking the link above and supporting me on Patreon.

So Linda has procured a fine pair of mouse-guns for my birthday (don’t worry, full report on each inbound!) and we were discussing this the other week. At one point she got a thoughtful look on her face and said, “I want to see you make the smallest gun you can.”

Regular readers are probably aware that I’ve made single-shot pistols before, so this was definitely in my wheelehouse. We negotiated the terms. I insisted it be in a real caliber- no 2.7mm pinfire or any of that nonsense- and it must be at least arguably useful. ‘Arguably Useful’ in this case meaning large enough to be easily operated, and to be at least potentially lethal.

Challenge accepted.

The sensible thing to do would have been to draw up a plan, make some templates to cut out the parts, organize the materials I needed and make sure everything was five by five. Naturally I didn’t do that.

For reasons I have never been able to grasp people seem to be in the habit of buying a new Ruger 10/22 rifle and immediately replacing the perfectly good factory barrel. I don’t know why; maybe they think they can shoot better than the factory barrel, and maybe a tiny percentage of them can. I think it’s the Lego factor myself. It’s easy to change, and by changing it it’s personalized (better!) Whatever the reason it means there are a lot of stock 10/22 barrels on the aftermarket, and it’s pretty easy to pick them up cheap if you look around a little. This is a Good Thing.

This is a good thing because not only are these perfectly good barrels, they are seriously stout. I am about 99% sure you could re-chamber these for 5.56mm and it would be just fine. This means there is a lot of material to work with. I cut a short section of barrel (about 1-3/8″) and squared it off on the belt grinder, with the bore off-center towards the top. I had a vague plan to make this a swing-barrel (opening to the side) and wanted to leave room for the screw that would secure it to the frame. I used a .22 chamber reamer on one end, mounting it in a T-handle and carefully reaming by hand until the chamber would accept a .22 Short cartridge.

I need to apologize, and now is as good a time as any. Usually doing a build like this I take copious photographs and walk you through the process step by step. I didn’t this time. I was caught up in the challenge and it simply didn’t occur to me until it was too late. I started writing this as a tutorial anyway, but it’s just to complicated, long, and hard to understand without reference photos. Basically I followed the same steps as in the .22 magnum build, only without drawing up plans. You can read about that here if you like:

https://tinkertalksguns.com/2016/11/09/22-magnum-pistol-build-part-1/

https://tinkertalksguns.com/2016/11/11/22-magnum-pistol-build-part-2/

Without proper plans to work from I just built this by TLAR (That Looks About Right.) There was significant trial-and-error involved too; it was a trail, and mostly in error. But in the end, four hammers, two triggers and six springs later, it was done.

So, without further ado… the pictures!

While the gun is quite stout enough to handle .22 LR, I chose to make it a .22 Short. Tradition, I guess, since the original guns of this type fired this cartridge. Of course then it was just called .22 Rim Fire, because it was the only .22 there was.

I’m using CCI .22 CB Short Low Noise ammunition. This propels a 29gr. bullet at 710fps. from a rifle, so it pretty much duplicates the performance of the original black powder load. I’ll tell you this, though- it is very much not ‘low noise’ from a 1-3/8″ barrel!

I was actually quite surprised by this ammo’s performance. My first test-shot in my shop (where I discovered the whole ‘not quiet’ thing) was fired into a pressure treated 4×4 at a distance of about 5 feet. I didn’t expect much, but the base of the bullet was just over 1-1/2″ deep in the wood! If I’d had any thoughts that this was a toy they would have vanished right then.

Not that this is a good, or even adequate gun for self-defense. It might, under just the right (seriously unlikely) circumstances, prove useful in the role. Fortunately that’s not the point of this gun; the point was the challenge which, even Linda was quick to admit, was met.

So, I’ll iron out the wrinkles, and once I am happy that it’s all right and proper I’ll rust blue it, and maybe replace the ‘randomwood’ grips with something nice and make it a clever little wooden box to live in. But one thing is certain… I will be shooting it and trying to improve.

After all… I do like a challenge.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 13 June 2020

If you like what you see here, please consider clicking the link above and supporting me on Patreon