For those not familiar with them the Helwan is a license-built Berretta M1951 Brigadier manufactured in Egypt by Maadi, where it served as the standard side-arm of their military and police for a number of years. A number of middle-eastern militaries, including Israel, adopted the Beretta M1951 and most Italian police forces also used it at one time or another. It had a reputation for uncanny reliability in desert conditions. It is the predecessor of the Model 92, also called the Brigadier.

Known in Egypt as the Helwan, it was imported to the US as the Helwan Brigadier- presumably so that Americans would associate it with the Beretta. The quality of these imports has been variable; the gun that I had a couple decades ago was pretty crude, with a very heavy trigger pull. I described the finish as ‘looking like it had been applied with a rake.’ It worked, but was unattractive and unpleasant to shoot owing to the poor trigger. I didn’t keep it. But I knew there were good ones out there, so I always half-heartedly kept an eye out for one. A couple of years ago my wife was running a 9mm, and suggested that I should have one too so we’d be shooting the same caliber. At this point in my life I am more interested in ‘interesting’ guns than buying for pure efficiency, so I thought of a Helwan, or perhaps a CZ52 re-barreled in 9mm.

Saturday we had just picked up Linda’s anniversary present– I finally got her a diamond– and stopped by Pinto’s guns in Renton to make a payment on a revolver we had on layaway for her. They were busy, and while we waited I spotted a Helwan in the case and asked to see it. It was one of the early Interarms imports- one of the good ones. Nice, even finish, mechanically smooth with good trigger, and in nearly pristine condition. It came with the original box and a spare magazine. The price was quite reasonable, but we really couldn’t afford it…

So when we finally got helped to my surprise Linda converted her credit on the lay-away revolver and applied it to the Helwan! I protested, but she said I had plenty of guns she could shoot, and I’d already put together a lovely revolver for her. Besides, she still hadn’t gotten me an anniversary present. Gotta love that woman. We picked up some ammo and took the Helwan home.

Yesterday was Range-day, and I was meeting Buck13 (from an internet forum) at the Issaquah Sportsman’s Club for a range day, and naturally I took the Helwan. I had examined it when I got home, and it was as nice inside and out. Hollow points cycled easily from the magazines, so I had high hopes. The gun functioned flawlessly, was accurate and a pleasure to shoot. I love a good work-horse gun, and this one ticks all the boxes.Best anniversary present ever!

So, about the Helwan. As mentioned it is a steel-frame, single-action semi auto that uses an 8-round single-stack magazine. The first run of Berettas had alloy frames, but these were found to be too frail, and from the second run onwards they had steel frames. It uses the same locking-block system as the German P-38 and the later Model 92 and its variants. It also shares the P-38’s open-top slide, which may be one of the things that accounts for its legendary reliability.

The controls are unusual; the safety is a cross-bolt type that blocks the hammer. The slide can be operated with the safety on, which is a plus. Typically I’ll cock the hammer, apply the safety and then operate the slide to load the weapon. Works a treat, and is a nice safety feature.

About that safety- it seems like it would be awkward to operate. You need to push it from left to right to fire the gun, and it’s location is not ideal- or so it seems. But when I assume a firing grip it is very easy to exert a little pressure on the side of my right thumb, and the safety pops off. Very easy and intuitive; this gun could be carried ‘cocked and locked.’ This safety would be a deal-breaker for someone who is left-handed, but I’m not. I actually like it.

Then there is the magazine release. It’s a pretty standard button-type release, but it’s located on the lower rear of the left-side of the grip. This is not as convenient as the more conventional location at the back of the trigger-guard, but it works well enough. With a little training it’s easy to hold the spare magazine in the left hand, trigger the release with the left thumb, drop the magazine (which falls free) and insert another. Not quite as convenient as a 1911-style release, but better than a heel-release. It has the arguable advantage that you do not shift your firing grip at all to change magazines. It is possible to shift you grip to actuate the release one-handed, so one-handed mag changes are really no more awkward than with any other pistol.

The slide release is conventional and in the expected location. Anyone familiar with the Walther P-38 or Beretta 92 will find it quite familiar in appearance too. What else can I say? It works and it’s easy to operate.

Other notes- the sights, while not as nice as modern combat sights, are quite good for a service pistol from this era. The grips are ribbed plastic and provide a pretty secure hold.  The gun is robustly built, and has a proven track record in military service. The trigger is service grade-  mine breaks at about six pounds, but it is crisp and breaks cleanly. Even though it’s rather heavy neither I nor my wife had any issues with it; Linda described it as ‘nice,’ and I agree. Accuracy is good and the gun is reliable and pleasant to shoot. It’s about 1911-sized, a bit lighter and has a shorter grip. Being a single-stack the gun is pretty flat and would work well for concealed-carry in an IWB holster.

The cons are that it makes no accommodation for left-handed shooting or shooters, it is (by modern standards) large and heavy for a single-stack 9mm and the unconventional controls make for a different manual of arms than modern automatics. Many people choose to overcome both this and its lack of handiness for left-handed shooting by carrying it with he hammer down (there is a safety position for this,) but this will not suit every user. Another disadvantage is that not all of these guns handle hollow points as well as this one does; they were designed for ball ammunition and that is their preference. For a range-toy this is not an issue, but for self-defense use it’s a deal-killer. Hornady does offer their Critical Defense/Critical Duty ammunition that seems quite effective and has a ball-like profile, but you would really need to insure it works before trusting it.

Typically these guns run around $200-$300 retail, but finish quality can vary. I’ve seen a number of these guns, and some (like my earlier gun) are pretty crude. On the other hand I haven’t seen one that didn’t work, at least with ball ammunition. If you are on a limited budget, want a recreational 9mm or are a die-hard Beretta fan you could do a lot worse than giving the Helwan a good look.

I know a lot of people online that shoot damascus-barreled shotguns. Some of them shoot thousands of rounds a year, year after year. Yet the conventional wisdom holds that this is inherently unsafe; damascus barrels blow up! Others will reluctantly concede that if you really must shoot these old guns you should only use Black Powder, because modern propellants are stronger than black powder.  That much is true; they are more powerful… but all that really means is that you need to use less of them to produce the same pressure/velocity.

Of course not all black powder is created equal.  Load 3-1/2 drams of FFFFg black powder under a 1-1/4 ounces of shot and you could be courting disaster. The same amount of FFg and shot and it will probably be as safe as anything would be. This is because the smaller grains of FFFFg have more surface area so they ignite more quickly, resulting in higher pressures that build faster.

But smokeless powder has a different pressure curve!  Well, yeah… unless it doesn’t. The following test was performed with modern, state of the art equipment.

“The Double Gun Journal, Volume Seventeen, Issue 4, Winter 2006. “Wall Hanger Rendezvous & The Slow Powder Myth” pages 39-40 by Sherman Bell.

Sherman Bell pressure tested a 1 1/4 ounce load of 3 3/4 drams GOEX FFFg vs. Blue Dot both at 1240fps – results:

@ 1″ from breech – black = 5900psi Blue Dot = 6000psi
@ 6″ from breech – black = 4100psi Blue Dot = 4300psi
@ 12″ from breech – black = 2100psi Blue Dot = 2300psi “

In the remainder of the article he discusses down-bore pressure curves in detail; it’s worth reading. Back issues can be obtained from http://Doublegun.com

Considering that proof loads run 16,000 to 18,000 psi a difference of two hundred this low in the range is trivial. Several other powders yield similar pressure curves, others- notably powders tailored for pistols- yield higher pressures, but then these are not powders people normally load into shotgun shells.

Manufacturers could and did ‘Nitro Proof’ damascus shotgun barrels. So where did the folklore of damascus barrels being unsafe come from? Well, like any steel these barrels have elastic limits, and if you overcome those the steel will split. Apparently back at the dawn of the twentieth century some reloaders loaded shells with the same volumes of powder they were used to using when they switched to smokeless powder. As noted nitro powders are more powerful, and loading this way could easily produce pressures that could cause a barrel to fail. This was common enough that catalogues and literature of the period specifically warned against this.

Of course any barrel can fail even with safe loads if the barrel is obstructed. A squib load can leave a barrel blocked and if not noted the next shot will almost certainly cause a catastrophic failure.

Another culprit can be extending the chamber to accommodate longer shells- this can place the forcing cone in a thinner, weaker portion of the barrel. Not a good thing. Similarly guns were sometimes over-honed to remove pitting or for some other dubious advantage. If the steel is too thin it’s going to split, no matter what kind it is.

But perhaps the biggest culprit in spreading this rumor were the manufacturers themselves. ‘Fluid steel’ (homogenous steel) barrels were a great deal less expensive to produce, and manufacturers were eager to claim they were an improvement- less because they were than because if they were ‘better’ they could charge the same price that they did for more expensive damascus barrels and thereby increase their profits. There are numerous ads from these manufacturers- who just a decade before had sworn by damascus barrels- that suddenly claimed that they were unsafe. Ah, marketing; thou art a fickle beast.

The last argument I have heard, usually from people that really should know better, is that smokeless powders are unsafe because they are a ‘High Explosive.’ A high explosive has a burn-rate that exceeds the speed of sound. Touch it off and it goes BOOM even if in an open, unconfined area. Smokeless powders have combustion inhibitors to prevent them from doing this. They are most definitely not high explosives.

This is not to say that all guns are safe with all loads, and any 100 year old gun should be carefully evaluated before firing it. It is also prudent to restrict these old guns to low-pressure loads, though less because of concerns about splitting the barrels than to avoid accelerating wear on a gun that has already had a full working life- or two, or three. Any antique firearm should be carefully inspected, ideally by a competent gunsmith, before use.

Honestly while I could tell you how to test an antique I dare not. In this litigious age if someone was injured through mis-applying those instructions I could easily be sued. I can tell you a few things to check to see if it is worth having it examined by a competent gunsmith. Examine the bores inside and out. If it is severely pitted, if there are any visible rings, bulges or dents you have a problem. If the barrels are loose on the frame when locked you have a problem. If you separate the barrels and ‘ring’ them you should not hear any vibration or buzzing; this would indicate that the rib was separating from the barrels. Not only is this commonly caused by bulging a barrel, it can allow moisture to enter and corrode the barrels unseen. Examine the rib and make sure there are no gaps in the solder for the same reason. If the gun appears sound by this inspection it could be worth actually paying someone to examine it further.

One thing to check is the chamber length- in some gauges standard shells were shorter than today’s ammunition, and using modern-length shells can cause an unsafe pressure condition in these old guns. A gunsmith can determine this for you. This doesn’t mean that you cannot use the gun; if there is enough metal ahead of the chamber a gunsmith can lengthen the chamber for you. Another option is to load your own ammunition to the proper length.

Damascus, Fluid Steel or whatever, respect the gun, it’s limitations, your own safety and that of those around you. If you have any doubts, well, it’s far less troublesome to consign a gun to ornamental status than it is to live without a hand or an eye.

Addendum: RST specializes in low-pressure shells, including 2, 2-1/2 and 2-3/4 inch shells specifically for use in old guns. http://www.rstshells.com/store/default.aspx