Nomad(ic) Journey

[farscott]

Like many of us, I like guns that were designed when skilled labor was not expensive, and guns were made from wood and steel. Guns from my childhood and formative years created lifelong likes and dislikes. While I understand the appeal of the Glock as a tool, that pistol does not resonate the way guns fabricated from hand-polished steel and fit with good wood grip panels and stocks do. Picking up an early 20^th century Colt Police Positive is something entirely different from picking up a modern Colt Cobra. The essential function is identical, and the modern revolver is stronger and has better sights; however, one is drawn to the older gun’s attention to detail and feel in the hand. The devil is truly in the details, such as the glare reducing metal work on the top strap around the rear sight.

Like most of us, many of these guns were not in my financial grasp and became objects of want seen at local gun stores, in factory catalogs, and in the annual Gun Digest publication. I also, as everyone reading this probably knows all too well, love rimfire handguns, and I really like obscure rimfire pistols. I also am in a financial position to afford just about anything I desire with a corresponding fear of losing it all. That means I am prone to picking up guns I do not need as projects. The idea is to save a piece of history for the next generations to enjoy while allowing me to enjoy them during my lifetime.

While I have a few high-grade rimfire and centerfire target pistols and am considering adding a Hammerli 215, my competitive shooting days are likely behind me due to my eyes. As such, my focus has turned to more plinking and reactive target shooting as well as a bit of pistol small-game hunting. I have a pretty good collection of shooter-grade classic rimfires from Colt, S&W, Ruger, and others that get regular usage. The original Ruger Standard RST-6 is a longtime favorite.

Now the guns that came out in the 1960s during the first phase of bean-counter driven engineering in response to the Ruger Standard and Mark I have caught my eye, specifically the Belgian-made Browning Nomad. The Nomad is old enough to be long out of production, to use manufacturing methods now too pricey for western production, exhibit levels of metal polish that are much too costly today, is mostly unknown to most shooters today, and is just generally cool. The lines of the pistol were a product of the times with the huge front sight blade that brings the tail fins of the vehicles of the time to mind. Most of the design cues survive today in the form of the Buck Mark line of pistols.

The Nomad was the no frills version of the Challenger and Medalist. It was a direct competitor to the Ruger Mark I. The Medalist was the full-blown target pistol while the Challenger was an upscale plinking and entry-level target pistol. All of the pistols were updates of the classic Colt Woodsman with the biggest changes being an elevation and windage adjustable rear sight that did not reciprocate with the slide (a real improvement) and a barrel that could be removed by loosening a single screw (both an improvement and a cost reduction). The barrels can be swapped from frame to frame without fitting and any barrel will fit on any Nomad, Challenger, or Medalist. That has resulted in some Franken!Browning pistols, typically involving high-end Medalist barrels being found on Challenger and Nomad frames. The underside of the barrels and the front strap of the frames were both marked with the serial number for units sold in Europe under the FN banner while pistols meant to be sold in the USA for the Browning brand typically have the serial number only on the front strap.

Another improvement was the recoil spring guide installation. Struggling with a Woodsman slide with a recoil spring out of place is worse than putting a Ruger Standard back together. Much worse. The updated design had a small hole in a frame post that secured the recoil spring guide rod. The updated pistols were designed by JMB's grandson, Bruce Browning. Being marketed by the Browning Arms Company, the pistols were made at the FN facility in Liege, Belgium, and attention was paid to metal polish and bluing, resulting in very attractive pistols.

The original version of the Nomad was released in 1961 with an aluminum frame while the more expensive and better optioned Challenger and Medalist pistols came with steel frames. The Nomad lacked the last round hold-open, the gold-plated adjustable for overtravel and pull weight trigger, a cool dry fire setup (only on the Medalist), and the wood grips of the more expensive pistols in the family. In 1966, Browning changed the Nomad frame to steel. The real reason for the change is unknown. It is possible that the aluminum frames were battered. It is also possible that since the Nomad was not a big seller, it made better sense to offer one frame material. In any event, I like the simpler field guns and like shooter-grade guns because I like to, well, shoot them. It is also easier for me to justify spending $400 on a project gun than it is $1400.

I have a 1962 alloy-framed Nomad that is way too nice to shoot as much as I like to do and found a 1969 European model (known as "Standard”) with the steel frame and a barrel-band to add weight at the muzzle wrapped around or part of the front sight of the 150mm barrel. The barrel weight made the gun reminiscent of a Ruger Standard. So, the Browning Standard could look like a Ruger Standard. That appealed to me as I love the Ruger Standard. Both models lack a last round hold open, so I am used to counting rounds and chamber checking. The Ruger Standard is safe to dry fire; the FN Standard is not. Only the Medalist is safe to dry fire and only if the dry fire feature is engaged via the safety lever.

During research into the purchase, a pistol with a front sight weight like the one on this pistol could not be found. I assumed the weight was aftermarket, but one of the experts on RFC stated it was a rare factory option. The expert stated the weight is secured around the barrel and front sight based and secured by pins. The other guess is the weight took the place of the front sight and the front sight is integral to the base of the weight. The former makes sense for an aftermarket option while the latter makes sense if the weight was custom.

The pistol was noticeably missing the magazine. Since the magazines themselves sell for well over $100 each, the pistol was nicely discounted. It also was finish-challenged, so I had no qualms about ruining it further. The missing magazine foreshadowed the adventure to come. Project guns often have surprises; this one sure did.

The day I transferred it, I did a quick clean and lube, grabbed two of my magazine, loaded a few rounds of CCI Standard Velocity in one and two in the other (looking for issues), and tried to insert the magazine with two rounds into the pistol. The magazine would not enter more than a tiny bit. That puzzled me, so I tried the other magazine with the same result. The magazine would barely start into the well and then stop. I removed the rounds and tried again. No dice. I pulled my ’62 Nomad from the safe and both magazines slid into the well and locked with no issues. So now I knew the issue was with the ’69 sample.

At first inspection, nothing stood out as the culprit. Then I noted that the bottom of the frame’s left side was not flush with the grip (a picture showing the issue is attached). Some checks later, and it was obvious the frame was bent. It was bent just enough to not allow the magazine to enter. The question was, “How did someone bend a steel frame?” as the answer might suggest a course of action.

I could have returned the pistol to the seller for a full refund, and I did discuss the issue with the seller. I decided to keep it as I believed it was repairable, and no one is making any more of this model. I would hate to see the frame scrapped and pistol parted out if it could be salvaged. I had purchased it knowing there issues were likely, and I was not going to give up on it after the first setback.

The pistol was shipped with what Browning/FN called a “Novadur” grip, a fancy tradename for plastic. It could be Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) as it reminds me of that material. The grip itself is one-piece, and it does not go on and come off the pistol in an intuitive manner. Once the grip screw is removed, the grip is pivoted so the bottom moves away from the frame toward the rear and up toward the rear of the slide. Then the grip is pulled both down and back at the same time. There is only one location at one angle where the grip can be removed from and put onto the frame, and it takes some wiggling and looking to find. The grip was not meant to be removed as part of field stripping and is easily broken. A replacement grip is hard to find, with most vendors lacking stock. So care is warranted. The good news is the plastic grip is less than one-tenth the cost of the equally delicate wood grips used on the Challenger and Medalist.

The grip design suggested a cause of the bent grip frame. The grip was not damaged and showed no evidence of prying. But the frame showed signs of being clamped into a vice. A vise would explain how the damage happened, but the reason for it being in a vice is a mystery. Perhaps a previous owner thought it would be easier to get the grip on and off the frame. Perhaps there was an attempt to increase accuracy by tightening the slide/frame fit. I will never know, but the evidence suggested a way to fix it.

Once the grip was off the frame, the extent of the bent frame was easy to measure. The left side of the frame was bent inward almost the entire length of the magazine well. The metal was bent about 0.020” at the left toe at the front of the frame. A shooting buddy of mine is a smith, and we decided to meet at his bench one morning. After field stripping it and puzzling over it, we decided the least destructive method would be using a large brass punch and a small hammer to carefully move the bent metal back to where it should be.

The frame was carefully clamped into a vise as we were cognizant of making the issue worse while trying to repair it. A Triple K magazine I had was used to measure the results. After about an hour of work from both the magazine end and slide end of the well, the Triple K magazine would latch into the gun with no issues. Removal was a bit tougher but the decision was made to stop until a range session could occur. We did not want to bend the metal more than necessary as to lessen the risk of work hardening and cracks. That part of the frame is not load-bearing but no need to abuse the metal any more than it has been over the past fifty-plus years.

Once I got back home, cleaned the pistol, looking to remove any residue from the brass punch and the Triple K magazine fit trials. I tried the Triple K magazine with the cleaned pistol. While it would insert empty into the pistol just fine, any rounds loaded into it would release from the feed lips as the magazine follower button touched the frame, depressing the button, and releasing the pressure on the ammo column. The OEM magazines worked like a champ. So, I decided to file on the Triple K magazine. That seems to have helped, but I decided to do live fire with OEM magazines. The OEM magazines slipped into and out of the pistol much like they do with the ’62 Nomad.

Live fire testing was basically uneventful. I was pleased that the pistol functioned although two instances of stovepipe empties were experienced in the first magazine. The stoppage did not reoccur for the rest of the short session, so not much was concluded about those stoppages. I shot fifty assorted rounds using everything from CCI SV to Federal 36-grain HV HP. The pistol digested it all with no failures to feed or fire. As such, I concluded the frame repair was successful. I did not shoot for accuracy as I was using a spinning target rack, but I suspect my eyes picking up the front sight will be the limiting factor for practical accuracy, not the pistol’s intrinsic accuracy.

Next step is to fabricate a buffer like the ones used on the Buck Mark. The Belgian designs did not include a buffer, but the ’62 Nomad has one added. With the aluminum alloy frame, it adds a margin of durability with no negatives. It most assuredly softens the slide’s impact on the frame even with the light blowback impulse parted by .22 LR. Since the Nomad and Standard have no last round hold open, the buffer’s 1/8-inch reduction in slide travel results in no impact on function. A new-style Buck Mark buffer can be trimmed to fit, but the shipped buffer price from MGW is higher with shipping than buying a sheet of 1/8-inch high-density polyethylene (HDPE) from Amazon and using the ’62 Nomad’s buffer as a template to make a lifetime’s buffer supply.

The metal work needs some attention and will be polished to remove scratches and the vise marks that were part of the frame being bent. A finish needs to be chosen. My final two choices are Cerakote and Metalife hard chrome. Hard chrome with its decent lubricity may get the nod as the rear sight comes off with one screw. On any other example of this model, the front sight is pinned to the sight base and is easily removed. The front sight with its weight needs to be investigated. It has what appears to be small screws securing it to the barrel, but I am unable to determine if the front sight is integral to the barrel or to the weight. The sight appears to pinned to a sight base with the pin staked on one side, but I cannot tell if the barrel weight is soldered to the barrel in addition to being clamped. The staking suggests the pin must be driven out that side to remove the front sight. So the sight can be blued while the weight and barrel get refinished.

A bit long for a first post. The next posts will come after I start the painstaking metal polishing and prep for the new finish.