One click above Starter's Pistol. But probably better than some of the pot metal .32s I've seen lately.
As you may have guessed, I'm a bit of a firearms snob..(if it ain't got matching numbers, it ain't a Luger..)
“... not exactly a premier firearm, ... like those old Webleys we used to see in .38 S&W Short years ago. One click above Starter’s Pistol. ...(if it ain’t got matching numbers, it ain’t a Luger..)
To judge by the items that crossed my bench when I was employed in gun repair, Soviet firearms may have been several notches below premier, but were not of low quality - just as good as they needed to be, and no more.
And a number of starter pistols were not terrible. H&R’s blank-firing revolvers were solid items, fashioned from the same materials as their counterparts firing live rounds. Budget arms certainly, but neither cheap nor weak.
Never seen a Webley IV that was poorly or cheaply made. Badly treated and miserably maintained, yes. What led the British to choose that caliber is still a head scratcher. Not nearly the equal of their earlier Webleys, chiefly Mk VI, in 455. If I had to choose a revolver today, I’d not feel poorly armed with one. And those were all well-made also.
Lugers - matched or not - are a cut above. Few examples of gun manufacturing can equal them. Steyr, possibly.