[Handy]

It is commonly held, and usually true, that revolvers are more accurate than semiautos. But this is not the case BECAUSE of the revolver design. It's actually the fault of the common recoil design of 95% of combat type handguns, starting with John Brownings designs.

The revolver produces good accuracy despite having up to 8 different chambers, 1/2" of free bore, a cylinder gap, timing play and a forcing cone. None of those things are good, just necessary. The revolver wins because there is a direct relationship between the sights and the bore.

On Browning and most other recoil pistols, the bore is "floating" in it's slide or frame clearances; nothing is fixed. The ability of the barrel to re-seat is fought by breachface friction, extractor tension and fouling.

But semiautomatics are not inaccurate! The other 1911 test piece, the Luger, is very accurate. While the barrel does recoil, it is in direct contact with the frame and the sights are attached to the barrel. There are plenty of other combat guns before and after the turn of the century Luger that also display great accuracy. Some work like the Luger: Lahti, Nambu, Broomhandle. Others have fixed barrels and rely on blowback or delayed blowback; P9S, P7, GB, Hi Point, Astra. All are basic production combat guns; mass produced and mass issued to police and military. Yet hand fired test targets of most of these guns rival revolver Ransom rest tests. Why? Because chamber, bore and sights all have a very direct and repeatable relationship. There is no reason they shouldn't be quite accurate.

This all isn't Browning's fault. Given the materials of the time, he produced excellent weapons that were simpler, sturdier and cheaper than Lugers and the like. In 1911, the Colt was the best pistol for point shooting at horses and men in combat conditions.

But the 1911's success has stymied all efforts to get BACK to the accuracy that should be found in every autoloader. The fixed barrel Desert Eagle shoots tighter groups than the revolvers it borrows ammuntion from.

The HK P9S, which continues to see combat use, also offers 1" at 25m groups, yet retains the reliability and durability of its big brother, the G3 rifle. It takes little use of this piece to make a believer out of any decent shooter.

In summary, the autoloader "community" has saddled itself with sub par accuracy for the sake of nostalgia. A recoil action that encloses the barrel in a slide is an immediate disadvantage. There are lots of ways of producting simplified, truly accurate auto actions if we would only demand them.

The Brownings, Sig and Glocks are all decent enough guns, but basically handicapped in regards to accuracy. If you could have your cake AND eat it, why wouldn't you?

[Mylhouse]

Handy,

Have you been smoking your lunch?!:confused:

[BigG]

If you can't shoot better than the pistol in any approved fashion how can additional accuracy help you? For example, let's say I can shoot 3" at 50 yards with 1" capable pistol already. How is a 1/2" capable pistol going to help?

[Correia]

I'll be sure to pass your wisdom onto my friends who shoot bullseye competitions. I'm sure they will all immediatly throw their 1911s in the river.

[MoNsTeR]

You guys are missing the point.

At least as I read this post, the point isn't "go throw your 1911s in the river". It's "why are we spending $2000-$3000 building accurate recoil-op autos when we can build fixed-barrel autos that are more accurate for $500?"

Yes, if you're shooting 3" with a 1" gun, moving to a 1/2" gun isn't going to be very exciting. But most people are making do with 2"-4" guns, and moving to 1/2" from there would be a significant improvement. Right now, your only choices in centerfire autos that accurate are hand-built guns with appropriate price tags. The point of this post is, it doesn't have to be that way.

[Delmar]

If accuracy is your sole criteria, a single shot such as a Thompson Center is going to absolutely smoke your duty wheel gun and for around the same price as a medium cost revolver.
There are things a duty revolver is going to to different than a 1911, but not necessarily better. For me and a lot of people I know, a 1911 or hi power has better pointability, will make fast repeat shots tighter than a revolver, conceals better than a revolver, has as nice a trigger pull as a revolver and you don't have to cock it every time it goes boom and is quicker to load and unload.
It is true that a 1911 barrel floats in recoil.
It is NOT true while the weapon is in battery-unless you have a worn out 1911, or it is "dimensionally challenged". A fixed barrel desert eagle is more accurate than a duty revolver, but a custom shop 1911 is too for about the same money as the mighty DE.
I do not see the validity of your arguement.
It's like saying a Ferrari is the best vehicle going, but farmer brown needs something for his particular application which is different, even though the horsepower is the same.
You don't take a target pistol to the mud, and you don't take combat pistol to a bulls eye shoot. In the case of the 1911, they look the same but are dimensionally different to satisfy the application.

[TaxPhd]

Other than silhouette (and this is because the ability to handle more powerful cartridges), I can't think of a competition where the revolver beats the autoloader, specifically, the 1911.

Anyone??

[Handy]

That's exactly my point! If the combat gun is designed right, you could take it to a bullseye shoot. A P9S Combat and a P9S Target are the same gun with interchangeable parts. The Combat version is accurate enough for bullseye, and is everything a combat gun should be, too.

TaxPD,

You are talking about a stock 1911, for $500, right? Not a hand built custom tuned job.

[Zak Smith]

Build a "1911" NCS Gas Gun and be happy?

-z

[firestar]

I agree. Why does a accurate auto have to be semi-custom and cost 2K? Why not mass produce an auto with a fixed bbl and the sights attached to the bbl? It would seem to be cheaper than trying to make a 1911 accurate by customization.

I would like to see a 9mm built like a Ruger MK II and sell for about the same price. Maybe ruger could make it. The Ruger MK II is very accurate and if I could get a 9mm as accurate for the same price, I would be in Hog Heaven.:D

[MrAcheson]

Handy, you have a point. No one will listen to it because you have insulted John Browning and the 1911, but you do have one.

Some gun owners surprise me when they talk about the accuracy out of expensive custom guns as amazing. Of course it is! You spend how much money on smithing it! You think the groups on a 1911 are the only ones that will tighten up dramatically if you put couple thou into custom smithing? :rolleyes:

The browning style action is cheap and simple and well accepted. It can be made very accurate or very reliable in all kinds of conditions, but usually not both. I don't think it is the end all or be all of semi-auto pistol actions, but I also don't think we have anything that will dramatically beat it either, so it is going to be here to stay for a while longer.

[Handy]

The Contender was mentioned. What is really the difference between a fixed barrel auto pistol and a single shot? Just how the barrel gets loaded. After the round is in the chamber, there is no difference.

A .41 Magnum contender is about $450 or so. A .41 Magnum DE is going for $650 right now. Both are huge and precise, but the DE does it 8 times for the Contender's one. Same basic accuracy.

[Harold Mayo]

Before you start knocking accuracy, can YOU outshoot your handgun? In other words, can you shoot at least as well off-hand with your handgun as it does from a Ransom Rest? If not, then it is a moot point. It's a moot point, anyway, because 99.9% of ALL shooters can't outshoot their handgun. If you happen to be able to do so, then good for you. I am pretty damned good with a handgun and I can't outshoot most quality unmodified pistols, especially under stress, so I don't see it as anything but a theoretical issue.

[Handy]

I didn't realize there was only one valid way to shoot a handgun.

I can't shoot freehand to the limit of any gun's accuracy, but I can shoot smaller groups with more accurate guns. Doesn't everyone?

Something I like to do sometimes is shoot at long distances from a bench or prone. I have a stock combat pistol that will keep all shots on a pie plate at 100 yards. This would be my one survival pistol, should I need one.

I don't really understand the argument that one should buy a less accurate gun of any kind. I assume you carry a smooth bore derringer for defense?

[Gerald McDonald]

My Kimber outsoots me. If the inaccuracy were as bad as that I would have thought they would have thrown the 1911 in the can years ago. Why dont we see more competition shooters with a P9?
Gerald

[owen]

Well, the problem with gs guns and delayed blowback guns, with fixed barrels, is they fill the gun up with crud pretty quick. A Browning short recoil action sends most of the grit out of the muzzle. I suspect, but can't confirm, that a Browning short recoil action will stay reliable for a higher round cound than a fixed barrl gun.

Straight blowbacks work well, but as the power level goes up, the weight of the slide must go up signifacantly. I seem to remember that a .45 blowback needs a slide around 4 pounds to work correctly. That's more than an entire 1911.

The gas retarded guns tend to get extremely hot, because alot of those 3000 degree gases are being trapped inside the frame instead of being vented outside of the muzzle.

Roller locking ala the CZ-52 looks like it has a lot of promise, but I seem to recall that the barrel isn't fixed.

rotating bolt locking like the desert eagle can be relatively light weight, but its big, and they probably have the same overheating issue as a gas retarded gun. Besides, everyone criticizes the M16 for vented dirty gases into the action, why would you want to do that on another gun.

The fact is, a 4 inch group at 25 yards is more than sufficient as far as the production gun comapnies are concerned. 95% of our customers can't shoot well enough for a 3.5 inch group size difference to make any difference.

As a bullseye shooter, I would love to have a fixed barrel .45

[Blackhawk]

The fallacy of this is the assumption that the sights' relationship to the barrel during the firing sequence is crucial and different with blowback designs compared to locked breech designs. The bullet has left the barrel before the breech unlocks so any comparative inaccuracy falls back to the breech lockup means allowing variability on specific guns, and THAT happens when guns are not in good shape, not due to the fundamental design.

[Tecolote]

Insult Mr Browning? Blasphemy! My buddy's stock Springfield 1911 and FN HP are very accurate when used by a trained person. In the hands of a novice they're as inaccurate as any other design.:cuss:

[Handy]

Gerald,

There aren't many P9s in the country. But there sure are alot of 1911 gunsmiths.

Owen,
It doesn't sound like you're speaking from experience. There isn't, nor does there have to be, a reliability problem with delayed blowback. I have found them to be the MOST reliable. In the jamming thread, no one has posted a P7 jam. And I'm not just talking blowback. The Luger is recoil operated but puts the sights where they should be.

Blackhawk,
I'm not sure which fallacy you are refering to. Production recoil guns based on the Browning or Walther system ARE demonstratably less accurate then the alternatives. Are you saying they aren't?

Telecote, Are you also saying better accuracy is undesireable?

[Harold Mayo]

In the jamming thread, no one has posted a P7 jam.

I've seen several. Most were not ammunition-related, either, but were because of poor maintenance.

[Blackhawk]

Production recoil guns based on the Browning or Walther system ARE demonstratably less accurate then the alternatives.EXACTLY what is the test setup and protocol to demonstrate that?

[Gerald McDonald]

Handy
If it were that much of an improvement it looks like someone would have copied or imported more than we see, after all in the competition guns money is no object. If it would improve the top shooters scores by leaps and bounds then they would have taken the magic pill and 1911's would be history.

Also not trying to start a flame here but, if you talk to a lot of Mexican bird hunters you see the Browning A5, Benelli, and Franchi AL48 (all short recoil actions) as the main auto's in use. If you take a gas gun and run crappy Mexican ammo, it has to be cleaned about 3 times as often.

Gerald

[firestar]

The fact is, a 4 inch group at 25 yards is more than sufficient as far as the production gun comapnies are concerned. 95% of our customers can't shoot well enough for a 3.5 inch group size difference to make any difference.

If the best my gun would shoot was 4" at 25 yards, I would get rid of it quick! That is terrible accuracy for a target pistol.

I am not bragging but when I do my part, I can shoot close to the limit of my Ruger Speed Six's accuracy potential free hand at 25 yards. By accuracy limit, I mean slow fire from a bench rest not Ransom Rest as I don't have one. I can get 1.75"-2" groups off hand and I can't do any better off a rest. If my gun was twice as accurate, I should be able to shoot groups half as large. Right? I think that is logical, maybe it doesn't work like that but I don't think having a more accurate gun would hurt.

Handy,
hang in there, I think you are right. Don't let these guys get you down, I think they are misunderstanding your point. I get it and I agree.

One thing I have learned is, people get crazy if you say ANYTHING negative about a 1911. They are fanatics.:neener:

[BigG]

I think a lot of the custom bling bling on the 1911 type pistols today is BECAUSE THEY CAN. There is a tremendous market for the 1911 type now which is being catered to by the carriage trade priced custom makers. The 1911 type is the gun du jour, if you will.

There are also seriously accurate 1911 types that dispense with the foofuraw. The reason the C/B lockup is used today is I'm sure because it has proved to be the most economical answer to the locked breech question. Even the latest generation whizpistols adhere to the 100 year old C/B system, including the Glock which has taken it to the logical extreme given the state of the art in materials and mfg methods. The Borchardt/Luger type lockup would be multiple megabucks to tool up for in this day and age, I'm afraid. Not only that, due to design limitations the B/L doesn't have the requisite reliability required by our current gun gamers, as others have testified in similar threads.

Looks like we are stuck with the C/B system until somebody puts on his thinking cap and takes it to the next level.

[M1911]

In the jamming thread, no one has posted a P7 jam.Talk to the NJ State Police about their P7s.

[cardboardkiller]

I favor an auto over a revolver. Yeah my SV cost more, but it looks better, I can shoot it faster and it holds 18 rounds of .40 with my short mags.

[Handy]

NJ had one gun failure of their 20 year old duty weapons that I've heard of. They are still carrying them because the Browning based SW99s they bought JAMMED TOO MUCH.

This isn't a P7 thread, anyway. There are only 20 or so pistols that meet the criteria I stated-not much in the way of development. Why haven't more guns of this type been developed? Geez, just look at some of the ridiculous, emotional responses generated in this thread. Try selling a P9S to this crowd.

Blackhawk,
You seem to be the only one maintaining that there isn't a difference. Check out some of the pistols that come with test targets. Golly, you could even try shooting a variety and see for yourself.


If someone ever had the balls to do it, they could win a bullseye match with a High Point and a trigger job. Wouldn't that be an upset?

[Mike Irwin]

When I was with American Rifleman we tested the most accurate handgun we had ever had in the 100 year history of the magazine.

It was the Freedom Arms .22 revolver, certainly no cheapy. It cut groups of well under an inch all day long.

The second most accurate was also a Freedom Revolver.

Smoked every other gun we ever had, including extremely high cost 1911s.

Those Freedom Arms can be yours, too, for only $2,500. :)

[BHP9]

Although Handy has a valid point. I.E. that fixed barrel guns on average can be made to be very accurate with less hand work than the Colt/Browning what we must look at is not the individual tree in the forest so to speak but the entire forest itself.

When all factors are considered the Colt/Browning always comes out on top. A target pistol is a target pistol and may be fine when shooting in spotless white trousers while sipping tea and bragging to your young lady friend what a dandy offhand shot you are but when the pistol is used for serious buisness as in the mud of Flanders all points in a pistols design must be taken into consideration.

I have never seen even a simple blow back or fixed barrel pistol have the reliablity or the the ease of field maintenace that the completely strippable 1911 has.

I have never seen the more modern wonder guns made of stamped sheet metal and plastic as truly rugged as the all forged steel 1911's.

I have never seen a gun more successfully modified into so many configurations than the 1911.

I have never seen a gun the is more capable of being changed from an adequate combat arm with pedestrian accuracy to a super target gun capable of one hole groups than the 1911.

I, like Handy, love super accuracy but I also love a weapon that is a work of art and not just a pile of stamped sheet metal and plastic.

To me all the hand work that make such guns like the 1911 or the Sig-Nuehausen P210 so accurate is the pride of ownership in owning a weapon that was made of quality materiels and assembled by skilled craftsmen. This is why guns like the 1911 have such a big following. Owning a 1911 that is super accurate is a wonder to behold because the gun was never originally designed to be a super target gun but due to its outstanding design it was capeable of being coverted into such a shooting machine.

The 1911's quality and craftsmenship along with its glorius history of desperate men fighting in desperate battles for the freedom from oppression of the enslaved peoples of the world has no equal in the annuals of history..

And once again history is about to unfold. The impending war will once again have U.S. troops fighting at the ends of the earth and with at least some of them will be armed with 1911 pistol, the pistol that refuses to die and will not go away and that will work and keep on working even in the wind blown sands of the desert. .

[bad_dad_brad]

The SIG P210, a Browning-Petter design, is pretty dang accurate.

Browning designs are robust and combat accurate. But it is, after all, only a pistol. If you are shooting at something more than 25 yards away, that is not defensive, which is what a pistol is for, so why aren't you using a rifle?

The Browning design, especially in the SIG and Glock Browning-Petter derivatives are simple, elegant, and foolproof. And they are accurate.

[MarineTech]

I would like to approach this argument from a different angle in defense of the 1911.

Yes, the shooters that use the 1911 are widespread and numerous. They are willing to spend $2000-4000 for a custom 1911 to compete.

Now, if these shooters are constantly looking for an edge, and they are not afraid to spend that type of money, then why are they NOT spending that money to gain an even higher amount of supposed accuracy as is available in the P9 as you seem so enamored with? I don't know of any shooter that is not willing to accept a proven technology if it would enhance their ability to win a match. Certainly the same amount of money applied to the P9 would bring it up to an incredible level of accuracy, the likes of which would become legendary in shooting circles.

Yet....... They don't.

Now why would that be?

Is it because the P9 does not offer the supposed level of accuracy that you claim? Possibly could it be that the P9 is not nearly as dependable or long lasting as the 1911s in question? Might it be that the P9 does not have as much comfort for these shooters as a well built 1911?
My... my.... my.... Why wouldn't these world class competitors who strive daily to better their skills for competition and are intimately familiar with the accuracy of firearms not accept your reknowned P9.

Possibly because they are privy to facts that the average shooter and competitor are not privy to, but it could also be that the 1911 is just a better tool for the job.

It is also interesting to note that HK ceased production on the P9 in 1978 after less than 10 years of production and according to the source I'm looking at, with only 485 total guns produced. Now why would that be if it is such an incredible piece of firearm engineering. Yet the 1911 that you so malign is still being produced by numerous companies almost 100 years after its debut, and with total numbers in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

[444]

Interesting, thank you for posting. Whether this is true or not, and whether I agree with it or not, it is certainly more interesting than reading another thread entitled something like; what is your faviorite 9mm.

The idea that you have to spend thousands to make a 1911 accurate is ridiculous. Clark Custom Guns will do an accuracy job on your 1911 for $300 with an Accuracy guarantee: 10 shot group measuring 2.5" or less @ 50 yards with match grade ammunition. While buying a 1911, and paying another $300 isn't cheap, it is certainly a far cry from the $2000 figure mentioned in several of these posts.

Just because you can't outshoot your current handgun, doesn't mean that having a more accurate handgun isn't going to make you shoot better. The accuracy you can attain from a given handgun is a product of at least two factors. Your skill, and the intrinsic accuracy of the gun. It is a combination of these two factors that determine how well you shoot. Improving either one, will improve your ability to shoot accurately. Assuming your skill level remains the same, having a more accurate gun should improve your scores. For example, let' say we have a 1911 that is capable of shooting 4" at 50 yards from a machine rest. Then you take the same gun and on your best day you can shoot a 6" group at 50 yards. The gun can shoot 4" and your skill level adds another 2" to the group size. Now we hand you another gun, one that is capable of shooting 2.5" groups at 50 yards. Your own groups should also shrink. The idea that accruacy doesn't matter unless you can personally shoot that well is crazy to me.

Innovation is a great thing, and progress is always fought tooth and nail along the way. If it were possible to produce a better gun design that is more accurate while not costing any more than a current handgun, I am all for it.

[Dobe]

444,
You are right. You don't have to out shoot your handgun to be able to benifit form its accuracy. The more accurate a handgun is, the better your accuracy should be.

Handy,
I love the Browning desing. I own a 1911, a CZ 75 B, and I sold my BHP. They are great guns. I shoot them often. I will be at the range this weekend burning up a couple hundred rounds.

Still a new design, which could be more accurate would not hurt. I keep hearing and reading about the reliability of JMB designs and how these guns cannot be matched. I can remember the same being said about revolvers as duty weapons. Now we are hard pressed to see anyone carrying a revolver as a duty weapon.

No one will make us give up our 1911's, if another design comes along.

[MoNsTeR]

Sweet crispety crap, you guys are so negative!

Handy offers us this interesting thought, fodder for intelligent conversation, and half the posts here are just telling him to shove it! Is it suddenly criminal to ponder the idea that a hundred-year-old handgun design might just not be the final word? Is it so unthinkable that there might be some innovation left to explore in this industry?

Y'know, I like the 1911 too. I have one and I really enjoy shooting it, and I want to buy another one when I can. But it's not perfect, and I'm sure even JMB knew that. In all this fanboy mudslinging, an interesting question has actually been raised: why, if fixed-barrel autos could be so superior in accuracy, are they not being demanded by the hardcore competitors? It's too bad no one seems to be interested in answering this question, only in bringing up irrelevant points about combat reliability, and praising their favorite short-recoil design.

CHILL OUT, take off your fanboy hats, pop open a beer, and let's shoot the breeze like we're not a bunch of jerks, OK?

[Gerald McDonald]

Actually MoNster Handy did answer, its because there arent many around. Now if you are asking me why all of the comp shooters arent lined up with fixed barrel autos "beats the heck out of me, thats why I asked, but if you can tell me who knows the answer I will ask again":D and as an aside, I dont mind new ideas I just like to see them backed up with hard facts before I choose to fall in line.
Gerald

[Zak Smith]

To throw a shoe in the soup: The Makarov is widely regarded as both simple & reliable. It has a fixed barrel.

Are there any fixed-barrel action choices besides: gas-delayed (e.g. NCG Gas Gun, P7), roller-locked (e.g. CZ52), and direct blowback (e.g. Makarov) ?

Are there any pistol actions that are based on either an inertia-lock action (such as the Benneli M1Super90) or a barrel that moves only the lock-distance (about 0.1"?) exactly parallel to the slide, and then stops?



-z

[makarov]

I have posted about my interest in fixed barrel designs before. I almost bought a P9S once. Still wishing I hadn't passed it up. What about the P-38 design? I shoot a lot of .22 and on most of those designs the sights are attached to the barrel. There is a practical limit to the blowback design. A fixed barrel is more accurate than a tilting design. Whether the sights are directly attached to the barrel on a blowback probably doesn't make a huge difference - the fact that the barrel doesn't move every time does. I think it would be pretty cool to have a Ruger MKII design in .380 or maybe 9mm, but the recoil spring would have to be pretty stout for 9mm. How many guns use a fixed barrel design in higher power centerfire rounds? Or even some type of locking mechanism that keeps the barrel moving only along the bore axis? I do think the thread is interesting. Accuracy is always something I am interested in, but that is because I primarily shoot at targets. They don't shoot back. Sport shooters spend money to make combat guns into target pistols. Very few designs start out as a "target" design. Most of the pistols discussed are designed as combat sidearms. Still, I think that designers could make a more accurate gun from the start and not compromise reliability. As much as I like HP's, 1911's, and CZ's all of which *can* be made pretty accurate, I think that new designs should be explored.

[Gerald McDonald]

I would like to state that the title "Brownings Legacy: the in inaccurate autoloader" is a wee bit imflammatory. I hardly think the historians of the arms field look at JMB and say Tisk,Tisk its a shame he will be remembered for that lousy old 1911. Its more likely he will be remembered for what he was, one of the worlds foremost arm designers.

That Handy or MoNster would act suprised at the results of the posting amazes me. Handy wanted to stir the bucket or he would have named the post a little differently.
Gerald

[Handy]

Gerald, it's what I honestly believe. The 1911 was a good gun, but we should move on. Endearance to the old design is keeping us back. The firearms industry is one of the least innovative, backwards groups. They're just starting to use titanium! It's been used in bicycles since the mid-70s!


Zak, the CZ-52 is actually recoil as well and prey to all the same problems accuracy wise. Your other alternative are the Mauser, Luger, Borchardt, Lahti guns from the past, but modernized and simplified.

[BigG]

The Luger bbl does MOVE but it moves just straight back and forth so it should not affect accuracy any more than a fixed bbl. When I've field stripped a Luger, I had the impression that the bbl and bbl extension is like a little field piece and maybe that was what inspired the designer?

The bbl goes straight back until the projections on the frame break the toggle joint which continues on its own. When the toggle returns everything goes back into battery. Because of the small size of the toggle parts it is impracticable to try to improve it as it exists. The Luger cocks on closing and that is a contributor to the jamming problem as the inertia of the closing stroke is interrupted by the striker spring opposing it.

I believe if somebody can build something that works and is more accurate than a C/B type target pistol, the world will beat a path to their door, especially if it is cheaper to buy than a custom 1911 type.

[MoNsTeR]

That Handy or MoNster would act suprised at the results of the posting amazes me.
I am surprised. I'm surprised that people reacted by pissing all over this thread instead of offering their dissenting opinions in a friendly manner. I expect much more from this community, and I'm frankly shocked at what I've seen here, not to mention the idea that you find it par for the course.

[Tamara]

If someone ever had the balls to do it, they could win a bullseye match with a High Point and a trigger job. Wouldn't that be an upset?

If someone could, they would've. They don't go to those matches to show off their guns, they go to win. If another pistol looked like it was going to be the hot ticket, folks would jump to it en masse just to keep the competitive edge. It almost happened in the early '90s in IPSC with the CZ75/Witness, but its run was shortlived.

[Gerald McDonald]

Handy you really didnt think it was a little inflammatory to say that JMB's legacy was an inaccurate autoloader? I would think between all of his designs from Winchester lever actions, to the Auto 5 recoil operated shotguns, to the potato digger machine guns, to the BAR of WWI and WWII fame, would be the legacy of JMB. Also to say handgun mfgs are backwards is a little skewed. I remember when your choices of autoloading pistol were limited to 1911's, BHP's and S&W 39/59. If you are saying they are backward because of the recoil operated action, its because they work and work well.
No flame intended I just dont see it that way.
Gerald

[Gerald McDonald]

MoNster, this is all pretty mild so I wouldnt be too shocked, What I am asking for is proof. Where is the proof that the P9 was a god send to us shooters. Why havent the pistol champs lined up to go to this operating design? If you consider disagreement with your idea negative, then that will be the way you have to look at it, because I disagree. If you know the answer to the questions I have asked please enlighten me. Who knows if proof is offered I may change my mind.
Gerald

[Midnight]

You guys are sad. What kind of a person are you if you won't listen to reason because it disrespects one of your favorite handgun designs? BFD. He was posting some well-thought-out remarks that we can all learn from. As usual, the 1911 fanboy crowd refuses to try and learn but just throws out the same old lame comments. I like 1911s, but I like the truth even more.

As you were....

[Gerald McDonald]

If you repeat it long enough maybe somebody will believe it.
Gerald

[gryphon]

Handy is entitled to his opinions, and we entitled to ours. I love it when people start arguing that the original poster shouldn't be checked on his opinion.

When the first line of the post sets up the tone of the body as being "1911: the inaccurate autoloader", how do you expect people to react? I certainly would not chastise them for voicing their opinion.

My only other comment is to the "why can't we move along to another design". Give me another design that categorically out performs the other current designs and I'm sure we would all add one of those to our gun safes. Until then, we do what we can with what we have. My 1911 can perform in the role that I need it to, so for me, I need nothing else.

[Zak Smith]

A big part of practical accuracy is the quality of the trigger. A good 1911 trigger sets the standard by which others are judged. And this is coming from a guy who doesn't own any 1911's, yet.

-z

[firestar]

I think we are getting off the main point that Handy was talking about. His point was, I believe, that fixed bbl autos can be made cheaper and more accurate than typical drop bbl designs.

I think it is clear that he is correct. Look at the cheaper guns that have surprisingly good accuracy, Bersa, Makarov, etc. They are probably more accurate than they would be if they had moving bbls.

BTW, the most accurate auto I have ever had was a "factory custom" Colt Commander so I am not biased..

[Sean Smith]

It is interesting that Handy's principle examples (P7, P9) are all HK guns that cost over a grand. Which is about how much you would spend on a basic 1911 plus the installation of a Kart or Bar-Sto barrel to... make it exactly as accurate as a P7 or P9.

If comparing exotic $1,000+ HK novelty guns to $500 service pistols isn't a case of apples and oranges, I don't know what is. Sure, they have fixed barrels. Sure, they have interesting and novel operating systems. Sure they are accurate. They are also fiendishly expensive, and in the case of the P7 aren't even suited to use as a military service weapon.

Show me a $500 NIB, fixed-barrel, delayed blowback gun that you can shoot when dirty and you might have my attention.

[Tamara]

A big part of practical accuracy is the quality of the trigger. A good 1911 trigger sets the standard by which others are judged. And this is coming from a guy who doesn't own any 1911's, yet.

That's a good point; I think too many people assume the 1911 is coasting entirely on nostalgia (I know I used to), when in truth its success probably owes more to the trigger, the slim grips, the trigger, the low bore axis, the trigger, and the trigger. ;)

It'll be interesting to see how the new NCG "gas gun" 1911 conversions do. I predict that in the next few years they will make serious inroads into the (admittedly very conservative) bullseye scene, offering as they do a combination of the benefits of a fixed barrel and the 1911s simple, mechanically direct trigger.

[Handy]

Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of real world examples to sight, because they have never sold as well as old JMB's master work.

I like sighting the P9S because it dispenses with a gas system, is closely based on a very tough rifle, was cheap when in production and is a military gun. This is still the service pistol for Greece and was produced for more than a decade: I think more than 400 pistols were made.:p The Seals probably have that many in storage.

Anyway, the gun was reasonably priced, widely distributed and very reliable. 9mm versions in decent shape can still be had for $650 or so, so go buy one if you want to argue. A fairly beat up example will out shoot all but the most custom recoil guns.

As to "Why haven't BLANK or BLANK started using these if they are so great" I don't have a clue, besides the general backward thinking that I notice most everywhere in this community. We like what we like, don't bother us.


Being a little inflammatory is different than being rude. Or is everyone here related to Browning and taking this personally? You should get mad at the Army: the only Browning related gun they use anymore is the M2. Almost everything else was inspired by German designs.

[jonptoms]

I might like to try one or buy one... they must be in production now, I'd rather have a new pistol.
Thanks

[Gerald McDonald]

Actually Handy I was not arguing that the fixed barrel is not more accurate. Just that it answers a question that no one ( well not many) are asking. The only examples in a major caliber are extremely expensive and not very many are produced. I think shooters as a whole are pretty progressive, look how fast Glocks came up the ladder. I for one think the Glocks and others are great pistols and have owned quite a few, but they dont do anything or everything that much better than the HP or 1911.(for me) the same can be said for gas guns, there are some things they are better at but in the overall view they need some improvements. Will they get there, I suspect as more companys get on the band wagon you will see more and more of them.

If you didnt want to stir the pot you could have labeled your post "The attributes of the fixed barrel" and you would have had many people agreeing with you. As for the govt not using Browning designed guns, hey all things change its not that big of a deal, if you do not like JMB designs its your choice, but to imply they are substandard is false. They do exactly what I ask.

Its similar to a comment I heard at the shooting range a few months ago. There was a guy (who was old enough to know better) telling another guy that his S&W 625 was a dumb gun for self protection. I listened to this argument for 20 minutes in the breakroom while waiting for a lane to clear. The guy with the 625 was literally chewing the center out of the target at 7 yards shooting D/A. Trust me for him it wasnt a dumb gun, he could cover my butt anytime if that was his normal shooting. What works for you may not work for me. I dont look at this as argument just not agreeing:D
Gerald

[Tamara]

As to "Why haven't BLANK or BLANK started using these if they are so great" I don't have a clue, besides the general backward thinking that I notice most everywhere in this community.

Fine argument, except there's no column for "the judges like it" in bullseye scoring. Also, why are the SEALs P9Ss in storage while their P-226s are in their holsters?

Oh, and Greece does use the P9S. Any nation so far on the cutting edge of military technology is sure to be emulated by everybody. (They also use the Leopard I, M-26 [in reserves up until recently], A-7, and much other bleeding edge hardware. ;) )

[triggertime]

"The HK P9S, which continues to see combat use, also offers 1" at 25m groups, yet retains the reliability and durability of its big brother, the G3 rifle. It takes little use of this piece to make a believer out of any decent shooter." --Handy

The HK P9S, while accurate, is not a wise choice for 'combat use' based on the fact that the take-down button is located inside the trigger-guard and lends itself to accidental engagement during an attempted gun-grab. It is very easy to pull the slide and barrel off the frame during weapon retention exercises.

Further, P9S magazines are known to develop cracks in their feed lips from hard use or if left loaded for an extended period of time.

Of course, unloading your magazines will prevent this, but empty magazines are not much use if your weapon is intended for 'combat use', are they? :rolleyes:

[gk1]

Perhaps we haven't seen an improvement because men of the stature of Browning, Luger, Mauser, etc. aren't alive and designing firearms today? Instead of slandering Browning, why don't you build a better mousetrap? If a superior design exists (one with similar qualities all around: accuracy, reliability, maintainability, ergonomics, cost, etc.) it should be easy to sell. Prior to Browning, autoloaders were bulkier, heavier, less reliable, less durable, more expensive, less accurate, just plain inferior. Since then, there have been some improvements, but it is arguable that there haven't been any significantly superior designs all around.

George

[RON in PA]

For what are handguns designed? To stop and/or kill at very short range and as a last ditch weapon of opportunity. Accuracy is the least important attribute of a handgun. Reliability is the most important attribute and I would suggest that Browning designed or derived pistols have been shown to be the best in this area ( the P-38/P1 and Beretta do well to their credit). Even Walther has gone to a Browning lockup in the P-88 and P-99.

Bullseye accuracy is great and like everybody else here I appreciate it, but it isn't going to save the bacon at 7 yards or less, don't confuse games with the real world.

Browning's legacy is reliability.

[owen]

if you were to fix the sights on the barrel of a browning design, it would be just as accurate as a fixed barrel gun.

firestar, the vast majority of guns are NOT target pistols. I predict that you will see NO new (precision) target pistols from a major maufacturer, because regardless of how good they are, major manufacturer's can't sell enough pay for the tooling and overhead. Also the 4" number I quoted is the upper limit of accuracy, most guns are significantly more accurate. I am not aware of sand bagging a revolver as being a common combat technique. :D

Making a gun twice as accurate doesn not make your group sizes half as big.

Group Size = gun group + shooter group

In a gun that is twice as accurate,

Groups Size = gun group/2 + shooter group

I used to play with tose equations quite a bit when I first got into bullseye. Go ahead and play with them its pretty interesting. Now figure that in a fight, an excellent shooter probably shoots about a 24" inch groups at seven yards. If you play with those equations for a while, you will find that accuracy in a service gun isn't all that important.

Handy, you are correct that I haven't fired 10's of thousands of round through fixed barrel guns (not counting revolvers and .22's). I don't have the financial wherewithal to shoot 50 of 60 thousand rounds, cleaning every 1000 rounds through a couple of different pistols that I am not going to be competing with, just to see how reliable they are.

I have however fired about 100,000 rounds through browning actions, and presided over tests on browning guns totalling 500 or 600 thousand rounds. How many times have you fired 500 or a thousand rounds through your gas guns without any cleaning? Please enlighten, me, because I honestly don't know how well they perform.

Blackhawk, while the gun is still locked up when the bullet leaves the barrel, the gun will lock up slightly differently every time. If the sights were on the barrel, that wouldn't matter, but the sights are on the slide so the sights are never lined up exactly the same way twice.

Putting the sights on the barrel of a tilt barrel gun would improve the mechanical accuracy, but would halve (sometimes more than halve) the sight radius of the gun. That is probably a poor tradeoff. I am not familiar with the P9S, but I imagaine the sights are still on the slide.

[Handy]

I have designed a simple, cheap mechanically delayed blowback system. Further, I've figured out how to make a replaceable top end for a 1911 frame. The design is unique enough that I should be able to get a patent. I can see no reason why it wouldn't work with all autoloader calibers. It should also scale up to rifle use.

Will I ever do anything with it? If this thread is any guide, no. The "best" way of cycling an autoloader was invented 100 years ago and I'll be damned if I'd risk my income trying to convince anyone that there may be a superior system. Everyone already knows better, especially those who have never spent any time with any of the guns discussed here.


It would be impossible to sell a rotary engine Mazda to a group deaply involved in a Ford vs. Chevy debate. "Whadya mean it ain't got a V-8?"

Super.

[Tamara]

Truly, the martyr complex doesn't become you.

Do you really believe that not a single gun collector/military or LE type/IPSC competitor/IDPA gamer/bullseye shooter/gun designer, other than yourself, has any experience at all with these type of weapons? That you're a lone Jeremiah in the wilderness and everybody else is wilfully blind to their totally superior advantages?

(If this was an auto board, I'd tell you all the problems with the Wankel, but that's another story altogether... Here's a hint: why do you not see many 5 year-old 3rd Gen RX-7s for sale? To find out, go to the web and search about the common fate of these cars, and why Peter Farrell is going to need to branch out into other areas of tuning if he wants to keep making house payments.)

[BHP9]

Putting the sights on the barrel of a tilt barrel gun would improve the mechanical accuracy, but would halve (sometimes more than halve) the sight radius of the gun. That is probably a poor tradeoff. I am not familiar with the P9S, but I imagaine the sights are still on the slide.

Interesting that you mentioned this. The Browning Competiton GP model had an extented barrel that the front sights rode on and so did the competiton model of the Sig P210 Neuhausen.

Perhaps two of the most accurate 9mm's ever made. My own Sig-Neuhausern P210 (standard Danish contract military model) outshoots every handgun both custom and standard that I have ever owned or fired. In this class of precision made weapon the sights on the barrel have proven only to give one an extended sighting radius and if there is any increase in accuracy I would be hard pressed to see the difference. Theoretically it should be more accurate but practically speaking you are probably talking about splitting hairs.

AS far as the Hk P9, it was one of the first of the plastic and high tech sheet metal pistols that was a little too far ahead of its time. To say it was not well received would be an understatement. HK's low sales eventually put a nail in its coffin. Now that it is a collectors item a lot more people are interested in this gun and the climate of acceptance with the plethoria of new plastic and sheet metal pistols on the market puts the older P9 in a much more favorable light than when it was first introduced so many years ago.

I really think that if this weapon was reintroduced and produced in a country with lower labor costs it would be very price competitive with much of what is being made today. It might even become very popular with the kool aid crowd. It would still remain only a curiosity with the old foxes and the price would have to be very low to attract them into a purchase.

Although it had very good workmanship and accuracy the materiels used in its construction took it out of the class of a total quality weapon. It will never rank up there with the forged steel classic quality guns of yesteryear.

A good weapon, well yes, but lets not even try to compare it to an original 1911 or original High Power.

[Mylhouse]

....but, Tamara, I'm impressed.

[Blackhawk]

Handy wrote:You seem to be the only one maintaining that there isn't a difference.You seem to have a gift for missing the point!

You claimed there is a difference and that it can be demonstrated. I merely asked for the exact test method and protocol for demonstrating that.

I've spent decades comparing apples to apples among different designs and distinguishing them. What I'm claiming is that JMB's locked breech pistol design can be made to tolerances that make the breech/barrel lockup every bit as "fixed" as any blowback design.

How many powerful cartridge locked breech pistol manufacturers, assemblers, customizers are there? Hundreds...? More...?

How many are there of blowback pistols? 1? 5...?

Among all those LB makers, how many of them hold the tolerances and do the fitting to make their products hold the original JMB design criteria? IMO, not only not all, not many.

Whether or not you realize it, your point is that fixed barrel pistols are easier to make consistently accurate than more complicated, multi-advantaged locked breech pistols. Duh!

JMB's legacy is a pistol design that can handle large, powerful cartridges with high reliability and relatively gentle shooting characteristics.

[Blackhawk]

Handy wrote:I have designed a simple, cheap mechanically delayed blowback system. Further, I've figured out how to make a replaceable top end for a 1911 frame. The design is unique enough that I should be able to get a patent. I can see no reason why it wouldn't work with all autoloader calibers. It should also scale up to rifle use.
Aha! You are a frustrated inventor!

The main failing of inventors is that they fall in love with their inventions thereby losing objectivity and practical viewpoints.

The Wankle is not even a rotary engine having relative movement between the major and minor axes that every sealed chamber engine must have. It has zillions of design compromises compared to a simple reciprocating piston that send its wear index through the ceiling.

Prove your design. Make one in .45 ACP that's in the same size and weight envelope as a Taurus PT-145 (or a M1911A1 if you lack confidence in your design). Then shoot the 2 (or 3) guns side by side. You will discover that the genius of JMB is shown by a design that reduces the perceptible recoil impulse of large, powerful cartridges to a level that's comfortable for AVERAGE shooters to handle.

[Zak Smith]

Blackhawk,

The NCG Gas Gun people allege that there will be less felt recoil with their design than with a standard "JMB" 1911. Is this consistent or inconsistent with your prediction of the results of the hypothetical test for Handy?

thanks
Zak

[Blackhawk]

Seems like we discussed the NCG Gas Gun at some length on TFL. If I remember corrrectly, there were some posts there by users who'd tried them. I never have, but the modification doesn't seem to be gaining a foothold of any type as I would expect it to if it matched the hype. Their $175 installation charge for the $425 barrel suggests that some gunsmithing is involved. What you have is a $600 modification to a supplied 1911 to get the results they claim. I'm left wondering why they don't just jump into the fray and offer the complete gun with their system? Maybe they have, but maybe they can't.

Anyway, Handy may have a viable design to compete with the "standard" JMB locked breech design, but just as the NCG Gas Gun may be a viable competitor, the standard to beat on all counts is the JMB design.

[gk1]

Handy, from your tone it sounds as though JMB's 100-year-old design has to suck for yours to be any good. If that is indeed your premise, then you will certainly fail.

However, it seems much more likely that both his idea and yours could be functional, and give one the proverbial choice between chocolate and vanilla. Not everyone will have the same preferences, but that hardly means that it wasn't worth the effort do make both. If you decide not to patent and/or produce your design, you can't blame the people who disagree with your claims about Browning's design flaws, you can only blame yourself. If you quit before trying, you've done nothing.

I'd be interested in a superior handgun, and I assume that the majority of consumers would also be interested in purchasing a product-improved version. You won't be able to find out the answer without some risk. Do you feel lucky, punk?;)

George

[owen]

Handy, if it is so simple and cheap, it won't cost more than a few thousand dollars to have your parts made, so you can test the thing. Speaking from experience, the drawing is the easy part.

If you want, You can send me a non disclosure agreement that I will sign, then I will go over your drawing and tell you what I think, and offer constructive criticism. If it is as kick butt as you say it is, I will help you sell it to my company.

Owen Cramer
FN Manufacturing, Inc.
Columbia, SC 29223

[owen]

BHP9,

Is the rear sight of the SIG 210 and the Browning GP on the barrel, or on the slide?

[boing]

If you want, You can send me a non disclosure agreement that I will sign, then I will go over your drawing and tell you what I think, and offer constructive criticism. If it is as kick butt as you say it is, I will help you sell it to my company.

I'd take him up on that offer, Handy. I'll even chip in ten bucks for start-up costs. :cool:

[MarineTech]

I like sighting the P9S because it dispenses with a gas system, is closely based on a very tough rifle, was cheap when in production and is a military gun. This is still the service pistol for Greece and was produced for more than a decade: I think more than 400 pistols were made. The Seals probably have that many in storage.

OK Handy, time to put up or shut up. Show us some figures and a source that the US Navy still has these firearms in storage, or in use. Until I see some factual data on this, I'm not even going to believe this pistol saw use by the SEALS.

And "probably" or "I imagine" is not considered a factual source. Nor is the amount of "many" considered a reliable estimate.

[Handy]

Well "Sir", I am very used to people disagreeing with my opinion, but rarely does anyone have the gall to call me a liar.

Of the books on my shelf, references to Seal used silenced P9Ss can be found in "The Worlds's Great Small Arms" by Craig Philip on page 114 and "Heckler and Kock: Armorers of the Free World" by Gene Gangarosa on page 19.

Since you're obviously too "uninformed" to use a search engine (but smart enough to insult people you don't know):

http://www.navyseals.com/community/navyseals/weapons_p9s.cfm

http://www.hkpro.com/p9s.htm

http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1700/1710.htm

Of course, I didn't need to read that information in books because I'm a Navy helicopter pilot and have trained with and worked with Seals periodically for the last six years. The pistol has been discussed more than once. The P226 is preferred for non-suppressed use do to its larger mag, US mag release and less grit sensitive in its frame levers (NOT the slide parts, the decocking/cocking lever and muck don't get along).

The P9 and P9S were produced from 1970 to 1984 in Germany (possibly longer abroad) and have served Spec Ops teams in the US, Germany, Japan and Spain. Police forces in Germany and the US, including the Idaho Fish and Game Dept, have also used it. And, as already stated, it's the regular service pistol of Greece. It was produced in two calibers (name another pistol built for 9mm that could be scaled UP to .45ACP), two kinds of triggers and two different target models. On any given day there are 4 or 5 for sale on gunsamerica. Yet they produced only 35 a year for 14 years?

Marine Tech, please do not ever post anything in my direction again.



I would like to also thank Tamara for adding nothing to the technical side of the conversation, but quick with the put-downs. What is a moderator, anyway?

[Tamara]

I would like to also thank Tamara for adding nothing to the technical side of the conversation, but quick with the put-downs. What is a moderator, anyway?

Is there a single other member here so sensitive to being disagreed with? :confused:

I asked a question. I'll ask it again:

Do you think that you are the only person to have noticed the advantages of the fixed-barrel auto and that all other engineers, competitors, collectors, and enthusiasts on the planet are clinging to short-recoil guns out of nostalgia for an inferior design?

[MarineTech]

Marine Tech, please do not ever post anything in my direction again.

Then I would suggest you not post further on an OPEN forum. If you're not ready to be disagreed with, or to be called to provide proof of your claims, then I would suggest you look elsewhere for discourse. You'll find such questions quite common. In reference to you're statement about people searching the net, let me remind you that since you are making the claims, the onus of proof is on your shoulders, not ours.

What is a moderator, anyway?

Somebody that can make your stay on a board quite miserable. Moderators are utilitzed to check posts for violations of the rules. They have the ability to lock threads, delete posts, and have the ear of the site Administrator whose decision to ban an individual is final.

Tamara also has a considerable reputation in the firearms community and a number of firearms forum.

[Harold Mayo]

I would like to also thank Tamara for adding nothing to the technical side of the conversation, but quick with the put-downs. What is a moderator, anyway?

But if she was agreeing with you, it would be a different story...correct?

No offense intended, but she's merely stating her opinions. I'm sure that if someone started calling you names or violating forum policy, she'd jump right on them.

The purpose of this forum is not necessarily to pat each other on the back and provide a conservative support group but to advance and test ideas and to share information.

Handy, what you are seeing is NOT, contrary to what you might believe, a bunch of people taking an opportunity to jump on you. It is a bunch of people who happen to disagree with your initial posting. You actually have several good points and have generated debate. THAT result is what this forum wants and needs. With no debate there is really no point.

Just because you didn't receive support doesn't mean that that you're wrong, either...it means that commonly-held "wisdom" on the subject is against you on this. You might very well see your ideas prove out in years to come...one never knows.

[Pendragon]

Gerald, it's what I honestly believe. The 1911 was a good gun, but we should move on. Endearance to the old design is keeping us back. The firearms industry is one of the least innovative, backwards groups. They're just starting to use titanium! It's been used in bicycles since the mid-70s!

Well, I work in the "hi-tech" industry and I own a cutting edge computer (er, it was a few months ago at least).

Our modern age has created a thirst in people for "advancement" and the next big thing. The thinking often seems to be that if something is old, it should be updated and upgraded.

In the computer world, this is very appropriate. Newer designs do more work and use less energy and create less heat.

I have a computer here that is seven years old. The thing is nigh unuseable by todays standards. However, I would point out that it can still do everything it could do when it was brand new.

It's performance has not degraded over time, rather, our expectations and needs have changed over time and older machines simply cannot keep up with current expectations.

Now, I have me a really nice Valtro 1911 pattern gun and if you have been paying attention, I talk it up every chance I get. I would say that I have never been happier with any product in my life - except perhaps with my TiVo...;)

The thing is, guns were made for shooting and handguns were made for shooting - usually for shooting people at short ranges.

Not much has changed in the 93 years the 1911 has been with us. Some folks still need shootin' and the 1911 gets 'em shot today just as well as it did in 1911.

These days we have better materials and we have seen that a well made 1911 is more than likely going to outlast the owner. Some people have made little changes here and there and you can get them with way more options now - but they all work pretty much the same.

Thats the way I like it. I like the nostalgia - the reason this gun is still around is that it works. It has worked for a long time and it does what it does with remarkable efficiency.

Have you ever used brand new computer technology? Ugh. Sure, its faster and shinier and often cheaper - but more often than not, it is less reliable.

I know this well because I am a product tester. I help find the bugs in new technology. Believe me - there is a lot.

Most of the bugs in - say a printer - do not show up when you just try and print a picture or an email. No, you find the bugs when you do weird things - unusual things, often after you do weird things many many times.

Even then, many bugs are not found until a product is released into the market and people try things we did not have time to try.

This can get people pretty worked up when they are just printing paper documents.


If you make your superior design, it may work. It may be better in every way.

I will not buy it.

I do not want to find the bugs that you miss. I do not want to wonder if I will find the bugs you missed.

As long as the technical requirements for gettin' someone shot remain the same as they were in 1911, then my 1911 gun is not obsolete and is in no need of an upgrade.

I wish you the best.

[TaxPhd]

"The 1911 was a good gun, but we should move on. Endearance to the old design is keeping us back."

It is easy to speculate on the superiority of the fixed barrel/blowback design. But it is purely speculation. Mountains of empirical evidence support the superiority of the C/B design. If a different design were better, it would be winning. It isn't. And in the world of professional shooters, where sponsorships, endorsements, training fees, etc. add up to real money, the top guys are always looking for the best (Tamara's reference to the short-lived trend towards the CZ-75 in IPSC in the early 90's is spot-on). So far, that has been the 1911.

Theoretical conjecture will NEVER beat empirics, no matter how shrill one is in their rantings to the contrary.

[Delmar]

in other words, one test is worth a thousand "expert" opinions!
I for one am not married to my 1911A1's, not to mention being a poor boy, so if someone can come out with a weapon system which costs like a Lorcin and has the accuracy of a High Standard in a 45ACP, I will buy it. As it stands now, I have a Series 80 with nearly 100,000 rounds through it and on the original barrel, and I get satisfactory groups with it. Would like to see the locking system on this fixed barrel improvement and how durable its going to be. America is the land of the better mouse trap, and if you have one, quit squawking and put it on the market-you will have no trouble selling it.

[Handy]

I don't think it is a truism that good designs sell themselves.

AR-10 rifle. Created to compete in the T44 trials with the M14 and Fal. Adopted by Sudan, only.

AR-18 rifle. Simpler, cheaper and more reliable than the M16. Adopted by a very few small countries and Irish terrorists.

Stoner 63 weapon system. Used by no one but the Seals (and no, I'm not going to PROVE the Seals used them). The Marines tried to adopt it as a service rifle and it was also one of the losers in the M249 SAW trials.

FN FNC. "The perfect .223 assualt rifle." Adopted by one or two Scandanavian countries.

Galil. The other "perfect .223 assualt rifle". Front line issue in S. Africa, only.

Browning BDM. An all steel hicap wondernine that weighed less than similar alloy framed guns. Has the SMALLEST grip of any 9mm HiCap pistol. Produced for 2 or 3 years.

S&W M547. A 9mm with an extractor design that works on rimmed or rimless cases without moonclips. Based on the Philips and Rogers Medusa cylinder which will chamber and fire any 9mm/.38 family cartridge. Both are dust.

Anything in 10mm. Magnum like performance and 15 round capacity. Excellent accuracy and good feeding case shape. Available only in custom single stack 1911's, Glock and Tanfoglio.

9X23. Similar to above.


The gun industry is littered with discarded good ideas. Those are just the least radical ones I could think of in 5 minutes.

[Delmar]

Handy, you would have little problem getting people right on this board to test your weapon, provided it was properly proofed. Word spreads fast about new, successful designs without a whole lot of advertising-look at Kimbers. By the time I saw a decent ad on them, they were selling like crazy already.
Get it into some well known and respected gun writers hands (boy-that narrowed the field!) and let him wring it out for the print media.
Better yet, convince somebody like Chuck Taylor or the good Colonel that you have a viable product and if they agree, that alone is a powerful endorsement.
As to what you listed as casualties of the trade, the AR-10 was a political casualty, and wasn't fully developed until later on-caliber change, you know.

AR-18. Broke a lot of parts and could not compete without a major manufacturer selling to the military. Pretty much lost to the
AR-15 because it was already established, and we all know how much the government likes to admit its mistakes. (My medical discharge for wounds received is an "act of God".)

The Stoner is alleged to be a great weapons system, and for special forces, likely is, but the gov't in its infinite wisdom decided on something more soldier proof for the average GI. IIRC, some units of the Texas National Guard were issued the Stoner.

FNC=expensive

Galil-Not sure what happened there, but the IDF seems to issue a lot more M-16's than the big G anymore, or at least it seems that way when watching the latest out of Palestine occupied territory.

BDM-Quality control issues which was a shame-nice pistol.

M547-why would people flock to a 9MM wheelgun when 38's and 357's are all over the place? The powerglide transmission was a sturdy little dude but it did not go over well with the Corvette crowd.

[Tamara]

Okay, you wanted to talk technical...

AR-10 rifle. Created to compete in the T44 trials with the M14 and Fal. Adopted by Sudan, only.

...and Portugal. Perfected just in time for the move to .223.

AR-18 rifle. Simpler, cheaper and more reliable than the M16. Adopted by a very few small countries and Irish terrorists.

Crudely made. External reciprocating bolt handle eats fingers, causes jams when shooting from LH barricades. Shares flimsy reciever problems with Beretta AR-70 (a well-placed boot can total the gun).

Stoner 63 weapon system. Used by no one but the Seals (and no, I'm not going to PROVE the Seals used them). The Marines tried to adopt it as a service rifle and it was also one of the losers in the M249 SAW trials.

Decent gun, but "modular factor" not worth price difference and increased complication.

FN FNC. "The perfect .223 assualt rifle." Adopted by one or two Scandanavian countries.

Weighs a metric ton.

Galil. The other "perfect .223 assualt rifle". Front line issue in S. Africa, only.

Also weighs a metric ton, plus has only 1/3rd of the crappy ergos of the Kalashnikov. "Substitute standard" in the country they were invented in, for heaven's sake...

Browning BDM. An all steel hicap wondernine that weighed less than similar alloy framed guns. Has the SMALLEST grip of any 9mm HiCap pistol. Produced for 2 or 3 years.

I owned one. Neat concept, but they don't call it the "Breaks Down, Mainly" for nothing.

S&W M547. A 9mm with an extractor design that works on rimmed or rimless cases without moonclips. Based on the Philips and Rogers Medusa cylinder which will chamber and fire any 9mm/.38 family cartridge. Both are dust.

You forgot "an excessively complex extractor design that doubles your chances of spent shells getting hung up while achieving a much higher rate of small parts breakage".

Anything in 10mm. Magnum like performance and 15 round capacity. Excellent accuracy and good feeding case shape. Available only in custom single stack 1911's, Glock and Tanfoglio.

As big a 10mm fan as I am (did you buy a .38-40/.40S&W Vaquero just so you could convert it to 10mm?), even I have to admit that .40 S&W does 80% of what 10mm does and does it in a 9mm-sized platform.

9X23. Similar to above.

Another cool cartridge that was largely rendered irrelevant by the arrival of .40 S&W. Worst come to worst, what does 9x23 do that .38 Super +P doesn't?


Look, Handy, I dig the funky and different and "high tech" as much as you do: I own/have owned a P7, a Mauser HSc, a Mateba, a gas-seal revolver, a Titanium Centennial in .44, SP-89s, SITES Spectres (DA buzzgun with decocker and 4-column mag! Obviously superior! ;) ) however do you really, honestly think, deep down in your heart of hearts, that the only reason that older designs or mechanisms linger on is because of nostalgia?

[Handy]

I think it's alot of things. I think tradition and experience are up there.


In terms of peoples attitudes, did you ever notice that the P7 cult always talk soully about the weapon's capabilities and engineering. Yet the people that don't like P7s say the cult is just into snob appeal. Which is it? Are we snobs, or smart insiders? Personally, I don't have anyone to brag to. I would carry that gun into hell.


In one of your posts you said that the Bullseye crew would do anything to win, but in another called them very conservative. I imagine the switch to 1911's for bullseye occurred about the time you could get Army surplus guns for $20. Gunsmithing didn't cost much either as most of the top bullseye shooters of yore were gunsmiths. Now, it's just tradition. Why would you use .45 acp either? 9mm 1911s are just as accurate and can be made to recoil less. Maybe that's a scoring thing. In IPSC, Tanfoglio pistols were tried, VERY successfully-Nationals was won with one. So if tradition isn't at work, why did they get away from a winning system?

Also, Browning lock up guns can be made with a lathe and a mill with basic measuring devices. Gun manufactorers didn't move past that level of production until quite recently. HK did much earlier, but is also one of the youngest big gun makers. I don't know if anyone but HK was really set up to make something like a P9S until now.

This has turned into a bit of P9S thing, due to the scarcity of any of these guns and the venom some bring to the P7. I seem to be in minority thinking a roller delayed system might make for a durable, reliable handgun. Yet no one seems to have a hard time thinking it's a good way to make an infantry rifle or submachine gun. Why is the MP5 the best subgun and the P9S a silly pistol?

All I'm basically proposing is making handguns more similar to automatic rifles. You'll note this is less stupid than suggesting we make rifles with Browning tilting barrels.

There is nothing outright "wrong" with a Sig, 1911, BHP. They definitely work for their intended mission. Yet people keep pushing them for higher levels of accuracy, as if they did care about the best accuracy.

Given the scarcity of the kind of pistols I'm talking about, why should a competitor take the chance on something rare? They're concerned about replaceable parts and customization. Since a 1911 can be made to any level of accuracy, it makes sense for the competition crowd to stick with what it knows. And the police and Army aren't asking for better, so where does this fictional demand for the better mousetrap come from?

[Dobe]

Handy,
I was on your side when you were talking about being innovative, but I think that it is going a bit far. You were right about the bulleye pistols. A .45 will cut a bigger hole than a 9mm, and that in itself is an edge.

So, what will it take for the current JMB design to be replaced. A system will need to offer something better than what is being offered now.

1. It must be more accurate, not just a little, but noticalbly within the context of the competition and/or
2. It must produce less noticable recoil and
3. It must do all of this with at least the same malfunction rate, and close to the same cost.

The following is an example of supply and demand, and has nothing to do with a new action, but does depict how changes occur within the shooting industry.

Let's look at what is happening in the handgun world right now. People are flocking to CZ 75's in droves, because of two things. Price and quality. It is a great gun for the cost. But what if CZ's had started their price at the same as BHP's? CZ's would have had to have been a much better pistol in order to attract customers. That doesn't mean that CZ's aren't a quality handgun. It just means that one has to be offered more than one currently has in order to accept a change. It is the same way that Ruger entered the market.

I am saying this to explain that it is more than just nostalgia. A new design must offer something that we are not getting now.

Remember the Browing A-5. Gas-Guns replaced that wonderful gun, but for a valid reason...Less recoil for one, and with a reliable gun too. It did not happen over night, but it happened.

I am all for improvements, but they must offer something other than a change for the sake of change.

[Blackhawk]

Very well said in an excellent essay, Pendragon! :neener:

I need new computer software and hardware to meet newer requirements. However, as you point out, the requirements for shooting BGs hasn't changed so volunteering to debug new hardware to meet those requirements isn't all that smart....

Even so, I'm anxious to wring out two new pocket pistols -- the KT P3AT and the Rohrbaugh R-9 -- even though I have plenty of hardware that meets my requirements to my total satisfaction. Can't help it being an early adopter, techno-junkie, and all that stuff.

I would buy Handy's new pistol if all other things were meritorious. :D

[Tamara]

In one of your posts you said that the Bullseye crew would do anything to win, but in another called them very conservative.

Well, they are conservative, in that there's a developed system that's winning. No one wants to risk losing by sticking a toe into untested waters, unless it shows a significant advantage from the get-go... When I start thinking "Why don't these [whatever type] competition shooters use [my favorite piece of gear]?", I stop to think "Do I really think I'm on to something that these guys who shoot for a living have missed?"... ;)

I imagine the switch to 1911's for bullseye occurred about the time you could get Army surplus guns for $20. Gunsmithing didn't cost much either as most of the top bullseye shooters of yore were gunsmiths. Now, it's just tradition. Why would you use .45 acp either? 9mm 1911s are just as accurate and can be made to recoil less.

Well, there are certain bullseye classes that require .45ACP. Even if service caliber classes didn't, a .45 a) cuts a bigger hole in the target, and b) happens to be a very "inherently accurate" caliber.

Maybe that's a scoring thing. In IPSC, Tanfoglio pistols were tried, VERY successfully-Nationals was won with one. So if tradition isn't at work, why did they get away from a winning system?

Uh, because, with the rise of the STI/SVI doublestack 1911 they started getting smoked again? ;) The CZs big advantage in IPSC was capacity. With the common availability of double-stack 1911s, this went away.

[Correia]

Those darn stodgy competitors, so entrenched in tradition, always refusing to change. Lets think for a second: Porting, C-Mores, Holosights, compensators, 24 shot pistol magazines, 9x21, 9x25, 400 Corbon, 40 Super, polymer 1911s, IPSC CZs, ramped barrels, linkless barrels, extended irons, huge mag wells, extended everything, gas 1911s, bull barrels, bushingless barrels, speed holsters, and pink SVIs with Hello Kitty emblems in the grip. :p

Here is the thing about competitors. (talking more IPSC than IDPA since IDPA has restrictive equipment rules) If you build something that will enable them to win they will buy it. If it gives them an edge they will buy it. If it is more, better, or faster then they will buy it.

If the P9 or P7 offered more then IPSC shooters would use it. It has nothing to do with tradition. These guys are out there shooting in Lycra bike shorts and running shoes. :) IPSC shooters play to win. They don't get bonus style points for having a traditional gun.

Look Handy, I'm a wannabe gun inventor myself. I understand your frustration. I've got a couple of designs that I know will never be built in a million years because there wouldn't be sufficient demand for them. I know that because I'm trying to be realistic. It has nothing to do with tradition, I just know that those designs aren't going to offer enough of a draw.

I've got a couple of other designs that I think do offer something though. I've spent a bunch of my own hard earned money building one this year. I think this one will sell. Why? Because it fills a niche. You know what though, the actual gun looks nothing like my original drawings. Those were easy. Building the damn thing is hard.

If you can build an action that bests the 1911 then do it. If it is really better then it will do fine. (provided your marketing/business skills don't suck, but that is a whole different topic). If the action is more accurate, recoils less, is just as reliable, and doesn't cost more to make then it should be a winner.

But here is the thing. You can't come along and say to somebody, your **** sucks, my ***** is way better. It has nothing to do with being a fanboy, you have to PROVE it. You have to SELL it.

Good luck.

[Pendragon]

Thanks Blackhawk.

Now to be fair, I would have to say that if Handys pistol made it to market, I would actually conider getting one.

However, it would have to be markedly superior to my 1911 for me to consider it.

Now - I would consider carrying a P-32 or a new Rorbach (sp?) because those guns are TINY.

If someone made a full sized gun in .45 (sorry, 9mm is great, but I am not interested) then it would have to have better ergonomics, a better trigger, be easier to maintain, cost less and look better than my 1911.

I will not say its impossible, but thats a tall order.

Oddly, I think the looks factor would be the most difficult part of the whole exercise.

I like the look of the 1911 - it is conservative, it has history and shooters know what one is and knowledgeable shooters can look at my Valtro and instantly know that it is something special.

Also - there is the magic of Mr. Jardine, his incredible experience and craftsmanship. Throw in the fact that anyone can make a 1911 but your gun will be patented and only you and your licensees can make it and the order is even taller.

You can make a million of them in a modern factory and yet, they will still be mas produced utilitarian guns. The Valtro is a work of art and is better than it needs to be in looks and finish.

Will your gun give me the same pride of ownership?

People are extremely complex creatures - we purchase products not because they are the best from a technical point of view, but often we consider just as much whether our products measure up to a lot of our more emotional expectations.

Even my fancy computer - I put it in a nice brushed aluminum case, I hand painted the bezel to a matching silver color, I took several hours to carefully route every wire and cable to maximize airflow, etc. It has the specs, the looks and the craftsman ship (such that it is) that I require. I got a friend who has a similar system and his is in a plane jane beige box with sloppy cables - he does not care about the same things I care about.

One thing I would suggest is that you stop criticising people for their tastes. I like American cars and in another forum, I got a lot of criticism for not buying an Acura or a Subaru or whatever. There is simply no accounting for taste :)

Interestingly, a lot of their arguments were that the car I bought (Mustang GT) was "out dated" and that I should have bought a more modern design: "big bore engines are stupid because they generate their power with brute force instead of the elegant technology of our fancy V6 engines!"

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH! :neener:

I buy what I like.

[Handy]

I didn't criticize anyone's "tastes". I said that I believed there may be a better way to make a pistol, but didn't say "Glock is stupid" or "1911s are ugly and don't work". The fact that people chose to read this thread as anything involving tastes likely has something to do with the emotion they attach to the subject, rather than my language.

You'll find lots of rude stuff in this thread, most of it directed at me.

[Tamara]

No, you said "Browning's legacy: [is] the innacurate autoloader".

A bunch of posters called you on it. (I'm looking at a 1911 right now that shoots 1.25" groups @ 25yds with factory JHPs, which is better than my P7M8 will do...)

Now, you cry "foul".



Personally, I thik you're missing an essential point: To wit, are there some better ways to deliver microgroups from a pistol? Why, yes, there are; you don't see free pistol competitors trading their Hammerlis and Pardinis for 1911s, do you? Is that the be-all and end-all of pistol design, without any design trade-offs? Maybe not...

[Pendragon]

I didn't criticize anyone's "tastes". I said that I believed there may be a better way to make a pistol, but didn't say "Glock is stupid" or "1911s are ugly and don't work".

Well sir, the problem is that the definition of "better" is completely subjective. You came in criticising one of the most beloved gun designers and designs in history:

It is commonly held, and usually true, that revolvers are more accurate than semiautos. But this is not the case BECAUSE of the revolver design. It's actually the fault of the common recoil design of 95% of combat type handguns, starting with John Brownings designs.

You also make some statements that could charitably be described as inaccurate:

On Browning and most other recoil pistols, the bore is "floating" in it's slide or frame clearances; nothing is fixed. The ability of the barrel to re-seat is fought by breachface friction, extractor tension and fouling.

But the 1911's success has stymied all efforts to get BACK to the accuracy that should be found in every autoloader. The fixed barrel Desert Eagle shoots tighter groups than the revolvers it borrows ammuntion from.

Then, our collective loony detectors start humming:
In summary, the autoloader "community" has saddled itself with sub par accuracy for the sake of nostalgia. A recoil action that encloses the barrel in a slide is an immediate disadvantage. There are lots of ways of producting simplified, truly accurate auto actions if we would only demand them.

You then cap it all off by implying that somehow we are all suffering under the tyranny of the inaccurate auto loader and that a solution is available if only we were not so dense:
The Brownings, Sig and Glocks are all decent enough guns, but basically handicapped in regards to accuracy. If you could have your cake AND eat it, why wouldn't you?

You definately posted your thread with an antagonistic "my ideas vs the world" stance. If you were looking for measured response. why not start off on a different foot and say "guys, I know most guns work well enough, but I have some ideas to make an inexpensive auto pistol with truly amazing accuracy!"

Where are the threads here and on TFL lamenting the deplorable state of auto loader accuracy? Where are the accounts of people who would have fared better in a gun fight if only they had a gun with more accuracy?

As I have said, you may well be right, but what matters is - will the public agree with your assertions that auto pistols are not accurate enough and flock to your new design so we can all enter a new golden age of auto pistol accuracy?

I would say you got an up hill fight.

[tetchaje1]

:evil: Tamara... :evil:

Note to self: Never get into a bench-race with Tamara... :D

http://smilies.crowd9.com/otn/other/11doh.gif

[Handy]

Tamara,

Why would you mention your 1.25" 1911 in a thread about production combat pistols? You're talking about stock gun with adequate fouling clearance, reliable enough for field use, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't have brought it up. Is it a Singer your pappy brought back?

Pendragon,

I'm not sure what the problem with any of my quotes were up there. Particularly referring to Browning barrels floating. Not only do they move in several planes when cycling, but to be combat reliable they have to have clearances for fouling. That's why there is a difference between a combat 1911, an IPSC 1911 and a bullseye gun.

Has anyone here ever heard of a military handing out 1911s with oversize lugs, welded hood and long link? (And no, the MEUSOC gun is loose enough to both function and rattle. I've handled a new one.)

As soon as anyone talks about accuracy, everyone pulls out their pin guns and acts like its the perfect thing for a war. A tip: If it works better with grease on the rails, its probably not a combat pistol.

The P9S has gone to war, and it will shoot 1" at 25 yards. It is also the only pistol I've shot that I could hold 8" at 100 yards with combat sights.

I'm not sure what was loony about saying that a DE is more accurate than most revolvers, either. Clear that one up?

I too have a tuned 1911 that is VERY accurate. It jams. Over the years I've also owned or fired Glocks, P7, P9S, Brownings, P5, Sigs, Berettas, Rugers. I've qualified Expert 6 out of 6 times: once with the M9, 3 times with the M11 and once each with a P7 and P9S. The last two are both the most accurate duty pistols I've seen, they are also the only guns which have never jammed or even hesitated. My conclusions are based on experience, not hopes or wishes. I attempted to design a gun not because I like another one, but because I fully believe a fixed barrel is an easy upgrade.

The suggestion that one should spend $500 on a pistol and another $300 to get it to shoot like (but be less reliable than) an HK I purchased for $650 is laughable.

[Marko Kloos]

Why would you mention your 1.25" 1911 in a thread about production combat pistols? You're talking about stock gun with adequate fouling clearance, reliable enough for field use, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't have brought it up. Is it a Singer your pappy brought back?

Nope, it's a Springfield Professional...you know, the production 1911 considered reliable and "combat" enough to be FBI HRT issue.

[Handy]

The HRT wanted a match pistol, the HRT got a match pistol. I don't recall in their specs any sand or mud reliability tests.

I don't think surrounding a bank on a sunny day is necessarily a "combat condition". They don't even have to pack their own lunch to the "hot zone".

[Tamara]

I don't recall in their specs any sand or mud reliability tests.

I'd suspect it'd do as well in those as a P7 or P9. Shall we find out? You bring the P9, I'll bring the P7...

[Pendragon]

Why would you mention your 1.25" 1911 in a thread about production combat pistols? You're talking about stock gun with adequate fouling clearance, reliable enough for field use, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't have brought it up. Is it a Singer your pappy brought back?

Handy, are you a gun smith? I ask that in all sincerity.

I am not a good enough shot to prove it, but my Valtro is guaranteed to shoot 1" @ 25yards. I have heard of examples shooting measurably better than that.

It also has never jammed and is now nearly 1000 rounds without being cleaned.

Mr. Jardine told me that reliability and accuracy are not mutually exclusive in 1911s and from what I have seen so far, I believe him.

As for the barrel "floating", mine does not move or float when it is in battery. When it unlocks and begins the recoil cycle, the bullet has long since left the barrel. There is zero "slop" in the barrel link and the slide release pin - unlike my Colt which had some 10 degrees of free pivot (when the slide release pin was in the barrel link).

Now if you want to argue that a good percentage of 1911 guns are not made well enough to be highly reliable and accurate, then we might agree.

The main criteria for selection of the HRT has been manufacturing capacity. Baer had the contract originally, but lost it as they were unable to stay on schedule. Springfield has had troubles keeping up as well.

Lastly, if you are not sure what is wrong with what I quoted you on, then I am not sure what to say to you. You seem to be fixated on improving an aspect of handguns that does not seem to need much improving right now. You also seem unaware of the factors that drive people to purchase a given weapon or the value of anything beyond a specific specification. You have insulted a true icon and most people who like the icon, take offense. You have essentially told a large group of people that they like certain guns for their nostalgia when in reality, that is just a huge, baseless assumption on your part.

Insight, finesse, diplomacy, tact, empathy, and respect.

Any guess as to what these words have in common?

[Hal]

The Brownings, Sig and Glocks are all decent enough guns, but basically handicapped in regards to accuracy.
Much as I hate to admit it,,,,both of my box stock Browning High Powers fit that statement to a T. :eek:

My ~ $99.00 POS, fixed barrel FIE .380 will outshoot either of them. And, any of my Smith revolvers will outshoot the POS FIE.
My Kimbers close to matching the FIE, but still aren't in the same league as the Smiths. My Colt Commander will match the Smiths at ~ 3 times the cost. 'bout the only 1911 pattern I've seen that exceeds the Smiths was a Colt Gold Cup w/~ $2000.00 into it over and above the base price.

Sig-- Don't own one, but I saw some guy shooting a 220 one day @ 50 feet that was staying right up there with me.

Glock-- Again, don't own one, but saw a guy shooting a 30 that was running it just a bit ahead of me one day.

Oh well. I luv em anyhow.

[BigG]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet but I will paraphrase one of our more esteemed members by saying comparing a named model pistol (HK P9) to a "1911" is not a fair comparison on its face as the C/B pistol has been cloned and manufactured across the known universe and produced from eveything from superior steel to recycled beer cans and by hand filing out of scrap metal to cast, forged, and what have you.

This practice of calling anything and everything that follows the 1911 pattern a "1911" is akin to 50 years from now if Glocks were cloned, calling anything that followed the design a Glock.

I will put my unmodified Colt Gold Cups up against anything you want to name (in its price range ~ $1,000) as far as bullseye match accuracy is concerned but when you compare just any gun that looks like a Colt you are unfairly maligning a pretty good piece of machinery.

Handy: one critique, your first sentence of the original post claims that it's generally recognized the revolver is more accurate than the auto. This is far from the truth. Col. Charles Askins won his 500+ shooting awards using mostly autoloaders once he realized that with a revo, you had to get SIX chambers to line up exactly the same with the bore whilst an auto having an integral chamber does not have that limitation. I posted a thread about the centerfire handgun he used in National Matches called .221 Askins a while back. This goes back to the 1930s.

Handy, if you draw up your design, I would get Owen to check it out after signing the nondisclosure agreement. If your idea is workable, maybe you have designed the better mousetrap. Now, it's time to get it built! ;)

[Byron Quick]

Handy,

First, I would like to address your characterization of the FBI surrounding a bank as somehow not being a combat situation. Friend, any situation where I can get my butt shot off is a combat situation...even if I am in a five star dining room eating filet mignon. People engage in combat who are not military and where the combat is not at war levels. Get used to it. (Oh, yeah-just as an aside, out of all the military weapons used in the past 100 years, ALL of the military pistols could have been disposed of without appreciably affecting the casualty figures of ANY of the wars fought. Militarily speaking, the pistol is an afterthought...something to keep officers from feeling undressed.)

I own 1911's, Glocks, Brownings, Smith & Wesson revolvers, Ruger revolvers and automatics among others. I can shoot well enough to kill what I want with all of them. I carry the 1911.

And not because it's the most accurate of what I own. Personally, I'm more accurate with my Glock 29 than I am with either the Springfield Loaded or the Kimber Gold Match. But I shoot minute of death with ALL of them and the 1911's ride on my hip more comfortably. The fact that the Glock 29's groups are somewhat tighter than the 1911's is immaterial...to me. And I'm the one who's got to carry it.

Tell you what. I'm always looking for a reason to buy another gun. Produce the one you are rhapsodizing about. Do a quality job of it. Make it look pretty. I'll probably buy one...but I might not carry it.

[Handy]

Tamara and anyone else,

I live near Reno. Anyone who wants to try putting a 1000 rounds through my P9S is most welcome.

I am not a gunsmith, engineer, bullseye shooter, policeman or complete idiot.

Just a guy with too many ideas and too much computer access.

I do apologize for being controvercial. I once posted a similar "observation" about trigger systems in a more passive tone and received zero response-it does pay to raise eyebrows if you want a good discussion.


I doubt I made more than 5 converts to what I was thinking. But I would encourage all of you to try your best from a bench rest with some of the weapons I've mentioned, or just some of the PPK style pistols out there. You may be surprised just how much mojo is crammed into that little Makarov or ancient Luger.

Certainly accuracy is something of a personal fetish. I really like self loading weapons because of how they work and what they are capable of. What can be achieved with sound design (rather than hand fitting) is what impresses me. But that's just me.

[Pendragon]

Hey Handy, you shoudl come down the hill next time we hae a Sacramento shoot.

Seriously - we all have our fetishes and our obsessions.

Many of the people on this board have strong opinions and enjoy keyboard sparing when given half a chance.

I fing agreement and accord to be very boring so I usually try and disagree with people. Adversarial conversations are actually the best way to strengthen your argument.

Anyway, maybe you did not change many peoples minds, but I think we all learned something.

[Dobe]

Or maybe a seed was planted

[Al Thompson]

Very classy Handy.