HANDGUNS overbuilt for the caliber they fire?


PDA






cleetus03
September 4, 2009, 03:04 PM
I was always told that the Beretta 92 and pretty much all of Ruger's revolvers were overbuilt/over engineered for the caliber they fired. :scrutiny:Some think a platform like this is overkill and unnecessary from a practical standpoint. :)I always thought it was impressive and loved the concept of a overbuilt gun, even if the added girth is unnecessary.


So naturally this got me to thinking and I wanted to ask.........What other particular handguns models are recognized as being overbuilt for the caliber they fire?

Appreciate all the help and info yall can give me!


EDIT;

The following article (http://gunnuts.net/2009/02/16/over-engineering-as-a-design-solution/) conveys what I'm trying to say quite nice;

Over-engineering as a design solution
Posted on February 16, 2009 by Caleb

Going to Purdue University, a lot of my friends during the latter half of my collegiate years were engineers (in fact, I started college as an engineering major). As engineers, they did and still do have a deep and abiding passion for building things that are “disaster-proof”, or as my roommate called it “over-engineered to the point of ridiculousness”. You can see that same school thought is populated into the design philosophy of some firearms companies, with Ruger being the most prominent example. Now, when I’m saying “over-engineered”, I do not mean that in the pejorative sense as it’s sometime used. What I’m saying is when something is properly over-engineered, it extends the service life of Item X well past the failure point of Item X’s market competitors.

If you enjoyed reading about "HANDGUNS overbuilt for the caliber they fire?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
General Geoff
September 4, 2009, 03:13 PM
Smith & Wesson 617 .22lr Revolver. Built on an L-frame, which is way overkill for a .22. :)

Supposedly, Smith & Wesson 10mm autoloaders are also built like tanks.

CWL
September 4, 2009, 03:27 PM
Handguns are overbuilt because they are meant to be carried into war zones and last for decades. Designers and military procurers also know that firearms will be issued to 18-19 year olds who don't know how to take care of property.

Civilian owners often over-pamper and worry too much about their handguns.

Z-Michigan
September 4, 2009, 03:43 PM
Virtually all Rugers, none more so than the P90 which was originally designed for 10mm, then changed to .45 ACP (before its introduction to the market) as 10mm went out of favor. The 9mm Ruger P-series (not SR9) would also be heavily overbuilt.

The Beretta 92 is not overbuilt, judging from the predictable and relatively short-term failure of both locking block and frame at certain round counts. (No, I'm not talking about the early frame failures either, a problem which I understand to be fixed.) It is, however, an extremely large, bulky, and heavy pistol for the caliber it shoots.

The Glock 17 is quite solid for 9mm, with a life of over 100,000 rounds being reasonable and documented in many cases. The G21 also is apparently quite solid, and like the Ruger P90 it's a .45 built on a frame intended for 10mm (though a G21 frame and slide are not identical to a G20 frame/slide).

A 1911 in 9mm is of course overbuilt for its task.

BattleChimp Potemkin
September 4, 2009, 04:47 PM
9mm HK USPs. Supposedly they were BUILT and DESIGNED for .40, instead of the other way round.

The Beretta locking block thing has been LONG debated. They are saying improperly heat treated, so the ones today are MUCH better and should not wear out (within reason). I like how if you have the 96, you can get a 92 slide/barrel/mags and fire both .40 and 9mm. Let's not forget the 92 Millenium: All steel monster (no alloy frame) that weighs a ton and has practically no recoil with 9mm!

The Ruger Blackhawk series gets a nod. We had a guy double charge a .44 with Bullseye. Comploded during a pin shoot. Left the headstamp imprinted into the breachface. Kept shooting with no appreciatable accuracy loss. Pretty durable stuff.

Walther PPK would be in my list too. Blowback .380 in an all steel gun that weighs like a brick and could probably handle MUCH more than what it was designed for.
They could have skimped on some things and still made a lighter pistol.

Eightball
September 4, 2009, 04:50 PM
I'd say the S&W 10. Maybe not for the metallurgy of the day and age it was introduced, but nowadays.

bradfromearth
September 4, 2009, 04:52 PM
Glocks-

Many are definitely overbuilt.

G 30 is same build as G 29
G 26 is same build as G 27
G 19 is same build as G 23

I allways tell new glock buyers to buy the bigger caliber and then get a conversion barrel. Get a glock 27 and a conversion and some glock 26 mags and you have two guns for a little extra. a 40 and a 9.

Funny thing too is you can put a g 36 slide on a g30 and it shoots just fine and makes the big fat g 30 much slimmer and packable.

Special_K
September 4, 2009, 05:05 PM
The Ruger sp101 comes to mind....

LeonCarr
September 4, 2009, 05:45 PM
+1 for any Ruger P-Series auto...they are tanks.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Wishoot
September 4, 2009, 05:59 PM
Just pick up a Ruger GP-100. It's built for uber-abuse.

freakshow10mm
September 4, 2009, 06:20 PM
The 9mm pressure is higher than the 40 S&W pressure.

The G20 and G21 share the same frame and slide. There are slight differences in the breechface and hood of the slide. Other than that, they are identical.

EHL
September 4, 2009, 06:40 PM
A 1911 in 9mm is of course overbuilt for its task.

Agreed!

Mike J
September 4, 2009, 06:48 PM
The Ruger P-series were the first thing that came to my mind.

kdstrick
September 4, 2009, 06:54 PM
The Ruger sp101 comes to mind....

In 38 Special and 9mm, specifically, I agree completely.

However, in 357 mag the weight is your friend.

TRguy
September 4, 2009, 07:22 PM
S&W 4506: bigger than a 1911 and weighs more too

1911Tuner
September 4, 2009, 07:25 PM
I'll cast a vote for the .357 Magnum Ruger New Model Blackhawk as one of the most over-enginered handguns on the planet.

Morgo
September 4, 2009, 08:02 PM
This one in .357 Mag could be a little lighter and thinner :)

http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp4/brycemorgan452/P1020527.jpg

Old Fuff
September 4, 2009, 08:14 PM
I'll cast a vote for the .357 Magnum Ruger New Model Blackhawk as one of the most over-enginered handguns on the planet.

It wasn't exactly engineered.... :uhoh:

When they came out with the "New" Model revolvers with the transfer bar safety the bean-counters decided that substantial bucks could be saved if they made all Blackhawks on the same frame. Thus rather then make a smaller frame for the .357 they moved it over to the .44 frame, and thereafter everything from .30 M1 Carbine to .44 Magnum and .45 Colt were on that one frame. More recently they brought out a smaller (actually shorter) frame because the substantial cowboy action shooting market did not like the heavy frame, and the sport called for lighter, not heavier loads.

Be that as it may, if you are inclined toward HEAVY :eek: .357 loads the Bisley version of the Blackhawk is hard to beat.

steve s
September 4, 2009, 08:24 PM
Overbuilt is better in the long run.

frankiestoys
September 4, 2009, 09:12 PM
I have several Ruger's they are built to last.

My p 85 mII looks brand new, with over 5000 rounds through it.
My black hawk is wonderful, My mini, (with some mods) has been
a great rifle and my ss gp100 will shoot anything i feed it.
There's alot of good guns on the market but this thread is on guns that
are overbuilt not all of them can say that as good as a Ruger can.:D

mesinge2
September 4, 2009, 10:12 PM
If you think the Beretta 92 is bad check out the new Beretta Polymer Framed 90-two.

Now that is a big 9mm.

https://www.berettausa.com/e2wProductGroupDetailDropDown.aspx?parentid=4100001486&parentLink=2100000084:3100001364:3100001368:4100001486

JCisHe
September 4, 2009, 10:21 PM
+3 for the Ruger P-series

Sport45
September 4, 2009, 10:57 PM
Somebody needs to post a picture of a .357mag Redhawk cylinder. :)

Found one. HogRider posted it here in 2005.

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/4864/redhawk357f4pg.jpg

planetmobius
September 4, 2009, 11:10 PM
Dan Wesson 22 (built on the same frame as the .357), colt python (built on a .41 frame), any Smith K-22 and any Ruger #1 rifle chambered for anything less than .600 Nitro Express.

belus
September 4, 2009, 11:11 PM
CZ's, especially the steel framed ones, are way over built for 9mm. The Springfield P9 (a clone) was used as the base for the first 9mm major guns.

freakshow10mm
September 5, 2009, 12:12 AM
A 1911 in 9mm is of course overbuilt for its task.
I absolutely disagree and it isn't the alcohol talking. A handgun designed for a maximum average pressure of 21,000 psi (45 ACP SAAMI spec) that a 35,000 psi cartridge (9mm SAAMI spec) is housed in, is definitely not overbuilt.

Frizzman
September 5, 2009, 12:21 AM
Some might consider the S&W M27 to be overbuilt. A .357 on the large N frame would seem to be way more steel than needed but it is actually pleasant to shoot with hot magnum loads. I believe it to be the finest .357 revolver ever made:D

Oyeboten
September 5, 2009, 12:35 AM
Colt New Service in .38 Special


K Frame S&W Revolvers, in .22 LR

orionhawk
September 5, 2009, 01:05 AM
"CZ's, especially the steel framed ones, are way over built for 9mm. The Springfield P9 (a clone) was used as the base for the first 9mm major guns."

I would argue that to be true of all the steel Browning High Power-based 9's

and the higher pressure in a 9mm 1911 would be pretty much offset by the thicker chamber walls, I would think.

JohnKSa
September 5, 2009, 01:17 AM
The 9mm pressure is higher than the 40 S&W pressure.The pressure limit for standard pressure 9mm is identical to the .40S&W pressure limit.I was always told that the Beretta 92 and pretty much all of Ruger's revolvers were overbuilt/over engineered for the caliber they fired.The Beretta 92 is set up well for 9mm and the design will tolerate .40S&W, but I wouldn't say it's overbuilt for 9mm.

The Ruger revolvers introduced since there's no Bill Ruger running the company aren't as overbuilt as the older models....the new Beretta Polymer Framed 90-two.The 90-Two has an aluminum frame like the Beretta 92/96 pistols.CZ's, especially the steel framed ones, are way over built for 9mm.They are pretty durable, but I wouldn't say they're overbuilt. They tend to put a bit more stress on the slide stop than some other designs.

The Glock 17 and 19 are pretty overbuilt. According to the older armorer's manual they were rated to function with 9mm ammo rated up to 43,500psi which is FAR beyond the pressure limits of any 9mm ammo I'm aware of.

The original Ruger P-Series pistols were overbuilt, especially the P89.

The N-frame .357 Smiths and the .357Mag Redhawks come to mind as well.

denfoote
September 5, 2009, 01:56 AM
Pistolet Makarova: The Glock of the Eastern Bloc. :)

Dr.Rob
September 5, 2009, 03:49 AM
Colt overbuilt many revolvers thanks to the "Official Police" being on a 41 frame. SW had a similar pairing with it's 38/44 heavy duty, though those had heat treated cylinders to shoot the then new 38 special hi-speed loads. Colt's New Service frame could handle those loads PLUS the .357 loads developed in the 30's without special modification, (Many 1917 Army models were converted to 357) but thats one LARGE piece. Shocking it took Colt so long to make a 44 magnum.

Ruger's revolvers were notoriously overbuilt, esp. the SP 101 in comparison to SW and other small frame guns.

In auto loaders I'd agree Ruger's early P series pistols were over built (or is it under finished?) like there was a LOT more metal than needed to be there.

By far the biggest/heaviest slide I've ever seen on a pistol is the HK VP-70z, though it's possible thats in part of how it 'works' ie a heavy slide on a light frame etc and it only had 4 moving parts. The magazines were definitely overbuilt, or maybe 'built right' as the feed lips are bomb proof and load easily like SMG magazines (which the VP-70m was).

Early Springfield "operator" with the rail, seemed like the gun weighed an extra POUND.

1911Tuner
September 5, 2009, 06:00 AM
A handgun designed for a maximum average pressure of 21,000 psi (45 ACP SAAMI spec) that a 35,000 psi cartridge (9mm SAAMI spec) is housed in, is definitely not overbuilt

Pressure isn't the only concern, and it's actually not the main concern. The 1911's chamber is amply strong enough to contain pressures well above the .45 ACP industry standard. Recoil impulse is the big killer of 1911s. It places the relatively small upper barrel lugs under tremendous shearing stresses and the slide in tensile stresses between the breechface and the first lug wall.

The locking lugs...or maybe a more accurate term would be recoil lugs...and the thin cross section of the slide at the ejection port...are the weak links in the 1911 design. 35,000 psi isn't a problem with a 115 grain bullet. Use a 230 grain bullet at the same pressure, and you'll break your gun in quick time...and it won't be from a burst chamber.

JohnKSa
September 5, 2009, 07:27 AM
A handgun designed for a maximum average pressure of 21,000 psi (45 ACP SAAMI spec) that a 35,000 psi cartridge (9mm SAAMI spec) is housed in, is definitely not overbuilt.Assuming both cartridges are operating at the maximum pressure limit the amount of force applied to the breechface of a .45ACP due to discharge pressure is very similar (only about 3% less) to the amount of force applied to the breechface of a 9mm due to discharge pressure.

At any rate, barring a really bad design and/or poor quality materials, the real issue is recoil, not pressure. And since recoil is proportional to momentum, the .45 with its much higher momentum figures is much harder on a pistol than 9mm is--all else being reasonably equal.

The Lone Haranguer
September 5, 2009, 09:26 AM
S&W "old-school" autos with steel frames.

MachIVshooter
September 5, 2009, 03:08 PM
Supposedly, Smith & Wesson 10mm autoloaders are also built like tanks

They are, but I wouldn't say overbuilt. Well built and able to handle full power ammo on a steady diet. The 10mm is a nasty round that does batter guns. The 4506-1, OTOH, is a 1006 chambered in .45 ACP and could be considered overbuilt. They will handle .45 super with no ill effects. The 5906 is also more than it needs to be. They can eat the hottest 9mm loads, smile, and beg for more.

kmrcstintn
September 5, 2009, 03:32 PM
I just snagged a S&W 67 (stainless K frame chambered for .38 spl/.38 spl +p) that is a 'no dash' model w/ stainless steel adjustable rear sight (production 1972 to 1977); the forcing cone thickness is massive on this thing...comparable to the forcing cone on my Ruger GP100 and feels like it weighs more than the Ruger Security Six I used to have and the S&W 19 that my dad used to have :eek:

BTW: include my GP100 in the list ;)

Coltman 77
September 5, 2009, 06:26 PM
Beretta 92 and Colt Python come to mind.

Ghost Walker
September 5, 2009, 08:06 PM
I've always been told that Rugers were so bulky (over-built) because many of the parts were made from foundry castings rather than machined steel billets; and, we all know that as good as Rugers are, the factory has very little (or no) quality control.

Yes, my S&W Model 27 has been a, 'bear'; and you just can't, 'kill' (or overuse) my wife's SP-101.

Jim K
September 5, 2009, 08:27 PM
Ruger has no quality control? A joke, or serious? Yes, Rugers are cast, but cast of high quality steel and about as trouble free as you can get. True, forgings are stronger, and most metallurgists think that the thicker Ruger frame is about equal (not especially better) in strength to the forged S&W frame. The point is that both are more than adequate, overbuilt, as it were.

On that subject, all guns are overbuilt. Would anyone want a gun that was made to just contain the pressure of firing? Would any company advertise by saying "our gun is barely strong enough to keep from blowing up"? I think not.

Another factor enters. If a gun, say a .357 Magnum, was made with a cylinder and barrel just strong enough, it would be so light as to be uncomfortable to fire. That is true of the small S&W revolvers in .357 which are not a lot over the "just enough", but are brutal in firing full house loads.

Another example is the .22 rifle. In the old days, gangs made .22 "zip guns" out of automobile radio antennae and they worked. Yet most .22 rifles have barrels a lot thicker than necessary. Why? Because the weight is needed to allow proper aiming and control.

Jim

Dogbite
September 5, 2009, 09:37 PM
You want to see overbuilt? Ruger SuperRedHawk. Its a tank. I had the 454 version. Just an amazing handgun.

Nicodemus38
September 5, 2009, 09:44 PM
truth be told, with the trend for lower powered ammunition from the makers, reduced recoil labeled fodder the most obvious ones, any handgun that is designed to meet or exceed the failure pressure for any given round from the day it was originally released on the market is over built.

example, a hand gun designed to handle the full pressure of the 357 as in 1940 is overbuilt when you have modern 357 ammo thats all "midrange" in pressure.

Ghost Walker
September 5, 2009, 09:47 PM
:) Relax, Jim, I like Rugers and have owned many of them.

(At least enough to know that Ruger has really lousy factory quality control. If you've got a problem with a new Ruger, not to worry! Over the years the factory has always found it cheaper and more expedient to simply replace the offending piece or else you'll promptly get your full purchase price returned to you - including shipping!)





Nicodemus38, you are very observant! ;)

jad0110
September 5, 2009, 11:36 PM
The North American Arms Guardian in 32 ACP comes to mind. Dang thing feels like it was milled out of a solid chunk of steel! Much heavier than you expect when you first pick one up.

mgregg85
September 5, 2009, 11:45 PM
Hmm, just for some flames, how about the H&K Mk23?

Almost as big as a desert eagle and it only shoots .45 acp, and the mag only holds 10 rounds.

The Lone Haranguer
September 6, 2009, 08:34 AM
With its wide, aircraft-carrier-like slide, I would consider the Glock 21 to be overbuilt for the .45 cartridge. It has a counterpart, the G20, in 10mm Auto, which is a higher pressure/recoil cartridge (in its full power loading) than the .45 and does need the wide slide. If the G21 were designed specifically for the .45 it could be slimmer.

Pressure isn't the only concern, and it's actually not the main concern. The 1911's chamber is amply strong enough to contain pressures well above the .45 ACP industry standard. Recoil impulse is the big killer of 1911s. It places the relatively small upper barrel lugs under tremendous shearing stresses and the slide in tensile stresses between the breechface and the first lug wall.

The locking lugs...or maybe a more accurate term would be recoil lugs...and the thin cross section of the slide at the ejection port...are the weak links in the 1911 design. 35,000 psi isn't a problem with a 115 grain bullet. Use a 230 grain bullet at the same pressure, and you'll break your gun in quick time...and it won't be from a burst chamber.

The original 10mm load was at or near this level, and the Delta Elite reportedly suffered for it.

Ghost Walker
September 6, 2009, 10:40 AM
Originally Posted By The Lone Haranguer
With its wide, aircraft-carrier-like slide, I would consider the Glock 21 to be overbuilt for the .45 cartridge. It has a counterpart, the G20, in 10mm Auto, which is a higher pressure/recoil cartridge (in its full power loading) than the 45 and does need the wide slide. If the G21 were designed specifically for the .45 it could be slimmer.

That's more correct for the recently manufacturered Glock Models designated as, 'G-21SF' and, 'G-30SF' than it is for the older models, 'G-21' or, 'G-30'.

Recently produced G-21SF models have been beefed-up in the area immediately beneath the chamber. Apparently factory engineers were able to identify an inherent weakness in the thinner metal, here, that either contributed to, or OCCASIONALLY reacted too easily to conditions of high pressure blowout.

I don't know just how, 'big a deal' this is, though? I've used my own 3rd generation G-21's to shoot 45 Super cartridges; and, my regular 45 acp ammo is, also, in the + P range. While I'm aware that the factory has made this subtle change to the G-21's slide, I see no real reason to be losing any sleep over it.

Silent Bob
September 6, 2009, 12:35 PM
Definitely Ruger P-Series (P85 thru P97, but not the P345), GP100, SP101, and their various big-bore guns (Redhawk, Super Redhawk, etc.,)

I would not include the SR9, P345, LCP, or LCR in that lineup.

S&W steel-framed autos

SIG P229

nitetrane98
September 6, 2009, 01:22 PM
On that subject, all guns are overbuilt. Would anyone want a gun that was made to just contain the pressure of firing? Would any company advertise by saying "our gun is barely strong enough to keep from blowing up"? I think not.

No I wouldn't buy one but strictly from an engineering/design point of view I would love to see what a gun looked like that was designed without a built in safety factor of 10- 20-30% or whatever is actually used. If somebody could design such a gun, about which they could state, "This is the absolute minimum dimensional, structural and metallurgical requirement to safely discharge a round and function the gun."
I'm reasonably sure that I would not want to fire it. But I'd still like to see it.

DFW1911
September 6, 2009, 02:46 PM
Well, I won't be adding much new here. My first reaction to the posting was Ruger GP-100 for a revolver and a CZ-75 for a pistol.

Yep, I'm okay with those choices :)

belus
September 6, 2009, 04:39 PM
CZ's, especially the steel framed ones, are way over built for 9mm. The Springfield P9 (a clone) was used as the base for the first 9mm major guns.
I would argue that to be true of all the steel Browning High Power-based 9's
Two things:
1) The CZ isn't based on the Hi Power, they just look a little similar
2) The High Power isn't a very strong design, even 9mms tend to wear out rather quickly

cleetus03
September 6, 2009, 07:55 PM
here's some more info from the article (http://gunnuts.net/2009/02/16/over-engineering-as-a-design-solution/) intro I added to the op;

The top-strap is the most visible external piece of over-engineering on the Ruger revolver, which allows it to service as an example of the overall design philosophy.

Now, this does not mean that the Ruger is a “better” revolver. However, it’s worth pointing out that there no sections in reloading manuals labeled “Smith & Wesson only” or “Colt only”, but there are sections labeled “Ruger only”.

1911Tuner
September 6, 2009, 08:24 PM
WHile the article cited above was correct about Ruger's thick topstraps...the writers seem to have missed the point. Erosion isn't the reason for the thickness, though that would play into the overall reason for the Ruger's brute strength.

The thick topstrap withstands tensile stress...stretch...better than thinner ones.

When a revolver is fired, the bullet's forward drag on the barrel and the equal forces pushing the frame in the opposite direction places the frame under high tensile stresses.

The frame stretches, then snaps back. During the stretching phase...the headspace increases for a few brief milliseconds...allowing the case to back up in the chamber until it stops against the recoil shield.

Over time and use...the frame becomes less elastic and doesn't snap back as readily or to its original dimension...and the process repeats until the shooter notices that the gun is looser than it used to be. Endshake is the technical term for it...and off to the smith it goes for a tune-up. He corrects the endshake with shims, and the gun is almost as good as new. The barrel-cylinder gap is a bit larger than it was...but pretty much all that does is cut the velocity a few fps...and lead to accelerated gas cutting above the gap.

As the frame begins to gas cut, it becomes a weak place...and the stretch occurs faster and is more pronounced than it was when the gun was new, so the tune-up doesn't last quite as long, and the endshake returns with fewer rounds fired than it took originally.

The thick, hellishly strong Ruger topstraps forestall this to a great degree. In this area, they are over-engineered for their application. Remember that it's not pressure that kills'em. It's the recoil impulse generated by driving bullets faster...and the heavier the bullet for a given velocity...the harder it is on the frame.

cleetus03
September 6, 2009, 11:51 PM
:scrutiny:On that subject, all guns are overbuilt. Would anyone want a gun that was made to just contain the pressure of firing? Would any company advertise by saying "our gun is barely strong enough to keep from blowing up"? I think not.

Gun manufacturers do advertise how confident they are in the engineered design of their guns. They strictly state this in their manual under the ammunition section.

Lets see how the following companies answer this simple customer question….Can I use +P or +P+ in your firearm?

Kel-Tec states…the p-3at/p-11/pf-9 pistols will accept +p ammunition however not with continuous use.
Sig Sauer states…..+P Ammo manufactured to SAAMI/CIP/NATO specs is fine to use as a defensive round or for occasional range use. Continual use of this round will make it necessary for more frequent service on the pistol. We do NOT recommend the use of any +P+ round. This may void your warranty.
Smith and Wesson states…. “Plus-P” (+P) ammunition generates pressures in excess of the pressures associated with standard ammunition. Such pressures may affect the wear characteristics or exceed the margin of safety built into some revolvers and could therefore be DANGEROUS.
Taurus states….“Plus-P’, “PIus-P-Plus” or other ultra or high velocity ammunition generates pressures significantly in excess of the pressures associated with standard ammunition. Such pressures may affect the useful life of the firearm or exceed the margin of safety built into many pistols and could therefore be DANGEROUS.


:confused:Notice how all these companies give an equivocal answer by not boldly stating YES or NO or more correctly YES and NO. With that in mind I was quite surprised when I looked up what Ruger’s Website had to say on the manner. Ruger does address this question with a specific yes or no. Even more so they state their policy stance on all of their guns individually. For example;

On their LCP, Ruger States….. No. The Ruger LCP was not designed for use with +P ammunition. Given the LCP's light weight and compact design, the use of +P ammunition in this particular model may result in damage to the firearm or personal injury.

On their LCR, Ruger states…. The LCR is designed specifically for modern higher-powered factory loaded cartridges, including .38 Special and .38 Special +P ammunition.

On their P series 9mm Pistols, Ruger states….. The Ruger 9mm pistols are chambered for the 9x19mm NATO Parabellum (9mm Luger) cartridge, compatible with the U.S. and foreign military or commercial 9x19mm loads manufactured in accordance with NATO, U.S., SAAMI, or CIP standards, including high-velocity, subsonic, tracer, hollow point, ammunition loaded in aluminum, steel, or brass cartridge cases, +P and +P+ ammunition.

:)I like how Ruger gives you a genuine answer. Ruger states to its customers, Yes you completely and confidently can use the following or No sorry but its essential that you do not use the following.


p.s. I'm not in anyway trying to showboat Ruger, It just happened to be the only company that stated a specific yes/no stance on the use of high pressure ammo on their website.

Blue Brick
September 7, 2009, 03:11 AM
Any and all Rugers that were designed or built when the old man was still alive.

nelson133
September 7, 2009, 08:50 AM
Cz 82

woad_yurt
September 7, 2009, 03:01 PM
Here's an overbuilt one, an Iver Johson Cadet. It shoots .32 S&W Longs and weighs like a little brick. It's pretty accurate, has a screw adjustable hammer spring and would be great for someone who can't take any recoil.

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee150/woad_yurt/IverJohnsonCadetlt02.jpg

Koos Custodiet
September 7, 2009, 03:48 PM
+ another 1 on the K-22. Thing can take a 38 and is chambered in a 22. Can't see it lasting much less than forever.

And the Freedom Arms revolvers. The 454 is built like a tank, the lesser calibers should also last forever and a bit.

farscott
September 7, 2009, 04:04 PM
The Freedom Arms 83 chambered in .22 LR is overbuilt as it is a five-shooter whose cylinder weighs more than most .22 LR revolvers.

Don357
September 8, 2009, 11:31 PM
If Glocks are so over built, and over engineered, how come so many go "KABOOM"?

+5 on the Rugers and add Magnum Research

JohnKSa
September 8, 2009, 11:46 PM
The 9mm Glocks (especially the 17 and the 19) are overbuilt. I wouldn't make the same claim for most of the other Glock offerings with the possible exception of the Glock 20.

tercel89
September 11, 2009, 11:18 PM
CZ-82 and CZ-83

zt77
September 12, 2009, 12:21 AM
two words- combat magnum

NMGonzo
September 12, 2009, 12:31 AM
Bersa 23 .22lr

Chris Plitt
September 12, 2009, 12:52 PM
Honestly, all of the 9mm sigs are overbuilt for the caliber. When you look at the steel put into them and look at the SLIGHT differences between the 9mm models and the .357 and .40 models... you get my point.

Also, I think that the HK USP9s ALL OF THEM are overbuilt. I recall someone mentioning running +p+ through them. It seems if you call all the other companies they tell you not to (the ammo isnt exactly SAAMI spec) but HK says, sure! GO AHEAD!

candr44
September 12, 2009, 05:14 PM
Star Megastar in .45. Although, the 10mm Megastar is one of the few guns of its time that could handle a steady diet of full power loads.

The .45 caliber CZ97b is also over built but its also a pretty damn accurate gun.

MCgunner
September 12, 2009, 05:37 PM
The Freedom Arms 83 chambered in .22 LR is overbuilt as it is a five-shooter whose cylinder weighs more than most .22 LR revolvers.

Also in .357 mag the FA is way overbuilt. Hell, it's overbuilt in .454 Casull!

The Rugers are just too obvious. I have 7 Rugers and they're all overbuilt. The P90, both blackhawks, the P85, and no one's mentioned, but MY GAWD, the Ruger Old Army! I've had 2, one stainless that got ripped off and my current blued one. Jeez, it's just black powder, people! :D I heard a story, though I'd never ever try it, that Ruger stuffed an Old Army's cylinder full of bullseye and seated a ball over it and torched it off, no doubt hiding behind armor plate, and the gun survived. WOW, there's your most overbuilt gun extant IMHO. Well, I don't know, when FA came out with that .22, it did seem a bit silly, LOL! It is very accurate, though. I think their market may have been IHMSA rimfire class, not sure.

jfh
September 12, 2009, 06:57 PM
was a S&W 1006. It would gobble up the hottest factory loads (Lapua, first gen 200-gr.) and hotter handloads and just keep getting more and more accurate, without a bobble or undue effects to the components.

Downsizing a firearm like that is an easy way to get an overengineered one.

Jim H.

mesinge2
September 12, 2009, 07:02 PM
What about the H&K mark 23 model O. I can fit two fingers in the trigger guard without touching the trigger.


I've handled and fired the mk23 model O and the USP 45 and the 23 is like Godzilla compared to the USP.

Deltaboy
September 12, 2009, 07:11 PM
Ruger p-Series and Revolvers ! Like a Abrams Tank!

Noveldoc
September 13, 2009, 01:30 PM
Just bought a decades old Smith 4506-1 45 auto. Granted it was a cop gun and not a heavily used target piece but bore is a mirror and there is not a single sign of wear on any of the internals including the barrel locking lug.

These are very strong and reliable guns with good accuracy. And they will feed an empty case.

Tom

jd70
September 13, 2009, 06:09 PM
Not an obvious one Colt pocket in 32acp!

rogertc1
September 13, 2009, 06:33 PM
Smith & Wesson 617 holds 10 rounds!!! Great gun in compatition!! I have one and not over built at all.

Ruger fits the over built category

Ky Larry
September 16, 2009, 10:19 AM
My CZ-83 in .380 ACP. Built like a tank. Also my S&W 686. It just feels solid and substancial in my hand. My T/C Contender.

Snowdog
September 17, 2009, 02:44 AM
Steyr M40

Fishman777
September 21, 2009, 11:07 PM
I think that the most overbuilt centerfire gun is the Ruger Redhawk in .357 magnum.

The most overbuilt rimfire might be the Single Six Hunter in .22. 45 oz solid stainless gun.

I like Glocks but they are ***NOT*** overbuilt. Their barrels don't fully support the chamber. How can a gun that doesn't fully support the chamber be considered overbuilt? Glocks have polymer frames, a lot of polymer parts, and tenifer finish on the frame and slide. This doesn't make them overbuilt.

JohnKSa
September 21, 2009, 11:50 PM
The G17 and G19 are overbuilt because they are designed to operate with 9mm ammo that exceeds SAAMI maximum pressure specs by 8,500psi--24% above standard pressure 9mm.

Somewhere on an online firearm forum (can't find the post anymore) a fellow posted from Norway about using the L7A1 ammo in his Glock 17 because it was all that was easily available to him.

Some background on that loading: According to a November 7 BATF Industry News release. "The ammunition was loaded to produce pressures far in excess of that intended for use in handguns...This ammunition should not be fired." The ammunition was produced for the British Ministry of Defense from 1990 through 1992 for use in submachine guns "under adverse conditions" and carries the "L7A1" designation. (http://www.firearmsid.com/Recalls/Ammo_Recalls%201.htm)

According to the poster the Glock 17 had no problem with it. He mentioned that other people in his area also shot that ammunition in their G17 pistols and that it typically shortened the life of the pistol to around 50,000 rounds...

That's overbuilt.

Fishman777
September 22, 2009, 01:51 AM
I like Glocks, but come on, they certainly aren't bomb proof. You're basing this statement on something that you heard on a web forum. Not a good idea. Think about what happens when some 18 year kid reads this posts and decides to reload his 9mm to 8500 psi above SAAMI specs.

Follow this link and you'll see what would probably happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vceh44UK-8I

I'm sorry, but a person can say anything that they like and there is no way of verifying internet forum or blog claims. ;)

The Glock 17 was designed to be used **within** the SAAMI specs for 9mm ammo. This guy from Norway can make any claims that he'd like, but the fact remains that Glock barrels don't fully support the chamber. Any gun can blow up, with sufficient pressure, but a supported chamber will minimize these types of problems. If you don't believe me, look at the Glockworld.com KB faq.

Furthermore, Glock 17s were designed around the 9mm cartridge. The .40 S&W was developed 10 years after the Glock 17 was released. A lot of modern polymer handguns not only have fully supported barrels, many of them have similiar finishes, and some were even built specifically for 40 S&W.

Glocks are excellent pistols. I'd go so far as to say they are among the best pistols ever made, but I'm sorry, I don't buy this argument that Glock 17s are overbuilt.

http://www.glockworld.com/content.aspx?Ckey=gw_kbfaq

easyrider6042004@yahoo.ca
September 22, 2009, 05:44 AM
How bout a TC Contender with .22LR barrel.

or a Colt Ace (1911 in .22LR)

JohnKSa
September 22, 2009, 11:27 PM
Think about what happens when some 18 year kid reads this posts and decides to reload his 9mm to 8500 psi above SAAMI specs.As long as he does it right, uses new brass, and as long as he uses it only in the G19 and G17 he'll be fine. The pressure spec I quoted was directly from a Glock Armorer's manual.The Glock 17 was designed to be used **within** the SAAMI specs for 9mm ammo.You don't know what you're talking about. The Glock 17 was designed to be used with 9mm NATO ammunition (which exceeds SAAMI specs for standard pressure 9mm) in a country whose ammunition and firearm manufacturers are governed by CIP standards, not SAAMI specifications.

According to the January 1992 Glock Armorer's manual the G17 pistol is rated for use with 9mm ammunition as long as the ammunition "maximum (upper limit) pressure" does "not exceed 43,500 pounds per square inch". That is well above any SAAMI spec applying to 9mm ammunition.The .40 S&W was developed 10 years after the Glock 17 was released.Apparently you were too busy making things up to actually read my posts. I've been very careful to specify exactly which Glock pistols I was referring to and nowhere have I made any claims that the .40 cal Glocks are overbuilt.I don't buy this argument that Glock 17s are overbuilt.Whether you buy it or not is immaterial. In the future I recommend that you come up with an opinion based on the facts instead of trying to make it work the other way around.

novaDAK
September 23, 2009, 05:09 AM
stainless steel S&W autos...they weigh as much as a 1911 and are very easy shooting due to the weight.

Fishman777
September 23, 2009, 11:07 AM
Okay, I stand corrected on the SAAMI pressure issue. That *is* pretty impressive.

Simply supporting your original statement with a reputable source would've been enough to convince me. If you would've originally said that according to Glock's armorer manual, Glock 17s were designed to withstand 43,500 psi, I wouldn't have challenged you in the first place. I probably would have whistled and agreed with your original statement. My BS meter went off when you started talking about how some guy on some internet forum said such and such.

Not everyone owns glocks, or for that matter, the 1992 armorers manual. What you stated is a pretty obscure fact. Glock doesn't even state this in their Glock Instructions For Use manuals that I've seen. Maybe rather than assuming that everyone has access to this information, maybe you should do a better job supporting your arguments in the first place.

I felt pretty safe assuming that Glock didn't recommend exceeding SAAMI specs for 9 mm or +p or +p+ ammo (since no other gun company that I'm aware of recommends this practise in their manuals). I was wrong. Won't be the last time. I'll be more careful next time.

EOC_Jason
September 23, 2009, 11:18 AM
Do the Remington XP-100's count? I mean, you take essentially a bolt action rifle and slap it on a pistol frame... hehe...

JohnKSa
September 23, 2009, 10:37 PM
Fishman777,

That was a very gracious response to my quite unpleasantly worded post. I commend you for it and I apologize for being unwarrantedly nasty.

Hokkmike
September 24, 2009, 10:53 AM
The Redhawk in .357.

Peter M. Eick
September 25, 2009, 04:25 PM
Dan Wesson 722. Put a 22 lr on 357 Magnum frame and that is a bit overbuilt.

One of the original 357 Registered Magnums was built into a 22 lr. That one is certainly overbuilt.

BornLoser
September 25, 2009, 11:46 PM
A 1911 in 9mm is of course overbuilt for its task.

The Germans actually made a 9mm modeled after the 1911. It's called a Radom. We had one for a long time before my dad sold it. I really liked it, but he didn't. I guess that was all that mattered, ehh ?
But, it was a neat gun.

Dr.Zubrato
September 26, 2009, 10:36 PM
The Germans actually made a 9mm modeled after the 1911. It's called a Radom. We had one for a long time before my dad sold it. I really liked it, but he didn't. I guess that was all that mattered, ehh ?
But, it was a neat gun.

Radom is a polish city, and also the name of a polish arms manufacturer. The pistol was originally produced in poland, but once germans invaded they stole what they could and forced laborers to make pistols for the germans.

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis_pistol

Truly a shame, I'd love to shoot the lovechild of two JMB designs.

searcher451
September 27, 2009, 02:25 PM
I'd place the Walther P5 and the Walther P88 in this category. I have a healthy suspicion that these two will be performing 100 years from now as well and they do today because of the extraordinary attention to detail that they received in both the design and production processes.

Newton
September 27, 2009, 03:57 PM
Ruger No.1
HK USP 9mm (compact or full size) - has been tested with a blocked barrel with little ill efffect.

Walther 9mms get an honorable mention as they are proofed to 150% at the Ulm proof house.

And the winner - the Webley Mk.VI in .455 - specifically proofed to handle a double charge without any damage.

P97
September 27, 2009, 05:32 PM
Ruger P90

kanook
September 27, 2009, 07:01 PM
The Ruger P90 was suppose to be a 10mm. When sales for the 10mm were declining the decided to go with the 45. I wished I could get one in 10mm

444
September 27, 2009, 07:36 PM
I have two of the Ruger Redhawks in .357 (both stainless). They are probably as overbuilt as you can get.
Here is a good picture of one, I didn't read the article so I don't know what it says: http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/printv/8856/ I don't enjoy shooting them as they are so freaking heavy. This is a massive piece of iron.


FWIW: earlier in this thread the HK Mk.23 was reported to hold 10 rounds in the magazine. This is incorrect. The standard magazine holds 12 rounds. I have six of them (the magazines that is, only one gun). Like many guns of that era, 10 round mags were made due to the ban. I also have six of the 10 round magazines which were very cheap after the ban ended and I use those to avoid the wear on the 12 rounders (like that is really an issue :scrutiny:) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_Mark_23



.

BullRunBear
September 27, 2009, 07:48 PM
Gotta go with the Redhawk in .357 for over engineered. It's a handful. But is sure is fun to fire off six rounds of top (still safe) pressure hand loads once in a while. The joke is mine is extremely accurate with the lightest .38 WC loads.
Has about the same recoil as the pop gun I had as a child.

Can't agree about the K-22 revolvers. I recall reading that they were meant to give target shooters the same feel/weight/balance as the K-38 and K-32 centerfires. So I don't consider them over engineered, just that other considerations were in play.

Jeff

BHP FAN
September 27, 2009, 07:50 PM
Nagant revolver.

If you enjoyed reading about "HANDGUNS overbuilt for the caliber they fire?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!