I wonder if anyone noticed that accessory rail/dust cover scheme makes it impossible to design a holster for the gun (well, a non race-gun holster)? Should have copied Korth's Sky Marshal revolver & put the laser/light rail on the side of the frame some place where it could poke out while the rest of the gun was properly retained.
The gun is certainly interesting looking, totally
Robocop or SilencerCo Maxim
, and I'm always happy to have another Texan company in the mix. However, I can't shake an uneasy feeling about this gun/company. Perhaps some others could explain the appeal to me.
-Massively heavy/bulky for either a carry, competition, or home defense gun
-9mm is really not deserving of such drastic measures as far as recoil damping, when they necessarily result in so much additional size/mass (such as the far more powerful FK BRNO Field Pistol)
-The marketing leans heavily on the "1911-inspired" bit, but there is literally nothing but a steel frame material & grips of similar shape in common with that platform from what I can tell. It's less a 1911 than a Beretta PX4.
-The marketing seems, way, way, waaaay entirely too slick for a new kid on the block company chasing pre-orders. Something about trying too hard to impress in the absence of previous work experience raises my eyebrows; this outfit just
screams boondoggle to me. How much of the price tag comes from a website more over-developed than those of multi-million dollar established makers*, and an aggressive social-media marketing strategy that blew news of this obscure new pistol all over the gun forums & blogs simultaneously the past week, before the first copy even made it to a reviewer?
So, we have this massive, heavy, expensive,
double stack 9mm striker fire gun, whose sole advantages are a very slightly lower bore axis (barrel still has to tilt down, guys, so the Strike One still has them beat handily), and a straight-pull trigger. The second of which is merely a characteristic, not an advantage; there's a whole lot more to a "1911-style trigger" than the fact the bang switch doesn't pivot. The mere presence of the Glock-dingus on the trigger shoe alone makes it unlikely to be very comparable (not to mention the fact that a striker gun's disconnector is going to be totally different from the 1911's mechanism, which is sure to impact the feel when the trigger is released), and that's assuming whatever additional linkage is needed to transform the rear-ward motion of the trigger into vertical motion of the sear off the striker does not impact trigger quality at all (another unlikely/impossible situation)
By all means someone show me in what way this gun resembles the 1911 (frame layout, barrel lockup, magazine, fire control, even the chambering are all different). I suppose the mag release looks similar. And if this patent drawing is similar to the finished product, that bore axis doesn't look particularly low to me (like, if the recoil spring were in the usual spot, the profile is nearly identical to a High Power).
Even on an artistic level, the gun suffers from a glaring aesthetic faux-pas; if you look at the huge dead-space in the dust cover, it is clear the goal here was to fill in the area in front of the trigger guard for a beefier, more aggressive profile. Mission accomplished. But then they leave the vestigal 1911 beavertail hanging off the back for no reason at all --it's not like there's a hammer spur to guard during recoil, after all-- an oddly delicate-looking feature on an otherwise tanklike package. Probably pokes & snags like a 1911 beavertail, too.
Those who are familiar with me know that I'm the last guy to go all "answer to a question that nobody blah blah blah" when a new gun design comes around --on the contrary I'm eager to learn how it works, and its advantages & disadvantages. But what I see here seems much more like marketing masquerading as innovation and, paradoxically enough, nostalgia, while bringing no unique qualities or advantages to the table. Which is what makes the apparent fervor & outpouring of desire across the gun boards of late both baffling and frustrating; where was all this excitement for new ideas when the Strike One was imported, or before Boberg went under, or for other arms designers/makers with great ideas that never found broad appeal? Was it just because they lacked slick marketing campaigns promising their product was the next step in arms evolution from spear to bow to musket to 1911?
Part of me suspects that even if all the promises are true, that the gun will find few fans. A 1911 with only a single passive safety system (trigger switch)? Seems like the experience of shooting the "striker 1911" will be completely different from what that set of shooters are accustomed to (and the recoil impulse when lacking a hammer is likely to feel quite odd). Seems like the weight & size would be off putting to poly-frame aficionados, and it's not like lightweight short-travel triggers in the 4lb range don't exist for these, either. The marketing makes the gun seem appealing, but I just don't see exactly who is supposed to fall in love with the gun once they actual put their mitt to metal & hold the thing.
TCB
*Seriously. The website is overflowing with trendy flash tricks and macho pretense, it looks like a talented Graphic Designer's senior project. The corny video a Computer Graphics major's. I don't think there was even any real footage of an actual gun firing or components, just cheap & easy CAD cartoons.
"Our Philosophy; Keep Advancing." <rolls eyes>. I merely had reservations before, but my "Tout Alarm" is at DEFCON 1 after such melodrama. Not one mention of their machining capabilities, nor their quality control, nor even ISO/etc certification; as a potential pre-orderer, I'd have no way of knowing whether they can actually bring this to market, or are simply planning to "hire someone to figure out those details"
