Are the "ORIGINALS" better?

[James Montes]

The subject actually came about with the GLOCK 17 thread on this forum.

It seems that the major firearms manufactures develope a weapon and then will try to "improve" it or "change it" only to have it be less of a weapon than the original. Some examples...

The HK P7M10, is nothing compared to the original P7 (M8 or PSP). Ya it is a harder hitting caliber but it was so bad HK stopped making it!

The SIG SAUER P226. This wondernine IMHO is the best SERVICE 9MM in the world! Making it in .40/.357 did nothing for this weapon. Heck, you can get a .40/.357 in a better package with the P229(SIGs original .40/.357).

The BROWNING HI-POWER in .40! I like the caliber but don't like it in the BROWNING HP.
The original configuration is superior in just about everyway!

The GLOCK plethora of cal. pistols.
There are so many different configurations of this weapon it is down right ridiculous! Just when you think they made all GLOCK could possibly make, another model comes out. As I stated in the other thread on the GLOCK 17. It is considered "THE GLOCK" to own. It is the "ORIGINAL." The model which all other GLOCKs are measured. So why consider any of the others?

Same with 1911s. The .45 ACP GOVERNMENT style is the standard yet we see this weapon being chambered in every auto cartridge out there! These changes though novel, have done nothing to improve this classic, and only serve to degrade it...

Change can be good! However, sometimes it's very unnecessary, and for the worst.

Has anybody experienced "NEGATIVE" change with there FAV model weapons? If so what was the "original" and how was it changed?
Was the change "GOOD" or "BAD."

I ask the question because I hate to see GOOD things go away...
Or be degradaded by BAD ideas...

Is all this change for marketing purposes? If so who is buying???

 

[George Hill]

You make some good points James...

But the P7 M10 wasnt so bad - It was in response to PDs requesting the gun in a larger caliber.
Utah Highway Patrol carried the M10 for a long time.

------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE

 

[Mike Spight]

James:

Some really good points. One thing to take into consideration if you please. In the case of the SIG 226, it is a great fighting handgun in 9mm. However, like the Beretta 92, some folks consider it an awfully big package for what some consider to be a relatively small round, although you can carry a bunch of them in the piece with high-caps.

I think that's why SIG decided to offer it in .40 S&W. That particular cartridge size (by design) fits nicely into platforms originally designed around the 9mm. It just happened that the .357 SIG came later and worked in the same platform.

IMHO, offering a larger caliber round in the 226, Beretta 92 series and other proven 9mm platforms merely provided more choice and that can be a good thing. Now if the .40 and the .357 did not offer (for some shooters/agencies) an advantage (real or perceived, let's not get into that peeing contest) over the 9mm, then your point is well taken. Overall, and I think we can agree on this, the two newer calibers have filled a niche that was sought by civilian shooters and various LE agencies. As long as both function reliably in the weapon, nothing has really been lost.

Mike

 

[Mute]

I think what you're describing is not so much attempts at improvement as it is trying to fit more powerful cartridges into a weapon that was not originally designed for these different calibers. Had the manufacturers not try to cut R&D cost and designed new guns around the other calibers from the ground up, we probably would see better samples.

 

[James K]

Hi, guys,

I tend to agree, but I blame the customers as much as the companies. Every time a new gun (any new product?) comes out, the first words out of the customer's mouth are "Why don't they make it...?"

Many makers went to the .40 for LE sales without doing the engineering necessary to make it work right. The .40 is not a little bigger 9mm. It is a much hotter round and has some drawbacks. It was designed to function on a 9mm platform, but that brought tradeoffs in the form of a short round, with poor bullet shape.

Then all the gadgets prompted by public "demand" and fear of lawsuits are added on, until what had been a simple product becomes a complex near-nightmare.

Until we, the buyers, understand the KISS principle, we are going to see more failures in the "enhanced" products. We need to quit buying every "improvement" that comes along, and guns that incorporate them, and get back to the idea of learning to shoot.

Jim

 

[JERKY]

Im glad someone brought this up. I didnt like the idea that beretta's 92 simply bored over to fit the .40 cal was an improvement in any way. yet LE agencies bought them up as well as harry homeowner. It would be nice to see the bigger round have a gun built around it, rather than the gun changed to match. I was dissapointed when beretta made such a bad move. But what can ya do ?

Buy a sig. thats what ya do !

lol



------------------
TIM : )

 

[BigG]

Wassamatta? The Beretta 92 is big enuff that they oughta be able to bore it out to 50 Action Express without retooling!

------------------
45 ACP: Give 'em a new navel!

 

[Puddle Pirate]

If your'e only talking about changing caliber on the 1911's, then no, I don't think they are making the gun better, but modern 1911's are better for the changes. Examples, the beaver-tail grip safety to protect your hand, and the lowered ejection port are both improvements. (No matter what the guy who keeps saying "gummint" says )

 

[John Lawson]

Puddle Pirate, you obviously aren't old enough to remember, but the wide grip safety was made by gunsmiths (not factories)for customers who needed it because of a thick-webbed hand. I was making them in 1946, and called them "spade grips." There is even an illustration of an enlarged one in a 1928 gunsmithing book. Not every shooter finds these wide grip safeties to be an advantage, especially the high ones. I got so much flak about that, I built an electronic device to prove my point. The same goes for the flat on the front strap below the trigger guard.
The lowered ejection port was not necessary with pre-1970 Colt pistols. The faired port originated with the 1954 Gold Cup, and literature of the day explained that it was faired to clear steel cases that eject a 3 o'clock rather than the usual 2 o'clock position. (I never figured out why anybody would run steel cases through a G.C. I sure didn't through mine, though I had thousands of steel cased sssurplus rounds.)
A more relevant case of factory tampering is the 1946 Husquvarna rifle, which was a commercial '98 Mauser. Every factory "improvement"...sheet metal safety, etc. had the effect of cheapening the rifle and making it undesirable.
During the last few unpleasant interludes...Panama, Grenada, the Balkans,
I have had long lines of soldiers who wanted a good 1911 to protect their life, rather than the sheet metal, plastic and wire spring wonders.
And, there is nothing wrong with the Colt auto in 9X23. I have one myself, and would carry it on the street except for the fact that I built myself a Gold Cup for carry.
Before you jump on me, the only two original factory parts are the slide and frame. Even the rear sight was 86'ed.

 

[Jeff OTMG]

I agree with you to a point. Generally guns have always been more reliable in their original caliber and SIZE. Look at the work that went into an Officers Model or Defender to try to get it to feed like the standard Govt Model. The exception is the SIG P226 you mention. Yes, it could be the best 9mm of its type, but it is an improvement of the original, the SIG P220 in 9mm. The high cap version was created from that original and now the original is offered as a .45, another great improvement.

 

[Beretta Boy]

I've heard from other sources that the Beretta 92 when chambered to 40 ended up compromising some quality... What specifically was the problem?

------------------
"...you're thinkin was that 5 shots or was it 6? Well, you've gotta ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky??? ...Well, do ya PUNK!?!?

 

[Bob Jenkins]

Let's not forget the role of our esteemed government in all of this.

The 10 round magazine limit reduced the utility of some of the larger 9mm pistols. For example, the Beretta 92 is a large pistol to only carry 10 + 1 rounds. Same thing with the Glock 17. Many people aren't going to spend the money for pre-ban Hi-caps. Many people, myself included, figure "If I can only have ten, I want BIG ONES" (or FAST ONES). This has encouraged many manufacturers to adapt 9mm pistols to fire 40 S & W and 357 Sig. It was either this or limit themselves to Law Enforcement and Military sales.

The recent increase in Concealed Carry has also created a demand for smaller, lighter handguns that still have enough power to stop a bad guy.

The result of all of this is much more choice in gun size and calibers. This is good for the market and good for the consumer. Some of the new guns or calibers may not be ideal and some may not work well at all. The market will eventually sort these out if the government will stay our of it.

Of course, many anti-gunners are now complaining that the evil gun manufacturers are making handguns "More Lethal" when the manufacturers are actually just responding to government action and market forces!

And so it goes.

[This message has been edited by Bob Jenkins (edited November 16, 1999).]