micromontenegro
New member
As do blow-forward designs
Dead end handgun designs.
- Thread starter SIGSHR
- Start date
I've had concealed carry 30+ years and never "needed" a single bullet.
Instead of odds, statistics, location, anticipated threat, I have a simple method one can use (if they are inclined) to select a carry handgun. Which I'll share:
Would I prefer this handgun* in hand if I had to defend myself, wherever (anywhere).?
For me, a Glock 17/22/34/35 meets my simple criteria of preferred in hand, a revolver does not.
There is no statistic, odds or discussion that would change my preference of Glock 17/22 > revolver
handgun* - A Glock 17/22 is easily concealable, a rifle or shotgun is not, selection limited to handguns.
The Cult of the P7 seems to be alive and well. HK discontinued the pistol in 2008. There are agencies in Europe that still use it. When HK discontinued it they said they would support the pistol for ten years. Tens years is now long gone. I wonder how the users of the pistol manage to squeeze on with an orphan.
When Nevada started shall-issue concealed carry in the 1990s, my first permit had a PSP model on it. The pistol is a marvelous piece of mechanical ingenuity but its low capacity and curious design left me cold while the pistol heated up to the point of not being able to hold it after fifty rounds through it in short order. The HK USP Compact seemed like a better answer and I moved on.
Note the P7 came about in the 1970s when the German government wanted a ready-to-shoot pistol without an external manual safety (as in the then popular P1/P38). Walther provided the P5, a lovely pistol now only seen in films. Sig provided the P6, which is known here as the P225. These are traditional double action (TDA) semi-autos with a long and heavy first trigger pull.
The P7 with its squeeze cocker action provides a single-action trigger that is inert when at rest but readily deployable without clicking off a safety as in a 1911. It is great. And the aesthetics of the pistol are impressive. But for extended range sessions to master the pistol it leaves a lot to be desired. I would rather use the TDA design, which I have always favored despite striker-fired mania.
When Nevada started shall-issue concealed carry in the 1990s, my first permit had a PSP model on it. The pistol is a marvelous piece of mechanical ingenuity but its low capacity and curious design left me cold while the pistol heated up to the point of not being able to hold it after fifty rounds through it in short order. The HK USP Compact seemed like a better answer and I moved on.
Note the P7 came about in the 1970s when the German government wanted a ready-to-shoot pistol without an external manual safety (as in the then popular P1/P38). Walther provided the P5, a lovely pistol now only seen in films. Sig provided the P6, which is known here as the P225. These are traditional double action (TDA) semi-autos with a long and heavy first trigger pull.
The P7 with its squeeze cocker action provides a single-action trigger that is inert when at rest but readily deployable without clicking off a safety as in a 1911. It is great. And the aesthetics of the pistol are impressive. But for extended range sessions to master the pistol it leaves a lot to be desired. I would rather use the TDA design, which I have always favored despite striker-fired mania.
Everyone has, of course, the right to like, or dislike, based on their own personal criteria, but a statement like this leads me to wonder about some things in general, beyond this specific pistol and shooter.
Many vocal people find fault with a gun when it does exactly what the designer built it to do, when that happens to differ from what those people think the gun ought to do.
Many American consumers simply do not understand many European designers point of view, and vice versa.
Many times it reminds me of the old joke where a guy goes to the doctor, waves his arm a certain way, and tells the doc, "Doc, it hurts when I do this!"
TO which the doc replies, "well, then don't do that!"
Your "preference"... is a 1:6,000 statistical advantage.
Which makes your argument obfuscation.
As the Revolver is far from a Dead End firearm design.
You just don't like them... which is a subjective sample of One(1.0).
Red
I already said statistics don't factor in my carry and you are correct, I have no love for revolvers.
For someone who is not "into" guns, seldom shoots, or is uncomfortable or incompetent with loaded chamber in a semi then a revolver is likely a better choice. I'm neither of those.
Odd you chose to try to take me to task over my preference when you chose the same as me (a Glock) in another thread:
What is your do it all pistol?
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6929571#post6929571
"GLOCK G23.4/.40/180 gr..
Big/small/light/heavy/concealable/fightable... enough."
FYI: My 1st centerfire handgun new in 1987 was a S&W 686 357 Mag, first handgun I bought my wife was a Charter Arms 38 snub. I've owned various 44 mags, 357 Mags, 38 snubs. Its not that I have not owned revolvers, I have and they are not my preference.
When it comes to carry I prefer a semi (Glock 9mm/40) not only for the capacity but also for speed of subsequent shots.
If not a Glock it would be:
1911 > revolver
Sig 365 > revolver
There is not a bigger waste of your time and internet than trying to convince me that I'd be better off with a revolver than a Glock.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The value in arguing a point isn't really in convincing the person opposed, rather it is in providing a viewpoint and supporting rationale for others who haven't already made up their minds."
You may now stick your fingers back in your ears and sing LALALALALALALA at the top of your lungs.
You may now stick your fingers back in your ears and sing LALALALALALALA at the top of your lungs.
"There is not a bigger waste of your time and internet than trying to convince me that I'd be better off with a revolver than a Glock."
I wouldn't try. My preference in a Colt Combat Commander in .45 ACP. Frankly, I don't see much different in weight between the Commander over the standard 1911. Maybe if mine was one of the lightweights will aluminum frame I'd see a difference. FWIW, Back up in my pockets is and S&W M60 snubbie. here are times when I cannot carry the 1911 style because of state laws. No firearms allowed in hospitals and doctor's offices. It's easier to hide the M60 somewhere in my vehicle than the Commander or a full size gun like the Glock. I figure it's better than a handful of rocks and thankfully I'm comfortable with both type of handguns.
I don't remember which one of his books that he said this but Elmer Keith once said, "I prefer that each man scratch his own fleas in whatever manner he chooses." Well said Elmer.
Paul B.
I wouldn't try. My preference in a Colt Combat Commander in .45 ACP. Frankly, I don't see much different in weight between the Commander over the standard 1911. Maybe if mine was one of the lightweights will aluminum frame I'd see a difference. FWIW, Back up in my pockets is and S&W M60 snubbie. here are times when I cannot carry the 1911 style because of state laws. No firearms allowed in hospitals and doctor's offices. It's easier to hide the M60 somewhere in my vehicle than the Commander or a full size gun like the Glock. I figure it's better than a handful of rocks and thankfully I'm comfortable with both type of handguns.
I don't remember which one of his books that he said this but Elmer Keith once said, "I prefer that each man scratch his own fleas in whatever manner he chooses." Well said Elmer.
Paul B.
Carry
I'd like to know my pistol is loaded when I pick it up, with my G19 empty vs. full is quite apparent.
I like the fact that the ammo is a big part of the weight of my carry piece. That strikes me as efficient, and I love efficiency.
I need to put a loaded 15 round flush fit mag on the scale vs. the unloaded pistol.
They might be close to the same weight. I shall check that when I go to the range today.
I'd like to know my pistol is loaded when I pick it up, with my G19 empty vs. full is quite apparent.
I like the fact that the ammo is a big part of the weight of my carry piece. That strikes me as efficient, and I love efficiency.
I need to put a loaded 15 round flush fit mag on the scale vs. the unloaded pistol.
They might be close to the same weight. I shall check that when I go to the range today.
Having owned both a CZ 52 and a CZ 82, the CZ 52 is a good example of a dead end design. Perhaps that makes it a bad example? Sure not a great pistol, but in an interesting caliber. About the only similarities with the pistol that replaced it was the fact it was also a magazine fed semi auto pistol.
Let' be clear on something, are you actually telling us that you determine if a pistol is loaded or not, that there is a round in the chamber, or not by the weight of the gun in your hand??
You made NO mention of checking the chamber, and not physically/visually checking the chamber doesn't seem efficient to me, unless the efficiency you are seeking is an increase in the odds you will have an accident with possibly fatal consequences.
There are a lot of us who can tell by the heft of the some guns if it has a full (or nearly) full load of ammo on board, but no one can tell by the weight if one of those rounds is in the chamber, or not. And, I don't know anyone, myself included who can with complete confidence state a gun is unloaded by the weight in the hand. ONE ROUND doesn't weigh much, not enough for me to feel, and one round, in the chamber, when you don't think it is, can be deadly.
If it seems like I am hammering on this point, I am. Not for you, or to change the way you do things, but for everyone else on the forum who might read this and think doing it the way you wrote it is a good idea.
It's not.
The Remington Model 51 was/is a nice quality pistol, but expensive to manufacture.
This .380 was carried by my wife’s grandpa from the 1920s to the 1940s.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=116288&d=1695339550
This .380 was carried by my wife’s grandpa from the 1920s to the 1940s.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=116288&d=1695339550
The CZ52 has the roller locking system that was used in the Rheinmetall MG42 and picked up by CETME in the G3 again. H&K came to own the roller lock patent and successfully sued CETME but CZ was behind the iron curtain at the time.
The SIG Sauer Trailside was a cheap and simplified knock-off with less internal parts than the Hammerli 212, which is based on the 1936 Walther Olympia Jaegerpistole.
You get what you pay for.
Copying is another form of flattery. Sauer & Sohn based their Trophy line of double action revolvers on S&W's lock work.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
New member
Isn't the Hammerli Excesse just a Trailiside under a different badge?
micromontenegro
New member
More like a 208S without bridge sights and a better barrel.
The Hammerli Excess was built as a cheaper version of the Walther Olympia, which Hammerli produced under license since 1952. The Hammerli Walther Olympia morphed from the 200 eventually to the Hammerli International, which could either be a 208 version with adjustable match grips, or a 211 version with sporter grips, the .22 short was the 210. The 215 was a slightly cheaper version without the polished sides and a couple of machining steps for the front sight omitted. The 208S and 215S have a larger trigger guard and the trigger is adjustable for length.
The Excesse and Trailside are indeed both economy versions of the Hammerli International and closest to the 212 Jägerpistole, missing the rear sight bridge.
208
210
The Excesse and Trailside are indeed both economy versions of the Hammerli International and closest to the 212 Jägerpistole, missing the rear sight bridge.
208
210