Seecamp .380 - available??
- Thread starter alamo
- Start date
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
On the waiting list... I'll tell you in about 18 months.
cuerno de chivo
Moderator
Are they limited to Silver Tips this time around too?
I personally question the usefulness of a .380 Seecamp. Now, before people start flamming away, let me explain where I'm coming from ...
I have a Kahr MK9 which I use for deep concealment. When Kahr came out with the MK40, I was one of the first in line to get it. I got it and I hated it and I got rid of it. It wasn't the gun, it's just that the .40S&W was too powerful a round for such a small firearm.
I own a S&W5906 (9mm) and a S&W4006 (.40S&W). Except for the caliber, both guns are identical with regard to shape, size, weight, operations, etc. To be perfectly honest with you, I can't tell the difference between shooting the 5906 and the 4006 unless I'm shooting them side by side with each other.
I originally thought that the same thing would happen with the Kahrs. The MK9 and the MK40 are almost exactly the same size, shape, weight, etc. However, when you get to something that small, size & weight apparently does make a difference. Again, I'm not saying that it's the gun but for me, it appears to be too poweful of a round for such a small package.
I wonder if the same thing will be true with a .380 Seecamp? If memory serves me correctly, the Seecamp was originally built to handle a .25ACP and it obviously did very well with the .32ACP caliber. However, I wonder if they might be pushing the limit when they decided to make it in a .380ACP -- just my thoughts on the subject.
I have a Kahr MK9 which I use for deep concealment. When Kahr came out with the MK40, I was one of the first in line to get it. I got it and I hated it and I got rid of it. It wasn't the gun, it's just that the .40S&W was too powerful a round for such a small firearm.
I own a S&W5906 (9mm) and a S&W4006 (.40S&W). Except for the caliber, both guns are identical with regard to shape, size, weight, operations, etc. To be perfectly honest with you, I can't tell the difference between shooting the 5906 and the 4006 unless I'm shooting them side by side with each other.
I originally thought that the same thing would happen with the Kahrs. The MK9 and the MK40 are almost exactly the same size, shape, weight, etc. However, when you get to something that small, size & weight apparently does make a difference. Again, I'm not saying that it's the gun but for me, it appears to be too poweful of a round for such a small package.
I wonder if the same thing will be true with a .380 Seecamp? If memory serves me correctly, the Seecamp was originally built to handle a .25ACP and it obviously did very well with the .32ACP caliber. However, I wonder if they might be pushing the limit when they decided to make it in a .380ACP -- just my thoughts on the subject.
Bottom Gun
New member
We sent them a letter about 4 weeks ago attempting to order a couple of the .380's and have not even had a reply from them yet.
They will not talk on the phone either.
Starting to wonder if I really do need one.
They will not talk on the phone either.
Starting to wonder if I really do need one.
FUD,
It's interesting that you say that about the .380 Seecamp. I think the .32 Seecamp and/or NAA Guardian are OK, but they are not that pleasant to shoot a lot. I have a Colt Mustang Pocketlite, and I think that's about as small a package as I'd put a .380 into. Of course, it also fires from a locked breech, so it's a soft shooting gun. FWIW, my Keltec P32 at half the weight of my NAA Guardian is a softer shooter too, I suspect the locked breech is responsible there too.
It's interesting that you say that about the .380 Seecamp. I think the .32 Seecamp and/or NAA Guardian are OK, but they are not that pleasant to shoot a lot. I have a Colt Mustang Pocketlite, and I think that's about as small a package as I'd put a .380 into. Of course, it also fires from a locked breech, so it's a soft shooting gun. FWIW, my Keltec P32 at half the weight of my NAA Guardian is a softer shooter too, I suspect the locked breech is responsible there too.
I have been shooting handguns all my life. I shoot my .44 mag accuratly without flinching, but it's a handful. I have had a NAA guardian for a couple years and shoot it regularly.It's only 13 ounces and uses a blowback action.It pushes my hand back pretty hard,but I don't shoot more than 50 rounds at a time. The p-32 with it's locked breach would be the pistol to modify to .380 if you relly think it's needed. I'm quite satisfied with a .32. The difference between the bullets I would be shooting is less than 20 grains! Shot placement is everything. I practice with my .32 because it's fun to shoot,and I can shoot it quite accuratly because I shoot it alot! I don't think a .380 would be as much fun to shoot.Nope,not fun at all!!!
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
"I personally question the usefulness of a .380 Seecamp."
Because its freakin COOL!
Because its freakin COOL!