Shoot!!!

It's Been Sometime Since I Last Posted

2011-04-04T13:07:00.002-06:00

Well, it's been a long time. Seems a lot is going on in my life, some good, some not-so-good, some I am not sure which. I finally did something I have long thought I would not do. I bought combat Tupperware. Basically, due to some financial difficulties, I sold off all but 2 of my handguns. I kept the Hi-Power and a double barrel derringer, both in 9mm. Honestly, the Hi-Power is pretty and it shoots nice, but it isn't the easiest gun to carry concealed especially in the summer. I also tend to sweat, a lot, so that gorgeous blue job isn't going to last. It will either die from my sweat or from the excessive rubbing due to cleaning. So I finally decided I need to try a polymer-framed concealed carry piece with the new super durable finishes. I miss my .45, so I initially intended to buy a Springfield XD compact in .45 ACP. I hit a snag or six. With the XD M making its debut, most of my local stores didn't have much in the way of the old XD's and the .45ACP isn't available in the compact version of the XD M yet. Not to mention the M adds about a $100 to the price locally. Then a couple of coworkers told me that had purchased Glocks from the same dealer my Hi-Power came from. There was a gun show that week in a nearby town and I went. The dealer was there and I questioned him about the Glock and ended up leaving with a model 19. The only .45 ACP they had with them was the full size and I really wanted the shorter model. I previously owned for a very short time a generation 1 Model 17. The generation 4 seems a little more comfortable, but I really wasn't planning on a Glock.

The Glock has an excellent reputation, but it is UGLY. Especially if you appreciate the look of the 1911 or Hi-Power. It feels weird, it points weird. This is of course my opinion. It is shared with some other people, but still is opinion not fact. When I left, I thought I would try it and if I did not like it, I could probably get most of my money back. Glocks do hold their value very well. Now, I am not so sure about selling it. Let me break it down.

I didn't measure, I can try if you want but this is estimation. The Glock has a barrel about a half to three-quarters of an inch shorter than my H.P. It is a bit thicker by looks and feels a lot thicker. It also seems to weigh about two-thirds what the H.P. does. The clips weigh about half what the Mel Gar and KNC clips do. I don't currently have a holster specifically for the Glock, haven't had time or money yet, but the IWB holster I used a lot with the H.P. works okay.

I have never carried the H.P. in an IWB holster without experiencing pain, sometimes intensely.
I know the old saying that carrying a concealed weapon is supposed to be a comfort, not comfortable, but there are just all kind of things on the H.P. that feel really sharp that close to the body. Given a preference, the H.P. is a belt carry or a shoulder holster carry. The Glock, on the other hand has nothing pointy or sticking out to either side. It curls up right next to you and just about purrs. It is thus far the most comfortable carry gun I have seen. The next closest was a .380 Bursa Thunder and that is a single stack .380 not a high capacity 9mm. I suspect it will belt carry just fine also.

The Glock is a very utilitarian weapon. It simple has neither bells nor whistles. No external safeties, loaded chamber indicators, ect. The XD has some of those things. I don't have an XD to compare it with. Taking the Glock down to clean is a LOT simpler than the H.P.

Going from a single action to a safe action is a big step. My first experience with the G19 had me shooting a bit low. By the second magazine, I had figured how to compensate though. The trigger seems very hard to pull for the first shot. Oddly, after the first shot, it seems lighter, although I know there is no difference. The G19 is capable of more accuracy than I am. After over 100 rounds, I still seem to shoot just a bit to the right, but I think as I get used to the trigger pull that will smooth out. The gun groups nice, and I actually seem to pull tighter groups rapid fire than with slow fire. It doesn't have any more recoil than the H.P. although it does have more muzzle climb. I still think I get tighter rapid fire groups with the G19 than the H.P. I also think I can empty the H.P. faster than the G19, even though they have the same number of rounds, but I think the G19 stays on target better despite the muzzle climb. I think I will shoot it a bit more. The ugly bastard has just about won me over. If I get used to the trigger, I just might end up picking up the smaller 9mm and the mid-size .45. I want to check out an XD first though. Got to be fair.

Celebrities

2009-10-30T08:32:00.002-06:00

Well this isn't directly involved with shooting or firearms or whatever, but for some reason it's stuck in my head so maybe if I write some of it down, it will get out of my brain.

For obvious reasons, celebrities often use their media exposure and status to promote causes. I understand this, but some of them push not just a single issue but their entire politcal belief system. The really annoying thing is that a great many of them seem to think because of their wealth and fame, they know what is best and we should just blindly follow them. WTF!!!!! Dudes and dudettes, we are basically paying you to look pretty and pretend to be people you aren't. Just because you pretended to be a doctor, economist, spy, ect. doesn't mean you are qualified to be one.

Let's take a rather recent example, and a semi-nonpolitical one. Natalie Portman is an attractive lady who not only can pretend to be other people while looking good, but who also managed to graduate from Harvard, so apparently so has a working brain. I am not sure where she keeps it, because she came off sounding a lot more like a Megan Fox than a Harvard graduate recently.

Apparently while being televised, Ms. Portman, who is at least a vegetarian if not an outright vegan, managed to equate someone inviting non-meat eaters to a party where meat is being served with condoning rape. Now this is a really poor comparison and you can take it apart logically in so many ways, but I could still forgive that, but Ms. Portman is one of those Hollywood elite who signed a petition for the release and ceasing of prosecution of one Roman Polanski.

For anyone who might not know, Mr. Planski is famous for 4 things.

1. He is a director who has made a lot of movies that are though of as great. The one that comes to mind first is Chinatown.
2. His first wife and child were murdered by Charles Manson's crew.
3. He befriended the daughter of an acqaintance under the pretext of photographing her in preperation for a modeling career and while at the home of another famous person during a party, feed the 13 year-old girl qualuudes and champagne and then raped and sodomized her.
4. He pled guilty to reduced charges then fled the country before sentencing .

Now let me get this set this straight. The fact I have are mostly from recent research since the Swiss government incarcerated him for extradition recently there are all kinds of things floating around. So I will attempt to give the bare facts as reported.

This happed about 28 years ago.

The girl was 13 and Mr. Polanski was taking photographs of her, including nudes. I believe her mother went on most if not all of the informal shoots.

Now, and probably then, taking naked pictures of 13 year olds is, and probably was, a crime in and of itself, even in California.

At the party, the mother was not present at the photography section. Mr. Polanski gave the girl qualudes and champagne, which is a crime.

He then photographed her nude, another crime.

He then raped her. Then sodomized her. He knew her age.

He admitted this and pled guilty to an offense lesser than rape of a child. He was supposed to get probation. In my state what he did would have been aggravated rape of a child by an authority figure, a violent sex offense. However this was a long time ago, the sex offense laws were much different and he was a famous person with lots of powerful friends so he was offered a sweet deal. The victims family agreed so as to spare the girl some of the publicity and noteriety that was beating down on her.

This was the second high profile case the judge had heard in a short time. Apparently he liked the media spotlight and was playing for it and drawing things out. As a result, he had some highly inappropriate and unprofessional if not actually illegal communications with the prosectution outside of the court room. This in and of itself would probably give grounds for appealing, probably enough to not only get the verdict overturn, but probably to get a whole new trial.

Apparently the rumor surfaced that the judge was not going to accept the plea agreement. They don't have to accept it, however if the judge doesn't accept the agreement, the defendant has the right to withdraw his guilty plea and the trial continues. So afraid he was going to prison he skipped the country.

Now, he has finally been caught and Hollywood and France are up-in-arms wanting him turned loose. But here's the deal, HE HAD SEX WITH A 13 YEAR-OLD GIRL, WHO EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD ALCOHOL AND BARBITUATES (WHICH HE GAVE HER) IN HER SYSTEM WAS ASKING HIM TO STOP. HE KNEW THAT WAS WRONG. That would have been rape even if she were 33 or 43, that she was 13 and he used his position made it much worse. He knew better. Now France and Hollywood say it wasn't that bad, the girl wants it dropped so that is okay. It isn't okay. Basically all those people that signed that petition are saying "We are better than you because we are famous, we should be held to different rules and laws than you." That is so very classist and anti-American.

And Natalie Portman says if she comes to a dinner party and the host serves meat it is the same as condoning rape, yet she signed a petition saying it is okay for a grown man to rape a 13 year old girl as long as the man is a famous director.

Bomb Threats

2009-09-25T15:21:00.002-06:00

We got a bomb threat at work last week. It came in the mail, signed. Kind of freaky, who signs a bomb threat, an insane person likely to use a bomb is who. The threat came to one of our newer officers. She showed it to her supervisor and law enforcement was sent for. The thing is, the sender wasn't a client, she had never been a client and wasn't in our system.

The note stated that 50 pounds of tnt had been hidden in the building and would go off 24 hours after the note was received. The note contained many misspelling and improper verb tenses, so we were fairly sure that either the note wasn't written by and English instructor or was clevely disguised by a criminal mastermind.

The police wandered around, but failed to spot any concealed explosives. They then examined the note. The chance the note was sent by a client, or by a client family member, or by someone meaning to get a client in trouble seemed less likely as none of us recognised the name of the sender. One of the policemen did though. Apparently she was the ex-wife of a gentleman sent to prison. Apparently while in prison this man jumped the fence sexually and left the wife on the other side. Obviously she wasn't happy with the situation.

The police went to look for her and found she had left 5 days ago. The really weird thing though, is the man who went to prison was not on probation or parole. He was sent to prison directly for a crime. He was never under this office's supervision. The only connection the officer who had received the not had with the man was that she did a classification report on him after he was sentenced. This is an internal report prepared for the prison. It is not assigned by the court, but rather by the supervisor for the county of the sentencing court. No one outside of the department of correction would ever see this report. And other that the prison officials who intake and set the supervison level of the inmate, only a parole office who later supervises the inmate would see it. The only non-doc or bopp person who might see the report, might be the inmate who would have a right to question any info in it. So unless he told his wife who wrote it, I can't think how they got the officer's name.

Anyway, a week later the building is still here. Good thing too, because they never gave us permission to evacuate or send for bomb sniffing dogs. I guess if she put the bomb outside, the 400 inches of rain we have had fall might ruin the tnt, short the timer, ect. Otherwise I guess there wasn't a bomb.

She Did It

2008-06-11T08:11:00.002-06:00

Wifey-poo passed her carry permit test, first time. She scored high 80% on the written and shot a 45 out of 50 with her little .380 Bersa. Considering that was about the 3rd time she shot it and her first time on a formal range I find that impressive. Now if we can just track down a copy of her birth certificate.

Check out the New Ruger

2008-02-29T08:21:00.002-06:00

Apparently Ruger has decided to give Kel-Tec and Skyy a run for their money. Check it out:

http://www.ruger.com/LCP/

They are also going after the Glock, XD, M&P market:

http://www.ruger.com/SR9/

Now, Ruger has traditionally gone the route of blazing new trails, not following other companies, but still I think the LCP is a good move. None of the larger manufacturers are offering anything like it. NAA's Guardian is a lot heavier all steel gone, as are the Kahrs and the AMT backups. Glock isn't allowed to import it's .380, but I think it is a lot bigger. Only the Kel-Tec and the Skyy are out there and I don't know if Skyy has a .380. Now if Ruger wants me happy, put out a well-made competitor for the P-11 and P-9.

Self Defense Calibers

2008-01-18T08:33:00.000-06:00

I have often been asked, I guess this is true of all gun nuts, what the best size gun for self-defense is. Now, this presents at least 3 problems. First, what do you mean by size? Are we talking physical dimensions of the actual firearm, because this could be important. An older person with joint problems in the arms might have trouble pointing or aiming a large, heavy gun. Also, if the weapon is to be carried on the person, physcial dimensions could again be an issue. But more than likely what they are asking is what caliber it needs to be. Again this presents a problem, as this is but one aspect of the firearm that needs to be considered. The second problem is how will the gun be used, who will have access, will it be carried on person, in a vehicle or left home. Will the firearm be expected to perform other duties than defense? Also, what about the user(s). What is their skill level, physical and mental limitations, willingness to train and practice, ect. The last thing is that caliber and cartridge size can be very different. For instance, the .38 special and the .357 magnum are the same caliber, but there can be a lot of difference in the results coming from the muzzle.

First, let me state that the firearm in all its aspects is one part of a three part self-defense system. Basically the self-defense system includes the person, the firearm, and the particular cartridge chosen. All three items have to work together well to have a good self-defense setup. You can have the best firearm in the world, the best possible choice in a self-defense cartidge, but if you've never bothered to actually shoot the firearm until the day you need it, you might be in for a shock. That said, let's look at some of the basic cartridge sizes available today for self-defense. I am not going to get into specific loads, just very general knowledge and opinions.

First, caliber refers to the diameter in inches of the bullet that is fired, not the diameter of the firearm's barrel, which will be slightly larger.

.17

There are currently two .17 caliber handgun cartridges I am aware of. The .17 Hornady Mach 2 which is a .22 stinger necked down to .17 caliber and the .17 Hornady Magnum Rimfire which is a .22 magnum necked down to .17 caliber. These are actually rifle cartridges which revolvers have been chamber to take. I currently think the revolvers are geared more toward varmit hunting and target shooting and are offered mostly in 4 inch and longer barrels. The idea behind these cartridges was to offer more velocity while not having much recoil, flash, or noise. While probably better than no weapon, I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending either of these cartridges for self defense.

.22

The most common two .22 cartridges are the .22 long rifles and the .22 winchester magnum rimfire. The older .22 short and .22 long cartridges are about obsolete. Revolvers which chamber the .22 long rifle will also chamber the short and long cartridges, but actually just dropping down to a .22 long rifle low velocity or target round will give you similar performance. Incidently the .22 magnum firearms will usually not safely fire the other .22 rounds. There are some revolvers that come with interchangeable cylinders so you can shoot both. While the .22's offer low recoil, ease of fire, decent velocity in the 2 larger rounds, come in a variety of sizes and barrel lengths, and are usually very accurate and reliable, I hesitate to recommend them due to small bullet mass, small caliber, and relatively low stopping power, especially in the smaller firearms with shorter barrels. That being said, NAA has been very successful selling tiny little revolvers chambered in .22 lr and .22 magnum. As a hide-away close range weapon, they do have some interesting advantages. The .22 magnum has only been chambered in a couple of autoloaders and none would be considered an easy concealed carry. The .22 long rifle is available in weapons of all sizes.

.25 ACP.

The smallest of the rounds created by John Browning. This is probably the best selling caliber weapon of all times. Because of it's effectivness? No, because of it's size. Before improvements in metals, polymers, and manufacturing techniques, if you wanted a small, easy to conceal autoloader, it was this or a .22 short. At the time this was created, rimfire primers were not the most reliable things, so this small centerfire cartidge was born. And if I were required to choose, I would take a .25 over a .22 short in the same size package. On the other hand, I would probably take a .22 lr over the .25. In this modern age, there are more powerful options in the same or similar size packages. The .25 is generally chambered in small semi-autos, usually straight blow-back operation. The .25 sometimes gets a bad rap because of the weapons it is chambered for. Since this is the smallest common center-fire cartridge, and it generates very little pressure or recoil, it can be chambered in cheap-to-manufacture, straight blow-back actions. This means cheap, poorly made weapons tend to abound in this caliber. New manufacturing techniques and better metals have made these same manufactures expand into larger calibers too. If you go this route, do your self a favor and invest in a better quality weapon, say Taurus or Berreta. I believe a German company offered a few revolvers chambered for this round, but it is mostly an Autoloading prospect.

.32 ACP

This is a cartidge that has just about died off. It used to be very popular and available in several different size firearms. Gradually It fell by the wayside. This was the first caliber developed by John Browning for the weapon that eventually became the FN M1900, Colts Model 1903 and the 1910. The cartridge has always been more popular in Europe than here. There it is usually called the 7.65 X 17 MM or the 7.65 Browning. The most famous pistols chambered for this round are the Walther PP and Walther PPK. The .380 ACP, another Browning cartridge is largely responsible for this. The .32 enjoyed an upsurge in popularity in the US for awhile when ultra-compact firearms like the Seacamp LWS, the Berreta Tomcat, and the Keltec P-32 came out, however times change and there are now .380's available just as small although with more recoil. This is an autoloading only round.

7.62 X 25 MM Tokarev.

This round is based on the 7.65 x 22 MM German Luger round which was based on the 7.63 x 25 MM Mauser round. I mention it only because when the Soviet Union collapsed, a large number of Tokarev and CZ-52's were imported. Most were in this round, although a few were converted to 9 MM parabellum. This is a fairly hot round. While the caliber is small and the bullet light, the round moves really fast and offers a lot of penetration. A fmj military ball round will defeat a class II bullet proof vest. Availability of ammunition, especially self-defense rounds, might pose a problem and all the firearms that take this round were intended for military use, so they are service size. For a vehicle gun or a nightstand gun, you might be well served, especially as the weapons are well made and not usually very expensive.

.32 S and W.

The .32 S and W short was introduced as a black powder round in 1878. It isn't an impressive performer, however it spawned the .32 S and W long, which was introduced in 1896 and developed a reputation as a very accurate cartridge. Colt sold it as the .32 Colt New Police so as to not promote a Smith and Wesson cartidge. Theodore Roosevelt adopted the cartridge as the official police issue for the New York City Police Department when he was commissioner in an attempt to improve the departments accuracy. While mostly seen as a competition cartidge, some short barrelled revolvers can still be found chambered for this round.

.32 H and R Magnum

Federal and Harrington Richardson teamed up and introduced this lengthened version of the .32 S&W long in 1984. It offers .38 special performance in a smaller package. The round offers good penetration and .38 special energy levels in a small framed revolver package. Recoil is a little less and 6 rounds can be put into the same size package as a 5-round .38 special. This is a good self-defense cartridge, probably the best performance in this caliber range.

.327 Federal Magnum

This is a new cartidge, a magnumed magnum. The .32 H&R magnum was stretched again and loaded to high pressure. This round can push a 115 grain bullet to 1300 ft out of a 3 inch barrel. A Ruger SP101 in this caliber is supposed to be available this winter. I'm sure recoil and muzzle flash will increase. One nice thing, with this caliber gun, you can still fire the .32 H&R magnum, .32 long and .32 short cartidges.

Well next we will cover the rest of the .30 calibers then later tackle the .40's and larger.

Mouse Guns

2007-11-09T10:29:00.000-06:00

Welcome to my first real post in a long time. Sorry about that, I did do one post, but accidently put it on my general blog instead of my firearms blog.

I am in the mood to talk about the mighty mousegun. I believe that the term mousegun was first brought to my attention in a gun magazine article by either Masaad Ayoob or Jerry Ahern. It was used to refer to small, usually small caliber, handguns which aren't powerful enough to use to kill anything larger than a mouse.

Mouse guns in general are those weapons the non-gun nut might carry and feel safe with, but which those in-the-know also carry but are ashamed to admit they carry them in anything other than an emergency, last-ditch, back up gun for a back-up-gun.

Mouseguns have the following good qualities:

They are small and easy to carry.

They are likely to be with you when a large weapon isn't.

They are easy to hide and noone will probably know you have it.

In some cases they may be slightly more effective than throwing rocks.

Mouseguns have the following bad qualities:

They are small in size.

They are easy to carry.

They are easy to hide.

They may be slightly more effective than throwing rocks.

Okay, mouseguns are small, this is good and bad.

It is good in that they are easy to carry concealed, and they are comfortable to carry. I believe Jeff Cooper once said your self-defense weapon should be comforting not comfortable. It is bad because this makes it easier to carry one of these instead of a more practical and effective weapon. It is easier to build a small weapon around a small cartridge. There are 9mm and .45 ACP caliber guns in a small enough scale to qualify as mouseguns. They have their own drawbacks offering only the larger caliber advantage over the other mouseguns.

The small size is also bad in that smaller weapons have smaller controls. Magazine releases and safeties are much smaller and harder to operate quickly under pressure. The shorter barrel reduces cartridge performance and accuracy. The shorter site radius and tiny or non-existant sights make accuracy problematic. Trigger pulls are usually horrible on mouseguns as well. Mouse guns aren't really designed to take shots at 20 yards though. They are meant for close range, last ditch, emergency use.

Easy to hide is good, because this weapon is hail Mary pass. It is bad because chances are it will be dropped in a pocket sans holster. It can get twisted around and be ackward to draw. A pocket draw out of tight pants could be an issue also. If you carry in a pants pocket, a pocket holster is a must.

Now given that mouse guns are small, they have small or no sights, short sight radius, hard triggers, small grips and are hard to shoot well. If they are of a caliber large enough to be effective, then they are noisy, and have a lot of recoil and muzzle flash. Most people don't practice very much with them. Given the possibility or recoil and the trigger, follow up shots may be slower.

Mousegun quality varies. Mouseguns are available in every quality catagorie. Beretta offers mouseguns as well as Bryco/Lorcin. Mostly you get what you pay for, with a few exceptions.

Older mouseguns may offer some issues too. John Browning has a classic design marketed by Browning as a Baby Browning and also offered by Colt. These were to all accounts very well made weapons, however given the time period they were made, they probably weren't designed to function with anything other than FMJ bullets.

I would never really compare the quality of a Davis or Raven with a Beretta, but I've owned three Raven .25's and 4 Davis handguns, a .380 and 2 .25's. I had no problems with any of them, all functioned flawlessly with everything, even handloads. I also have had 3 Jennings handguns, 1 .22 LR, and 2 .25's. The .22 was a little finicky on ammo, but worked well with what it liked, one .25 was good, but the other jammed about every 3 shots, no matter what I tried to feed it. I also owned a Taurus PT-25. It was a great little gun, a bit heavy, and a bit larger than the Davis and Raven, but it had a tip up barrel, was double-action, and had a bit larger controls. Unfortunately this left me my only complaint. The magazine eject was a bit too large and you could hit it accidently while carrying it in a pocket holster. The magazine well was tight, so the magazine stayed in, but it dropped enough to activate the magazine safety and made the gun useless. This only happeded with pocket carry, if I used a clip holster, or carried it in a coat pocket, no problem.

My current mouseguns consist of a double-barrel 9mm Cobra derringer and an old Italian .25 my father gave me. I don't carry the .25 for sentimental reasons.

A Few Quick Words

2007-07-05T09:40:00.000-06:00

I think I finally got a couple of magazines for the Llama Especial off Ebay. Man, most of those things were going for $50 apiece. I bid on several sets of two with the finger extension. I don't really want the finger extension and hope it is removable, but they kept going higher and higher. I finally slipped in on an auction and picked up two that I really hope fit for what I hope is a reasonable amount.

Now I am having trouble with one of the Hi Power clips. It started simple enough. I picked up 3 clips with the gun. None of them were new, but they were all labeled 15 rounds. Two of the clips were labeled Melgar. The third had no name and had a plastic bumper on it. That is the problem one. It has never functioned well with 15 rounds. It would work fine with 14, but cause a misfeed with 15. Okay, I just didn't load it with more than 14 rounds, but then all of a sudden it started hanging. It never happened while shooting, but if I unloaded the clip, it would work fine for about 5 rounds, but when I stripped the sixth round, it wouldn't push the rest up. The next 1 or 2 rounds would be loose, but the third would be wedged into the magazine, I would have to run something down into the magazine to press the round down to allow it to rise. Now, the stupid thing won't even let me load more than 10 rounds into it. After a few rounds, it seems to jam up and you can keep pressing rounds in, but they are loose rather than held in place. I've taken the magazine apart and cleaned it. I've reversed the spring, stretched it a little, it will improve a little, but only about a round or two. I diagnose a weak spring, but I can't tell if the replacement springs out there are for 15 round mags or 13 rounds. I hate to spend $30+ bucks on a new magazine if a $8.00 spring will fix it. More later.

The Quest Part 3

2007-05-03T11:37:00.000-06:00

A long time ago in a land far, far away, there existed 2 handgun calibers. The first caliber was .357 and launched bullets from between 95 and 200 grains very fast. The second caliber was .429 and used bullets weighing between 180 and 300 grains. Of course, this was the .357 and .44 magnums. Someone decided that a round was needed that offered a compromise between the 2 magnums. The result was the .41 magnum. It was .410 in caliber and used bullets in the 160 to 210 grain range. Supposedly it was more powerful than the .357 magnum and more pleasant to shoot than the .44 magnum. I personally have nothing against the .41 magnum. However, performance wise, it may be more than the .357, but it doesn't do anything the .44 didn't already do. If you load your own ammo, use the lighter weight .44 bullets and don't load them so hot. If you can't take the .44 magnum recoil, the .41 is probably going to be too much for you also. On the other hand, buy the heaviest framed .357 magnum you can find, and it will be more pleasant to shoot. The .41 magnum has enough devotes that it still exists, but it never caught on. Parially because it was a clone of the previous magnums, I think, and had no parent cartridge. You can plink and practice with light .38 special rounds in the .357 or .44 special rounds in the .44 magnum. I think I remember hearing about someone wildcatting some .41 specials by trimming down .41 magnum cases, but that could be voices in my head talking. Anyway, the .41 magnum was originally intended to be a law enforcement cartridge, but became primarily a hunting cartridge.

In 1983, Norma and Bren introduced the 10mm cartridge and the Bren Ten autoloader. The gun was a beefed up variation on the excellent CZ-75. The cartridge was designed to improve on the 9mm and .45 ACP. It was supposed to combine the velocity and capacity of the 9mm with the stopping power of the .45 ACP and improve on both in penetration, trajectory, and range.

The .45 ACP doesn't even attempt to reach it's full potential. Inherent weaknesses in the cartridge case make loading it to extreme pressure dangerous. Several cartridges including the .451 Detonics, the .45 Super, ect. have existed just to try to show what the old cartridge could do if it wanted to. The 9mm operates at a much higher pressure, there isn't a whole lot that can be done there beyond the +P+ rounds already offered.

The 10mm in full power offers a flat trajectory, good accuracy and good range. It uses .400 diameter bullets in the 160 to 200 grain range, and pretty much rivals the .357 magnum in ballistics. It falls a little short of the .41 magnum equivalent that some like to claim. It has proven an excellent hunting cartridge and a few law enforcement agencies use it. Most commercial loads are on the weaker end of the spectrum, because the cartridge has a lot of muzzle blast and recoil. It offers a few more rounds than the .45 ACP in the same sized package. The Bren Ten had some production problems, and failed, but Colt released the Delta Elite based on the 1911 design. Several other handgun manufactures also jumped on the wagon. Now the 10mm's that were basically just beefed up .45's had some issues, which may have hurt sales. The 10mm's that were designed for the cartridge didn't though. The FBI adopting the round resulted in a lot of the sudden flood, and the FBI adopted a Smith and Wesson, but then discovered that not all their agents could handle the big round. The result was the "FBI" or reduced load. This load would still offer the penetration and expansion demanded, but cut back on recoil and muzzleflash. This gave Smith and Wesson an idea.

The 10mm fans like the .41 magnum has its fans and they are a loyal lot. It hasn't ever caught on with the general public, but it is a good cartridge in the right handgun. The 1911 design seems a good fit and the Delta Elite had a good reputation. Glock also chambers for this cartidge and rumor has it that it is a good fit. Of course, Smith and Wesson got the FBI contract, so I assume they still build 10mms.

Smith and Wesson decided that they could shorten the 10mm round, use a 9mm size frame with a beefed-up upper, and produce the FBI Load ballistics in a 9mm size package. It worked. The result was the .40 S&W. The 10mm only offered a couple of more rounds than the .45 ACP. The .40 being closer in size to the 9mm offer a significant increase in capacity. A full size service automatic usually held around 12 rounds versus the 9 of the 10mm. And it was easier for a small-handed person to use. This has become the most popular law enforcement cartridge currently offered. I think almost every handgun manufacturer offers a line of .40's. It is also fast catching on with both the civilian and thug markets. Civilians like to carry what cops carry and thugs like things that are shiny and fit into rap music. Apparently "forty" sounds at least as good as "nine" when rapped. I'm not a fan of the .40 yet. That might change, but I like my 9mm and I like my .45. The .40 might give me the best of both worlds, but I like the light recoil and the 15 round clips of my 9mm. If I want more, the .45 offers more boom, more recoil, and more weight. It is a solid slab of comfort. My wife doesn't like my .45. She likes her .380. I plan to get a 9mm set up similar and see if I can move her up. If she likes the 9mm, then I might move her to the .40.

There are however alternatives to the .40. First, IMI introduced a cartridge in 1986 that fired a .41 caliber bullet but had the same rebated rim as the 9mm called the .41 action express. It offered very similar ballistics to the .40 and was available in a gun called the Jericho. It never generated much press, and is now obsolete.

If you take the .40 S&W case and pop a 9mm bullet in you have the .357 Sig. Not really, the .357 Sig case is thicker, because it works at higher pressures. The goal was to create the ballistics of the 125 grain .357 magnum hollowpoint out of a 4 inch barrel in a service autoloader.
With light weight bullets the Sig is a match for the .357 revolver, but it falls behind with heavier bullets. It offers a different recoil than the .40. It isn't heavier, but seems sharper. This bottlenecked cartridge offers a lot of penetration, and is well suited for penetrating body armor. It is seeing some use from law enforcement and is being adapted by several firearms manufacturers.

Lastly, Glock introduced the a shortened, strengthened .45 ACP case called the .45 GAP. Using 180 grain bullets the GAP is supposed to duplicate the .45 ACP performance in a 9mm size package with increased magazine capacity. Initial findings seem to be that it works with the 180 grain bullets, but that performance wans with heavier rounds. Several companies have started chambering weapons for it, though.

At the moment, the .357 Sig holds most of my interest, although the GAP is interesting too.

The Quest Part 2

2007-05-03T10:33:00.000-06:00

The average law enforcement office was undergoing a change in the 1980's. In the late 1970's, a flood of autoloading pistols chambered for the 9 x 19 mm round hit the market. A great many of these took magazines which held 14 or 15 rounds. The average police officer at the time would be armed with a 5 or 6 shot .38 revolver chambered for .38 special. Image how hard a sell this would be. "Well, officer, your carring a Smith and Wesson model 13 there aren't you?" Officer nods. "What's that a 4 inch barrel?" Nod. "Hold 6 .38 specials right?" Nod again. "Well officer that is a fine weapon. What I have here is a Smith and Wesson, also, it has a 4 inch barrel, but it's a model 59 and hold 15 rounds of 9mm. How'd you like one of these."

I mean, most police officers aren't gun people, so some wouldn't matter, but really, how do you differentiate between 6 rounds of 158 grain, .357 diameter bullets going about 850 fps and 15 126 grain .355 diameter bullets travelling around 1200 fps? I would probably opt for the more shots myself.

There were valid arguments for sticking with revolvers, they are rugged, easy to learn to use, not much can go wrong, and they aren't really finicky about what kind of ammo you feed them.

Autoloaders, especially the ungodly variety of double actions that hit in this time period, could be complicated to use, clean, or repair. They could be a pain in the butt on what type of ammo you used, the best bet being to use ball ammo. Now here is the kicker, 9mm ball ammo tends to go straight through a target. So as more and more official people began to want the wonder nines, more and more research went into making hollow point bullets that would feed reliably and expand rapidly dumping energy into the target. Then 4/11/86 happened and it all crashed down.

Up to this point, the .45 acp in the 1911 format was king of the autoloaders. Now the upstart 9mm had showed up to spoil the party. The big debate was which is better, the fat, heavy slow moving .45 or the small, lighter, speedier 9mm. Throw in the single versus double action and the high capacity question and you have what kept gun magazines going for years. There were the occasional writers who would shake things up by comparing both calibers to the .38 or .357, but still this was THE debate. Some fore-sighted people began doing things like chambering the .45 in double action autos, and even high capacity .45's. Also the 9mm trimmed down concealable, and could be concealed quite easily. Also the bullet design ideas from the 9mm were also being applied to .45 acp, .38 special, and .357 magnum bullets. It eventually spead out through the entire line of ammunition. Then the Miami shootings.

Now in the firearms community, the 1986 Miami FBI shooting created waves. It seems that 9mm and .38 Special calibers were being declared ineffective. This is not entirely, or even remotely true. A not ideal shot was taken by an Agent Armed with the only 9mm Pistol carried by the FBI on that day. It was loaded with one of the Winchester Silver Tip bullets designed to expand rapidly, it went through the offenders arm and into the chest stopping about 3/4 of an inch from his heart. The shot was declared fatal, but not instantly incapacitating, so the man continued to fight for 4 minutes and killed 2 other agents.

While the ammo and caliber bore the brunt of the blame in the media, truth is that many tactical mistakes were made. At least one and maybe more of the officers unholstered their primary weapons during the car chase and placed them under a leg or on a passenger seat, only to lose them on impact of the felony stop and be left with only a short-barrelled BUG to fight with. However this event led to the first scientific look at handgun ballistics and wound characteristics and at the first tests and compilation of street use data on different ammo and calibers. It also led to the adopting of a new caliber weapon for agents and the creation of a highly successful new caliber.

First though, lets point out that nothing is for free. You have only so many components to work with in ballistics. Bullet weight and speed are what give you your power. The starting weight of the bullet will be fixed, so you can try to design a bullet that either breaks up easily, or sticks together well. At one time it was thought fragmenting added to stopping power. Unfortunately it takes away from penetration. If a bullet is designed to dump as much as possible of its power into the target, it needs to hold together, but expand. This also lessens penetration. What the FBI test decided, was to test the various calibers and loads setting 12 inches of penetration in 20% ballistic gellatin as the minimum acceptable standard. They also added 7 additional test using various levels of clothing and other barriers.

Now, there have been many confusing issues develop over this, so let us say first that the "ideal caliber and cartridge" for the FBI, may or may not be the ideal cartidge for any other law enforcement agency and probably won't be for the average CCW citizen. What, the FBI doesn't know what I need to carry? No they don't and they don't claim to. In setting their standards, the FBI looked at past shootings and around 50 percent of those shooting involve offenders in cars or near cars. So the FBI needs the capability of shooting a suspect through a car door or windshield. The average person does not. If the average person gets involved in a situation where he or she has to draw a weapon and the person the weapon is drawed on jumps into a vehicle, unless an attempt is made to run over the legally armed citizen, there is no justification to shoot. The threat has ceased to exist, so the justification for use of force has also ceased to exist. The average citizen is probably not going to have to worry about firing through doors either, so your best bet is to find a gun that is reliable and you shoot well, preferably .380 or larger in caliber, premium self defense ammunition that your gun feeds reliably, and practice. Don't worry whether or not your weapon is "Police issue".

Next we will look at the "new" calibers.

Finally

2007-05-02T15:06:00.000-06:00

Well, I finally did it. I finally bit the figurative bullet. I finally found a gunsmith, who when asked about removing the magazine disconnect feature of my HP didn't say something along the lines of, "Well, if the manufacture made it with that safety feature, then they must feel it needs the safety device." This guy was cool. Once he was sure I wasn't using it for a duty weapon, he yanked it right out of there. The gun was gone less than 24 hours and it cost less than $40. The trigger is much, much less mushy feeling and the magazines, even empty, fall free of the gun when you hit the release.

Let's briefly discuss magazine disconnect, shall we. What the f***? They have to be the most wishy washy safety device ever. You can argue either way and be neither right or wrong. The idea is that by removing the magazine, the gun won't fire. So if you are a LEO and someone tries to take your gun, you can disable it by dropping the mag. On the other hand, if the offender drops your mag, of it gets dropped accidently in the tussel, you don't have the shot in the chamber, unless you get a clip back into the gun. It's a quick way to turn a firearm into a club.

Now, even if you think the magazine disconnect is a good feature, surely you need to stress that it needs to be done well. Of the various Hi Powers out there, only the FM's from Argentina let the clip drop free of the gun. Otherwise, it lets go, but the clip just hangs there. A quick spank of the bottom of the clip resets it, so the disabling during a fight isn't very effective. Secondly, a speed reload is impossible. You have to use your fingernails to pry the clip out, unless you have bumpers on the magazines. Even with the bumpers, you have to pull the clip out of the gun. Secondly, it makes the trigger feel longer with a lot of take up. Smith and Wesson uses magazine disconnects, yet they manage to design them so they don't interfere severly with trigger or reloads. You would think FN would redesign the thing a little. I mean they aren't bargain basement priced firearms. The trigger is much crisper and reloads much easier. The pressure needed to fire the weapon doesn't change, but the take up disappears and the trigger just feels much nicer.

Update

2007-04-28T15:36:00.000-06:00

Okay, I have single-action auto fever. My first in my second collection was the Feg 9pjk-hp9. Then I bought a Bersa Thunder 380. The wife took it over, but then found me a Llama Minimax .45 single stack. This was great, now I had a 9mm and a .45, but they were the same size. Great except for carrying in the hot Tennessee summers. Later I picked up a little 9mm in a sweetheart of a deal. It is a Cobra derringer. Single action, 2 shots, tiny but easy to conceal. Not exactly what I wanted, but a good last ditch gun. Then Thursday, I stopped in a pawn shop and saw it. A Llama Especial .380. Not the blow back model, but one of the early ones made like a 5/8 scale 1911. The price seemed good, so I went home and went back the next day. It's home with me now. I just have to find a couple of spare clips now.

The Quest Part One

2007-04-26T08:00:00.000-06:00

A long time ago, in a land far, far away, a group of people felt the urge to protect and serve the general public. We called them law enforcement officers and the operate on many different levels. We have them at the city, county, state and federal levels and they belong to many different organizations, all of which have mutated and evolved over many years to meet differing needs. As the times have changed, the needs of the LEO have changed.

Originally, the Officer's probably carried whatever type of firearm they wanted to or happened to own. The idea of a standardized weapon or set of weapons probably didn't occur until at least the 1970's and then it was mostly in the larger forces. I think I remember reading that it was the NYPD who first declared their officers could only carry a particular type of weapon. It had more to do with identifying who was an undercover or plain clothes officer in a high stress situation than for any other reason. Unfortunately, until the FBI shooting in the '90's, legalities and politics played more of a role in selecting police weaponry, that performance did.

Okay, from roughly the 1920's until the 1980's, most police departments relied on a particular revolver caliber over all others. This article is a short history of this cartridge.

The .36 caliber cap and ball revolver was one of the staples of the Civil War and the old West. The .44's and .45's got most of the glory, but the .36 from Remington and Colt as well as others was extremely popular. As people began converting the cap and ball to modern cartidges Colt developed a cartridge called the .38 Colt Short for use in these guns. The .38 referred to case diameter rather than bullet diameter. The .38 Colt Short fired a 130 grain bullet at about 770 ft per second. The actual bullet diameter was about .374 or .375 and the bullet was externally lubricated.

In 1875 Colt created an "improved" version of this cartridge called the .38 Colt Long. This cartridge fired a 150 grain, .357 or .357 diameter, internally lubricated bullet at 770 ft per second. This cartridge was adapted by the army in 1892 and remained in service until 1911 although it performed poorly in the Spanish--American war and resulted in the adoption of the 1911 Colt in .45 ACP by the army.

To further confuse things, in 1877 Smith and Wesson introduced their own 38 caliber. Called the .38 S&W it fired a 148 grain lead round nose .360 bullet at roughly 720 ft per second. This became a popular round with law enforcement. Colt adopted this round, athough they called it the .38 Colt New Police and loaded a flat nose bullet in their rounds.

In 1922 Smith and Wesson and Colt created a new version of this cartridge which launched a 200 grain bullet at 620 ft. per second. Smith and Wesson called it the .38/200 while Colt Preferred the .38 Super Police.

In 1902 Smith and Wesson introduced an inproved version of the .38 Long Colt. It had the same basic cartridge, but utilized more powder and took advantages of improvements in handgun manufacture and modern metals. Unfortunately it would chamber in the older, more fragile guns, and police officers tend to be poor, so new cartridges were loaded in old guns and bad things happened. To prevent this, the cartridge was lengthened and the name was changed to .38 Special. Within a year of production the .38 Special was switched to smokeless powder. Because it was loaded to relatively low pressures, the cartridge was capable of handling more pressure and eventually would be released in higher pressure loads called +p and +p+.

The .38 special is an extremely popular cartridge and filled a great need. It is capable of great accuracy and can be packaged in long barrelled target guns. It is most seen in modern times in short barrelled revolvers that conceal easily. It is easy to forget though that the 3, 4, and 5 inch models were once considered the medicine necessary to combat the "new" crime wave, the traveling bank robbers of the Bonnie and Clyde era. The new heavy metal car bodies were ample protection from the .38 S & W and .38 Colt Long cartridges. The more powerful .38 Specials would penetrate the car bodies. With a 158 grain bullet traveling at roughly 770 p/s it gave a little more punch.

Modern .38 Specials are available in barrel lengths from 1/2" to 10". Some specialized autoloaders will fire the cartridge too. Ammunition is available in anything from 90 grain to 180 grain standard loads. Specialize fragible ammo offers even lower bullet weights. It is availabe in +p and +p+ loads offering higher performance if you and your gun can take it. Revolvers are offered in heavy, heavy-medium, medium, light and ultra light frames. Some of the short barrelled revolvers offer only 5 rounds but others offer 6.

In 1934 Smith and Wesson introduced a lengthend version of the .38 Special. It held more powder still, worked at much higher pressures, and offered even more power. Originally it used the same cartridge but the chance for mistakes was there so the cartridge was stretched a little. it was called the .38/44 as Smith and Wesson used the heavier frame of there .44 caliber revolver to tame the powerful round. Later medium and heavy medium frames would grow from the round that was eventually named the .357 Magnum. You see the new gangsters were using bullet proof vests and armored cars and it took a bullet traveling at least 1000 ft/sec to penetrate them. The .357 Magnum launched a 158 grain bullet at around 1200 ft/sec. In 1984 Remington stretched the .357 Magnum case out to create the .357 Maximum. It was designed as a silhouette cartridge for the Ruger Blackhawk revolver. It was a little too hot and wore out topstraps, so it has been limited to mostly single shot pistols for silhouette and handgun hunters.

Interestingly enough in 1900 Colt introduced the .38 ACP in the 1900 model. Designed by John Browning, this cartidge and pistol launched a 130 grain .355 diameter bullet at about 1050 ft/sec. It never caught on. Browning would later introduce a 9mm Long and 9mm Short (.380 ACP) as well. The shorter but more potent 9mm Parabellum did in the .38 ACP and 9MM Browning Long. In the 1920's the .38 ACP would be loaded to higher pressures and chambered for the 1911. Pushing the 130 grain bullet at 1280 ft/sec this round could penetrate the armor used by the thugs of the time.

In the 1980's the 9mm Parabellum took over law enforcement when everone went hi capacity crazy. The 9mm was developed in 1902, so it was the same age as the .38 Special, however it was designed for smokeless powder and made more efficient use of it's cartridge capacity. Oddly enough in Europe, the 9mm is seen strictly as a military cartridges and the .32 and .380 are widely used by police. There have been several attempts to make a shorter 9mm for police use. In 1934 the Germans experimented with a round we call the 9mm Ultra. The 9mm Parabellum is a 9 x 19 mm, the .380 is a 9 x 17mm. The Ultra was a 9 x 18mm round and still capable of being fired in a direct blowback weapon. This is the cartridge that the Russian Makarov round was based on. In 1974 Walther attempted to bring the Ultra back as the 9 x 18mm Police. It was chambered for the PP Super. I believe Sig Sauer made a couple of pistols for this round also. It never caught on. Odd since performance had to similar to the 9mm Makarov which sends a 95 grain bullet out at around 927 ft/sec. Of course, part of the charm of the Makarov is its price. You aren't going to pick up a Sig or Browning for what a Mak or FEG will go for. Anyway, next time out we will take a look at the cartridges that follow the .357/.38.

45 vs 9mm

2007-04-09T08:26:00.000-06:00

In my misspent youth, many armchair wars and comparisons were made in the highschool library before and between classes on this mighty topic. Indeed, many magazine articles were penned on the subject in the early and the late 1980's. You see many police departments across the country were switching from revolvers to autoloaders, and the 9mm was autoloader king. Although it seems that the debate should have been between the merits of the 9mm vs. .38 special, or 9mm vs. .357 magnum. Now the military switch from the 1911 to the 92 stirred the fires even more, and was more on topic, although magazines seemed to want to compare both the 9mm and the .357 to the .45.

Now in the olden days I was a fierce defender to the .45 auto over all other handguns, mainly fueled by old Mike Hammer novels and episodes of Magnum P.I. My friend was a big fan of the Beretta Brigadier, which evolved in the 92. After much reading I changed my allegiance from the 1911 to the Sig P220, but other than that no change. My friend agreed that the Sig P226 might be a match for the Beretta, too.

Now, I never owned a 9mm parabellum or shot more than a few round through one until last year. I had owned a .45 Ruger, and shot a 1911. I had also owned a couple of .38 specials and .357 magnums. I know have in my limitted collection, 2 9mm's, 1 .45 ACP, and a .380 ACP. I recently had the opportunity to unleash my weaponry at unsuspecting paper targets, jugs of water, and aluminum cans.

First of all let me explain my reasoning behind the purchase of a 9mm. Ammo's cheap. I no longer reload, so I buy the stuff. The local organization to make people think they are buying cheap stuff at reasonable prices, Walmart, sells a 100 round box of Full Metal Jacket Winchester value packs for about $10. The same package in .45 ACP is $26. Oddly enough .45 and .22 are the only calibers they carry hollowpoints in.

Now to effectively compare the 9mm to the .45, one would need to have identical firearms chambered for each. Since the 9mm generally uses a smaller, lighter frame, this is difficult. The only way I could think to do it would be to aquire a 1911 in both calibers to fire side by side. Than is not currently in my power to do. My test guns were as follows.

9mm Parabellum: One Hungarian made Hi-Power. It is a little over 5" tall, 1.5" wide, with a 4.6" barrel. It weights about 2 lbs unloaded. You can add about .5 lbs to that with a 15 round magazine.

One Cobra Derringer: it is 5.5" long, 3.5" of which is barrel. It is 3.3" tall and weights 16 ounces empty. It holds 2 rounds of 9mm.

45 acp: One Llama Minimax: 7.3" long, with a 3.5" barrel. It is about 4.6" tall and weighs 2lbs. It holds 7 rounds in the magazine. The magazines weight a little less than the ones for the Hi Power.

One Volunteer Commando Mark 3, not mine, borrowed. Weight 8 lbs, I have no idea on the other dimensions, but I know it had a barrel longer than 3.5".

Now this isn't a fair test. The Hi Power has over an inch longer barrel than the LLama. But I didn't have a chronograph, or wet pack or anything remotely scientific. This is all strickly subjective.

First off, I am very happy with the Hi Power, it just feels good in my hand and the more I shoot it, the better I do. The recoil is not bad at all. There are two things I don't like. One, the stupid magazine disconnect makes the trigger feel stiffer than the 7.5 lbs it is and slows reloads as you have to pull the clips completely out. Second, the hammer bites me a bit. Given time and a nice gunsmith, I will soon fix both issues. I can shoot the Hi Power well single handed. I like the layout of the safety, mag release and slide release. I also like the weight and barrel length. The profile of the old design is much slimmer than most of the double actions I've handled. Only the CZ-75 seems to approach it for comfort in my hand.

Well, the overall layout of the Llama is similar, so most of what I just said applies here, also. Now, .45's are loud, but I have never felt they kicked that bad. My last .45 was a Ruger KP90D, which was an aluminum frame with steel slide and barrel. I no longer have it, but if I remember correctly the Llama is smaller, but heavier. The Llama feels lighter than the Hi Power loaded. The shorter barrel makes the Llama feel less balanced to me and it also feels flatter and taller. It shoots well though. I can fire both one and two handed and it does good enough for almost any self defense situation. I don't really like the grip safeties on the 1911 design and this one rattles a little, so it might need some attention. The other bothersome item is that spent brass often bounces off my head, especially firing 2 handed. A firmer grip helped the issued a lot, but occasionally I still took a hot piece of brass in the forehead. The Llama has more barrel lift than the Hi Power, and a bit more recoil. I put most of the barrel lift to the shorter barrel. The recoil is from the larger cartridge. It isn't much worse than the Ruger, the all steel gun's weight probably makes up for the loss of barrel length on recoil.

The Commando is a semi-auto replica of the Thompson. Auto-ordinance makes a more authentic replica, as the Volunteer used aluminum and plastic, resulting in a reduction from 14 to 8 lbs. The commando uses M3A1 magazines. With a thirty round magazine, it is a handful, and I had never fired one before. I don't like the sights and couldn't hit very well with it, but it absorbed the recoil and lessened the noise considerably. I would place the recoil as similar to a field load out of a 410 shotgun.

The Cobra barks bad. The 9mm out of the shorty barrel lets you know you fired a gun. It isn't uncontrollable, and I thought it was more pleasant than .38 specials I've fired through similar weapons, but it is not an experience for a novice.

My wife shot her Bersa, complained a little about the recoil. I let her shoot the Hi Power, then her gun again and she seemed to like hers better, especially the double action trigger, which is nice. I also let her shoot the Llama, she only made it through 3 rounds and gave it back. She felt the recoil was too much. I think it may have been the sound more than the recoil though.

Okay, 9mm vs .45, get one or two of each, both are good. All things being equal, I can shoot the 9mm accurately a little faster than the .45. It really boils down to the guns. The Llama and the Hi Power are very similar in size, so I can carry either in a similar situation. The Hi Power gives me double the number of shots and a little less recoil, flash, and noise. On the other hand if it comes down to extra ammo, the Hi Power's loaded clips weight quite a bit more. I tend to carry the Hi-Power more if I'm out and about. The Llama tend to go with me when I'm working outside. Don't know why, just the way it is. The Cobra tends to go everywhere with me.

I want to aquire 4 more firearms soon. I want a Makarov, just for a smaller, reliable concealed weapon. I might take the FEG version of one if the price is right. I also want a full size 1911 pattern weapon. I am looking at the Rock Island Armory stuff, as I am on a budget. I missed a good deal on a Norinco and am kicking myself. I would like a short barreled Hi Power. I've seen them. I also want to get a Firestorm 9mm for the wife. I also need to pick up a .22, either an auto or revolver, but not a little one, I want a target model for eliminating barn rats and other small vermin. It doesn't even have to be double action.

Chaffs my Buns!!!!!!!!!!!

2007-03-07T14:22:00.000-06:00

I recently received the surprising news that my choice of carry weapon and carry method was dangerous and that I should stop. What really pisses me off though was who told me. An aquantaince of mine, who carries a freaking glock, thinks carrying a single action auto cocked and locked is dangerous. Of course the gun is dangerous, it's supposed to be. But condition one carry, requires that the gun be drawn, the safety disengaged, and the trigger pulled before it goes boom. You draw the gun. Bring it into firing position, disengage the safety. Place finger on trigger, fire. 4 deliberate actions done in the proper sequence. Trigger pull on the Hi-power is about 7 lbs. The Llama is about 6 lbs. This guy carries a glock. No external safety, just draw and pull the trigger. 2 actions. The trigger pull on the glock is 5 1/2 lbs. It is easier to pull than either of my "unsafe" guns. If I accidently get my finger in my trigger guard drawing either of my weapons, the safety will keep it from going boom. Heck, the Llama even has the grip safety like the 1911. If it isn't depressed, gun no go boom. Nothing keeps the Glock from going off if you get your finger inside the guard. That's why several police academy firing ranges won't let them on the range. They have had too many accidental discharges, but I'm endangering myself and others. Right.

Old School vs. Old School

2007-02-06T13:59:00.000-06:00

I recently aquired a Llama Minimax .45 acp used at a good price. This is basically a copy of the 1911 officer's model. It's a close enough copy that about 75% of the parts will interchange, but not enough to call it a clone. If you don't know, the officer's model is a scaled-down, more concealable, 1911. Llama made it in .45 ACP, .40, and 9MM that I know off. Never seen one of the .40's but there is a 9MM in a local gun shop selling for about $250. Llama is pretty much out of business again I believe. The general opinion is that Llama's are junk, or the greatest bargain known to man, whichever. Aparantly Llama had a rocky existence and depending on where in there chain of misfortune your handgun was made, the likelihood of getting junk increased or decreased. Anywho, mine seems well-made. It is a heavy steel gun, seems tight and the only rattle is the grip safety, which serves the same basic purpose as the magazine disconnect in the Hi-power, it acts as a pain in the posterior. The one thing, mine has a full-length guide rod, which means you need 3 hands and a foot to reassemble the damn thing if you take it apart. Have been told it is 100% reliable with ball ammo, but don't know about hollowpoints yet. I'm excited I like .45 acp.

Which is better, 9mm or .45 acp? Well, which is better, apples or oranges? It is an opinion, not a fact. Both are capable of killing someone, punching holes in paper, shooting beer cans, holding down paper on your desk, or gathering dust in a gun safe.

With ball ammo, I think the .45 has a slight edge in effectiveness, as it makes a little bigger hole. With modern self-defense ammo, I think any edge the .45 has dimenishes and maybe even disappears. Both calibers are available in a wide range of handgun designs, you can even find revolvers chambered in these cartridges. Assuming you fire them from a similar platform, you can make some comparisions.

Accuracy: Assuming similar firearms and similar ammo, both cartridges are capable of more accuracy than I am.

Development: These 2 cartridges have had a lot more research and development over the years than most auto-loading cartridges. They are the two oldest auto-loader cartridges still in popular use.

Ballistics: The 9mm parabellum is usually loaded with from 90 to 142 grain bullets. They tend to move from 1000 to 1500 feet per second. The cartridge operates at fairly high pressures, and +p and ++p loads are available, that give even more velocity and pressure. The caliber is .355. The .45 is a .451 caliber with bullet weights in the 180 -- 230 grain range although 240 to 300 grain can be found. The big boy usually pushes these from 800 to 1200 feet per second.
The internal pressure are less, I believe. Once again +p and ++p rounds are available.

Recoil: Well the 9mm has less felt recoil, however I have never felt the .45 was really that bad on recoil. My old .45 was a Ruger P-90 with an aluminum frame and I easily fired it with one hand. Even with the shorter barrel, the steel frame of the Llama ought to be about the same.

Belly Guns

2007-01-24T16:35:00.000-06:00

I remember I used to read a lot in the firearms magazines about belly guns. If I understood right, this term was coined a long time ago to refer to firearms with short barrels and smaller grips which could be concealed easily in the waistband of pants or tucked into the pocket of a pair of pants or a jacket. I guess that pretty much since the invention of the handgun, there has been a perceived need for a handgun that is small enough to conceal. Now, it is obvious that the easiest way to make a smaller weapon is to fire a smaller projectile. I mean obviously a .22 caliber handgun is going to be easier to put into a small package than a .50 caliber. Of course you loose a lot of power that way too. The earliest weapons that came made to hide were probably derringers. Most of these were in smaller calibers with .32's being rather popular. Early short-barrelled revolvers were generally in the 30 caliber range also. Of course, the smaller the caliber, the less effective the round, so there was always a demand for bigger calibers. The .41 rimfire cartridge developped to fulful the role of a large caliber derringer. I believe that several manufactures developed short barrelled revolvers with slimmer stocks that were sold as banker's specials. These were usually in the 30 caliber ranges.

As the smokeless powder cartidges became more prevalent, the various caliber weapons became more effective. Mostly the bullets were still round nose lead though and so a weapon that made a .43 or .45 inch hole and weighed 230 -- 255 grains was more desireable than one that made a .36 caliber hole and weight 148 grains.

Cartridges like the .38 S&W and .38 Colt Police Positive were widely used and carried in various barrel lengths. However, many people who depended on being armed for there lively hood, took weapons like the .45 Colt, .44 Russian, and shortened the barrel, slimmed, trimmed and rounded the grips, bobbed the hammer, cut away the trigger guard and stuck the darn things in their pocket. Many of these pockets were reinforced with leather or canvas of course.

As cartridges and firearms improved, the development of cartridges like the .38 special and .357 magnum offered better performance not only in service size revolvers, but also in the short-barrelled variety. Obviously these two cartridges have become the most popular for use in snubnosed revolvers, and make up the bulk of the sales of such. They are also very popular in derringers. Another option available to people looking for this type weapon was the smaller .32 autos that were manufactured by Colt, Mauser, Savage, and many other company's. They offered more power than the little .25's, albeit in a larger package, but still more concealable than a revolver. As technology improved, the .32 shrank, and the .380 (9mm short) became more popular. Colt produced a pocket size 1911 in .380 that was very popular and I think may still be in production. Wather PPK sized firearms offered an alternative to the snubbie. Now the .38 special, even out of a 2" barrel packs more punch than a .32 or .380 in my opinion, but I can conceal my Bersa on my person easier than my Taurus 85. The Bersa has a 7 round clip, the Taurus holds 5. This gives me 2 more shots of a less effective round. Go trade? I don't know. The Taurus was my car gun in cold weather too. I could carry a bigger weapon when I wore more clothes, so the Taurus went in the Mustang. In warmer weather, it was my favorite carry, and a Davis .380 became the car gun.

Of course, some .38 special snubbies hold 6 rounds, and if you don't mind a larger frame, some .357 hold 7 or 8, but this is a fatter gun obviously and harder to hide. Another option would be to go for a snubbie in .32 magnum. On paper, the little centerfire magnum looks on par with a .38 special, but I haven't seen a side-by-side comparison in a long time. And out of a Ruger it would be 6 rounds. Yet another choice would be a 9mm revolver. I know Ruger makes a 9mm snubbie, and I know Smith and Wesson did, and may still do. Taurus might also. Of course you either use 9mm rimmed ammo or a special clip, but a 9mm round designed for use out of a subcompact auto should perform very similar out of a snubnosed revolver.

Now the old Charter Arms company stayed in business for years for 2 reasons. One is that it sold a lot of .32 and .38 snubnosed revolvers at a cheaper price than anyone else. Ruger and Taurus were not pursuing those markets than, so they basically undersold Smith and Wesson and Colt. If you couldn't afford and S&W or Colt, you either bought Charter Arms, or you bought an import, like the Astra or the Rohm. I believe Rohm was German and looked a little odd, but the Astra was Spanish and looked a lot like a Smith. Charter Arms looked like a Smith, but the cylinder turned the same direction as the Colt. The second reason Charter was around was the Bulldog. Charter Arms was the only manufacturer at the time (of course at this time every sporting goods and hardware store sold guns, even "evil" handguns) that sold a large caliber, short-barrelled revolver as a standard offering. The Bulldog was a 5 shot, .44 special with a 2 inch barrel. The only way to get anything similar was through Colt or Smith and Wesson's custom shops, which would cost way more. Now I don't know how Charter Arms held up against the big 2 quality wise, although I am sure the finish wasn't anywhere near what the other companies offered, but I don't remember hearing much bad about the company's product. When Taurus first hit the US, they filled a similar niche, and now are quiet popular. Charter Arms is back too I believe. Probably a different incarnation.

I fired a Bulldog once, and it is an experience. The .44 special doesn't seem that impressive out of a 4 or 6 inch barrel, and I fired them a lot out of my Ruger Redhawk. The Redhawk was a very heavy framed weapon with an 8 inch barrel. The .44 special rounds were much milder than the magnums it was designed for and seemed very pleasant in comparison. The Bulldog frame was a little heavier than the J-frame Smith built most .38 snubbies on. I don't know if it was as heavy as the K-frame they originally used on the combat magnums though. It had a smaller grip area, and wasn't much heavier than a .38 of similar size. Firing a cylinder of anything heavier than a target load was an experience that tended to stay with you. I owned a Smith and Wesson Model 29 with a 2 and 3/4" barrel for a while. The 29 had almost an inch more barrel and was on the much heavier N frame. Shooting the Bulldog was about as unpleasant as shooting the 29 with full power magnum loads. On the other hand, I think if a person practiced with the Bulldog, he would be well-armed.

Now both Ruger and Taurus are offering several snub-nosed revolvers in calibers like .41 magnum, .44 special, .44 magnum, .45 Colt and .45 ACP. I think Smith and Wesson has always offered most of their revolvers with an barrel length of 3 inches, and may offer less as standard now on some of the bigger boys. I think there may even be some revolvers out their available in 10mm/40 and they may be offered in short barrel lengths. There is still a demand for large caliber, concealable, reliable format.

If you don't want a revolver, what are your options. Well, there are a great many companies that offer compact and subcompact .40's, .45's. There are also plenty of 9mm's and .357 Sigs if you want to go that route. Let's look at some stuff.

First if you are willing to look at 9mm. Paraordinance offers the Warthog. This single-action autoloader packs 12+1 rounds of 9mm or 6+1 rounds of .45 ACP into a really compact (6.5" long, 4.5" tall, 3 "barrel, 24 oz) package. Several other companies, like Springfield Armory, offer similar, although larger packages in both calibers. Glock offers the model 26 this gun offers 10 rounds of 9mm in a package 6.3 inches long, 4.2 inches tall, a little over an inch thick, and which weighs less than 20 oz empty. It also uses the 15 round clip of the model 19 or the 18 round clip of the model 17. The model 27 is of a similar size and fires 9 .40's. The model 28 goes bang 10 times, is 5 ounces heavier empty, a little larger, but is a 10 mm. The model 39 offers 6 rounds of .45 GAP in the same size package. Extended 8 and 10 round mags are available, but will add to the height. For reloads, this isn't an issue. The model 30 is a larger weapon (6.8" x 4.8" x 1.3" 24 oz.) But for that you get 10 .45 ACP shots. And you can carry the 13 round mags from its big brother for backup. They also offer the G-36 which is a 6 shot firearm that cuts the width down to almost 1 inch. The G-33 takes us back to the original 9mm/.40 size, but offers 9 rounds of .357 Sig. 11,13,15, and 17 round clips are available.

Springfield armory also offers subcompact versions of its XD polymer frame line if you like a more traditional feel to your weaponry. The 9mm compact is 6.3" x 4.8" and weighs 26 oz empty. The compact magazine hold 10 rounds, the extended holds 16. Going up to a 40 maintains your size but you loose 1 round in the compact mag and 3 in the extended. The smallest .45 they have is the compact which is 7.3" x 5" and weights 29 oz. The regular magazine is 10 rounds, the extended is 13. The smallest .357 Sig is the service model and is 7.3" x 5.5" and weights 29 oz and holds 12 rounds. The .45 GAP model is identical in capacity and size.

One of the neatest things I've seen though is the Kel-tec P-ll. This pistol is made with a steel slide, polymer frame and aluminum parts. It weights 14 oz empty, is 5.6" x 4.3" x 1". The factory magazines hold 10 rounds of 9mm. The fit and finish are not on par with the XD or Glock and the trigger is no where near as nice, but these weapons can be found for under $300 new and 12 round Smith and Wesson magazines will fit flush. 15 round magazines can be used with extensions. They also offer a single stack model that is almost 2 ounces lighter and less than an inch wide. It has a 7 round clip.

Now if you can find one, and afford it, AMT has a gun called the Backup. It is made for deep concealment and is available in .22, .380, 9mm, .45 ACP, .40, .38 Super. It is 5.7" x 4" x 1" and seems to be a 6 shot regarless of caliber. It is a heavy all still weapon and I am not sure if it is still being made. Opinions seem deeply divided as to whether these are excellent guns or pieces of crap. I do think they are heavily sprung and take hot ammo to function well. A good smith can probably tune these up some. NAA guardians are small, firearms but tend to run to smaller calibers. I believe that .380 is the largest caliber available. There are any number of .380's in sizes from the AMT up to the PPK/Bersa readily available in all price ranges. Kahr makes some very compact little 9mm and 40's. A company called Semmerling made a 5 shot .45 ACP that was dinky. It was bought out by American Derringer and is now called the LM-4. The slide has to be operated after every shot, but it weights 24 ounces, is 5" long and 1" wide. I don't know if they are currently in production, but they are a neat little gun. Taurus is making the millinium models in 9mm, 40, and .45 pretty compact.

If you are looking for an easy to hide gun, you just have to look. You can find something that fits into the niche you need if you try hard enough.

For War!!!

2007-01-22T10:04:00.000-06:00

I live in the USA and when we hear the words 9mm, there is no doubt what caliber the speaker means. This is wrong, as there are an unbelivable number of cartridges out there that could be called 9mm. A short, quick list includes: the 9mm browning short, the 9mm largo, the 9mm parabellum, the 9mm ultra, the 9mm magnum, the 9X21mm, the 9x23mm, the 9mm makrov, the list can go on. Many if not all of the other 9mm cartridges stem from the 9mm Luger, also called the 9mm Parabellum, 9X19mm, 9mm NATO. Here are 2 links that go into detail on how various 9mm cartridges came into being. http://www.burnscustom.com/showarticle.php3?article=9x23/9x23WhereAreWe.php3

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/l/aasthandguncara.htm

However the round we are talking about today is the 9mm Luger. The basic history of the cartridge is simple interesting. In 1893 Hugo Borchardt introduced the C-93 self-loading pistol. It utilized a firing mechanism based on the Maxim machine gun and the Winchester lever action carbines toggle mechanism. It fired a 7.63 x 25 mm cartidge that had the same dimensions but a lighter powder load than the cartidge 7.63 MM Mauser round that would become famous with the introduction of the Mauser C-96 "Broomhandle" pistol in 1896. Borchardt was born in Germany but moved to the US. In 1894 an employee of the DWM Company, which evolved from the Company which originally produced the Borchart, Georg Luger went to the US to try to sell the Borchardt to the US military. The pistol was rejected by the military in part because of it being cumbersome and delicate. Mr. Luger took the critic back with him and redesigned the pistol. He strunk the locking mechanism and toggle, changed the grip angle, shortened the 7.63 X 25 mm to a 7.65 X 23mm cartridge which became known as the .30 Luger and was the basis for the Russian 7.62x25mm Tokarev cartridge, although the Russian cartridge operates at a higher pressure than the Luger. The Luger was adopted by some military units by 1900; however, there was some worry about poor stopping power in the light cartridge and by 1902 a new cartridge with the same base, but shorter at 19mm and not necked down, but tapered to a 9mm caliber was introduced. Thus was born the 9mm Luger or 9mm parabellum, which has become the single best selling handgun cartridge in the world.

The Luger was the German Army's sidearm during both world wars. During the second world war, it started being phased out in preference of the Walther P-38, which holds the distinction of being the first commercially viable double-action autoloading handgun. The Hi-power was introduced by FN and became a very popular military sidearm, although not a double-action, it utilized a double-stack magazine alowing 13 rounds in the magazine versus the 7 or 8 available in a single stack magazine. Thus the Hi-Power introduced in 1935 became the first hi-capacity 9mm. It was actually designed by John Browning of the 1911, BAR, and machine gun fame in 1925 and patented in the US in 1927. The design was modified somewhat by Dieudonne Saive of FN before it was released. The flood of "wondernines" that hit the US in the late 1970's and 1980's mostly combined the Walther's double action with the hi-capacity of the Hi-power. With the end of World War 2 and the forming of NATO, it was decided that the 9mm would become the standard caliber of sidearm. It took about 40 years for the US to pick a 9mm sidearm. The production of weapons for these test resulted in most of the development of the 9mm firearms. The switching of most police departments to autoloading weapons and 9mm also added to the flood of 9mm models from every US and most foreign weapons manufacturer.

I have fired a great many 9mm and I have owned 2. My favorite 9mm and the one I still have is a Hi-power. I would love to own a Luger and a P-38 and there are some surplus Walther's hitting the market now so that might happen. Luger's are just too pricey and I want a shooter not a collector's item. I have fired Rugers, Smith and Wessons, Glocks, Stars, Firestorm, Taurus, and one each of Colt and Berreta. Now if you want to pick out a personal weapon for what ever purpose, the manual of arms of each gun will be important. If you can't work it safely, than you don't need to own it. Also the individual feel of the weapon is important, as well as any other factor you like. Otherwise the characteristics of the cartridge are the same.

I like the 9mm Luger. As a cartidge it is accurate, doesn't have a lot of recoil, is controllable and pleasant to shoot, unless maybe out of a derringer. It has enough stopping power for most situations, regardless of what you have heard. With the possible exception of the .45, the 9mm cartidge has had more development on it for various situations. I don't feel underarmed with a 9mm. Personally, like my Hi-power and with a good holster, even the heavy, all-steel gun carries good. However, if you want something a little more portable, or double action, I find the little Firestorm a good compromise, it is light, has a decent trigger, but the only models I have found so far only offer 10 round pre-ban mags. For the price this is a rocking little gun. I believe it is made by Llama. Bersa makes a mini 9 10-shot that I haven't seen an actual version of yet. I want one of the Firestorms, but I may change to a Bersa when I get to actually handle one.

Rugers are nice and I wouldn't mind having one of their full sized autos but they are a little wide in the grip for my hand. The Smiths feel better, but I don't like their safety, decockers that much, and I still feel a little miffed at them over rolling over to the gun grabbers a few years back. I don't like Glocks, I think the baby Glock is the bomb, and Glocks are high-quality firearms that make tons of sense in everyway, but when I shoot one ... I just don't like it. I haven't shot an XD yet in 9mm, but the .40 I shot felt better than a glock, so if I go polymer, I might go XD. Around here they are a little cheaper than a Glock too. I also haven't tried the Taurus PT111 polymer either. It stacks up right between the XD subcompact and the baby Glock(23). I also want a Kel-Tec P-11 although I might take the PT111, I don't know, need to find someone to let me shoot each.

Call Me Old Fashioned

2007-01-16T14:14:00.000-06:00

Well, I am old fashioned, some of the time. Other times I have the have the newest and flashiest. Well I don't know. The only way I am consistent is that I am not consistent. A few years ago it was bigger is better. I loved my magnums. I owned 2 .357's, 2 .44's, and a .22 mag. I was drooling over a .32 mag and a .454, and the .45 mag. You would think that with Smith's introduction of the .460 and .500 magnums, I would be in heaven wouldn't you. Would you believe I don't presently own anything that ends in ums?

I also used to be a .45 fan. My main carry gun was a Ruger KP90D. I loved that Ruger and could still kick myself for not keeping it. I shot well with it and never felt under armed with the Ruger stocked full of 230 grain hydroshocks. My main carry gun at the moment is a FEG version of the Hi-Power. It it stocked with 147 grain hydroshocks. I don't shoot quiet as well with it yet weak hand, but strong hand I am just as good, if not better. I had 3 clips with the Ruger and have 3 with the FEG. I carried 8 in the Ruger, with a 7 round back up factory mag and a 10 round aftermarket mag. This gave me 25 rounds. With the FEG I have 3 15 round Melgar mags. 1 functions fine with 15, one jams consistently if you load it that full, and one works sometimes and sometimes doesn't with 15. They all work fine with 14 rounds though, so I load em all three with 15, chamber a round and then drop the clip and replace it. This gives me 43 rounds. The holes might not be quite as big, but I can put 18 more of them into something, or someone.

I carried the Ruger mainly in cooler weather when I wore a jacket. I tried it in the summer with an untucked t shirt, but even with an IWB holster, if I was very active, it didn't stay concealed. In warmer weather I tended to carry either a Taurus Model 85, 5-shot .38 special, or a 6 shot Davis .380. The .380 I carried with 95 grain Winchester XTP's, the .38 I kept stocked with 125 grain Federal Nyclads, until I couldn't find them, then I went to 148 Winchester Silver Tips I think.

My first handgun was a Model F Starr .22. It was a single action autoloader. It carried either 8 or 10 in the clip. It's been a long time and I traded the thing for the .38 mentioned above. It was a compact little weapon, but made of steel. The sights were tiny and the rear sight kept breaking loose on me, until I had a gunsmith lock it down with some type of glue. I carried that thing crammed down in the top of a cowboy boot several times in condition one carry. I also bought my first shoulder holster for it. It was an Uncle Mike horizontal draw holster. It also worked for the .38, but it wasn't very comfortable, and the .38 usually ended up either in an IWB holster.

My second handgun was a Taurus .357 Magnum Model 66. This is a very close copy of a Smith and Wesson Model 19, although with an internal firing pin and transfer bar safety more like a Ruger. My 66 had a 6 inch barrel and I carried it in either a shoulder holster or a hard leather belt holster. The belt holster was hard to conceal and the shoulder holster was my last try at being James Bond. Those things are really uncomfortable, and with a revolver this size, it takes a winter coat, even on a big guy like me, unless you have your stuff tailored. My first try at ammo for this gun was Winchester Silvertips, 148 grain. I later moved to whichever 125 grain hollowpoint I could find. The same holsters served me for the Ruger Redhawk .44 magnum with the 8 1/2" barrel I later acquired. I never carried it for defense, so I think a few 180 grain Winchester hollow points were the only factory rounds that went through it. Mostly it ate handloads. I also had for a couple of years a Smith and Wesson Model 29 with a 2 3/4 inch barrel. I bought it off a friend, then later sold it back to him. There was also a few months where I had a Charter Arms Bulldog .44 special with a 2 inch barrel. My other .357 was a Ruger Blackhawk single action. That thing would fire anything you could cook up. I also owned a Ruger Super Single Six with the .22 and the .22 magnum cylinder. I also had a Ruger .22 Auto with a bull barrel. I miss both those .22 a lot. I had a Taurus Model PT-25 with the little tip up barrel too. I had a little double-barrel .38 special derringer I picked up at an estate sale. The only ammo that was even remotely comfortable to shoot in that little bastard was snake shot. Anyway, with the exception of a couple of .25's a Davis, a Raven, and a little Galessi. I think that is a pretty accurate accounting of all my old handguns.

The Littlest Big Thing

2007-01-11T14:26:00.000-06:00

Okay, let's talk .380 ACP. You either love it, hate it, or are completely indifferent to it. I've had a couple of .380's and currently own one. I've always been fascinated as much by the small end of the handgun cartridge scale as the big end, and the .380 ACP is generally considerred the top of the little end.

The .380 seems to me to have filled 3 different roles in its history. The first role was that of a cutdown service pistol, like the Colt Mustang, a smaller version of the 1911. The second role, that of a easily concealed weapon, was perhaps more prevalent to the European market than the U.S. although this type of weapon has a following over here. A classic example would be the Walther PPK/S. The final role would be as a last ditch hideout gun. A good example of this would be the AMT Backup, The Guardian, or the Kel-Tec 3AT.

The .380 has always seemed to me to follow behind and gradually replace the 7.65 mm (.32 ACP). If anyone is making a .32 auto in anything larger than Walther PPK size, I haven't seen it lately. As a matter of fact, the most common size .32's I've seen lately have been in the hideout .25 ACP size range, and those are fairly scarce. The only larger .32's I've seen have been used. I ran across a CZ, not sure if I remember the model number. It was a .32 and in decent shape, but the price was a bit high for me at the time, so I couldn't get it. Most of the new .32's I see are Kel-Tec P32's. This is a very nice compact little package with a good reputation as a hide-out gun.

But this blog is about the .380 so let's get back to it. The history of the .380 is reasonable clear.
Or maybe it isn't. The cartridge was designed by John Browning and was either a shortened version of the 9mm parabellum or a scaled down version of Browning's .45 ACP round. It was either introduced in 1912 by FN or 1908 by Colt or both. We do know that the .380 is also known as the 9mm short, 9X17 mm, 9 mm kurtz, 9 mm corto, 9mm Browning, and 9 mm Browning short. We know that it was designed to work in early blowback designed guns and has a relatively low chamber pressure which allows it to work in guns that are less expensive to manufacture, and are lighter and smaller. This also means that it limits the range and stopping power of the cartridge also. The .380 has been adapted as both a police and military cartridge in some countries.

The .380 ACP generally launches a 80 -- 115 grain bullet. A 95 grain bullet will generally travel out of a 4 inch barrel at roughly 950 fps. Remember though every firearm and ever cartidge is different. Most of the popular .380's probably have a barrel shorter than 4 inches also.

You get what you pay for, sometimes.

At one time you would probably be told that the Walther PPK/S was the ultimate .380. If you want to spend the money, you might be happy with a James Bond gun, but personally I hate the trigger and the price tag. Sig Sauer's are also high-end weapons, but are cheaper, and, in my opinion, have a much nicer trigger, are more reliable, and are an all-around better value. If you are budget minded though, the Bersa Thunder 380 has a great trigger, very reliable, excellent fit and finish and can be found for $300 or less in my area. The NAA Guardian is a very popular hide-out gun, it is pricey, but very well made and reliable. I have no idea is the AMT backup is still around in other than .45 ACP. The Seecamp is even more expensive, although it is lighter and has an excellent reputation. The cheapest out is for something like a Cobra, Jimenez, or Davis. Most of these can be had for less than $200. Hi-Point makes a .380 and it is a reliable weapon from all accounts, but it is weighty, ugly, and much larger than any of these weapons previously mentioned. For about a $100 less than the NAA, you can get a Kel-Tec 3AT. It is lighter than anything else on this blog, very reliable, but the trigger isn't as nice as the Guardian or the Seecamp. One nice feature is that you can get a pocket clip that lets you stick the Kel-Tec in your pocket or waistband without a holster and hook it like a tactical folding knife.

My .380's.

My first .380 was a Davis auto. It was chrome plated with plastic grigs. It was small, shiny, kind of heavy and I think I paid about $80 for it seveal years ago. I carried it in IWB holster, pocket holster, and just shoved in the pocket. It had several issues. One, the safety was tiny and hard to release. It was small enough to get turned in the pocket without the holster and very hard to draw. Although it was a cheap weapon, it never failed to fire and I used 95 grain hollow points. I could hit with it within a reasonable range for this type weapon. My other .380 is a Bersa Thunder .380. It is an awesome little gun. I paid $250 for it and so far I'm impressed. It is lighter than the smaller Davis. Incidently, I also had a .25 ACP Davis that also worked like a charm, but my significant other (girlfriend at the time) had what should have been an exact duplicate of the .25 and it wouldn't even feed FMJ without jamming at least every third round. She had it for 6 months, shot it regularly and it never improved. I finally got her to trade it for a Taurus Model 85, .38 special.

Competition.
Well the main purpose of the .380 is probably self-defense. What is the competition. Well, if we restrict it to firearms of similar size, then it has a lot. On one end we have the .22 short, .22 lr, .22 magnum, .25 ACP, .32 ACP, .32 magnum, .38 special, .357 magnum, 9 mm Makarov, 9 mm parabellum.

Okay, the best self-defense gun is the one you carry. There are times I just don't feel like lugging my Hi-Power around, so the Bersa, being smaller and lighter, is better than nothing. The .380 offers less in the way of stopping power than the 9 mm Parabellum, but its still better than my .25 ACP.

They still make little auto's in .22 short and .22 long rifle. They also make tiny little revolvers in .22 short, .22 lr, and .22 magnum. I feel the .380 if a better choice than any of the above in tiny auto format especially. The really tiny .22 revolvers might be a good hide-out alternative or bug to something like the Kel-Tec. In automatics, though, I don't see why you would want less power in a similar package. The same goes for the .25. If you can have a .38 for similar money and similar size, why not. I like the .32 acp and it is available in similar hideout and compact packages, but the balistic advantages of the .380 just make more since. In the Kel-Tec, the only disadvantage might be muzzle blast. If you want a short barrelled revolver, you can have one in .32 magnum or .38 special. Both will give you more power with about the same number of rounds as the little guns. The larger PPK size weapons have a little ammo advantage in .380 though. So do you want firepower, or destructive power. The .357 magnum offers a lot more power in a similar size package, although revolvers are usually harder to hide than autos, and snub-nosed .357 can be hard to control. The biggest competition for the .380 I think comes from 2 packages that are similar in size to the larger .380's but offer more power. These are the 9 mm Makarov and the 9 mm Parabellum. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the sudden influx of Markarov's and their clones and copies, we have a PPK size package chamered for what is really a 9.2 mm x 18. It offers a little more stopping power in a similar sized, very reliable package that is affordable. The recent improvements in metal and polymer frames have made really compact 9x19 mm handguns very possible. The Kel-Tec P-11 gives us a 10-shot (factor 12 shot with S&W mags) 9mm Luger in a very compact package. I think the trigger is not as nice as my Bersa, but I think this might be the new "snub nose" ankle and belly gun. It compares very favorably with the baby Glock and is half the price.