Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards  

Go Back   Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards > General
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #226  
Old April 29th, 2008, 06:41 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,158
I ran across this funky Luger:




Note the safety mounted onto the grip safety.

Dished toggles too.

Weirdo.

I'm digging it.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old May 7th, 2008, 01:47 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,490
Here's some Garand sniper youtube love:


That is an M1E8 Garand variant.
It's an interesting little clip.
This guy has terrible technique but he's still banging the steel with his rifle.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old May 13th, 2008, 08:44 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,158
1980s HK video on the P7:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIUfMsct_ao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tofqw_2TKyY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAXJVm0p44w

Heckler & Koch released this on VHS back when I was an undergrad. The first half of the video covered the P7 and the second half covered the Benellis. It was a great video, from the golden era of HK. HK vids from this era rock and roll. They were full of G3, G33, MP5, HK21, etc. in action, and they had all sorts of psycho stuff like driving cars over MP5s, throwing red-hot HK21 barrels into water and then immediately shooting again. It was crazy. The dropping of a cinder block onto a P7 magazine is typical of the stuff they would do to the other weapons. These videos were full of delayed blowback love and they weren't cheesy at all. The technical information in the vids was legit too.

The first part of this P7/Benelli vid covers the P7 and the second part covers Benelli shotguns. Shotgun Jedi John Satterwhite did the demonstrations with the Benelli. Satterwhite was sort of the Tom Knapp of the 1980s, and he did combat shooting as well as clay target and wingshooting demos. The Benelli portion also featured several members of the HK International Training Division demonstrating select-slug drills and other cool stuff with the Super 90.

These were awesome videos, and I wish more Cold War era HK lovers would load them onto YouTube.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old May 13th, 2008, 09:47 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,158
Check out this crap from the 90s:


Man, it just ain't the same. No porno music in the background. No commentary about the excellence of HK engineering. No destructive tests. Locked breeches mixed in the blowback stuff. Hacks firing the weapons. This sucks. It just drums on and on. It's boring as hell. This was the beginning of the end for HK.

Even the YouTube comments for this video suck.

Some moron named "rigoletto68" writes: "Hard to beat German craftsmanship! Some serious firepower here. I am surprised all the drug lords don't have these."

This Rigoletto68 hunch-back moron is actually impressed by this crap? Lame.

Then some other moron named "minotauron12" responds with: "The G3 is a licensed copy of the Spanish design CETME L. The whole HK family was derived from there. Sorry, German pride."

I'm sorry to rain on his Spain parade, but the roller-delayed blowback method of operation is not a Spanish design. Neither is the CETME rifle. If this moron knew anything, he would know that the CETME is merely an StG45(M) with the StG44's layout, and the CETME was designed by Ludwig Vorgrimmler, an ex Mauserwerke employee who fled to Spain after the war. The CETME rifle is a Mauserwerk design, not a Spanish design. No Spaniard ever born could ever devise such a magnificent method of operation.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old May 14th, 2008, 10:17 AM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,490

Those vids were sweet and I was feeling the HKP7M8 love big time.

As always though I remain a little distraught by this pistol. It's so perfectly designed in virtually every area:

-squeeze cocking safe action
-excellent trigger
-robust drop safety
-dual firing action (cock-trigger and trigger-cock)
-fixed and pinned bbl
-vertical magazine
-ergonomics
-slide release
-magazine release
-dual system extraction
-magazine
-low incidence of malfunctions (type 3 virtually impossible)
-concealability

And yet in my estimation it falls totally short in two areas which are strong considerations for me:

-weight
-magazine capacity

To me the HKP7M8 is just too heavy. Compared to many firearms it's not, but we live in the age of the polymer pistol and it makes the P7 kind of a dog. As heretical as this sounds, I would love to see a P7 with a polymer frame. I doubt the gas piston design could not be accomadated with today's wonder plastics. I know this would be a break with the heritage of the design and the manufacturing process which makes it uniquely well built, but I would love to see what this pistol would be like. To my knowledge the VP70 is the only HK-built polymer ever and that gun is total piece so maybe it's just not their thing.

My other hang up is the capacity. To me 8 rounds is a serious compromise. I look at the capacity not just as it applies to the pistol in your hand but also to your spares. This is where it starts to add up. Having only a 8 round magazine doesn't just leave you 7 rounds down compared to a Glock19, it leaves you at least 21 rounds down in your overall load (assuming two spare magazines). Add to that the fact that the P7M8 can ONLY accept 8 round magazines and you are really hurting. With other pistols you can have higher capacity spares. I am aware of no such option for the P7M8. You have to really believe in the other strengths of the pistol to cut your ammunition in half by today's standards. I only consider the P7M8 because the M13 is simply unwieldy for me. I have small hands and short fingers. I can manage double stack Glocks, but every time I have handled an M13 and the only time I shot one it was a real bear. Furthermore the M13 is heavier, even if only by 2oz unloaded. That said I only really consider the P7M8 and I have serious reservations about the magazine capacity. I think even three more rounds would be a huge advantage.

Maybe it's these two shortcomings that make the Hk P7M8 a gun with followers rather than fans. You have to believe.

In my mind if the P7 was as light as a compact glock and held 11 rounds with 13 round spare magazines there would be no reason to carry anything else.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old May 14th, 2008, 11:06 AM
thomaskimura thomaskimura is offline
Thomas Kimura
N6BZ
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 178
The dual extraction still blows me away. What an incredible design.

I especially liked the part in the second video where they talk about how the unique functioning of the P7 has saved the lives of several officers because criminals were unfamiliar with its operation.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old May 14th, 2008, 02:07 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,158
I'm glad you guys were digging the video. The P7 really is a remarkable pistol. No less a pistol authority and 1911 lover than Jeff Cooper dug the P7 (he admitted to having a "sneaking regard" for it).


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
And yet in my estimation it falls totally short in two areas which are strong considerations for me:

-weight
-magazine capacity


Weight: The P7's 30 oz. weight has never bothered me. Weight on something like a steel snub that is carried in the pocket (which moves as you walk) bothers me greatly. (If that spare 9mm cylinder I ordered will fit, I think I'm going to fit it to an AirLite Centennial.) But the pistol in a proper hip holster doesn't really move, so it doesn't bother me. Sure, I wouldn't mind at all if the P7 were available in a titanium or alloy frame (assuming the pistol's durability was not affected), but the weight of the P7 has never bothered me.

Magazine Capacity: Here's where I feel a little envy. Not a lot of envy, but there is a little envy there.

I don't carry, but if I did I would probably have a fully loaded P7M8 (nine shots) on my right hip, a full magazine on my left hip (eight shots), and my 940 snub (five shots) in my left pocket. That's 22 shots.

Compare my 22 shots with my brother's set-up: a full Glock 19 on the right hip (16 shots), spare Glock 17 magazine with +2 extension on the left hip (19 shots), and a Glock 26 in the left pocket (11 shots). That's 46 shots. And both pistols work with the spare magazine. And he's not all Pancho Villa'd out with some ridiculous Batman Belt and tons of spare magazines and whatnot. This is a very practical carry configuration, and yet he's got more than double what I have. Even if we use a standard Glock 19 spare magazine, he would have 42 shots. Now, I'm far from a "more is better" guy when it comes ammunition capacity. But that's a very large difference in ammunition capacity without a substantial increase in bulk or weight. In fact, his overall load may even be lighter than mine.

Alternatively, the Glock system lets one go up to .40 S&W with zero increase in bulk and a minimal decrease in magazine capacity. A Glock 23 (14 shots) on the right hip, spare Glock 23 magazine (13 shots) on the left hip, and a Glock 27 (9 shots) in the left front pocket gives you 36 shots. That's a lot. And again, this is not some ungainly Chow Yun Fat set-up used by rookies. It's a very practical set-up. If you feel the need, you can go to the Glock 22 spare magazine (with or without the floorplate extensions) for even more shots.

But overall, the envy for the high capacity isn't that large. I mean, I wouldn't carry two spare magazines for my M8. I feel that 22 shots should be enough if I do my part. That's actually quite a lot.

I do, however, wish that higher-capacity spare magazines were available for the M8. When the FBI adopted its dream pistol (the Smith & Wesson 1076, a Commander-sized pistol firing the attenuated 10mm Auto) in the 1990s, it specified a single-stack magazine. The standard magazine was nine shots if I recall. But the FBI also issued its agents 11-shot spare magazines and 15-shot magazines for storage areas like vehicle gloveboxes or briefcases. I think this was a very nice arrangement, and I think I prefer this idea to the idea of staggered magazines for everything. The 1076s in the holster had standard-capacity magazines so as not to make the pistol bulky (most FBI agents wear suits). But the spares were 11-shot magazines (which are really no harder to carry or conceal than nine-shot magazines). I wish HK made 11-shot or whatever magazines for the M8. If these were available I would make my spare magazine one of these.



Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaskimura
I especially liked the part in the second video where they talk about how the unique functioning of the P7 has saved the lives of several officers because criminals were unfamiliar with its operation.


To my way of looking at things, the proprietary nature of the P7 is just a bonus. I certainly wouldn't buy a pistol just because it was harder for a bad guy to figure out. And I certainly wouldn't configure my pistol so that it was more difficult to use, just to minimize the chances that I might get shot with my own pistol. There are hundreds of tricked-out holsters around like that, and I can't stand all of them. I don't even like a thumb snap on my holsters. But if the proprietary nature of the P7 is there at no cost (the pistol is no harder to use), then I consider it a bonus. I'll definitely take that.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old May 14th, 2008, 09:29 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,158
The Magna Trigger is an example of a proprietary function on a pistol. Check out:

http://www.tarnhelm.com/writerscorner.html

The Magna Trigger has been around a very long time. I've never seen a pistol so fitted and have never played with one. From what I gather, the thing actually works. And it works well. The pistol will not fire without the shooter wearing the ring on his firing hand. Conversely, I've never heard complaints about a revolver not working as intended when the user was wearing the Magna Ring.

But would I do this to my sidearm? Forget that. For one thing, I would have to wear two of the damn rings all the time, one for each hand. I would have to wear the rings all the time, even when I'm not carrying, just in case I might have to grab a pistol from the desk drawer or wherever. Otherwise the pistol wouldn't fire and would be useless.

At first I thought the Magna Trigger might work for cops in jails, but then the bad guys would figure out the ring thing instantly. I suppose the Maga Trigger has possible applications for cops in crowded conditions or something like that, where chances of a gun grab are higher. I'll stick with my P7.

Incidentally, the shop that does the Magna Trigger mod also does a manual safety for S&W revolvers:

http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html

This safety has also been around a long time, with a very good track record. The safety is set by pushing the thumb latch forward and then up. As S&W revolver owners know, the hammer is locked and the pistol cannot be fired when the thumb latch is forward. This mod gives the user the option of a manual safety on his revolver, and the safety's design is such that it's very difficult to impossible to engage the safety inadvertently for most shooters. The shooter's thumb would have to push the thumb latch forward and then up. This doesn't really happen on S&W revolvers, as the shooter quickly learns to grip the pistol so that his thumb will be clear of the thumb latch. Otherwise, the thumb latch will tear chunks out of his thumb.

I'll stick to my standard Centennial.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old May 14th, 2008, 11:12 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,158
For the P7 lover in you:




The four blued P7s on the left appear to be a P7M13, P7M13, P7M8, and P7K3.

The three nickel P7s are P7M13 with walnut stocks, P7M10, and P7M8.

The blued pistol to the right of the nickel models looks like a Jubilee P7M8.

After the Jubilee are a P7M8, P7M10, P7M13, P7K3, P7M8, P7M13, and P7M13.

All have lanyard loops, there is no PSP or true P7 in that row. You can tell the P7K3s because they are shorter in height than the M8s and their striker flange is wider than that on the other models. The M13s are taller and wider than the M8s, and the M10s have tall slides. I hate the M10s.




This angle shows some other differences among the pistols. You can see that the middle pistol is indeed a Jubilee and not just a P7M8 fitted with walnut stocks from Nill-Grips.

At first glance the rear sights look alike but you will see that some are secured with a slotted set screw while most of them are tightly dovetailed into the top of the slide and no set screw. The older P7M13s and P7M8s have the rear sight secured with a set screw. HK later deemed the set screw unnecessary and eliminated it.

The nickel M13 and the blued M13 on the far right appear to have tritium inserts in the sights. All P7 pistols come from the factory with white plastic dot inserts in the sights, but the user may pull out the white plastic inserts and replace them with tritium inserts. The sights are pre-drilled for tritium inserts.

The two P7K3s are fitted with adjustable plastic sights. My K3 came fitted with a plastic adjustable rear sight and plastic stocks with thumb rests. This made it a "target pistol" under ATF regs and allowed it be imported into the USA under the 1968 Gun Control Act. I bought a P7M8 rear sight and tossed the plastic sight back into the box. I tossed the thumb rest stocks and fitted the flat stocks in their place. I think I still have the plastic rear sight and thumb rest stocks in the K3's black plastic box.

Note how fat the wooden stocks are on the nickel M13 and Jubilee. There are made by Nill-Grips in Germany. The quality of these stocks is outstanding. I have a set of these for one of my M8s. As much as I love wood, I can't love these stocks. They're too fat. That M13 must be handful with those chubby stocks on there.

The four pistols in the back row appear to be a P7M13, P7, P7, and P7M8 with some custom wood stocks.

And the boxes for therefor:




While I own three M8s and one K3, my favorite P7 variant is the second-generation P7 with flat stocks shown here:




This P7 has the flush magazine release located on the heel. The P7 is a very slim pistol without protrusions or other manual controls, and this version of the P7 is the smoothest of them all. I also like how this P7 doesn't have the plastic heat shield in front of the trigger, and the trigger is steel rather than plastic. The bottom edge of the slide walls is beveled. I shoot with a high thumb and I've burned a groove into my right thumb before on the unbeveled bottom edge of my M8's slide. The rear sight is also smaller on this P7 than it is on the M8. I think this sight looks nicer than the M8/M13 rear sight. This P7 lacks a lanyard loop because of the heel magazine release. This second-generation P7 feels very alluring in the hand.

There are some production years of this second-generation P7 with all of the engravings done by CNC rather than roll-marking like the P7 shown above. The machining on these weapons was unbelievably good and the bluing was as good as hot bluing can be. These are, to my way of looking at things, by far the nicest P7s ever made. They're all steel and the craftsmanship and finish are superb. These are my Holy Grail P7 (although the P7M8 is a better service pistol in terms of function), and they may well turn out to be the Triple Locks of the P7 world a few decades from now.

There is also a version of the second-generation P7 with the rounded stocks with thumb rests:




I prefer the flat stocks, as I feel the slimness of the P7 is one of its virtues and these chubbier stocks with thumb rests ruin the lines. I also prefer the way the flat stocks handle. This P7 also appears to have a plastic trigger.

The two P7s shown above are second-generation P7s. The first-generation P7s had the protruding heel release shown here:




I prefer the function and looks of the flush heel release. The flush release is much less likely to release the magazine by accident, and the overall smoothness of the P7 pistol is diminished by the protruding heel release in my opinion.

Both of these heel releases, whether flush or protruding type, are different from the traditional heel releases in that the user pushes them to release the magazine rather than clawing them open. Just push the heel release forward and the magazine springs down and falls freely. Remember that the P7 magazines are oriented vertically. Thus, they fall more freely than magazines that are angled with the grip angle. With the pistol pointed downrange, just release the magazine and the magazine shoots out of the magazine well.

These first- and second-generation P7s are commonly referred to as "PSP" models. That is not correct. The Polizei Selbstlade Pistole predates the P7 and is a different pistol. PSP magazines do not interchange with P7 magazines. This is one of the glaring errors on HKPRO, which doesn't even have a separate section for the "P7" in the section on the P7 family of pistols, even though obscure models like the P7M7 and P7PT8 have their own sections.

And to make things even more confusing, Heckler & Koch brought back a run of P7 pistols and called them "P7 PSP" to differentiate them from the P7M8 then in production. These P7 PSP models had matte finishes and plastic triggers.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old May 15th, 2008, 11:54 AM
thomaskimura thomaskimura is offline
Thomas Kimura
N6BZ
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 178
I'm disappointed with the wood stocks for the P7 series. I guess it's not really a weapon that would look right with wood stocks anyways, but it sucks they're so wide. The nickel is also very unbecoming.

I'm seeing PSPs selling for around six to eight hundred; it's too bad only the P7M8 is legal in California.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old May 15th, 2008, 01:58 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,158
Here's the entire P7 video in a single video:

Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old May 15th, 2008, 02:09 PM
mtnrovr mtnrovr is offline
Ryan Tolentino
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 174
Thanks John, that was beautiful.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old May 15th, 2008, 02:41 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,158
I snooped around the web and found some pics of the 10-shot magazines for the P7:




These were "factory" mags, and they're fairly valuable. I've seen homebrew extended mags for the the P7M8, but never a factory version.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old May 16th, 2008, 05:46 AM
JMH JMH is offline
Jonathan Hanson
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tucson, more or less.
Posts: 274
I like the looks of the flush heel mag release, but the protruding release, as on Roseann's P7, really lets you get the magazine out of there quickly. Thumb on the button, index finger hooked over the front lip of the floor plate, squeeze and yank it out of there. No way is it as fast as a frame-mounted release, but it's positive.

I never knew HK made 10-round magazines for the P7. I'd love to get a couple. Worth their weight in gold, I'm sure.

I agree that wood stocks just don't look right on a P7, but the only real mistake in the P7 line was the .40. That thing was awful.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old May 16th, 2008, 05:59 AM
lucasd2002 lucasd2002 is offline
David Lucas
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 96
Do you guys have a good/reliable source I can use to research guns/handguns? (I probably have a lot of stupid questions)

John, what are your thoughts on the m13? (I'm not sure but I assume it is not legal in California because it is not on the Bureau of Firearms "approved list") Jack mentioned he thought the m8 was too heavy and the m13 was about 2 oz heavier but clearly, the m8 weight does not bother you (as you mentioned in your comparison to revolvers- holster vs. not).

It seems the m13 would be the clear solution to the capacity problem unless the extra weight or size makes it unwieldy.

Also, was the P7m13 legal until the 1994 legislation?
____________________
2004 D2

Reply With Quote
  #241  
Old May 16th, 2008, 08:32 AM
Nadir_E
 
Posts: n/a
Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I don't recall the '94 ban affecting pistols other than their magazine capacities - so the M13, assuming you could wrap your hand around it, would be limited to ten round magazines today.

Interesting to note the European penchant for magazine release where it's clearly geared towards retention rather than dropping free. If memory serves the first batch of Glocks only dropped their magazines free after an after-market modification was made (was this the case with yours, Jack?). I remember that being the case with my Browning Hi-Power waaaay back in the '80's when I bought one.

Nice history lesson on the P7, John - thanks for taking the time to educate us all.
-n
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old May 16th, 2008, 10:15 AM
lucasd2002 lucasd2002 is offline
David Lucas
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 96
Yes, I really liked the last P7 video. I usually check the EE site while at work but the firewall blocks most of the video/youtube sites. But that google video was not blocked. I watched while I ate my lunch - my favorite scene was the shot of the engineer doing measurements on the old-school drawing board.

Nadir, I guess the 1994 ban would have prevented someone from purchasing a m13 with a full 13 rd magazine but the m13 could be purchased without the magazine or with a smaller capacity magazine (but it would not be difficult to find an older 13 rd mag). But for some reason, I don't think the m13 ever made the "Allowed List" in California (which went into effect 01/01/01). That leads me to think they were no longer for sale in the US before 2001 because - why else would HK not pay the fees to get it registered? At one point the m13 was for sale "to LEO only" or possibly that was only the 13 rd magazine.

The California site says that private party sales are exempt from "the list."
____________________
2004 D2

Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old May 16th, 2008, 10:18 AM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucasd2002
John, what are your thoughts on the m13? Jack mentioned he thought the m8 was too heavy and the m13 was about 2 oz heavier but clearly, the m8 weight does not bother you (as you mentioned in your comparison to revolvers- holster vs. not). It seems the m13 would be the clear solution to the capacity problem unless the extra weight or size makes it unwieldy.


I've been tempted by the M13. The Dark Side is there for everyone, including me. When I bought my first M8, the M13 was still legal and I could have purchased the M13. But I purchased the M8 instead, for several reasons.

The M13 is a very solid pistol. It's just as reliable as the M8 and P7. I actually shoot the M13 better than I do my M8, perhaps because of the M13's greater weight (pistol and additional ammo) decreases perceived recoil and also because the wider butt width seems to distribute the recoil against my shooting hand better.

But the M13 is huge. Remember that the P7's design has the cocking lever in the frontstrap and the magazine is oriented vertically while the butt is angled 110 degrees. When the cocking lever is not depressed, the M13's overall handle size is quite large. This isn't a real problem on something as compact as the M8, but it is a problem on the M13. The M13 feels like a brick or 2x4 in the hand.

I prefer the M8 from an aesthetic standpoint. For every gun I own, aesthetics comes into play. I love the aesthetics of the P7, but the function of the M8 is superior enough for me that I bought the M8. The M13 doesn't do it for me in terms of aesthetics. The M13 was designed for the U.S. Military's M9 trials, and the high-capacity magazine seems scrunched into the P7's design. The overall design doesn't flow. It's like putting a Two-Zone onto an Engel. (Although many P7 purists poo poo the M8 as well.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by lucasd2002
Also, was the P7m13 legal until the 1994 legislation?


My understanding is that the Federal 1994 ban expired in 2004.

Heckler & Koch USA stopped selling the P7M13 after the 1994 ban, but it was always legal to buy/sell the M13 with pre-ban magazines in other states. California is a different story, where it's legal to buy/sell the M13 in intrastate private-party transfers, but the magazines cannot be transferred.

When considering the M8 vs. M13, always try to keep in mind what the pistol is for. This is surprisingly easy to forget, especially when numbers come into play. The weak mind easily gets caught up in numbers because numbers are easy to understand whereas it's very difficult to develop judgment, taste, and discrmination.

It's very easy to look at the M8 and M13 side by side and conclude the M13 is the superior pistol. Just look at the height, length, width, weight, and magazine capacity. You will see that the M13 is only slightly taller and longer than the M8. The M13 measures just a hair wider than the M8. The M13 is just barely heavier than the M8. The M13 holds five rounds more than the M8. Compare the two pistols this way (by the numbers) and you will likely conclude the M13 is the superior pistol.

But there is more to life than numbers. One has to be able to obtain a correct firing grip on count one of the presentation. Here the M8 shines. One has to be able to draw the pistol quickly and present it to the target. Here the M8 shines. One has to be able to control the pistol during reloading and malfunction clearances. Here the M8 shines. These qualities are not quantifiable, which is why most people ignore them. But these qualities are more important to me than five more shots in the magazine.

When you're contemplating ammunition capacity, try not feel ripped off by a relatively low ammunition capacity if the overall pistol is sound. By "sound", I mean the pistol's size is commensurate with its ammunition capacity. For example, I feel ripped off by the J-frame's five-shot capacity because there are other snubs just as small that carry six shots. That's a rip-off. The M8 is not a rip-off. The M8 holds only nine shots, but it's a very trim/thin/small pistol and there's no wasted space anywhere on the pistol. The M8 is a compact that shoots even better than a full-sized service pistol. That's no rip-off.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old May 16th, 2008, 10:23 AM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadir_E
If memory serves the first batch of Glocks only dropped their magazines free after an after-market modification was made (was this the case with yours, Jack?). I remember that being the case with my Browning Hi-Power waaaay back in the '80's when I bought one.


The early Glocks' magazines would drop freely when empty, but not when loaded because the sidewalls of the magazine would bulge. Later on, Glock came out with the so-called "Drop Free" magazines with hard liners that would drop freely even when loaded. This falling or non-falling was the magazine and not anything to do with the pistol itself.

The Hi-Power's magazines don't want to drop free because of the magazine safety. There's a disconnector attached to the trigger that is depressed when a magazine is inserted. There's enough pressure from this disconnector that magazines sometimes do not fall freely.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old May 16th, 2008, 07:08 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,290
I have to admit, the more rounds I put through my P7M8, the more the P7 love grows.

However, I find myself really wishing I would have bought an M13 back when they were easily available in California. I certainly do not have large hands, but the M13 fits my hand more comfortably and securely. Add to that the advantages of extra capacity and it's a no-brainer. By comparison, the M8 feels to me like grabbing a very narrow, square piece of wood. Perhaps thicker stocks would make this better as my M8 has the flat plastic stocks.

At the last Gunshow I attended I was talking with an HK seller about the M13. I find it difficult to believe but he tried to tell me that the .40 M10 magazine (available in CA) would work in the M13 and hold 13 rounds of 9mm! Sounded dubious to me.

I've never noticed the weight of the P7 as an issue. In fact, one of the things I dislike about my Glock 19 is that as you use up the magazine the balance and feel of the pistol changes. With 15 rounds, it feels rather balanced. As you fire, the weight distribution changes as the center of gravity moves upwards. I haven't decided if that or the "Glock-Safe" trigger is more annoying to me.

Just for fun, I did a shooting comparison of my pistols recently. I was surprised to find I was attaining sight picture more quickly with the P7 than my SIG-Sauer P228. I have been shooting the P7 quite a bit recently and familiarizing myself with it's manual of arms. It may well become my preferred shooter.

The Glock 19 came dead last in my little comparison after the 1914 DWM P.08, Walther P38 and Walther P99.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old May 16th, 2008, 07:59 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,158
I'm glad you're feeling it on the P7.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
... the M8 feels to me like grabbing a very narrow, square piece of wood. Perhaps thicker stocks would make this better as my M8 has the flat plastic stocks.


EEEK!

The 1911 is too wide. The M8 is too wide. Thin to win.

You're accustomed to shooting high-capacity self-loaders, so it's difficult to appreciate the advantages of the smaller butt. You must unlearn what you've learned. Look at revolver butts, which can be sized very small if the user so desires. On revolvers, the butts are considerably smaller than even 1911 or P7 butts. Only the rookies add the oversized rubber stocks with finger grooves. Look at the Thunder Ranch 1911, which comes standard with slimline stocks. These stocks are thin enough that the stock screw bushings must be shortened to allow the stock screws to seat properly. Look at champion shooters like Ross Seyfried, who must use a Plaxco extra-long trigger on his 1911s because his hands are so big, but who uses flat mainspring housings on all of his 1911s to keep the butt as small as possible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
... he tried to tell me that the .40 M10 magazine (available in CA) would work in the M13 and hold 13 rounds of 9mm! Sounded dubious to me.


He's correct. M10 magazines work perfectly in the M13. It sounds incredible, but it's true.

.40 S&W USP Compact magazines also work perfectly in the 9mm USP Compact. I've compared both magazines very closely and there is no dimensional difference whatsoever.

(Don't try this with the Glock .40 magazines in a 17/19/26. It doesn't work.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
Just for fun, I did a shooting comparison of my pistols recently. I was surprised to find I was attaining sight picture more quickly with the P7 than my SIG-Sauer P228. I have been shooting the P7 quite a bit recently and familiarizing myself with it's manual of arms. It may well become my preferred shooter.


Surprised? Why would you be surprised?

The first-shot sight picture is so much faster on the P7. The P7 has the ideal grip-to-frame angle (110 degrees, just like the 1911) while the 228 is too vertical. The P7 has the lowest bore line and sight line of any service pistol and the 228 has one of the highest. The P7 has the best factory sights around and the 228's sights are just adequate.

The difference on repeat shots is just as great. The P7 has the lightest slide of any service pistol. When the slide bottoms out during the recoil cycle, the weapon is jostled less than with recoil-operated pistols (which must have heavier slides). The gas-retarded blowback action also attenuates perceived recoil to a great degree, something that is absent on the recoil-operated pistols. Add the low bore line--which directs recoil forces more straight back into the shooter's hand and arm rather than levering the pistol upward--and you have a synergy of recoil-attenuating features that combine to make the P7 a very quick-shooting pistol. The 228 has none of these features.

These features hold true for all shooters of all levels. However, the P7 has other advantages that only Grand Dragon Jedi Masters can take advantage of.

First, the P7 cycles considerably faster than recoil-operated pistols. Shoot a P7 for a while and then pick up a recoil-operated pistol like a Glock or 228 or whatever. The slide will feel as if it's reciprocating in slow motion.

Second, the P7 has a much faster lock time than conventional pistols with separate hammers and firing pins like the 228.

The faster cycling and faster lock time of the P7 don't come into play for most shooters because most shooters cannot shoot very fast and still get good hits. But Jedi Masters can, and they can shoot the P7 extremely fast. I'm talking about a pair of ejected cases next to one another in the air and both hits are in the K-Zone type of fast. This isn't superhuman. Many good shots can do this. They're good enough that they can outshoot most recoil-operated pistols. But they don't outshoot the P7. (The Super 90 also has this advantage over recoil- and gas-operated shotguns. Men like Tom Knapp and John Satterwhite can both outshoot standard self-loaders.)
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old May 16th, 2008, 10:14 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
I'm glad you're feeling it on the P7.

The 1911 is too wide. The M8 is too wide. Thin to win.

You're accustomed to shooting high-capacity self-loaders, so it's difficult to appreciate the advantages of the smaller butt. You must unlearn what you've learned. Look at revolver butts, which can be sized very small if the user so desires. On revolvers, the butts are considerably smaller than even 1911 or P7 butts. Only the rookies add the oversized rubber stocks with finger grooves. Look at the Thunder Ranch 1911, which comes standard with slimline stocks. These stocks are thin enough that the stock screw bushings must be shortened to allow the stock screws to seat properly. Look at champion shooters like Ross Seyfried, who must use a Plaxco extra-long trigger on his 1911s because his hands are so big, but who uses flat mainspring housings on all of his 1911s to keep the butt as small as possible.

For me, it is the length versus width that feels odd. For instance, my P.08 feels damn near perfect (I'm not talking about the angle either). It is a relatively thin single stack but has thicker stocks that create a "more round" profile. The P7 just feels like a more unnatural "square".


Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
He's correct. M10 magazines work perfectly in the M13. It sounds incredible, but it's true.

Interesting. So here in California one could purchase an M13 sans magazines and then legally purchase 10 round M10 magazines to use as 13 round 9mm magazines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
Surprised? Why would you be surprised?

Because this has not been true in the past. It is only true now because I've become accustomed to the "lower" sight picture in the P7 after putting a thousand plus rounds through it.

I purposely started my session by putting 200 rounds through the P228 to reaccustom myself and then switched to the P7 for the first time in a week. I immediately acquired proper sight picture with the P7. That surprised me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
The difference on repeat shots is just as great. The P7 has the lightest slide of any service pistol. When the slide bottoms out during the recoil cycle, the weapon is jostled less than with recoil-operated pistols (which must have heavier slides). The gas-retarded blowback action also attenuates perceived recoil to a great degree, something that is absent on the recoil-operated pistols. Add the low bore line--which directs recoil forces more straight back into the shooter's hand and arm rather than levering the pistol upward--and you have a synergy of recoil-attenuating features that combine to make the P7 a very quick-shooting pistol. The 228 has none of these features.

First, the P7 cycles considerably faster than recoil-operated pistols. Shoot a P7 for a while and then pick up a recoil-operated pistol like a Glock or 228 or whatever. The slide will feel as if it's reciprocating in slow motion.

Second, the P7 has a much faster lock time than conventional pistols with separate hammers and firing pins like the 228.

The faster cycling and faster lock time of the P7 don't come into play for most shooters because most shooters cannot shoot very fast and still get good hits. But Jedi Masters can, and they can shoot the P7 extremely fast. I'm talking about a pair of ejected cases next to one another in the air and both hits are in the K-Zone type of fast. This isn't superhuman. Many good shots can do this. They're good enough that they can outshoot most recoil-operated pistols. But they don't outshoot the P7.

Yes, this is obvious to me when I practice 3 round rapid fire or multiple target with the P7. However, I think weight comes into play as well in reducing felt recoil. For me, the Glock is worse than the SIG-Sauer in felt recoil and muzzle rise and re-attaining sight picture.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old May 16th, 2008, 10:21 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
Because this has not been true in the past. It is only true now because I've become accustomed to the "lower" sight picture in the P7 after putting a thousand plus rounds through it.


You must unlearn what you have learned. You're so accustomed to mediocrity that excellence feels foreign to you.

Keep on the P7.
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old May 16th, 2008, 10:27 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,290
LOL-I'll work on it.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old May 17th, 2008, 09:59 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,158
I'm pissed.

I had my first ever malfunction on my P7M8 today. I've fired this pistol about 20,000 times and this was the first malfunction. Of any kind. Ever.

It was a bad malfunction too. The slide wouldn't go into battery. Something was catching inside the pistol. Rather than risk anything, I put away my P7M8 and shot the rest of the practice session with my snub.

When I got back to the shop, I suspected the gas cylinder was dirty because I never clean it. I don't remember the last time I cleaned it. So I assembled the pistol without the recoil spring and tried to reciprocate the slide manually. It was the gas system all right. So I disassembled the pistol, sprayed some PB Blaster into the gas cylinder, and used the factory reamer to ream out the gas tube. There was a lot of carbon fouling on the reamer, but nothing crazy either. After reaming, the slide operated perfectly. Like buttah.

So I concluded that the cause of the malfunction was a dirty gas tube and told myself to clean the gas tube more often. Concluding that all was well, I wiped down the pistol before loading it for storage. Then something else was wrong. The round I chambered didn't chamber right. Something was wrong. Then I racked the slide and chambered a new round. It wouldn't chamber either.

I examined the two rounds I chambered and there was a large gouge on the side of the case on both of them. So I disassembled the pistol and saw that there was a small dent in the chamber mouth, and this dent displaced enough steel that there was a small burr inside the chamber. If you're familiar with some rimfires that should not be dry-fired, the edge of the chamber sort of looked like that.

I didn't want my P7M8 in this condition so I put the pistol frame into our shop vise and carefully filed away the burr with a needle file and then polished the chamber mouth with a Dremel tool and a felt polishing wheel. I examined the chamber mouth with a SureFire and magnifying glass, and all is perfect once again. Loaded rounds now fall into and out of the chamber from gravity alone, which is how they should react. As far as I can tell, the pistol is now back to normal.

I still don't know what happened. My best guess is that something was wrong with the ammunition I was firing today (yellow box UMC-Remington). I had several pierced primers while firing this ammo from my snub and the cases were sticking in the chambers, and I've never had a pierced primer on my snub before. For the P7M8, I don't know if a piece of the case or a primer anvil or whatever got caught between the breech face and the chamber mouth to cause the dent. And I don't know what fouled the gas system like that. I have never had that happen before, and I run purposely with a fouled gas cylinder on the P7 because I think it seals better than a clean gas cylinder.

I think my pistol is now back to normal, but I'm bummed that my pistol is no longer batting a thousand. One malfunction in 20,000 rounds isn't too bad of a record, but it's not perfect. It was perfect before.

I'm pissed.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Omega Speedmaster hanchung General 3509 November 19th, 2017 03:36 PM
First Hand Gun willroeder General 3 April 25th, 2007 07:47 PM
FN fiveseven USG ddavis General 8 April 2nd, 2007 07:36 PM
Weapons Choice ronward General 9 June 17th, 2004 08:34 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:38 PM.




Copyright 2001-2012 Expedition Exchange Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.