First Impressions

Written by Randy Mays

If you have already read the first part of Page 2 and would like to skip to the more recent writing, click here.

This page has grown to such lengths and now covers so much ground in so many different directions that I thought it might be a good idea to write a brief preface to explain what follows. I started writing this a few years ago for a couple of reasons. One was to learn more about how to make up Internet Web pages. I find it's easier to learn about something if I try to write about it and be accurate and precise. I also thought it would be a good idea to publish some opinions that aren't influenced by advertising. Here, then is some information and more than a few opinions on various firearms I've taken an interest in over the past few years. The opinions expressed are mine, and not those of the Piedmont NRA Instructors or the National Rifle Association. This particular Web page started back in 1996.

In a very smart marketing move, Smith and Wesson took a look at the sales of .380 semi-automatic pistols and decided to get in that game with the new Sigma .380. The small Sigma is based on the design of the larger Sigma pistols aimed at the law enforcement market. Like the Glocks, the Sigma line has a plastic grip and receiver and a metal slide. The Sigma .380 has a zinc alloy slide rather than steel. This doesn't sound so good at first, but small pocket pistols should be lightweight and a zinc alloy helps achieve that goal. The small Sigma isn't designed to be anything else except a close range defensive firearm. With that in mind, it's not important that the Sigma has a very simple fixed sight setup. It's not important that removing the magazine takes two fingers; the good side of that is that the magazine is not going to drop free at the wrong time.

Those things that are important in a pocket pistol are done very well in the Sigma .380. You can pick it up, determine a safe direction, close your eyes and then point it and when you open your eyes the gun will be pointed at the target, not above or below it as you'll discover with some other designs. The Sigma .380 is reliable. There is only one number associated with reliability in a defensive firearm: 100%. After firing a hundred rounds to break it in, I have never experienced a jam or failure to feed with the Sigma .380. It is trustworthy. Another potential problem with a pocket pistol is sharp edges or levers that catch on clothing. Murphy's Law says those edges and levers will catch at the time when you least need for that to happen. The Sigma .380 has no sharp edges, and no external controls other than the trigger. The trigger is similar to the Glock's in that you have to engage it all the way and pull it back before the gun will fire. The Sigma .380, as does the Glock, takes advantage of the best possible safety device - the one between your ears.

The main disadvantage of the Sigma .380 is the same disadvantage found in all .380 pistols, the caliber itself. Even though there have been significant advances in bullet and overall cartridge design, the .380's muzzle energy is still low and there is no magic that will increase it. If you are going to carry a .380, consider selecting something like MagSafe pre-fragmented ammunition. This is expensive, but makes the most of the limitations of the .380. 

Sigma Update:

As of late June, 1996, S&W has added a 9 mm to the Sigma line. There were already two 9 mm Sigmas, one a regular size and the other a compact model with a shorter barrel. The new one looks more like the Sigma .380, just a little larger. It has the same clean lines. It will be interesting to see how the action works. The .380 is a blowback, but it's doubtful the 9 mm will have a blowback action. The cartridge is just too powerful for that type action in such a small gun. It will also be interesting to see if S&W allows the use of +P ammunition in the new Sigma 9 mm. It appears as though S&W has seen the popularity of the Kahr 9 mm and has decided to compete for that market segment.

Moving up a little in size, and way up in potential muzzle energy from the Sigma .380, is the new Kahr K-9. I have a lot of impressions of this firearm, as you will see. First, the Kahr K-9 looks like it has all of the good features of the SIG and Glock pistols, a Glock slide and firing mechanism and a SIG-like grip and feel. The K-9 is all steel. This pistol was designed from the ground up to fire premium 9 mm +P ammunition. While the endless "stopping power" debate continues, there is some agreement that the most effective 9 mm loads are the +P and +P+ types. When you first pull back the slide on a K-9 you realize it was not designed for light loads. The recoil spring feels much heavier than the average Colt 1911 recoil spring. Workmanship on the K-9 is excellent and the barrel and chamber are designed for commercial specifications. The reason for not firing cheap reloads in the K-9 is that they don't always fit in the chamber. Premium ammunition, like HydraShok and Cor Bon, fits just right. The Kahr, like the Sigma series, points well.

Following the instructions in the manual, I took the K-9 out and fired 200 rounds of commercial ammunition (Mexican Aguila 124 grain - good stuff). There were no jams and the pistol grouped well at 7 yards and at 50 feet. Later, the pistol had two stovepipe-like jams where the empty case was stuck in line with the slide. It went right back to the factory where the feed ramp was polished and the extractor replaced. Although annoying (because all of the magazine writers seem to think the K-9 is the greatest thing since sliced bread), it seemed as though the K-9 would do ok after this.

When the K-9 returned from the factory, I went back to the range to try it with some new Czech Sellier & Bellot 9 mm ammunition. The first few shots fired ok, but then one misfired. Later, a few more misfired. This was not good. I switched to a box of USA brand (Winchester) and several of those rounds failed to fire. This was beyond annoying so the K-9 went back to the factory again with a request that it be replaced. After some electronic correspondence (fax and voice mail) I got to speak to several people at Kahr Arms, including the president of the company at one point. He said they had tested the firearm with all kinds of premium ammunition and it would not misfire. We agreed that the Czech ammunition might have hard primers (sure hope Kahr doesn't plan to sell the K-9 in Europe anytime soon...) and just may not work in that pistol. The USA brand misfires were still a mystery, however.

Soon after this conversation, the Kahr came back via UPS. The service technician's write-up said that the "customer claimed" the gun had misfired. The word "claimed" almost sounds as though the guy didn't believe it. "Observed" or "reported" sounds better. After unpacking the gun, I took it to the range and tried it again with USA brand (Winchester), and UMC (Remington) brands of 9 mm ammunition. The pistol had no problems. Feeding was ok, there were no jams, and no misfires and the excellent trigger was just as excellent as when it went back to the factory.

It appears as though some parts were changed on the Kahr, which suggests there was a problem after all. When I sent the gun back, I noticed that there was some bluing missing around the slide stop notch on the slide. When Ihe gun was returned, the frame had the same serial number, but either the slide and its parts was new, or someone reblued the slide (but I doubt it). Whatever was done helped solve the problem because at the range session I also fired quite a few Sellier & Bellot rounds with no problems.

Maybe this particular episode is over now. I still need to fire several hundred more rounds in the Kahr K-9 before it earns my trust, but for now it seems to be doing pretty good. Aside from these experiences, I agree with Gun Test magazine's observations about the Kahr. It has a nice grip, very small size, can fire 9 mm +P , and several of the major holster companies are making holsters for it. 

Another small 9 mm pistol that I do like and trust is the CZ-75 Compact. It, too had problems at first. The current models are being sold with 10 round, non CZ magazines and I found those to be unreliable. Magnum Research, which distributes the CZ in the U.S., sent new magazines until we got that straightened out. Then the firing pin failed and the gun had to go back to the factory. That's also annoying, but we all know what the bumper sticker says about what happens sometimes. When the pistol came back from the repair shop it had a brand new CZ high capacity magazine in it. Good for them. The CZ-75 Compact with a CZ magazine has been 100% reliable with a variety of practice and premium ammunition. It can be used with regular length CZ-75/85 magazines so you have a great deal of firepower in a small package. I even have a 30 round magazine for the CZ series, which looks funny on the CZ-75 Compact, and isn't reliable, but does make a great teaching aid during safety classes.

I should make an important admission about the CZ-75. On those occasions when I want very much to shoot well, I tend to take the CZ-75 along. There's something about the layout of that pistol that makes it easy to shoot with consistent accuracy. 

 And since the 909 is an old fashioned gun, unlike the Sigma or Glock or Kahr, if the cartridge does not fire the first time, you can try again by pulling the trigger again. The more "modern" striker fired designs, along with some double action only pistols, require you to move the slide back to cock the striker after you've pulled the trigger once. The odds are that you'll never need this second chance at a primer that didn't go the first time, but it has happened. 

Another impression is of a new arrival from Colt, the "Combat Target Model." A few years ago, I bought a Model 1991A1 Commander and then started spending money adding those features I thought were necessary: beavertail grip safety, better trigger, extended thumb safety, adjustable sights, and so on - the usual stuff you add to a basic 1911 design. After shooting the Commander for awhile I realized that the full size 1911 is better in many respects. In particular, the full size is better for IPSC Limited Class shooting. I sold the Commander, tried some other .45s (EAA and SIG) and came back to the 1911 just as the Combat Target Model was announced. This new model is reliable, has a decent trigger, good sights, and a wraparound grip that helps you keep your shooting hand in the right position shot after shot. I've fired the Combat Target Model offhand at 25 yards at the National Match target and when I was paying attention, the groups were small. The misses were my fault, not the Colt's. I've also fired the Combat Target Model at IPSC targets at 4 yards using what I call the "shoot real fast" technique and others refer to as "double taps." The gun worked fine; no jams, no misses. Never willing to let well enough alone, I've added Hogue wraparound grips.

If you would like to get a 1911 design that won't require any modifications to do most of what you'd want to do with a 1911 pistol, including carrying it for personal protection, the Colt Combat Target Model is a excellent choice. 

Everybody wants to get on the concealed carry bandwagon and Glock is no exception. They have two small pistols on the market now, the Model 26 in 9 mm and the Model 27 in .40 S&W. I've fired the Model 26 a few times and my first impression was that it points a little better than the regular size Glocks, which for me at least tend to point above the target a little bit. The Model 26 isn't a lot different from the Sigma .380 in this regard, but the Glock holds 10 rounds of 9 mm ammunition versus 7 rounds of .380. The Glock has rounded corners and better sights. It costs more, of course, but might be worth it if you're looking for a pocket pistol with significant muzzle energy.

I've not fired the .40 caliber Glock Model 27, but understand that it has the same "sharp" (fast burn time) recoil characteristics of the Model 22 and 23 pistols. There's no reason why that should be a problem for an experienced shooter, but it might be bothersome to a beginner. People tend to like or dislike the Glock design. I belong to that small minority who has no strong feelings one way of another about the Glocks. 

It just happened that in the same week when I had a chance to fire the Glock Model 26, I spent some range time practicing with a Browning Hi-Power, also in 9 mm. For some reason, maybe the grips or the steel frame or something, the Browning seems to have more recoil than the much smaller and lighter Glock Model 26. I guess that has something to do with the amount of metal going back and forth as the gun cycles. I hope that any rocket scientists who might read this could help me understand this observation a little better. 

Updates and New Impressions

Here is an update, written in mid-March, on some of my previous comments. First, I'm starting to trust the Kahr now. It's been very reliable since it came back from the factory the second time. I've tried it with Cor Bon's new 90 grain high velocity +P ammunition. You can tell you're shooting something different, but the pistol still points well and groups in the middle of the IPSC target at practical ranges. The standard ammunition used in this particular Kahr is the Cor Bon 115 grain 9mm +P. It almost seems as though the gun were designed around this cartridge and it has always worked.

There was a recent article about the Kahr in one of the newsstand gun magazines. In it, the writer mentioned that the barrel on the Kahr rusted while he had it. Good grief. That's all you need in the summertime. Anyway, since I like the Kahr now, I'm going to have the entire gun finished in "Black T" or some other finish to protect it against the elements. 

There's another new pistol out on the market worth mentioning: the Ruger KP-95D. This pistol is a 9 mm compact model, or at least "compact" when compared to some of the older Ruger semi-automatic pistols. The P-95 has a plastic and fiberglass frame and a stainless steel slide. It's much lighter than a lot of pistols its size. As usual, there are a lot of glowing magazine articles about it, but the real proof is at the range. As luck would have it, I got a chance to try out the new P-95 in field conditions out in Montana. It was cold outside and windy, and nowhere near as comfortable as it would have been at an indoor range. In other words, we were in the environment where pistols like this get used - outdoors against serious targets like small paper plates.

The P-95 takes a little getting used to. It's not as top heavy as the Smith and Wesson 909, but what it gives up in weight it makes up in width. As with most larger caliber Ruger pistols, the slide is pretty wide. All of the mechanical things inside have plenty of room to move around and work as they should, and it appears this pistol was easy to manufacture (which leads to a good selling price). Although I didn't set any records for small groups, I was able to hit pretty well with the P-95. At one point I discovered a real advantage of this pistol when a round misfired (we were using reloads). I waited 30 seconds just as you're supposed to, and then I pulled the trigger again and it fired. In an emergency, I would have pulled the trigger again right away and it would have fired right away, too. This "second strike" capability, a feature of the double action only 909 modification mentioned before, is very handy when the gun goes "click" instead of "bang." Another feature of the P-95 which might get used in a similar situation is the very good gripping arrangement of the slide. There are wide groves in the right place and you can get ahold of the slide and rack it back with wet hands or with gloves on.

Where then does the P-95 fit in the grand scheme of things? It's much larger than the Kahr and much wider than the single stack pistols, so it's hard to conceal. Why consider something too big and too wide like this? Because the P-95 is Reliable. If shot placement is the most important thing about shooting (after safety, of course) then Reliability with a capital "R" is the most important characteristic of a handgun that might be used for personal protection. Since the P-95 was tested with lots and lots of +P+ ammunition during development, and since it appears it will shoot the "good stuff" all day long, I think the P-95 may just be up there near the top of the list for a model to consider for a variety of uses, including personal protection.

After looking at and shooting the P-95, I wonder why our military uses something made by a foreign manufacturer. It seems to me the P-95, with a less reflective finish, would be an ideal military sidearm. As usual, no one has asked my opinion about this.

In addition to blasting away with the P-95, I also had a chance to use the Colt Combat Target Model at the range in Montana. I was able to compare it side-by-side with a very expensive Limited Class 1911 which looks just like it except for the "Black T" finish (which looks like the enamel finish on the CZs). The stock Combat Target Model had no jams. Both pistols were easy to aim and shoot. I'm not about to start out on one of those "stock versus custom" discussions, other than to say it's not always clear to me what you get for all that extra money from a custom shop. In the heat of competition, it's "front sight," press the trigger and little else. To be fair, however, you can tell a lot more stories about a custom pistol than about a stock model. Once all the ammunition is used up for the day, and everyone is having dinner somewhere trying to dry out or warm up, those stories count for a lot. 

 During the range session with my wife, I also had a chance to fire the P-95 using Federal 115 grain 9 mm +P+ ammunition and although you could notice the difference, the extra recoil wasn't a problem. Just like the S&W 909, the Ruger KP-95D is a real bargain. 

YET ANOTHER UPDATE. Now it's well past the middle of April and there is more news to report. The Kahr continues to work all right, but just doesn't like Czech ammunition. It shoots everything else without problems. The finish is wearing off, however. No wonder the factory has a new "electroless nickel" finish as an option. Maybe they should offer bluing as an option, too.
 

The latest news is the availability of annual memberships at the NRA range. In the past, you had to pay $12 an hour if you were an NRA member, or $15 an hour if you weren't. Why anyone would be involved in the shooting sports and not be an NRA member is a mystery, but I guess there are a few people in that category (and they pay $15 an hour). With the annual memberships, either individual or family, you can shoot as often as you wish. The range time is in one hour increments which means if people are waiting you stop after an hour. This happens on Sunday mornings sometimes and on some weekday evenings.

The NRA range is one of the best and most modern range facilities in the world. You can fire rifles up to .460 Magnum caliber, and any handgun cartridge, at up to 50 yards. The shooting positions have tables that can move out of the way, and the computer controlled target carriers can be set for any distance up to 50 yards in 1 foot increments. Targets can be programmed to turn. After so many months of not being able to use our regular range, it was great to be able to shoot the SM-85 again. What's an SM-85? That's the Hungarian model of the AK-47.

At the NRA range session, I got a chance to fire two new models, the Glock 27 and the H&K USP .45. The Glock, as expected, has a sharper recoil than the 9 mm Model 26, but it's not too bad. The USP feels a lot like the Ruger KP-95D. There's something about plastic grips and frames that does more to reduce recoil than you might expect. If you are looking for a small pocket pistol, and don't mind the sharp snap of a .40, check out the Glock 27. The recoil is not a problem, but at the same time it's very clear you're not shooting a 9 mm. 

 
After a range session last week I realized that in all of these comments I've neglected to mention one of the handguns I like and trust most. I took this particular model out of the safe and shot it Friday night. It had been so long since I'd shot this pistol that I couldn't remember if it was reliable with the Hornady hollow point ammunition made for its unusual caliber. This pistol is the Makarov and the caliber is 9X18, a 9 mm caliber between the .380 and 9 mm Luger (9X19) in terms of size and power. The Makarov was a standard Soviet sidearm used by the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies, and many of the Soviet client states during the Cold War. This pistol wasn't seen much in the U.S. until recent years, just like the Czech CZs, but the Makarovs are very popular now. They are available at low prices at every gun show and some of them even have high capacity magazines (12 rounds, I think). My East German made Makarov is an older one with the single stack 8 round magazine. 

February 1997 Update

Up the page you'll see a brief mention of the Browning Hi-Power 9 mm pistol. Nearby is a picture of the fancy silver-chrome-gold trigger-adjustable sights model. A month ago I had a chance to get one of the Hi-Powers. The basic blued model with fixed sights was on sale at a very good price, but there were no basic models in .40 S&W. There was a fancy model in .40 available and for not much more, so I did the right thing and bought that one. The grips that came with the gun were ok, but had this little ridge where your trigger finger is supposed to go. That didn't last long. I took off those fancy grips and installed my usual finger groove Hogue grips. Those are ok, but they make the pistol a little wider than necessary. Clark Brothers had the basic Uncle Mike's plain grips and a pair of those on the on the gun now. I can live with the sight of a fancy silver-chrome-gold trigger-adjustable sights Hi-Power with plain grips. No problem. One of the pleasant surprises about the new Hi-Power is that it has never malfunctioned. Most new pistols will stovepipe a few rounds or fail to feed or something during the break-in period, but the Browning continues to run like a clock. It has already been to one bowling pin match at the NRA and I managed to clean the table once before the other guys did it. Last year in "The Blue Press," one of the writers said that the Browning Hi-Power in .40 S&W might well be one of the best "carry guns." I tend to agree. The Hi-Power is small and easy to conceal. I use the same Galco leather belt slide holster for the Hi-Power than I use for the Kimber. Both guns fit the holster just fine. There's a lot to be said about the actual record of the .40 S&W caliber in the real world. While the 9 mm is effective in a couple of +P and +P+ loadings, the .40 S&W is better across the board. 

 It's been about four years now since I got back in the habit of regular practice with firearms. Now when I go to a local gun show, or even to the S.H.O.T. Show, I'll see most models of handguns and realize that I've either fired that model or something very similar. Over these four years I've formed some opinions about so-called "defensive" handguns. None of these opinions are cast in stone, but some are starting to stand the test of time. The first thing I've decided is that many people rely too much on having a handgun around when they should be paying an awful lot of attention to what's happening around them. Most handgun ammunition, no matter how sophisticated, is weak compared to rifle and shotgun ammunition, so weak in fact that you may do everything right, shoot, and hit the target and nothing will happen for quite awhile. Granted, having a gun is better than not having one in some specific situations, but as the experts say, "there is no such thing as a magic bullet." Every year there are magazine articles about the effectiveness of ammunition and since there always a limited amount of guns and calibers on the market each year, you wind up reading about all sorts of combinations that might make sense to a magzine editor trying to fill pages, but that don't make much sense out in the real world.

This leads to another opinion. I'm very reluctant to recommend any handgun caliber smaller than .38 Special +P+ in a revolver or any semi-automatic caliber that doesn't have a "4" or a "10" in the caliber designation. This means that most of the revolvers around here are either .357 Magnums, including the S&W Model 60 and the Ruger SP-101, or .44 Magnum and that's for trips to Montana and Idaho. On those occasions when I carry a concealed handgun, it's almost always a 5 shot revolver with the MagSafe .357 Magnum SWAT load, a lightweight bullet with low recoil that will break up if it hits a solid object. The other 5 rounds are .38 Special +P+ hollowpoints. I doubt if I'll ever fire any of these rounds except in practice, but you never know.

The reason for the "4" or "10" is that I believe the most effective semi-automatic calibers are the .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and the 10 mm. The new .400 CorBon may fall into this category and it's bottleneck design should help reliability. Granted, the .357 SIG has some interesting numbers associated with it, but I'll stick to my "4" or "10" rule. I'm sure many people will disagree with this view, pointing out that there are effective loads in 9 mm and other smaller calibers. Yes, this is true but I'm not asking anyone to agree with my opinions. The 115 grain CorBon 9 mm +P seems to work pretty well, but the 135 grain CorBon .40 S&W is always going to work better, and neither will ever work as well as a rifle or shotgun. What do you suppose is the best round for a handgun? I don't know, but suspect that the plain old 10 mm Winchester Silvertip brand would be about as good as anything. It's not fashionable to say too many kind things about the Glock, although I've never understood why people take that attitude. Seems to me that a full size Glock Model 20 or even the new smaller Model 29 compact in 10 mm would be about as good as any other pistol, in terms of practical accuracy, reliability, and simplicity.

Federal has just announced a new line of "personal defense" ammunition designed to lower recoil by using lighter bullets. I guess I'll have to spend a few dollars to check those out. It would be nice to get a few free cases like the magazine writers, but it won't take that many rounds to check out the differences. 

March, 1998 comments: I wrote this before I had a chance to get some experience with the Glock 20 (10 mm) and the Glock 31 (.357 SIG). Both are very impressive calibers. Read on.

The new Ruger PC9 "Police Carbine" is available now. I had a chance to fire one the other night and I like it a lot. The PC9 (9 mm) and PC4 (.40 S&W) were discussed in a recent issue of "The American Rifleman." I got a PC9 for a couple of reasons. First, it's a lot easier to get inexpensive 9 mm ammunition for practice. Second, the price was very good. Whenever a new gun shows up, I take it to the NRA indoor range in Fairfax. They have bench rest equipment that makes it easier to sight in a new rifle or handgun. I fired the rifle first at 50 yards, got a decent group, then fired it a lot more at 25 yards. It was interesting to fire the carbine at distances and under conditions where I might otherwise use something like a Beretta 92FS and see the difference. For one thing, there's not a lot of recoil with the PC9. It's not a 10/22 .22 LR, but it's not a single shot .45-70 Government rifle either. One of the things we're concerned about with handguns is follow-up shots. With the Police Carbine, you can get "A" zone (center of the IPSC target) hits all day long in very rapid succession.

The PC9 uses the same magazines as the Ruger 9 mm pistols. Same for the PC4. Does this mean that all of the police departments buying the PC9, or PC4, will start thinking about replacing their Glocks and S&W pistols with Ruger's new KP-95 or KP-94? Maybe. I'm sure that would make Ruger happy. The Police Carbine is very reliable. I've had no problems with it using Black Hills ammunition as well as +P+ Hirtenberger police ammunition. Ruger handguns tend to be very reliable also. Anyone who watched the televised gunfight in Los Angeles on February 28th saw the average officer limited to a shotgun or handgun up against bad guys with automatic rifles. It took awhile for the better armed SWAT officers to arrive and gain the upper hand. If the L.A. officers had Ruger Police Carbines available, they might have been able to hit targets at longer ranges than possible or practical with the handguns and shotguns. The 9 mm would not hve penetrated the bad guys' body armor, but might have made more precise shooting possible.

Does the Police Carbine have any practicality as a home defense firearm? I believe it does. It's about the same size as the old military M-1 carbine, and about the same size as the well known Ruger 10/22 rifle. One of the problems of using a rifle inside a house is that rifles tend to be too long and hard to move around. The Police Carbine doesn't have this problem. Another disadvantage of a rifle is that rifle ammunition tends to be too powerful for use inside a house. If a rifle round misses, or even if it hits, the penetration can be excessive. The bullet can go through the target, the walls, and into the neighbor's house. With the 9 mm carbine, you have the option of using premium handgun ammunition which can avoid some of these problems.

I forgot where I read this, but there is a famous pathologist who is an expert in gunshot wounds. He is someone who knows a lot more about this sort of thing than the average gun magazine writer. He was asked what sort of firearm he kept at home and he said he had an M-1 carbine. The M-1 has a .30 caliber bullet of marginal effectiveness. The new Ruger Police Carbine is the same size, just as easy to use, and can be loaded with 9 mm or .40 caliber ammunition and might be a better choice.

On March 7, several of us had a chance to try out the PC9 at Blue Ridge Arsenal. Three of us fired the rifle quite a few times and all had the same complaint about having trouble seeing the rear sight. Even with this problem, it was pretty easy to hit a 3 inch by 3 inch piece of white paper stapled to some cardboard at 25 yards. This has convinced me to get a scope or dot sight for the rifle. The best dot sight, all things considered, seems to be the Aimpoint 3000. It's well made, but isn't cheap at all. There are less expensive alternatives, including one of the many inexpensive optical scopes built for the SKS and "AK-47" type surplus rifles. Since the 1 inch scope mounts will be the same for both a dor sight and a scope, I may invest in the scope first. 

 This is being written on an airplane soon after take-off from Los Angeles. Right now I'm over the San Fernando Valley. It has been less than a month since the bank robbery and gunfight in Los Angeles and today's L.A. Times newspaper had an article about the Los Angeles Police decision to allow officers to carry .45 ACP pistols and require supervisors to receive additional training and carry AR-15 rifles in their cars. The individual officers will have the option of switching to the .45 and they will have to buy the new pistols themselves. A few years ago, L.A. switched from revolvers to semi-auto pistols while letting those officers who liked the revolvers to continue to carry them.

It is always good to see realistic and reasonable firearms decisions being made. Now officers who want to go from a high capacity 9 mm pistol to a .45 can do that. From reading the article, it appears the Federal Hydra-Shok ammunition will be used in the new .45s. All of this information has to be taken with a grain of salt because it comes from a newspaper article, but it does make sense. Having AR-15s in supervisors' cars means that more firepower can be brought into action sooner than was the case with the recent bank robbery. Some concerned were voiced about the additional recoil of the .45s. Also, the newspaper reporter did not go into enough detail to mention which .45 pistols had been approved for use. I doubt if the 1911 style pistols will be approved, but there SIG 220, Glock 21, and Ruger KP-90D are all good .45s. SIG's latest version of the 220 is spec'd for +P ammunition.

This decision means the department has more confidence in the .45 ACP than in the .40 S&W. This is interesting because the current semi-automatic pistols used by the LAPD are also available in .40 S&W and they still chose to skip over this caliber. 

 At the 1997 S.H.O.T Show, Federal announced a new line of "personal defense" ammunition. This ammunition differs from ammunition designed for law enforcement applications. The "personal defense" ammunition doesn't have to penetrate barriers like glass and metal. Where law enforcement officers, both men and women, are expected to cope with recoil, many civilians who carry handguns are reluctant to use the more effective calibers because "they kick." Federal has tried to address this aspect of handgun use by using lighter bullets at higher velocities to reduce recoil. In March and April, 1997, I had a chance to compare standard 230 grain .45 ACP ball ammunition (round nose jacketed bullets) with Federal's new 165 grain Hydra-Shok bullets. I noticed some decrease in recoil, but it did not seem to be significant. Maybe if you tell someone that a new ammunition has less recoil the "power of suggestion" will factor into their perceptions. What I did notice was a louder report and a lot more muzzle flash from the new "personal defense" ammunition. Neither matters that much, but the flash could be a problem in a darkened setting. You can expect to see more muzzle flash from handguns with sort barrels, but I was using a full size Glock 21 pistol for these tests.

Speaking of full size Glock 21 pistols, I thought it was a good idea to get a Glock for use in our training classes, and maybe for an occasional IPSC match. Glock has all kinds of models available and it's difficult to keep track of all the model numbers. The Glock 17 was the first Glock pistol imported to the U.S. in significant numbers. Many police departments use the 17 (9 mm). The Model 19 is a smaller version of the 17 and the 26 is the smallest 9 mm made by Glock. The 26 can use magazines from the larger 9 mm Glocks, and there are adapters that fit around the gap between the bottom of the 26 and the bottom of the larger magazines so that it appears the pistol has a longer grip. The Glock 22 is a full size .40. The 23 is a compact .40 and the 27 is the smallest Glock .40. There is also a 24 which is a "long slide" Glock .40. Oh, I forgot to mention the 17L which is a long slide 9 mm. Complicated, isn't it? I had a Glock 23 back before I could appreciate its merits, and I sold it. I wish now I hadn't sold it, because it came with two high capacity magazines and those are worth a lot of money by themselves. The latest Glocks are the 29 and 30. The 29 is a small 10 mm pistol. The 30 is a small .45. The large Glock 10 mm is the model 20 and the large .45 is the Model 21, which is where this paragraph started.

Awhile back I wrote that I thought maybe the Glock Model 20 might be one of the best pistols for personal defense. In theory at least, it has the requisite size, reliability, and uses a powerful cartridge. Until the last couple of weeks, my view of the Glock 20 was theoretical. Now I have some practical experiences with this model. I've fired several hundred rounds, including several rounds of what is supposed to be one of the most effective 10 mm rounds, the Cor Bon 10 mm with a 135 grain hollowpoint bullet. In terms of foot pounds of energy, it's hard to beat the numbers generated with the 10 mm. The new .400 Cor Bon caliber (a .40 caliber bullet in a necked down .45 ACP case) has better numbers in some loadings, but you give up magazine capacity and may have to fiddle around with stronger recoil springs. My Glock 20 has a 15 round magazine. The Glock 21 has at most a 13 round magazine.

During the last week of May '97, I added a set of Aro-Tek ghost ring sights to the Model 20. These sights are different from traditional pistol sights. With the Aro-Tek ghost ring, the sight picture is a red dot in the middle of a circle. In daylight, the red dot is very bright. On May 31, I took the Glock 21 with the new sights to the Westlance Arms range over in West Virginia. The owner Mark Ewing set up quite a challenging set of stages for those of us who were there. The first stage as easy: six poppers and one stop plate. The second stage added six bowling pins to the six poppers. The third stage added ten pins, and the final stage required knocking down 18 pins, six poppers and one stop plate. I used almost 250 rounds and won just a couple of stages. Several people who were "spraying lead" at the pins fired a lot more. The Glock 20 did very well. Nothing broke and it was reliable. It was harder to shoot fast with the full 10 mm loads (I might have done better with the Beretta 9 mm which has no recoil to speak of when compared to the 10 mm), but the experience was valuable. The ghost ring sights are excellent for rapid target acquisition. You just put the red dot in the circle and center the red dot over the target and that's all there is to it.

July is almost here and the Glock Model 20 has had a few more trips to the range. Right now it's on a trip to the Glock repair facility in Georia because it wouldn't go into battery a couple of times, and the extractor looks as though it is damaged (which may or may not explain the going into battery problem). 

 Vaqueros have fixed sights. There is a groove along the top strap of the revolver and a large blade sight on the barrel. The front sight is made much taller than necessary so the owner can file it down to move the point of impact for a specific caliber and load. For now, I'm going to leave it alone. The gun shoots about 6 inches high, but centered, at 25 yards with Black Hills .44 Special "cowboy" ammunition. Once I've had a chance to try it with other loads, I may settle on one load and then get an expert to help me "adjust" the front sight. Carpenters have a good saying, "Measure twice and cut once." I'll try to follow that advice with the front sight on the Vaquero.

Glock 20 Update

It's baaaack. The Glock 20 returned from Georgia just before I had to go to Nashville, Tennessee so I had a chance to take it down there for some practice before this year's big shooting match in Missoula, Montana on July 13. The Glock gunsmiths had polished the feed ramp, something I've noticed they do when you return a gun for repairs. I fired a few rounds of 200 grain Blazers in the Model 20 and it worked all right. When it came time for the match in Montana, I decided to go with UMC (Remington) 180 grain metal jacket ammunition. When in doubt, use Remington. In Montana, UMC 10 mm is inexpensive and there's no sales tax!

There were five stages at the match. One stage required weak hand shooting and another required one handed shooting with the strong hand (the other arm was handcuffed to a briefcase). Both of those situations set up conditions where a Glock might jam or misfeed because of the weaker grip, but the Model 20 sailed through it all. At one point, I managed to get my left hand close enough to the slide to get my thumb smacked. Even this dumb stunt didn't cause a malfunction (my brain malfunctioned, but the Glock worked fine).

The Aro-Tek ghost ring sights also worked fine. Even though my overall stage times were slow, it still took less time to line up the sights on the targets. Whatever problems I continue to have appear to be due to trigger pull or grip or something else besides the sight picture. At this point, I would not consider going back to conventional sights. I'm sure there are hundreds of people who think regular sights are better, but it's not unusual for new ideas to take awhile to catch on.

The match also provided an opportunity to try out the new Safariland "007" competition holster. It worked fine, but it will work better when I get the right belt to go with it. The 007 holster has Velcro on the back. Unless the belt has Velcro, too, that feature is wasted and the holster can move around.

I continue to like the 10 mm caliber and the Glock 20 pistol. The caliber fits my rule that adequate handgun calibers must have the number 4 or 10 in the designation (.40, .44, .45, 10 mm). The Glock 20, after a breaking in period, seems to be working ok. One of these days, even though it would be expensive and lower my overall times, I'd like to shoot an IPSC match with Winchester Silvertip ammunition, the 175 grain load that all the "gunwriters" say you should carry in case you meet a large, angry animal. Or, I'd like to shoot a match with the Cor Bon 135 grain 10 mm load, the one that's supposed to be real good for "one shot stops," whatever those are. On Sunday, I was shooting the "medium velocity" 10 mm loads, 180 grains, and that is just about more or less right at the same as a plain old .40 S&W. Firing a .40 S&W equivalent in a gun designed for a much hotter cartridge is like shooting .38 Specials in a heavy frame .357 Magnum revolver. You're not pushing the hardware anywhere its limits. 

Glock 21 "Conversions"

The last time I took the Glock 21 to the range, one of our Friday night shooting group had a .400 Cor Bon barrel so we took out the .45 ACP barrel, dropped in the .400 Cor Bon barrel, and took turns trying out the resulting hybrid pistol. This was my first experience with the .400 Cor Bon. Since I already have a 10 mm Glock built on the same frame, it was possible to compare the .400 Cor Bon, a powerful cartridge, with the 10 mm, also a powerful cartridge. To be honest, even though the .400 Cor Bon has more foot pounds of energy, I couldn't tell much difference between firing the two calibers in what amounts to the same gun. There is a difference between the .45 ACP and the .400 Cor Bon, however. If you have a Glock 21, consider getting a .400 Cor Bon barrel for it. The extra muzzle energy is worth the price of admission.

This was our first "conversion" of the night. The second came as the result of a conversation between me, a Glock 21 owner, and someone else, a Glock 30 owner. Turns out the Glock 30 owner didn't much like the Glock 30 because it pinched her hand. Turns out I didn't see much need for a Glock 21 when I already have a far more powerful Glock 20 (with high capacity magazines no less). So, I converted the Model 21 to a Model 30 by trading it. Both of us were happy. Even though it's worth the trouble to conceal a Glock 20 or 21, it's still inconvenient in many situations. The Glock 30, on the other hand, is much easier to conceal. With 10 rounds of Federal's new 165 grain .45 ACP "personal defense" ammunition, the Glock 30 is more than adequate for its designed task, and a lot easier to carry.

And then...

Just when I think some of these things are halfway organized, something else comes along. While the Glock 30 is great, it is now history, not because there was anything wrong with it, but because I decided to sell it to someone who could give it a good home, someone who also paid cash. Also, it shot just a little bit high with the fixed sights. That was not a problem because that happened with 230 grain bullets and I expect the 165 bullets would have hit a little lower. It's almost as if Glock designed the Model 30 to work best with Federal's Personal Defense ammunition.

On August 8, I had a chance, at last, to fire the Glock 29 compact 10 mm pistol. We didn't have any full power 10 mm loads so it wasn't a complete test. Having already fired a Glock 27, the compact .40, I did notice less recoil from the 29 with the standard 10 mm rounds (which are similar to the .40). The real test willl be with Silvertips or Cor Bons. 

The Big Revolver Match

Must of what is written here is about semi-automatics. This past weekend, on August 9th, I had a chance to compete in a match that was set up to let someone with a revolver win. It turned out that all of the competitors were shooting revolvers. I took along two guns, the S&W Model 15 and an S&W Model 60, didn't win, but had a lot of fun. The Model 60 is the gun we keep loaded at the house. It's a standard .357 Magnum snubnose revolver with an exposed hammer. It also has a ported barrel. The Model 15 is much older, well worn, but reliable. The Model 15 was a target version of the original Model 10 Military & Police model.

When I first got interested in pistol shooting in the late 1960s, the 4 inch barrel .38 Special was considered "state of the art." Now I suppose for some applications, the revolver is obsolete because of its limited magazine capacity and slow reloading procedures. If you've ever seen the Clint Eastwood movie where he shoots in a police competition, he uses a .44 Magnum and one of the other police uses a .357 Magnum. Eastwood and the other police characters use speed loaders. Even though they were all skilled revolver shooters (Eastwood used to enter fast draw competitions back when those were popular round the U.S.), it was clear that anyone with a 1911 .45 semi-auto or most other autos, could have had a better time, made fewer reloads, and hit all of the targets.

At our match on Saturday, August 9, we had to knock down pepper poppers, stop plates, and bowling pins. Each type of target presented a different challenge, but all required good fundamental shooting, no different from what we teach at all of our NRA classses. The person who won didn't do anything fancy. He just knocked down the targets sooner than anyone else. 

September 6, 1997

If this is Friday, this must be Blue Ridge Arsenal...

Every Friday night I try to fire a few rounds for practice. "A few" means at least 150 rounds. Sometimes I shoot the Glock 20 10 mm because that's the gun I use for IPSC competition. Other times I take something out of the safe that hasn't been fired in awhile. This week it seemed like a good idea to take out the Smith and Wesson 909 to make sure it was still working. I got a couple of boxes of Blazer 9 mm FMJ and shot those. I happened to have a lane at the Blue Ridge Arsenal shooting range that let me flip a switch and have an IPSC target come toward the shooting positon from around 50 feet away. During the time the target took to get from there to maybe 10 feet away, I tried to see how many shots I could put in the "A" zone. The 909 isn't a target gun by any stretch of the imagination, but it was capable of hitting the target each time under those conditions as long as I kept the front sight where it belonged. As usual, the 909 was 100% reliable.

What's the big deal about 10 mm ammunition anyway?

These days it's possible to find out quite a bit of information about any topic by searching the Internet. Since I'm trying to learn more about the 10 mm cartridge, I decided to conduct a search on the World Wide Web to see what I could come up with. Here's some of what I learned. First, not all of the ammunition manufacturers have Web pages that are easy to find. Second, not all of the companies I did find are making 10 mm ammunition. I knew this was a semi-rare caliber since the .40 S&W has become popular, but was still glad to find quite a few manufacturers not only making 10 mm, but also in several cases making more than one load. Maybe the 10 mm will be around with us for awhile longer.

The first place I found was Hornady. Hornady makes three different 10 mm loads, with 155, 180, and 200 grain bullets. The loads all have around the same muzzle energy (551, 556, and 490 foot-pounds). As a point of reference, Hornady lists their best .357 Magnum load as having 624 foot-pounds of energy, but this is from an 8" barrel while the 10 mm is based on performance from a 5" barrel (similar to the Glock 20).

From the Hornady page, I went to check out Winchester's Web site. Winchester makes two 10 mm loads, one with a 175 grain Silvertip bullet and the other with a 180 grain jacketed hollow point (JHP). The 180 grain load is listed as "sub sonic" and having a muzzle energy of 390 foot-pounds. That's not very much. Many .40 S&W loads are better than that. The 175 grain Silvertip cartridge, the one I use in the Glock 20 now, has 649 foot-pounds of energy from a 5.5" barrel. Everything is relative, of course. Winchester's new .454 Casull 260 grain jacketed flat point's muzzle energy is around 1871 foot-pounds.

Black Hills has a very nice Web site that shows two 10 mm products. One has a 155 grain jacketed hollow poit with a muzzle energy of 581 foot-pounds. The other load has a 180 grain bullet, much less velocity, and 400 foot-pounds of energy. They don't say what barrel length was used for testing.

While doing this limited research, I happened across the Bar-Sto barrel Web site. I hoped they might sell a match target barrel for the Glock 20, but they don't.

ProLoad ammunition makes two 10 mm loads. The numbers are 155 grain JHP and 620 foot-pounds and 180 grain JHP and 600 foot-pounds. Both sound impressive, but again there was no data on the barrel lengths used for tests.

One load that looks interesting is the Triton Quik-Shok. They have 10 mm load with a 165 gain bullet, a muzzle velocity of 1300 feet per second from a 5" barrel, and muzzle energy of 619 foot-pounds. The main difference between Triton's 10 mm and the others is the new Quik-Shok bullet. This bullet breaks into three large pieces on impact and exhibits performance of both regular jacketed hollow point and "pre-fragmented" (MagSafe, Glaser) ammunition.

Triton makes two other 10 mm cartridges with Sierra bullets, 135 and 165 JHPs. Muzzle energy is in the acceptable range of greater than 500 (587 and 619).

Cor-Bon seems to believe there is a continuing market for 10 mm ammunition. They have three different loads, with 135, 150, and 180 grain JHP bullets. Muzzle energy ranges from 587 for the lighter bullet to 553 for the 180 grain bullet.

My search for information is far from over, but I learned a couple of interesting things this evening. First, my current choice of the Winchester Silvertip looks pretty good with 175 grains and 649 foot-pounds of muzzle energy. Second, I think the Triton Quik-Shok is worthy of consideration. The numbers are similar, but the Quik-Shok bullet may work better. I haven't seen that much Triton ammunition at local gun shows, but when I found the information on the Web I found it at a site where I could order a box for testing.

The Beretta 92FS

I was going to add a picture to my discussion of the Beretta pistol, but when I used the Web page editor's search feature to find that section, I realized that I've not said much about the Beretta. This is surprising since the Beretta 92FS 9 mm pistol is one of my favorites. It's a favorite because it's accurate, easy to shoot, and, most of all, very reliable.

The Beretta is the standard pistol used by the U.S. military. A few years ago the military decided to get a replacement for the old Model 1911 .45 ACP pistol. There may have been good reasons for this, and there may have been political reasons for choosing the Beretta. Options for the "new" pistol included converting existing 1911s to 9 mm, the Beretta design, and a design submitted by SIG Sauer. When all the smoke cleared, the Beretta won. One reason is that Beretta has a factory in Maryland and the new military pistol had to be made in the U.S. It is my understanding that the Navy SEALS use the SIG Sauer, and some other "operators" use HK or 1911 pistols for special applications.

Fair or not, the Beretta got a reputation for slide failures. I have no idea what the truth is, but I've read that one of the pistols came apart and the slide came back and injured the shooter. The pistol was redesigned so that the slide cannot come back off the frame even if there is a mechanical failure, and there is also a Brigidier model (which I have) that has a strengthened slide.

I fire the Beretta with any 9 mm ammunition I can get my hands on, and it always works. It's very accurate for a reliable pistol, at least at any range where I might use it. Most of the time, I use the 92Fs in our NRA basic classes to demonstrate the fundamentals of pistol shooting. I use it for a couple of reasons. First, I know it will work. Second, it's large enough so that the students can see what's going on. The 9 mm is one of the weaker calibers, but there are some load (CorBon in particular) that maximize the potential of this round. The .40 S&W is better in most respects and Beretta makes a model 96 in this caliber.

Besides demonstrations, training, and military uses, what good is the Beretta 92FS? Since it fires double action on the first shot, has a safety position on the de-cocker lever, and can have a 15 round magazine, it does have some usefulness for home defense. You can mount a flashlight onto the 92FS. Another good "feature" of the 92FS is that it's large enough and heavy enough so that when you fire standard 115 or 124 grain bullets with normal pressure ammunition there's very little recoil.

Right now I have just two 9 mm pistols, the S&W 909 and the Beretta 92FS. Both are "keepers."

October 26, 1997

Fall and winter have arrived in northern Virginia and we're all having to adjust our shooting schedules as well as what we wear to the range.  The cold and rainy weather makes outdoor activities more of a challenge.  There is a page on this Web site that talks about a recent match at the Marine Base at Quantico, Virginia, where I decided to shoot the Beretta 92 rather than a Browning Hi-Power.  The scores came in the mail the other day and I was astounded to see that out of 59 people, I placed 33rd.  This is nothing to write home about (so I didn't), but it is the highest placement I can remember in a group that large.  Part of the score is based on the fact that I was able to shoot one stage with a single magazine, and part was based on the fact that I was using a 9 mm.  The overall score, however, does take the "power factor" into account, so I must have had enough "A" hits, which count the same score regardless of caliber, to do well.  The big Beretta is so easy to shoot that I might be able to move up a few more notches next time by concentrating a little more.

The USPSA Limited National Championship match was held at Fredericksburg again this year, but I'll bet more than a few people are going to be whining about the bad weather.  I was able to stop by there for a few minutes on Friday afternoon to see the people wearing coats and gloves.  Here's what it looked like...

These people are cold.  They're having a good time, but they're not warm.  Saturday's schedule had the top 16 competitors going for the top prizes, and the weather was even worse Saturday.

November 6, 1997.  As much as I like the Browning Hi-Power, in .40 S&W or 9 mm, it is still a small gun compared to the Beretta 92 or other "full size" pistols.  After all, when the Colt 1911 and the Browning Hi-Power were designed, people were smaller and had smaller hands.  When an opportunity came along to trade the .40 Hi-Power for a new SIG Sauer 226, I decided to get the 226.  It was a good decision.  I managed to get one of the few remaining new 226s with a high capacity (15 round) magazine, and then located another new 15 round magazine at a reasonable price.  I'll get a less expensive 10 round magazine, and maybe one more high capacity magazine and then be ready to try the 226 in IDPA and IPSC competition.  I've seen 15 round magazines advertised at lower prices.  These less expensive magazines have a slot cut up the side.  I have no idea what the slot is for, but if the magazine is reliable then it doesn't matter what it looks like.

The 226 comes in three calibers now, 9 mm, .40 S&W and .357 SIG.  I opted for the 9 mm for a couple of reasons.  First, I like it.  Second, other than seeing one .40 S&W at a gun shop out in California, I haven't seen any of the newer calibers around Virginia at any of the dealers or gun shows.  The 9 mm SIG works great, but I'm concerned that the higher bore axis of the 226 might amplify the effects of recoil with the more powerful .40 S&W or .357 SIG cartridges.  That wouldn't matter on the first shot, but might be a minor problem on follow-up shots.

In recent weeks, I've shot the Beretta 92 a lot, in several matches, so it was interesting to compare the SIG 226 to the Beretta.  In terms of ergonomics, the 226 is more comfortable to operate and to shoot.  The 226 trigger reminds me of the the large triggers found on Dan Wesson revolvers.  The grip angle is such that the 226 points "right," neither too high nor too low.  The sights on the 226 are easy to line up.  There is a white dot on the front sight, and a vertical white bar on the rear sight.  In a hurry, you just put the dot on the bar and the sights are lined up.  In good lighting, and with time to make fine adjustments, you can use the sharp outlines of the sights for precise sight alignment.

As with all handguns, these things either fit your hand and feel right or they don't, and it's not the fault of the gun when they don't.  The SIG 226 is just about perfect for my hand so I don't have to move around to get an optimum grip.  The position of my finger on the trigger is just right.

If you take a look at the picture of the 226 shown above, you'll see three levers on the left hand side of the gun. The first one, from left to right, is used to disassemble the pistol for cleaning and maintenance. The middle lever is used to de-cock the pistol. If you try to de-cock using the trigger and hammer, you bypass one of the internal safety devices - never a good idea. The last, smaller lever is the slide lock. All are convenient for a right handed person, and not inconvenient for a left handed person. There is no external safety lever on the 226. Some people like this "missing feature" and some would prefer a manual safety. My opinion on all safety devices is that they are no excuse to violate the three primary rules of gun safety. The best safety device consists of three parts: knowledge of how the gun operates, skills to operate the gun, and a positive attitude toward safety. None of these are mechanical devices; all depend on the individual.

The expert pistol shooters all swear by the Colt 1911 design and these experts will say that any other pistol design is always going to be slower to get into operation. That may be true, but the differences are measured in very small fractions of a second and may be or more interest in competition than anywhere else. Under stress, people will do what they've trained and practiced to do. If that training and practice has been to draw, put the front sight on the target, and press the trigger, then there is a good chance things will go well, whether or not a 1911 or a double action pistol is used. The SIG 226 doesn't give up anything in the area of speed.

Do I like the 226 more than the other pistols discussed here? No. Is it in the top ten? Yes, and maybe in the top four. To get into the top four or five (on my list anyway), a pistol has to be reliable, simple, powerful, and accurate. Right now the top five are Glock 20, S&W Model 60, S&W Model 909, Beretta 92, and the SIG 226. I'm not sure it's possible to rank these from 1 to 5 either since each has a different purpose from the others. In terms of sheer power in a small package, the Glock 20 is way ahead. That's also true for the Model 60 with .357 Magnum loads. The 909 is slim, flat, easy to conceal and works every time. The 226 is a little harder to conceal, has a 15 round magazine, and also works every time. The Beretta 92 can hold 15 rounds and you can almost flip a coin between it and the 226 as to which is best. I trust both models to work when they need to work.

Spreading the Word. On Sunday, November 9, 1997, I had a chance to help out with a "Fun Shoot" for women at the Izzak Walton League in Centreville, Virginia. This event was organized by the NRA's Women's Programs. The idea was to invite 50-60 women out to shoot .22 rifles and handguns at various ranges, and at various targets. The organizers wanted to make sure this was a safe event so they asked for volunteer NRA instructors to help out. It doesn't take much to get me to volunteer to help other people discover that shooting sports are fun, so I got up on Sunday morning at the crack of dawn, helped set up targets and then manned position number 13 for the next four hours.

Position 13 was on the right hand side of the range. On the left hand side of the range, the beginning shooters were shooting at paper targets at 7 yards. On the right hand side we had reactive targets at 25 yards. I had a set of falling plates, each about 3 inches in diameter which made them very difficult to hit at that range with a handgun, but easy to hit with a scoped rifle. Since the idea was for people to have fun, and you don't have a lot of fun when you miss, I encouraged those who wandered by Position 13 to try the rifle. It was a Browning .22 with a nice scope and once you figured out where to aim, the plates fell over every time. Most of the shooters missed with the Ruger SP-101 revolver and I was concerned about the sights being off. During a brief lull in the firing, I tried the Ruger with a center hold and knocked down two of the plates. Fundamentals matter a lot at 25 yards no matter what you're shooting.

I remember several things about Sunday morning's "fun shoot." The first is that the NRA must have a bakery somewhere. There were more rolls and bagels than I had ever seen in one place before, and this includes the buffet on the Queen Mary in Long Beach. There was fresh fruit and other goodies. If I'd been invited to this "fun shoot" as a participant, I'm not sure if I would have left all that food to go outside where it was cold and rainy. Another thing I remember is how nice all the people were who showed up. We had more people wanting to shoot than we had positions open, and everyone was very good about taking a turn and then letting someone else shoot. I'm not sure a group of men would have been this polite.

There were some men there, husbands and boyfriends, but they had to stay away from the range. You could tell some of them were just itching to impart their extensive wisdom about firearms and shooting skills. With luck, some of them made the connection between being an NRA instructor and getting to meet all the women, and not being an instructor and having to stand behind the fence. We might get a few more instructors as a result of last Sunday's event, as well as a few more women shooters.

The organizers hoped to have 60 women there, and I think around 50 showed up. One group came at 8 and the other group came around 10, and I'm pretty sure everybody had a chance to try out the different guns and different targets. All things considered, this was a very good event. I had not met some of the women who work at the NRA, but now I have and they are top notch people. Maybe one day they'll tell me where the secret NRA bakery is located.

Here is a great picture of the NRA indoor range at NRA Headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia. Targets may be set for any distance up to 50 yards. The distance is set by computers, and you select the distance on a control panel at each position. The range itself is one of the cleanest I've ever seen. There are air blowers set up to take out airborne lead. It's a little noisy in there because of the blowers, but everybody is wearing ear protection anyway - except during matches when we mill around between stages. Then you notice the blower noise. If the NRA range is my favorite, then my second favorite range, and gun store, is Wade's in Bellvue, Washington, just east of Seattle. They have almost as many evening activities there as the NRA range does. A good indoor range is versatile and allows different kinds of matches to be set up and run with regard for safety.

In reading over all these opinions and impressions, I have noticed that not a lot has been said about rifles or shotguns. That was not an intentional oversight and I will try to play catch up for the next few paragraphs. First of all, there are two types of rifles that I like to shoot. First is the military AR-15 type as shown here.

This is an Armalite M4C carbine. Maybe it's from a bad experience having to lug around a 1917 Enfield or whatever those things were that we had in Navy boot camp, but I like lightweight carbine type rifles. Because the Marines did so well in World War I shooting at the enemy at long range, several generations of riflemen have been trained to shoot .30-06 or .308 caliber rifles at 1,000 yards. In Viet Nam, you couldn't see that far in any direction and rifles tended to be used at an average of 75 yards. In this situation, a light carbine with a short barrel is very useful. I like the M4C because it has a built in muzzle brake. With the .223 round, there's not a lot of recoil to start with, but the muzzle brake does help control what recoil is present.

Some of the magazine writers say that an AR-15 type rifle is useful for defending your home. Maybe so, but even the .223 round makes a lot of noise in an enclosed space and has enough muzzle energy to send the bullet through walls (your walls and maybe the neighbors' as well). If I lived in a rural area, I suspect we would have a loaded AR-15 carbine handy. Or maybe we'd just have a plain old Winchester .30-30 lever action. Winchester makes a nice .30-30 with a shorter barrel. This model is called the Trapper.

Because there is a market for rifles in pistol calibers like 9 mm, .45 Long Colt, .45 ACP, .44 Magnum and .44 Special, and even .357 Magnum, you can find Marlin and Winchester semi-auto and lever action rifles in most of these calibers. Some of these calibers lend themselves to cowboy action shooting because revolvers and rifles use the same ammunition, and all of these calibers are fun to shoot. Nevertheless, these are handgun calibers and one of the cardinal rules about handgun calibers is that, compared to just about any centerfire rifle caliber, a handgun cartridge is going to be much weaker. As much as I may like the 10 mm pistol cartridge, a plain old "been around forever" .30-30 is always going to deliver more muzzle energy. Besides being more powerful, rifle calibers tend to shoot flatter and are effective at longer ranges. Bottom line: in my opinion, if you want a rifle, get a rifle; don't get something that looks like a rifle that shoots a pistol cartridge. If you must have a rifle that shoots a pistol cartridge, consider the .44 Magnum.

During the Sunday morning fun shoot for the women at Izzak Walton, I realized how much fun a .22 rifle could be. Since we didn't have a .22 rifle, I decided to go looking for one. Anybody looking for a .22 rifle should consider the Ruger 10/22. Not onlly is this a good rifle right out of the box, but it also can be enhanced and modified to be even better. There are aftermarket extended magazine release buttons, drop-in triggers, and all sorts of replacement barrels. For many years there was a Ruger 10/22 around our house, along with a Marlin bolt action .22 Magnum rifle. Both were sold awhile back. With the renewed interest in .22s, I reconsidered both of these rifles, but decided first to check out Remington's new low cost .22 rifle, the Model 597. This rifle has a plastic stock, in the tradition of the old "Nylon 66" and recent Viper models. After trying the new Remington for fit, I decided to get one. Once again, the "how does it fit and feel" questions decided the issue. I also like the adjustable sights on the new Remington because 1) they appear easy to adjust, and 2) I can see the front sight. The new Remington has a drop out magazine. It's not like the Ruger because the Remington magazine release is much easier to manipulate. Both magazines hold 10 shots, but you can get higher capacity magazines for the Ruger from an extensive after market collection. The Remington .22 rifle has an integral scope mount, and is drilled and tapped for a larger mount. I need to study up on telescopic sights. If the rifle turns out to be accurate, then adding a scope makes a lot of sense.

I'll provide some shooting impressions of the new Remington .22 rifle as soon as I get a chance to take it to the NRA range for an extensive test session.

Wish List. It's November now and time for the holidays. After the holiday season, in late January, the SHOT Show returns to Las Vegas. Last year there were a few surprises (the new Reminton Model 597 was introduced at the 1997 SHOT Show, along with Smith & Wesson's 9 ounce Model 317 .22 snub nose revolver. One of the new gun magazines has an article about guns the writers wish the factories would build. In this case, I am in complete agreement with a couple of the ideas. The first is to bring out a .45 ACP version of Ruger's P-95 series pistol, the one with the plastic frame. I'd get one of those in a second. The ergonomics of the P-95 are great, and Ruger is known for my three favorite characteristics of a pistol: reliability, reliability, and reliability. The current P-95 will handle +P+ ammunition all day, so maybe the wish list should include a Ruger P-95 that will fire the .45 Super cartridge along with regular .45 ACP ammunition.

The second idea I like is for Smith and Wesson or Ruger or both to come out with a revolver that could fire the .40 S&W or 10 mm with moon clips. Just imagine the Ruger SP-101 with five shots of 10 mm Silvertips. It would be exciting to shoot, but then so is the Glock Model 29 with full power 10 mm loads. Also, imagine the new S&W Model 696 in .44 Special (a 5 shot cylinder on a large frame) set up to fire .40 S&W or 10 mm with moon clips. Wouldn't that be something?

Another gun that I wished for is going to be made. S&W is planning to market a new version of the ultralight Model 317 .22 revolver. This new version will have a 3" barrel and adjustable sights. Even with the longer barrel and sights, it should still be much, much lighter than either the Ruger SP-101 in .22 or the current S&W Model 63. A longer barrel won't make that much dfference in velocity, but the increased sight radius will be helpful. At our local gun shows, there are two dealers who tend to have the newest items from Smith and Wesson. Whoever has the first Model 317 with the longer barrel is going to make a sale that day.

Video Games. If you have a computer, you may have seen or heard of a game called "Doom." In this game, you walk through various rooms and hallways, clearing these areas of bad guys. There are all kinds of simulated firearms and other projectile launchers. You get more "weaponry" as you progress through the game, but the bad guys get better, too. Many of the mental skills needed to play games like "Doom" relate to success in the shooting sports, but it's been difficult to join the sophistication of the computer to a range setting - unless you had the budget of a large law enforcement agency. Last week, I saw a new addition at the LAX Firing Range (near the Los Angeles International Airport) that brings computer based games and training to the local "we can afford this" range. The new computer controlled target range setup involves a white sheet of plastic that takes up about three standard lanes. This plastic closes up after a bullet pentrates it. The computer is just a standard Windows based PC with a CD ROM drive and a way for the range operator to select a specific game program.

...Alien Weapons...Men in Black...UFOs...

The truth is right here!

Since World War II, there have been many reports of UFOs flying around, landing, and abducting people for all kinds of strange experiments. Government agents dressed in black are supposed to have visited many people who saw UFOs. These "men in black" appear with no warning then disappear without a trace. The "men in black" are said to travel in black helicopters. One of the rumors is that the U.S. Government has traded our citizens for experimentation in return for the use of alien technology. One item, "velcro," was offered as an example of alien technology, but this theory was disproved with it became obvious that "velcro" is based on the mechanics of certain weeds that attach their seeds to people’s socks with tiny hooks.

I had pretty much dismissed these rumors as urban, or even rural, myths. After all, during the 1950s, airline pilots reported UFOs at high altitudes and most of these sightings turned out to be nothing more than common everyday U-2 flights. Every example of possible UFO technology always turned out to be something else. Then I went to see the movie "Men in Black" about a year ago. In the movie, the secret government agents are armed with alien weapons. On one occasion, we see a brief glimpse of a collection of these weapons, some of which look like pistols, others like rifles, and one or two that appear identical to items seen in oral surgeons’ offices. Later in the movie, one of the agents fires a small shiny pistol-like gadget and blows up a few cars with each shot.

It took another year before I made the connection, but it clear to me now that there are alien designed weapons here on earth. The most obvious example, once you think about it, is the Ruger KP-95D 9 mm pistol. It was introduced after the company had already produced other designs which appear almost identical to the KP-95D, but the subtle differences, changes, and improvements provide the best proof yet of UFOs and UFO influence in at least one segment of the U.S firearms industry.

Compare the KP-95D to any other pistol and right away you know there’s something going on. An ordinary pistol is made of steel or a combination of steel and aluminum. The metal parts may be cast or machined. The KP-95D, on the other hand, has a plastic frame. Who are these people kidding? That by itself is proof that humans didn’t design this gun.

Not only is the frame made of plastic, but the slide is much wider than it needs to be to handle the 9 mm cartridge. My normal Smith and Wesson Model 909 is about half as thick, an twice as easy to conceal, and has no problems with any 9 mm load. The KP-95D must have been designed by the aliens to fire a much more powerful cartridge, but Ruger has never sold the "P-95" in any other caliber. Something to think about, right?

The final proof is in the actual firing of the KP-95D. Unlike regular guns, the Ruger P-95 has a kind of disjointed action, a springy feel that comes from the double coiled recoil spring and the flexible plastic frame. Fire a Ruger KP-95D then fire a normal SIG Sauer Model 226 or 228 and you can tell right away that the P-95 was designed to be fired by a creature not of this earth. Each shot conveys a series of clanks and clunks associated with the semi-automatic reloading process, while other guns just go bang, cycle, and are ready to go bang again.

If you are still skeptical there are a couple of possible reasons. One, maybe "they" are controlling your thoughts. Or, two, you just haven’t taken a close look at the KP-95 (shown above). Does that look like any pistol you’ve ever seen before? Of course not.

It's 1998 now. We made it through the winter ok, but there weren't a lot of shooting matches to write about. There weren't a lot of new guns or gun shows to attend either. During the winter, I got a good deal on a Ruger P-90 semi-automatic pistol. If you're a regular reader of gun magazines, you'll know that there is at least one police department in the U.S., this one located in New Hampshire, which uses the Ruger P-90 pistol. Since 1994, I think I've read at least a dozen articles about this one police department and the various firearms available to their officers. They seem to like the Ruger P-90. Since I didn't have a .45 around, I decided to get a P-90 and check it out. Ruger made a special version of the P-90 this winter, a two-tone model with a blued slide and a dark gray frame. The price was right, so I got one. The P-90, like most of the Rugers comes in two models, one with a de-cocker, but no external thumb safety, and another model that has the decocker and safety on the same lever. As far as I can tell, the P-90 is not available as a double action only pistol, but I'm sure there are gunsmiths who can convert one to DAO if that's what you want.

After I got the P-90, I took it to the range one cold Sunday afternoon. We had targets set up at 25 yards. One thing that was mentioned in all of those articles about the P-90 was its above average accuracy for a production .45. My P-90 was pretty accurate so I guess that's right. I'm sure it's more accurate than I am. The factory trigger on the P-90 is, to be kind, awful. Right now the pistol is at a gunsmith in New Mexico for a trigger job, and for new sights. I've asked for a set of Millett target sights, plain black sights, to see how that works. The P-90 is not a candidate as a "carry gun," because it's a bit large, but it's a good pistol for training and practice. I had hoped to be able to replace the actual trigger on the P-90 with a trigger from a P-85 or, better yet, a P-95. The P-90 trigger has a strange shape, while the trigger on the P-95 has more of a curve, and feels better.

I guess I agree with a recent article in "Gun Test" magazine. They thought the P-90 was pretty reliable, but funny looking and big. Now, is there a place outside of New Hampshire where it would make sense to carry a P-90? Yes there is, but I think you need to make a minor modification first. The barrel needs to be changed from a .45 ACP to either the new .45 Super or the .400 CorBon. The 10 mm is my favorite caliber, and 10 mm is far superior to the .45 for most application. The .400 CorBon's performance is in the same ballpark as the 10 mm.

Looking for a good holster?

Last summer I went to a couple of shooting matches with friends from West Virginia. One of them is a Dillon dealer. They both had Beretta pistols, a Model 96 (.40) and 92 (9mm), in what appeared to be expensive holsters. It turned out these holsters are from Dillon Precision in Arizona, the company that makes reloading equipment. I got one of these holsters for the Beretta 92 yesterday and already I like it a lot. The picture above shows this same holster design (with a SIG 226).

Glock 31 - .357 SIG

Just when you think everything makes sense, something new comes along. Anyone with the time and patience to read this far should know about my "4-10" theory. If not, it's simple. Since there are no magic "works every time" cartridges for handguns, the best chances come from calibers that either have a "4" or "10" in them. This means .40 S&W, .44 Special and Magnum, .45 ACP, and 10 mm. In the real world, there is ample supporting evidence for this theory. There is also ample evidence that another caliber, the .357 Magnum, does pretty well, too. The .357 Magnum is a pretty good caliber, but available, for the most part, only in various size revolvers. In smaller 5 shot revolvers, the .357 Magnum recoil can be a bit rough. There are .357 Magnum semi-automatic pistols, but their recoil can be intimidating as well.

SIG and the ammunition manufacturers came up with something new, the .357 SIG caliber. It's not a .357, but a 9 mm which is a little bit smaller. The "357" part sounds good, however. The 9 mm bullet sits in the front of a necked down .40 S&W case. This "bottleneck" layout isn't new. Military rifle cartridges use it all the time to put a lot of powder behind a smaller bullet. And there have been several bottleneck pistol cartridges over the years. This layout tends to favor reliable operation because the smaller diameter bullet goes into the larger overall chamber without any problems.

Well, I like new things so I got one of the new Glocks in .357 SIG caliber. I decided to get the full size Model 31 rather than the 32 or 33. The 31 is the same size as the 17 and the 22 (9mm and .40). The slide rails are larger than those on the Model 22. Does this mean the .357 SIG is more powerful than the .40 S&W? Not always, but Glock must have figured a lot of energy transfer is taking place when the new caliber is fired.

There's another page of comments about the Glock 31 linked to this Web site. Since I wrote that page, I've had a chance to fire the Speer Lawman 125 grain .357 SIG load, as well as the Triton 115 grain load. The Triton is spec'd for 1425 fps and 518 ft/lbs from a 4 inch barrel. You notice a difference between those loads. The regular 125 grain loads feel like you're shooting a 10 mm. The 115 grain Triton has quite a bit of muzzle flash, and the increased velocity is apparent. The bullet used by Triton appears to be the same bullet used by Cor Bon for their famous 9 mm +P load.

So, which load would I carry? Right now it would be the Triton, but I haven't fired the Federal HydraShok yet. The HydraShok bullets have a good track record, but then so do the Cor Bon loads.

April, 1998 Update on things related to the .357 SIG. I've fired several hundred rounds through the Glock 31 now without a single problem regardless of the brand of ammunition or the type of bullets. This afternoon at our regular range session, I and others had a chance to fire the Glock 31 with the new Hi-Viz sights. Outdoors, the Hi-Viz sights provide a bright green dot that you can't miss. On rapid fire strings, putting that bright green dot back on the target is very simple and we all got good results shooting at IDPA type targets from 10 yards away. The Hi-Viz sights come with several different size and color inserts. I picked the big green insert and it's working fine so far. If you've seen those sights like the ones the professional hunters use on elephant guns, the effect of the Hi-Viz sights is similar: it's easy to put the front sight on the target in a hurry. This seems like a good idea if you're dealing with a charging elephant, or if you're trying to win a match. I don't know yet if the Hi-Viz sights are legal for IPSC shooting. I hope so.

The .357 SIG story has a down side, I'm sorry to say, but it is a situation I expect to be corrected very soon. I traded a Browning Hi-Power in on a new SIG Model 229 in .357 SIG caliber, figuring this would be a great combination of a stable platform and an effective caliber in a size that could be concealed. The P 229, and P 228 size pistols are favorites of federal law enforcement officers. We must assume these folks can spend our tax dollars on the best that money can buy when it comes to defending themselves against drug dealers (who also use the best equipment that lots of money can buy...). I have been very pleased with the SIG Model 226 in 9 mm. The new SIG 229 went to the range today and had several misfires with Remington UMC ammunition. This should not have happened. This is a good gun and good ammunition, a combination that should have been reliable. When the SIG 229 did fire, it worked fine, but there were too many misfires. Now it has to go back to the SIGARMS place up in New Hampshire where it will go into the repair queue for awhile. When it comes back, I may get a .40 S&W barrel for the 229. That's an easy conversion. I've already this with the Glock Model 31 and it fires either caliber to pretty much the same point of aim.

A recent gun magazine article talked about putting a Jarvis .357 SIG barrel into the Glock 20 (10 mm) pistol. Now that sounds interesting.

With all of these new guns, and experiments with ammunition, it is worth reporting that once again I went to a match out west, in Idaho this time, and chose the Beretta 92FS to compete in the match. It was reliable and accurate, and functioned without any problems in the cold weather. The SIG 226 works the same way (and I almost took it instead, except that I had more magazines for the Beretta). I expect the SIG 229 to be just as reliable once it is repaired.

More Glock Impressions. The gun safe sure seems to have a lot of Glocks in it these days. The latest addition is a stock Glock 19 with night sights. Even though I prefer the larger size Glocks, the Model 20 and the Model 31, and don't think much of the sub-compact models, the mid-size models like the 19 can provide a good combination of power and usable size. "Usable" here means that all of your fingers can fit on the grip. Tonight at our regular session at the Blue Ridge Arsenal, I had a chance to fire both the 31 (.357 SIG) and the 19 (9 mm), alternating between the two sizes and calibers. In addition to firing regular Speer Lawman .357 SIG TMJ ammunition, I also had a few rounds of Hornady ammunition with 147 grain bullets. The heavier bullets made a difference in recoil. I'm not sure yet which of the .357 SIG loads will be judged best by the gun magazine writers, but this Hornady ammuntion should appeal to the heavy bullet advocates. The writers who talk about how effective the 9 mm cartridge can be should spend some time at the range with a Glock 31 and a Glock 19: the difference in foot pounds of muzzle energy is very obvious.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE!

Copyright 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000. All Rights Reserved. Randall A. Mays