# 9mm, Too old?



## Armymedic (4 Feb 2006)

It seems that some of the soldier do not like our geriatric Browning HP pistol anymore. 
I am starting to think Chris Wattie is out there trying to find THE story. Occasionally that is a good thing (like this), and, sometimes not (Tim Hortons)

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=a50e6eb0-fccf-45c6-85a4-94ff707cabb8

Canadians armed with WWII pistols
9-millimetre browning: Excellent weapon in 'proper context,' military says
  
Chris Wattie 
National Post 


Friday, February 03, 2006


KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Canadian soldiers embarked on the country's largest combat mission since the Korean War are using handguns that date back even further -- pistols around since the Second World War are serving as their "weapon of last resort" in southern Afghanistan.

The 9-millimetre Browning High Power has been in service with the Canadian military since 1937 and the average Browning -- commonly known as the "9-mill" -- now being used by the troops is 63 years old, according to Canadian Forces small arms experts.

Many of the soldiers who use the Browning have little faith in its ability to protect them should the need arise.

"I don't trust them," said one junior officer, who did not want his name used. "They're prone to jamming, and I hear they have a habit of going off when you jostle them. They ought to be replaced -- should've been a long time ago."

The bulky black handguns are used by officers and senior non-commissioned officers of the 2,000-strong battle group now deploying to Kandahar, as well as by soldiers who need them for "close protection" -- when the enemy gets within close range and rifles or machine-guns are impossible or impractical to use.

"They're our weapon of last resort," said Captain Dave McKeever, operations officer for the Canadian contingent in southern Afghanistan. "They're the last weapon you would draw when someone's coming at you at very close range."

The handful of military specialties who are more likely to use handguns -- military police, naval boarding parties and the commandos of JTF-2 -- switched to more modern SIG-Sauer 9mm sidearms several years ago.

"The 9-mills are junk," said one MP posted to Kandahar Air Field, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They're too old. Handgun design has passed them by ... and they're always jamming.

"I was at the range last week firing my SIG-Sauer next to a guy with a 9-mill and his weapon had four stoppages. That'll get you killed in a combat situation."

Major Gary Vassbotn, the army's section head for small arms, said the military inspects the Brownings regularly "so any problems associated with age such as worn slides and bodies are detected and the pistol removed from service."

Maj. Vassbotn said the Browning was adopted as a sidearm in 1937, and the last pistol was produced by John Inglis & Co. in 1944. But while the handguns may be old, he said they are in excellent condition.

"A large number were immediately stored in unused condition in the CF supply depots," he said in an e-mail from National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa.

"While the average age of these pistols is approximately 63 years, these are still in like-new condition."

Maj. Vassbotn would not say how many sidearms have been issued to the troops now arriving in Kandahar, citing operational security, but Capt. McKeever said the Brownings are usually issued to commanders of units, either officers, warrant officers or sergeants. They are also handed out to other soldiers, he added.

"A lot of the guys who have to do lifting, loading and carrying are issued 9-mills because carrying a C7 [assault rifle] when you're climbing up and down a ladder would be kind of awkward," he said.

"Or the gunners in the turrets [of G-wagon vehicles] who don't have a lot of elbow room, sometimes are issued 9-mills ....Whoever needs them, gets them."

David Rudd, the director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said it is high time the Browning was replaced, especially for use in Afghanistan. "A replacement is both overdue, desirable and necessary," he said.

"Guerrillas and insurgents often cannot be distinguished from ordinary civilians. They can therefore get close to Canadian troops before setting off a bomb or an explosive belt. Purchasing a modern handgun would allow the army to select a model that is better suited to this [Afghan] environment."

Mr. Rudd said that if the Browning is not good enough for the commandos of JTF-2, naval boarding parties or military police, it should be replaced for the army too.

"There must be a reason for that. How strange that the rest of the army should be short-changed."

Warrant Officer Len Aubin, weapons technician for the Canadian battlegroup, acknowledged there have been problems with some of the Brownings.

"If you take a weapon and beat it up over a period of years, then yes, it's going to fail," he said. "But the maintenance system has identified those problems and dealt with them.

"If it's used properly, there is no problem ... my personal opinion is that this is an excellent combat weapon, when it's used in the proper context."

Warrant Officer Aubin said that the heat and ever-present powdery dust of southern Afghanistan may be harder on the Brownings than on other weapons. "If you use it in a place like this ... the sand and the dust, that's just like sandpaper on the weapon's action."

But he added that so far, he has seen few problems with the Brownings issued to the soldiers in Kandahar.

"It's a good, reliable combat weapon."

Most of the weapons used by the Canadian troops in Afghanistan are fairly new "Gucci kit," as the soldiers refer to them. The C7 assault rifle was revamped and improved last year and vehicles such as the LAV III armoured troop carrier are among the best of their kind in the world.

But Maj. Vassbotn said that there are no plans to replace the Browning, the oldest weapon still in service with the Canadian Forces.

"The Browning still meets the sidearm requirement for the majority of soldiers in the field, and there is no plan to replace the pistol in the near future."

However, Mr. Rudd said a new weapon is needed and should be able to fire "a larger, more powerful round.... The 9mm cannot impart enough energy to take down an opponent who is determined to get through."

© National Post 2006


----------



## Thompson_JM (4 Feb 2006)

Just my opinion but Mr. Rudd is barking up the wrong tree with the Change the Calibre statement. 

its really not our call since its the NATO standard for pistols correct? perhaps switching from an FMJ round to a JHP or even a JSP might have more stopping power. but I am by no means an expert on the matter.

I see no reason why the CF should not replace the BHP. the question is with what though....

with my limited knowledge of Pistols, I think the glock 17 might not be a bad choice. simple, rugged, durable and easy to use. being double action it would mean you could travel with one in the spout, ready to go and not worry. 

but once again, my knowledge is very limited.

perhaps someone like kevinB or one of the other resident Weapons experts could shed some more Informed light on this.

Cheers
    Josh


----------



## George Wallace (4 Feb 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Chris Wattie
> National Post
> Friday, February 03, 2006
> 
> "I don't trust them," said one junior officer, who did not want his name used. "They're prone to jamming, and I hear they have a habit of going off when you jostle them. They ought to be replaced -- should've been a long time ago."


In this case it is not the pistol that I would be afraid of, but the junior officer.  He shows a definite lack of experience and his weapons handling procedures are now in question.


----------



## combatcamera (4 Feb 2006)

Funny,

We got the request a few days ago from the National Post for pictures of the 9mm HP against a white background.  The only pics we had we're of the weapon in use in the field.  I couldn't help but wonder what they were going to "slam" next in their article?  Funny thing is these same reporters are also on the embed list for Op ARCHER.  Good luck to them! 

Frank

www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca


----------



## Eland (4 Feb 2006)

The Browning HP is still an excellent weapon. However, I am concerned that and are HP pistols which saw extensive WWII and Korean War and are being used in the field today, may have parts which are fatigued beyond their limits due to age and use. I also wonder if the HP can handle today's hotter, more powerful 9mm ammo loads, metal fatigue issues aside. 

The National Post article says that DND have a number of unused HP handguns in storage as a means of getting around the problem. But even weapons which have been left in storage unfired, can exhibit problems, mostly in the area of weak springs and trigger sears. It would seem that using a pistol with those kinds of problems, with modern ammunition, is just asking for trouble. Yes, I know weapons techs would probably overhaul each of these examples before certifying them fit for service. Still, wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to buy new, modern pistols, and ensure all branches of the military have a common sidearm?

Better yet, why not issue officers, senior NCM's, armoured vehicle crews, special forces troops and others who need a sidearm something 
like the Heckler & Koch MP7A1? It's compact enough to be carried in tight spaces and can probably even be used in a pinch as a pistol.
It chambers a 4.6mm round, and with automatic fire capability, it should be better than a pistol in tight spaces or CQB situations.

I have seen some reports that some US special forces units are beginning to adopt the weapon. Maybe we should be putting a few examples under trials and see how JTF2 do with them.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Feb 2006)

Personally I have absolutely no problem with the BHP...properly cared for and kept clean and taking care to make sure the "mouth" of the mag is properly shaped, I've not had a problem with it.  I like the feel of it, I like the action (although I've shot and like the double-action HP-DA better, more for ability to have a round chambered but hammer still decocked...)

I call BS on "...I hear they have a habit of going off when you jostle them..."  That is just crap!  The BHP Mark 1 is historically one of the safest semi-automatic pistols out there today....I think there's a reason it ranked on G&A's top ten list of firearms...

Personally, If I were given a "new old-stock" (7T... or 8T...) and cleaned off the packing grease (and made sure the mags were properly shaped) I'd honestly take it over a Sig...  I think we just need to rotate some of the pristine untouched HP's out of stocks...I think a lot more guys would like them than the ones that have been bashed around for 60 years...

Mein 2¢...

Cheers,
Duey

p.s.  What would I take if I didn't have a BHP?  Why a 10" CQB C8, of course...   I have yet to be sold on funky new "personal protection" calibres...


----------



## George Wallace (4 Feb 2006)

I agree with Duey.  Not being much of a 'Gun Nut' I too had more faith in throwing the damn thing, than in my shooting abilities with it.  Then last year I was shown some shooting techniques that changed those old fallacies of mine.  It is a fine weapon.  So is the SIG.  

Any inexperience shooter will have problems, unless they are taught good techniques of shooting.  The CF has to improve/update those shooting techniques, not the weapon.  (ie. that old one handed dueling stance only offers your unprotected, unarmoured side to the enemy, and has no accuracy.)  

It is short barrel weapon, and good for close quarters.  Short barrel weapons require more 'control' than long barrel weapons, as only a fraction of an inch/cm movement of the barrel will move it off target much more so than a long barrel weapon.

I believe that the "War Stock" BHPs are now being rotated into operational stocks, so many of the comments we are hearing about them are all hearsay.  In some cases, like that of that "Junior Officer", probably some old story confused with the old 9 mm SMG.


----------



## Sig_Des (4 Feb 2006)

I'v efired the BHP several times, and always enjoyed it. we were fortunate enough to have someone who knew what they were doing instructing us.

In retrospect, the only jams I ever had were caused by a misfeed on account of warped mag mouth, something I should have checked before accepting the mag (therefore, operator error).

So basically, check the weapon and mags over before you fire, and you should be fine.


----------



## KevinB (4 Feb 2006)

While the BHP is not the cutting edge of handguns it is plenty good still.

I carried one in Afghan - no worries I carried it cocked and locked and had ZERO issues with it - put my own grips on it and added skateboard tape to the front and back straps - I woudl have preffered night sights - but a C8 was my primary...

 The PDW is the answer for a non existant problem -- either issue C8's for people who feel "too hard done by" in the CSS world  or tell them to get competent with a pistol.

 I fired over 1k of 9mm while in afghan out of my BHP and had ZERO issues.






The Sig is nice - (I feel the G17/19 are better for general issue...) but in the terms of small arms expenditure the BHP is good to go until the CF will start actually training non DHTC pers with a handgun properly.


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 Feb 2006)

George
your typing speed is spectacular. Having had the opportunity to carry both the SMG and the HP as I have said "I politely refused and stuck to lugging around my trusty FN". When forced to carry one, "I was not going to throw it as undoing the lanyard would have taken to much time and the filling in of the lost weapon paperwork, ditto, I was going to beat them over the head with it." I witnessed one of the SMG incidents in which a MCPL jumped out of the back of a duce and a half with a full mag and bolt back. He is still carrying permanent reminders to this day of his error in judgement. Back to the HP, when properly trained in firing it I do believe it is a good weapon. There were several instances of our bn SA team over the years doing quite well with this pistol. Pbi, can shed some more light on the later success of this team. One of the reasons though I think for the success was the amount of time spent at the range and the care given to the weapons by the techs. A couple of years back I was given some instruction time by one of the ultimate experts in this weapon genre who is surprisingly well known to a number of site members, I should have figured that out. After practicing with the HP after being re-educated I took a 1876 or so Colt Peacemaker with a long barrel and was consistently able to put one rd on top of another in two shot drills. Much to the chagrin of my employers who stopped inviting me out to their range practices, something about going to far in debt vis via beer payments vs buying baby food and diapers. So I am in complete agreement with it is not so much the weapon as the training done by the user. Simply put in my Bn days we fired a one morning familiarization verses weeks on the range with the FN. Practice makes perfect. Next having been out for a number of years I am wondering what is going on in the CAF with the number of "I have heard comments", that keep appearing, has a weekly sewing circle replaced range practice.?


----------



## GO!!! (4 Feb 2006)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Next having been out for a number of years I am wondering what is going on in the CAF with the number of "I have heard comments", that keep appearing, has a weekly sewing circle replaced range practice.?



Ottawa hath decreed that we only require 88 rounds per man, per year to maintain our shooting skills with the C7, so in answer to your question, yes!


----------



## brin11 (4 Feb 2006)

As mentioned before, I've found that most stoppages in the Browning are attributed to the mag; either the lips are damaged or the mag spring needs to be replaced.  When the user changes to a good mag, usually the problems disappear.  I've never heard of spontaneous firing before in this weapon and I think someone is passing on stupid stories to their junior officer, probably relating to the old SMG.

We find the Brownings tagged all the time as "jams" and, upon inspection, nothing can be found wrong with the weapon.  By the way, its always more useful for maintainers to have as much information as possible about what is wrong with a weapon when its tagged.  Write us a little story, will you?  "Jams" is not very helpful.


----------



## Haggis (4 Feb 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> "I don't trust them," said one junior officer, who did not want his name used. "They're prone to jamming, and *I hear *  they have a habit of going off when you jostle them.



In other words, Junior Officer Who Does Not Want His Name Used (JOWDNWHNU), it's never happened to you and you're spouting hearsay.

I've carried a 9mm on ops and on exercise for over 25 years.  I've fired it in competitions.  I own my own (duly registered) original "John Browning Arms Company, Montreal Canada" model.

Like KevinB, I've slapped aftermarket grips on my issue piece and had an EME gun plumber "tune" it for me.  



			
				brin11 said:
			
		

> I've found that most stoppages in the Browning are attributed to the mag; either the lips are damaged or the mag spring needs to be replaced.



In those 25 odd years I can count on one hand the number of stoppages I've had in both the issue weapon or my own.  All were attributable to damaged or worn out mags.  I have never had a part fail in any issue weapon.  My own is boxed-stock original.  

Probably unlike JOWDNWHNU, I have practised with mine, fired thousands of rounds and have received modern  (outside the CF) training with it.   I agree completely with George.  It makes a huge difference compared to what the CF teaches to "the masses".

It's old.  It's ugly. (Just like me.  ;D)  It still works.


----------



## Sig_Des (4 Feb 2006)

Maybe some people are just after the LCF of carrying a Sig like the boarding parties, or the Black Pyjama party members?

In any case, if it puts rounds downrange, and I can handle it well enough that the rounds go where I want them to, I'm happy.


----------



## Big Red (4 Feb 2006)

The problem with the handguns in the CF is the lack of training in modern techniques.

I've had to carry a few versions of the BHP in Iraq.  It's not my first choice (or 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th or 5th) of combat pistol but it will do. Good mags are the key to ensuring reliability. Use ball not hollowpoint.  Slap night sites, grips, and a good combat safety on a Browning and you have a decent pistol.  I owned a BHP clone called a Arcus 94 that had those mods and it was great.

I believe the Glock 17 or 19 are the best combat pistols on the market and they are certainly the most popular amongst those here who have the choice.

ETA:  Also remove the mag safety. It serves no purpose other than to slow down your drills.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (4 Feb 2006)

I also owned a BHP, pachmeyr grips, three dot sights, ambidextrous extended safety, and mag safety removed.  Never had a stoppage, and I fired around 10,000 rounds through it.  The only problems I experienced were all mag related.  I went through a lot of mags, though.  Good thing they were cheap!

I agree with many of the posts, training is the key.  Nobody seems to get enough 9mm to become proficient with, and to gain confidence in the pistol.

A very nice gun, well balanced, and a pleasure to shoot.  I personally much prefer it to the Glock, although the SIG is also a nice gun....


----------



## KevinB (4 Feb 2006)

Big Red - I think a Larry Vicker's done 1911 is the current fav of "those who can have everything in an issue handgun..." 
 Chuck was very preturbed when forced with G19 for some deployments.  

 I dont think it worthwhile to spend money upgrading the Brownings -- best save some money and buy night sighted Glock19's in a  few years if really nec.

I wonder if this news is not just DLR's way of funding another boondoggle (PDW)....


----------



## teddy49 (4 Feb 2006)

What Big Red said.  :threat:

I have a Belgian Hi-Power at home, that's brilliant.  But it's been relegated to the locker since I bought my Glock -17.  As another friend of mine says, Glocks are the pesant's (sic) pistol.  My Browning has been a faithful and reliable pistol at least until the barrel lug broke but that may have been due more to my ill advised handloading efforts to turn 9mm into .38 super.  New Barrel all is well.  I had decent sights and an extended safety from the get go, so I was spoiled with reguards to those issues.  Like Kevin says, decent grips and some skateboard tape takes care of most of the issues.  Mag feed lips do need a little bit of maintenance now and then though.  Unless you can find some good stainless ones like the old Pachmayer's.  But those are rare as hen's teeth and spendy to boot, if you can find them.  By and large it's still an excellent weapon.

As far as the PDWs are concerned, they are really a step backward's at least in the area of terminal performance.  I read an article posted on another forum by Gary Roberts that said in his tests, the 5.7mm round, while good at penetrating armour, had the wound ballistics of a 22 Magnum.  The 4.7 mm round out of the HK version set a new low for performance in soft tissue.  These are not useful, IMHO.


----------



## Big Red (4 Feb 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Big Red - I think a Larry Vicker's done 1911 is the current fav of "those who can have everything in an issue handgun..."
> Chuck was very preturbed when forced with G19 for some deployments.



True, true. About half of his type around our parts run with both on them... :threat:


----------



## KevinB (4 Feb 2006)

Re: PDW's
"The issuance of this cartidge is a good way to ensure mission failure"
 LCdr Gary Roberts



Me - I dont need no stinkign PDW - I want to carry biggest meanest mofo'ing gun around - I'll carry the second meanest as a backup  

BigRed - 249Para baby  ;D


----------



## Big Red (4 Feb 2006)

PM atcha.


----------



## Thompson_JM (5 Feb 2006)

I Agree with the majority of posters here. lets keep the PDW as far away from here as possible...

I as a trucker have no need for a smaller calibre weapon....  if and when we in the PRes get to try the C7A2, it will be interesting to see how much better it may be for us to use in the trucks. failing that, the only time ive ever been doing training where I felt a pistol would be a better choice then a rifle was when we were doing base defence and VCP's. even then Id rather have a carbine rifle like a C8, or an SMG (ie MP5) since I'd still have all the benefits of smaller size, but still have enough punch behind me and enough ammo to deal multiple threats... though at the end of the day, I'll take whatever I get and employ it to the best of my abilities......  

My limited experiance has me thinking that if I had to go onto the other side of the wire in my truck, I want whatever is going to have the best combination of accuracy, mobility, and punch I can get... 

Failing that I'll settle for the C7.

besides, as the real BTDT's have said, its not the kit that makes you a soldier... 

regards
    Josh


----------



## Gunnerlove (5 Feb 2006)

As a gunner my rifle is a PITA 95% of the time, it snags on everything it is not bashing into. I would trade it for anything with a 14-16" barrel and a true folding stock. 
As for the 5.7mm round sucking does anyone have any links to "proof of this" or is it being spun by the rumour mill? As far as stopping power I would not hunt anything (armed or not) with .223 if I had the choice.


----------



## COBRA-6 (6 Feb 2006)

As others have mentioned, if you have a BHP fresh from war stock and new mags you'll be gtg. That's not to say I would turn my nose up at a G19   However if it's a choice between more weapons training with the BHP and buying new pistols, I'll take the weapons training. 

And I think a C-8 with a 10.5 inch upper may be a better choice than a PDW...


----------



## medicineman (6 Feb 2006)

Ditto from everybody else - only probs I`ve had with issue Brownings are mag failures.  Again as mentioned, what we need are new mags, lots of rounds to put into them and shoot out, and finally time, patience and proper training (OK, also the money) to use these weapons properly.  I wonder where/how crackhead junior officer had his ND - only one`s I`ve seen (or almost had once in my case : ) were from bad handling drills.  Also, never thought of it as big or bulky - I took a combat pistol course with concealed carry using a Browning clone and didn`t notice, see or feel a problem with it. 


MM


----------



## teddy49 (6 Feb 2006)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> As a gunner my rifle is a PITA 95% of the time, it snags on everything it is not bashing into. I would trade it for anything with a 14-16" barrel and a true folding stock.
> As for the 5.7mm round sucking does anyone have any links to "proof of this" or is it being spun by the rumour mill? As far as stopping power I would not hunt anything (armed or not) with .223 if I had the choice.



From Tactical Forums by way of Self Defence Forums:

Dr. Gary K. Roberts, terminal ballistics researcher and member of the International Wound Ballistics Association, had this to say about the 5.7 x 28 mm over at Tactical Forums:

Other than being able to perforate soft body armor, the 5.7 x 28 mm used in the FN P90, as well as the 4.6 x 30 mm fired from the HK MP7 cause wounds less incapacitating than those made by 9 mm FMJ fired from a pistol. Other than being able to perforate soft body armor, the 5.7 x 28 mm used in the FN P90, as well as the 4.6 x 30 mm fired from the HK MP7 cause wounds less incapacitating than those made by 9 mm FMJ fired from a pistol. 

I have personally fired the 5.7 x 28 mm FN P-90; velocity, penetration, and tissue destruction is like a .17 Hornet--far less than we see with 75 gr TAP or 77 MK out of our M4?s. Winchester RA45T 230 gr JHP?s fired from our duty 1911?s crush more tissue and penetrate further than the 5.7 x 28 mm. Use of the 5.7 x 28 mm is a good way to ensure mission failure.

Several papers have described the incredibly poor terminal performance of projectiles fired by the FN P90. 

--Dahlstrom D, Powley K, and Gordon C: ?Wound Profile of the FN Cartridge (SS 190) Fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun". Wound Ballistic Review. 4(3):21-26; Spring 2000.

--Fackler M: "Errors & Omissions", Wound Ballistic Review. 1(1):46; Winter 1991.

--Fackler M: "More on the Bizarre Fabrique National P-90", Wound Ballistic Review. 3(1):44-45; 1997.

--FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit. FBI Handgun Ammunition Tests 1989-1995. Quantico, U.S. Department of Justice--Federal Bureau of Investigation.

--Hayes C: ?Personal Defense Weapons?Answer in Search of a Question?, Wound Ballistic Review. 5(1):30-36; Spring 2001.

--Roberts G: ?Preliminary Evaluation of the Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 23 Grain FMJ Bullet Fired by the New FN P-90 , Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant?, AFTE Journal. 30(2):326-329, Spring 1998.

--Roberts G: ?Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 31 Grain SS-190 FMJ Bullet Fired by the FN P-90 in 10% Ordnance Gelatin.?, AFTE Journal. In Press.

The early 5.7 x 28 mm 23 gr FMJ bullet fired by the FN P-90 had insufficient penetration for law enforcement and military use. The current 31 gr SS-190 FMJ bullet has nearly adequate penetration, but the wound resulting from this projectile has a relatively small permanent crush cavity, as well as an insignificant temporary stretch cavity. Although the 5.7 x 28 mm penetrates soft body armor, wounding potential is at best like a .22 LR or .22 Magnum. Even 9mm NATO FMJ makes a larger wound--and we are all aware of the awe inspiring incapacitation potential of M882 ball from the M9......

Numerous other projectiles commonly used for law enforcement and military special operations applications, such as a good 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP JHP, the better 5.56 x 45 mm BTHP/JSP loads, as well as 12 gauge shotgun slugs and 00 buckshot, all provide better penetration, crush more tissue, and have far greater potential to reliably physiologically incapacitate an aggressor than the 5.7 x 28 mm 31 gr SS-190 FMJ bullet fired by the FN P-90. Law enforcement agencies and military special operations units are strongly urged to avoid adoption of this weapon system.

I think that pretty much covers it.  If you need more info on Gary Robert's creds, just google International Wound Ballistics Association


----------



## DG-41 (6 Feb 2006)

I've shot the Browning competitively (Atlantic Area pistol team a couple of eons ago) and I have always been perfectly happy with its accuracy and reliability.

My old "competition" pistol (which was the pistol in unit stores that rattled the least when shaken, then properly sighted in with the aid of a gun plumber) would routinely group sub 2" at 15m in my hands (and I was about mid-pack on the team in terms of talent)

And I'll echo the comments on mag selection.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

DG


----------



## mudgunner49 (7 Feb 2006)

I feel the need to throw my two cents in here, if for no other reason than to get a couple of things off of my chest.  I have to agree (for the most part) with what Kevin and several others have said, however i will expand a bit.

We have far too many people contributing to the whole "the CF needs a new pistol" argument than is necessary.  Just because you were issued one on deployment a time or two, carried one for a whole two weeks on exercise, saw one from a distance or rubbed up against one in passing does not necessarily qualify you to comment or contribute to the mix.  If you do not aggressively seek out further instruction, practice what you learn (often), and constantly maintain your standard of performance, guess what??  -  there is small chance that you will be competent to operate the system under stress!!  I average about 1K of pistol shooting per month - I would shoot more but things demand my time like work, family, and the Reserves (as well as a bit of time conferring with Dr. Guinness!! ;D),  I can detect a noticeable drop in personal skill when I skip a week or two, as happens occasionally.   It is a skill that requires time and dedication to master, and which deteriorates rapidly when neglected!!  I would contend even more so than the service rifle or LMG/GPMG.  Aside from those pers on the Hill, no pers in the CF get adequate time with the system (on the Gov't dime) to be considered as a high-end competent end-user.  There are, granted, those out there who train and practice on their own, and these are the folks that have the background and experience to contribute to the argument.

I am unashamedly a 1911 guy myself and happen to think that the .45 ACP is about ideal for the intended purpose.  For a 9/.40 platform the Browning fills the bill quite nicely for Condition 1 carry, though I'd feel better about the 9 with a fast HP.  However I am not naive enough to believe that this (SA Cond 1) is either desirable or likely to be the ideal solution.  As much as it pains me to say, we have to work to the Lowest Common Denominator - this dictates *"GLOCK" * for any of you not paying attention up to this point.  these are incredibly robust and simple pistols (though they do have problems - don't believe all the press) and, when purchased in quantity are incredibly cheap to outfit large numbers of pers with.  I resisted the "plastic fantastic" for a lot of years, however I now own 5 of them in various configs.  I still think they are ugly as Hell, but give the devil his due - they do work well.  They won't replace the 1911/P35 in my affections, but they have their place.

For those of you who have made the comment "something bigger than the 9 - shake your head!!  Ain't gonna happen, and as much as I love the .45, a service pistol ctg is a service pistol ctg.  Anemic when compared to the rifle of any flavour.  The solution to this problem is and has been for some time "shoot 'em in the face" - this brings us back quite directly to the skill facet of the pistol problem; how to hit a relatively small, fairly mobile target in a compressed timeframe.  The answer??  High level training and lots of (regular, consistent) practice!!

To those of you who tout the PDW as the "next great thing" - it is an answer in search of a question, and Dr Roberts assessment says it all for me...

Bottom line, while there are those who will state that the pistol is an item no longer needed in the greater context, I find them a comforting thing to have around, *so long as you possess the skill level to take advantage of it's limited benefit*.  I think we should return to the days of old when officers and SNCO's who might require on) would buy and maintain their own pistol and sword (I have been accused of being a man of the '90's - the 1890's!!!) 

I do still shoot competitively, however I'm much more relaxed about the whole thing now...


My name is mudgunner49, and I approve this message...


----------



## KevinB (7 Feb 2006)

Gunnerlove -- WRT to this item unlike DLR and the LCMM SA - we dont work on here say and rumour...


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2006)

MG49, have you seen the new Browning Super 9 (compo lower, steel slide)?  Have been thinking of getting a pistol when I get back home, options would be either G17 or a P35 variant...  Thanks.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## mudgunner49 (7 Feb 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> MG49, have you seen the new Browning Super 9 (compo lower, steel slide)?  Have been thinking of getting a pistol when I get back home, options would be either G17 or a P35 variant...  Thanks.
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey



Duey,

I have not seen it and would like to  at least get my hands on one before commenting on it.  The whole "polymer pistol flavour of the month" thing has been done with varying degrees of success - for instance Glock/Walther P99 good - others (no names, no pack drill) not so good...


----------



## KevinB (7 Feb 2006)

G17  

If you want to shoot my 19 we can arrange range time...


A friend in Fla's fiance just bought the new Browning -- I am waiting for a report -- but I am very satified with the Glocks (get nite sights as their platic sights suck and dont stand up to repeated drawnign from a hoslter).  I had a G23 but could never warm up to .40S&W.  I find I shoot the smaller 19/23 frame better than the full 17/22 size.

Oh and Blake - excellent post BTW


----------



## Thompson_JM (7 Feb 2006)

Slightly OT here.. due to the company I was trying to order my norinco Sig knockoff from, NOT having the item in stock when they said they did. I am once again shopping for a pistol.

Trying to Decide at this point between a 9mm Glock and a 9mm Walther P99.

I know that the glock is a solid piece of kit, I'm wondering if anyone here has tried the P99 and have an opinion on it. as far as quality durability, etc... 

Ive only Handled them, and Felt the P99 was alot more comfortable then the Glock, but my main concern is which one is going to withstand more useage?

thanks 
  Josh


----------



## mudgunner49 (7 Feb 2006)

Cpl Thompson said:
			
		

> Slightly OT here.. due to the company I was trying to order my norinco Sig knockoff from, NOT having the item in stock when they said they did. I am once again shopping for a pistol.
> 
> Trying to Decide at this point between a 9mm Glock and a 9mm Walther P99.
> 
> ...



I have spent a lot of time putting rounds downrange with the Glock and have fired the P99 (albeit in .40 S&W) casually.  I see no reason why the Walther would not/should not be durable, however it has not been around long enough to establish a "Glock-like" track record.  The interchangeable grip backstraps are awesome and allow you to custom fit the grip to your hand - you can do the same to the Glock with a belt sander, a steady hand and a fearless heart... 

I agree wholeheartedly with KevinB that the 9 is the way to go in Glock.  To that end both of my G22's as well as my G19 are all presently sporting 9mm barrels and mags :cheers:, and work quite well in this configuration.  An added benefit to this is that my wife and I are all shooting the same calibre which has greatly simplified logistics on match/range day!!


blake


----------



## mudgunner49 (7 Feb 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Oh and Blake - excellent post BTW



Why thank you - it appears that we share more than a common good taste in beer :cheers: :cheers:


blake


----------



## TCBF (7 Feb 2006)

"shoot 'em in the ...." 

Use "A Bridge Too Far" as a trg film in this case.  Sean Connery and a BAP.

 ;D

I own a Colt DE in 10mm.  It is fairly expensive to feed, and my next 1911 will be in .45 ACP.  Though I DO wish someone would widen the .40 "Small and Weak" to .50.  

I had to smile at the comments above regarding handloading  a 9mm towards a .38 super.  Would bowling pins be involved in this project?

 ;D

I read that it was the US Cavalry who steered the US into .45 ACP.  Their targets being mounted enemy, a hit on a horse was as good as a hit on the rider. And to stop a horse, the bigger the hole, the better...

Of course, excited horses don't react to pain as we do ...

There are other legends involving the Thompson/Lagarde trials, etc., of that era.

 Had .38 Super (invented in 1929, I think) been around in 1905, "ol' slab sides" herself may have come out in .38 Super rather than .45 ACP, according to the same writer.

Who knows?

We still have something like 12,000 plus  BAPs in storage, and we probably wear out our issued opistols more by cleaning and carrying rather than using.  For your average soldier, a newer, fancier pistol would be a mere fashion accessory.

9mm is adequate.  What alternate do people have in mind?  .357 SIG?  .50 AE?  Remember why the FBI moved from almost adopting 10mm to going for .40 S&W?  Stopping power versus training power.  Training power wins, in the end.  

A low PF hit is better than a high PF miss.

Tom


----------



## a_majoor (8 Feb 2006)

The reason that the M-1911 was a .45 cal had to do with the American experience in the Phillipines in the first part of the 20th century. Moro warriors (often "juiced up" on powerful narcotic drugs) were known to rush at Americans swinging their wickedly sharp knives from very short range (i.e. jumping out of crowds, or from hiding in a doorway or a hut....where have we seen this recently?).

Standard revolvers did not hold enough ammunition to engage a rapidly moving target, and it was noted that the .38 cal did little to stop these charges. Larger calibre pistols like the Colt .45 did have the power to drop an _Amok_ warrior in his tracks, provided you could hit him before the sixth "BANG"....... 

It seems we are going full circle; many so called SOF model pistols displayed in AUSA by various vendors were .45 cal because of the superior stopping power (I was rather impressed by the HK .45 cal USP. I was even more impressed by the suggested price!). I also noted a trend towards offering carabines in 9mm as well, with the long barrels providing a fairly substantial increase in muzzel velocity and energy.

Of course, if you want max stopping power in a compact package which relatively untrained troops can use to good effect, there is nothing like a cut down 12 gauge shotgun with 00 magnum shot.... >


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Feb 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> G17
> 
> If you want to shoot my 19 we can arrange range time...



 :-X

When I get back I'll be getting a glock, and some proper training on it... are G19's legal in Canada or is the barrel too short?


----------



## mudgunner49 (8 Feb 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> :-X
> 
> When I get back I'll be getting a glock, and some proper training on it... are G19's legal in Canada or is the barrel too short?



Mike,

The 19 is a 12(6) prohib due to barrel length.  The G17 is only 1/2" longer in both the barrel and the butt, so no huge deal.  Something that was done recently by Daryll Bolke over at the 10-8 forums is to shorten the but of the 17 to the point where it can use G19 mags - while still retaining the ability to use the longer G17 and 33-rd G18 mags also.  This was done as (apparently) the G19 is the most prolific service pistol on the int'l scene.  I am seriously considering doing this to my G17 as the shorter butt has always felt better to me.  If you do go Glock, go 9!!


blake


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Feb 2006)

Blake, roger that, thanks. 9mm is the plan. There's a few threads at Lightfighter about Glock backstrap mods as well... interesting.


----------



## Big Red (8 Feb 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> :-X
> 
> When I get back I'll be getting a glock, and some proper training on it... are G19's legal in Canada or is the barrel too short?



Fortunately Questar now imports G19s with a barrel that exceeds 106mm.  That's the route I'd go if I were buying another Glock in 9mm. Most people find that a 19 points a little better than a 17.


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Feb 2006)

Outstanding! I found KevinB's G19 pointed well for me, and have heard from others about the 19 vs 17 "feel". Never heard of Questar before, thanks for the int Big Red!


----------



## NATO Boy (8 Feb 2006)

After sitting back quietly reading the posts, I noticed a common trend; if you're going to get a glock, get it in 9mm. This raises a question...

Is it because of the Glock's design that we should only get a Glock in 9mm? I have heard from some Glock owners that because the Glock was originally designed in 9X19mm Parabellum, the glock isn't guaranteed to perform as well in other calibres (ie .40 S&W, .45 ACP, etc) with respect to mileage and stability. This doesn't make sense, however, since Glocks are made in other calibres anyway. Can someone perhaps clarify if this is just a knock to make glocks sound bad or just plain bogus?


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Feb 2006)

Not that I'm a expert, but I'd think it would be mostly for the balance between performance and availability of 9x19 parabellum...

Duey


----------



## NATO Boy (8 Feb 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> Not that I'm a expert, but I'd think it would be mostly for the balance between performance and availability of 9x19 parabellum...
> 
> Duey



True, Duey; I mean besides the logistics...


----------



## KevinB (8 Feb 2006)

You can find 9mm on any wide spot in the road.

It is cheaper, and the other calibres offer no real improvement in performance when good JHP rounds are used.

The Glock21 (.45APC) is the only Glock I owned that I was glad to be rid of - and and lot of other testing has shown they are the least reliable Glock on the market.

If you have access to a large supply of cheap .40S&W the G22 is not a bad choice -- but for the avg person you will get much more out of the same budget with 9mm.


----------



## teddy49 (8 Feb 2006)

I think the general consensus around Glockophiles is that 9mm Glock just give you the most bang for your buck.  And KevinBs point about ammo availability is significant.  To illustrate, here in Iraq, where ammunition prices are grossly inflated, 9mm can be had for around $0.50US a round.  .45ACP, when you can find it is about $3.00 a round.  Demand is high for .45 here as there are quite a few Series 70 Colt 1911s kicking around.  For perspective, 7.62x39 is about $0.40US a round.

Back to Glocks in other calibers though.  By all accounts the .40 cal Glocks are by all accounts, (I have to go by this, My Glocks are all 9mms) good guns, but due to the added stresses placed on them by the .40 S&W round, a shooter won't get the mileage out of them that you will out of a 9mm.  The 357 Sig seems pretty pointless, since it doesn't seem to have appreciably better performance than a +P+ 9mm.  The Glock 21s (the .45 ACP version)get kind of mixed reviews.  In addition to Kevin's issues with his, the LAPD (which had authorized officers to carry as a private purchase weapon) has seen so many problems with it, that they have banned their officers from carrying it until the problems are rectified.  But elsewhere on the net, Glocktalk I think, you'll find one persons account of his unsuccessful attempts to destroy his.  He's had it since they came out, shot it coated in mud, dropped it out of an airplane, run over it with his truck, shot it with a .22 LR.  And the gun keeps going.  So who knows with that.  As for the 10mms.  Well Ted Nugent loves his Glock 20.  That's all I know about that one.


----------



## TCBF (8 Feb 2006)

TSo, practicality dictates 9mm as a working man's pistol in the sandbox.  Makes sense to me.

 " (I was rather impressed by the HK .45 cal USP."  - I fired one a few weeks back.  Nice.

10mm:  Ted Nugent probably hunts with it.  It is very flexible - load it high or load it low, BUT: If you do not handload, KevinB's advice about 9mm giving more bang for the buck is right on the money, and is pretty much on the money even if you DO handload.

Depends on your priorities: Historical, target/comp, practical field use, handloader/commercial, etc.

Know your local markets: At a Gun Show in Edmonton last fall, some guy was selling once-fired .40 brass in bags of 50.  I asked if they were moving at all.  He said "Not really."  I then told him about how he could go to the Spuce Grove Gun Club and pick up buckets of local LE discarded .223 and .40 brass off the ground for free, and most of us had so much, we just gave it away.

Tom


----------



## mudgunner49 (8 Feb 2006)

Mickey said:
			
		

> After sitting back quietly reading the posts, I noticed a common trend; if you're going to get a glock, get it in 9mm. This raises a question...
> 
> Is it because of the Glock's design that we should only get a Glock in 9mm? I have heard from some Glock owners that because the Glock was originally designed in 9X19mm Parabellum, the glock isn't guaranteed to perform as well in other calibres (ie .40 S&W, .45 ACP, etc) with respect to mileage and stability. This doesn't make sense, however, since Glocks are made in other calibres anyway. Can someone perhaps clarify if this is just a knock to make glocks sound bad or just plain bogus?



Big Red - I had not heard of Questar before.  I got my 19's and 23 before the supply dried up.  The mid-frame size does seem to be the way to go for best feel and "pointability" (whatever that is  ???)...

Guys the issue of the Glock being best in the 9mm is quite simple.  The envelope was designed around the cartridge.  It performs best in the format in which it was designed.  When the .40 S&W came along the big rush was on to get the first to the market and Glock (along with others) simply shoehorned it into the existing envelope.  This often occurred without complete consideration of the added stresses - I know, I know... "but Glock has engineers and everything to sort these things out...".  Yeah, right - and they are a profit driven company looking to grab a share of the market before anyone else.  Not saying they didn't do all the requisite research, but not everything was known about the .40 that we know now.  Things like bullet set-back from repeated chambering of the top round in the mag causing pressures to go all wonky and shoot thru the roof, causing what, you ask??  Well, turning the hand*gun* into a hand *grenade* (more or less)...  Talk to any armourer from forces that use the .40 Glock about some of the things that happen with them.  Not saying it's a bad gun, it just gives you extra things to consider.

Fact of the matter is that the .40 is a high-pressure cartridge that performs at a *much* higher level (and consequently *much* higher pressures) than the original format 9x19mm.  In Gen 2 thru 4 of the .40/.357 Sig cal Glocks there is a reinforcing pin that runs transversly thru the frame in the area over the trigger - why?  Because that area needed reinforcement after some use and the engineers figured that as the best fix without a total redesign of the gun...

I have seen personally, at the time of the event, or viewed the remains after, 5 Glocks that KaBlammed while shooting factory ammo.  4 of them were G22's in .40 cal and one was a G21 in .45 ACP.  The G21 and one of the G22's were being fired by myself, both of these incidents being the result of the primer being struck with the slide out of battery causing a rupture in the unsupported case-head area.  I know this is not supposed to happen, but there you have it.  could have been a high primer, could have been dirt in the firing pin channel causing the FP to protrude from the breechface - don't know, couldn't recreate anything...

In both cases maintainance had been routine, not more that 3-400 rds since being field stripped and cleaned and absolutely no more than 1k since detail strip and clean.  Both of the events resulted in the floorplate being blown off the mag, all the remaining rounds, the mag spring and follower and parts of the cartridge case being forcibly blown from the bottom of the magwell, and gas coming form the area between the slide and frame immediately over the trigger guard contacting the inside of the basal knuckle of my right hand.  I suffered some burns from the G21 and a laceration from the gas coming out of the G22.  Both of the pistols were sent back to Glock for inspection and Magnafluxing of the frames/slides/barrels with the result being that the G21 was returned to service unharmed, and the barrel of the G22 was replace at nominal cost due to being out of spec (slight bulging of the chamber).

The 1911 platform is *meant* to be a .45 ACP, the BHP is *meant* to be a 9x19mm, as is the Glock mid-frame.  I'm not saying that they can't be made to work (after a fashion) in other calibers, but they will never be optimum in other than the original configuration...


YMMV

be safe,

blake


----------



## NATO Boy (9 Feb 2006)

Wow!   I figured I was "on the money" with the "mileage issue;" but some the stories with the G21 and G22 are quite shocking. I'm glad I didn't invest in a Glock yet; I actually thought about getting a G21. Guess if I get a .45, it'll have to be Kimber or Springfield Armory.

As for Glocks in general, I have heard a lot of great things about them; the only bad thing that keeps popping up is the weighty trigger pull. As a striker-fired combat handgun, I guess this doesn't really matter for someone who needs a "point-n-shoot" in the sandbox.


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2006)

You can play a Glock trigger from 3.5-18lbs.

  Wearing flight gloves (a necessity at work) the G trigger is fine IMHO for what I need it for.


----------



## GOF (15 Feb 2006)

A number of years ago I bought an Inglis (BHP) from a gun shop in Edmonton.  It was still packed in the factory grease.  It was the Naval version with ramp rear site, and grove in  the handle to fit a stock.  I used it for a couple of years, then when I had the cash had it re-worked.  Top of the slide machined down, proper competion site, fore and aft installed, and the slide polished.  Loved it, wish I still had it.  Never had a problem with jams using commercial, military surplus or hand loads.

If I were to buy another pistol, it would be a tough choice between the BHP and the Sig.

Just my humble opinion.


----------



## starlight (23 Feb 2006)

Brownings like the 1911 are old warhorses and reliable (if you have a good example of one,) then you have a good weapon, yes our brownings are old, but  put a new sig and a new browning side by side you have two good weapons. besides your typical IBTS standard for pistol shooting is lacking anyway. most pistol shooting is instinctual and has alot to do with training and muscle memory. you could have a .40 S+W race gun and if someone throws it in your hand and tells you to shoot something....chances are your not going to be the best at it., if you are not familiar with  that particular weapon.

also I think grip safety's are "GOOD" esp for something like a glock.....


----------



## mudgunner49 (23 Feb 2006)

starlight said:
			
		

> Brownings like the 1911 are old warhorses and reliable (if you have a good example of one,) then you have a good weapon, yes our brownings are old, but  put a new sig and a new browning side by side you have two good weapons. besides your typical IBTS standard for pistol shooting is lacking anyway. most pistol shooting is instinctual and has alot to do with training and muscle memory. you could have a .40 S+W race gun and if someone throws it in your hand and tells you to shoot something....chances are your not going to be the best at it., if you are not familiar with  that particular weapon.
> 
> *also I think grip safety's are "GOOD" esp for something like a glock..... *



Then don't buy a Glock, get a Springfield XD instead.  I, on the other hand , am not a fan of grip safeties (for a number of reasons), as JMB designed the 1911 for the US mil (read "cavalry") and the horsemen wanted a grip safety, so now we're all stuck with it.  I hope that Novak puts their one-piece MSH/backstrap for 1911's on the market - I'll be first in line...




blake


----------



## KevinB (24 Feb 2006)

I despise grip safeties.

Glock is perfect - point and shoot.

I find with a 1911 that sometimes in a draw I can grip the gun and not properly engage the grip safety - why some US Tier guys tape theirs down...

I dont really on ANY mechanical safety to overcome a training issue.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Feb 2006)

Count me in the club. The whole perpetuated system is an attempt to make a firearm idiot proof for idiots. Idiots shouldn't be allowed to handle them.


----------



## KevinB (24 Feb 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> . The whole perpetuated system is an attempt to make a firearm idiot proof for idiots. Idiots shouldn't be allowed to handle them.


+1

of course that cuts out a good 75% of the population...


----------



## Haggis (24 Feb 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Count me in the club. The whole perpetuated system is an attempt to make a firearm idiot proof for idiots. Idiots shouldn't be allowed to handle them.



I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if they could only use them in the company of other idiots.  Call it "Darwin gets a Gun".


----------



## TCBF (24 Feb 2006)

I believe that's called a "Drive By."

Tom


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Feb 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if they could only use them in the company of other idiots.  Call it "Darwin gets a Gun".



Final relay, Upperclass Twit of the Year contest, narrated by John Cleese (And Now for Something Completely Different)

(they approach a table with five revolvers laid out on it)

"Now all they have to do here to win the title is to shoot themselves. Simon has a shot. Bad luck, he misses. Nigel misses. Now there's Gervaise, and Gervaise has shot himself- Gervaise is Upperclass Twit of the Year. There's Nigel, he's shot Simon by mistake, Simon is back up and there's Nigel, Nigel's shot himself: Nigel is third in this fine and most exciting Upperclass Twit of the Year Show I've ever seen. Nigel's clubbed himself into fourth place."


----------



## medicineman (25 Feb 2006)

One of my all time favorite Monty Python skits.

MM


----------



## Sig_Des (26 Feb 2006)

I just put about 185 rounds through a Browning yesterday evening. All jams attributed to mags, pistol worked well, considering we had to blow 1900 rounds through 10 pistols.

I LOVE when your unit needs to blow off all ammo before end of FY  ;D


----------



## TCBF (26 Feb 2006)

Wow, 190 rounds per pistol.  Impressive.  I put 450 rounds through my 10mm DE in a day and a half last June, and I just fired 80 today, 40 last Tuesday and 44 last Sunday.  I also got in 20 rounds of a friends .40, but only fired 10 from his BHP.  He fired about 190 out of his Browning (an Inglis 0T____), today.  I would bother listing the .38/.357/.455 he fired.

It's time to crank up the Dillon, I have about 1600 empty 10mm cases that need reloading.

I do not consider myself a serious pistol shooter either.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Mar 2006)

Mickey said:
			
		

> After sitting back quietly reading the posts, I noticed a common trend; if you're going to get a glock, get it in 9mm. This raises a question...
> 
> Is it because of the Glock's design that we should only get a Glock in 9mm? I have heard from some Glock owners that because the Glock was originally designed in 9X19mm Parabellum, the glock isn't guaranteed to perform as well in other calibres (ie .40 S&W, .45 ACP, etc) with respect to mileage and stability. This doesn't make sense, however, since Glocks are made in other calibres anyway. Can someone perhaps clarify if this is just a knock to make glocks sound bad or just plain bogus?



I know of 2 people that had their Glock in .40cal split open, it seems to be something about to much of the case hanging out of the chamber and perhaps the case design or the pressure buildup (not much room in the case). Yet I have not heard of problems with either the 9mm or .45acp models.

I’m shooting the Norinco NZ-85B, which I call “Son of Hi-power” as they are very similar pistols, just ordered a tuned Norinco 1911Commander and placed an order for the All stainless Sig P226 in 9mm. Would like to get a Glock one day and one of the Hi-Powers with the stock connect in the grip or one of the FM MkIII BHP’s, but will have the let the bank account recover for a bit. If someone else paid for the ammo, I would get the .40cal/.357 Sig P226, but the ammo is to pricey for me.

I laugh when people tell me a Hi-Power is big and bulky, it’s puny compared to many full sized pistols, but it is a nice shooter, slips into the hand like a glass of good beer.

Is the Detective model that FM offers prohibited?  

What weight of bullet is the military ammo, 124gr?


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Mar 2006)

There is nothing wrong with the BHP regardless if its a T series Inglis wartime job, or the latest Vigilante model, the Mk3 as used here.

Its all about referbishment and keeping things servicable, and rotating things, so there is a balance. Thats the key to any eqpt in service. I don't buy that MPs words 'its always jamming'. Maybe there is something wrong with his pistol (extractor, mainspring/guide etc).

The Inglis 9mms were infact made from 1944 to 45, and we did NOT adopt the BHP in 1937 either. Sometimes I question were pers get their own info from.

Australia still has the odd T series Inglis around, heaps of L9A1s, now well over 40 yrs old, and a new batch of Mk3's, which differ only slightly, such as a cast lower, ergo trigger, new sights, removable lanyard loop, ambo safety, and ergo grips, (the safety and grips fit well on a T series).
he

If we are going to whinge, what about the .50 cal, although we (Australia) have the new FNH recievers, we are also using heaps of wartime recievers with the mods for the new QCB. Yes, all those AC Spark Plug ones are ALL pre 1945.

Again its all about maintenance, serviceability,  and proper rotation. Once things are too worn beyond a tolerance, yes then ensure they are taken out of service.

My 2 cents.

Cheers,


Wes


----------



## geo (13 Mar 2006)

Amen - thank you Wes

Chimo!


----------



## x westie (13 Mar 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Amen - thank you Wes
> 
> Chimo!
> [/quote           I really enjoy reading your posts ,Wes,very informative and interesting, always a good read from a Canuck serving with our Aussie friends " Down Under".


----------



## geo (13 Mar 2006)

Q) what is the difference between an Aussie kiss & a French kiss?

A) same thing..... only it is done "down under"

(and if I have to explain that.... I won't )


----------



## NATO Boy (13 Mar 2006)

Of course you won't....have to, that is.... ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Mar 2006)

I don’t know what pistol training is like now in the forces, but it was god awful when I was in, the blind leading the blind. I wish I had been more into pistols back then, the though of being able to play with a BHP for free makes me whine every time I have to buy ammo.


----------



## geo (14 Mar 2006)

trg isn't much better now......


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2006)

Unless your unit has guys from DHTC come out to run CQB or other trg prior to deployment you will have some semi-incompetant boob teaching 99% of the time...


----------



## bbbb (17 Mar 2006)

So that's what that old WW2 pistol I used on the Range was called. I thought they replaced those old pistols already, oh well.

Mine never jammed though. It was a really good pistol too.

Since I'm studying history I really enjoyed firing that old pistol, it was just like the ones in the WW2 movies.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Mar 2006)

Ok, let me get this straight, you were handed a weapon. Did you go over the characteristics at all? Did you go over IAs and stoppages? You are not painting RMC cadets in a favorable light especially with 61 posts to your credit already and only joining in the past day. bbbb do yourself a favour and read through the forum, read the guidelines and faq that were given to you earlier. If you do this you will definitely enjoy the boards more. While we appreciate new member enthusiasm, it sometimes backfires upon them. So slow down!


----------



## geo (17 Mar 2006)

bbbb..... yes the 9mm BHP was designed and released at the end of WW2.
if you look at the .45cal colt 1911.... it's design is even older..... old does not equate with bad.

newer fancier pistols have tried to build on it's success - some have surpassed, some haven't.


----------



## DG-41 (17 Mar 2006)

Oi, there's a reason why Officer Cadets are kept squirreled away until they've hatched....

bbbb, a word of advice from someone who has travelled the road your feet are currently on: the proper posture for a young MilCol OCdt, when surrounded by people who have been wearing the uniform longer than he has been alive, is ears open, mouth shut. Learn what you can, but refrain from joining in on subjects where you have no experience; you will do yourself less damage that way.

Trust me, leaving the nice safe womb of Kingston and joining the real world will be traumatic enough without you showing up at your new unit and finding that your reputation has preceded you.

DG


----------



## mudgunner49 (17 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> *... leaving the nice safe womb of Kingston and joining the real world will be traumatic enough without you showing up at your new unit and finding that your reputation has preceded you....*
> DG



That right there should be a sticky!!!

blake


----------



## TCBF (18 Mar 2006)

"bbbb..... yes the 9mm BHP was designed and released at the end of WW2.
if you look at the .45cal colt 1911.... it's design is even older..... old does not equate with bad."

- Both designed by the same guy, though after john Moses Browning died in Belgium i 1926, it took awhile  - 1935 - until  Dieudonne Saive got it sorted out and marketed as the P35 GP ("High Power").  Canada adopted it in 1944.

Do we need a new pistol?  Depends what you do.  Rifles are built to kill at long range, shotguns are built to kill at short range, pistols are built MOSTLY to CARRY.  For those who carry a pistol as a PRIMARY weapon - maybe they need one of those new tupperware hi-cap wonder-nines.  The rest of us can keep cycling through the 12,000 or so Inglis BHPs we have in storage.

FN still makes the BHP in several variants, and about a dozen or so American companies build low to hi end variants of the M1911A1 in .45 ACP, .38 Super, .40S&W, 10mm, etc.

Para Ordnance in Toronto builds 1911A1s as well.  Good ones, too.


----------



## KevinB (18 Mar 2006)

I cant say anything good about Para-Ordnance - they never seem to make it to high rounds counts without failing...

Tom IIRC we adopted the BHP in 1942 - but they started rolling off in 1944...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Mar 2006)

Out of curiosity what were we using up until 1942? One of the Webley variants?


----------



## Kal (18 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity what were we using up until 1942? One of the Webley variants?



Can we keep this on topic please?  If you have a question open a new thread or ask a Mod to split this one off.....   ;D


----------



## geo (18 Mar 2006)

Kal,... refs the webley
The question was a pertinent and not really "off topic"
Relax a bit


----------



## raymao (18 Mar 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_Military_Infantry_Weapons#Service_Pistols

Service Pistols
Colt Model 1878 Revolver - 1885-1902 
Colt "New Service" Revolver - 1900-1928 (also used by the NWMP and RCMP from 1905-1954) 
Colt Model 1911 Pistol - 1914-1945 
Smith & Wesson 2nd Model "Hand Ejector" Revolver - 1915-1951 
Smith & Wesson "Military & Police" Revolver - 1939-1964 
Inglis "High Power" Pistol - 1944-present (Canadian re-engineering of the Browning Hi-Power)

I was trying to think of a signature... now I have it... "Googlefu" it's a wonderful thing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Mar 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> bbbb..... yes the 9mm BHP was designed and released at the end of WW2.
> if you look at the .45cal colt 1911.... it's design is even older..... old does not equate with bad.
> 
> newer fancier pistols have tried to build on it's success - some have surpassed, some haven't.



1935 was the first run on the P35 (BHP MkI) if I remember correctly. Botht he BHP and the 1911 designed by the same guy, John Browning. The 1911 generally suffers a extractor problem every 2-3,000 rds and the link pins can wear out. Neither gun came with a firing pin safety, but I believe there were some pistols around that did. Almost every pistol excepting Glocks, most polymers and blowback pistols can trace their design back to John Browning's guns. Pretty impressive


----------



## 1feral1 (31 Mar 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity what were we using up until 1942? One of the Webley variants?


Seems we were using both the .38 Webley and the .38 S&W Victorys. (not .38 Spl, but .38 S&W AKA .380 Brit)

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Mar 2006)

Thanks Wes


----------



## cfsupporter (22 May 2006)

Hello to all - just joined today.   Great and informative site.  Not in the forces; however, I am a staunch supporter of the military and what they do to maintain our freedoms. 

I found this thread most interesting as I am a hobbyist, target-shooter.  In semiautos I own and shoot 9mm CZ 85 (BHP clone, with better ergos), 10mm S&W 1006 (beautiful piece and very versatile round) and .45 ACP Para Ord 14/45 (old classic calibre).

The BHP is a fine pistol that has stood the test of time.  Like any auto, worn, dirty or poorly adjusted mags/mag lips will cause feeding problems.  With good clean mags, everything else  kept clean, good and proper combat training and lots of practise you will be amply armed.  Just like in big game hunting, shot placement counts for way more than bigger calibre.

One point I didn't see mentioned is grip pressure.  Firm, consistent hand grip pressure is critical to the proper functioning of a semiauto handgun.  Limp-wristed hand-holds can produce extraction and feeding problems.

On calibre pressure someone said the .40 S&W was higher pressure than the 9mm.  SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Makers Institute) lists the following maximum pressures (CUP - Copper Units of Pressure):

9mm - 35,000
9mm +P - 38,500

40 S&W - 35,000 (same as 9mm and .357 magnum)

10mm - 37, 500

45 ACP - 21,000
45 ACP +P - 23,000

Remember - good gun control = 10X!!!

Cheers and I think it is important for you to know I support what you do, whether it be peace keeping or in combat theatre.  

cfsupporter


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 May 2006)

Well It’s a damm good post for a first one.  

 I love the Sig, just got a P226 All Stainless in 9mm a joy to shoot, and am confirming whether the frame will accept the .40cal/357Sig slide, I have heard both that it is the same frame and that it is not, will have to ask Sigarms.

I also love the Hi-Power and if I can’t get a Inglis made one (hopefully with the notch so I can make a stock for it) I will go for the FM Hi-Power, to bad we can’t get the detective model here, FM has the detective slide for sale separately for fitting to the their stock HP. Also comes with a firing pin safety.

I have a Norinco clone of the NZ-85b, I do like shooting it and call it “Son of Hi-power”

I also have the 1911A1 Commander in .45, fun to shoot, not quite as easy to field strip as the Sig or BHP, but easy to clean once apart. 1911 the “Granddaddy” of the BHP. I also laugh when people say the BHP is to big and clunky, it’s way smaller than most modern 9mm’s.


----------



## NATO Boy (24 May 2006)

Colin,

Keep an eye out for the Inglis Chinese Contract models; they tend to pop up at gun shops/shows more often than the actual shoulder stock/holsters that attach to them. There's even one for sale at the local shop near my place.

As for the shoulder stock/holster, they look very cool; I currently have one in a bag that's unfinished/un-blued/unassembled (compliments of my DCO   .) I can't wait to assemble it once it's got some blueing and linseed oil on it.

Cheers,

Mickey


----------



## wookie11 (24 May 2006)

Mickey said:
			
		

> Keep an eye out for the Inglis Chinese Contract models; they tend to pop up at gun shops/shows more often than the actual shoulder stock/holsters that attach to them. There's even one for sale at the local shop near my place.


I've seen those, written in Chinese on the left side. It just showed up one day and gone the next.
We were making fun of the government for buying cheap chinese guns straight from China, but as far as I know, it worked fine.


----------



## TCBF (24 May 2006)

Most of the guys who owned one and spoke to me about it said that NORINCO generally gave very good value for your money, be it an AR-15 clone, M-14 clone, or pistol clone.

Tom


----------



## NATO Boy (24 May 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Most of the guys who owned one and spoke to me about it said that NORINCO generally gave very good value for your money, be it an AR-15 clone, M-14 clone, or pistol clone.
> 
> Tom



+ 1

Most of the myths I heard about Norinco arms (especially the M-305, aka the M-14 clone) have banished after talking to friends who still use them without any problems (bad headspacing being a biggie for me.) I can't wait to pick up an 1897 Trench clone from Norinco sometime this summer.


----------



## teddy49 (24 May 2006)

Lingling said:
			
		

> I've seen those, written in Chinese on the left side. It just showed up one day and gone the next.
> We were making fun of the government for buying cheap chinese guns straight from China, but as far as I know, it worked fine.



Uhm...Just in case you're not kidding.  The Inglis Chinese Contract guns were made in Canada for export to China.  They were never exported because the filthy godless commies took over.  They were not made in China.


----------



## NATO Boy (25 May 2006)

teddy49 said:
			
		

> Uhm...Just in case you're not kidding.  The Inglis Chinese Contract guns were made in Canada for export to China.  They were never exported because the filthy godless commies took over.  They were not made in China.



+ 1

Long Branch also produced Sten Guns in the same manner.


----------



## mudgunner49 (25 May 2006)

Mickey said:
			
		

> + 1
> 
> Long Branch also produced Sten Guns in the same manner.



I once owned an 8mm Bren wth Chinese markings.  Wish I still had it...


blake


----------



## rregtc-etf (19 Nov 2006)

9mm Browning Hi-Power or F.N. P35 (Fabrique Nationale Pistol 1935) has been around  since before WWII, it was made by FN (Belgium) and Inglis (Canada).  After the Germans invaded Belgium the P35 was favoured by Wermacht and SS troops because of its 13 round magazine capacity.  It is an excellent pistol, however it has some limitations compared to a more modern firearm (as would a car built in 1935).  

I have carried on duty the Inglis Hi-Power, the Glock 17 (9mm), Glock 22 (.40 cal) and compact Glock 19 (9mm) and have found the following:

Browning:  Single action only has a very fast trigger reset, fast shooting.
                 Safety dictates that chamber is empty when holstered, requiring pistol to be cocked when removed from holster prior to coming on target
                 Making safe more complex, prior to re-holstering
                 Older models designed for 9mm Ball, does not feed JHP or SWC reliably unless gunsmith modifies feedramp
                 Feels nice in hand, natural pointer, very accurate, blade sights
                 Higher maintenance external cleaning / oiling to prevent rust in wet or damp conditions to all steel frame and slide
                 Slim, light and comfortable in holster
                 Pleasure to shoot

Glock         Double action & longer trigger pull is not a problem, but feels slower.
                No external safeties, can be carried round in chamber with full confidence
                No external hammer, can be re-holstered at any time with round in chamber
                Reliable feeding of ball, JHP, SWC, +P, +P+ ammo
                External metal parts coated for very low maintenance
                Higher capacity magazine than Browning 
                A little less accurate at distace (possible because of JHP ammo)
                Not as comfortable to hold / aim as Browning HP
                9mm recoil feels crisper than .40 cal version
                Functional, reliable, solid pistol, best bang for the buck
                Heavy in holster because of very large magazine capacities.

The Glock seems to have more moving parts (internal springs) and because it is designed for modern heavy recoiling ammo, internal recoil springs and firing pin may wear faster and need replacement.

Both are excellent pistols, the Glock is just more modern.


----------



## Big Red (19 Nov 2006)

rregtc-etf said:
			
		

> Safety dictates that chamber is empty when holstered, requiring pistol to be cocked when removed from holster prior to coming on target



Agreed on your points except this one.  The BHP is perfectly safe readied with safety on holstered.


----------



## COBRA-6 (19 Nov 2006)

Big Red said:
			
		

> Agreed on your points except this one.  The BHP is perfectly safe readied with safety on holstered.



I just wish our BHP's had the nice big safety like you see on modern 1911's.


----------



## KevinB (19 Nov 2006)

I've run Inglis BHP's C&L's in Afghan - it works.

Practice -- and perfect practice makes perfect

I even rappelled of the Kings Palace with a C&L'd Inglis  ;D


----------



## Strike (19 Nov 2006)

> Safety dictates that chamber is empty when holstered, requiring pistol to be cocked when removed from holster prior to coming on target



Right, I don't know much about pistols myself, but I know enough about my Browning.  Where exactly is this standard coming from?  News to me.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Nov 2006)

rregtc-etf said:
			
		

> Browning:   Safety dictates that chamber is empty when holstered, requiring pistol to be cocked when removed from holster prior to coming on target



I carry a 9x19mm BHP all the time, and as the tactical scenerio dictates, often with one up the spout, on safe, and thats not a problem. You'd be a fool carrying around a pistol without it loaded (that is without a rd in the chamber) in a hostile operational environment like it is around here. I'd call it suicide in many cases with having to pull back the slide, cocking the weapons before using it.

Plus if you are refering to cocking the weapon as in the hammer with a rd already in the chamber, well lowering the hammer when its loaded before holstering to say even half cock or whatever would be more dangerous in the first place. The way you specified 'cocking' has confuded me.

Please clarify, and let us know where this degree of weapon readiness comes from. After almost 31 yrs in the game, I too have never heard of it before. Is not a pistol loaded, ready or unloaded? Or as they say here in Australia loaded, at action, or instant, or unloaded.

Now the current FNH BHP has been modernised to include the following:

- ergo grips
- ambo safety, nice and big, and easy to use, even with gloves
- a cut at the face of the right hand side of the chamber to allow viewing a loaded cartridge
- a modified and improved ramp and the protruding portion at the top of the chamber face has been deleted from the design entirely. 
- an improved stoving over the top of the phosphated finish
- improved trigger design
- lower reciever is cast, not machined from solid stock;
and these are the noticeable mods I am aware of.

Regards from a coool Baghdad early morning (0145h),


Wes


----------



## rregtc-etf (19 Nov 2006)

It has been about 20 years since I have seen a BHP, so I guess the modern upgrades make them easier to handle now, before the safety catch was very small and awkward.  

What I am trying to get across is that there is an intermediary step that has to be taken after the weapon is loaded (round chambered) and holstered with either safety applied or half cocked.  And a step has to be taken to make it ready to fire (pull hammer back or disengage safety). This intermediary step could potentially be a problem if the shooter is in a panic and out of practice with the weapon or operator is careless and pulls the trigger accidentally as did an Australian soldier in Iraq shooting himself through the head (Inquest ruled accidental because no powder burns were found which may indicated suicide).   With the Glock, you just point and pull the trigger, no intermediate steps required and a heavier trigger pull decreases chances of accidental discharge. They are different mechanically and are handled accordingly.  You can argue that if disarmed with a Glock, person can shoot you immediately, anyone knows how to pull a trigger and that safety features if applied on BHP can delay person if they are unfamiliar with BHP mechanisms giving you a fighting chance.

I have used both and like both.


----------



## PhilB (20 Nov 2006)

I dont mind our brownings. I would say to improve them on the cheap ala C7A2 we should 

a) put on tritium sights
b) NEW MAGAZINES! (yes I am shouting because basically every stoppage with my pistol overseas was due to the shitty, tired mags)
c) Remove the mag safe. I feel that this is an overly redundant  feature that detracts from the intuitive operation of the pistol. In my opinion the magsafe and the lack of training on the pistol are responsible for the majority of nd's with the 9mm


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2006)

rregtc-etf -- nothing has been done to the guns.

 Phil -- I agree with you 110%  -- however a set of Novak sights and then machining the slide -- plus new mags with be OVER the cost of a MIL/LE Glock19 buy
  I can't speak for what the .ca recentlypays for the Sig P226R -- BUT I do knwo what the US DOS pays for G19's with night sights...

CANSOF is utterly Sig -- but for cost wise I think that at $220 USD / gun the CF would be better off buying Glock19's.

ANYONE WHO CARRIES A HANDGUN WITHOUT A ROUND CHAMBERED HAS MISSED THE POINT OF CARRYING A HANDGUN.


----------



## DFW2T (20 Nov 2006)

I can't agree more with the last few posts.  Imagine having the drop imposed on you while carrying your short and long on you,  only to be shot because your weapon is not "good to go"   The Glock 19 is a superb sidearm as so is the Sig P226R  (and my preferred P229) I believe the MPs were carrying them in Kabul on Roto(s) 0,1 &2.  I was fortunate enough to purchase the auto sear in Amman Jordan (for the Glock)  In our line of work ...where you are trying to avoid a prolonged contact....33 rds from your short (mags also purchased in Amman) in a few seconds,  can get you home for supper.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Nov 2006)

rregtc-etf said:
			
		

> It has been about 20 years since I have seen a BHP, so I guess the modern upgrades make them easier to handle now, before the safety catch was very small and awkward.
> 
> What I am trying to get across is that there is an intermediary step that has to be taken after the weapon is loaded (round chambered) and holstered with either safety applied or half cocked.  And a step has to be taken to make it ready to fire (pull hammer back or disengage safety). This intermediary step could potentially be a problem if the shooter is in a panic and out of practice with the weapon or operator is careless and pulls the trigger accidentally as did an Australian soldier in Iraq shooting himself through the head (Inquest ruled accidental because no powder burns were found which may indicated suicide).



Firstly, about the death of PTE Jake Kovco from 3RAR in April (google him formore). Although the details into the mans death are wishy-washy, at best, the facts are that he had a weapon in action condition (rd in chamber), in his room, where the entire location he was in, was a  total 'unload' zone. Something happened, beyond that only God knows the real facts.

His death has got nothing to do with a loaded weapon out in the Bad Lands here, and how its hoslstered or carried, and I don't see the rellevance of even bringing him up in this thread. 

I do know he was a good soldier, a sniper, and was respected and loved by his mates here, many who I work with every day. he is not forgotten by any of us. In respect of him I will NOT even speculate on the incident.

Now for carrying the BHP at 1/2 cock with a rd in the chamber, well thats retarded, it delays the time required to get a rd off, and every millesecond counts. Like I said I carry mine fully loaded (as the tactical scenerio dictates) on safe, no problems. Draw pistol, off safe and fire. Be quick or be dead. I as others, also obey and enforce the weapons status conditions as laid out in secure areas. Proper unload bays etc are essentail to safety. 

Regards,

Wes


----------



## mudgunner49 (20 Nov 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> 1/      ...a set of Novak sights and then machining the slide -- plus new mags with be OVER the cost of a MIL/LE Glock19 buy...
> 
> 2/     *ANYONE WHO CARRIES A HANDGUN WITHOUT A ROUND CHAMBERED HAS MISSED THE POINT OF CARRYING A HANDGUN.*



1/     AGREED!!!; and 

2/     Thus endeth the lesson!!!

sidenote:  Kev - I finally got around to digging out your Vltor (travel, deer season, being a lazy @$$, etc, etc...).  Are you in Edmonton or Ottawa???


blake


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2006)

PM in bound


----------



## Strike (20 Nov 2006)

> CANSOF is utterly Sig



Infidel -- Although this may be the plan in the future (remember, I said MAY, not IS!!), the above statement is not fact.

Maybe it will be in the future.  From what I've seen of both weapons, the Sig is more desirable for several reasons -- one of which is that I have tiny hands!!


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2006)

Sorry I should had said REAL CANSOF units  ;D

CSOR and JTF-2 are Sig users

I dont think much about 427 SOAS or the HQ hangers on


----------



## Strike (20 Nov 2006)

I'm sure some of those "HQ hangers on" could show you a thing or two.

Anyone taking bets?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Nov 2006)

I know the MH dets on ship get issued the P225 along with the Navy but do Tac Hel Squadrons get the BHP or the Sig?


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2006)

Strike -- It was not meant (althought I guess it readsas one) as a slight.
 Since the HQ is not a deployable entity issuing them Sig's would be foolish.
 The SOA hel det -- I would equip the flight crew


----------



## mudgunner49 (20 Nov 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> PM in bound



Got it - back at ya...


----------



## Strike (20 Nov 2006)

Tac Hel is currently issued the Browning and the C7.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Nov 2006)

Thanks for the clarification Strike.


----------



## rregtc-etf (21 Nov 2006)

Found this link for those interested in BHP and G17 comparison

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Hi%20Power%20and%20Glock17.htm


----------



## Nfld Sapper (21 Nov 2006)

Not sure if its my browser or not but that link didn't work. When I click on it I get this addy ftp://http//www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Hi%20Power%20and%20Glock17.htm so I'll post "fixed up" addy:

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Hi%20Power%20and%20Glock17.htm


----------



## Popurhedoff (22 Nov 2006)

Strike said:
			
		

> I'm sure some of those "HQ hangers on" could show you a thing or two.
> 
> Anyone taking bets?



I am sure some of the Zomies could show some of the REAL CANSOF units some things as well.     What it comes down too is training,,, is the 9mm too old.... hell no.

I recently did a shooting demonstration some Army brass... weather conditions +4c and pouring  rain... haven't used my pistol in two months (deployed) target is a 18" steel gong, range 165 yards, pistol holstered, quick draw from the holstered position... I nailed the gong 5/10 times from one 10 round magazine and 3/10 times from the second magazine... training and muscle memory.. there is no substitute for practice as Kev has mentioned.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33577/post-484232.html#new

Cheers
Pop


----------



## KevinB (22 Nov 2006)

;D  I figured that may get too you Pat...


----------



## Popurhedoff (22 Nov 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ;D  I figured that may get too you Pat...



Actually it didn't,  a lil Birdie asked me to come and play ehehehhe.  It is good to see that a lot of people are on the same wavelength.  It is also good to see you still have your sense of humor and are doing well.

Cheers
Pop


----------



## KevinB (22 Nov 2006)

Ack!
  I heard from a friend that a particular ASSHAT put a stop to your guys Sig's and wants the un-Hill side to get TRIAD-1's  instead of KAC M4 RAS's...

My comment on the non deploy - thus lack of need - for CANSOF HQ pers stands -- 

IMHO - the entire deployable entities of the SOAS should be getting P226R's and C8SFW's - maybe even CQB's for the pilots.


----------



## Popurhedoff (22 Nov 2006)

I heard that the Triad-1's are so good that they are considering mounting them on the 9 mil BHP's to compensate for its lack of rails for mounting lights etc.  :dontpanic:

Yes Kev, I have heard that too... its still a small world.  ;D

Cheers
Pop


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Nov 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Strike -- It was not meant (althought I guess it readsas one) as a slight.
> Since the HQ is not a deployable entity issuing them Sig's would be foolish.
> The SOA hel det -- I would equip the flight crew



If I were aircrew doing that thing, I'd take a BHP / C8CQB mix before I took a Sig.  Of course, the BHP would be my back up to the C8.  ;D

G2G

*_edit:_* I-6, I posted my CQB pref from the other page, hence missed the SFW option...I think I'd still take the CQB.


----------

